    [Senate Hearing 105-756]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                                                     S. Hrg. 105-756, Pt. 1.

    DEPARTMENTS OF COMMERCE, JUSTICE, AND STATE, THE JUDICIARY, AND RELATED
                  AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 1999

    =======================================================================

                                    HEARINGS

                                    before a

                              SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE

                COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS UNITED STATES SENATE

                           ONE HUNDRED FIFTH CONGRESS

                                 SECOND SESSION

                                       on

                               H.R. 4276/S. 2260

    AN ACT MAKING APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE DEPARTMENTS OF COMMERCE, JUSTICE,
      AND STATE, THE JUDICIARY, AND RELATED AGENCIES FOR THE FISCAL YEAR
               ENDING SEPTEMBER 30, 1999, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES

                                   __________

                             Part 1 (Pages 1-811)

          Department of Commerce
          Department of Justice
          Department of State
          Federal Communications Commission
          Nondepartmental witnesses
          Securities and Exchange Commission
          Small Business Administration
          The judiciary

                                   __________

             Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations

     Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/
                                     senate

                                     ______

                        U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
    46-090 cc                   WASHINGTON : 1998
    _______________________________________________________________________
                For sale by the U.S. Government Printing Office
    Superintendent of Documents, Congressional Sales Office, Washington, DC
                                     20402
                               ISBN 0-16-057867-1

                          COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

                         TED STEVENS, Alaska, Chairman
    THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi            ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia
    ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania          DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii
    PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico         ERNEST F. HOLLINGS, South Carolina
    CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri        PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont
    SLADE GORTON, Washington             DALE BUMPERS, Arkansas
    MITCH McCONNELL, Kentucky            FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey
    CONRAD BURNS, Montana                TOM HARKIN, Iowa
    RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama           BARBARA A. MIKULSKI, Maryland
    JUDD GREGG, New Hampshire            HARRY REID, Nevada
    ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah              HERB KOHL, Wisconsin
    BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL, Colorado    PATTY MURRAY, Washington
    LARRY CRAIG, Idaho                   BYRON DORGAN, North Dakota
    LAUCH FAIRCLOTH, North Carolina      BARBARA BOXER, California
    KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas
                       Steven J. Cortese, Staff Director
                     Lisa Sutherland, Deputy Staff Director
                   James H. English, Minority Staff Director
                                     ------

       Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and
                                Related Agencies

                      JUDD GREGG, New Hampshire, Chairman
    TED STEVENS, Alaska                  ERNEST F. HOLLINGS, South Carolina
    PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico         DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii
    MITCH McCONNELL, Kentucky            DALE BUMPERS, Arkansas
    KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas          FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey
    BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL, Colorado    BARBARA A. MIKULSKI, Maryland
                                         ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia
                                           (ex officio)
                               Subcommittee Staff
                                  Jim Morhard
                                 Kevin Linskey
                                   Paddy Link
                                   Dana Quam
                            Carl Truscott (Detailee)

                             Scott Gudes (Minority)
                                  Emelie East
                             Dereck Orr (Detailee)

                                C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------

                           Tuesday, February 24, 1998

                                                                       Page
    Department of Justice: Office of the Attorney General............     1

                          Thursday, February 26, 1998

    Department of State: Secretary of State..........................    85

                             Tuesday, March 3, 1998

    Department of Justice:
        Federal Bureau of Investigation..............................   151
        Drug Enforcement Administration..............................   151
        Immigration and Naturalization Service.......................   151

                            Wednesday, March 4, 1998

    Department of Commerce: Secretary of Commerce....................   261

                            Thursday, March 5, 1998

    Department of Commerce: National Oceanic and Atmospheric
      Administra- tion...............................................   333
    Small Business Administration....................................   367

                            Thursday, March 12, 1998

    The judiciary:
        Supreme Court of the United States...........................   393
        U.S. courts..................................................   401

                            Thursday, March 19, 1998

    Federal Communications Commission................................   435
    Securities and Exchange Commission...............................   495
    Nondepartmental witnesses........................................   507
        Department of Justice........................................   507
        Department of Commerce.......................................   508
        Department of Justice........................................   511
        Department of State..........................................   525
        Department of Commerce.......................................   529
            National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration..........   548
        Securities and Exchange Commission...........................   571
        Related agencies.............................................   572

    DEPARTMENTS OF COMMERCE, JUSTICE, AND STATE, THE JUDICIARY, AND RELATED
                  AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 1999

                                  ----------

                           TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 24, 1998

                                           U.S. Senate,
               Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The subcommittee met at 9:57 a.m., in room SD-192, Dirksen
    Senate Office Building, Hon. Judd Gregg (chairman) presiding.
        Present: Senators Gregg, Stevens, Hutchison, Campbell,
    Bumpers, and Lautenberg.

                             DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

                         Office of the Attorney General

    STATEMENT OF HON. JANET RENO, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL
    ACCOMPANIED BY:
            STEPHEN R. COLGATE, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR
                ADMINISTRATION
            MICHAEL J. ROPER, DEPUTY ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, CONTROLLER
            ADRIAN A. CURTIS, DIRECTOR, BUDGET STAFF

                                opening remarks

        Senator Gregg. We will start this hearing of the
    Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, and State of the
    Appropriations Committee. Please note that we are starting
    early, thanks to the Attorney General's promptness.
        The purpose of this hearing is to review the budget
    proposal of the Justice Department. The budget of the Justice
    Department has increased dramatically during my tenure as
    chairman of this committee, but not as a result necessarily of
    that, but as a result of the reflection of the policies of this
    administration and this Congress to make a very strong
    commitment to trying to address the issues of crime in this
    country, especially drugs, terrorism, and the general
    atmosphere on the streets of America.
        In fact, I was looking at some of the numbers here. We have
    gone from $13.8 billion in 1995 to a proposed request this year
    of $20.9 billion. That is a $7.1 billion increase in 4 years,
    which is about 60 percent, which is a huge expansion in the
    resources committed in this area. It has been across the board.
    It has been in the area of prisons. It has been in the area of
    the Drug Enforcement Administration [DEA]. It has been in the
    area of the Federal Bureau of Investigation [FBI]. It has been
    in the area of the general activities of the Justice
    Department.
        I guess the question which the consumers would want to ask
    the Attorney General, had they the opportunity, is with this
    dramatic expansion of resources, what are we getting as
    results? Are we able to manage this commitment of new resources
    effectively, and are we getting a return for our dollars?
        It has been a pleasure to work with the Attorney General
    over the last few years as we have pursued this action of
    dramatically expanding our commitment to fighting crime. Her
    enthusiasm, energy, and direction has been acknowledged by all
    who have been involved in the day-to-day operation of crime
    fighting in this country, and I appreciate her efforts and
    especially her support of some of the congressional
    initiatives, especially in the area of counterterrorism. So
    with that, I will yield to Senator Campbell, if he has any
    opening comments.
        Senator Campbell. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate it,
    and I certainly appreciate seeing Attorney General Reno here.
        I had a few questions that I will get into later, but I
    certainly am aware, as you are, of the increased spending and
    how it is going up. I worked very closely with our Rocky
    Mountain HIDTA, as an example, that was just established a
    couple of years ago and the funding we put into that HIDTA and
    most of the other ones has been increased. I think that being
    on the ground level, particularly when we talk about the
    growing problem of methamphetamines, which is a very fast-
    moving kind of a thing, and certainly growing while other use
    of drugs is going down, I can see that it is easy to justify
    the amount of money we are putting in those programs.
        I was also concerned with the amount of crime going up in
    Indian country. As you know, we increased the amount in the
    budget that would go into fighting the drug war there and
    juvenile gangs, as well. I guess it is just a whole new area.
    These young gangs from the urban areas are moving out to Indian
    country to new and fertile ground.
        So I just wanted to tell the Attorney General, I understand
    that we have to get the best use of taxpayers' money, but from
    my perspective, if we are going to win the drug war, I fully
    recognize we cannot do it all from Washington. An awful lot of
    these things have to be done in the local communities and
    certainly churches and schools and Boy Scouts and everybody
    else have a role to play, but I just wanted to say that I think
    that you are doing a very good job, particularly in that crime
    fighting area that deals with our communities and I wish you
    well this coming year. Thank you.
        Ms. Reno. Thank you.
        Senator Gregg. Attorney General.

                               prepared statement

        Ms. Reno. Senators, thank you very much. It has been a real
    pleasure to work with the committee, to do it in a thoughtful
    way, in a constructive way, and I look forward to furthering
    our working relationship in this next year. There are so many
    critical issues that you both touched on, cybercrime,
    terrorism, drugs, drug trafficking, the problem of crime in
    Indian country, and I am always available to discuss and to
    work with you on how we fund these issues and then how we
    manage the moneys you give us the right way.
        In the interest of time, I will attempt to summarize my
    written statement but would appreciate your including it in the
    official record.
        Senator Gregg. Of course.
        [The statement follows:]
                        Prepared Statement of Janet Reno
        Good morning. Chairman Gregg, Senator Hollings, members of the
    subcommittee, it is a pleasure once again to appear before you to
    present the President's budget request for the Department of Justice.
    For fiscal year 1999, the President's budget includes $20.9 billion for
    the Department of Justice--an $877 million or 4.4 percent increase over
    last year--to enhance our fight against youth violence, cybercrime,
    illegal drugs, illegal immigration, and other crime problems. Of this
    amount, $18.1 billion is discretionary funding--a 4.9 percent increase
    over 1998.
        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.
        I believe our investment is paying off. Over the past several
    years, we have witnessed a decrease in violent crime, and juvenile
    crime appears to be turning around. We are continuing our fight against
    drug trafficking and abuse. We have added border patrol agents in
    record numbers, and removed criminal aliens at a record pace. And, we
    have begun a concerted effort to combat computer crime, and protect our
    nation from the threat of terrorist attack. Yes, we are moving in the
    right direction. But, more work still needs to be done.
        The budget I present to you today does just that--it builds on our
    past successes and helps to prepare us for the law enforcement
    challenges of the twenty-first century.
                       fighting crime and youth violence
        Our top task is to make certain that crime continues to fall. At
    the cornerstone of this effort is our commitment to place 100,000
    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 (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.
        But, to sustain our success in fighting crime, we must also
    continue taking aim at youth violence. For the second year in a row,
    juvenile arrest rates for violent crime have fallen, and arrest rates
    for juvenile homicides have fallen for a third year in a row. While
    this is encouraging news, youth violence is still far too prevalent in
    too many of our communities--in fact, arrest rates for juvenile violent
    crime and homicide are still substantially above the levels of the mid-
    1980's. Gangs are appearing in cities and towns across the nation and
    we must take a reasoned approach to both preventing and punishing youth
    crime.
        Consistent with the administration's anti-gang and youth violence
    bill proposed last year, the Department's fiscal year 1999 budget seeks
    to focus resources on three youth violence prevention and intervention
    grant programs and restructure current juvenile justice programs. Our
    request includes nearly $500 million in new initiatives, program
    enhancements, and program restructuring aimed at fighting crime and
    youth violence. Specifically, we are requesting:
    Youth violence/gangs/at risk youth
        $100 million for a program that would provide grants to State and
    local prosecutor offices to fight youth drug, gang, and violence
    problems through the successful identification and rapid prosecution of
    young, violent offenders.
        $50 million for a youth violence court program to increase the
    speed, efficiency, and effectiveness with which youth are processed and
    adjudicated within the justice system.
        And, $95 million for a title V grant program--we call the at-risk
    children's program--to support juvenile crime intervention programs to
    fight truancy and school violence and strengthen appropriate curfew
    initiatives.
    Restructuring current juvenile justice programs
        A total of $176 million is requested for juvenile justice programs
    funded under the restructuring. The new programs created with the
    redirected funds include $89 million for a new juvenile justice formula
    grant program; $45 million for a new discretionary grant program to
    develop, test, and demonstrate promising new programs; $17 million for
    an incentive grants program for seven authorized purposes ranging from
    crime prevention to accountability-based sanctions; and $6 million for
    an Indian tribal grants program.
    Community prosecutors program
        $50 million is requested to establish a community prosecutors
    program to increase substantially the number of local prosecutors
    interacting directly with police officers and community residents to
    identify and solve specific crime problems in their neighborhoods.
    Around the country--in places like Portland, Oregon; Austin, Texas; and
    Indianapolis, Indiana, early efforts at community prosecution are being
    deployed and it appears to work. With this funding, you would provide
    us an opportunity to comprehensively 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 U.S. Attorneys' domestic violence unit in the District
    of Columbia. In addition, we have targeted $10 million in discretionary
    funds for a new program--Project Safe Start--which seeks to reduce the
    impact of family, school, and community violence on young children.
    Technology to combat crime
        We've heard from local law enforcement that they need help in
    applying technology to the investigative function--using simulation
    modeling, computer forensics, crime mapping, and improved suspect
    identification technologies to solve crimes--and we're investing in
    this area now. For fiscal year 1999, we are seeking an additional $12.5
    million to further upgrade crime technology, such as DNA testing and
    identification, and criminal records and history programs.
        I am convinced we can build on our success in fighting youth and
    violent crime with the right resources, the administration's approach
    to any new juvenile justice legislation, and new relationships between
    prosecutors and the people they serve.
         fighting cybercrime and protecting our critical infrastructure
        Our second focus--and one of the greatest challenges of the next
    century--will be to address cybercrime before it can become an epidemic
    within the United States or a pandemic worldwide. Every day, the United
    States relies more heavily upon its interconnected telecommunications
    and automated information systems for basic services such as energy,
    banking/finance, transportation, and defense. Reliance on, and the use
    of, computers and the information superhighway is becoming a standard
    part of life for most Americans. As such, we must be certain 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 U.S. Attorneys to track down and prosecute cyber criminals.
    The FBI will focus its new resources on the formation of 6 additional
    computer investigations and infrastructure threat assessment squads
    (CITA) in cities around the country. The initiative also includes $10
    million in additional funding for the FBI's Computer Investigations and
    Infrastructure Threat Assessment Center (CITAC)--which is being
    restructured and renamed the National Infrastructure Protection Center
    (NIPC)--to expand operations, develop an early warning system, and
    conduct infrastructure vulnerability assessments; $1.55 million in
    increased resources is also included for the Criminal Division's
    computer crime and intellectual property section (CCIPS)--a critical
    partner in the effort to help Federal, State and local, and foreign
    agencies prosecute high-tech crime, and create the necessary
    infrastructure--legal, technical, and operational--to pursue criminals
    who attack or employ global networks.
        For the counterterrorism (CT) 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 NIPC. Some of these funds could be used to reimburse other
    agencies. An additional $3.1 million will ensure the continuation of
    essential Department of Justice functions during an emergency. In
    addition to the requested enhancements, $16 million is recurred in the
    CT fund to continue to equip and train State and local responders to
    terrorist incidents.
                       curbing drug trafficking and abuse
        To continue to fight drug trafficking and abuse, the budget before
    you seeks $167.25 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 (DEA) will grow by
    4.6 percent to $1.25 billion, with program enhancements totaling $64
    million. These additional resources will support 100 more DEA agents to
    attack methamphetamine production, trafficking, and abuse; 54 more
    agents for the Caribbean corridor strategy; 95 more agents to intensify
    efforts against heroin traffickers; 3 more agents to support an on-
    going classified project; and 5 agents to foster and strengthen foreign
    cooperative drug investigations against Asian heroin traffickers.
        Our drug initiative will also support the hiring of 64 assistant
    U.S. Attorneys and 5 Criminal Division attorneys to pursue and
    prosecute drug traffickers, and to implement our national strategy
    against methamphetamine.
        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 and Indian tribal
    governments to implement comprehensive systems of drug testing, drug
    treatment, and graduated sanctions; as well as expansion of the
    residential substance abuse treatment program.
        In addition, our request includes a language change to give States
    the flexibility to use their prison grant and residential substance
    abuse treatment funds to provide drug testing and treatment to
    offenders. A recently released report by the National Center on
    Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University, which draws
    heavily from national data compiled by the Department's Bureau of
    Justice Statistics, confirmed that fighting drugs in our prisons and
    providing comprehensive testing and treatment for prisoners is
    absolutely critical to keeping drugs off the streets.
        The study found that 80 percent of people serving time in our State
    and Federal prisons either were high at the time they committed their
    crimes, stole property to buy drugs, violated drug or alcohol laws, or
    have a long history of drug or alcohol abuse. And, parolees who
    continue to use drugs are much more likely to commit crimes that will
    send them back to jail.
        The findings here are clear and support what I have long suspected:
    to break the cycle between drugs and criminal activity, we must first
    break the drug habits of prisoners. For this reason, drug testing and
    treatment are sound, appropriate uses of correctional grant funds.
        Clearly, our battle against drugs requires a balanced approach and
    our budget seeks to provide just that--through tougher enforcement and
    better intervention, we can get drug use to fall, and keep it falling.
              protecting our borders and providing better service
        For the Immigration and Naturalization Service, the budget I
    present to you today seeks a record $4.2 billion--or 10.2 percent more
    than last year. Our fiscal year 1999 request seeks to strengthen
    proven, existing programs and to implement new measures that will guard
    against illegal immigration and promote legal entry into the United
    States.
        Landmark immigration legislation enacted in 1996 has challenged the
    Department to carry out mandated responsibilities with far-reaching
    impacts. In response to this challenge, the Department has greatly
    enhanced border management in the southwestern United States, and has
    reengineered the naturalization process to accommodate millions of new
    applicants.
        With the support and leadership of this subcommittee, the INS has
    nearly doubled its border patrol agent workforce since 1993, and has
    introduced innovative deterrents 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. Immigration fee
    resources will support increased airport staffing to more quickly
    inspect passengers, and enhance document and benefit fraud
    investigations.
        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.
    But, as we recognized in 1994 when we launched our comprehensive
    Southwest border strategy--the investment necessary would be multi-year
    and multi-faceted. 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.
                       targeting crime in indian country
        As crime rates in the rest of the country continue to fall,
    homicide and violent crime rates on many Indian lands are rising. Law
    enforcement in Indian country is inadequate and needs immediate
    attention. Indian lands have only 1.3 police officers per 1,000
    citizens, compared with an average of 2.9 officers per 1,000 citizens
    in non-Indian areas with similar population densities. And, the few
    jails on Indian lands fall far short of basic standards in such areas
    as staff and inmate safety.
        The budget I present to you today includes $157 million in new and
    redirected funds as part of a joint $182 million initiative with the
    Department of the Interior to address these serious public concerns.
    The goal of this multi-year initiative is to raise the level of Indian
    country law enforcement to national standards in such areas as the
    number of officers per capita, the training and equipment of tribal law
    enforcement officers, and the quality and availability of detention
    facilities. In fiscal year 1999, the initiative will be funded
    primarily through anti-crime grants provided directly to Indian
    jurisdictions.
        Because the Federal Government has the responsibility to
    investigate and prosecute major crimes in most Indian country, this
    initiative will support 30 additional FBI agents to enhance Indian
    country investigations and 31 positions to improve victim/witness
    assistance services in Indian country. Twenty-six assistant U.S.
    Attorneys will also be added to target violent crime, gang-related
    violence, and juvenile crime on Indian lands.
        And, within the Office of Justice Programs and the COPS program,
    grant funds have been targeted and set aside for direct support to
    Indian country--$10 million of the new drug testing and intervention
    program; $20 million of the title V at-risk children's program; $52
    million of the State correctional grant program; and $54 million of the
    Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) Program. In addition, our
    initiative includes $10 million to establish the Indian tribal courts
    program--a new discretionary program to assist tribal courts which have
    experienced unparalleled growth in their workload.
        The crisis in law enforcement affecting Indian country demands a
    Federal response. This initiative is a small, but necessary first step.
                supporting other justice department initiatives
                              fighting hate crimes
        Despite the best efforts of political and community leaders to
    promote tolerance and understanding, hate crimes continue to plague the
    Nation. The Department is seeking $5.6 million in new resources for its
    hate crimes initiative--which includes the formation of local working
    groups in which Federal, State, and local law enforcement officials, as
    well as community leaders, meet to address hate crimes in a
    comprehensive manner. Included within these resources is $3.2 million
    and 15 positions for the Community Relations Service to respond to
    increasing demands for its services, which include conciliation efforts
    associated with heightened racial and ethnic tension throughout the
    country. The Department will also be redirecting, from 1998 base
    resources, 40 FBI agents and 10 prosecutors toward hate crime cases.
                 providing effective defensive civil litigation
        In defensive civil litigation cases, the Department's lawyers
    represent the United States in its capacity as employer, regulator,
    administrator of Federal benefits, law enforcer, contractor, and
    property owner. These attorneys protect not only the fiscal interests
    of the United States, but also intangible interests in the
    implementation of lawful Government policies and practices. Yet, the
    one aspect these diverse types of defensive litigation have in common
    is that they are not discretionary--if the United States is sued, the
    Department of Justice must defend. Our civil defensive litigation
    caseload is burgeoning, and the dollars at stake run in the billions.
    The budget before you seeks $16.6 million for critical program needs to
    address this rising caseload and effectively defend the United States
    Government.
                  building our law enforcement infrastructure
        A substantial infrastructure investment continues to be needed to
    maintain our law enforcement programs, and to ensure the health and
    safety of our law enforcement personnel. The Department's fiscal year
    1999 budget request includes $753.5 million in new initiatives and
    program enhancements to address a wide variety of infrastructure and
    technology needs. While the Department is making progress, its
    automation and communications capabilities are still outdated. Let me
    highlight just a few of the items:
    Narrowband communications
        $72.5 million is requested to enable law enforcement personnel who
    use Federal spectrum when communicating to narrow the bandwidth used
    for transmitting radio signals, as required under the National
    Telecommunication and Information Administration Organization Act. This
    is a new account, and will be managed within main Justice. In addition
    to the requested enhancement, the Department's participating agencies
    have transferred base resources to establish the new account.
    Telecommunications carrier compliance
        We are again requesting $100 million in additional funds to
    reimburse private telecommunications carriers, manufacturers, and
    support service providers for equipment modifications made to ensure
    law enforcement's continued ability to conduct court-authorized
    electronic surveillance. I believe the FBI, in concert with industry,
    has now developed an implementation plan that will permit the process
    to move forward. We cannot afford to delay any longer.
    U.S. Marshals
        For the U.S. Marshals Service, the request includes $32.7 million
    in infrastructure improvements in fiscal year 1999. Within this amount
    is $11 million and 82 deputy positions to continue to ensure the safety
    and security of the judicial family in Federal facilities, including
    the staffing of new courthouses. Another $1.6 million is included to
    enhance and modernize the marshals electronic surveillance unit (ESU),
    whose primary mission is to provide electronic surveillance and
    intercept support. Last year, ESU's assistance in 917 cases resulted in
    the arrest of 486 fugitives. This program increase will help us to do
    more.
    Immigration and Naturalization Service
        For the Immigration and Naturalization Service, $141 million in
    infrastructure improvements are requested in fiscal year 1999--
    including the construction of new border patrol facilities and
    additional detention bedspace to keep pace with the record expansion of
    the service over the past several years.
    Federal Bureau of Prisons
        And, for the Federal Bureau of Prisons, $300 million is included
    for full construction of three correctional institutions and partial
    construction of a fourth--the capacity of which is necessary for the
    absorption of the District of Columbia sentenced felon population.
                                   conclusion
        We are asking for more than $20 billion because we face so many
    challenges. We are seeking funding to expand our efforts in fighting
    juvenile crime; to launch a multi-agency initiative to reduce violence
    on Indian lands; and, to ensure that we stay ahead of the curve in
    investigating and prosecuting cyber-criminals.
        The budget I present to you today will help us address our ongoing
    challenges and prepare for new ones. This fiscal year is the last in
    the twentieth century--and, it is squarely aimed at the law enforcement
    challenges of the new millennium.
        Thank you. I look forward to answering any questions you might
    have.

        Ms. Reno. For fiscal year 1999, as you have indicated,
    Senator Gregg, we are requesting $20.9 billion, an $870
    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.
        I believe our investment is paying off. 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. We
    have added Border Patrol agents in record numbers and 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; we are moving in the right direction, but I think we
    have more to do. The budget I present to you today does just
    that. It builds on our past successes and helps us prepare for
    the law enforcement challenges of the 21st century.

                                 fighting Crime

        One of our continuing top tasks at the Justice Department
    is to do everything in our power to see that the crime rate
    continues to fall. At the cornerstone of this effort is our
    commitment to place 100,000 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 Program,
    or the COPS Program, to fund an estimated 16,000 officers in
    fiscal year 1999, bringing the total to 99,000 funded officers
    1 full year before our pledge to fund 100,000.
        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 too many of
    our communities and the number of young people will increase in
    this Nation in the immediate future in significant proportions.

                         Youth violence grant programs

        Consistent with the administration's antigang 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 enhancements 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 young violent
    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 and school
    violence and strengthen anticrime after-school programs.

                             Community prosecution

        Our request also seeks to change the way that prosecutors
    across America serve their communities by providing $50 million
    in grants 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, in places like Portland, OR;
    Austin, TX; and Indianapolis, IN; early efforts at community
    prosecution are being deployed and it appears to work. With
    this funding, you will provide us 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 U.S. attorneys
    domestic violence unit in the District of Columbia.

                                   Cybercrime

        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/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.
        As you know, I am scheduled to appear before the committee
    again on March 31 specifically on counterterrorism initiatives
    and I look forward to discussing our counterterrorism and
    technology crime plan in further detail then.

                                Drug initiative

        To continue to fight 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. The balance of this 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 94 more agents
    to intensify efforts against heroin traffickers.
        Our drug initiative will also support the hiring of 64
    assistant U.S. attorneys and five Criminal Division attorneys
    to pursue and prosecute drug traffickers and to implement our
    national strategy against methamphetamine.
        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 and Naturalization Service

        For the Immigration and Naturalization Service [INS], we
    are requesting a record $4.2 billion, or 10.2 percent more than
    last year, to strengthen proven, 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 its Border Patrol agent work force since 1993
    and has introduced innovative deterrents 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 illegally admitted aliens eligible for benefits under the
    Immigration and Nationality Act. 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 that we will face in the
    21st century.

                                 Infrastructure

        The budget before you also seeks $753.5 million in new
    initiatives and program enhancements to address critical
    infrastructure needs fundamental to the effective enforcement
    of our Nation's law. Rebuilding the law enforcement
    infrastructure of Justice agencies continues to be a personal
    focus of mine, and while we are making progress, our automation
    and communication capabilities are still outdated. 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.
        For fiscal year 1999, we are asking for more than $20
    billion because we face so 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 as we address these issues.

                                  COPS Program

        Senator Gregg. Thank you very much, Attorney General.
        On the COPS Program, which is at $1.4 billion again this
    year, we are starting to get to the point where the towns and
    the cities that have used these new police officers are hitting
    their phaseout. What experience are we getting relative to
    retaining these police officers, or do you have that data yet,
    once they lose the Federal funds?
        Ms. Reno. To date, the COPS office has provided grants to
    police to add over 70,000 officers. When they accepted the
    grant, they committed to retaining these positions after the
    cutoff of Federal funds and that was the plan under the COPS
    grant program. A number of cities and towns have come to us
    saying, ``We are not going to have the money to do that,'' and
    we have been working with them, trying to address those issues.
    The COPS office consistently educates and counsels local
    offices about this requirement to ensure that they are
    adequately planning for the future.
        I do not have a record of who has phased out because,
    again, it is part of their commitment under the grants program.
    But what I hear anecdotally when I visit at the International
    Association of Chiefs of Police or the National Sheriffs
    Organization, is that they are making every effort to maintain
    the police officers, and the cities and counties across America
    are recognizing that it is an excellent investment.
        Senator Gregg. I think last year, and I am not sure of
    this, but I think you put in $430 million to extend the program
    in rural areas. I believe that was the number. In any event,
    that showed me that we have got problems coming at us. I assume
    we are going to hear the same thing from the urban areas.
        My sense is that most of these communities saw the program
    as being one that when the Federal dollars stopped, they were
    no longer under the obligation to keep the police officer. I do
    not want to get into the position where this program becomes an
    entitlement that pays the police officer on the street through
    Federal funds. Could the Department get us an evaluation as to
    what the expected attrition rate is going to be as we move off
    of the Federal program completely and into the communities
    having to pay these officers, and whether we are going to be
    able to retain them? I think there are 84,000 of them right now
    and you are asking for 99,000 under this bill.
        Ms. Reno. We will get you as clear a figure as we can on
    that. I would point out that this is a difficult area because
    crime has gone down in some communities so significantly that
    police officers say we do not need the additional police, and
    we have got to make sure that the moneys are spent as wisely as
    possible. But I will get you the figures on attrition and on
    who has phased out, because you have the initial supplemental
    police hiring from 1993 and 1994 and we will provide you with
    those figures as soon as we can.
        [The information follows:]

                    Attrition Rate for COPS Funded Officers

        The COPS Office reviewed a sample 5,259 annual reports from
    grantees and found that 96 percent indicated they were planning
    to retain their officers. As a result of this sampling, we
    expect the majority of COPS grantees to retain their officers.
        All COPS grantees are required to retain the additional
    officers hired with COPS grants at the conclusion of federal
    funding. They are aware of this requirement and will make plans
    for retention accordingly. We will work with communities on a
    case-by-case basis if they experience some unforeseen
    circumstance that makes retention of COPS-funded officers
    difficult.
        Fiscal year 1998 is the first year that COPS grants will
    begin to expire and very few have expired so far. COPS Office
    staff have been available to provide guidance to grantees
    needing assistance in meeting the retention commitment. The
    COPS Office is developing a ``Retention Tool Kit'' which will
    consist of information for grantees about different strategies
    and examples of what other agencies are doing to retain their
    officers. The COPS Office also uses current publications and
    training opportunities to help grantees identify new ways to
    keep their COPS-funded officers.

        Senator Gregg. I thought one of the things we thought was a
    factor of crime rates dropping was putting these police
    officers on the street. Is the view that the crime reduction is
    more of a demographic event or is it more of a policing event?
        Ms. Reno. No; it is that they did the job. I think what one
    sheriff indicated to me, he said, we have done such a good job,
    we can control it with the force that we have now.
        Senator Gregg. I do think this is a policy issue we are
    going to have to address, because obviously, if we end up with
    one-half of these 100,000 police officers being let go, we have
    to go back and take another look at the approach.

                               Drug interdiction

        On the issue of drug interdiction, you mentioned the
    Caribbean corridor program. There has been a lot of anecdotal
    reporting that a whole series of nations in the Caribbean have
    essentially been taken over, for all intents and purposes, by
    the drug cartels, that many of the responsible leaders in the
    Caribbean live under tremendous threat--physical threat. We
    have a serious problem in Puerto Rico, and Mexico, it appears,
    is now the primary transit point and the primary center for the
    cartels, maybe even replacing the Colombia cartels.
        My question is twofold. First, what is the situation with
    Mexico? We are nearing a decision on certification. We are
    going to have that on the floor of the Senate, probably before
    we adjourn for recess. What is the Department's position on
    certification? Is Mexico doing an adequate job of trying to
    police itself? The second one is, what should we do in the
    Caribbean beyond just putting personnel down there, which is
    nice, but I am not sure it is addressing the underlying
    problem.
        Ms. Reno. Let me present the whole picture, as I see it,
    because sometimes when we take a piece here and a piece there,
    we lose sight of the real problem. I come at it from my vantage
    point of having been a prosecutor in Miami in the late 1970's
    and early 1980's when drug trafficking descended upon south
    Florida, and we were at the center of it. I watched the Federal
    Government come in with additional resources, extensive
    resources, and I saw a change. But then I heard from my
    colleagues that it had moved up the Atlantic coast or over to
    the gulf coast.
        As you watched pressures placed there, as you watched the
    change in traffic patterns, as you watched some of our
    successes in Colombia, you see pressures being brought to bear
    on the Southwest border because of the trafficking patterns
    through Mexico. You put pressure there and you begin to see the
    buildup in the Caribbean. You put pressure there and suddenly
    south Florida talks about the buildup there.
        So what I have tried to do is, from a law enforcement
    perspective, pull the relevant law enforcement agencies
    together on a regular basis, together with appropriate
    representatives of the Department of Defense and other
    agencies, to plan the southern frontier initiative, both with
    respect to maintaining pressure on the Southwest border, of
    working with the Mexican Government in identifying
    organizations and taking effective action against them, and
    continuing our effort in Colombia to work with the police and
    the Fiscale to dismantle the organizations, and to focus on the
    Caribbean and what can be done there.

                                   Caribbean

        The Department's efforts to curb the trafficking in the
    Caribbean began several years ago. For example, the FBI has
    reallocated 77 positions from base resources to establish three
    new resident agencies in Puerto Rico. DEA has reprogrammed 12
    agents and is asking for more. But it will not be effective for
    us to deal just with Puerto Rico. As you point out, just to put
    additional bodies there will not make any difference if we do
    not address the picture as a whole. So we are working together
    in an initiative that includes the island of Hispaniola and we
    are coordinating resources in that regard.
        We see the movement and we know we can have an impact, and
    our great challenge will be to keep one step ahead so that we
    are there when they start to move. We are also working with
    countries throughout the Caribbean to ensure that they have
    laws and that they implement laws focused on asset forfeiture,
    money laundering, and other tools necessary to do the job, and
    I have had some excellent meetings with, for example, the
    minister of justice from Trinidad and Tobago, who wants to work
    with us, is asking for assistance and support, and we are
    trying to make sure that our resources are such that we can
    coordinate with his government and other governments in the
    Caribbean.
        I think it is a matter of keeping the pressure on in terms
    of giving them the tools and helping them implement those tools
    necessary to do the job, of using our resources as wisely as
    possible throughout the southern frontier, and I think we have
    and will continue to make a difference.

                            certification of Mexico

        With respect to certification, we have advised the
    Secretary of State, who will make a recommendation to the
    President, and that determination should come from the White
    House. But we have built on efforts to identify Mexican drug
    organizations. The Government of Mexico has substantially
    increased extradition over these past 2 years. I never dreamed
    3 years ago that I would be seeing extradition at the rate that
    we are seeing it and there is a cooperative working
    relationship in a number of areas that I think will be a solid
    foundation upon which to continue to build.
        Senator Gregg. I have lots of other questions, but I want
    to give my colleagues a chance to go first and then we will
    come back. But on this Mexico issue, are the Mexicans
    cooperating with DEA?
        Ms. Reno. The last report that I have had is that there is
    an excellent working relationship with respect to units that
    have been developed and identified as special units, that there
    is a good exchange of information, and that the cooperation is
    building.
        Senator Gregg. Senator Campbell.
        Senator Campbell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I am very pleased that the Attorney General understands the
    one very, very important factor, that drugs are like water.
    They take the path of least resistance.

                             additional DEA agents

        Last year, you talked a little bit about the significant
    increase of money we put in, Mr. Chairman, last year, and I
    wanted to know a couple of specific things. Madam Attorney
    General, how many additional DEA agents did that provide for? I
    heard the number 1,000 floating around somewhere. Could that be
    the right number? Are they on line if that was the number we
    increased the money for?
        Ms. Reno. On board at the end of the year of 1997 was
    4,003. The 1998 authorized was 4,238, and I will provide you
    with information as to whether they----
        Senator Campbell. So that additional 235 or so are agents
    that have come on line in the last year?
        Ms. Reno. These were authorized for 1998, and what I have
    got to do is give you the latest information on the hiring.
    This was for 1998, so I have got to tell you whether they have
    all been hired yet or not, and I will provide you with that
    information.
        [The information follows:]

                              Special Agent Hiring

        DEA was authorized an additional 245 additional Special
    Agents in its fiscal year 1998 appropriation. To date, 150 of
    these agents have been brought on-board. By the close of fiscal
    year 1998, DEA will hire the remaining 95 Special Agents,
    thereby meeting its total authorized staffing level for the
    year of 4,238 Special Agents.

        Senator Campbell. I would appreciate that.
        The location of where they are assigned, is that
    predominately a function of the DEA or do you also have some
    input into that from Justice?
        Ms. Reno. Well, let me see if I can give you the precise
    breakdown.

                              Methamphetamine use

        Senator Campbell. While you are looking for that, just let
    me tell you why I am asking that question. The largest town in
    the western part of our State is Grand Junction, CO, not large
    in terms of how big these eastern cities are, but it is
    probably 80,000 people in Grand Junction. Just recently, the
    chief of police in that town, Chief Gary Consat, he stated that
    in that valley, that they are literally in jeopardy from
    methamphetamines. As I mentioned earlier, these are labs that
    are easily moved, small labs, and as we reduce the use of drugs
    in other areas, it seems like the use of the methamphetamines
    are going up.
        I was concerned. They have two almost out of control
    problems in that part of the State. One is illegal aliens. In
    fact, sometimes the local police turn them loose, if you can
    imagine that, because they cannot get a quick response from
    Federal agents. We have tried to do what we can to improve
    that. But I am also concerned that the DEA agents, that we have
    an increase of DEA agents in western Colorado to help these
    local chiefs of police. If you could, I would like you to give
    me some information about your Department's plans, if you are
    involved in the moving of the DEA agents to these areas of
    rising methamphetamine use.
        Ms. Reno. Some of the requests are site-specific. For
    example, DEA in the 1999 request provides for 38 agents in the
    Caribbean, and there is a Caribbean initiative. But it also
    provides for agents specifically designated for the
    implementation of our methamphetamine strategy. For example,
    the projected methamphetamine special agent assignment for
    Denver is six agents for 1999.
        Senator Campbell. Six?
        Ms. Reno. Yes.
        Senator Campbell. Do the requests come through the DEA or
    are they made from local police departments to increase DEA
    agents?
        Ms. Reno. There are two initiatives. One, DEA plans based
    on the intelligence, based on the problems that it perceives.
    We started some over 2 years ago as we sensed the problems
    emerging with respect to methamphetamine, for example, and we
    developed a strategy. DEA held a conference in which it asked
    and invited State and local law enforcement and other Federal
    agencies to participate and prepared a report and then a
    strategy based on that conference and on the preparation that
    had gone into the development of the strategy.
        It has been active in implementing that strategy around the
    country and trying to identify where, through intelligence, the
    pressure points are with respect to methamphetamine, and this
    deployment reflects what they are learning with respect to
    methamphetamine.
        Senator Campbell. I thank you. Let me move on to something
    else.

                             Drug fighting strategy

        Ms. Reno. Now, let me point out one other point, though.
    One of the first steps that we took when we came into office
    was to focus on violence in this country and to figure how the
    Federal Government could be an appropriate partner, based on
    principles of federalism, with State and local law enforcement.
    Much of this violence was generated by drug organizations and
    drug gangs and the problems associated with crack.
        Administrator Constantine of the DEA developed the concept
    of the mobile enforcement team, and oftentimes that team
    responds based on a police department's or a police chief's
    request. Again, we are trying to make sure that we prioritize
    those based not just on who asked but on what the data shows to
    indicate the greatest need, but we try to work with State and
    local law enforcement in every way we can to make sure that our
    resources are allocated appropriately.
        In addition, we are engaged in some long-range planning,
    because when I took office, I found that one district would
    have a lot of U.S. attorneys or assistant U.S. attorneys but no
    DEA agent, and some might have a lot of FBI agents and not
    enough prosecutors. We are trying to make sure that in our
    long-range planning and our allocation of resources, it is done
    based on need and based on population and based on the
    circumstances in that particular region, and Senator, it might
    be interesting for you as we perfect this long-range planning,
    data gathering system that we have, I think you and perhaps
    other members of the subcommittee would be interested in this
    process. We would like to share it with you.
        Senator Gregg. Thank you.
        [The information follows:]

                Methamphetamine-Related Special Agent Positions

        Decisions on the deployment of DEA's methamphetamine
    related Special Agent positions are based both on the agency's
    own intelligence and internal staffing requirements, as well as
    the collective input of Federal, state and local law
    enforcement agencies (including DOJ) across the United States.
    DEA is very concerned about the continuing spread of
    methamphetamine across the United States, including to areas
    throughout the West, Midwest and more recently, the Eastern
    Seaboard. The agency will continue to work diligently with its
    Federal, state and local counterparts to address the
    methamphetamine problem to prevent it from reaching the
    epidemic proportions that the crack cocaine crisis did in the
    late 1980's and early 1990's.
        Through the fiscal year 1998 appropriation, DEA received a
    total of 60 Special Agents for its Methamphetamine Initiative.
    Attached is the agency's plan for full deployment of the new
    methamphetamine related Special Agent positions.

    Fiscal year 1998 special agent deployment plan by division

                             [Methamphetamine only]

                                                             Methamphetamine
                                                               special agent
                                                                    position
            DEA Division                                         assignments

    Atlanta...........................................................     4
    Boston..................................................................
    Caribbean...............................................................
    Chicago...........................................................     1
    Dallas............................................................     3
    Denver............................................................     2
    Detroit...........................................................     4
    El Paso.................................................................
    Houston.................................................................
    Los Angeles.......................................................     3
    Miami...................................................................
    Newark............................................................     2
    New Orleans.......................................................     4
    New York..........................................................     1
    Philadelphia......................................................     3
    Phoenix...........................................................     2
    San Diego.........................................................     3
    San Francisco.....................................................     4
    Seattle...........................................................     4
    St. Louis.........................................................     8
    Washington, D.C...................................................     2
                            -----------------------------------------------------------------
                            ________________________________________________
          Subtotal....................................................    50
                            =================================================================
                            ________________________________________________
    HQ Support \1\....................................................     4
    Office of Training................................................     6
                            -----------------------------------------------------------------
                            ________________________________________________
          Total.......................................................    60

    \1\ Domestic Ops (1); Intelligence (1); Op Support (1); Inspections (1).

        In fiscal year 1999, DEA is requesting an additional 223 positions
    (100 Special Agents) and $24.5 million to continue implementation of
    its Methamphetamine Strategy. Agency decisions regarding the ultimate
    distribution of these positions are currently being developed.

                              Juvenile drug courts

        Senator Campbell. Thank you. Do I still have a little time,
    Mr. Chairman?
        Senator Gregg. Yes; we are allowing about 10 minutes for
    the first round.
        Senator Campbell. I recently had an opportunity to spend
    some time with General McCaffrey in the Denver drug court, and
    I tell you, I was very impressed with it, and I think they are
    doing a fine job. I wanted to also get your reaction.
        Some of the judges in our State are considering
    establishing a juvenile drug court with the rise in juvenile
    drug use, which I think that would be a natural thing to
    consider. Does the Department of Justice have any intention to
    try to foster the spread of these juvenile drug courts?
        Ms. Reno. I want to do everything I can because I have some
    passing knowledge of it, since the first drug court was
    established in Miami, FL, by the prosecutor there and the court
    and the public defender. I never dreamed that it would be as
    successful as it has been and that we would be getting
    objective comments, bipartisan comments from around the country
    about the success of the drug court.
        I think it has important resources and processes that can
    be brought to bear in the juvenile system, but Senator, the one
    thing I warn is the court will not make any difference, just
    the existence of the drug court, unless we make sure that the
    treatment components and the processes used to try to address
    the problem that caused the drug abuse in the first place are
    properly funded, and we will continue to work with everybody
    concerned, and I will provide you with as specific information
    as I can as to specific plans on juvenile drug courts.
        Senator Campbell. I would appreciate it if you would do
    that.
        [The information follows:]

                              Juvenile Drug Courts

        The populations and caseloads of most juvenile courts in
    the country have changed dramatically during the past decade.
    The nature of both the delinquent acts and the dependency
    matters being handled has become far more complex, entailing
    more serious and violent criminal activity and escalating
    degrees of substance abuse. During the past three years, an
    increasing number of jurisdictions have looked to the
    experiences of adult drug courts to determine how these might
    be adapted by juvenile courts to more effectively deal with the
    increasing number of substance abusing juvenile offenders.
        As of February 1, 1998, there were 31 operational juvenile
    and family drug courts and 43 jurisdictions were in the
    planning process. The interest in juvenile drug courts has
    risen dramatically in the last year. In order to facilitate the
    development of juvenile drug courts and to meet the training
    and technical assistance needs of these courts, the Office of
    Justice Programs, Drug Courts Program Office (DCPO), is
    coordinating with the State Justice Institute (SJI), the
    National Institute of Justice (NIJ), and the Office of Juvenile
    Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP).
        DCPO has funded $7.7 million in juvenile drug court
    activity between fiscal years 1995-1997. This includes 23
    planning grants, 14 implementation grants, and 7 enhancement
    grants for juvenile drug court activity. DCPO anticipates an
    increase in the number of applications and awards in 1998.
        The DCPO and SJI sponsored a 2-day focus group on juvenile
    drug courts in August 1997. As identified by the focus group,
    the development of juvenile drug courts presents unique
    challenges not encountered in the adult drug court environment.
    Among these are: Addressing the needs of the family, especially
    families with substance abuse problems; counteracting the
    negative influences of peers, gangs, and family members; and
    motivating juvenile offenders to alter their behavior.
        The development of juvenile drug courts has, therefore,
    required special strategies to address these issues. The
    following are characteristics common to these special
    strategies: Much earlier and more comprehensive intake
    assessments; much greater focus on the functioning of the
    juvenile's family, as well as the juvenile throughout the
    juvenile court process; much greater coordination between the
    court, the treatment community, the school system, and other
    community agencies in responding to the needs of the juvenile
    and the court; much more active and continuous judicial
    supervision of the juvenile's case and treatment process; and
    attention to the stages of adolescent development in designing
    appropriate substances abuse treatment services.
        Currently, DCPO is jointly funding a project with SJI to
    develop a guidebook for jurisdictions interested in
    implementing a juvenile drug court. The Institute for Families
    in Society, University of South Carolina was awarded the
    project which is scheduled to be completed by December 1998.
    The guidebook is based on practitioner experience and will
    provide both practical information on how to develop a juvenile
    drug court, as well as information on the philosophy of
    juvenile drug courts. OJJDP has expressed interest in working
    with DCPO and SJI to use the guidebook to develop curricula for
    jurisdictions.
        In 1998, DCPO will use, with Congressional approval,
    $400,000 to provide training and technical assistance
    specifically for juvenile drug courts. DCPO is planning to
    collaborate with OJJDP to develop a broad-based training and
    technical assistance capability for jurisdictions interested in
    planning, implementing, or enhancing a juvenile drug court.
        Also in 1998, DCPO will fund, through NIJ, the second phase
    of the National Drug Court Evaluation Program. The 14 drug
    courts that received implementation grants in 1995 and 1996
    will be evaluated, two of which are juvenile drug courts. The
    first component of this evaluation will set up the capacity for
    conducting subsequent evaluations of the impact of the courts.
    The impact evaluations will be conducted as the second
    component. This evaluation effort will begin to answer some of
    the ``why they work'' questions about drug courts.
        Finally, through DCPO funding, the American University
    operates the Drug Court Clearinghouse. The Clearinghouse has
    been able to provide comprehensive and current information
    about drug court activities, both adult and juvenile. This
    function has provided a critical ``mouthpiece'' for drug court
    ``best practices.'' As an example, the Clearinghouse surveys
    juvenile drug courts to identify operational characteristics
    and measures for program impact. The following are retention
    rates (total number of graduates and active participants
    compared to total participants entering the program) for
    juvenile drug courts as of May 1997.

                                  [In percent]

            Jurisdiction                                      Retention Rate

    Visalia, CA.......................................................    87
    Pensacola, FL.....................................................    90
    Tampa, FL.........................................................    95
    Key West, FL......................................................    95
    Reno, NV..........................................................    75
    Salt Lake City, UT................................................    90

                           Indian country initiative

        Senator Campbell. Let me go to the $10 million tribal
    courts initiative now, if you could explain how that is going
    to be administered, and also the request for the $52 million
    for tribal detention facilities. Could you tell us how those
    grants would be disbursed?
        Ms. Reno. Let me just give you an overview of it first. My
    mother was an honorary princess of the Miccosukee Nation
    because she had written some stories that helped get resources
    and supplies when there was an epidemic of illness that caused
    serious problems throughout the community. I came to Washington
    with a real sense of the Miccosukees but not what was happening
    in the rest of the Nation, and I was really surprised and
    shocked at how we had failed to address our law enforcement
    responsibilities throughout the country in Indian country.
        But my Miccosukee friends had taught me that you should
    listen first, and so I held a listening conference in
    Albuquerque in which we listened for 2 days. We have had two
    other meetings, one in South Dakota and one at Harvard Law
    School, of all places, for Northeast tribes, and they have been
    extremely beneficial. But the theme that runs throughout is
    that we have significant problems in terms of, as you point
    out, gangs from outside the tribal community coming in, but as
    importantly, the problems of youth violence, drugs, alcohol
    abuse, domestic violence, and child abuse, and that this has
    got to be addressed in a comprehensive way, so we are involved
    in that.
        In addition to funding, the way it would work, we would try
    to fund with additional FBI agents, uniformed police, and
    tribal investigators for the law enforcement initiatives that
    would be critical, and then with respect to the detention
    funding, I can get you the specifics, but what we are concerned
    about there is so often when a person has to be detained,
    particularly young people, they are taken some considerable
    distance away from the tribal scene in a world that has no
    connection to the world that they came from, and then they are
    returned without appropriate backup and followthrough and
    after-care.
        What we are trying to design within the Department, and we
    would be happy to brief you on the progress that we have made,
    is how can we develop detention facilities that are
    geographically situated so that they can benefit most of the
    tribes involved? How can we make sure that with respect to
    juveniles, appropriate services, such as schooling and other
    services, are provided, and what can we do?
        Now, how this is administered, I will get you those
    specifics. But the important thing will be, how do we site
    those centers, because the whole geography is spread out so
    far. I would be grateful for your thoughts as we proceed with
    this effort.
        [The information follows:]

                  Detention Facilities--Geographical Locations

        The Office of Justice Programs Corrections Program Office
    (CPO) is currently looking at two ways to develop detention
    facilities that are geographically situated to benefit most
    tribes. First, CPO, with the National Institute of Justice's
    crime mapping technology and assistance, is mapping out all 71
    adult/juvenile facilities in Indian Country and plotting a 50
    mile circumference from the facility to determine the distances
    between the law enforcement feeder agencies on tribal lands and
    the jails or detention facilities on tribal lands. CPO is
    surveying the field to identify the existing capacity of all
    facilities. These variables will be used to target the
    placement of new facilities and or renovation of existing
    jails/detention facilities to ensure the most appropriate
    geographic locations are integrated with the need for increased
    capacity in making funding decisions.
        Secondly, CPO is trying to make sure that each jail/
    detention facility has a comprehensive array of programing for
    adult and juvenile offenders. These services would address the
    social, educational, vocational, and cognitive issues related
    to substance abuse and criminality for juveniles and adults who
    are incarcerated or detained in OJP funded facilities. CPO is
    also attempting to not simply lock up offenders but to keep
    them from offending again by getting to the root of their
    criminality.

        Senator Campbell. I appreciate your recognition that it is
    comprehensive. As an example, we have a very, very high rate of
    fetal alcoholism, as you know, fetal alcohol syndrome, it is
    called. They say at Pine Ridge, about one out of four babies
    being born is born with fetal alcohol syndrome, and that, of
    course, is totally preventable. But once the mother drinks and
    the baby is born with that, it is there for life. I know that
    some of the increased violent behavior comes from youngsters
    that have that, and so simply to put more money into more forms
    of incarceration and bigger jails and so on does not really
    deal with the problem with the Indians, as you know.

                                 Medicare fraud

        Let me maybe just ask one more, since my time has about run
    out, or maybe perhaps just make a statement to you. I know we
    have a great deal of Medicare fraud, and I noted with interest
    in the staff briefing I got that almost every hospital in
    Colorado, most of them serving low-income patients from
    predominately rural areas, have gotten some pretty, what they
    call strong-arm tactics from the Justice Department in pursuing
    Medicare fraud. Many of them do not have the capabilities of
    hiring full-time people to keep all their Federal paperwork in
    order as the big hospitals do, and I know a number of them have
    called us.
        This is not an appropriations matter, I understand that,
    but I would ask that you look at some of those issues
    internally about how the process is done, how the Department
    handles this Medicare fraud as it deals with the small rural
    hospitals.
        With that, Mr. Chairman, I thank you and I thank you for
    your time.
        Ms. Reno. Senator, I have done just that, and about 2 weeks
    ago, I addressed the national convention of the American
    Hospital Association, knowing of their concern. From all of our
    review to date, and we have reviewed it carefully, I do not
    believe we are using the False Claims Act to punish what are
    honest billing mistakes. The act requires evidence that the
    person involved acted knowingly or with reckless disregard or
    deliberate indifference, and I think that is an appropriate
    standard.
        But what I told the hospital association was, we do not
    want to be in the business of punishing honest mistakes. We do
    want to focus on those mistakes that are reckless or deliberate
    or indicate deliberate indifference to the law. I told them
    that we would have processes in the Justice Department that if
    they feel that there is an inappropriate application of the
    False Claims Act, that we will work with them, that we will
    make sure that there are avenues that their concerns can be
    addressed, and I have had some good feedback from my talk and
    intend to follow through on it and make sure that we have an
    open line of communication, and if anyone has a specific
    example, we will follow through immediately.
        Senator Campbell. Thank you, Madam Attorney General. I
    appreciate your time.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Gregg. Thank you, Senator Campbell. Obviously, we
    look to you for leadership as chairman of the Indian Affairs
    Committee for this additional funding on the Indian court
    system.
        Senator Hutchison.

            Immigration and Naturalization Service and Border Patrol

        Senator Hutchison. Thank you, Senator Gregg.
        I want to note in your testimony the emphasis that you are
    placing on the INS and Border Patrol, and you mentioned the
    leadership of this committee as being one of the helpers to you
    to do that. I want to say that the leadership of this
    committee, Senator Gregg, really has made this a priority and I
    appreciate it very much, because, of course, my State is one of
    those that is suffering the most, and Senator Gregg sent the
    clerk down there and he spent a lot of time with the Border
    Patrol agents and the INS officials, and it has really helped.
    I want to reiterate what you said and thank Senator Gregg for
    recognizing this priority.
        Ms. Reno. May I make a point?
        Senator Hutchison. Yes, please.
        Ms. Reno. I know how interested he has been in what he has
    done, but I also know the meetings I have been to with you. I
    think you had something to do with it, as well.
        Senator Hutchison. Well, thank you.
        Senator Gregg. Just a slight bit.
        Senator Hutchison. I thank you for that.
        Let me say that I understand what you have just said about
    once you crack down in one place, then it goes to another
    place, because when cockroach corner was cleaned up, through
    probably your good offices, it did start coming through Texas
    and we saw it immediately.
        Senator Campbell. What is cockroach corner?
        Senator Hutchison. That was the Miami Airport. That is
    where all the drugs came in. Is that new for you?
        Ms. Reno. I never heard that before. [Laughter.]
        Senator Hutchison. Oh, my goodness.
        Senator Gregg. Neither have I.
        Senator Hutchison. Well, in the world of trivia, you now
    know what everyone else was saying about Miami Airport.
        Senator Gregg. The Attorney General stands firm.
    [Laughter.]
        Ms. Reno. What we called ourselves was the Wild West.
    [Laughter.]
        Senator Campbell. That is where I am from.
        Senator Hutchison. It is all a matter of where you are
    looking at the ball. So it was felt in Texas, and, of course,
    as you know, Madam Attorney General, with 1,200 miles of
    border, there are many opportunities for undetected and
    unrestricted crime elements and the criminals have figured it
    out.
        One of the things that we have started on, and I am very
    pleased that it is in your budget this year, is the 1,000 new
    Border Patrol agents. Do you think that our goal of 5,000 new
    Border Patrol agents by the year 2002, for which we are now on
    track, is going to be enough as you see the hot spots popping
    up in other places?
        Ms. Reno. I think we are going to have to judge as we make
    progress year to year, because what we are also doing, and
    General McCaffrey has been a leader in this area, is making
    sure that we work with the Department of Defense to have the
    latest technology that will enable us to multiply our force all
    along the border.
        It is my hope that with the expanding technology, we will
    be able to focus sensitive equipment at the ports of entry and
    at the checkpoints and facilitate the usage of personnel there.
    But at the same time, between the ports of entry, develop a
    system of sensors, of scopes, and of automated geographical
    tracking, if you will, so that we will have a system down that
    entire border that will enable us to know where the hot spots
    are so that we can move immediately and in a mobile way to
    address those issues.
        If we can make our people along the border as efficient as
    possible with the use of the latest technology in a
    comprehensive way up and down the entire border, then it might
    not--the number that has been authorized may be appropriate.
    But I look forward to working with you to see how we fare and
    what will need to be done in subsequent years.
        Senator Hutchison. I think that the technology that we are
    seeing, the infrared and the radar systems do greatly increase
    the amount that a Border Patrol station can see, but
    practically speaking, if you see the shadows going across the
    border 15 miles out, the actual apprehension is still
    difficult. So I know that we are a ways away from the 2002, but
    I certainly hope that you will continue to look at the number
    of Border Patrol agents, for whom I think nothing can be
    substituted.
        Let me just give you one example of a success that you can
    take credit for, and I could not be happier than to give you
    credit, and that is Operation Rio Grande, which came about
    after the hearing that we had in this subcommittee last year to
    take the 60 Border Patrol agents and redeploy them practically
    immediately down to the McAllen-Brownsville sector. This was
    done in August, as you know.
        Since October 1, this is the latest report. They have now
    seized 117,000 pounds of marijuana, 264 pounds of cocaine just
    in the McAllen sector, which have a value of $102 million and
    reflect a 24-percent increase in drug-related apprehensions
    from last year. So the Border Patrol agents, along with the
    enhancers that you have mentioned, show a real difference just
    in 6 months since you instituted that program.
        Ms. Reno. Let me point out to you, though, if you had said,
    OK, 5,000 more Border Patrol, or let us say you had been on the
    path to giving us 1,000 more DEA agents in south Florida in
    1980 and then they had worked so well that they shifted the
    patterns to other parts of the country, you would not want
    extra agents sitting there. That is the reason I think it is
    going to be very important for us to work together and see just
    what is happening, see how patterns change, see if they
    maintain the same features, work together in the most
    constructive way we can to understand that it is a shifting
    problem and to be prepared to respond together in the most
    effective way possible to that shifting problem.
        Senator Hutchison. I absolutely understand what you are
    saying, and it makes sense, and I think we will have to monitor
    it because 1,200 miles of border is a sieve. It is very
    difficult to get control of it. It is different from some of
    the other problems that are faced with water entry or small
    segments of border. I appreciate that you are working with us
    and will continue to want to work with you.

                                     Mexico

        Let me ask you another question before I go to a different
    subject, and that is, is there anything else that from your
    vantage point at the Department of Justice you would ask us to
    do with our relations with Mexico and our request to Mexico
    that would help fight the drug trafficking across our border?
        Ms. Reno. I would just like to make sure that people and
    Congress are aware of some of the steps that have been taken,
    because as I indicated earlier in my previous remarks, we had
    had trouble getting people extradited from Mexico. But in 1997
    alone, Mexico extradited 30 fugitives to the United States and
    deported 10 more in lieu of extradition. In 1998, it has
    extradited one fugitive and there is now a good working
    relationship between the two nations. I have had the chance
    recently to meet with the new foreign minister and she has
    expressed continued support for a thoughtful give and take.
        One of the points that I would like to see stressed,
    though, is that with respect to extradition, I think some of
    the opposition to extraditing nationals came because of
    sovereignty concerns. We are now in a world where we are trying
    to build trust around the world, and every good prosecutor
    knows that a crime should be prosecuted generally in the place
    that it was committed. I would like to see us work together to
    do everything we can, not just with respect to the southern
    frontier but around the world, to let the criminals know that
    there is no safe haven and that people will be brought to
    justice in the best forum for determining guilt or innocence. I
    think that is a message that is loud and clear, and I think
    Mexico has taken great steps to honor that concept.
        Senator Hutchison. That is what I was going to ask you. Is
    there anything more that we should emphasize on that, or do you
    think it is coming along?
        Ms. Reno. I think it is coming along. Sometimes it is not
    as fast as I would like to see, but Attorney General Madrazo
    has been a pleasure to work with. I think he is trying his
    best. I am impressed with what he is doing and the approaches
    that he has taken. We have an excellent working relationship
    in, for example, San Diego that we are wanting to make sure we
    submit up and down the entire border. We have much, much to do,
    but I think we are making progress.

                 High-intensity drug trafficking areas [HIDTA]

        Senator Hutchison. One of the things that General McCaffrey
    has put in place but does not have enough funding to fully
    implement is high-intensity drug trafficking areas, where there
    is a coordination between Federal law enforcement agencies and
    the local law enforcement agencies, and it has been very
    successful and helpful in these high-intensity areas. You have,
    as a priority, some of that coordination and I just would ask
    you if you would work with General McCaffrey. I am not asking
    you to specifically take money and put it in, but it just seems
    that in these particularly high-intensity drug areas, perhaps
    your efforts to coordinate and his could be augmented to target
    some of these worse areas for drug trafficking.
        Ms. Reno. Let me make a suggestion. Why do not you all and
    General McCaffrey and the Department of Justice and myself talk
    a little bit more about this, because we have worked together
    very effectively to ensure a Federal, State, and local
    partnership, a two-way street so that we give information to
    the State and local officials and they, in turn, support us,
    that the case be prosecuted where it is in the best interest of
    the community.
        But one of the things that we are finding is that Congress
    will appropriate moneys for a HIDTA and make it HIDTA specific,
    however, perhaps we could plan it better together and make sure
    that the moneys are spent as wisely as possible, and we would
    commit any effort possible to that end. I think we could do
    some really interesting things because you have got a HIDTA for
    a particular city and then there are other areas where you have
    a HIDTA for a region, and the more we can plan together, the
    more that Justice and Treasury and State and local officials
    can come together and plan comprehensively by region, the
    better.
        That does not, however, ignore the fact that we must plan
    nationwide, because so much of this just crosses regions, goes
    from one place to another in the country, comes from across the
    Southwest border to Chicago or to New York, and the need for
    national planning is critical, as well.
        Senator Hutchison. I believe that what you are saying is
    absolutely accurate. I believe that perhaps the lack of
    coordination, and maybe we can do something to put that
    together, has caused some money to go into areas that are not
    really as intense in need, and perhaps with your overall
    responsibility in this area and General McCaffrey's more
    focused responsibility, talking might be able to help in both
    areas. So I will work with that, as well.

                               domestic Terrorism

        There is one last question, a different subject, and that
    is, with the situation in Iraq, I think the need to plan for
    domestic terrorism has been heightened, not that the need was
    any greater but that certainly we are going to see tensions
    rising.
        You started and had the task to develop a national plan for
    domestic terrorism and you have started designating areas for
    that project to be implemented. Would you tell me where you are
    in the planning and what kinds of programs you might see coming
    forward in the eventuality that we need to be on a more highly
    alert status in this country?
        Ms. Reno. I do not want to go into the details, but I can
    assure you that Director Freeh has been very sensitive to this
    issue in these weeks that have led up to the situation in Iraq
    and has taken, I think, appropriate precautions and has briefed
    me.
        But in terms of the long-range strategy, we are going to be
    meeting on this issue on March 31. But we have at the Justice
    Department, pursuant to the provision in the appropriations
    bill, prepared what I call a protocol with a timeline as to how
    we will get a strategy to you that is developed Government-
    wide, that has the input of all concerned, and that addresses
    the issue. We have provided Senator Gregg with a copy so that
    he could review it and see if there were any issues that we had
    omitted and that will be a continuing effort and we will try to
    brief and involve the committee.
        Senator Gregg. We will make sure that you get a copy of
    that, and that everybody else on the committee will get a copy
    of that.
        Senator Hutchison. Are you at the funding level where you
    are comfortable that we can address those concerns?
        Senator Gregg. There is no shortage of money.
        Senator Hutchison. Very good.
        Senator Gregg. On that issue.
        Senator Hutchison. Thank you very much for working with us
    on these major issues and thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Gregg. Thank you. On that specific issue, we are
    going to hold a hearing on March 31 to review the status of the
    counterterrorism effort which was started by this committee
    about 1\1/2\ years ago, and this committee has made it clear on
    a number of occasions in a very bipartisan way that we will
    commit whatever resources are necessary to assist the attorneys
    general and the other agencies within the Government that are
    under our jurisdiction to assure that we have an adequate
    response.
        Senator Lautenberg.

                           Juvenile mentoring program

        Senator Lautenberg. Thanks very much, Mr. Chairman. I, too,
    want to welcome the Attorney General, and I want to commend
    her, Mr. Chairman, for making the fight against juvenile crime
    and violence a top priority.
        To echo what you have said, because good news deserves
    repeating, for the second year in a row, juvenile crimes have
    fallen and it is exciting news and a source of pride to the men
    and women who interact daily with young people in the United
    States. I appreciate the efforts of the teachers, police
    officers, and volunteers who have worked hard to bring these
    juvenile crime rates down in our communities. There is still so
    much to do.
        I authored the juvenile mentoring program, called JUMP, and
    want to emphasize today that the crime problem cannot be solved
    by investing in punishment alone. There has also got to be a
    significant investment in prevention. The Census Bureau
    recently reported that one-half of America's 16 and 17 year
    olds are at-risk children, one-half. That is 3.7 million kids.
    Other estimates run, for the whole adolescent age range, as
    high as 15 million children being at risk. That means these
    youths are more likely to drop out of school, less likely to
    find work, and, unfortunately, more likely to begin a life that
    leads to drugs and to crime.
        General Reno, you cited juvenile mentoring as a proven way
    to reach out to these kids and to provide them with role models
    who can help turn their lives around. The JUMP Program has
    proven successful in matching up at-risk youth with mentors and
    keeping kids off the street. Therefore, I have to ask you why
    it is that your budget proposes to put this successful program
    into a block grant. Now, I know that we share the same goal of
    providing hope to our young people, but I am worried that some
    of these funds will not be invested in mentoring programs and
    the kids will once again fall back to a process that is not, as
    we have proven in the recent years, as successful as the
    mentoring program has been.
        We started JUMP in 1992, it was authorized, and the initial
    funding was $4 million in 1994. This year, in fiscal year 1998,
    we have $12 million in the program. This is not a time when
    programs grow of their own status but rather because they have
    to show some signs of success, and I think we have done that
    with the juvenile mentoring partnership.
        Therefore, General Reno, I ask you what it is that induced
    the program to be subsumed into the administration programs
    and, therefore, again, raise the specter that I am concerned
    about.
        Ms. Reno. What we have seen, and first of all, the JUMP
    Program has been a marvelous program. I think it has been
    evaluated, it has worked, and it can make a difference. But in
    too many instances, you will see a mentoring program authorized
    and that will be the only program available, whereas if the
    community had a chance to design a program that went beyond
    just the JUMP Program, just a mentoring program, where somebody
    saw the child on, say, a weekly basis and was able to look at
    the community's response as a whole, we think it can be more
    effective.
        We will still have a discretionary pot of money that would
    and could include mentoring, but more importantly, what we are
    saying is, let communities who know their needs and resources
    design the program. In some instances, it may be a mentoring
    program. But rather than just say you have to select this one,
    let communities work with us to devise the best way possible
    for ensuring that there are adults who can supervise and hold
    young people accountable.
        Senator Lautenberg. I think there is a tendency in the
    country, though I think waning, that says, punish them--harder
    punishment, longer terms in prison, try kids as adults, all of
    those things. And what I fear, General Reno, is that mentoring
    is not something that you can measure as quickly as you would
    like.
        So, therefore, I can see those funds being used as, well,
    we build a juvenile detention center or we will build a part of
    our police force designed to catch them, lock them up, and get
    them off the streets. We know, again, and I think you say that
    in your own remarks, that punishment alone is not enough to do
    the job. So I am fearful that these funds will not be used in a
    program that takes a little longer time for its effectiveness
    to show and that is the reason I raise this with you.
        Ms. Reno. We will make sure, because I certainly do not
    think that there is any intent, and I will look at the language
    again of the proposal, to take it out of community initiatives
    that prevent juvenile delinquency and put it into something
    that involves enforcement or corrections, but I will address
    that.
        What I am concerned about and where I think we can be more
    effective, is if you have a mentoring program that is the only
    thing that exists and that person, the mentor, is not able to
    see the young person five nights a week and they are left alone
    and unsupervised, there is so much that we can do if a
    community can design a program that will keep kids out of
    trouble.
        I will go back and look at this, but this particular
    program proposal is designed to keep kids out of trouble, not
    to deal with them when they get into trouble. We will work with
    you on that, because the JUMP Program has been excellent and it
    in no sense is an effort to undermine that.
        Senator Lautenberg. We will watch with interest, Madam
    Attorney General. If you could see that, in the process of
    review, that I am kept up to date in terms of what you find,
    and you are not going to be able to know for several months
    going into the thing, but I would appreciate hearing from you
    on that.
        [The information follows:]

                       Juvenile Mentoring Program [JUMP]

        It is OJJDP's belief that communities and at-risk youth are
    best served when communities are empowered to determine what
    prevention programs provide the best opportunity to establish a
    continuum of prevention services. OJJDP currently administers
    the Juvenile Mentoring Program (JUMP) and has funded 93
    projects since 1994. However, while JUMP has proven to be an
    effective program, OJJDP strongly supports the notion that it
    is more appropriate to provide funds to local units of
    government to implement those prevention-related programs
    targeted to the specific needs of the community, than to
    administer a particular type of prevention program.
        For example, OJJDP's Title V Community Prevention Grants
    program, which has been appropriated $20 million in each fiscal
    year 1995-1998, funds nearly 500 local delinquency prevention
    grant programs across the nation. Under this program, community
    boards analyze risk factors for the children in their
    community, survey resources, and put into place an array of
    prevention programs--including mentoring programs--that target
    the specific needs of the community.
        Mentoring programs are also funded under OJJDP's Title II,
    Part B, Formula Grants program. Like Title V, this program
    provides funding for prevention programs, while also supporting
    delinquency control and system improvement initiatives.
    Experience shows that significant resources from this program
    are being invested in mentoring at the state and local levels.
    State reports show that 1995 funds have supported 260 subgrants
    with a mentoring component, and to date, 1996 funds have
    supported 162 subgrants with a mentoring component.

                        Northeast cargo theft task force

        Last year we directed the Justice Department to establish a
    Northeast cargo theft task force and to provide it with $2
    million. Can you tell me what is the status of this task force
    that we were trying to establish?
        Ms. Reno. I do not have the information with me. I will
    check and furnish that to you immediately, sir.
        Senator Lautenberg. All right, because my State, New York,
    and Florida are among the hardest-hit areas with respect to
    this crime and we would like to curb it, if we can. There is
    enormous cost resulting from this crime.
        Ms. Reno. You are talking about cargo theft?
        Senator Lautenberg. Yes.
        Ms. Reno. I cannot give you the benefit of the specific
    moneys and what has been done, but let me tell you what we have
    tried to do. Los Angeles, San Francisco, New York, Miami, and
    Houston have been the five big areas. We have been working with
    Customs and Customs has done some marvelous things in terms of
    technology that is beginning to address the issue. The FBI,
    working with the U.S. attorney in at least those five areas,
    has focused on this. This has been a major concern. But I will,
    with respect to the grant, give you the specifics on that. I do
    not have that with me.
        [The information follows:]
                           FBI Cargo Theft Task Force
        General.--During the past five years, cargo theft has increasingly
    become a significant concern for law enforcement, particularly the FBI.
    This concern has largely developed as the nature and extent of cargo
    theft has changed. Specifically, cargo theft is increasingly being
    committed by organized groups and ``crews'' which steal for black
    market fencing operations. These groups have become increasingly brazen
    in their thefts. Violence involving armed truck hijackings and
    robberies of businesses and warehouses is increasingly becoming a
    factor in these heists. Widespread cargo theft has also given rise to
    concomitant offenses such as robbery, kidnaping, homicide, interstate
    transportation of stolen motor vehicles, drug trafficking, money
    laundering and insurance fraud. Extensive and systematic criminality
    indicates that sophisticated organized criminal groups are behind a
    significant amount of cargo theft activity.
        These thefts and robberies have increased in key port areas in the
    United States. Specifically the Ports of Newark/New York, Miami and
    Long Beach/Los Angeles have been most affected by this increase in
    cargo theft. Additional cities that have seen an increase in cargo
    theft include San Jose and San Francisco (due to high technology
    production in the Silicon Valley), Memphis (due to its geographic
    location as a major transshipment point for the Mid-South) and Chicago
    (a major transportation link in the Midwest). Many other areas of the
    country are also seriously impacted including the United States border
    with Mexico. Further compounding this problem is the expansion of
    professional theft and fencing groups which have been traditionally
    based in major urban areas have branched out to other smaller cities
    and rural areas where law enforcement efforts are less organized and
    industry security prevention efforts are minimal.
        As a result of this increase in cargo related crime, the FBI
    initiated the Cargo Theft Initiative in 1996. During 1996 and 1997, the
    FBI worked closely with industry and other law enforcement agencies to
    determine the nature and extent of the crime problem and determine what
    course of action to take to reduce the cargo theft problem. Numerous
    multi agency, FBI led task forces have been formed throughout the
    United States to address interstate theft crime.
        After analyzing the scope and extent of the cargo theft problem,
    the FBI developed a national strategy and plan which will likely have a
    dramatic impact on this crime problem. In fiscal year 1998, the FBI
    began implementing this national strategy. The strategy focuses on
    disrupting and dismantling the criminal organizations and professional
    theft groups responsible for creating the increase in this crime. This
    strategy seeks to maximize both State and Federal prosecution to
    eliminate this crime problem from the street level to the highest level
    of the criminal hierarchy.
        The combined harbors of Newark/New York is the East Coast's busiest
    harbor. In 1994, this combined harbor took in $58.7 billion worth of
    goods according to United States Customs estimates. This was an 11.8
    percent increase from 1993. The New Jersey terminals were the harbor's
    primary port of call, accounting for 82 percent of all arrivals. The
    only active piers in New York are the Passenger Ship Terminal and the
    Red Hook Marine Terminal in Brooklyn. The Port of New York and New
    Jersey handled seven percent of the nation's cargo and about 40 percent
    among its competitors in the North Atlantic. While Northern Europe
    remains the port's biggest trading partner, countries in Southeast Asia
    and South America provided major surges in cargo.
        The Newark, New Jersey area has been characterized as having the
    most active trucking, rail and container/freight handling operations in
    the United States. The illicit trade of stolen property which occurs
    there and across the river in New York City involves a multitude of
    thieves, fences, and organized crime members. The losses in these ports
    are significant but for the most part have remained steady during the
    past five years. The estimated losses in the Newark/New York
    metropolitan area associated with cargo theft and other interstate
    theft violations are $1.8 billion annually.
        To address the cargo theft problem in the New York/Newark
    metropolitan area, the FBI has specialized squads and task forces which
    address this crime problem. These squads and task forces are summarized
    as follows:
    Newark Field Office, Interstate Theft Task Force, Squad C-2
        The FBI's Newark field office has a dedicated criminal squad
    consisting of seven Agents which are specifically tasked with
    investigating interstate theft matters. The bulk of these
    investigations consist of cargo theft crimes.
        On March 6, 1995, the FBI formed the Interstate Theft Task Force
    with local and State law enforcement agencies in New Jersey. Currently,
    this task force consists of Agents and detectives from the FBI, the New
    York/New Jersey Port Authority, and the Bergen County Sheriff's Office.
    This task force proactively investigates cargo thefts in New Jersey
    through sophisticated, long-term undercover operations. This is an FBI
    Safe Streets Task Force.
        ``Operation Norlock''.--The Interstate Theft Task Force in Newark
    conducted a long-term undercover operation (UCO) which targeted
    professional South American Theft crews involved in cargo theft in the
    Eastern United States. This UCO has resulted in the following
    statistical accomplishments:

    Criminal Complaints.....................................              11
    Indictments.............................................              59
    Arrests.................................................              57
    Convictions.............................................              40
    Restitution.............................................          $1,000
    Recoveries..............................................     $38,429,656
    Fines...................................................         $17,875

        Additional investigative efforts of the Interstate Theft Task Force
    in Newark during fiscal year 1997 and through the first quarter of
    fiscal year 1998 are summarized as follows:

    Criminal Complaints.....................................               7
    Criminal Informations...................................               3
    Indictments.............................................               4
    Arrests.................................................              25
    Convictions.............................................              60
    Restitution.............................................         $92,030
    Recoveries..............................................    $229,340,554
    Fines...................................................         $86,966
    New York Field Office, John F. Kennedy/La Guardia International Airport
            Cargo Theft Task Force, Squad C-29
        The J.F. Kennedy/La Guardia Task Force has a dedicated squad of
    nine FBI Agents.
        In April 1994, a multi-agency undercover operation was initiated by
    the FBI, New York/New Jersey Port Authority, the New York State Police,
    United States Customs Service, United States Secret Service, United
    States Postal Inspectors, and the New York Police Department. This
    undercover operation, codenamed ``KATNET,'' targeted cargo thieves and
    fencing operations stealing from the J.F. Kennedy and La Guardia
    Airport. As a result of this highly successful investigation, an ad hoc
    task force was formed with the aforementioned law enforcement agencies.
    This task force is scheduled to be formalized through a Memorandum of
    Understanding in the Summer of 1998. This will be an FBI Safe Streets
    Task Force.
        ``Operation KATNET'' was a long-term, multi-agency undercover
    operation that came to full fruition in May 1997 when search and arrest
    warrants were executed on numerous targets. To date, this case resulted
    in the following statistical accomplishments:

    Indictments.............................................              70
    Arrests.................................................              98
    Convictions.............................................              70
    Recoveries..............................................     $13,000,000
    Fines...................................................          $2,000

        Additional accomplishments of the J.F. Kennedy/La Guardia
    International Airport Task Force for fiscal year 1997 and the first
    quarter of fiscal year 1998 are summarized as follows:

    Complaints..............................................              29
    Indictment..............................................               1
    Arrests.................................................              18
    Convictions.............................................               8
    Restitution.............................................        $948,002
    Recoveries..............................................        $950,000
    Fines...................................................         $60,050

    New York Field Office, Brooklyn-Queens Cargo Theft Task Force, Squad C-
            31
        The Brooklyn-Queens Task Force has a dedicated squad of 15 Agents.
        The Brooklyn-Queens Resident Agency, New York Field Office has
    established a multi-agency ad hoc task force which investigates cargo
    theft in the metropolitan New York area. This task force consists of
    Agents and detectives from the FBI, New York Police Department, the
    Waterfront Commission, the Queens District Attorney's Office, and the
    New York/New Jersey Port Authority. This task force investigates cargo
    theft in New York utilizing sophisticated investigative techniques to
    include Court authorized wire interceptions, undercover operations, and
    surveillance.
        ``Operation Second Gear'' was an undercover operation conducted by
    the Brooklyn-Queens Cargo Theft Task Force which targeted cargo thieves
    and fences operating in New York and New Jersey. This UCO culminated in
    mass arrests and search warrants in January 1997. This UCO resulted in
    the following statistical accomplishments to date:

    Indictments.............................................              40
    Arrests.................................................              39
    Convictions.............................................              38
    Recoveries..............................................      $4,500,000
    Fines...................................................         $57,650

        Additional accomplishments of this task force during fiscal year
    1997 and through the first quarter of fiscal year 1998 are as follows:

    Complaints..............................................               4
    Indictments.............................................              48
    Arrests.................................................               8
    Convictions.............................................              17
    Restitution.............................................         $20,000
    Recoveries..............................................        $320,000
    Fines...................................................         $63,450

        All three of the task forces in New Jersey and New York have
    additional pending cases which will result in similar statistical
    accomplishments.
        The FBI estimates the costs of these task forces will exceed $3
    million in 1998.
        The FBI is closely monitoring the cargo theft problem in the
    northeastern section of the United States to ensure that the task
    forces and squads assigned to investigate these violations are
    utilizing resources effectively and are conducting investigations which
    are consistent with the interstate theft national strategy.

                             Domestic violence bill

        Senator Lautenberg. You are aware, Madam Attorney General,
    that I authored a domestic violence bill to keep spousal and
    child abusers from being able to own a gun. It has taken some
    while to structure it and put the program into place, but there
    are attempts to reduce the effectiveness of the bill, to permit
    exceptions to gun ownership, and so forth.
        Madam Attorney General, have you heard anything that would
    either encourage or discourage you about that program and
    about, if you can tell us anything about where it stands?
        Ms. Reno. I have not heard any recent comments on it. As
    you will recall, 1 year or so ago, there were considerable
    comments. I will check, see what the latest information the
    Department has gained and provide that to you.
        [The information follows:]

                             Domestic Violence Bill

        The most recent amendment to the Federal Gun Control Act
    prohibits the sale of a firearm to persons convicted of
    misdemeanors involving domestic violence. The effective
    implementation of this provision requires that information
    about such disqualifying misdemeanors be immediately available
    through the state criminal record system and, under the
    provisions of the Brady Act, through the FBI's National Instant
    Background Check System (NICS) which will become operational in
    November 1998. The National Criminal History Improvement
    Program (NCHIP), administered by BJS, provides funds to all
    states to assist them in improving the accuracy and immediate
    accessibility of criminal record data for presale background
    checks. To assist states in implementing the requirements of
    the Lautenberg amendment, the funding guidelines for the
    program were expanded in 1997 to permit funds to be used by
    states to collect and, where applicable, to ``flag'' data on
    disqualifying misdemeanors. In 1997, 13 states received NCHIP
    funds for purposes associated with the collection/flagging of
    domestic violence related offenses, including misdemeanors
    under the Lautenberg amendment. Fiscal year 1998 NCHIP funds
    will also be available to States for such purposes.
        The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms within the
    Department of the Treasury has responsibility for implementing
    this law, and I know the BATF has worked to inform law
    enforcement officials, firearms dealers and the general public
    of their new obligations under this law. In addition, the
    Administration has taken steps to ensure the domestic violence
    gun ban is fully implemented within the federal government.
        The Administration has heard from individuals who feel they
    are being unfairly impacted by the enactment of this
    legislation, as well as from supporters of the provision who
    oppose any changes to the law. Based on the Department's
    experience in implementing this law, I can tell you that out of
    the many thousands of DOJ employees who are authorized to carry
    firearms very few have been disqualified as a result of this
    statute. Less than 100 Department employees were found to be
    potentially disqualified from carrying weapons by this
    provision.

                           Independent counsel budget

        Senator Lautenberg. General Reno, I know that you do not
    control or manage the independent counsel budget. The process,
    if you could in very short form, because we are pressed for
    time here, tell us how it flows that the request for funding,
    as I understand it, is indefinite and, well, realistically
    permanent once the counsel's program has been approved. Do you
    know how much we have spent thus far to date in the Whitewater
    probe?
        Ms. Reno. No; I do not, sir.
        Senator Lautenberg. I thought that was administratively the
    responsibility of Justice.
        Ms. Reno. One of the things that I have tried to do is,
    except where I have specific responsibility, not be involved in
    terms of oversight.
        Senator Lautenberg. The Washington Post reports it
    periodically, and I assume that they would furnish you that
    information.
        Ms. Reno. What I would ask, because in my effort to make
    sure that the counsel is independent, I try to draw lines. If
    it would be OK, Mr. Chairman, I would like for Mr. Colgate to
    answer that. He is the Assistant Attorney General in charge of
    the Justice Management Division, and I think he can provide the
    information right now.
        Senator Gregg. I think the Senator has the right to know
    the information, so please, Mr. Colgate.
        Mr. Colgate. As you indicated, Senator, this is a permanent
    indefinite appropriation. Essentially, we place an estimate in
    the President's budget, in consultation with the Administrative
    Office of the U.S. Courts, an estimated amount for fiscal year
    1999. In a sense, this is a permanent appropriation and we pay
    whatever bills the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts
    submits to us. So whatever is submitted is paid.
        The Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts is the one who
    supplies the administrative support to the independent counsel
    and our records for Mr. Starr through November 30, 1997, the
    end of November 1997, show that we have obligated Mr. Starr
    $17,789,727 against this permanent indefinite appropriation. It
    is my recollection that the General Accounting Office is
    charged under statute to do, I believe, two audits twice a year
    on the expenditures of each of the independent counsels, and we
    can provide the committee for the record the latest audit by
    GAO.
        Senator Lautenberg. I have inquired because in a fairly old
    report in the Washington Post, as well as various other media
    opportunities for this data, we have seen figures at $25
    million, $35 million, and yet you just said $17 million had
    been spent through November of last year, correct?
        Mr. Colgate. That is correct, and within the General
    Accounting Office's report, and we will get that report up to
    you.
        Senator Lautenberg. I'm concerned because that represents
    quite a discrepancy. The figure that I cited, by the way, was
    allegedly as of September of last year, and that figure was $25
    million. So if you are speaking of figures representing
    expenditures through November----
        Mr. Colgate. What I gave you is the figure that was charged
    to the permanent indefinite appropriation. We also provide to
    the General Accounting Office an estimate of the nonreimbursed
    Department of Justice and other agencies' expenditures. I would
    believe, sir, that the press report is including what is
    charged to the permanent indefinite appropriation as well as
    the estimate that we provide on nonreimbursed Department of
    Justice expenditures to get to the larger figure in the Post
    report, and I believe that figure was pulled out of one of
    these periodic GAO reports.
        Senator Lautenberg. There has to be some way for the
    American people and those of us in the Congress to be able to
    get precise figures, and I would hate to think that the
    Washington Post is the source. If you can help us develop that
    information, I would like to receive it without prejudice or
    without further comment. Thank you very much.
        [The information follows:]

        GAO report No. GAO/AIMD-97-164 is available on the web at
    http://www.gao.gov/.

        Senator Gregg. Thank you. Senator Bumpers.
        Senator Bumpers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Just following up on Senator Lautenberg's question, and you
    may have answered this, when you see these figures, as Senator
    Lautenberg has alluded to, in the Washington Post, does that
    include other Government personnel, such as FBI agents? If you
    see a $30 million figure, that includes all of the other
    governmental services?
        Senator Gregg. Mr. Colgate, why do you not take a seat so
    that you can speak into the microphone.
        Mr. Colgate. Yes, Senator, it does. When you see that
    figure, it includes all other governmental expenditures, either
    directly charged to the permanent indefinite appropriation as
    well as funding in other Department of Justice appropriations
    that are not reimbursed out of this account.
        Senator Bumpers. That was the only question I had on that,
    because I see the figures all the time but I did not know what
    it included.

                               Prison population

        General Reno, I wanted to ask you a few questions about the
    crime rate in the prison population of the country, if you have
    it. We will go into this with the Bureau of Prisons when they
    appear before this subcommittee in more detail, but I was just
    wondering if you know what the Federal prison population was at
    the end of 1997, and to follow that up, what the projections
    are by the end of the year 2000?
        Ms. Reno. The population by the year 2001 is estimated to
    be 128,111.
        Senator Bumpers. Now, what is the year?
        Ms. Reno. That is 2001. In 1997, the population was
    101,091.
        Senator Bumpers. Does that trend track the preceding years,
    to 1998, 1997? Is the trend about the same?
        Ms. Reno. I am concerned about the overcrowding levels in
    the BOP facilities, and in that regard, the BOP recently
    revised its population projections based on current
    incarceration trends that indicate systemwide overcrowding
    levels will increase from 20 percent in 1998 to 25 percent in
    the year 2001.
        Senator Bumpers. Do you have any idea, or does somebody
    with you? Can they give me, in the prison population, an ethnic
    number of how many African-Americans, how many Hispanics, how
    many Asians, and how many Caucasians are in the prisons?
        Ms. Reno. I do not have that with me.
        Senator Bumpers. You do not have that? Could you provide
    that for us, please?
        Ms. Reno. Yes, sir, we will.
        [The information follows:]

                 Bureau of Prisons Prison Population Breakdown

        Breakdown of the prison population in BOP facilities as of
    March 5, 1998 is as follows:

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                       Category                        Number     Percentage
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Black.........................................       39,073         37.7
    White.........................................       31,906         30.8
    Hispanic......................................       29,302         28.3
    Indian........................................        1,534          1.5
    Asian.........................................        1,749          1.7
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Senator Bumpers. Do you have anything to give the committee
    which would tell us what effect, if any, longer prison terms
    are having on the reduction of crime? The increase that you
    mentioned a moment ago, the increase from 1997 to 2002 is
    pretty dramatic. We see the crime rate going down. I mean, the
    President makes much of that, and we are all very pleased that
    that is the case, but there is something sort of strange about
    the fact that the prison population is continuing to climb at a
    fairly dramatic rate and yet the crime rate is going down. I
    suppose that is a consistent thing.
        Ms. Reno. Well, it goes back again to what Senator Gregg
    and I were talking about earlier, whether if you get enough
    control over a population, can you reduce the number of police.
        The first point that I would like to make is, when crime
    goes down, and I have watched it in my own community, there is
    a tendency to relax and to say, ``We have done the job,'' and
    turn attention to something else. What we have tried to do in
    these 5 years as we have watched crime go down is not relax,
    continue our vigilance, focus on the traffickers, focus on the
    violent gangs, and do everything we can to make sure it
    continues to go down. And so there has been no relaxation on
    our part. If anything, it has been a renewed effort focused on
    violence, focused on drug trafficking, and trying to address
    these issues.
        One of the points that I would make to you, I watched crime
    begin to go down in Miami in 1983 and then suddenly I started
    hearing about a curious phenomena. There was a substance that
    was not cocaine but it really was cocaine but it was called
    crack, and it was violence-inciting and began to cause
    considerable problems in communities, and I saw the crime rate
    start back up.
        One of the things that we have done in the last several
    years is focus on methamphetamine, because I did not want that
    to be the second crack epidemic. We have renewed our efforts
    focused on those that traffic in it, those that have the labs,
    working with State and local law enforcement.
        So I think it requires a constant vigilance, and I do not
    think that the increase in the prison population, particularly
    as you look at the cases that are being brought and the
    convictions that are being obtained, these are serious
    offenders who deserve the time. I think, if I had to analyze
    it, it is an example of continued vigilance on the part of
    State and local and Federal law enforcement.
        Senator Bumpers. General Reno, my staff just handed me a
    list of figures, Mr. Chairman, which I think it would not hurt
    to read into the record, and I will not read all of them, but
    in 1975, that was 22 years ago, there were 25,000 Federal
    prisoners. As you pointed out, at the end of 1997, there were
    101,000. That is, what would you call that, a 400-percent
    increase in a 20-year period, roughly.
        As I read over your testimony, if I read it correctly,
    roughly 75 to 80 percent of the people in prison are there
    because of either alcohol, drugs, or related crimes dealing
    with drugs, is that a fair statement?
        Ms. Reno. I do not have the figures. Those are figures for
    State prisons.
        Senator Bumpers. That was not Federal?
        Ms. Reno. I do not think it specifically applies to
    Federal. Let me clarify that for you, though. But clearly, the
    percentage of people in Federal prison----
        Senator Bumpers. General Reno, if I may, let me read this
    paragraph that I am alluding to here.
        Ms. Reno. Eighty percent, yes.
        Senator Bumpers. Eighty percent of the people serving time
    in Federal and State prisons, you state, were either high at
    the time they committed their crimes----
        Ms. Reno. It says 81 percent of State inmates, 80 percent
    of Federal inmates violated drug or alcohol laws. That is
    correct. I stand corrected, sir.
        Senator Bumpers. That is an incredible indictment of a
    society, of course, that one thing--mostly drugs--because we
    had alcohol before 1975. That shows the debilitating effect
    that drugs are having on this country.

                          Taped telephone conversation

        Let me ask you another question. In 1984, a man named
    Charles Wick, who was head of the U.S. Information Agency,
    admitted that he had taped 87 phone conversations, or it was
    either in excess of 40 or in excess of 80 conversations that he
    had on the telephone with Presidents Carter and Reagan and
    Cabinet members. Do you think that is a good idea, for
    something like that to be legal? It was perfectly legal for him
    to do that because he knew that he was being recorded, but
    President Reagan and President Carter did not.
        Ms. Reno. I come from a State that says that is not lawful
    unless it is done for----
        Senator Bumpers. The States are way ahead of us on that. A
    lot of States are ruling that is illegal, but the Federal
    Government never has.
        Ms. Reno. I would have to look at it in the Federal
    context, but it worked quite fine in Florida.
        Senator Bumpers. I am glad to hear you say that. In
    addition to that, I might point out that if a bill dealing with
    that subject exempted all law enforcement, intelligence
    gathering, employers who have to monitor employees' telephone
    conversations, and so on, if all those exemptions were made,
    that would make it more palatable, would it not?
        Ms. Reno. Well, clearly, that is what Florida law provided
    for and----
        Senator Bumpers. Was that passed while you were Attorney
    General there?
        Ms. Reno. I was not Attorney General.
        Senator Bumpers. I do not mean that, district attorney or
    whatever they call them in Dade County.
        Ms. Reno. I do not know. It was passed either at about the
    time I became State attorney or shortly before.
        Senator Bumpers. Do you remember what your position was on
    it at the time it passed?
        Ms. Reno. For it.
        Senator Bumpers. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

                                Narrowband issue

        Senator Gregg. Madam Attorney General, I have a couple of
    other technical questions with regard to the narrowband issue,
    under the budget that is proposed, you are talking about a
    decrease in spending to meet the requirements of narrowband,
    which is going to be fairly intense, and then increasing it
    dramatically, I think, over almost 200 percent. I am just not
    sure that I understand why we would have such a proposed
    spendout, where we decrease it in 1999 but then are looking at
    a 200-percent increase in 2000.
        Ms. Reno. What we have tried to do in the Department is
    assure that each organization develop a budget estimate based
    on an implementation plan for the conversion. These estimated
    costs vary year by year and we will ask for resources based on
    what we need by year for the plan rather than a steady stream
    of funding.
        The anticipated costs vary based on the requirements for
    and the number of different locations to be converted by year.
    Should resources be provided on a schedule different than the
    project need as stated, the organizations would be forced to
    rethink their implementation strategies.
        So as I understand it, and I will ask those with more
    technical expertise than I on the issue of narrowbanding, you
    may take one part of the country that has particular problems
    and the conversion may be there and there is a rhyme or reason
    to their pattern and we will try to provide any specific
    information we can that would indicate why there is a variance
    over the 10 years.
        Senator Gregg. Well, it is a big issue, and we just have to
    get ready for it from the budget standpoint. We know we are
    going to have the price. What I want to know is what it is
    going to cost. I want to have some sort of projections in which
    we can have some confidence.

                 Federal and State law enforcement communities

        Getting back to Senator Bumpers' question, and I should
    have asked this before he left, my sense is we are just
    overloading the Federal law enforcement community with Federal
    laws that the States already do a pretty good job of. You
    stated that States do a good job in the area of how to properly
    use your phone relative to recording other conversations, and
    it has been a State issue. But as a general concept, should not
    the Congress be a little more sensitive to the pressure that it
    is putting on the Federal law enforcement community, the
    Federal judiciary, and the prosecutorial community by not
    passing laws which are duplicative or basically restatements of
    what the States have already done or where the States have a
    fair amount of responsibility and be a little more sensitive to
    the issues which are Federal as versus State?
        Ms. Reno. What I have tried to do as Attorney General is to
    make sure that I look at it from the perspective of what is in
    the best interest of communities across America, what is in the
    best interest of national security, and what is in the best
    interest based on the principles of federalism. I see a large
    number of laws that are passed that local law enforcement can
    enforce just as well and they are on the books of local law
    enforcement. But situations will arise, for example, such as
    carjacking, where a matter may cross a district line or a
    county line and it will be easier for the U.S. attorney to
    handle the case and everyone would agree that it would be
    appropriate.
        I think it is important that we look at each district,
    recognize their needs and resources are different, and do as we
    have done with our antiviolence initiative and require that the
    U.S. attorneys work with State and local prosecutors, local law
    enforcement to, No. 1, define the violence problem, prioritize
    it, and determine who should do what based not on credit, not
    on turf, but what is in the best interest of the community.
        Senator Gregg. I agree with that. My concern is that the
    Congress keeps, for the purposes of making a political
    statement, passing criminal acts which are traditionally the
    responsibility of the States. As a result, we end up
    overloading our Federal law enforcement community with issues
    that the States have and can do a good job. I think we should
    be sensitive to that and take advantage of our Federal
    resources as an adjunct to or in addition to the State sources,
    not overlap.
        Ms. Reno. Could I just say something on that regard,
    because I think you have just done a wonderful job. I mean, you
    and I disagree, but just in terms of a thoughtful, bipartisan
    approach to law enforcement, I would love to see us get out of
    making political statements in terms of crime and really work
    together, looking at each problem, figuring that it can be
    solved if we come together and use our resources wisely, and I
    think it is happening.
        I think what we have been able to do, working with your
    subcommittee, working with State and local law enforcement, it
    is exciting. It is exciting to see communities come together
    and define their crime problem and take steps to bring it down,
    and if we can continue to follow your pattern and your example,
    I think we could do a lot.
        Senator Gregg. That is very generous of you. Thank you.

                              Training facilities

        On immigration issues, we are going to add another 1,000
    Border Patrol agents. How are the training facilities working?
    I am sorry Senator Hollings is not able to make it, because I
    know this is very sensitive to him. Are we going to have the
    capacity to train these folks and put them in the field and
    have them be experts so we do not end up with people who are
    undertrained or not up to doing the job?
        Ms. Reno. This is a subject near and dear to my heart. I
    have been to Charleston. I was down there early on, making sure
    that we had the capacity as we expanded beyond the Federal Law
    Enforcement Training Center [FLETC], and I am committed to
    making sure that I am not responsible for an agency that puts
    somebody in the field, whether it be a Border Patrol or any
    other agent, who is not trained and is not prepared. I think
    with the facility at Charleston, we are going to continue to be
    prepared, working with FLETC, continue to be prepared to make
    sure that these people are properly trained.
        There will inevitably be, and I do not want to backtrack
    from what I have said before, when you bring in that many new
    agents that fast, you have fewer people in the field with the
    considerable experience necessary to be a field training
    officer, but we continue to look at our assignments and make
    sure that we do everything we can to have the maximum
    experience possible in field training situations.
        Senator Gregg. We are also going to want to get into this
    issue when we have the hearing on counterterrorism relative to
    first responders and how we are doing there.

                               Fingerprint issue

        I want to touch base on where you think we stand with the
    Immigration and Naturalization Service. We have had this very,
    very serious problem, and we just had a report which highlights
    that it was even more serious than many of us had been told.
    Where do we stand?
        Ms. Reno. As I have shared with you before, that agency has
    had significant issues that it has had to address that we
    inherited that have been real problems, and we have tried to
    address them through the development of a system whereby we
    identify what needs to be done, develop objectives, put those
    objectives on timelines, and I meet weekly with the
    Commissioner to review the progress that we are making. If we
    begin to slip, whether it be in hiring or in attaining specific
    goals, we go back, we review it, and I think we are on target.
        Senator Gregg. Where do we stand relative to the
    fingerprints? I see this whole thing, not to simplify it, but
    coming down to our ability to know that the person that we are
    interviewing for citizenship is who they say they are and is a
    legitimate person who should be a citizen. What this really
    comes down to, is the capacity to electronically fingerprint
    and make sure that we can verify it two or three times during
    the system.
        Ms. Reno. I have had some immediate experience with that.
    What we are developing is a process that will be used not just
    for naturalization but with respect to fingerprinting for other
    benefits, as well, and applications are made available. They
    can obtain applications in a convenient manner. They send in
    the application completed and then they are notified to come in
    to centers that are spaced convenient to the major populations
    being served.
        I had my fingerprints taken at just such a center the other
    day and it was impressive to see how it works and what can be
    done. That will immediately--as we develop the technology, we
    can begin to make the immediate match and we can begin to have
    a process in place that----
        Senator Gregg. How far are we from being able to do the
    majority of the work--70 percent of the applicants, 80, 90
    percent?
        Ms. Reno. I would ask Mr. Colgate.
        Mr. Colgate. Senator, we are in the process, as you know,
    of working with the FBI to transmit electronic fingerprints, as
    the Attorney General has indicated in her experience in Miami.
    We anticipate that by mid-March, we will have 70 of these new
    centers open throughout the United States and we will, in a
    major way, beginning April 1, begin electronically transmitting
    digital prints directly to the FBI. We are running it on a
    pilot basis right now. It is a fascinating technology because
    not only does it facilitate the speed of the process, but it
    actually makes it easier for the FBI because it actually does
    an edit check at the facility before the fingerprints are
    transmitted.
        Senator Gregg. So somebody who is interested in the process
    of becoming a citizen will have their fingerprints taken at the
    beginning of the process and then even a couple times during
    the process and then, clearly, before the end of the process.
        Mr. Colgate. The way we have looked at this as far as our
    reengineering, Mr. Chairman, is that we will have the full 10
    prints, and what you are speaking to, to ensure the integrity
    of the process, and we did get a good report in December as far
    as addressing this issue, but in each part of the process when
    the individual comes in, we are going to ask them to give us 2
    prints so that we can ensure that when Steve Colgate who came
    in and filed the application, and Steve Colgate who gave you
    the 10 prints, when Steve Colgate comes in to take the civics
    test or the English test, that it is really Steve Colgate, and
    that when Steve Colgate comes in to take the interview as well
    as the swearing in ceremony, we still want those 2 biometric
    prints to make sure that that individual is the person who was
    involved throughout this whole process.
        Senator Gregg. And those prints will go through West
    Virginia, right?
        Mr. Colgate. Yes, sir.
        Senator Gregg. Why not New Hampshire? [Laughter.]
        I just got on the committee too late.
        I look forward to the hearing on counterterrorism. As you
    know, this is an issue which we have worked very hard on and
    you have certainly been extraordinarily helpful. I think
    progress is being made, and I think people should know about
    it. We still have a long way to go, but people need to know
    that there is an aggressive and comprehensive counterterrorism
    effort ongoing and that is what that hearing will be about.

                         Additional committee questions

        I thank you, Madam Attorney General. There are a couple of
    additional items. Senator Stevens has some questions for you. I
    think some of them may have to do with Alaska. Senator Leahy
    has some questions dealing with CALEA, which we would ask for
    the response to be included in the record.
        [The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
    were submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the
    hearing:]
                         Additional Committee Questions
                     government performance and results act
        Question. How are the annual performance goals in the Department's
    Performance Plan linked to the Department's mission, strategic goals,
    and program activities in the budget request?
        Answer. The Summary Performance Plan, which we have submitted to
    you, sets forth the specific goals the Department expects to achieve in
    fiscal year 1999. These annual goals are consistent with the
    Department's mission and long range goals, as described in our
    Strategic Plan. They are also consistent with our 1999 budget request.
        The Strategic Plan provides the basic framework for our annual
    planning and budgeting activities. Each goal in our Summary Performance
    Plan is directly linked to one of the long-range goals in our Strategic
    Plan. We have displayed the information in an easy-to-read matrix that
    illustrates the relationships between long-range goals and strategies,
    annual goals, and performance indicators. The matrix also identifies
    which components of the Department have lead responsibility for
    specific goals.
        We have required our components to develop their own performance
    plans and to show the relationship of their programs to the strategic
    goals of the Department. These component-specific plans are included
    with their budget justification materials and provide detailed
    information on programs and resources.
        Question. Could you describe the process used to link your
    performance goals to your budget activities? What difficulties, if any,
    did you encounter and what lessons did you learn?
        Answer. The Department of Justice decided several years ago to
    incorporate performance planning under the Results Act with our
    internal budget process. We recognized that performance information is
    vital to making informed decisions about allocating resources.
    Therefore, we revised our budget process to require our components to
    develop annual performance plans as part of their budget requests.
    These individual plans link not only to the Department's overall
    Strategic Plan but also to component budget requests.
        We are convinced that integrating performance planning and
    budgeting is the right way to go, but we recognized that there are
    obstacles. While the budget and the performance plan are consistent,
    they are structured very differently. The budget tends to be component
    or program-specific; the performance plan, more thematic, often
    incorporating multiple activities of several components under common
    goals.
        Question. Does the agency's Performance Plan link performance
    measures to its budget?
        Answer. The Department's fiscal year 1999 Summary Performance Plan
    does not directly link performance goals or measures to budgetary
    resources. Consistent with requirements of the Results Act, the
    Department first designed and developed a five-year strategic plan that
    would subsequently provide the structure for more detailed annual
    performance plans. The Department's strategic plan is organized around
    seven core functions that represent major functional areas of
    responsibility. Performance goals and measures within the fiscal year
    1999 performance plan necessarily flow from this overall framework, and
    are not directly tied to, but are consistent with, the existing budget
    account structure or allocation process. As a result, the Performance
    Plan is more thematic, often incorporating multiple activities and
    organizations.
        Question. Does each account have performance measures?
        Answer. Yes, each component organization within the Department has
    sought to develop and provide its own annual performance plan, which
    identifies the goals and indicators by which it intends to measure
    progress in the upcoming fiscal year. As a result, Department
    components are attempting each year to provide more complete
    information on the results they have achieved and the program
    objectives that they have identified for the coming year. In addition,
    the Department's fiscal year 1999 Summary Plan identifies those
    component organizations that have or share primary responsibility for
    each goal. Therefore, information about resource levels, as well as
    additional program detail, can be obtained by referencing the budget
    requests of these organizations.
        Question. To what extent does your performance planning differ from
    the account and activity structure in your budget justification?
        Answer. The difference is quite substantial. The account and
    activity structure in our budget justification is presented by
    appropriation, component, or major program within those components. As
    noted above, the Department's performance planning is more thematic,
    often incorporating multiple activities and organizations under common
    goals. We believe that this approach has certain advantages, including
    the opportunity to view management issues from both a budgetary and a
    programmatic perspective.
        Question. Do you plan to propose any changes to your account
    structure for fiscal year 2000?
        Answer. We are not certain at this time. As part of our internal
    fiscal year 2000 planning process, we will ask our component
    organizations whether they intend to propose any such changes. These
    types of decisions entail significant revisions to existing budget and
    financial management systems, and must be undertaken only after careful
    deliberation within Department's components.
        Question. Will you provide any changes to the program activities
    described under that account structure?
        Answer. Again, we are not certain at this time. Changes to existing
    program activities is another consideration that will be addressed
    during the Department's fiscal year 2000 internal planning process.
        Question. How were performance measures chosen?
        Answer. The performance measures that are contained in the
    Department's Summary Performance Plan are based on the measures that
    were developed for the Department's Strategic Plan as well as measures
    that the component organizations have developed for their individual
    performance plans.
        How did the agency balance the cost of data collection and
    verification with the need for reliable and valid performance data.
        Answer. To the extent that they were able, in order to keep the
    cost of data collection to a minimum, the component organizations
    developed measures for which reliable and accurate data already
    existed. However, in some cases, component organizations did identify
    measures for which data is not currently collected. On p. 26 of our
    fiscal year 1999 Summary Level Performance Plan: Data Sources, we
    discuss the specific sources of the performance data. We also state
    that we anticipate convening a DOJ working group to oversee our
    performance data needs and capabilities. The assessment will involve
    making difficult tradeoffs between the costs and benefits of
    establishing new data collection systems or making major revisions to
    existing ones.
        Question. Does your plan include performance measures for which
    reliable data are not likely to be available in time for your first
    performance report in March 2000?
        Answer. No. Although not all the data is currently tracked, the
    component organizations intend to begin tracking the data in order to
    be able to include it in the performance report in March 2000.
        Question. What are the key performance goals from your fiscal year
    1999 Annual Performance Plan that you recommend this subcommittee use
    to track program results?
        Answer. The Department's Summary Performance Plan for fiscal year
    1999, Core Functions 1 through 6, contain the key strategic and
    shorter-term performance goals that the subcommittee should track.
    These goals were derived from the individual performance plans of the
    Department's component organizations and they address the major issues
    that the Department will be addressing in fiscal year 1999.
        Question. For each key annual goal, indicate whether you consider
    it to be an output measure (``how much'') or an outcome measure (``how
    well'').
        Answer. By definition, our summary annual performance goals
    represent the results we plan to attain in one year in an effort to
    achieve our five year strategic goal. Therefore we have selected an
    array of measures to indicate the results of our efforts--both output
    and outcome measures. Output measures such as such as the number of
    convictions, arrests, indictments and outcome measures such as the
    number and qualitative assessment of cases that have lead to the
    disruption, dismantlement, or collapse of identified MCE and other
    major traffickers are examples of the mix of measures developed to
    indicate our effort to reduce the capability of the major Colombian and
    Mexican Criminal Enterprises (MCE) and other drug trafficking
    organizations operating along the southwest border of the United
    States. Although the Department will not set targets for those
    measures, we do intend to report on them in our March 2000 performance
    report.
        Question. State the long-term (fiscal year 2003) general goal and
    objective from the agency Strategic Plan to which the annual goal is
    linked.
        Answer. Appendix A of the Department's Summary Performance Plan
    contains a matrix that tracks the Department's long-term goals to the
    fiscal year 1999 annual performance goals.
        Question. In developing your Annual Performance Plan, what efforts
    did your agency undertake to ensure that the goals in the plan include
    a significant number of outcome measures?
        Answer. Our internal Spring Call for fiscal year 1999 budget
    estimates included instructions for components' use in developing their
    performance plans. The guidance emphasized linkage between component
    annual performance plan goals and the Department's Strategic Plan
    goals. In addition, in May 1997, the Attorney General issued a
    memorandum to the heads of Department components stressing that their
    resource requests demonstrate a clear and direct connection between the
    Department's long-term goals and strategies and the components'
    specific performance goals. In it, she emphasized that components
    present a clear, direct link to one or several of the strategic goals
    in the DOJ Strategic Plan and that they identify those summary-level
    performance indicators that best represent the principal outputs and
    outcome of their major programs.
        To articulate our specific plans for fiscal year 1999, the
    Department looked carefully at each strategic goal outlined in the DOJ
    Strategic Plan to determine what actions need to be taken in fiscal
    year 1999 to make progress toward meeting those goals. Using the seven
    core functions of the Department, outlined in the DOJ Strategic Plan,
    as a roadmap, the Justice Management Division (JMD) staff worked with
    each component individually to develop linkages between the DOJ
    strategic goals and those of the components supporting the various
    goals and to establish realistic fiscal year 1999 measures for each of
    the components to ensure progress toward their goals.
        In addition, JMD staff worked with departmental components to
    ensure coordination of cross-cutting efforts aimed at attaining the
    same or related goals. Teams composed of component representatives
    developed outcome measures that will gauge the Department's efforts in
    meeting its fiscal year 1999 goals.
        As well as describing what we plan to achieve in fiscal year 1999,
    we incorporated a referral system into the DOJ Summary Performance Plan
    to point readers to the applicable component plans. The references
    noted in the Summary Plan allow readers to drill down to the more
    detailed component plans to examine their outcome measures.
        As we stated previously, we developed an array of measures, both
    output and outcome, for each of our goals. We were not able to develop
    outcome measures for all of our strategic goals. Because achieving any
    goal involves a process, there are interim milestones that an
    organization must meet. In fiscal year 1999, in many cases, we will be
    in the middle of the process of attaining our strategic goals, and the
    measure of our success will often be an output measure. To the extent
    feasible, the goals and indicators in the DOJ Summary Performance Plan
    focus on intermediate or end outcomes, but many are more ``output''
    than ``outcome'' oriented. As we continue to improve our performance
    plans in the years ahead, we will attempt to include more and more
    outcome type measures.
        Question. Do you have the technological capability of measuring and
    reporting program performance throughout the year on a regular basis so
    that the agency can be properly managed to achieve the desired results?
        Answer. For the vast majority of our indicators, data are already
    collected and reported through existing statistical series and internal
    Justice data systems. Pages 27 and 28 of our Summary Performance Plan
    describe the principal sources of fiscal year 1999 performance data.
        However, we recognize that improvements are likely to be needed. As
    we stated earlier, in fiscal year 1998, we will work with our major
    component organizations to continue to systematically assess our
    performance data needs and capabilities. We anticipate convening a DOJ
    working group, comprised of senior level officials, to oversee this
    assessment and provide recommendations for action. Recommendations may
    involve additional resources to support new or improved data collection
    systems and practices. There is little doubt that performance
    measurement is likely to entail making changes to current tracking and
    reporting systems.
        Question. If so, who has access to the information--senior
    management only, or mid- and lower-level program managers, too?
        Answer. For the most part, line program managers have access to,
    and the need for, much more detailed program performance information
    than that provided to senior-level officials.
        Question. Are you able to gain access easily to various
    performance-related data located throughout your various information
    systems?
        Answer. Generally, yes. However, this will be one of the questions
    addressed by the working group.
        Question. The Government Performance and Results Act requires that
    your agency's Annual Performance Plan establish performance goals to
    define the level of performance to be achieved by each program activity
    set forth in your budget.
        Many agencies have indicated that their present budget account
    structure makes it difficult to link dollars to results in a clear and
    meaningful way. Have you faced such difficulty?
        Answer. Yes, we have faced this sort of difficulty. However, we
    have determined that the best way to proceed at this time is to ensure
    that each major budgetary ``account'' is supported by a GPRA-based
    performance plan that includes programmatic objectives and indicators.
    We believe that integrating GPRA requirements and concepts in this way
    allows a realistic link between dollars and results within the existing
    budget account structure. However, as noted previously and below, this
    does not mean that the opportunity is lost to propose some
    restructuring in the future.
        Question. Would the linkages be clearer if your budget account
    structure were modified?
        Answer. It is difficult to say that linkages would automatically be
    clearer. In some respect, the way in which this Department has
    implemented GPRA allows for a more extensive presentation of program
    performance goals and expected results. As this Committee is aware, the
    ``program'' structure by which our resources are displayed in
    Congressional budget justification material is more detailed than the
    ``budget activity'' account structure contained in the President's
    Budget. We believe the thematic presentation of our component
    organizations' performance plans allows a stronger emphasis on an
    agency's key mission priorities that are not artificially constrained
    by budget structure. This thematic approach also encourages a sharper
    focus on more cross-cutting program goals and tends to establish
    accountability at higher managerial levels.
        Question. If so, would you propose to modify it and why do you
    believe such modification would be more useful both to your agency and
    to this committee than the present structure?
        Answer. As indicated above, we are not prepared at this time to
    propose any modification to the existing structure. As part of our
    internal fiscal year 2000 planning process, we will ask our component
    organizations whether they intend to propose any such changes. These
    types of decisions entail significant revisions to existing budget and
    financial management systems, and must be undertaken only after careful
    deliberation within Department's components.
        Question. How would such modification strengthen accountability for
    program performance in the use of budgeted dollars?
        Answer. As explained above, we have not yet determined whether
    there will be any modifications to our budget structure proposed.
        Question. Under one of the new accounting standards recommended by
    the Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board (FASAB) and issued by
    OMB, this year for the first time all federal agencies are required to
    have a system of Managerial Cost Accounting.
        The clearly preferred methodology for such a system, as stated in
    that standard, is the one known as ``Activity-Based Costing,'' whereby
    the full cost is calculated for each of the activities of an agency.
        What is the status of your agency's implementation of the
    managerial cost accounting requirement, and are you using Activity-
    Based Costing?
        Answer. The Department of Justice has not yet implemented the new
    managerial cost accounting standards. Over the next four months, the
    Department is undertaking a study and evaluation to assess compliance
    with the new managerial cost accounting standards and to establish
    consistent classification definitions required by the new standards.
    Existing Departmental systems currently provide a classification
    structure necessary to satisfy basic cost accounting requirements. The
    Department's organization structure and accounting classification
    structure facilitates the accounting for costs [inputs] by component
    and by program or activity within components. The new standards require
    agencies to examine and realign existing classification structures as
    necessary to ensure appropriate integration with and support for Budget
    Formulation and Strategic Plans.
        The Justice Bureaus and the Justice Management Division (for the
    Offices, Boards and Divisions) individually maintain financial
    information classification structures that employ common data elements,
    common transaction processing, consistent internal control and
    efficient transaction entry. Financial transactions for resource costs
    are categorized in financial and non-financial systems by
    organizational unit [reporting entity and component], funding
    identification [account symbol and year], accounting classification
    [standard general ledger, object class, entity non-entity, federal non-
    federal, and reporting period], and financial accumulators, i.e., units
    of measurements. However, classification structures must be reviewed
    Departmentally for formal and consistent recognition of responsibility
    segments. In addition, classification structures must be designed to
    effectively and efficiently record cost information by Program and
    Project within and across responsibility segments. The Department will
    convene a special Working Group to document and establish a common set
    of definitions necessary to facilitate a determination of technical
    compliance or non-compliance with the new standards.
        With respect to costing methodologies, the Department is engaged in
    a broad range of diverse operations which necessitates the flexibility
    to utilize different costing methodologies. Department components
    primarily use the following costing methodologies: Job order costing
    for discrete jobs [construction projects, audit assignments]; Process
    costing for unique programs engaged in activities involving a regular
    process [Prison industries]; Standard costing in non-financial systems
    [reimbursable service providers]; and Activity-Based costing, which is
    used by some Department components in conjunction with Job order and
    Standard costing .
        Question. Will you be able in the future to show this committee the
    full and accurate cost of each activity of each program including those
    calculations of such items as administration, employee benefits, and
    depreciation?
        Answer. Yes, in all material respects.
        Question. By doing so, would we then be able to see more precisely
    the relationship between the dollars spent on a program, the true costs
    of the activities conducted by the program, and the results of these
    activities?
        Answer. Yes, in all material respects.
        Question. Future funding decisions will take into consideration
    actual performance compared to expected or target performance. Given
    that:
        To what extent are your performance measures sufficiently mature to
    allow for these kinds of uses?
        Are there any factors, such as inexperience in making estimates for
    certain activities or lack of data, that might affect the accuracy of
    resource estimates?
        Answer. We believe that performance data should be interpreted and
    used with caution, especially in the initial period of GPRA
    implementation. Our reasons include:
        Performance measurement in the Federal Government is still in its
    infancy. Although output data have been collected and reported for
    years, the more outcome-oriented information demanded by the Results
    Act is new. We need time to identify, test, and validate indicators
    that fairly and accurately capture outcomes, especially in the areas of
    criminal investigations and prosecutions and civil litigation.
        In a number of areas, baseline data are not available, which makes
    the setting of a target little more than guesswork. One of the clearest
    examples is the lack of agreed-upon data on the availability of illegal
    drugs. We are working with ONDCP to address this issue. We are also
    taking steps to obtain baseline data in several other areas, such as
    the number of communities implementing community policing. But there is
    a long way to go.
        Performance is heavily influenced by factors external to the
    Department of Justice. Outcome data, although important, will not
    demonstrate the extent to which the activities undertaken by the
    Department have, in fact, contributed to the outcomes achieved. To
    establish these relationships, more systematic evaluation is required
    to ascertain just what has caused the particular outcome and why.
        Question. Based on your fiscal year 1999 performance plan, do you
    see any need for any substantive revisions in your strategic plan
    issued on September 30, 1997?
        Answer. No. Our strategic plan provided a solid foundation for our
    fiscal year 1999 performance plan and budget request. Each of our
    annual performance goals relates directly to a long-range goal set
    forth in the strategic plan.
                                     ______

                   Questions Submitted by Senator Ted Stevens
                   immigrant traffic between alaska and asia
        Question. In my judgment, the Department has failed to recognize
    the increased traffic of immigrants between Alaska and Asia, especially
    eastern Russia. More and more Alaskans are complaining about the lack
    of Immigration and Naturalization Service personnel and resources
    necessary to support an efficient immigration process between Alaska
    and Russia. What will the Department do to address these concerns?
        Answer. Traffic between Russia and Alaska consists mainly of
    international flights which are inspected by INS personnel in
    Anchorage, Alaska. Alaska Airlines has weekly service between
    Vladivostok and Anchorage while the Russian airline, Aeroflot, has
    charter flights from various points of origin during the summer months.
    There are also occasional ship inspections, which are handled by our
    Anchorage office. There have been, to our knowledge, no undue delays in
    the inspections. Currently, INS has 65 personnel working in Alaska--up
    55 percent from fiscal year 1993. The District Director in Anchorage
    recently traveled to Fairbanks to explore the possibility of acquiring
    space for a future position in that city. At the present time we are
    unaware of a need for additional resources in Alaska.
                            indian country in alaska
        Question. The administration now recognizes 227 Alaskan villages as
    tribes. The question of whether Indian Country exists in Alaska is
    presently before the Supreme Court. However, without regard to the
    Indian Country issue there exists a large problem involving law
    enforcement and judicial processes in these villages. I am currently
    working with Alaska's governor and the state legislature to develop a
    program to provide these communities with improved law enforcement
    services and better judicial processes. Will you, as Attorney General,
    appoint a representative from the Department of Justice to join us in
    the planning and implementation of this program?
        Domestic violence and child abuse are major problems in Alaska's
    rural communities. Any successful program must recognize and provide
    resources to combat these problems. These areas are not exclusively
    native. The rights of non-native Alaskans and non-citizen immigrants
    must be considered in all stages of law enforcement and throughout the
    judicial process. I believe that a cooperative program by Alaska and
    the Department is the best vehicle for addressing these issues. Could
    we arrange a meeting with the Attorney General, the Governor of Alaska
    and the Congressional Delegation to discuss the Department's
    participation in this program?
        Answer. On February 25, 1998, the Supreme Court held in State of
    Alaska v. Native Village of Venetie Tribal Government that the fee
    lands provided by the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA), 43
    U.S.C. Sec. 1601 et seq., did not constitute Indian country pursuant to
    18 U.S.C. 1151. In the wake of Venetie, therefore, the State has
    certain regulatory authorities over ANCSA lands, which it would not
    have if those lands were Indian country. The Supreme Court did not
    address, however, whether there are other sources of governmental
    authority for Native villages that are not limited to Indian country.
    The Department's preliminary view is that a Native village retains
    sovereign authority over its members even if the village does not
    possess land that qualifies as Indian country.\1\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ The State of Alaska appears to have taken a similar position.
    In its brief before the Supreme Court in Venetie, the State noted that:
    ``Generally speaking, Indian tribes may govern their own internal
    affairs, and thus may `punish tribal offenders,' `determine tribal
    membership,' `regulate domestic relations,' and `prescribe rules for
    inheritance for members' * * *. Tribal jurisdiction to regulate land
    and the activities of non-members, however, turns on whether the tribes
    occupy Indian country.'' Brief for Petitioner at 12-13 n.8.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Whether or not Native villages retain law enforcement authority and
    adjudicatory jurisdiction after Venetie, we must all work to improve
    delivery of law enforcement and judicial services to Native villages. I
    commend your efforts to improve these vital services, and the
    Department would be pleased to assist you in these efforts. To this
    end, I am appointing Thomas LeClaire, Director of the Office of Tribal
    Justice, to work with you in developing and implementing this important
    program.
        In addition, you have inquired about the creation of a Federal-
    State partnership to address domestic violence and child abuse in
    Alaska's rural communities. Family violence has a tremendous impact on
    the growth and spread of crime. A child that observes domestic violence
    grows up to accept violence as a normal part of life and is more likely
    to become an abuser or an abuse victim. As a society we must take the
    position that family violence will not be tolerated. I would be happy
    to meet with the State Attorney General, the Governor of Alaska and the
    Alaska Congressional Delegation to discuss a possible partnership to
    address family violence in Alaska's rural communities. Because we will
    need to work closely with Native villages in this effort, I encourage
    you to include a representative of the Native villages in planning for
    this partnership.
                             rural drug enforcement
        Question. Alaska benefits from a cooperative federal-state program
    addressing drug abuse in our major urban centers. However, the need for
    help is even greater in our rural areas, where unemployment rates often
    exceed 75 percent. High unemployment contributes to the
    disproportionate impact drugs have on Alaska's rural communities. What
    can the Department do to help Alaska and its rural communities overcome
    these challenges and reduce the availability of drugs in these areas?
        Answer. I agree that drug trafficking has a devastating impact on
    our nation's smaller cities and rural areas. We are committed to
    enhancing federal drug law enforcement resources statewide in order to
    combat this growing threat. As such, DEA is in the process of
    developing an enforcement program that will provide the residents of
    smaller cities and towns in Alaska the increased Federal drug law
    resources that have proven to be effective in larger metropolitan areas
    across the country.
        DEA currently helps to reduce the availability of drugs in rural
    Alaska by working aggressively to reduce the supply of drugs statewide.
    Anchorage, Alaska is the state's largest metropolitan area (population
    257,000) and is the principal source city and drug distribution center
    for the state. Supplies and trends observed in the greater Anchorage
    area are directly correlated to the trends and types of drugs seen
    throughout the state and in the more remote outlying cities and
    villages. Therefore, efforts aimed at reducing the supply of drugs in
    Anchorage have a ``ripple'' effect on the rest of the state and
    ultimately help to lessen the availability of drugs in rural locales.
        DEA's Anchorage Resident Office (ARO) is responsible both for
    reducing the supply of drugs entering Anchorage and for the State of
    Alaska as a whole. The ARO has an on-board staffing level of 14, which
    includes 1 Resident Agent in Charge, 4 special agents, 5 task force
    agents and 4 support/contract employees.
        DEA is also already integrally involved in several cooperative
    efforts with our federal, state, and local counterparts to diminish the
    impact of drugs in both urban and rural areas in Alaska. For example:
        In November of 1996, the DEA's ARO agreed to become an active
    member of the Anchorage FBI's Safe Street Initiative under the title of
    Interagency Community Enforcement and Criminal Apprehension Program.
    This multi-agency initiative, consisting of numerous federal, state,
    and local law enforcement agencies in the Anchorage area, continues to
    focus its combined efforts and resources to investigate individuals and
    gangs involved in aggravated crimes of violence and drug trafficking.
    This violence and drug trafficking radiates outwards from metropolitan
    Alaska to the smaller communities throughout the state.
        Since January of 1996, the ARO assigned a DEA special agent on a
    full-time basis to the Alaska State Trooper's Statewide Drug
    Enforcement's Airport Interdiction Unit at Anchorage International
    Airport. Anchorage International Airport is a unique entity as it is
    considered a focal or ``choke'' point for persons entering or leaving
    Alaska. Therefore, the vast majority of drugs in urban and rural Alaska
    will have passed through the airport, either arriving or being
    transported out to the other more distant and remote consumer areas
    such as Fairbanks, Juneau, Homer, and Ketchikan. Consequently, the ARO
    considers the Airport Interdiction Unit to be an extremely valuable
    investigative tool and will continue to develop cases initiated by this
    unit.
        These cooperative efforts have met with considerable success and
    have had a significant impact on drug trafficking and related violence
    in Alaska's urban and rural communities. Some significant
    accomplishments follow.
      --In September of 1996, the Fairbanks Police Department (FPD)
            contacted DEA's ARO and emphasized the dramatic increase of
            illegal street level trafficking of ``crack'' and associated
            problems of violence in their area. FPD also requested DEA's
            direct involvement, assistance, and expertise in dealing with
            the situation. In close cooperation, ARO and FPD began an
            intensive investigation which eventually led to the execution
            of 13 search warrants and the arrest of 34 individuals. To
            date, all defendants have been formally charged in state court.
            The investigation received much media attention statewide, and
            has had a considerable impact on the local ``crack'' cocaine
            traffickers and the violence they caused.
      --In June 1997, a cooperative DEA and Anchorage Police Department
            (APD) investigation into the marijuana cultivation activities
            of Raymond Sorenson culminated in the seizure of marijuana from
            three separate rural grow sites owned by Sorenson. Sorenson was
            arrested and charged in Federal Court in Anchorage and his
            marijuana proceeds valued at approximately $600,000 were seized
            by the government.
        The DEA will continue to help the entire state of Alaska combat the
    scourge of drugs by providing quality training to its federal, state,
    and local counterparts. For example, the ARO has been contacted by
    several state and local law enforcement agencies throughout the State
    of Alaska to provide basic narcotic officer training, as well as asset
    forfeiture training. The United States Attorney's Office conducted an
    asset forfeiture school in Anchorage in November of 1997. In addition,
    a two-week basic drug investigators school is scheduled at Anchorage
    for May of 1998.
        DEA's Mobile Enforcement Team (MET) program is also available for
    use by state and local law enforcement authorities in addressing the
    issue of drug-related violent crime. The MET program was initiated in
    1995 in response to the growing problem of drug-related violence that
    plagues neighborhoods and communities throughout our nation. The MET
    program represents the most ambitious domestic enforcement program that
    DEA has ever undertaken to attack drug-related violence in America.
        At the request of a police chief, sheriff, or district attorney, a
    MET (composed of 8 to 12 DEA special agents) works in concert with
    local police to dislodge violent drug offenders from the community. It
    is DEA's goal to ensure that the state and local officials requesting
    the MET deployment feel completely comfortable in inviting the agency
    into their community.
        DEA's Seattle Division Office currently has a MET stationed within
    the division for use by state and local law enforcement in the State of
    Alaska. The Special Agent in Charge of DEA's Seattle Division will, in
    upcoming weeks, contact law enforcement authorities in Alaska to
    reinforce the availability of this important enforcement resource.
                                     ______

                Questions Submitted by Senator Pete V. Domenici
                       mexico drug certification process
        Question. Attorney General Reno, the Administration is expected to
    announce this week that it has again certified that Mexico is fully
    cooperating in the drug war. Whether Mexico truly deserves
    certification this year is an open question. Another open question is
    whether the certification process itself needs to be altered or
    discarded altogether.
        Could you provide the Committee with an idea of how the Justice
    Department works with the State Department as it reaches its decision
    to recommend that the President certify a particular country?
        Answer. The Department of Justice provides factual information and
    assessments to Administration personnel regarding the cooperation, or
    lack thereof, and compliance with the goals and objectives of the
    United Nations Convention Against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and
    Psychotropic Substances, of the major drug producing and drug transit
    countries identified by the President; in 1997, there were 30 such
    countries. Pursuant to the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 as amended,
    the State Department requests relevant information from all pertinent
    Departments regarding counterdrug cooperation and efforts. The
    Department of Justice, from our perspective, provided an assessment of:
    efficacy of narcotics laws and enforcement, including legislative
    initiatives and bilateral law enforcement cooperation; extradition;
    mutual legal assistance; money laundering and asset forfeiture; control
    of precursor and essential chemicals; maritime cooperation; political
    and official corruption; and political will.
        Question. What role do the U.S. law enforcement agencies play in
    the certification process? Could you please describe how these agencies
    participate in the certification process, and how they interact with
    each other, as well as the various offices at the State Department?
        Answer. DEA and FBI support the annual certification process by
    preparing country briefings on the major drug producing and transit
    countries. These agencies also provide assessments of narcotics
    enforcement; money laundering and asset forfeiture; control of
    precursor and essential chemicals; maritime cooperation; official and
    political corruption; and political will.
        Question. How many man-hours did the Justice Department spend this
    year on the Mexico certification decision? Would you please break that
    down by agency and office?
        Answer. The Department does not keep a record of this kind of
    information and therefore we cannot quantify with precision the number
    of hours Department personnel dedicated to the certification process.
    We view the certification process as a year-round activity in which we
    work in close cooperation with our international counterparts to
    establish goals and work together toward achieving them. From our
    perspective, our bilateral cooperation relationship with Mexico in the
    area of drug law enforcement remains a work in progress. Our goal is to
    eliminate any remaining obstacles to law enforcement cooperation with
    Mexico in recognition of the threat posed to the national security of
    both countries and the international community.
        Question. What are your views on the best way to improve the
    certification process? Is the process fatally flawed, or can you offer
    Congress a way to fix it?
        Answer. The annual certification process is required by federal
    statute and can only be altered through the legislative process. The
    U.S. is exploring other avenues to achieve multilateral counterdrug
    cooperation, including a monitoring and evaluation system the
    Administration and its regional partners in the Organization of
    American States (OAS) have proposed. The objective of this multilateral
    system is to enhance cooperation among our hemispheric partners against
    drug trafficking, use, and their consequences.
        Question. Do you support the notion of a multi-lateral drug treaty
    for the western hemisphere? If so, would the treaty involve supply
    reduction, demand reduction, or both? How would such a treaty be
    enforced?
        Answer. The transnational nature of the drug threat requires a
    multilateral response, and therefore, the Department of Justice
    supports the development of a multilateral counterdrug evaluation
    mechanism in this hemisphere. Building on the 1994 Summit of the
    Americas, the United States and its regional partners in the OAS have
    proposed a framework for enhanced multilateral counterdrug cooperation.
    The Administration expects to advance this concept of monitoring and
    evaluation at the April 1998 Summit in Santiago, Chile.
        Question. I have been one of the Members of Congress pushing for
    the United States to aggressively pursue the extradition of drug lords
    so that they can be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. You state
    that in 1997 Mexico extradited 30 individuals to the United States for
    drug-related crimes. How many of these 30 were Mexican nationals? What
    were the countries of origin for the remaining persons?
        Answer. A total of 23 fugitives for whom extradition was sought by
    the U.S. were surrendered by Mexico in 1997. Eight of them (seven
    extraditees and one expelled fugitive) were for drug-related offenses.
    Of the 23 fugitives surrendered, there were three Cubans, two
    Canadians, one British, one Israeli, and 16 U.S. citizens. No Mexican
    citizen was physically surrendered through the extradition process in
    1997, although 10 Mexican nationals (from a total of 14 persons) were
    found extraditable in 1997, by the Government of Mexico. These 10 cases
    and a case of one other Mexican fugitive found extraditable in 1995 are
    now pending appeals or resolution of their Mexican charges. Five of
    those found extraditable in 1997, and the one found extraditable in
    1995, are sought in the U.S. on drug trafficking charges. Two other
    significant Mexican traffickers, Florencio Blanco-Meza and Arturo Paez-
    Martinez, have been arrested for purposes of extradition to the U.S.
    One Mexican national has already been extradited in 1998, on sexual
    assault charges.
        Question. What are the current plans for the extradition of foreign
    nationals this year? Could you give us the status of these proceedings
    to date?
        Answer. The U.S. Government has approximately 120 active
    provisional arrest and extradition requests pending in Mexico. So far
    in 1998, Mexico has extradited three fugitives to the U.S.: a U.S.
    citizen on drug charges, a Spanish citizen for bank fraud, and a
    Mexican national for crimes of sexual assault on minors. They also
    expelled to the U.S. a U.S. citizen on bank (armored car) larceny
    charges. In November 1997, the U.S. and Mexico negotiated a protocol to
    their bilateral extradition treaty to authorize the temporary surrender
    of persons for trial purposes and their return after prosecution to
    complete the process or sentence against them in the country of their
    initial arrest. The protocol, although signed, has not yet been
    ratified.
                        counterterrorism technology r&d
        Question. With the leadership of our distinguished Chairman,
    Senator Gregg, this Subcommittee began a significant counterterrorism
    initiative in the 1997 bill. These initiatives were greatly expanded
    for fiscal year 1998.
        The 1998 Commerce, Justice, State, and the Judiciary Appropriations
    bill established a Counterterrorism Fund, providing $52.7 million for
    several initiatives. The Fund included $11.5 million to undertake a
    counterterrorism technology research and development program. The
    Subcommittee provided $1 million for the Attorney General, in
    consultation with other federal agencies, to develop a five-year,
    inter-departmental counterterrorism and technology crime plan.
        Ms. Reno, can you provide the Subcommittee with a status report on
    the development of the counterterrorism and technology crime plan
    funded through the 1998 Commerce, Justice, State and the Judiciary
    Appropriations bill?
        Answer. The Conference Committee Report accompanying the 1998
    Justice Appropriations Act requires the Department of Justice to
    develop an interdepartmental Counterterrorism and Technology Five Year
    Plan by December 31, 1998. In response to this Congressional directive,
    representatives from the Department and the Federal Bureau of
    Investigation developed an ambitious 13-page outline of issues to be
    addressed in the final Five Year Plan. This outline has been circulated
    to other agencies with key counter-terrorism responsibilities and their
    comments have been incorporated into the outline.
        A projected work plan has also been developed to assist the
    Department in meeting the deadline of December 31, 1998 for submission
    of the final Plan to Congress. In order to ensure the maximum amount of
    interdepartmental participation in the development of the Five Year
    Plan, a Core Agency Group, consisting of high ranking representatives
    of 15 other federal agencies which have various counter-terrorism
    responsibilities within the government, has been established to help
    develop the Plan. The Core Agency Group had its first meeting on March
    5, 1998. Each agency was asked to complete a lengthy questionnaire
    soliciting information about current and anticipated programs,
    training, research and development projects, and projected resource
    needs in order to fight the perceived terrorist threat over the next
    five years. Responses to the questionnaire will form the basis of a
    discussion paper for use by specialized working groups to be
    constituted from experts identified within the Core Agencies.
        The working groups will meet during the spring to address major
    areas of concern, such as crisis management, consequence management,
    cyber-terrorism, information sharing and intelligence, critical
    technologies/research and development. The working group discussions
    and recommendations will form the basis for developing an interim Plan
    that will be circulated to state and local officials, academic experts
    and experts in the private sector for review and discussion during the
    summer. The drafting of the final Five Year Plan will, therefore,
    reflect consultation with the major federal agency participants in
    efforts to combat terrorism as well as consultation with affected state
    and local representatives, and experts from academia and the private
    sector. As a result, the Department expects that the final Plan will be
    a truly comprehensive one.
        Question. Has the Department submitted a prospectus with estimated
    time lines and major milestones for completion of this plan to the
    Committees as was requested by February 1?
        Answer. The Department has submitted to the Committees the 13-page
    outline as well as an organizational chart and a chart of key dates and
    milestones for completion of specific phases of the project through
    submission of the Five Year Plan to the Committees.
        Question. Do you anticipate consulting with Congress as this plan
    is developed? Would you expect to complete this plan by the end of this
    calendar year as directed by the Appropriations Subcommittees?
        Answer. The Department recognizes the great interest that Congress
    has in the development of the Five Year Plan. Understanding this
    interest, the Department has been consulting with members of the
    Congressional Subcommittees, as well as with staff members of each
    subcommittee, in creating the outline for the Plan and discussing the
    proposed development of the Plan from that outline. The Department
    anticipates additional consultation with Congress as the Plan develops
    during the next several months at the working group level. The
    Department has developed the organizational plan and the work plan with
    the expectation that the final Plan will be completed and submitted to
    Congress by December 31, 1998. The breadth of the outline, as well as
    the directive to create a plan that is truly interdepartmental in
    nature, however, demonstrates that the project is an extremely
    ambitious one.
        The Department is committed to working to complete the Plan and
    submit it to Congress by the end of this calendar year; the scope of
    the project and the amount of interagency coordination required to
    finalize a comprehensive Five Year Plan may make that deadline a
    challenging one to meet. We will advise the Subcommittees, as the
    project progresses during the next several months and as the various
    expert working groups meet to develop their recommendations, as to any
    necessary adjustments to the present timetable.
        Question. How much is requested in the President's fiscal year 1999
    budget for the Department of Justice to continue counterterrorism
    initiatives?
        How does this compare to the funding provided for these programs in
    fiscal year 1998? Could you provide these estimates by agency and
    program?
        Answer. The Department's fiscal year 1998 budget includes $652
    million related to counterterrorism/antiterrorism efforts, including
    prevention, investigation, prosecution, detention, and incarceration.
    This level reflects recent counterterrorism enhancements received in
    1995, 1996, 1997, and 1998, as well as prorated segments of agency
    program resources related to, or supporting, counterterrorism
    activities. In 1999, the Department's counterterrorism-related
    resources total $666 million. Attached is a chart that breaks out these
    resource levels, by agency and by function.
        In addition, the following identifies the $60.3 million in specific
    agency program enhancements requested in the 1999 budget related to
    counterterrorism and threats to the nation's critical infrastructure/
    cybercrime, as well as the current 1998 funding for these programs:
    Counterterrorism/cybercrime initiative
        The United States relies heavily upon its interconnected
    telecommunications and automated information systems for basic services
    such as energy, banking/finance, transportation, and defense. Any
    broadly successful effort by an individual, group, or country to
    disrupt, destroy, or deny access to the National Information
    Infrastructure (NII) could result in serious economic, defense,
    national security consequences. This threat is heightened by the
    increasing number of incidents of computer intrusions by individuals
    who, although possessing limited resources, have demonstrated the
    capability to compromise sensitive computer and telecommunications
    networks extensively.

          1999 COUNTERTERRORISM AND CYBERCRIME INITIATIVE BY COMPONENT
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      Agents/
                                        Positions    Attorneys      Amount
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Federal Bureau of Investigation
     (FBI)...........................          133         (75)  $22,019,000
    Criminal Division (CRM)..........           17         (13)    1,552,000
    Attorney General's
     Counterterrorism Fund (CTF).....  ...........  ...........   36,703,000
                                      --------------------------------------
          Total......................          150         (88)   60,274,000
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

               CURRENT 1998 COMPONENT CYBERCRIME PROGRAM RESOURCES
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      Agents/
                                        Positions    Attorneys      Amount
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Federal Bureau of Investigation
     (FBI)...........................          167         (99)  $23,909,000
    Criminal Division (CRM)..........           21         (16)    2,345,000
    Attorney General's
     Counterterrorism Fund (CTF) \1\.  ...........  ...........  ...........
                                      --------------------------------------
          Total......................          188        (115)   26,254,000
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Of the $52.7 million provided within the CTF in 1998, $20 million is
      to be used for reimbursing Departmental components for extraordinary
      costs incurred in support of efforts to counter, investigate, or
      prosecute terrorism, and to restore the operational capabilities of
      offices destroyed or damaged by terrorist acts. The remaining $32.7
      million in 1998 funds will be used as follows: $1 million to develop a
      comprehensive intergovernmental counterterrorism and technology
      strategy, $10.5 million for counterterrorism research and development,
      $16 million for State and local first responder training and
      equipment, and $5.2 million for State and local bomb technician
      training at FBI's Hazardous Devices School.

        The Department's 1999 budget includes $60.3 million in additional
    funding for counterterrorism/cybercrime for the following:
        Cybercrime and Counterterrorism Investigations.--The FBI's request
    includes 124 positions (75 agents) and $11.6 million to establish six
    additional Computer Crime Squads in Atlanta, Boston, Charlotte, Miami,
    Minneapolis, and Seattle.
        Cybercrime/Counterterrorism Coordination, Threat Assessment, and
    Early Warning.--The FBI's request includes 9 positions and $10.4
    million in additional resources for the National Information Protection
    Center (NIPC), formally the Computer Investigations and Infrastructure
    Threat Assessment Center. Of this amount, $4.6 million is to conduct
    infrastructure vulnerability assessments and $4.3 million is to develop
    a comprehensive Early Warning System. In addition, the request includes
    funding for training, Computer Crime Squad equipment, and staff to
    expand the operations of the Watch and Threat Analysis Unit.
        Legal/Technical Challenges.--The Criminal Division's request
    includes 17 positions (13 attorneys) and $1.6 million for the Computer
    Crime and Intellectual Property Section (CCIPS) to keep pace with the
    rapidly changing legal and technological environment associated with
    cybercrime cases. The Criminal Division plays a critical role in the
    federal effort to protect critical infrastructure, secure lawful use of
    the Internet, and respond to information warfare. The Division provides
    advice to and coordinates federal efforts with state, local and foreign
    governments.
        Implementation of the Recommendation of the President's Commission
    on Critical Infrastructure Protection.--The Attorney General's
    Counterterrorism Fund request includes $36.7 million, including $33.6
    million to implement the recommendations of the President's Commission
    on Critical Infrastructure Protection, including funding for the
    expansion of the NIPC and $3.1 to ensure the continuance of essential
    DOJ/FBI functions during an emergency.
        In addition to the requested enhancement, the Counterterrorism Fund
    includes $16 million in recurred funding to continue efforts to equip
    and train state and local first responders to terrorist incidents.

                DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE COUNTERTERRORISM RESOURCES
                            [In millions of dollars]
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   Counterterrorism/antiterrorism by fiscal
                                                     year
          Agency/component       -------------------------------------------
                                     1996       1997       1998       1999
                                    budget     budget    enacted    request
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Federal Bureau of
     Investigation:
        Law enforcement and
         investigative
         activities.............        188        277        348        327
        Preparing for and
         responding to terrorist
         acts...................         84         82        102        108
        Physical security of
         government facilities
         and employees..........          5          9          8          8
        Physical protection of
         national populace and
         national infrastructure          5         15         20         42
        Research and development          2          4          4          4
                                 -------------------------------------------
          Subtotal, FBI.........        284        387        482        489
                                 ===========================================
    United States Attorneys:\1\
        Law enforcement and
         investigative
         activities.............         15         15         15         15
        Preparing for and
         responding to terrorist
         acts...................  .........  .........  .........  .........
        Physical security of
         government facilities
         and employees..........         10         14         14         14
        Physical protection of
         national populace and
         national infrastructure  .........  .........  .........  .........
        Research and development  .........  .........  .........  .........
                                 -------------------------------------------
          Subtotal, USA.........         25         29         29         29
                                 ===========================================
    Drug Enforcement
     Administration:
        Law enforcement and
         investigative
         activities.............  .........  .........  .........  .........
        Preparing for and
         responding to terrorist
         acts...................  .........  .........  .........  .........
        Physical security of
         government facilities
         and employees..........  .........          5          2          2
        Physical protection of
         national populace and
         national infrastructure  .........  .........  .........  .........
        Research and development  .........  .........  .........  .........
                                 -------------------------------------------
          Subtotal, DEA.........  .........          5          2          2
                                 ===========================================
    Immigration and
     Naturalization Service:
        Law enforcement and
         investigative
         activities.............          1          5          6          9
        Preparing for and
         responding to terrorist
         acts...................  .........  .........  .........  .........
        Physical security of
         government facilities
         and employees..........  .........  .........  .........  .........
        Physical protection of
         national populace and
         national infrastructure  .........  .........  .........  .........
        Research and development  .........  .........  .........  .........
                                 -------------------------------------------
          Subtotal, INS.........          1          5          6          9
                                 ===========================================
    United States Marshals
     Service:
        Law enforcement and
         investigative
         activities.............  .........  .........  .........  .........
        Preparing for and
         responding to terrorist
         acts...................  .........  .........  .........  .........
        Physical security of
         government facilities
         and employees..........         31         25         25         25
        Physical protection of
         national populace and
         national infrastructure  .........  .........  .........  .........
        Research and development  .........  .........  .........  .........
                                 -------------------------------------------
          Subtotal, USMS........         31         25         25         25
                                 ===========================================
    Federal Prison System:
        Law enforcement and
         investigative
         activities.............  .........  .........  .........  .........
        Preparing for and
         responding to terrorist
         acts...................  .........  .........  .........  .........
        Physical security of
         government facilities
         and employees..........  .........  .........  .........  .........
        Physical protection of
         national populace and
         national infrastructure         12         11         16         20
        Research and development  .........  .........  .........  .........
                                 -------------------------------------------
          Subtotal, Federal
           Prison System........         12         11         16         20
                                 ===========================================
    Tax Division:
        Law enforcement and
         investigative
         activities.............          1          1          1          1
        Preparing for and
         responding to terrorist
         acts...................  .........  .........  .........  .........
        Physical security of
         government facilities
         and employees..........  .........  .........  .........  .........
        Physical protection of
         national populace and
         national infrastructure  .........  .........  .........  .........
        Research and development  .........  .........  .........  .........
                                 -------------------------------------------
        Subtotal, TAX...........          1          1          1          1
                                 ===========================================
    Criminal Division:
        Law enforcement and
         investigative
         activities.............          6          8          9         10
        Preparing for and
         responding to terrorist
         acts...................  .........          1          1          1
        Physical security of
         government facilities
         and employees..........          1          1          1          1
        Physical protection of
         national populace and
         national infrastructure  .........  .........  .........  .........
        Research and development  .........  .........  .........  .........
                                 -------------------------------------------
          Subtotal, CRM.........          7         10         11         12
                                 ===========================================
    Civil Division:
        Law enforcement and
         investigative
         activities.............          1          1          1          1
        Preparing for and
         responding to terrorist
         acts...................  .........  .........  .........  .........
        Physical security of
         government facilities
         and employees..........  .........  .........  .........  .........
        Physical protection of
         national populace and
         national infrastructure  .........  .........  .........  .........
        Research and development  .........  .........  .........  .........
                                 -------------------------------------------
          Subtotal, Civil.......          1          1          1          1
                                 ===========================================
    Community Relations Service:
        Law enforcement and
         investigative
         activities.............  .........  .........  .........  .........
        Preparing for and
         responding to terrorist
         acts...................  .........  .........  .........  .........
        Physical security of
         government facilities
         and employees..........  .........  .........  .........  .........
        Physical protection of
         national populace and
         national infrastructure  .........  .........  .........  .........
        Research and development  .........  .........  .........  .........
                                 -------------------------------------------
          Subtotal, CRS.........  .........  .........  .........  .........
                                 ===========================================
    Office of Justice Programs:
        Law enforcement and
         investigative
         activities.............  .........  .........  .........  .........
        Preparing for and
         responding to terrorist
         acts...................  .........          7          7          7
        Physical security of
         government facilities
         and employees..........  .........  .........  .........  .........
        Physical protection of
         national populace and
         national infrastructure  .........  .........  .........  .........
        Research and development  .........         10         12         10
                                 -------------------------------------------
          Subtotal, OJP.........  .........         17         19         17
                                 ===========================================
    Office of Intelligence
     Policy and Review:
        Law enforcement and
         investigative
         activities.............          3          4          4          4
        Preparing for and
         responding to terrorist
         acts...................  .........  .........  .........  .........
        Physical security of
         government facilities
         and employees..........  .........  .........  .........  .........
        Physical protection of
         national populace and
         national infrastructure  .........  .........  .........  .........
        Research and development  .........  .........  .........  .........
                                 -------------------------------------------
          Subtotal, OIPR........          3          4          4          4
                                 ===========================================
    Executive Office for
     Immigration Review:
        Law enforcement and
         investigative
         activities.............  .........  .........  .........  .........
        Preparing for and
         responding to terrorist
         acts...................  .........          1          1          1
        Physical security of
         government facilities
         and employees..........  .........  .........  .........  .........
        Physical protection of
         national populace and
         national infrastructure  .........  .........  .........  .........
        Research and development  .........  .........  .........  .........
                                 -------------------------------------------
          Subtotal, EOIR........  .........          1          1          1
                                 ===========================================
    Counterterrorism Fund:
        Law enforcement and
         investigative
         activities.............         14         24         16  .........
        Preparing for and
         responding to terrorist
         acts...................          2          2         23         16
        Physical security of
         government facilities
         and employees..........          1          2          1          3
        Physical protection of
         national populace and
         national infrastructure          1          1          1         34
        Research and development  .........  .........         12  .........
                                 -------------------------------------------
          Subtotal, CTF.........         18         29         53         53
                                 ===========================================
    JMD-Security and Emer.
     Planning Staff:
        Law enforcement and
         investigative
         activities.............  .........  .........  .........  .........
        Preparing for and
         responding to terrorist
         acts...................          2          3          1          2
        Physical security of
         government facilities
         and employees..........  .........  .........  .........  .........
        Physical protection of
         national populace and
         national infrastructure          1          1          1          1
        Research and development  .........  .........  .........  .........
                                 -------------------------------------------
          Subtotal, JMD-SEPS....          3          4          2          3
                                 ===========================================
          Total, Department of
           Justice..............        386        529        652        666
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ All U.S. Attorney figures are for specific CT enhancements received.
      Figures do not include pro-rated base estimates. Fiscal year 1999
      level does not include the USA's request for Cybercrime, which will
      primarily be used to enhance USA's prosecution efforts in such areas
      as child exploitation/child pornography and more traditional computer-
      assisted or related crime.

         DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE COUNTERTERRORISM/ANTITERRORISM RESOURCES
                    [Budget authority in millions of dollars]
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Fiscal year--
          Agency/component       -------------------------------------------
                                     1996       1997       1998       1999
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Federal Bureau of
     Investigation..............        284        387        482        489
    United States Attorneys.....         25         29         29         29
    Drug Enforcement
     Administration.............  .........          5          2          2
    Immigration and
     Naturalization Service.....          1          5          6          9
    United States Marshals
     Service \1\................         31         25         25         25
    Federal Prison System.......         12         11         16         20
    Tax Division................          1          1          1          1
    Criminal Division...........          7         10         11         12
    Civil Division..............          1          1          1          1
    Office of Justice Programs..  .........         17         19         17
    Office of Intelligence
     Policy and Review..........          3          4          4          4
    Executive Office for
     Immigration Review.........  .........          1          1          1
    Counterterrorism Fund.......         18         29         53         53
    JMD-Security and Emer.
     Planning Staff.............          3          4          2          3
                                 -------------------------------------------
          Total, Department of
           Justice..............        386        529        652        666
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ USMS figures do not include physical security of U.S. Courthouses
      related to funding provided to USMS from the Judiciary Branch
      Appropriation.

                            first responder training
        Question. With the leadership of our distinguished chairman,
    Senator Gregg, this subcommittee began a significant counter-terrorism
    initiative in the 1997 bill. These initiatives were greatly expanded
    for fiscal year 1998, again with strong leadership by our Chairman. The
    1998 Commerce, State, Justice and the Judiciary Appropriations bill
    established a Counter-terrorism Fund, providing $52.76 million for
    several initiatives. The Fund included $21.2 million to improve State
    and Local Response Capabilities in cases of possible chemical or
    biological agents or explosive devices. This would be achieved through
    the purchase of equipment and gear for first responder training efforts
    by experts in the field.
        What is the department doing to fully utilize facilities and
    expertise in First Responder Training for Weapons of Mass Destruction?
        How do you envision this initiative getting some practical
    results--in other words, getting training out to the field so that our
    law enforcement agencies have the ability to respond to terrorists
    incidents if called upon?
        Answer. In 1998, Congress provided $21,200,000 in the
    Counterterrorism Fund to improve state and local response capabilities
    in case of possible chemical or biological agents or explosive devices.
    Of this amount, $5,200,000 was provided for the FBI's Hazardous Devices
    School at Redstone Arsenal, Hunstville, Alabama. These funds will be
    used for the expansion and renovation of the Hazardous Devices School,
    which will allow the FBI to double the number of bomb technicians
    trained each year for improvised explosives and WMD matters. In
    addition, the funding will provide certain items and articles of
    equipment for response to improvised explosive devices by bomb squads,
    including Percussion Actuated Nonelectric disrupters, robots, and
    reference materials.
        Congress also provided $16,000,000 in the Counterterrorism Fund for
    first responder equipment and training, specifically: (1) $12,000,000
    to provide grants for acquisition of terrorism-related equipment for
    state and local agencies; (2) $2,000,000 for support operations of the
    state and local training center for First Responders at Fort McClellan,
    Alabama; and (3) $2,000,000 for operations of a similar training center
    at the New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology. On March 26,
    1998, I signed a memorandum delegating responsibility for these
    programs to the Assistant Attorney General, Office of Justice Programs.
        OJP's long history and experience working with state and local
    jurisdictions provides the knowledge and infrastructure to effectively
    and efficiently administer these programs. OJP will work extensively
    with the FBI in curriculum development and determining state and local
    requirements for the equipment program. OJP will also coordinate its
    efforts with OJP's National Institute of Justice's Office of Science
    and Technology and Bureau of Justice Assistance, the Executive Office
    of National Security, and other Federal agencies as appropriate.
        OJP has a long history of working with state and local agencies to
    administer and implement grant programs and has established strong,
    positive relationships with these jurisdictions. This, combined with
    OJP's proven record of designing and implementing anti-terrorism
    training for state and local jurisdictions, speaks strongly for OJP's
    ability to administer these initiatives and provide first responders
    with hands-on training, technical assistance and the field exercises
    required to prepare them to meet the challenges of responding to
    terrorist acts.
        OJP will develop a comprehensive state and local assistance
    ``umbrella'' that will administer the new equipment program and the
    training initiatives at Fort McClellan, Alabama and at the New Mexico
    Institute of Mining and Technology, along with OJP's current $5 million
    First Responder Training Program for Fire and Emergency Medical
    Personnel. This umbrella will provide a focused, responsive, long-term
    national capability to execute a comprehensive and highly coordinated
    first responder training, test, and exercise program.
        OJP's efforts will also include the utilization of a consortium of
    universities, research institutions and other facilities that have
    resources and expertise critical to the success of any program designed
    to assist state and local jurisdictions respond to terrorist acts.
    Initially, OJP will coordinate efforts with the several university and
    research facilities included in the Conference Report. This will
    further ensure that appropriated funds are used in a coordinated and
    complementary manner. Further, such a consortium will provide OJP a
    means to identify and coordinate resources and expertise that exist at
    other universities and institutions across the nation.
        OJP's existing grant-making infrastructure will enable it to
    effectively and efficiently develop and implement the equipment
    acquisition grant program, and will ensure these funds are obligated as
    quickly as possible. Such equipment will include protective gear and
    detection, decontamination and communications equipment. These
    discretionary grants will be jurisdiction-specific and will be awarded
    based on guidelines and criteria being developed by OJP in cooperation
    with the FBI, which will consider the equipment needs of fire,
    emergency medical services, hazardous materials response teams, and law
    enforcement. This equipment list is also being coordinated with the
    National Fire Academy and the International Association of Fire Chiefs.
    OJP will provide necessary technical assistance to the applicant
    agencies to ensure that the equipment acquired through this program is
    the most appropriate and technologically advanced available. The demand
    for first responder equipment is tremendous; there are an estimated
    3,000,000 to 5,000,000 first responders working across the Nation.
        With respect to the training program under development at Fort
    McClellan, OJP is designing an incident management course for fire and
    command staff as well as a tactical considerations course for hazardous
    materials units and emergency medical personnel. OJP is in the process
    of determining what personnel should be trained at the Fort, although
    first responder training could be appropriate for state and local law
    enforcement, firefighters, emergency medical personnel, public works
    personnel, and state and local emergency management employees.
        OJP is also working with the New Mexico Institute of Mining and
    Technology, which already has a training program in place, to establish
    agreements as to training curriculums, trainers and trainee groups.
    Based on its expertise in large-scale explosives, the Institute is well
    suited for explosives-related research and operational bomb-related
    training for state and local first responder personnel.
                       special immigrant juvenile status
        Question. Attorney General Reno, last year this Subcommittee passed
    minor modifications to the Special Immigrant Juvenile Status provisions
    located in Section 101(a)(27)(J) of the Immigration and Nationality
    Act. Those modifications were intended to close a loop-hole in the law
    whereby individuals who the statute was not designated to protect were
    seeking and obtaining coverage.
        Can you please update the Subcommittee as to the status of the
    implementation of those modifications and whether the new system is
    working more effectively?
        Answer. In April 1997, the Immigration and Naturalization Service
    (INS) drafted and submitted proposed language to amend section
    101(a)(27)(J) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA).
        On November 26, 1997, legislation contained in section 113 of S.
    1022, fiscal year 1998 Appropriations Bill, amending the Act was signed
    by the President.
        INS is drafting field instructions for interim implementation of
    the amendments to section 101(a)(27)(J) and will issue these
    instructions shortly.
        INS is also in the process of drafting interim regulations with a
    public comment period for publication in the Federal Register. INS is
    aiming to complete the drafting and review of the interim regulations
    in July 1998. INS will review comments and draft a final rule for
    publication in the Federal Register in December 1998.
                         border patrol deployment plan
        Question. Ms. Reno, you state that since you became the Attorney
    General in 1993, Department of Justice budgets have increased 87
    percent as Congress and the White House have waged the war against
    crime, illegal drugs, illegal immigration, youth crime and violence,
    and most recently, terrorism. Congress has funded dramatic increases in
    the numbers of Border Patrol agents within the Immigration and
    Naturalization Service (INS) over the past several years, and has
    worked with the Administration to ensure that they are deployed most
    effectively, even in the less heavily populated states such as New
    Mexico.
        INS authorized employment has increased from 18,400 positions in
    fiscal year 1993 to 29,349 in fiscal year 1998. With the additional
    personnel proposed in the fiscal year 1999 budget, INS positions would
    increase by more than 13,000 over a seven-year period.
        How many of the INS positions are Border Patrol positions, and
    would you provide the Subcommittee with a breakdown of the number of
    Border Patrol agents funded, the number trained and deployed, and where
    those deployments took place by region and state?
        Answer. In 1993, of the total 18,130 INS positions, 4,863 were
    Border Patrol positions. Of the total 28,894 INS positions in 1998,
    9,351 (w/enhancements) are Border Patrol positions. Border Patrol
    positions consist of agents, administrative support, radio technicians,
    mechanics, and other maintenance operations support personnel. The
    number of funded Border Patrol agent positions (including pilots) in
    1993 were 4,288 and in 1998 the number is 7,947, including the 1,000
    new agents. This meets President Clinton's goal of 7,000 Border Patrol
    Agents by fiscal year 1998.

                                   NEW AGENTS TRAINED AND DEPLOYED BY REGION AND STATE
                                            [Fiscal year 1994-1998 Proposed]
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      1994      1995      1996      1997      1998
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Eastern Region: Puerto Rico...................................  ........  ........  ........  ........  ........
    Central Region:
        Texas.....................................................  ........       328       100       360       625
        New Mexico................................................        50        15        31        76        45
    Western Region:
        Arizona...................................................  ........       128       251       228       196
        California................................................       300       229       428       328       134
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Note.--There were no new deployments in fiscal year 1993 by the Border Patrol.

        Question. I thank you for the work you have done to be sure that
    the El Paso sector, which covers New Mexico, receives adequate
    personnel, and I hope the Department of Justice, and especially INS,
    will continue to focus on an overall border strategy, considering the
    needs of New Mexico and Arizona, as well as the larger states of Texas
    and California.
        The Committee is currently reviewing the proposed INS deployment
    plan for fiscal year 1998. What is the major thrust of the proposed
    plan, and how do you envision it as a component of an overall southwest
    border strategy over the next several years?
        Do you think the plan is balanced in its approach to the problems
    along the border and to providing southwest border states, including
    New Mexico, the resources they need to address these situations?
        Answer. The major thrust of the fiscal year 1998 deployments is to
    target resources to counter the current high priority areas of illegal
    entry attempts as well as anticipating shifts in the flow of illegal
    traffic into previously little-used stretches of the border including
    eastern California, New Mexico and the south Texas border. The overall
    southwest border strategy for the Border Patrol continues to be gaining
    control of the border by concentrating resources in the busiest illegal
    entry corridors first. The challenge for the INS over the next several
    years will be to gain and maintain control of the major corridors as
    neighboring areas experience significant growth in illegal alien
    traffic and as smuggling organizations seek new entry routes. The
    overall strategy must also include a commitment to providing new
    resources at the border ports-of-entry and to stronger enforcement in
    the interior of the United States in order to ensure a balanced and
    comprehensive approach to the prevention and deterrence of illegal
    immigration. The National Border Control Strategic Plan was developed
    to ensure that all of the Nation's border is provided with the
    resources necessary to gain and maintain control of illegal entries
    into the United States. The systematic and phased approach in the
    deployment of significant resources is sound and has proven that
    significant improvements can occur and will continue to do so in
    control of illegal immigration at the border.
        There must be a balanced approach to addressing illegal immigration
    occurring along the border. A premise of the Border Patrol's National
    Strategic Border Control plan is that every area of the border must be
    addressed and that every area is an integral part of the national plan
    to ensure that the entire border is controlled against illegal entry.
    The INS plan is a balanced plan with the appropriate systematic
    deployment of resources to the areas with the highest levels of illegal
    entries first and continuing the deployments to other locations has
    control is gained in those areas. The New Mexico border has been
    targeted within the INS plan for additional resources over the last two
    years due to the increase in illegal alien traffic coming from west
    Texas and eastern Arizona. Operation Rio Grande is also currently
    enhancing border enforcement throughout Texas and New Mexico and will
    continue to do so as permanent staffing is deployed to these areas in
    1998.
        Question. Ms. Reno, in the proposed deployment plan, the El Paso
    sector is slated for 45 Border Patrol positions, and 6 support
    positions. The Department indicates that the majority of the positions
    are slated for New Mexico, and especially for checkpoints, including
    those in Deming and Lordsburg. How many agents and support positions
    are specifically envisioned for New Mexico in the current deployment
    plan of INS for the Border Patrol?
        Answer. The current deployment plan includes 45 Border Patrol
    agents and 1 support position to be assigned to stations located within
    the State of New Mexico. This new deployment will bring the total
    number of agents assigned to New Mexico stations up to 476. This new
    agent level in New Mexico stations represents 48 percent of the total
    991 agents assigned to the El Paso Sector. In addition to these new
    deployments, the Border Patrol currently has Operation Rio Grande
    underway which targets enhanced border enforcement along the Texas and
    New Mexico border. The INS will be closely monitoring border conditions
    as this operation progresses and is prepared to respond if necessary
    with additional overtime and a detail of agents to New Mexico border
    stations.
        Question. What is the INS rationale for this level of personnel for
    New Mexico out of the 1,000 new agents and additional INS positions
    that are funded for fiscal year 1998? Do you think the plan treats New
    Mexico fairly?
        Answer. The National Strategic Plan, developed in 1994, outlines a
    method by which INS will regain acceptable levels of control over the
    border. This is done by focusing resources in prioritized target areas,
    and remaining in those areas until each has reached the desired level
    of management. This incremental approach to targeted enforcement has
    been very successful in areas such as El Paso, Texas and San Diego,
    California.
        Last year, the Central Region of INS developed a Texas/New Mexico
    Enforcement Strategy. The Central Region initiated enforcement efforts
    in McAllen and Laredo, Texas (Central Region's Corridor I area) with
    the commencement of Operation Rio Grande. The deployment of
    enhancements into Central Region is heavy in the Corridor I area in
    order to support the Rio Grande strategy. Operation Rio Grande is
    working and acceptable levels of control in the Central Regions primary
    corridor are on the horizon. New Mexico is part of the Central Region's
    enforcement strategy, and will become the primary target focus of the
    strategy as acceptable levels of control are gained, incrementally,
    inland from the Gulf of Mexico.
        The plan is fair to New Mexico, in that, if we do not hold to the
    strategy and were to begin diluting our resources, New Mexico would
    receive more personnel in the short term, but the long-term impact
    would be a lack of acceptable control across the border.
        Question. Were this deployment to be completed, how many Border
    Patrol agents and INS personnel will be serving in New Mexico, and
    where would these people be deployed? Could you justify this allocation
    based upon caseload factors, areas to be covered, etc, and provide that
    information for the hearing record?
        Answer. Provided below are the staffing levels anticipated upon the
    completion of the 1998 deployments to the Border Patrol stations
    located in New Mexico:

    Border Patrol Agents (includes supervisory personnel)

    Las Cruces........................................................   127
    Alamogordo........................................................    76
    Santa Teresa......................................................   127
    Deming............................................................    83
    Lordsburg.........................................................    34
    Albuquerque.......................................................     4
    Carlsbad..........................................................     6
    Silver City.......................................................     2
    Truth or Consequences.............................................    17

        Provided are the staffing levels anticipated upon the completion of
    the 1998 deployments to the INS offices located in New Mexico:
    Investigations
        Albuquerque--1 Officer in Charge; 1 Assistant Officer in Charge;
    and 13 Criminal Investigators.
    Inspections
        Albuquerque--1 Immigration Inspector.
        Santa Teresa--3 Immigration Inspector.
        Columbus--1 Senior Inspector; 1 Special Operations Inspector; 1
    Supervisory Inspector; and 8 Immigration Inspectors.
    Detention and Deportation
        Albuquerque--1 Deportation Officer and 3 Deportation Enforcement
    Officers.
    Adjudication
        Albuquerque--3 District Adjudication Officers.
        The goal of the Central Region Strategy and Operation Rio Grande is
    to positively impact on the greatest number of people living and
    working along the border by incrementally achieving acceptable levels
    of control along the entire southwest border. To achieve the greatest
    impact, Central Region prioritized high population areas that were
    experiencing high levels of illegal immigration. New Mexico is less
    populous than Texas and has fewer large metropolitan areas impacted by
    the illegal border crossing problem. The remote nature of New Mexico's
    border with Mexico has deterred the high levels of illegal border
    activity experienced in the cities of McAllen, Laredo, and El Paso. As
    of February 23, 1998, Central Region Border Patrol Stations apprehended
    a cumulative total of 53,492 illegal aliens. Of these, 27,589, (51.5
    percent) were at stations in Corridor I, while 6,278 (11.7 percent)
    were apprehended at Border Patrol Stations in New Mexico.
        Question. Are you confident that INS will implement this plan as
    developed in consultation with the appropriate committees of the
    Congress?
        Answer. The INS has successfully demonstrated over the past four
    years that the Border Patrol will deploy the new agents and support as
    planned. The Service is confident that with the experiences learned
    during this time that the implementation of the 1998 deployments will
    be successfully accomplished. Due to uncertainties associated with the
    constant changes in conditions on the border, it may become necessary
    to make adjustments to the proposed plan during the year. However, no
    permanent changes to the proposed plan will be made without the prior
    notification and approval of the appropriate committees of Congress.
                      redeployment of border patrol agents
        Question. Ms. Reno, as part of our action on the 1996 Commerce,
    Justice, State, and Judiciary Appropriations bill, Congress assumed the
    redeployment of 200 Border Patrol agents from interior offices to the
    border. I think the rationale is valid in that Border Patrol agents are
    highly trained law enforcement personnel who should be doing the job
    they are trained to do. However, these Border Patrol agents also carry
    out vital work in the interior of our states.
        I understand that the Department is currently working on an
    Integrated Interior Enforcement Strategy, and that the 1999 budget
    includes $115 million to support 745 new positions to specifically
    address illegal immigration in the interior of the United States.
        How does the Department envision the Integrated Interior
    Enforcement Strategy helping secure the southwest border?
        Answer. A systematic approach to broad-based immigration
    enforcement throughout the United States will help reduce incentives
    for illegal migration and illegal activities, as well as remove
    individuals unlawfully present in the country. This will have two major
    results: To promote national security, public safety, economic and
    social systems security, and preservation of constitutional rights; and
    to help secure the border, including the southwest border, by making it
    more difficult for illegal migrants to become securely established in
    the United States, thus making it less attractive and profitable to
    attempt illegal entry.
        Question. Ms. Reno, do you believe there is a valid role for the
    Border Patrol in some of our interior cities? What do you see that role
    to be?
        Answer. The first and foremost enforcement priority for the Border
    Patrol is control of our borders, and we are making good progress in
    that direction. Border Patrol agents have been effective working with
    INS investigators in the interior of the country, and INS will continue
    to use them in a limited, supporting role. The closer Border Patrol
    agents are to the immediate border they are charged with protecting,
    the more effective they are.
        There is no question that interior enforcement operations conducted
    by uniformed agents send a message to alien smugglers that there is
    depth to INS enforcement efforts. Border Patrol traffic check and
    transportation check operations are effective means of locating
    smuggled loads of aliens and drugs and provide a deterrent effect at
    the border. INS investigators are the most effective resource for
    locating illegal alien criminals, smugglers and those employed
    illegally in the interior of the country.
        Question. What is the anticipated schedule for completing the
    Integrated Interior Enforcement Strategy? What is the anticipated
    schedule to implement this plan?
        Answer. On September 17, 1997, INS contracted for a study to
    develop a series of options to be considered in building an INS
    Interior Enforcement Strategy. INS submitted an interim report to
    Congress on April 6, 1998. Based on the recommendations of the study,
    INS will submit a final report on its comprehensive, integrated
    interior enforcement strategy. INS expects to complete this task during
    the summer of 1998. Implementation of the plan should occur in fiscal
    year 1999.
                       law enforcement in indian country
        Question. I am pleased to see the Administration's focus on the law
    enforcement situation in Indian Country, and its efforts to have the
    Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) and the Department of Justice agencies
    work together on this issue. The Department of Justice budget
    highlights a request of $157.5 million in new and redirected funds as
    part of a joint $182 million initiative with the Department of Interior
    and BIA to address the public safety situation on Indian lands.
        Ms. Reno, could you please provide the Subcommittee with an
    analysis of the new funding in the 1999 budget to be targeted to the
    Indian Law Enforcement Initiative?
        Answer. New funds for this initiative for the Department of Justice
    total $51,475,000. In addition, BIA is requesting $25,000,000 in new
    funding. The Department of Justice increases are summarized below:
      --$4,657,000 and 50 positions (including 30 agents) for the FBI, to
            be dedicated to investigations in Indian Country. To improve
            the investigation of violent crime in Indian Country, including
            homicides, child physical and sexual abuse, and gang-related
            criminal activity, the FBI requests positions to implement two
            new Safe Trails Task Forces and enhance four current task
            forces. These additional positions will be assigned to the
            Minneapolis, Phoenix/Albuquerque, Salt Lake City, Oklahoma
            City, Las Vegas, and Seattle field offices.
      --$3,352,000 and 31 positions for full-time Victim/Witness
            Coordinators to be assigned to FBI resident agencies with
            jurisdiction that includes Indian Country. The Victim and
            Witness Protection Act of 1982, Crime Control Act of 1990, and
            Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 require
            the federal criminal justice system to respond to the needs of
            crime victims and witnesses. The 1995 Attorney General
            Guidelines for Victim and Witness Assistance established
            procedures for implementation of these laws by federal
            investigative, prosecutorial and correctional personnel. The
            Attorney General Guidelines apply in all FBI cases in which
            individual victims are adversely affected by criminal conduct
            or in which witnesses provide information regarding criminal
            activity. The FBI developed a comprehensive plan to implement
            the Attorney General Guidelines, which includes a detailed list
            of duties to be performed by FBI Victim/Witness Coordinators.
            While the Victim/Witness Coordinator position is primarily a
            collateral duty in the FBI, increases in violent crime,
            especially gang violence, homicides, and crimes against
            children, dictate that additional full-time Victim/Witness
            Coordinators are needed in Indian Country.
      --$3,466,000 and 35 positions (including 26 attorneys) in support of
            the violent crime programs of the offices of the United States
            Attorneys with significant areas of exclusive federal criminal
            jurisdiction. Federal investigation and prosecution of most
            felonies in Indian Country cannot be deferred to a local
            (county or state) jurisdiction. Federal law enforcement is both
            the first and the only avenue of protection for the victims of
            these crimes. Local jurisdiction applies only when both victim
            and offender are non-Indians. Like the United States Attorney
            for the District of Columbia, United States Attorneys in Indian
            Country are effectively district attorneys for the citizens in
            their districts; they have the sole responsibility for
            prosecuting all major crimes committed by or against Indians on
            the reservations in their districts. Additional positions are
            needed if the Federal Government is to make a serious and
            sustained effort to meet its jurisdictional responsibility to
            Indian peoples.
      --$20,000,000, part of the $95,000,000 request for the Office of
            Justice Programs, Juvenile Crime Control and Prevention, Title
            V At-Risk Children's Grants Program, will be directed to a new
            juvenile justice prevention and intervention initiative in
            Indian Country. Juvenile crime is a growing problem in Indian
            Country. This initiative will improve coordination and
            cooperation among tribal governments, federal agencies, and
            other organizations serving Indian youth by developing,
            enhancing, and supporting operations of tribal juvenile justice
            systems, targeting alcoholism and substance abuse. It will also
            focus on reducing the incidence of crimes against children in
            Indian Country. Working with tribal justice systems, programs
            will be tailored to fit the needs of Indian communities.
            Programs could include after-school and tutoring programs;
            Tribal courts and Teen Court activities and training; youth
            shelters; treatment and intensive supervision services; child
            abuse and neglect prevention, intervention and treatment
            services; job readiness and skill building; legal advocacy for
            Indian youth; and technical assistance and training, among
            other activities.
      --$10,000,000 of the $85,000,000 requested for a new Drug Testing
            Initiative in 1999 will be targeted for Indian Country. As used
            here, the term ``drug'' includes alcohol. The Drug Testing
            Initiative will be a discretionary grant program and will
            provide funding primarily to local units of government and
            Indian tribes for the planning, implementation and enhancement
            of comprehensive programs of drug testing, drug treatment, and
            graduated sanctions for individuals within the criminal justice
            system. Research has shown that when drug testing is combined
            with effective interventions, drug use can be curtailed within
            the criminal justice population. Further, recent studies
            demonstrate that drug-dependent individuals who receive
            comprehensive treatment decrease their drug use, decrease their
            criminal behavior, increase their employment, improve their
            social and interpersonal functioning, and improve their
            physical health. Funding would be available to Tribes for
            planning, implementation, and enhancement of comprehensive drug
            and alcohol treatment programs; training and technical
            assistance; and program evaluation.
      --$10,000,000 for discretionary grants to assist tribal governments
            in the development, enhancement, and continuing operation of
            tribal judicial systems. Tribal courts are an integral part of
            the criminal justice system in Indian Country, and have
            experienced tremendous workload increases in the past few
            years. This grant program will assist tribal courts by
            providing financial and technical assistance for federally-
            recognized Indian tribal governments for tribal judicial
            systems; by providing training for federal, state, and tribal
            court personnel; and by promoting cooperation and coordination
            among tribal justice systems and the federal and state
            judiciary systems.
        Question. Could you also please provide the Subcommittee with an
    analysis of the funds that will be redirected to this initiative from
    within the Department if that is indeed the case? From the Department
    of Interior, and specifically BIA?
        Answer. Funds will be redirected from two grant programs within the
    Department of Justice for this initiative: the Community Oriented
    Policing Services (COPS) program and the Office of Justice Programs,
    Correctional Facilities Grants Program. Redirected funds, totaling
    $106,000,000, are as follows:
      --$52,000,000 of the $711,000,000 requested for the Correctional
            Facilities Grants Program in 1999 is targeted for construction
            and renovation of detention facilities in Indian Country. There
            are 71 detention facilities in Indian Country, most of which
            are in such poor condition that they do not comply with
            building codes or professional and Bureau of Indian Affairs
            standards. These inadequate jail structures contribute to high
            suicide rates among Indian detainees. Most Indian Country jails
            are extremely crowded, and some Tribes lack facilities
            altogether and must transport prisoners to other locations.
            Since tribal officers usually transport these prisoners, police
            availability for other law enforcement functions is reduced
            further. Correctional Facilities Grants Program funding is
            needed to improve detention in Indian Country by constructing,
            renovating, and repairing Indian Country detention facilities.
      --$54,000,000 of the $1,420,000,000 requested for the COPS program in
            1999 will promote community policing and will improve law
            enforcement capability on Indian lands. A total of 6 positions
            and 3 workyears are also requested to administer this program.
            As of February 1998, the COPS program has funded over 700
            officers in Indian Country. In light of the continuing and
            pressing need for additional uniformed officers in Indian
            Country, the COPS program will expand its focus on Tribal
            needs. Grants and cooperative agreements will be for the hiring
            or rehiring of additional career law enforcement officers for
            deployment in community policing, for additional grant projects
            as authorized by law, and for other purposes (including the
            procurement of essential equipment, technology, and training)
            directly enhancing the capabilities of tribal law enforcement
            officers and their agencies.
        The funds included in the Initiative by the BIA are new monies
    requested for fiscal year 1999. The BIA will focus the core of its
    $25,000,000 request on providing additional trained and equipped law
    enforcement and detention personnel in Indian Country in areas not
    addressed by the Department of Justice (such as BIA-operated law
    enforcement programs on reservations). This will allow both agencies to
    maximize Federal funds without duplicating services. The BIA will also
    implement a change in its budget and line authority in fiscal year 1999
    to ensure a professional law enforcement and detention structure
    realigned under the Director, Office of Law Enforcement Services, BIA.
        Question. Did the Administration seek the input of the nation's
    tribal leaders as it developed this law enforcement initiative?
        Answer. Yes. On August 27, 1997, the President directed the
    Secretary of the Interior and me, working in conjunction with tribal
    leaders, to analyze law enforcement problems on Indian lands and
    suggest ways for improving public safety and criminal justice in Indian
    Country. To carry out the President's directive, we formed an
    experienced, interdepartmental ``Executive Committee for Indian Country
    Law Enforcement Improvement.'' One third of the 18 Executive Committee
    members were tribal leaders who represent diverse interests, cultural
    backgrounds, and geographic areas. In addition, at the request of the
    Executive Committee, U.S. Attorneys led an unprecedented series of
    tribal consultations on Indian Country law enforcement across the
    country during September and October 1997. In the lower 48 states, more
    than 205 Tribes participated in these consultations. In addition, an
    official from the Department of Justice's Office of Tribal Justice met
    with tribal leaders at the annual Alaska Inter-tribal Council
    Conference. This funding initiative results from these efforts.
        Question. What do you see as the highest priority need for law
    enforcement resources in Indian Country?
        Answer. The law enforcement needs in Indian Country center around
    building a capable, trained, and equipped investigator and uniformed
    officer cadre that is commensurate in size with other non-tribal areas
    of the country that have similar population densities. In addition,
    however, we need to keep our focus on the entire criminal justice
    system needs, which include crime prevention and intervention efforts,
    substance abuse treatment, and detention. Our highest priority should
    be to maintain a balanced approach to improvements by providing fully
    equipped and trained uniformed officers; FBI and BIA criminal
    investigators, FBI Victim Witness Coordinators; Assistant U.S.
    Attorneys; detention facility construction, renovation and repair
    funding; funding for Juvenile Justice, substance abuse testing and
    treatment, and assistance to tribal courts.
                                 juvenile crime
        Question. Please further explain the Administration's proposed new
    Grants to Prosecutors' Offices to Target Gang Crime and Violent
    Juveniles program. How would states qualify to receive funding under
    this new program? How precisely would states use the new grant money?
        Answer. This new program, known as the Prosecutorial Initiatives
    Program, will be a discretionary grant program which will solicit
    requests for funds directly from state and local prosecutors' offices.
    Applications will then compete against each other so that the most
    highly qualified receive funding. Specific program guidelines would be
    prepared once appropriations have been provided. With these funds,
    prosecutors' offices would be able to enter into partnerships with
    school officials, probation officers, social service professionals and
    community members to develop and implement programs targeting gangs,
    gang violence and other violent crime, as well as implement strategies
    to attempt early identification of youth at high-risk of joining gangs
    or committing violent crimes. Prosecutors' offices would also be able
    to hire new gang prosecutors to deal specifically with juvenile
    violence crime cases, thereby speeding up the prosecution of violent
    juvenile offenders.
        Question. Please provide your estimate of how many new prosecutors
    would be funded by the Administration's proposed new $50 million
    Community Prosecutors Program?
        Answer. Of this amount, at least 80 percent, or $40 million, is
    available for hiring prosecutors. At an average of approximately
    $60,000 each, about 650 prosecutors could be hired.
        Question. I understand that the Administration has proposed to
    restructure current Juvenile Justice Programs. Please provide a
    detailed description of how this would work.
        Answer. On February 17, 1997, the President announced a broad
    initiative aimed at mounting a full scale assault on juvenile crime and
    youth violence in America. The Administration's proposal was
    transmitted to the Congress on February 25, 1997 as part of its ``Anti-
    Gang and Youth Violence Act of 1997.'' As part of that initiative, the
    Administration proposed changes to the current structure and programs
    of the Justice Department's Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
    Prevention (OJJDP). OJJDP is the principal Department component with
    responsibility for assisting state and local jurisdictions improve and
    better administer their juvenile justice systems, help at-risk youth,
    and further assist state and local jurisdictions prevent and control
    juvenile crime and violence. OJJDP also has the responsibility for
    working with other Federal agencies to provide for a coordinated
    Federal approach to juvenile justice issues.
        Under the Administration's proposal, states and local governments,
    Indian tribal governments, and non-profit organizations would be given
    increased flexibility in accessing and using Federal juvenile justice
    grant funds, while still ensuring that monies are targeted to places
    that need the most help and to programs and activities that work.
    Specifically, this proposal:
      --Restructures many of OJJDP's categorical grant programs (e.g.:
            gangs, mentoring, etc.) into one flexible discretionary grant
            program. This would allow individual communities to receive
            assistance unique to their needs and would also allow OJJDP to
            target funding to programs aimed at addressing critical issues.
      --Provides very specific funding to prevention programs through an
            at-risk children's initiative. This component is based on the
            recognition of the important role that prevention--particularly
            programs targeted to after-school activities--plays in reducing
            juvenile crime.
      --Provides that 10 percent of all monies expended be used to fund and
            support research and evaluation efforts. This is in recognition
            that the Federal government has a fiduciary responsibility to
            ensure that monies are spent wisely based on knowledge of which
            programs work and which do not work. Further, an additional 2
            percent of monies expended is dedicated to providing training
            and technical assistance to states and localities to assist
            them in planning and developing potential solutions to the
            issues they are confronting.
      --Eases the requirements States must meet--specifically in regards to
            the housing of juvenile offenders--to obtain Federal funds.
      --Creates a separate program for Indian tribal governments, which
            would provide targeted assistance to these communities while
            recognizing and protecting tribal sovereignty.
        Question. I believe that one of the most important juvenile crime
    issues facing the country is how to deal with juveniles who commit
    serious violent crimes.
        Does the Administration agree that as a condition of receiving any
    Federal funds, states should be required to prosecute as adults
    juveniles over age 14 who commit serious violent crimes?
        Answer. The Administration shares your opinion that juveniles who
    commit serious violent crimes pose an important challenge to our
    nation. And clearly, some juveniles should be tried as adults,
    especially if they have had their chances in delinquency court and
    flouted that court's efforts to help them. But the question of which
    juveniles in the state court system should be tried as adults, and
    under what circumstances, ought to be a matter of state determination.
    Indeed, nearly every State has already reformed its law in this area in
    the last few years. The Administration does not believe that additional
    instruction from Washington is needed.
                        radiation exposure compensation
        Question. Ms. Reno, as you are aware of my longstanding interest in
    implementation of the Radiation Exposure Compensation program, which I
    authored and for which I have sought sufficient funding to fulfill its
    purpose of compensating those who have sustained injury as a result of
    the United States open-air nuclear testing and uranium mining
    activities in the 1950's through 1970's.
        The President's fiscal year 1999 budget includes $2 million to
    administer the radiation exposure compensation program, and $11.7
    million for the Radiation Exposure Trust Fund from which payments are
    made. I am pleased to see the Administration continue its support of
    this program.
        Congress has appropriated approximately $200 million to the Trust
    Fund established under the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act.
        How many claims has the Department approved and how much has been
    spent out of the Trust Fund to pay these claims?
        Answer. From the inception of the Program in April 1992 through
    February 1998, the Department has approved a total of 2,933 claims
    valued at over $216 million.
        Question. What is the current balance in the Trust Fund with which
    to pay claims during fiscal year 1998? How many claims are currently
    pending for compensation from the Radiation Exposure Compensation Trust
    Fund? Is the amount currently available in the Trust Fund sufficient to
    pay claims for the remainder of the fiscal year?
        Answer. At the end of February 1998, the Radiation Exposure
    Compensation Trust Fund had a balance of approximately $28 million. At
    that time, 272 claims and appeals were pending. The amount in the Trust
    Fund is sufficient to pay claims for the remainder of fiscal year 1998.
        Question. Congress provided an advance appropriation of just under
    $16.3 million for fiscal year 1997 for the payment of these claims, and
    another $4.4 million was approved in the 1998 bill. Would you please
    provide the Subcommittee with updated information on the number of
    claims approved for payment from the Trust Fund, the average amount of
    the claims approved, the number of claims denied, and the general
    reason for denial of these claims?
        Do you believe the amount requested for fiscal year 1999 is
    sufficient to continue the processing of pending and anticipated claims
    under the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act for the full period of
    fiscal year 1999?
        Answer. Through February 1998, a total of 2,933 claims were
    approved--with an average value of $73,810--and 3,193 claims were
    denied. Claims are denied if one or more of the following eligibility
    criteria are not met: disease, exposure and identification of the
    proper party to file a claim. Downwinder and onsite participant claims
    are most frequently denied for failure to establish a compensable
    disease. Most uranium miner claims are denied because documentation
    does not establish exposure to the requisite amount of radiation during
    the course of underground uranium mining employment.
        The amount requested for fiscal year 1999 is sufficient to continue
    the processing of pending and anticipated claims filed under RECA. The
    request amount is based on assumptions regarding the number of claims
    approved. The projections took into account historic trends in the
    receipt and approval of applications as well as the impact of pending
    regulatory changes and statutory changes proposed by the
    Administration.
      --The major regulatory changes would (1) allow high-resolution
            computed tomography as proof of non-malignant respiratory
            disease, (2) allow biopsies as proof of lung cancer, (3)
            consider any former smoker who ceased smoking 15 years before
            diagnosis of certain compensable diseases to be a non-smoker,
            and (4) define pulmonary impairment standards that are
            consistent with the recommendations of the American Thoracic
            Society.
      --The projections for 1999 also assumed that Congress would enact
            changes to the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act that were
            proposed by the Administration one year ago. The proposal would
            (1) define eligibility criteria for some uranium miners to
            qualify for partial compensation, (2) add two new sets of
            exposure criteria for lung cancer, (3) extend compensation for
            silicosis or pneumoconiosis to all miners, and (4) expand the
            list of compensable diseases for downwinders and onsite
            participants. Should this legislation be enacted, there would
            be an initial surge of claims received and approved. With the
            straightforward applications being processed first, the number
            of claims approved would balloon in 1999, tapering off
            thereafter.
        The pending 1999 request for $11,717,000, when combined with
    balance expected to be available in the beginning of the year of
    $18,941,000 and anticipated interest earnings, will be sufficient to
    cover the $31,233,000 in payments that would be made under an amended
    Act and revised regulations. Although the regulatory changes are
    progressing, with implementation possible as soon as April 1998, the
    statutory changes have yet to be sponsored.

                   RADIATION EXPOSURE COMPENSATION TRUST FUND
                             [Dollars in thousands]
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           1997      Est. 1998    Est. 1999
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Starting Balance.................      $14,502      $28,952      $18,941
    Plus New Appropriation...........       30,000        4,381       11,717
    Plus Interest Earnings...........          332          633          575
    Minus Payments...................      -15,882      -15,025      -31,233
                                      --------------------------------------
          Ending Balance.............       28,952       18,941  ...........
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Question. For the record would you please provide the Subcommittee
    with a breakdown of the types of claims approved or disapproved
    (childhood leukemia, other downwinders, onsite participants, or uranium
    miners), the number of claims currently pending, and the amounts
    disbursed by type of claim paid?
        For my use, would please provide the same information specifically
    for claims from New Mexico, including the total claims received, the
    total claims approved, the total claims denied, and the total claims
    pending?
        Answer. The following table lists, by category, the total value of
    the awards approved by the Radiation Exposure Compensation Program, as
    well as the number of claims and appeals received, approved,
    disapproved and pending at the end of February 1998.

                                                RADIATION EXPOSURE COMPENSATION PROGRAM--APRIL 1992-FEBRUARY 1998
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                                             Ending/Pending
                                                              Value of    Claims   Initially   Initially    Appeals   Appeals    Appeals   -----------------
                                                               Awards    Received   Approved  Disapproved  Received  Approved  Disapproved   Claims  Appeals
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Childhood leukemia....................................   $1,100,000        41         22          19          9  ........           8   .......        1
    Other downwinder......................................   69,620,000     2,608      1,372       1,153        203        21         179        83        3
    Onsite participant....................................   11,573,213       868        157         679        144        13         127        32        4
    Uranium miner.........................................  134,191,500     2,865      1,252       1,472        318        96         214       141        8
                                                           -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Total...........................................  216,484,713     6,382      2,803       3,323        674       130         528       256       16
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

        With respect to claims for which the primary claimant resides in
    New Mexico, the Department has approved 346 claims, with a total value
    of over $34 million. The following table lists, by category, the value
    of the awards and the number of claims and appeals received, approved,
    disapproved and pending at the end of February 1998.

                                          RADIATION EXPOSURE COMPENSATION PROGRAM--NEW MEXICO--APRIL 1992-FEBRUARY 1998
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                                             Ending/Pending
                                                              Value of    Claims   Initially   Initially    Appeals   Appeals    Appeals   -----------------
                                                               Awards    Received   Approved  Disapproved  Received  Approved  Disapproved   Claims  Appeals
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Childhood leukemia....................................      $50,000         1          1  ...........  ........  ........  ...........  .......  .......
    Other downwinder......................................      250,000        15          5           9          2  ........           2         1  .......
    Onsite participant....................................      600,000        31          7          23          6         1           5         1  .......
    Uranium miner.........................................   33,134,500       923        299         566        112        33          74        58        5
                                                           -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Total...........................................   34,034,500       970        312         598        120        34          81        60        5
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Question. Does the Administration have any long-range estimates as
    to the number of claims that might still be filed under the Radiation
    Exposure Compensation Act?
        Answer. It is difficult to estimate with precision the number of
    claims that might still be filed under the existing Radiation Exposure
    Compensation Act. The only long-range projections of which we are aware
    were developed in early 1997 for the President's Human Radiation
    Interagency Working Group. These estimates of potential awards
    pertained to miners with lung cancer claims. They were based on
    relative-risk models using the New Mexico and Colorado Plateau cohorts.
    Under the existing Act, about 440 additional awards to miners with lung
    cancer would be expected to be approved by the termination of the Trust
    Fund in 2012. If the Act is amended as proposed, over 1,000 additional
    awards were estimated to be made through 2012.
                district court ruling in the line item veto case
        Question. Attorney General Reno, as you know, the Federal District
    Court for the District of Columbia has recently held that the Line Item
    Veto Act is unconstitutional. Your office has filed an appeal and I
    understand that we might have a decision from the Supreme Court as
    early as this June. In the meantime, Congress will continue to
    legislate and many citizens will wonder about the status of the laws
    (and the related spending) affected by the President's exercise of the
    cancellation authority granted to him under the Act.
        Can you please tell the Subcommittee what your office will advise
    the Office of Management and Budget and the President with respect to
    the effect of the District Court's ruling upon the items which the
    President has canceled?
        Answer. During the pendency of the appeal, the particular
    cancellations that are directly at issue in the appeal will remain in
    effect. Likewise, all other existing cancellations will remain in
    effect. The District Court declared the Line Item Veto Act
    unconstitutional, but did not issue an injunction. Thus, the Government
    is ``free to continue to apply the statute.'' Kennedy v. Mendoza-
    Martinez, 372 U.S. 144, 155 (1963) (``There was no interdiction of the
    operation at large of the statute. It was declared unconstitutional,
    but without even an injunctive sanction against the application of the
    statute by the Government to [the plaintiffs]. Pending review * * * in
    [the Supreme] Court, the Government has been free to continue to apply
    the statute.'').
        Question. During the pendency of the appeal, what is your position
    on the ability of the President to use the authority under the Line
    Item Veto [Act] on any legislation which the Congress might place
    before him during this interim?
        Answer. The President retains his authority under the Line Item
    Veto Act during the pendency of the appeal. He reserves the right to
    exercise that power when necessary until the Supreme Court decides the
    appeal.
        Question. Assuming that the Supreme Court upholds the District
    Court and finds that these appellees have standing and that the Line
    Item Veto Act is unconstitutional, what will be your position with
    respect to the practical effect of such a holding upon the items which
    the President has canceled?
        Will the funds become available for obligation?
        Will HCFA permit the State of New York to make use of its provider
    taxes?
        Will the tax benefits become available to the affected taxpayers?
        Answer. The effects that might follow from a Supreme Court decision
    striking down the Line Item Veto Act in whole or in part depend upon
    the Supreme Court's judgment and its reasoning. We will review any
    Supreme Court decision carefully before determining whether such a
    ruling nullifies existing cancellations and, if so, whether cancelled
    funds and/or tax benefits then become available. We will of course
    abide by the judgment of the Supreme Court.
                                     ______

             Questions Submitted by Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell
                                    firearms
        Question. Firearms being stolen and stolen guns being used in the
    commission of crimes are serious problems nationwide. What action is
    the Justice Department taking to address these issues?
        The Brady Bill calls for the establishment of a permanent National
    Instant Criminal Background Check System to be accessed by federal
    firearms licensees before transferring any firearm to nonlicensed
    individuals.
        The law requires that the permanent system be established by
    November 30, 1998. Will this instant check system be ready on time, and
    be able to deliver on-line instant responses?
        Answer. The National Instant Criminal Background Check System
    (NICS) will be established by November 30, 1998. Users will be able to
    receive an on-line instant response within 30 seconds.
        Question. The provisions of sections 922(g) and (n) of the Gun
    Control Act, as amended by the Violent Crime Control Act of 1994 and
    the Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act of 1996, prohibit the sale
    of 10 specified groups to people, including those who have been
    convicted in any court of misdemeanor crime or domestic violence.
        Exactly what information is being collected on individuals?
        Answer. The NICS will interface with existing systems such as the
    National Crime Information Center (NCIC) and the Interstate
    Identification Index (III) and future systems such as NCIC 2000 and the
    Integrated Automated Fingerprint Identification System (IAFIS) to
    provide information on individuals who may be prohibited from
    purchasing a firearm. The NCIC will provide information on persons who
    are fugitives from justice, deported felons, and persons who are
    subject to a court order restraining them from harassing, stalking or
    threatening an intimate partner. The III will provide criminal history
    records on over 32 million subjects. The NICS will contain records,
    provided by Federal and state agencies, on individuals who (a) have
    been dishonorably discharged from the Armed Forces; (b) are unlawful
    users of or addicted to any controlled substances; have been
    adjudicated as a mental defective or been committed to a mental
    institution; (d) are illegal or unlawful aliens; or (e) have renounced
    their U.S. citizenship. Records contained in the NICS will include the
    name, at least one numeric identifier (e.g., date of birth), and
    physical description of an individual, and will indicate the category
    under which the individual is prohibited from receiving a firearm.
        Question. What active measures are being taken to ensure the
    initial and continued integrity and accuracy of this information?
        Answer. The NICS will be programmed to permit only the agency that
    entered a record, to modify or cancel the record. The FBI will
    periodically audit federal and state agencies contributing records to
    the NICS to evaluate the accuracy and completeness of the data.
        Question. What viable remedial options will be available to
    individuals who are unjustly denied the right to acquired a firearm
    based on faulty information in the data base?
        Answer. Any individual who is determined to be prohibited from
    purchasing a firearm based on a NICS background check, may request the
    reason for the denial. The denying agency must provide the individual
    the reasons for the denial, in writing, within five business days of
    receiving the request. If the individual feels he has been wrongly
    denied, he may (1) submit an appeal to the denying agency, (2) direct a
    challenge to the accuracy of a record, in writing, to the FBI, or (3)
    bring an action against the state or political subdivision responsible
    for providing the erroneous information, or responsible for denying the
    transfer, or against the United States, as the case may be, for an
    order directing that the erroneous information be corrected or that the
    firearm transfer be approved.
        Question. What actions are being taken to protect individuals from
    the system being abused to invade their privacy rights?
        Answer. First, access to NICS information will be restricted to
    authorized agencies only. Second, the NICS will comply with the NICS
    Security Guidelines, the NCIC Security Policy of 1992, and applicable
    federal laws, such as the Privacy Act of 1974 and Computer Security Act
    of 1987, for protecting information. Additionally, federal regulations
    on the privacy and security of NICS information propose that any state
    or local agency, Federal Firearms Licensees, or individual shall be
    subject to a fine not to exceed $10,000 and termination of NICS
    privileges for the misuse of/or unauthorized access to the system.
        Question. Section 103(1) of the Brady Act prohibits any department,
    agency, officer, or employees of the United States from requiring any
    record or any portion of the record generated by the National Criminal
    Instant Check System (NICS) to be recorded in any facility owned,
    managed or controlled by the U.S. or any state or political
    subdivision. What precaution is the Justice Department taking to ensure
    compliance with this critical safeguard provision and what permanent
    ongoing measures will be taken to ensure continued compliance?
        Answer. For security purposes, the NICS will automatically log all
    incoming and outgoing transactions of the system. Transactions relating
    to firearm transfer approvals will be maintained for 18 months. After
    this time, information contained in the log that pertains to the person
    or the transfer will be destroyed; only the unique identification
    number and the date the number was assigned will be retained. The NICS
    will not be used to establish any system for the registration of
    firearms, firearm owners, or firearm transactions or dispositions,
    except with respect to persons prohibited by 18 U.S.C. 922(g) or (n),
    from receiving a firearm.
        Question. Are there any loopholes in this language that would allow
    a governmental entity to abide by the letter of this law while not
    following congressional intent? For example, what if a governmental
    entity indirectly enabled private sector consultants to set up a
    parallel offshore data base using advanced information encryption
    technology that the government could have access to while not directly
    controlling or managing it? Is such a scenario even the remotest of
    possibilities?
        Answer. No. The FBI believes such an arrangement could not be
    legally made without the expressed consent of the FBI under contractual
    agreement.
        Question. If not, why?
        Answer. The FBI has management control of the NICS, its operation,
    and the maintenance of related databases, and as such is directly
    responsible for establishing, monitoring and enforcing compliance with
    regulations regarding the privacy and security of the system.
    Additionally, the FBI conducts biennial compliance audits of State
    Control Terminal Agencies and a random sample of local users. There
    also exist conditions which all NICS users must comply with including
    the destruction of all records of calls to the system that do not
    result in the identification of firearms disabilities thus attempting
    to prevent any establishment of a firearm registry using information
    obtained from NICS.
        Question. If there is even the remotest of possibility that a
    scenario like this could happen, then what actions will the Justice
    Department take to ensure that it will not happen?
        Answer. Should such a scenario happen, the FBI and the Department
    of Justice would investigate such an occurrence and prosecute those
    responsible for any misuse of NICS data or access.
                              international crime
        Question. During hearings last year, I discussed serious new
    developments in international crime and its effect on Americans here at
    home and abroad with Secretary of State Albright and FBI Director
    Freeh. The Appropriations Committee, in its fiscal year 1998 Foreign
    Operations Committee Report, expressed concern about the increase in
    crime abroad and its direct and indirect impact on the United States.
    The Committee also requested the Secretary of State to convene a new
    Secretaries' Task Force on International Crime, in cooperation with
    you, the Secretary of Treasury, and the O.N.D.C.P. Director, and report
    to Congress by March 26, 1998 on specific issues which the Committee
    outlined.
        Although Secretary Albright's Report is not due to Congress for
    another month, I would be interested to know what is the current status
    of your participation in the formation of the task force?
        Answer. The Department of State is taking the lead in responding to
    the Appropriation Committee's request for a report on the U.S.
    Government's efforts against international crime. However, I can report
    that there is extensive cooperation between the Department of Justice,
    the Department of State and other relevant federal agencies on
    international law enforcement matters. These efforts are coordinated by
    the National Security Council, which convenes regular interagency
    meetings and committees to address the various aspects of international
    crime. For example, Presidential Decision Directive 42 (PDD 42), issued
    on October 21, 1995, ordered all government agencies to coordinate
    their resources and efforts to develop a global response to
    international crime. In response, the Department led an Administration-
    wide effort to develop the International Crime Control Act (ICCA) that
    seeks additional authority from Congress to respond to international
    crime both in the U.S. and abroad. The Department also took the lead in
    drafting the International Crime Control Strategy which is the U.S.
    Government plan of action to prevent and respond to acts of
    international crime.
        Question. Are there any preliminary thoughts you wish to share with
    us here today on what the Justice Department can do to help countries
    reduce and prevent crime?
        Answer. Because organized crime in foreign countries presents a
    direct and immediate threat to U.S. nationals, businesses and
    interests, both in the U.S. and abroad, the Department is expanding its
    assistance to foreign countries to combat international crime. Of
    particular concern to the Department are those activities involving
    terrorism, drug trafficking, money laundering, computer crime, and
    financial institution crime, as well as the integrity of our Nation's
    borders.
        The U.S. Government's plan against international crime is contained
    in the International Crime Control Strategy and International Crime
    Control Act which includes increasing our support of the anti-crime
    efforts of foreign nations. The ways the Department of Justice will
    continue to help countries reduce and prevent crime may be summarized
    as follows: increasing our support of other countries' efforts to
    identify and prosecute significant international criminals and
    narcotics traffickers around the world; continuing our participation in
    joint investigations and prosecutions of these crime groups and their
    leaders; expanding our training of foreign law enforcement officials
    and prosecutors; leading international efforts to sign and implement
    multilateral treaties and conventions that address various elements of
    international crime; increasing our negotiation and signing of
    bilateral extradition and mutual legal assistance treaties to
    facilitate the transfer of fugitives and evidence to, and from, the
    U.S.; and finally, expanding our U.S. law enforcement presence overseas
    to support foreign law enforcement, to arrest and punish fugitives who
    have committed crimes against the U.S., to dismantle international
    organized crime rings, and to strengthen law enforcement and judicial
    systems around the world.
        The Department understands that crime is no longer a national
    phenomenon; it is an international problem that challenges all
    countries. Only by continuing our cooperative anti-crime efforts with
    foreign nations will we be able to successfully meet this challenge.
         ``state and local law enforcement wireless communications and
                           interoperability'' report
        Question. The Department of Justice's National Institute of Justice
    recently released a report entitled ``State and Local Law Enforcement
    Wireless Communications and Interoperability: A Quantitative
    Analysis.'' This report cites the need for additional radio spectrum
    and improved wireless communication technology in the law enforcement
    community.
        The Balanced Budget Act of 1997 included language that frees up
    additional 24 megahertz (MHZ) of the spectrum for law enforcement use.
    Unfortunately, this spectrum will not be available until the Year 2006.
        Considering increasing demands on law enforcement and disaster
    response situations, what steps are being taken to maximize the
    currently available spectrum? Our nation's telecommunications industry
    has made large technological breakthroughs. Is the law enforcement
    community taking full advancements that are already available in the
    marketplace?
        Answer. Technology exists that enables state and local law
    enforcement agencies to more efficiently use currently available
    spectrum. This technology includes the ability of law enforcement to
    use narrower bands of spectrum when they communicate, thus allowing
    these agencies to get more use out of the spectrum they have. The FCC,
    under its ``refarming'' process, will not ``type accept,'' i.e., permit
    the sale of, any new model equipment that is not capable of using 12.5
    kHz channels instead of the wider 25 kHz channels. By 2005, ``type
    acceptance'' will require the capability to operate at 6.25 kHz.
        The type acceptance process only requires new model equipment to
    meet the narrowband requirements. Mobile radio manufacturers can and do
    continue to bring previously developed, wideband (25 kHz) equipment to
    market. Because of the high cost of replacing wireless equipment,
    particularly the cost of purchasing new model equipment, it is likely
    that many public safety users will continue to operate at 25 kHz for
    the next 20 or even 30 years.
        The most common communications system for state and local public
    safety remains government-owned Land Mobile Radio system, as opposed to
    more recently available commercial carrier-operated technologies such
    as cellular, Personal Communications Service, Enhanced Specialized
    Mobile Radio and satellite. While a number of public safety agencies
    use some of the carrier-operated services as a complement to their Land
    Mobile Radio systems, internally operated Land Mobile Radio systems
    remain the core system technology for public safety because they better
    ensure availability of service, security and fixed costs.
        Public safety Land Mobile Radio can be divided into digital vs.
    analog and trunked vs. conventional systems, digital/trunked systems
    being the most technologically advanced. Digital radio systems increase
    spectrum efficiency. Digital also facilitates encryption and allows for
    mixed voice and data transmission. A conventional radio system can
    access only one channel at a time. If that channel is in use, the user
    must either wait for the channel to become idle or manually search for
    a free channel. In contrast, a trunked radio system automatically
    searches all available channels for one that is clear.
        The ability of state and local law enforcement to make more
    efficient use of spectrum through existing technological advancements
    depends in large measure on the availability of funding to implement
    these expensive technologies. In accordance with the National
    Performance Review's February 1997 ``Access America'' report, the
    Department of Justice has created an interagency working group to
    develop funding recommendations to assist state and local public safety
    officials to improve their wireless communications systems. The working
    group includes representatives from the Treasury, Commerce, Interior
    and Agriculture Departments, the Federal Emergency Management Agency,
    the Office of Management and Budget, and the Federal Law Enforcement
    Wireless Users Group. With the support of Congress, this effort will
    begin to assist state and local law enforcement in maximizing currently
    available spectrum and in taking advantage of technological
    advancements in wireless communications.
        Question. Improved technology, especially digital, allows more
    individual transmissions to be packed into a smaller portion of the
    spectrum and with greater security. To what degree will this alleviate
    the current spectrum crunch for law enforcement?
        Answer. Improved technology will alleviate the current spectrum
    crunch for law enforcement only to a moderate degree. In 1995, at the
    urging of House Chairman Harold Rogers, the Federal Communications
    Commission (FCC) and the National Telecommunications and Information
    Administration established the Public Safety Wireless Advisory
    Committee (``PSWAC'') to provide advice on the wireless communications
    requirements of federal, state and local law enforcement and public
    safety agencies through the year 2010.
        In making its recommendations in September 1996, the PSWAC took
    into account the future efficiencies in the transmission of
    information, including improved digital technology. Even assuming the
    use of digital technology, the PSWAC concluded that state and local
    public safety agencies needed an additional 97.5 MHZ of spectrum: an
    immediate need for 2.5 MHZ of spectrum dedicated to interoperability,
    proximate to the spectrum currently used by the majority of public
    safety agencies; a near-term need for an additional 25 MHZ of public
    safety allocations; and a longer-term need for another 70 MHZ.
        While digital technology enables law enforcement agencies to get
    more use out of the spectrum they have, it has the simultaneous effect
    of creating a greater need for additional spectrum. Digital technology
    facilitates the wireless transmission of data and video (e.g. mugshots,
    fingerprints, missing persons photographs), which is enormously
    beneficial to public safety activities. Data and video transmissions
    require more spectrum than voice transmissions. Without additional
    allocations of spectrum, public safety will not be able to take full
    advantage of digital technology. Similarly, without sufficient funds to
    purchase digital systems, public safety will not be able to take
    advantage of this technology.
        Question. With increased potential for large scale disasters,
    including both natural disasters and non-natural disasters, like the
    Oklahoma City and World Trade Center bombings, it is increasingly clear
    that an increased communications capacity among law enforcement,
    firefighters, emergency medical, and emergency management agencies is
    needed.
        When the additional 24 MHZ of spectrum becomes available in 2006,
    will it, or at least a sizeable portion, be dedicated to addressing
    this growing need? What is being done to address this need between now
    and 2006?
        Answer. Although the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 calls for 24 MHZ
    of spectrum in the 746-806 MHZ band to be reallocated to state and
    local public safety agencies by the end of 2006, much of this spectrum
    will only be made available as television broadcasters currently
    operating in that band vacate the band and transition to digital
    broadcast channels below 746 MHZ. Unfortunately, the Balanced Budget
    Act includes an extension provision favored by the broadcasters that
    may delay the transition to digital television beyond the December 31,
    2006 cut-off date otherwise specified in the legislation. As a result,
    the transfer of spectrum to public safety may be delayed indefinitely
    in some markets.
        The FCC is currently conducting rulemaking proceedings governing
    the 24 MHZ of spectrum provided for in the Balanced Budget Act. The
    FCC's Notice of Proposed Rulemaking anticipates that a significant
    portion of this spectrum will be dedicated to increased communications
    capacity, i.e., interoperability, between public safety agencies. It
    should be noted, however, that the PSWAC Report identified the need for
    2.5 MHZ of spectrum for interoperability located proximate to the
    majority of current public safety users. The bulk of current public
    safety spectrum is located below 512 MHZ. Thus, even if a significant
    portion of the 24 MHZ of public safety spectrum in the 746-806 MHZ band
    is dedicated to interoperability, that will not benefit the majority of
    public safety agencies. The additional 2.5 MHZ of spectrum called for
    by the PSWAC for interoperability must still be reallocated.
        There are a number of technical impediments to interoperability in
    the current environment. Among the most significant are: (1) no
    commercial grade radio can operate in a wide enough range of the
    spectrum to reach the disparate radio bands that are currently
    allocated to public safety; and (2) equipment from various
    manufacturers may not be able to communicate, even though it operates
    in the same band, because it uses incompatible transmission
    technologies.
        The Oklahoma City and World Trade Center bombings, and similar
    disasters, are frequently cited to highlight spectrum interoperability
    problems. These incidents call for what is generally referred to as
    mutual aid or critical incident interoperability which, of necessity,
    involves little advance planning and numerous participants. The 2.5 MHZ
    of spectrum for interoperability called for by the PSWAC would be used
    for ``mutual aid channels,'' that is frequencies that public safety
    wireless radios operating in neighboring spectrum could all reach
    through a uniform transmission technology.
        To address interoperability in mutual aid situations today, one
    agency often must provide a number of its hand-held radios to
    representatives of the other agencies. Unfortunately, crucial time is
    wasted in having to distribute the equipment to all of the response
    participants. In disaster situations, saving minutes and seconds can
    affect the ability to save lives.
        A very effective arrangement for achieving day-to-day
    interoperability for agencies operating in concurrent jurisdictions is
    the creation of shared systems that use digital and trunking
    technology. In a shared system, agencies pool their frequency and
    monetary resources to build and operate a radio infrastructure using
    compatible equipment. Shared systems improve spectrum efficiency by
    allowing multiple agencies to communicate without the need for
    additional spectrum dedicated solely to interoperability. More than a
    dozen states and regions have begun to plan for shared systems between
    their disparate agencies. Among the greatest impediments to development
    of these systems is budgetary support. One statewide system can cost
    more than $150 million to build.
        The Public Safety Wireless Network (PSWN) program, which evolved
    from the National Performance Review and is co-chaired by the
    Departments of Justice and Treasury, is examining interoperability at
    the federal, state and local levels on a nationwide basis. The ultimate
    goal of the PSWN program is to develop a plan by 2001 for achieving
    national interoperability. The program is engaged in a number of case
    studies focusing on individual regions and testbed demonstrations of
    interoperability equipment. The PSWN program also sponsors regional
    conferences to present its findings to the state and local communities
    and to gather additional information to assist it in its mission.
                                     ______

               Questions Submitted by Senator Ernest F. Hollings
                              federalizing lorton
        Question. Your budget proposes an increase of $300 million in
    fiscal year 1999 to begin constructing Federal prisons to house the
    approximately 7,000 District of Columbia prisoners housed at the Lorton
    Prison in Northern Virginia.
        Could you explain the total program and schedule for taking over
    the District's prison program? How much funding in total will be
    requested for how many prisons in the Mid-Atlantic and Southeast?
        Answer. BOP anticipates building a total of 6 new facilities to add
    sufficient capacity to absorb the D.C. sentenced felon population. In
    fiscal year 1998, $294.9 million was provided to the D.C. Corrections
    Trustee for reimbursement to the BOP to cover site acquisition and
    planning of four facilities, and full construction of two facilities at
    existing BOP sites. The increase of $300 million in fiscal year 1999
    will provide for construction of three Federal Correctional
    Institutions (FCI) and partial funding for a fourth FCI. Finally,
    funding remainder for the last facility will be requested in fiscal
    year 2000 to accommodate the space requirements for the D.C. sentenced
    felon inmates in accordance with the D.C. Revitalization Act.
        In 1998, the BOP plans to transfer into BOP custody the majority of
    female D.C. sentenced felons. To date, 116 female D.C. sentenced felons
    have been transferred into BOP custody, and procedures have been put in
    place so all newly-sentenced female D.C. Code violators will be
    designated directly to BOP custody. The BOP is currently reviewing
    minimum security male D.C. sentenced felons in preparation for their
    transfer into BOP custody. The projected movement of D.C. DOC inmates
    needing mental health, medical/surgical care is targeted for 1999.
    Absorption of higher security level D.C. inmates is projected for
    fiscal year 2000 and fiscal year 2001 as additional BOP capacity
    (construction funded in 1998) is activated.
        Question. What are the Bureau's criteria for locating these new
    prisons?
        Answer. The BOP is actively evaluating potential sites within 500
    miles of the District. The BOP may need to begin the Environmental
    Impact Statement (EIS) process in numerous locations to ensure four
    acceptable sites since the EIS process is preliminary and does not
    always result in prison construction. To date, siting efforts have been
    concentrated in South Carolina, Kentucky, West Virginia, Virginia,
    Pennsylvania, and North Carolina. In December of 1997, the BOP began
    the EIS process for a medium security prison in Gilmer County, West
    Virginia. In addition, the BOP is proceeding with the draft EIS process
    for sites in Ohio/Tyler and Preston counties, West Virginia, and
    obtaining additional technical information to go forward in the EIS
    process on sites in South Carolina, Kentucky, and Pennsylvania. The BOP
    plans to finish each EIS related to D.C. capacity this year.
        Further, the BOP plans to build a medium security facility at its
    existing Petersburg, Virginia, location, and a high security facility
    at its Coleman, Florida, location. While the Florida location is
    outside the 500-mile radius, the BOP can proceed quickly with this
    project because the EIS process completed for the existing institutions
    addressed the possibility of adding an additional facility at a later
    date. The BOP would then be able to transfer BOP inmates to Coleman and
    subsequently place D.C. sentenced felons in the approximately 30
    existing BOP facilities that are within the 500-mile radius.
        The following criteria represent the features of an ideal site for
    potential construction of a new institution:
        The site should:
      --include a minimum of 250 acres of relatively flat land of
            reasonable configuration (i.e. with roughly equal length and
            width) and with adequate buffers along the boundaries;
      --be available at minimal cost to the government and include both
            surface and mineral rights;
      --be free from environmental difficulties, including protected
            ``wetland areas'', significant archaeological or historic
            resources, habitats of threatened or endangered species,
            farmland preservation areas and prime agricultural land. It
            should not be located within a flood plain area;
      --be located within 50 miles of a large population center to ensure
            the availability of community resources for the facility, such
            as staff, housing, goods and services, etc.;
      --have adequate public utility services to the site;
      --have adequate fire protection services nearby, with a public-
            service fire company preferred;
      --have an accredited full service hospital recognized and licensed by
            the state within one hour's driving time;
      --be within close proximity to interstate highway systems and public
            transportation, preferably with commercial ground and air
            service nearby;
      --be within proximity to higher education facilities, with accredited
            colleges or universities and a wide variety of technical
            schools;
      --have community support, including endorsement by local officials
            and Members of Congress.
        Question. What percentage of these prisoners are going to be housed
    by contractor, privatized prisons? Does this use of private prisons
    make sense to the Bureau of Prisons?
        Answer. A provision in the National Capital Revitalization and
    Self-Improvement Act of 1997 requires the BOP to house 2,000 D.C.
    sentenced felons in private contract facilities by December 31, 1999,
    and 50 percent by 2003. A Request for Proposals (RFP) was released on
    February 13, 1998 for the housing of approximately 2,200 minimum and
    low security D.C. sentenced felons, with responses due on April 1,
    1998.
        The BOP endorses use of private/contract facilities for minimum and
    low security inmates when it serves the best interest of the government
    and provides the best placement for an inmate. Over 10 percent of BOP
    inmates are housed outside of Federal prison in contract and private
    facilities. The five-year privatization demonstration project at the
    Taft, California correctional facility mandated by the Congress is
    underway and will help the BOP evaluate the potential effectiveness of
    privatizing future BOP facilities for low and minimum security inmates.
        However, the requirement that 50 percent of D.C. sentenced felons
    be housed in private facilities is of concern to the BOP. Nearly two
    thirds of the D.C. sentenced felon population are medium and high
    security, and the private sector does not have a demonstrated track
    record in terms of managing medium and high security institutions. The
    BOP has an established effective system of higher security prisons, and
    in the interest of public safety as well as that of the inmates,
    believes those higher security inmates would be more appropriately
    placed in federal prisons.
                                  ``winstar''
        Question. As I understand it, the Government could lose up to $32
    billion if we lose these Winstar cases. Last year this Subcommittee and
    the Treasury Subcommittee provided $53 million to support the
    Government in this litigation. In fiscal year 1999 your request is
    fairly complicated and provides for changes in scoring that require
    action by the Banking Committee. Could you describe the Government-wide
    budget for Winstar? What is the impact if the Banking Committees do not
    pass the Administration's proposed legislation?
        Answer. There are 130 Winstar suits which encompass over one
    billion pages of government documents, 60 opposing counsel representing
    numerous financial institutions, and damage claims estimated to be in
    the vicinity of $20 to 30 billion. The genesis of this litigation is
    the savings and loan crisis of the 1980's. The ensuing bailout cost
    taxpayers tens of billions of dollars. Ultimately, necessary banking
    reforms were enacted and implemented. The Financial Institutions
    Reform, Recovery and Enforcement Act (FIRREA) imposed new
    capitalization standards. It is the imposition of those standards and
    the alleged damages that lie at the heart of the Winstar claims.
        Many of the Winstar claims are without merit, and others are
    grossly overstated. Our responsibility is to determine the factual
    basis of the claims and enable the court to distinguish legitimate
    claims from those that have been wildly exaggerated. Without the
    requisite investment in information processing, expert analysis and
    attorney time, there would be no way to identify and eliminate
    unwarranted claims. The losses which are likely to result, should
    funding be withheld, could well wipe out the budget surplus projected
    for 1999. We believe that the American public would be appalled if, in
    addition to the bailout of the 1980's, billions more were to be doled
    out without a full analysis of the claims to winnow out those that are
    inflated or meritless.
        Winstar suits are unprecedented with respect to their size and
    complexity. Glendale, the first case activated, has been in trial for
    13 months. When the trial concludes in April, 30 additional suits will
    be activated, unleashing the one of the most massive discovery efforts
    ever undertaken. Simultaneously, the Statesman trial will begin and
    pretrial activities will intensify for the 12 priority cases scheduled
    to follow Statesman. Next fiscal year will be more arduous--the
    priority cases will go to trial at the rate of two per month, discovery
    efforts will continue, and an additional 30 cases will be activated.
    Information processing, expert analysis, pre-trial and trial activity
    will reach staggering proportions. The budget estimates, attached,
    reflect the substantial investment that has been made and that will
    continue to be required to respond to court mandates.
        Given the substantial costs associated with Winstar, senior
    officials of the Department of Justice and other interested agencies
    are committed to exploring all reasonable settlement possibilities. At
    the same time, as stated earlier, we are convinced that the plaintiffs'
    claims are without any merit in some cases and are vastly overstated in
    others. Our experts, including a Nobel Laureate economist, concur in
    our assessment of the claims. Settlements fair to both sides can be
    achieved only if we have resources sufficient to analyze the cases and
    to defend against inflated and unreasonable demands.
        As shown in the attached chart, $26,100,000 of the 1997 costs were
    reimbursable out of the FSLIC Resolution Fund (FRF). For 1998, the
    Appropriations Act for the Treasury Department, the Postal Service and
    the Executive Office of the President, authorizes another $33,700,000
    for reimbursement from the FRF (Public Law 105-61). This funding has
    been scored against the discretionary ceiling set for Treasury-General
    Government appropriations--reducing the amount of spending authority
    for agencies funded under this umbrella.
        The Treasury-General Government subcommittee staff has stated that
    further reimbursements beyond those authorized this year will not be
    approved, should that reimbursement authority count against the
    subcommittee's discretionary ceiling. In fact, Section 632 of the
    Conference Report on the 1998 Treasury-General Government
    Appropriations Act states that when the conferees agreed to include a
    provision concerning the FRF reimbursement to Justice they,
    ``expect[ed] that OMB will submit, with the fiscal year 1999 budget
    request, language which would make this provision permanent law.''
        The FRF was created by FIRREA to wind up the affairs of the defunct
    Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Corporation (FSLIC). The FRF itself
    is a mandatory account. Resolution of Winstar claims is, essentially,
    the final phase of efforts to wind up the affairs of the FSLIC and
    related banking agencies. We therefore believe that the FRF continues
    to be the logical source of funding for the bulk of the Winstar-related
    expenses. We also believe that because the damage claims are the direct
    result of agency actions that were required by FIRREA, that the budget
    for this litigation should be scored as mandatory. An Administration
    proposal designed to authorize mandatory funding is forthcoming.
        Should the banking committees fail to pass legislation which would
    authorize mandatory FRF funding, the need would have to be met out of
    either the discretionary resources of the Treasury-General Government
    subcommittees or the Commerce-Justice-State subcommittees. Should one
    or the other of the committees agree to funding the Winstar defense,
    the impact will fall largely to the other discretionary programs which
    must be cut to stay within budgetary ceilings. Should both committees
    fail to provide requisite funding, the government will be without the
    means to access, analyze and present information required to determine
    the legitimacy of the claims. This would set the stage for unfavorable
    judgments and settlements, which, as stated above, could translate into
    treasury payouts of sufficient size to wipe out projected budget
    surpluses for 1999 and future years.

                                 SUMMARY OF DOJ WINSTAR RESOURCES--DIRECT AND REIMBURSED
                                                 [Dollars in thousands]
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  1997       1998    1999 Base   1999 Inc   1999 Req
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    FSLIC Resolution Fund (FRF):
        Personnel............................................     $4,109       $133  .........  .........  .........
        Automated Litigation Support.........................     11,230     19,564  .........    $35,324    $35,324
        Litigation Consultants...............................     10,342     13,000  .........     13,764     13,764
        Transcripts and Misc.................................        419      1,003  .........      2,104      2,104
                                                              ------------------------------------------------------
          Subtotal, FRF......................................     26,100     33,700  .........     51,192     51,192
                                                              ======================================================
    General Legal Activities (GLA):
        Personnel............................................  .........      5,483     $6,056      1,725      7,781
        Automated Litigation Support.........................  .........      1,000      1,000      3,764      4,764
        Litigation Consultants...............................  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........
        Transcripts and Misc.................................  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........
                                                              ------------------------------------------------------
          Subtotal, GLA......................................  .........      6,483      7,056      5,489     12,545
                                                              ======================================================
    Fees and Expenses of Witnesses...........................      6,300      4,000  .........     10,000     10,000
                                                              ------------------------------------------------------
          Total Appropriations...............................     32,400     44,183      7,056     66,681     73,737
                                                              ======================================================
    Available from Prior Year(s).............................     12,350      8,814  .........  .........  .........
                                                              ======================================================
          Grand Total........................................     44,750     52,997      7,056     66,681     73,737
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                    counterdrug initiatives--methamphetamine
        Question. Your budget this year supports 100 more DEA agents to
    attack methamphetamine production, trafficking and abuse. Typically,
    when we think of methamphetamine production, we're thinking California.
    But the word is that meth labs and meth use are spreading east faster
    than you can blink an eye. In fact, in South Carolina, methamphetamine
    cases have been on the rise in the last few years and like other states
    in our region, we've become victim to traveling motorcycle gangs that
    transport meth and portable meth labs into the state.
        What efforts are being made to address the spread of
    methamphetamine production before this problem gets out of control?
        Answer. DEA is addressing the increasing threat posed by illegal
    methamphetamine trafficking through several initiatives and
    investigative actions directed at the production of methamphetamine;
    the control of the chemical precursors used to manufacture
    methamphetamine; the international trafficking organizations
    (predominantly Mexican based) that control the majority of the illicit
    methamphetamine trade; and the growing problem state and local law
    enforcement agencies face from the domestic production of
    methamphetamine which is causing a drain on police services and is
    presenting a public safety threat.
        Known on the street by names like ``crank'' and ``speed,''
    methamphetamine is a dangerous stimulant, which possesses addictive
    qualities similar to those of crack cocaine. According to statistics
    from the Drug Abuse Warning Network (DAWN), the U.S. experienced a 209
    percent increase in the number of methamphetamine-related emergency
    room episodes between 1990 and 1995. Following a brief drop during the
    first half of fiscal year 1996, total methamphetamine episodes
    skyrocketed by 71 percent during the second half of the year.
        Today, DEA is taking part in more methamphetamine-related arrests
    and is seizing more clandestine laboratories per year than ever before
    in the agency's 25-year history. Since fiscal year 1993, DEA arrests in
    methamphetamine-related investigations have consistently risen.
    Methamphetamine arrests increased by 45 percent in one year, rising
    from 3,920 in fiscal year 1996 to 5,780 arrests in fiscal year 1997.
    During fiscal year 1997, DEA was involved in the seizure of more
    methamphetamine laboratories (1,272) than in the three previous fiscal
    years combined (combined total equals 1,256).
        Until recently, methamphetamine trafficking and production in the
    U.S. was controlled by outlaw motorcycle gangs operating independent
    drug trafficking networks across the country. Today, although these
    gangs continue to distribute methamphetamine, trafficking and
    production of this dangerous drug is largely divided between thousands
    of small, independent organizations, who run ``mom-and-pop'' labs
    capable of small-scale meth production, and the major Mexican syndicate
    networks who produce methamphetamine in more sophisticated labs in
    Mexico and California. Both groups are producing more methamphetamine
    than ever before. However, it is the emergence of the Mexican
    syndicates, and their growing domination of methamphetamine production
    and distribution in the United States, that has redefined the
    methamphetamine problem in this country.
        The Mexican syndicates' dominance of the methamphetamine market can
    largely be attributed to two factors. First, Mexican organized crime
    has established access to enormous quantities of the precursor
    ephedrine from wholesale sources of supply on the international market.
    Second, these criminal groups regularly produce unprecedented
    quantities of high-purity methamphetamine in Mexican and Californian
    super labs, which is then trafficked to states across the United
    States. Today, it is estimated that 80 to 90 percent of the available
    supply of methamphetamine in the United States is produced by Mexican
    organized crime syndicates.
        The Amezcua-Contreras Brothers, operating out of Guadalajara, are
    the world's largest smugglers of ephedrine and clandestine producers of
    methamphetamine. The Amezcua Organization obtains large quantities of
    precursor ephedrine through contacts in Thailand and India, which they
    then use to make methamphetamine for subsequent distribution to Mexican
    trafficking groups operating in major U.S. population centers.
        Drug traffickers are adopting increasingly sophisticated methods to
    obtain the chemicals needed to produce methamphetamine. In the U.S.,
    rogue chemical companies, by willful ignorance and/or criminal intent,
    supply precursor and essential chemicals to methamphetamine producers
    on both sides of the border. As evidence in the operations of the
    Amezcua Organization, many Mexican trafficking groups are obtaining
    their chemicals from sources in Europe, China and India, using a
    combination of direct purchases, brokered shipments, and false front
    companies.
        In recent years, DEA chemical investigations have expanded rapidly
    to keep pace with the spread of methamphetamine trafficking and abuse
    across the United States. Increasingly, DEA is conducting these
    investigations in cooperation with state and local law enforcement. An
    example of this cooperation is evidenced in DEA's Special Enforcement
    Program Operation Back Track, initiated in February 1997. This
    operation targets rogue chemical companies and other independent
    operators who distribute enormous quantities of precursor chemicals,
    specifically pseudoephedrine, phenylpropanolamine (PPA) and their drug
    products, which are then diverted to the illicit manufacture of
    controlled substances. The focus of Operation Back Track is directed at
    identifying, tracking, disrupting and eliminating chemical sources,
    routes, transportation and distribution networks that supply the
    production of clandestinely manufactured drugs. During September 1997,
    DEA's Phoenix Division, in coordination with the Phoenix Police
    Department, Organized Crime Bureau and Vice Unit and other regional law
    enforcement agencies, arrested 32 suspects and conducted 25 search
    warrants which resulted in the seizure of 1,000,000 pseudoephedrine
    tablets and the civil seizure of 18 convenience stores.
        Due to methamphetamine's increasing popularity in the West and its
    rapid spread eastward, an increasing number of independent trafficking
    and production networks have also been established across the country.
    These networks feed the habits of customers typically found outside the
    Mexican drug syndicates' predominant areas of influence. The
    independent networks, which have proliferated in the Midwest, and more
    recently on the East Coast, are selling primarily to users in rural
    areas, middle class suburbs, and on college campuses. Surging demand
    and increased profit margins are driving increased drug production, and
    luring more traffickers and chemists into the methamphetamine trade.
    Often, a minimal investment of $500 can yield profits as high as $4,000
    to $18,000.
        Fifty percent of the clandestine labs seized by DEA in fiscal year
    1997 were located in the Midwest. The majority of these labs were of
    the ``mom and pop'' variety, typically producing anywhere from two/
    three ounces to a pound of methamphetamine. In the Midwest, states like
    Missouri, Arkansas, and Oklahoma, which four years ago experienced
    negligible clandestine laboratory activity, have seen clandestine
    laboratories proliferate. Just last month, DEA, in cooperation with
    state and local law enforcement, seized its first major clandestine
    methamphetamine laboratory in the city of St. Louis. In fiscal year
    1997, DEA seized a total of 295 clandestine methamphetamine
    laboratories in Missouri, over 100 more labs than in any other state in
    the United States.
        The illicit manufacturing of methamphetamine in smaller, ``mom and
    pop'' operations can take place anywhere the operator can set up
    laboratory equipment to synthesize the product (e.g., motel rooms,
    apartment complexes, industrial areas, farms, a neighbor's house,
    etc.). The caustic, flammable and explosive chemicals required by
    ``cooks'' to produce methamphetamine endanger the lives of not only the
    criminals, but innocent bystanders as well. Clandestine laboratories
    are so dangerous that many are not found by law enforcement, but by
    fire and rescue personnel after they have caught fire or exploded.
    These laboratories can prove extremely dangerous to untrained police,
    fire and rescue personnel.
        Since many clandestine laboratories (particularly those managed by
    ``home grown'' trafficking networks) are found in the cook's house,
    they frequently place their own children at risk. In April 1997, a
    clandestine methamphetamine laboratory in New Mexico exploded,
    destroying a house trailer and killing the laboratory operator. The
    explosion was so severe that it blew out the windows in adjacent
    trailers.
        The potential environmental damage caused by one clandestine
    laboratory can place an entire community at risk. As if the risk of
    explosion and fire were not enough, these same toxic chemical
    substances, such as benzene, ethanol, hydriodic acid and red
    phosphorous, generate hazardous chemical by-products once the
    manufacturing process is complete. Careless operators typically dump
    their acidic ``sludge'' on the ground, in nearby streams and lakes, or
    in local sewage systems and septic tanks. Some simply bury the
    hazardous material in their back yards, allowing the dangerous waste to
    be absorbed by the soil and into natural water systems.
        Because of the dangers associated with these laboratories, close
    cooperation with state and local law enforcement is essential. As has
    been previously indicated, many of these volatile labs are first
    encountered by law enforcement personnel in smaller cities and towns
    across the United States. In many cases, these officers do not have the
    requisite clandestine laboratory safety certification training, thereby
    increasing their chance of serious injury. In an effort to diminish the
    risks associated with clandestine laboratory encounters, DEA continues
    to work closely with state and local law enforcement personnel across
    the country to ensure the provision of necessary clandestine laboratory
    investigative and safety training. To date, DEA has provided
    clandestine laboratory training to over 2,000 state and local officers
    across the United States. With additional funding provided to the
    agency in fiscal year 1998 through the Community Oriented Police
    Services (COPS) program, DEA anticipates training an additional 1,600
    state and local officers over the next two years.
        Today, states as far east as Georgia, and Kentucky are also
    beginning to see the effects of growing methamphetamine production and
    distribution. In August 1997, DEA, in cooperation with the FBI and the
    Northern Kentucky Drug Strike Force, arrested Mexican national Enrique
    Ochoa-Montanez and seized approximately 35 pounds of methamphetamine
    and $14,000 in cash from a hotel in northern Kentucky. In December
    1997, DEA's Atlanta Field Division was involved in the seizure of 10
    pounds of methamphetamine being shipped via Federal Express from
    California, Texas and Mexico. The methamphetamine seized was linked to
    the drug trafficking operations of the Amezcua-Contreras Organization.
        Just last month, DEA agents, again in cooperation with state and
    local law enforcement, arrested four people and seized 25 pounds of
    methamphetamine in Marietta, Georgia. This seizure--totaling a half a
    million dollars worth of methamphetamine--had been manufactured in
    Mexico and was intended for distribution in the Atlanta area. The
    significant rise in methamphetamine use and abuse in Atlanta has caused
    the drug to replace cocaine as the city's number one drug of choice.
        As in other areas of the Eastern U.S., methamphetamine trafficking
    and abuse are rising in South Carolina. Distribution is now associated
    with Mexican organizations as well as traditional groups such as
    motorcycle gangs and truckers. There has been an increase in
    methamphetamine distribution in South Carolina through the U.S. Mail
    and parcel services. Methamphetamine in state is currently selling in
    the range of $1,000 to $1,500 per pound.
        In recent months, DEA offices in South Carolina have been involved
    in two significant methamphetamine cases. The first case, initiated by
    our Florence Resident Office, surrounded the activities of a member of
    the Pagans Outlaw Motorcycle gang who operated a mobile clandestine
    methamphetamine laboratory that was capable of producing multi-pound
    quantities of methamphetamine. The investigation led to the seizure of
    a clandestine methamphetamine laboratory being operated in a hotel room
    in Myrtle Beach during Bikers Week. The defendant in this case was
    identified as the chemist and at his arrest he was in possession of a
    .40 caliber pistol. He was charged with creating a substantial risk to
    human life due to the amount of chemicals found at the clan lab site,
    and the manufacturing of a controlled substance. The defendant was
    ultimately found guilty and is currently facing a life sentence.
        The second case, initiated by our Greenville Resident Office,
    involved a group of Mexican nationals that established themselves in
    the Greenwood area and were engaged in the wholesale distribution of
    large quantities of marijuana and methamphetamine. Telephone toll
    analysis revealed communication was ongoing with other known Mexican
    traffickers throughout the United States. Methamphetamine being
    produced in labs in California, was being driven into the state by
    tractor trailer for delivery to the Greenwood area. This organization
    deliberately picked a rural area of the state and an area where no law
    enforcement personnel spoke Spanish. To date, a total of three
    defendants have been arrested in this case and 880 grams of
    methamphetamine have been seized.
        DEA has been aggressively addressing the growth of the
    methamphetamine trade across the U.S. through its Methamphetamine
    Enforcement Initiative. This initiative has provided an integrated and
    coordinated strategy in support of the National Drug Control Strategy,
    the National Methamphetamine Strategy, and the Department of Justice
    Methamphetamine strategy. It focuses our intelligence and enforcement
    efforts against Mexican drug trafficking organizations, independent
    domestic methamphetamine traffickers, and rogue chemical companies
    responsible for the smuggling, production, and distribution of
    methamphetamine in the United States. Through our demand reduction
    efforts, the training of state and local law enforcement officers and
    our major investigative efforts, including a recent investigation
    entitled Operation META, we are committed to ensuring that
    methamphetamine does not become the ``crack'' cocaine of the 1990's. A
    brief chronology of DEA's methamphetamine-related actions and
    accomplishments are summarized below.
    Fiscal year 1995
        In fiscal year 1995, DEA devoted almost 10 percent more work hours
    to methamphetamine investigations than in 1994. The result was 2,600
    arrests, 20 percent increase over 1994 figures. DEA was also involved
    in the seizure of 327 methamphetamine laboratories across the U.S.,
    including 38 tons of ephedrine and pseudoephedrine from three rogue
    chemical companies.
    Fiscal year 1996
        In fiscal year 1996, DEA sponsored the first annual Methamphetamine
    Conference, which brought together federal, state and local law
    enforcement officers and raised national awareness about the growing
    methamphetamine problem. DEA's Demand Reduction Section, in cooperation
    with the American Council for Drug Education, produced a follow-up
    methamphetamine awareness pamphlet for distribution to the public-at-
    large.
        In April 1996, DEA established a Special Enforcement Program,
    Operation Velocity, to target significant domestic methamphetamine
    organizations and independent traffickers and chemists involved in the
    production of methamphetamine and/or the distribution of precursor
    chemicals in the United States.
        In fiscal year 1996, DEA made a total of 3,920 methamphetamine-
    related arrests and seized 903 clandestine laboratories, a 220 percent
    increase over 1995. DEA also conducted seven, one-week state and local
    clandestine laboratory certification schools, providing training for
    approximately 247 state and local participants nationwide.
    Fiscal year 1997
        In fiscal year 1997, DEA expanded its overall interdiction and
    chemical control efforts along the southwest border through an
    enhancement of 54 special agents for the southwest border Initiative.
    In June 1997, DEA established a Special Operations Section to target
    Mexican methamphetamine command and control operations.
        DEA's Operation META demonstrated the extensive involvement of the
    major Mexican trafficking groups in the U.S. methamphetamine trade.
    This multi-agency wiretap investigation targeted traffickers associated
    with the Amezcua brothers' methamphetamine trafficking organization, a
    syndicate which, as previously indicated, supplies its U.S. cells with
    methamphetamine, precursor chemicals, and cocaine.
        Amezcua cells manufactured methamphetamine in Los Angeles. During
    the META raids, operating methamphetamine labs were discovered near a
    day-care center and in an equestrian center where riding lessons were
    being conducted. This is typical of the disregard organized crime
    syndicates have for the safety and well-being of the American public.
    The labs discovered were capable of producing more than 300 pounds of
    methamphetamine. Operation META, an OCDETF investigation conducted as
    part of DEA's Southwest Border Strategy, resulted in more than 100 key
    arrests of methamphetamine traffickers operating in the U.S.
        In 1997, DEA conducted 23 one-week clandestine laboratory
    investigative and safety training classes for state and local law
    enforcement officers at sites in San Diego, California, Overland Park,
    Kansas, and at the FBI Academy/Camp Upshur in Quantico, Virginia. A
    total of 914 state and local officers were trained. A one-time transfer
    of funds from ONDCP allowed DEA to provide much needed clandestine
    laboratory safety equipment (e.g., air monitors, air purified
    respirators, fire resistant clothing, etc.) to each state and local
    officer completing the course.
        DEA produced and distributed nationwide a new public awareness
    videotape entitled ``Methamphetamine--Trail of Violence.'' DEA also
    produced and distributed clandestine laboratory awareness posters and
    two videotapes, one which details and illustrates the chemicals found
    in the new ``Nazi'' formula labs, and another called ``Chemical Time
    Bombs,'' to clandestine laboratory enforcement teams throughout the
    U.S. In 1996 and 1997, several DEA field divisions, including the St.
    Louis Field Division, held conferences to educate state and local
    authorities on the growth and hazards associated with methamphetamine
    trafficking, production and abuse in the United States.
        In 1997, DEA made a total of 5,780 arrests and seized 1,366
    methamphetamine laboratories. The agency also initiated a total of
    3,209 methamphetamine cases and seized 1,175 kilograms of
    methamphetamine and amphetamine. Operation Velocity itself resulted in
    the arrest of 222 significant violators and $2.5 million in seized
    trafficker assets.
    Fiscal year 1998
        DEA received a resource enhancement of 60 special agents and
    $11.046 million to execute a three-pronged approach for attacking
    methamphetamine production, trafficking and abuse in the United States.
    This approach entails: (1) increased enforcement to target major
    methamphetamine trafficking organizations; (2) hazardous waste removal
    and laboratory services; and (3) clandestine laboratory training to DEA
    personnel and state, local and foreign law enforcement organizations.
    Along with the 54 DEA special agents deployed for methamphetamine
    enforcement nationwide, an additional 6 special agents were allocated
    to DEA's Office of Training to conduct state and local clandestine
    laboratory certification training.
        Because of the hazardous nature of the waste produced, clandestine
    laboratory sites require professional, costly cleanup services. In
    1998, the COPS program provided DEA with a one-time reimbursement of
    $9.5 million for state and local clandestine laboratory cleanup and
    training. This funding included a total of $5 million for state and
    local clandestine cleanup operations and $4.5 million for clandestine
    laboratory training for state and local officers.
    Fiscal year 1999
        Building on the Southwest Border Initiative and the National
    Methamphetamine Strategy, DEA is requesting additional resources to
    implement a comprehensive approach for targeting and investigating
    methamphetamine trafficking and production. This approach will increase
    domestic enforcement, enhance chemical control, expand intelligence
    efforts, and improve environmental protection. The request includes an
    enhancement of 100 special agents to target methamphetamine trafficking
    in emerging markets and/or producer states.
        Question. Are your DEA agents and/or funds being made available for
    states like South Carolina, that aren't consumed yet with a
    methamphetamine problem, but also don't want to see it balloon into
    something uncontrollable?
        Answer. DEA is very concerned about the continuing spread of
    methamphetamine across the United States, including to areas in the
    Midwest and more recently, states along the East Coast. We are
    continuing to work diligently with our federal, state and local
    counterparts to address the methamphetamine problem before it reaches
    the epidemic proportions that the crack cocaine crisis did in the late
    1980's and early 1990's.
        As previously indicated, DEA's 1998 appropriation included a total
    of 60 special agents and $11.046 million to address the growth and
    spread of domestic methamphetamine trafficking across the United
    States. Out of this allocation, DEA's Atlanta Field Division Office,
    (which includes DEA offices in South Carolina), received a total of 4
    special agents.
        DEA currently has a total of 26 special agents on-board in the
    state of South Carolina. DEA also has four state and local task forces
    operating in state, including task forces in Charleston (funded and
    operating since 1991), Greenville (Provisional and operating since
    1990), Columbia (Provisional and operating since 1997), and Florence
    (Provisional and operating since 1991).
        There is one special agent in each of the above Resident Offices
    that house these task forces, that is clan lab certified. There are
    currently no task force officers that are clan lab certified; however,
    students in DEA's two week Basic Narcotic School are provided with four
    hours of basic instruction on clan labs and methamphetamine
    investigations. One such school is provided in South Carolina each year
    with approximately 40 to 45 officers attending.
        During 1997, 37 clandestine laboratories were seized in the Atlanta
    Division, only one of which (Myrtle Beach case referred to earlier in
    the text) was a methamphetamine lab originating in South Carolina. The
    Atlanta Division Office has established a clan lab enforcement group
    that is available to assist other offices throughout the division when
    a clandestine laboratory is encountered.
                                reorganizing ins
        Question. I've heard that Chairman Rogers on the House side wants
    to abolish the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) and move
    its functions into the Department of Labor, Department of State, and
    retain part in Justice. Have you reviewed this issue. What is your view
    General Reno?
        Answer. The Administration's restructure proposal was transmitted
    to the Hill on March 31, 1996. The plan took into consideration the
    concerns of the Congress and the Commission on Immigration Reform (CIR)
    with respect to the current management of immigration responsibilities.
        The INS has as its single mission the effective execution of
    immigration and naturalization laws of this country. This single
    mission has two inseparable and complementary functions--services and
    enforcement.
        The White House Domestic Policy Council (DPC), Office of Management
    and Budget, in consultation with the Departments of Labor and State,
    and the Department's own leadership--which has included my direct
    personal involvement--and the leadership of the Immigration and
    Naturalization Service have worked extensively in designing the
    restructuring plan. In addition, the Department has contracted with the
    consulting firm of Booz-Allen & Hamilton for assistance in designing
    and operationalizing the INS restructuring plan.
        Question. Some have suggested that the problem is that INS has two
    competing missions--the border patrol and immigration inspectors are
    tasked with keeping aliens out, while the naturalization part of the
    agency is tasked with facilitating legal immigration.
        Have you looked at retaining all INS functions within the Justice
    Department, but separating enforcement and naturalization activities
    into separate organizations?
        Answer. The Department and Booz-Allen have examined alternative
    reorganization proposals for the INS--including those by external
    sources--such as the CIR proposal and the proposal provided in
    Congressman Reyes' bill.
        The Administration's restructuring plan recognizes that one agency,
    INS, should continue to perform the interrelated enforcement and
    service functions. Consistent with the Administration's plan, the
    Department is focusing on a design structure that upholds the
    organizational integrity of the INS, while identifying additional
    changes that will improve INS' performance of enforcement and service
    functions. The Department is not considering separating INS' existing
    enforcement and service functions into separate Department of Justice
    (DOJ) components.
                             community prosecuting
        Question. I've been told that your budget includes a new $50
    million initiative for a Community Prosecutors Program that will make
    discretionary grants to state and local prosecutors. Will this operate
    like the COPS on the Beat program?
        Answer. Of the $50 million request, at least $40 million will be
    available to hire prosecutors. This will be a discretionary grant
    program that may well operate much like the COPS program. Grants are
    anticipated to last an average of three years and would pay a maximum
    of 75 percent of costs, with the Federal share declining over the life
    of the grant. The remaining 20 percent, or $10 million, will be
    available for the following purposes: developing and implementing
    innovative programs that permit members of the community in assisting
    prosecutors in crime control and prevention; increasing prosecutors'
    involvement in community activities focused on crime control and
    prevention; developing and establishing a new administrative and
    management systems to facilitate the adoption of community-oriented
    prosecution; and developing and implementing innovative, community-
    based programs that include the courts and corrections systems.
        Question. This seems like a good policy to have local prosecutors
    interact directly with members of the community, but can this be
    supported in the State and local block grants?
        Answer. Technically Local Law Enforcement Black Grant (LLEBG) funds
    may be used to hire prosecutors and fund prevention efforts. However,
    there are several problems with doing so:
      --prosecutors are primary county employees and the bulk of LLEBG
            funds go to cities;
      --in 1996 and 1997, jurisdictions have already expressed that their
            primary needs are equipment, police officers and police
            overtime, in that order;
      --even if localities were so inclined, funding levels are too small,
            particularly at the local level, to hire even one prosecutor,
            much less fund any kind of program;
      --the central theme and intent of this program is to change the
            culture at the local level to buy into the concept of community
            justice and create strong coalitions among the local
            organizations/groups, which will then impact crime. Most of
            what will occur will be training and technical assistance
            toward this end. These kinds of activities cannot be funded
            through the LLEBG.
        Question. In your testimony, you say this Community Prosecuting has
    worked on a small-scale level and you want the opportunity to try this
    nationally. Now would the $50 million go towards a comprehensive,
    national strategy that would be seen in hundreds of communities
    throughout the country, or would you limit the program to targeted
    areas?
        Answer. The intent is, indeed, to create a comprehensive strategy
    that encourages and supports prosecutors and local communities across
    the country to work together to fight crime in their neighborhoods.
                            national advocacy center
        Question. The Department of Justice is going to be opening the
    National Advocacy Center in a short time, and will finally have a
    center of excellence to train Assistant U.S. Attorneys and State and
    Local prosecutors together.
        Two weeks ago we learned that the Department of Justice has been
    funding the Federal Trade Commission to train State prosecutors around
    the country in combatting telemarketing scams.
        General Reno, clearly marketing scams are a real law enforcement
    challenge that requires cooperation between our Federal and local
    prosecutors. Seems to me we should take advantage of the synergy
    produced by the National Advocacy Center and provide this training at
    the new facility.
        Could you please look into that and see if we can set up such a
    training course at the Advocacy Center?
        Answer. The National District Attorneys Advocacy Center (NDAAC)
    will be part of the National Advocacy Center currently under
    construction in Columbia, South Carolina. Each year, at currently
    anticipated resource levels, the NDAAC will provide training to
    approximately 2,000 local prosecutors who need instruction in specific
    prosecutorial skills. However, there are small prosecutor offices that
    cannot send their limited staff to the National Center for extended
    training. For these offices, short duration training at regional
    locations, possibly dealing with state-specific issues, will continue
    to be the most responsive approach. Also, with a potential training
    pool of over 65,000 local prosecutors, the currently anticipated
    capacity of the NDAAC alone cannot meet the requirements of the
    potential student population at the South Carolina location.
        The recently held Telemarketing Scams courses were conducted as a
    joint effort by the American Prosecutors Research Institute and the
    National Association of Attorneys General. Two training sessions were
    planned for local prosecutors and assistant attorneys general. This
    course can be added to the curriculum of the NDAAC for presentation as
    demand warrants.
           communications assistance for law enforcement act [calea]
        Question. I have a number of questions that Senator Leahy, the
    Ranking Member on the Judiciary Committee, has asked that we submit
    regarding the implementation of the Communications Assistance to Law
    Enforcement Act (CALEA).
        As you know, last year we did not provide additional funding for
    CALEA since prior year funding had not been spent and the
    communications industry and the FBI had not reached agreement on
    capability and capacity requirements for court-ordered wiretaps in a
    digital telecommunications environment.
        It still appears to me that the FBI and the industry have not
    progressed very far. What is the status of the Justice Department's
    negotiations with industry?
        Answer. The Department of Justice (DOJ) and the industry have been
    discussing the implementation of CALEA on many fronts. The primary
    objective of these discussions has been to reach consensus with regard
    to implementation of CALEA. A committee was formed last summer
    consisting of representatives from the telecommunications industry and
    law enforcement to resolve the differences that existed with the
    industry's proposed standard. A committee was formed following a
    meeting between the Attorney General and Larry Babbio, Vice Chairman of
    Bell Atlantic Corporation.
        As recently as February 23, 1998, the DOJ put forth a proposal that
    consisted of the following elements: (1) the Telecommunications Carrier
    Compliance Fund (TCCF) would be used to pay for the development of
    solutions for all switching platforms in existence prior to January 1,
    1995; (2) with regard to deployment costs, the TCCF would be used to
    pay for all deployment costs for specific switches in place before
    January 1, 1995. Within this framework, any switching platforms in
    existence prior to January 1, 1995 for which the Government does not
    fund solution development would be deemed in compliance until such time
    as the Government does fund development; (3) the Government would be
    willing to share deployment costs with industry for specific switches
    installed or deployed between January 1, 1995 and October 25, 1998,
    even though the Government is not statutorily obligated to reimburse
    those costs; and (4) law enforcement would also forbear seeking
    enforcement actions for a reasonable period (a period that would
    coincide with manufacturer development timelines) after the October 25,
    1998 compliance date, thereby allowing the industry a reasonable period
    in which to deploy solutions.
        On February 25, 1998, the industry rejected all of the FBI's
    proposal. On March 6, 1998, leaders of the telecommunications industry,
    Attorney General Reno and Director Freeh met in an attempt to reach a
    negotiated agreement. The meeting concluded with both industry and law
    enforcement committing to working together intensively and
    cooperatively for the next 60 days. Industry and law enforcement will
    have the following objectives: (1) assess the technical feasibility of
    developing solutions which fully meet law enforcement requirements; (2)
    clarify the financial implications of developing solutions which fully
    meet law enforcement requirements; and (3) develop corresponding CALEA
    solution deployment timelines. On March 27, 1998, the DOJ and the FBI
    filed a petition with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC)
    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.
        Question. We have heard rumors that the FBI is holding out the
    possibility that it will seek funding in excess of the $500 million
    authorization if the communications industry will sign on to its
    capacity and capability requirements. Is there anything to that rumor
    or are you committed to staying within budget for this subsidy program?
        Answer. Currently, the FBI has no plans to request that the current
    authorization of $500 million be increased.
                                     ______

                Questions Submitted by Senator Patrick J. Leahy
                                     calea
        Question. We have less than a year before the October 25, 1998
    deadline for telecommunications carriers to be in compliance with the
    Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act.
        Given the current state of CALEA implementation, with no final
    capacity notice, a disputed industry capability standard in place, and
    no final switch-based or network-based solution deployed, please tell
    me how you expect telecommunications carriers to meet the October 25,
    1998 compliance date?
        Answer. CALEA turned out to be a far more significant and difficult
    task than the Attorney General and the FBI had originally anticipated
    as many difficult technological as well as implementation issues needed
    to be understood and addressed. However, the assistance capability
    requirements have been known for some time. In fact, at one point in
    1995, the industry's draft standard did include all of law
    enforcement's technical requirements.
        It was only after the industry began to dismiss a portion of those
    requirements that law enforcement recognized that some important
    evidentiary requirements would be absent from the standard and hence
    absent from any solution developed using the standard as its base. The
    industry's removal of these key requirements set a process in motion
    that recently concluded with the Department of Justice (DOJ)'s legal
    decision that nine ``punch list'' missing capabilities were required by
    CALEA and the underlying electronic surveillance statutes. The
    legislation recognizes that even in the absence of a standard, the
    industry must provide the assistance capability requirements of CALEA.
        The FBI recognizes the difficulties with the implementation of
    CALEA and has agreed to support industry applications for extensions of
    time afforded them within the legislation contingent on the industry
    providing certain information to the FBI pertaining to electronic
    surveillance solution development and deployment schedules. The FBI
    will support the industry's good faith effort in moving toward a
    solution consistent with law enforcement requirements.
        With regard to capacity, the FBI does not believe that compliance
    with the section 103 assistance capability requirements by October 25,
    1998 should be tied to, or delayed pending the issuance of the Final
    Notice of Capacity. A manufacturer's ability to develop solutions to
    meet the section 103 assistance capability requirements does not depend
    upon the final articulation of the capacity requirements. Shortly after
    the publication of the Second Notice of Capacity in January 1997, the
    FBI advised the industry that the capacity numbers in the Final Notice
    of Capacity would not change from those set forth in the Second Notice
    of Capacity.
        Question. Should the deadline for compliance with the capability
    requirements be delayed? If not, please explain why?
        Answer. No, the deadline for compliance with the capability
    requirements should not be delayed. Law enforcement has been consulting
    with the industry in an effort to explain its evidentiary requirements
    since the initiation of standards-setting efforts in 1995. While the
    FBI has agreed to support applications for extensions of the compliance
    date before the FCC based on good faith efforts of industry, the FBI
    does not believe blanket extensions are justified.
        Furthermore, CALEA contains provisions to accommodate a need to
    extend the compliance date. Section 107 of the legislation clearly
    states that: ``A telecommunications carrier proposing to install or
    deploy, or having installed or deployed, any equipment, facility, or
    service prior to the effective date of section 103 may petition the
    Commission for one or more extensions of the deadline for complying
    with the assistance capability requirements * * *.''
        The DOJ and the FBI share your frustration with the pace of CALEA's
    implementation. Few could have foreseen that a solution would not be
    available eight months prior to the October 25, 1998 compliance date
    for capability, particularly since CALEA specifically requires
    capability compliance by that date regardless of whether or not a
    standard has been adopted. However, in recognizing that the compliance
    date is fast approaching and a solution is not yet commercially
    available, the Government offered industry a new direction in a January
    22, 1998 letter from the Attorney General to members of the
    telecommunications industry.
        As stated in the January 22, 1998 letter, and further clarified in
    a February 3, 1998 letter from Stephen R. Colgate, Assistant Attorney
    General for Administration, in those situations where a carrier can
    foresee that they are unable to meet the October 25, 1998 deadline
    because a manufacturer has yet to develop a solution, the Attorney
    General is prepared to forbear from any enforcement action against that
    carrier, and support a carrier's petition to the FCC for an extension
    of the compliance date. In return, the Attorney General would require
    that each manufacturer continue good faith efforts to develop a
    solution with functionality required by CALEA as defined by law
    enforcement and the underlying electronic surveillance statutes, and
    provide a reasonable and fair development schedule which would include
    verifiable milestones.
        Question. Why has the FBI not yet petitioned the FCC over the
    standard? Do you plan to file such a petition and, if so, what are you
    waiting for?
        Answer. In December 1997, the telecommunications industry adopted
    an interim standard (J-STD-025) that does not contain nine punch list
    capabilities found by the Department of Justice to be required by
    CALEA. The DOJ and the FBI believe that this standard is deficient
    because it does not include these assistance capabilities. If the
    standard is not modified, the safe harbor that has been created by the
    passage of the deficient interim standard will be allowed to continue.
    The result will be the inability of law enforcement to conduct
    effective electronic surveillance.
        It is important to note that the FBI, as a representative of all
    Federal, state and local law enforcement, requires a consensus among
    its members in order to file a petition that would be representative of
    the entire law enforcement community.
        The FBI principally coordinates CALEA implementation actions
    through the Law Enforcement Technical Forum (LETF) in which law
    enforcement officials from across the country express their views on
    CALEA matters, including the industry's J-STD-025 interim standard. A
    LETF meeting was held on January 22, 1998, to discuss the interim
    standard. Also, after internal analysis, the FBI requested a DOJ review
    of the ``punch list'' capabilities. That opinion was rendered on
    January 23, 1998. Moreover, a meeting was held on February 24, 1998
    with law enforcement associations including the International
    Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP), the National Association of
    Attorneys General (NAAG), and the National Technical Investigators
    Association (NATIA) to discuss the interim standard. On March 27, 1998,
    the DOJ and FBI filed a petition with the FCC opposing the interim
    standard adopted by the telecommunications industry.
        Question. The FBI has repeatedly noted that the absence of a
    standard does not relieve industry from meeting the statutory deadline
    for capability compliance. In fact, CALEA does not let carriers off the
    hook if no standard is implemented. Yet, the Department is proposing to
    issue letters of forbearance to carriers excusing them from meeting the
    compliance deadline, if they agree to some or all of the FBI's ``punch
    list'' items, which carriers contend are not required under CALEA. What
    provisions in CALEA authorize the Attorney General to grant forbearance
    to carriers that cannot meet the October 1998 compliance deadline?
        Answer. Section 108 of CALEA sets the conditions under which the
    Attorney General is authorized to seek an order enforcing the
    legislation. In those instances where carriers and manufacturers are
    indeed making good faith efforts to comply in a timely manner, the
    Attorney General would reserve the right to seek an enforcement order.
        During the course of a January 23, 1998, meeting, the DOJ, the FBI,
    and representatives of the telecommunications industry discussed the
    conditions under which the DOJ would agree not to pursue enforcement
    actions against a carrier under section 108 of CALEA with regard to the
    CALEA mandate that a carrier meet the assistance capability
    requirements pursuant to CALEA section 103 by October 25, 1998, or
    against a manufacturer with respect to its obligation under CALEA
    section 106(b) to make features or modifications available on a
    ``reasonably timely basis.'' Industry representatives in attendance at
    the January 23, 1998, meeting included representatives from the
    Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association (CTIA), Personal
    Communications Industry Association (PCIA), Telecommunications Industry
    Association (TIA), United States Telephone Association (USTA), and Bell
    Atlantic.
        Forbearance would be contingent upon the industry's good faith
    efforts to develop a solution that is consistent with law enforcement's
    requirements and to commit to a fair and reasonable development
    schedule.
        Question. It seems that the FBI and DOJ are offering to support
    extensions of the compliance date through forbearance letters or at the
    FCC only if carriers agree to undertake efforts to develop the ``punch
    list'' which carriers contend are not required under CALEA. Does CALEA
    give the FBI and DOJ authority to condition the granting of extensions
    of the compliance deadline?
        Answer. Only the FCC may grant extensions of the compliance
    deadline. However, the FCC is required to consult with the Attorney
    General before granting an extension to a carrier. The Attorney General
    can support a carrier's request for extension of the compliance date
    based on that carrier's good faith efforts to implement CALEA.
        In recognition of the industry's concern over the compliance date,
    the Attorney General has offered not to pursue enforcement actions
    against a carrier under section 108 of CALEA with regard to the CALEA
    mandate that a carrier meet the assistance capability requirements by
    October 25, 1998, or against a manufacturer with respect to its
    obligation under CALEA section 106(b) to make features or modifications
    available on a ``reasonably timely basis.''
        Forbearance and support for extensions would be contingent upon
    industry's good faith efforts to develop a CALEA-compliant solution and
    commit to a fair and reasonable development schedule which would
    include verifiable milestones.
        The DOJ, the FBI and the law enforcement community firmly believe
    that the ``punch list'' capabilities must be incorporated into a
    solution in order for law enforcement to maintain the integrity of
    interceptions and the ability to intercept the same information that it
    previously received through traditional methods--that is, before the
    advent of advanced telecommunications services and features
    necessitated eletronic surveillance efforts to be effected within a
    carrier switch or network facilities. After extensive legal analysis,
    DOJ has found the ``punch list'' missing capabilities to be within the
    scope of CALEA, and vital to law enforcement's ability to meet
    evidentiary and minimization requirements required by a court of law.
        Question. If carriers seek deadline extensions at the FCC, will the
    FBI argue that any extensions should be conditioned on carriers
    dropping their objections to the punch list?
        Answer. The FBI has agreed to support industry applications for
    extensions of time afforded them within the legislation. In return, the
    Attorney General expects the manufacturer to continue good faith
    efforts to develop a solution consistent with law enforcement's
    requirements and commit to a fair and reasonable development schedule
    which would include verifiable milestones.
        On February 4, 1998, the DOJ sent a letter to industry
    representatives delineating the DOJ's determination of the legality of
    ``punch-list'' missing capabilities. The legal opinion was rendered and
    the letter was sent in response to an industry request for
    clarification of the legality of the ``punch-list'' missing
    capabilities. The DOJ legal opinion clearly stated that nine of the
    ``punch-list'' capabilities were required by CALEA and the underlying
    electronic surveillance statutes.

                              subcommittee recess

        Senator Gregg. Thank you again, Madam Attorney General.
        Ms. Reno. Thank you.
        Senator Gregg. The subcommittee stands in recess until
    Thursday at 10 a.m. when we will hear testimony from the
    Secretary of State.
        [Whereupon, at 11:34 a.m., Tuesday, February 24, the
    subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene at 10 a.m., Thursday,
    February 26.]

    DEPARTMENTS OF COMMERCE, JUSTICE, AND STATE, THE JUDICIARY, AND RELATED
                  AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 1999

                                  ----------

                          THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 26, 1998

                                           U.S. Senate,
               Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The subcommittee met at 10:06 a.m., in room SD-192, Dirksen
    Senate Office Building, Hon. Judd Gregg (chairman) presiding.
        Present: Senators Gregg, Stevens, Campbell, Hollings,
    Inouye, and Mikulski.

                              DEPARTMENT OF STATE

                               Secretary of State

    STATEMENT OF MADELEINE K. ALBRIGHT, SECRETARY OF STATE

                                opening remarks

        Senator Gregg. We will start the hearing of the
    Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, and State of the
    Appropriations Committee.
        Madam Secretary, we do have a vote starting, two back to
    back votes, starting at 11 o'clock. So what I would like to
    suggest to the panel, if it is agreeable, and I will leave it
    to the panel to decide, is that we waive opening statements and
    go right to hearing the Secretary. Hopefully, she can give us a
    brief opening statement so we can get right into questions.
        I yield to my ranking member for any comments he may have.
        Senator Hollings. Mr. Chairman, I thank you and I welcome
    Secretary Albright. I have got a conflicting hearing in the
    Commerce Committee at 10:15 and I hope to get back. Madam
    Secretary, welcome. Write down the word: ``oceans.''
        I started 30 years ago with Tom Pickering. He was then the
    Assistant Secretary of State for Oceans and Environment. Then
    most recently you had Tim Wirth, as the Under Secretary, and
    now you have nobody. But your Department is trying to hold up
    any bill which creates an ocean policy commission. Julius
    Stratton some 30 years ago chaired an ocean study, the famous
    Stratton Commission, that led to the creation of NOAA. We
    really do not have any conflicts with international law. The
    problems are local.
        The problem is that 85 percent of the people by the year
    2000 in this country will live within 50 miles of the coast of
    the oceans and the Great Lakes. We passed my Oceans Act
    unanimously over here on the Senate side. We are ready to get
    it going over on the House side. And, now I've heard rumors
    that State Department people are saying, ``Wait, we are the
    lead on oceans.''
        It is the year of the oceans in the State Department, for
    lack of attention frankly. Saying, oh, no, we have got to
    change this. We are in charge of ocean policy. And you stay in
    charge of all international policy. But within respect to the
    coastal zone management, ocean research, El Nino, living marine
    resources, the actual two-thirds of the Earth that is affecting
    the weather, that we do not pay attention to. The U.S.
    Government has got to have a formative study now and an
    approach to real issues and problems. So I would appreciate
    your help on it.
        With respect to Iraq. Sometimes we overdescribe, in my
    opinion. Sometimes we lift expectations beyond reality, and
    that has occurred here more recently. You have been working
    around the clock on an agreement, and I admire you for what you
    have done. But what happens is that, in all candor, this
    agreement cannot be enforced. You cannot police another man's
    country.
        It can be enforced if you get rid of Saddam Hussein.
    Everybody agrees on that, and nobody has a substitute for it
    except Israel. Israel has made it known if they put in one
    missile in downtown Tel Aviv, that will be the end of Baghdad,
    Saddam, and the whole kit and caboodle. So they get on national
    TV and they say, by the way, if you all come in, we are not
    going against Israel this time. Somewhat mutually assured
    destruction. That policy worked with the Soviets and that,
    unless we are going after Saddam himself, has got to be our
    policy.
        Our friend, Secretary Cohen, gave up the game when he held
    that bag of sugar on TV. You can go in there 5 days, you can go
    in there 50 days and bomb, and at the end of the 50 days up
    comes Saddam on TV with his little bag and says, ha-ha, I am
    still here. You yourself have said that, ``Well, if necessary
    we will go back in.''
        I think that we ought to get down to reality and realize
    that from our own experience that you just cannot guarantee
    anything unless you get rid of Saddam. We thought we were doing
    a good job with UNSCOM. I keep hearing about the integrity of
    UNSCOM. The outfit itself has integrity, but the agreement to
    be enforced has none whatsoever.
        I saw us misled years and years ago by Secretary McNamara,
    and he finally wrote a book about it. He was talking about
    having them surrounded, Operation Meat Grinder, light at the
    end of the tunnel, and everything else. In a similar fashion,
    we are overdescribing this thing when we say we are going to
    enforce it. It will be a guarantee. It will be serious. And
    then in the next breath we say, wait a minute, it might not
    work, and we will have to go back in.
        Hey, you cannot waste American personnel, GI's, men, and
    women on the kind of policy that does not get the job done. We
    made a mistake back in Desert Storm. We should have gone in and
    finished the job. We all know that now. And going in is the
    only way to enforce this so-called policy because it is
    unenforceable otherwise. Even in our own country, the FBI just
    thought they had anthrax out in Nevada.
        So I understand that it is the policy that you are in
    charge of. When we go around and we talk categorically about
    what we are going to do, we say we are the one superpower and
    it is our responsibility. And no, we do not need the United
    Nations, but yet it is the U.N. resolutions that we are
    enforcing, and we end up with everybody in the neighborhood
    against us--the majority of the Security Council against us.
    That is bad policy and that worries me. As we move into this
    thing, the ultimate policy in the Mideast is whether or not we
    can get a peace treaty now with Arafat of any kind for Israel
    during the remainder of President Clinton's term.
        Now I did not mean to go that long, but I have to, because
    unfortunately, I do not get much chance to see the Secretary. I
    do appreciate it, and welcome you.
        Senator Gregg. Thank you, Senator Hollings.
        I notice we have been joined by the chairman of the full
    committee and wondered if, Senator Stevens, did you wish to
    make any opening statement?
        Senator Stevens. No; I will abide by your request and wait.
        Senator Gregg. Then we turn to you, Madam Secretary. I
    appreciate your coming, and appreciate your time, and look
    forward to hearing what you have to say.

                               Summary statement

        Secretary Albright. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I am
    very glad to be here again with you and the members of the
    subcommittee and to present the President's 1999 budget
    request. I will not read my written statement, but I encourage
    you to look it over because it deals with an awful lot of vital
    issues in parts of the world that I cannot include in my oral
    statement today and honor your time. But before discussing the
    specific accounts, Mr. Chairman, let me just review a couple of
    front burner foreign policy issues. Clearly, Iraq is one of
    them. I will not respond to everything that Senator Hollings
    said, but I will make a couple of comments and then, obviously,
    I think you all will have questions.
        First, we have made efforts through diplomacy backed by the
    threat of force to see that Iraq complies with its obligations
    to the world community, and that effort is going on. On
    Tuesday, the Security Council was briefed by the Secretary
    General on the agreement, and the agreement does promise
    immediate and unrestricted access to U.N. inspectors to sites
    in Iraq, including those from which they had been previously
    excluded. Now I do think that this is important because Saddam
    Hussein has, in fact, reversed course. It is due to our own
    firmness and also to the strong international pressure brought
    to bear on Baghdad by nations from around the world.
        I know that there are some Senators who have urged that we
    reject the agreement. But we believe that the wiser course is
    to test the agreement. In the days ahead, we are going to be
    working with the Security Council and the U.N. Special
    Commission, UNSCOM, to see that the agreement is implemented in
    a way that reflects the core principles upon which we insisted.
    That is, that Security Council resolutions be obeyed, that the
    integrity of UNSCOM is preserved, and that there be no
    artificial timetables or linkages that would prevent UNSCOM
    from doing a full, professional job.
        With our support, UNSCOM will be testing Iraq's promises
    thoroughly and comprehensively. As President Clinton said on
    Monday, our soldiers, our ships, and our planes will stay there
    in force until we are satisfied that Iraq is complying with its
    commitments.
        The events of the past few days have not changed our
    fundamental goal, which is to end or contain the threat posed
    by Saddam Hussein to Iraq's neighbors and the world. A solid
    U.N. inspection and monitoring regime backed by sanctions and
    enforcement of the no-fly and no-drive zones is our preferred
    means of achieving that goal. But we retain the authority, the
    responsibility, the means, and the will to use military force
    if that is required.
        The recent focus on the situation in Iraq should not divert
    our attention though from other important decisions we have to
    make this year. For example, we are working with Europe to meet
    global challenges such as proliferation, crime, and the
    environment. And we are working in Europe to realize this
    century's most elusive dream: a Europe that is whole, free,
    prosperous, and at peace.
        This past Tuesday I joined Defense Secretary Cohen and
    General Shelton in testifying before the Foreign Relations
    Committee in support of NATO's decision to invite three new
    European democracies to join the alliance while holding the
    door open for others. By adding Poland, Hungary, and the Czech
    Republic to the alliance we will expand the area within Europe
    where wars simply do not happen. I hope with the support of
    leaders from both parties that the Senate will make the right
    choice and allow NATO enlargement to proceed.
        Another major test of our commitment to building a united
    and peaceful Europe is our effort to assist in fulfilling the
    Dayton accords. Around Christmas, I went to Bosnia with the
    President, and Senator Dole, and the chairman of the full
    Appropriations Committee, Senator Stevens, and other Members of
    Congress. We found a Bosnia that remains deeply divided, but
    where multiethnic institutions are once again beginning to
    function. More slowly than we foresaw, but surely as we hope,
    the infrastructure of Bosnian peace is gaining shape and the
    psychology of reconciliation is taking hold. But if we turn our
    backs on Bosnia now, as some urge, the confidence we are
    building would erode and the result could well be a return to
    genocide and war. Senators, quitting is not the American way,
    and we should continue to play an appropriate role in Bosnia as
    long as our help is needed, our allies and friends do their
    share, and most importantly, the Bosnian people are striving to
    help themselves. That is the right thing to do, and it is the
    smart thing, for it is the only way to ensure that when our
    troops do leave Bosnia that they leave for good.
        Mr. Chairman, there is much that America can accomplish
    unilaterally, bilaterally, or in cooperation with close allies.
    But many problems can best be dealt with through broad
    international action. That is why we participate in
    organizations such as the United Nations.
        Last year, as you recall, we worked together to develop a
    3-year plan to encourage the United Nations reform that we want
    while paying our overdue U.N. bills. Unfortunately, that spirit
    of cooperation broke down toward the end of the session when a
    small group of House Members blocked final passage of this and
    other key measures.
        I testified before the authorizing committees about my
    concern with the tactics used and will not belabor that point
    here. Certainly, your subcommittee did its part by
    appropriating the $100 million called for in the first year,
    and now we have to find a way to free up that money and to gain
    approval of funds for years two and three.
        Mr. Chairman, I have been discussing the United Nations and
    America's role in it with this subcommittee since 1993.
    Together we have helped the United Nations to achieve more
    reform in the past half-decade than in the previous 45 years.
    But as you know, Mr. Chairman, this progress has not come easy.
    We faced opposition every step of the way, and the job is far
    from finished.
        So let me tell you frankly that if we are not able to pay
    our U.N. arrears soon our legs will truly be cut out from under
    us at the United Nations. We are told daily by our best allies
    and friends that U.S. credibility will be sadly diminished.
    That will hurt America and cost Americans.
        Let me just cite one example. Last December, the General
    Assembly voted on a plan that could have, and I believe would
    have, cut our U.N. assessments by roughly $100 million every
    year. Our diplomatic team had worked long and hard to make this
    possible. But when the U.N. arrears package was killed, support
    for that proposal disappeared, and it took a heroic effort to
    keep alive the chance for a new vote during the first one-half
    of this year. So if we do not seize this opportunity, we will
    not have another one until the year 2000.
        So we have a choice. We can fail once again to act,
    undermine our own diplomatic leadership, and deprive our
    taxpayers of savings we might otherwise be able to achieve. Or
    we can pay our arrears, restore full U.S. influence, and make
    possible a reduction in our assessments that will save U.S.
    taxpayers money for as long as we are in the United Nations.
        Now I know this choice will not be made by this
    subcommittee alone, but I ask your support for prompt action
    not tied to any unrelated issue on our supplemental
    appropriations request for U.N. arrears. I am convinced it is
    the right choice for America.
        Mr. Chairman, there was a time not that long ago when our
    managers at the State Department could afford to be guided by a
    just-in-case philosophy. Planning, acquisitions, and training
    could be based on what might be needed. Today, we are compelled
    by the pace of change and the tightness of budgets to practice
    just-in-time management. That means putting personnel,
    resources, and infrastructure where they are required, when
    they are required, and being prepared to reposition them
    rapidly and flexibly when they are not.
        But we still need to make some well-placed investments.
    This year our request for State Department operating funds is
    about $2.2 billion; barely above last year's. But we are also
    seeking an increase of $243 million in our ``Security and
    maintenance'' account to upgrade our facilities, especially in
    Germany and China.
        With respect to information technology, our needs are
    basic. We want to install late 20th century computer technology
    at every post before the 21st century begins. We need to
    replace overloaded phone switchboards before they experience
    what is known as catastrophic failure. And we want to ensure
    that when the clock strikes midnight on December 31, 1999, our
    computers do not all crash and send us back to the age of quill
    pens and scribes. So I hope you will support us in acquiring
    communication systems that are secure, reliable, and expansive
    enough to meet the demands of the information age.
        Mr. Chairman, as Secretary of State, I can tell you that
    Americans can be proud of the people, whether foreign service,
    civil service, or foreign service nationals, who work every
    day, often under very difficult conditions, to protect our
    citizens and our interests around the world. They are really
    great people. But if we are to maintain the high standards of
    diplomatic representation we need, we must continue to
    emphasize high standards in recruiting, and managing our
    personnel. We must understand how and how much the world has
    changed.
        We need to train our people to sift information as much as
    to gather it, to surf the web as much as to pound the pavement,
    and to look outside traditional diplomatic sources for
    information, contacts, and ideas. We need specialists who can
    keep up with advances in technology, who have the language and
    cultural training required to feel at home wherever they may be
    assigned. We need men and women with multiple skills who can
    monitor compliance with international property law, assist
    Americans in trouble, report on human rights, and promote our
    arms control agenda all in the same career and sometimes in the
    same week.
        To do justice to the strength our Nation finds in its
    diversity, we have to do better at hiring, retaining, and
    promoting the best people America has to offer from every
    background. We are making progress, and I am particularly proud
    of the large numbers of women competing successfully to enter
    the foreign service this year. But there is much more we can
    do, and I hope I can count on this subcommittee's support.
        Mr. Chairman, many of our initiatives are directed, as I've
    discussed, at particular countries or regions. Others, such as
    our efforts to build prosperity, fight international crime, and
    protect the environment can best be considered in global terms.
        I think that as we are dealing with regional or worldwide
    issues, it is hard to lead in the 1990's with institutions
    designed for the 1950's. That is why we worked with Congress
    last year to develop a plan to reorganize our foreign affairs
    agencies to reflect the fact that arms control, public
    diplomacy, and international development belong at the heart of
    American foreign policy. I hope we will have the subcommittee's
    support for early action on reorganization legislation this
    year.
        Mr. Chairman, one-half a century ago a Democratic President
    and a Republican Congress worked together to help forge the
    institutions that have shaped our foreign policy and defined
    the history of our age. Institutions that proved instrumental
    in the defense and spread of freedom, the growth of prosperity,
    the defeat of communism, the confirmation over and over again
    of America's standing as a leading force for justice and law in
    the world. Our predecessors were not prophets, but because they
    stood tall they were perhaps able to see a little bit further
    into the future than others. They also had faith in our people
    and in the principles upon which our Nation was founded. Today
    we have a responsibility to honor their faith, to reject the
    temptation of complacency, and assume not with complaint, but
    welcome, the leader's role established by our forebears.
        New Hampshire's Daniel Webster said once that God grants
    liberty only to those who love it and are always ready to guard
    and defend it. These words remind us that only by living up to
    the heritage of our past can we fulfill the promise of our
    future and enter the new century free and respected, prosperous
    and at peace.

                               prepared statement

        Mr. Chairman, Senators, thank you very much and I am very
    happy now to answer your questions.
        [The statement follows:]
                  Prepared Statement of Madeleine K. Albright
        introduction: promoting american interests and universal values
        Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, I am pleased to be
    here today to discuss the President's fiscal year 1999 budget request
    for the Department of State and related programs.
        I want to begin by thanking you for your work last year. One of my
    highest goals upon becoming Secretary of State was to work with Members
    of Congress to restore both the spirit and substance of bipartisan
    support for American leadership around the globe. And as the
    achievements of this past year reflect, despite some disagreements, we
    have been moving in the right direction.
        Since I last testified before this Subcommittee, the United States
    has helped achieve progress towards a Europe whole and free, a Bosnia
    where peace is beginning to take hold, an Asia where security
    cooperation is on the rise, an Africa being transformed by new leaders
    and fresh thinking, and a Western Hemisphere blessed by an ever-
    deepening partnership of democracies.
        We have also joined the Chemical Weapons Convention as an original
    member, intensified the war against international crime, taken an
    essential first step towards a global agreement to combat climate
    change and approved the first overall increase in funding for
    international affairs programs in several years.
        More specifically, with your help, we have made progress in
    providing the training, equipment and resources we need to give the
    American people the first-class diplomatic representation they deserve.
        With the additional resources made available last year, we are
    going forward with a major program of infrastructure repair and are
    accelerating our modernization of information technology. And I am
    pleased that, after several years of personnel reductions, we will have
    as many Foreign and Civil service personnel joining us this year, as
    leaving.
        All this matters, Mr. Chairman, because American leadership is
    built not only on our military and economic power, and on the power of
    our ideals, but also on the effectiveness of our diplomacy.
        The accounts funded by this Subcommittee determine whether we will
    have the right people in the right place with the right tools at the
    right time. And whether we will therefore be able, through our
    bilateral and multilateral diplomacy, effectively to promote peace,
    halt the spread of deadly weapons, counter terror, fight international
    crime, enforce trade agreements, build democracy, raise core labor
    standards, protect the environment, increase respect for human rights,
    combat disease, and safeguard the rights of Americans who travel or do
    business overseas.
        I have said that it is America's strategic objective, as we prepare
    for the new century, to seize the opportunity that history has
    presented to bring nations closer together around basic principles of
    democracy, free markets, respect for the law and a commitment to peace.
        America's place in this system is at the center. And our challenge
    is to keep the connections between regions and among the most prominent
    nations strong and sure.
        We must also help other nations become full partners by lending a
    hand to those building democracy, emerging from poverty, or recovering
    from conflict.
        We must summon the spine to deter, the support to isolate, and the
    strength to defeat those who run roughshod over the rights of others.
        And we must aspire not simply to maintain the status quo--for that
    has never been good enough for America. Abroad, as at home, we must aim
    for higher standards so that the benefits of growth and the protections
    of law are shared not only by the lucky few, but by the hardworking
    many.
                      american leadership around the world
        Before proceeding to a discussion of specific accounts, Mr.
    Chairman, I would like briefly to review with the Subcommittee some of
    the major foreign policy challenges and initiatives we will face during
    the coming weeks and months.
        Most prominent, of course, is our effort--through diplomacy backed
    by the threat of force--to see that Iraq complies with its obligations
    to the world community.
        That effort is ongoing. On Tuesday, the Security Council was
    briefed by Secretary General Kofi Annan on Iraq's written agreement to
    reverse course and grant immediate, unconditional and unrestricted
    access to U.N. inspectors to sites in Iraq, including those from which
    they had previously been excluded.
        We attribute the Iraqi commitments not only to our own firmness,
    but to the strong international pressure brought to bear on Baghdad by
    nations from around the world.
        In the days ahead, we will be working with the Security Council and
    UNSCOM to ensure that the agreement is implemented in a manner that
    reflects the core principles upon which we have insisted: that Security
    Council resolutions be obeyed; that the integrity of the U.N. Special
    Commission--or UNSCOM--be preserved; and that there be no artificial
    timetables or linkages that would prevent UNSCOM from doing a full and
    professional job.
        With our support, UNSCOM will be testing Iraq's commitments
    thoroughly and comprehensively.
        And as President Clinton said Monday: ``Our soldiers, our ships,
    (and) our planes will stay there in force until we are satisfied Iraq
    is complying with its commitments.''
        Although the events of the past few days may have changed the
    specific circumstances, they have not changed our fundamental goal--
    which is to contain or end the threat posed by Saddam Hussein to Iraq's
    neighbors and the world. A solid U.N. inspection and monitoring regime,
    backed by sanctions and enforcement of the no-fly and no-drive zones,
    is our preferred means of achieving that goal. But we retain the
    authority, the responsibility, the means and the will to use military
    force if that is required.
        In the meantime, we continue to support expanded efforts through
    the United Nations oil-for-food mechanism to ease the suffering of the
    Iraqi people. We do this not as a favor to Saddam, who has often
    opposed such efforts, but because it is right; and because it deprives
    Saddam of the argument that Iraqi hardships justify lifting U.N.
    sanctions prematurely.
        Mr. Chairman, during my visits last week to Tennessee, South
    Carolina and--most audibly--Ohio, I heard two somewhat different but
    understandable desires voiced by the American people.
        The first was a strong desire to see the Iraq crisis settled
    peacefully. Americans have always been reluctant to use force. We do
    not want to put the lives of innocent people at risk, and would never
    unnecessarily do so.
        The second is a desire to see Saddam Hussein removed from power.
        Unfortunately, we cannot guarantee a peaceful outcome without
    opening the door to yet another round of Iraqi cheating, which we will
    not do. Given Saddam's history of aggression, his repeated use of
    poison gas and his dishonesty, we cannot safely or responsibly rule out
    the use of force in the future.
        But if we are required to use force, why not go all the way and
    remove Saddam from power? The answer is that it would require a far
    greater commitment of military force, and a far greater risk to
    American lives, than is currently needed to contain the threat Saddam
    poses.
        Some have suggested that the solution is to arm and encourage the
    Iraqi opposition to initiate a civil war. That option sounds--but is
    not--simple. We have worked with Iraqi opponents of Saddam Hussein in
    the past, and we are ready to work with them more effectively in the
    future. But the opposition is currently divided, and it would be wrong
    to create false or unsustainable expectations that could end in
    bloodshed or defeat.
        This leaves us with a policy that is--quite frankly--not fully
    satisfactory to anyone. It is a ``real world'' policy, not a ``feel
    good'' policy.
        But I am convinced it is the best policy to protect our interests
    and those of our friends and allies in the Gulf. It embodies both our
    desire for peace and our determination to fight if necessary. It takes
    into account current realities, without--in any way--ruling out future
    options. It presents the leaders in Baghdad with a clear choice. And it
    reflects principles that are vital to uphold, not only in the Gulf now,
    but everywhere, always.
        Mr. Chairman, the recent focus on the situation in Iraq should not
    divert our attention from other important decisions and initiatives we
    will undertake this year. For America is a global power, and our
    citizens have important interests in every region on every continent.
        For example, we are working with Europe to meet global challenges
    such as proliferation, crime and the environment.
        And we are working in Europe to realize this century's most elusive
    dream, a Europe that is whole, free, prosperous and at peace.
        Earlier this week, I joined Defense Secretary Cohen and General
    Shelton in testifying before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in
    support of NATO's decision to invite three new European democracies to
    join the alliance while holding the door open to others.
        By adding Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic to the alliance,
    we will expand the area within Europe where wars simply do not happen.
    And we will enlist in the cause of peace three new allies who are
    dedicated to NATO principles and ready to contribute to the freedom and
    security of the continent.
        I hope, and I believe, that with the support of leaders from both
    parties, and with the encouragement of the American people, the Senate
    will make the right choice--and allow NATO enlargement to proceed.
        Another major test of our commitment to building a united and
    peaceful Europe is our effort to assist in fulfilling the Dayton
    Accords.
        Around Christmas, I went to Bosnia with the President and Senator
    Dole and a number of Members of Congress. We found a nation that
    remains deeply divided, but where multi-ethnic institutions are once
    again beginning to function. Economic growth is accelerating. Indicted
    war criminals are being tried. More refugees are returning. And--
    perhaps most important--a new Bosnian Serb government has been elected
    that is committed to implementing Dayton.
        More slowly than we foresaw, but as surely as we hoped, the
    infrastructure of Bosnian peace is gaining shape and the psychology of
    reconciliation is taking hold.
        But if we turn our backs on Bosnia now, as some urge, the
    confidence we are building would erode, and the result could well be a
    return to genocide and war.
        Quitting is not the American way. In Bosnia, the mission should
    determine the timetable, not the other way around. And as the President
    made clear in December, ``that mission must be achievable and tied to
    concrete benchmarks, not a deadline.''
        Accordingly, we and our allies have agreed that NATO will continue
    to lead a multi-national force in Bosnia after SFOR's current mandate
    expires in June. Its mission will continue to be to deter hostilities,
    support the implementation of the Dayton Agreement, and contribute to
    establishing a secure environment in which Bosnian authorities can
    increasingly take charge of their country's stability themselves.
        Without expanding SFOR's mandate, we will ensure that the new force
    has an enhanced capability to deal with the task of ensuring public
    security.
        And we will review the size of the force periodically as part of
    our strategy to gradually transfer its responsibilities to domestic
    institutions and other international organizations.
        We have already held informal briefings with Senators on these
    consultations. As we discuss with our allies and partners the details
    of this new phase of operations, you can expect to hear more from us.
        We should continue to play an appropriate role in Bosnia as long as
    our help is needed, our allies and friends do their share, and--most
    importantly--the Bosnian people are striving to help themselves. That
    is the right thing to do. And it is the smart thing, for it is the only
    way to ensure that when our troops do leave Bosnia, they leave for
    good.
        Mr. Chairman, one of our most important foreign policy objectives
    is to build an inclusive Asia-Pacific community based on stability,
    shared interests and the rule of law.
        To this end, we have fortified our core alliances, crafted new
    defense guidelines with Japan, maintained our forward deployment of
    troops, embarked on Four Party talks to create a basis for lasting
    peace on the Korean Peninsula, and continued to implement, with our
    partners, the Agreed Framework which is dismantling North Korea's
    dangerous nuclear program.
        We have also intensified our dialogue with China, achieving
    progress on economic and security matters, while maintaining our
    principles on respect for Tibetan heritage and human rights. Let me
    stress here, Mr. Chairman, that engagement is not the same as
    endorsement. We continue to have sharp differences with China--but we
    also believe that the best way to narrow those differences is to
    encourage China to become a fully responsible participant in the
    international system.
        Steps in the right direction include China's commitment to strictly
    control nuclear exports, its assurances on nuclear cooperation with
    Iran, its security cooperation on the Korean peninsula, its decision to
    sign the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, its continued economic
    liberalization, the release of Wei Jingsheng, its invitation to the
    U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights to visit, and its agreement to
    pursue cooperative activities with us to strengthen the rule of law
    (activities that we propose to be partly funded through an increase in
    the Asia Foundation's budget).
        We have also been working with the IMF to respond to the financial
    crisis in East Asia.
        Our approach is clear. If a nation affected by instability is to
    recover, it must reform in a manner that addresses the underlying
    problems that created that instability. And if a nation is willing to
    seriously undertake such reforms, we will help.
        East Asia includes some of our closest allies and friends,
    including South Korea, which faces a large and well-armed military
    force across the DMZ. The region also includes some of the best
    customers for U.S. products and services--and if they can't buy, we
    can't sell.
        Moreover, since the IMF functions as a sort of intergovernmental
    credit union, its efforts to assist East Asian economies won't cost
    U.S. taxpayers a nickel.
        Still, there are some who say we should disavow the IMF and abandon
    our friends, letting the chips--or dominos--fall where they may.
        It is possible, if we were to do so, that East Asia's financial
    troubles would not spread and badly hurt our own economy, and that our
    decision to walk away would not be misunderstood, and a wave of anti-
    American sentiment would not be unleashed, and new security threats
    would not arise in this region where 100,000 American troops are
    deployed.
        All this is possible, but I would not want to bet America's
    security or the jobs of your constituents on that proposition. For it
    would be a very, very bad bet.
        Even with full backing for the IMF, and diligent reforms in East
    Asia, recovery will take time. And further tremors are possible.
        The best way to end the crisis is to back the reforms now being
    implemented, approve the supplemental IMF funding requests submitted by
    the President earlier this month, work to keep the virus from
    spreading, and develop strategies for preventing this kind of
    instability from arising again.
        In the Middle East, we continue to guard against another form of
    instability through our efforts to encourage progress towards a just,
    lasting and comprehensive peace.
        Last month, President Clinton presented ideas to Chairman Arafat
    and Prime Minister Netanyahu in an effort to break the current
    stalemate, recognizing that the parties, given the level of their
    distrust, might respond to us even if they remain reluctant to respond
    to each other.
        The issue now is whether the leaders are prepared to make the kinds
    of decisions that will make it possible to put the process back on
    track. Indeed, we have to ask: are they prepared to promote their
    common interests as partners? Or are they determined to return to an
    era of zero-sum relations?
        The stakes are high. That's why we have been involved in such an
    intensive effort to protect the process from collapsing.
        Mr. Chairman, closer to home, we meet at a time of heightened
    emphasis in our policy towards the Americas. This attention is
    warranted not only by proximity of geography, but by proximity of
    values. For today, with one lonely exception, every government in the
    hemisphere is freely-elected.
        In the weeks ahead, we will be preparing for the second Summit of
    the Americas, pressing for democratic change in Cuba and intensifying
    our efforts in Haiti, where the challenge of developing a democratic
    culture and market economy--where neither has ever existed--is
    especially daunting.
        We are also taking a fresh approach to Africa, which the President
    plans to visit next month. During my own recent trip, I was impressed
    by the opportunity that exists to help integrate that continent into
    the world economy; build democracy; and gain valuable allies in the
    fight against global threats.
        To frame a new American approach to the new Africa, we will be
    seeking Congressional support for the President's initiative to promote
    justice and development in the Great Lakes, and urging approval of the
    Africa Growth and Opportunity Act.
                 leadership through international organizations
    Unfinished Business
        Mr. Chairman, there is much that America can accomplish
    unilaterally, through our bilateral diplomacy or in cooperation with
    our close allies. But in today's world, there are also many problems
    that can only be dealt with--or can best be dealt with--through broad
    international action. For this reason, it serves important American
    interests to participate in international organizations whose
    activities contribute to our security, prosperity and safety. Among the
    most prominent of these organizations are those within the United
    Nations system.
        Last year, Congress and the Administration worked together to
    develop a three year plan to encourage United Nations reform while
    paying our long overdue U.N. bills.
        Unfortunately, that spirit of constructive cooperation broke down
    during the final days of the session. A small group of House Members
    blocked final passage of this and other key measures to authorize the
    restructuring of our foreign policy institutions and to provide needed
    financing for the International Monetary Fund (IMF).
        I have testified before the authorizing Committees about my concern
    with the tactics used to block this legislation, and will not belabor
    the point here. Certainly, your Subcommittee did its part by
    appropriating the $100 million called for in the first year. Now, we
    have to find a way to free up that money and to gain approval of funds
    for years two and three.
        Mr. Chairman, I have been discussing the U.N. and America's role in
    it with this Subcommittee since 1993. And we have had an extremely
    productive dialogue.
        Together, through legislation and diplomacy, we have helped the
    U.N. to achieve more reform in the past half decade than in the 45
    years that preceded it.
        During this period, the U.N.'s staffing has declined and its budget
    has been brought under control. Assessments for U.N. peacekeeping
    operations have dropped by 80 percent, and those operations are subject
    to far greater discipline. The inspector general's office--which did
    not exist in 1993--has grown steadily more aggressive and effective.
        And within the U.N. system, a new generation of leaders is taking
    the helm--from Secretary-General Kofi Annan, to Deputy Secretary
    General Louise Frechette, to Gro Brundtland at the World Health
    Organization (WHO), to Mary Robinson, the new U.N. High Commissioner
    for Human Rights.
        Slowly, but surely, a culture of accountability, transparency and
    results is taking hold. And, as you know, Mr. Chairman, this progress
    has not come easy. We have faced opposition every step of the way. And
    the job is far from finished.
        But let me tell you frankly that, if we are not able now--in the
    next few months--to approve funding for our U.N. arrears, our legs
    truly will be cut out from under us at the U.N. We are told daily, by
    our best allies and friends, that U.S. credibility will be sadly
    diminished. That will cost Americans and hurt America.
        Let me cite just one example.
        Last December, the General Assembly voted on a plan that could
    have--and I believe would have--cut our share of U.N. assessments to 25
    percent for peacekeeping and from 25 percent to 22 percent for the
    regular budget--an overall difference in the amount we are assessed of
    roughly $100 million every year.
        Our diplomatic team had worked long and hard to make this possible.
    Don't forget that 22 percent is less than our share of the world's
    economy--or GDP--while Europe pays above its share. And in two years,
    Japan will be required to pay more than 20 percent of the U.N. budget.
        But when word arrived in New York that the U.N. arrears package had
    been killed, support for reducing our rate of assessments disappeared.
    It took an heroic effort to persuade the U.N. to leave open the
    possibility for a new vote during the first half of this year. If we do
    not act by then, the next opportunity will not come until the year
    2000.
        So we have a choice. We can fail once again to act, undermine our
    own diplomatic leadership, weaken prospects for further U.N. reform,
    and deprive our taxpayers of savings we might otherwise be able to
    achieve.
        Or we can pay our arrears, restore full U.S. influence, press ahead
    on reform, and make possible a reduction in our assessments that will
    save U.S. taxpayers money for as long as we are in the U.N.
        I know that this choice will not be made by this Subcommittee
    alone. But I ask your support for prompt action--not tied to any
    unrelated issue--on our supplemental appropriations request for U.N.
    arrears. I am convinced it is the right choice for America.
    Contributions to International Organizations
        More broadly, I ask your support for the President's budget request
    for the entire Contributions to International Organizations Account for
    fiscal year 1999.
        Mr. Chairman, and members of the Subcommittee, we have reviewed the
    importance of these organizations to American interests on an annual
    basis.
        The Clinton Administration, like prior Administrations from Truman
    to Bush, has found the U.N., itself, a valuable means of enlisting the
    help of others in pursuit of goals we support. Current examples include
    the work of the U.N. Special Commission in Iraq, the effort to develop
    an independent and professional police force in Bosnia, and the war
    crimes tribunals for Rwanda and the Balkans.
        Agencies affiliated with the U.N. also provide vital services.
        The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) helps protect
    Americans from the dangers of nuclear proliferation. The IAEA conducts
    essential verification of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, and its
    strengthened safeguards regime provides assurance that peaceful nuclear
    programs are not being diverted for weapons purposes.
        The World Health Organization, which promises to be far better
    managed under its new director, helps to research, track, contain and
    above all prevent disease and other health problems from malnutrition
    and malaria to Ebola and HIV/AIDS. This makes us all safer and can
    provide long term financial savings, as well. For example, U.S.
    taxpayers save hundreds of millions of dollars annually because WHO
    eradicated smallpox and thereby ended the need to vaccinate against the
    disease.
        The Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) enhances international
    trade in agricultural and fisheries products. Through the Codex
    Alimentarius, it applies objective quality and safety standards that
    facilitate the export of more than $60 billion in U.S. agricultural
    products each year. The FAO also protects U.S. agriculture from
    potential losses through its plant, pest and animal disease control
    programs.
        The International Labor Organization (ILO) was established in 1919
    in response to unsafe working conditions associated with
    industrialization. Although workplace conditions have improved
    dramatically in much of the world, there remain large, economically-
    significant labor markets characterized by work forces that are
    underage, under-paid and poorly-treated.
        Accordingly, the ILO serves two primary U.S. policy objectives:
    promoting respect for human rights in the workplace, and minimizing
    unfair international competition from firms and countries that do not
    observe core labor standards. To this end, we will be working this year
    for a strong ILO declaration on core labor standards and proposals to
    implement them worldwide.
        Mr. Chairman, other specialized U.N. agencies and international
    organizations such as the International Telecommunications Union, NATO,
    the OECD and the Organization of American States also serve important
    U.S. interests. To maintain our influence and leverage within these
    organizations, we need to stay--or become--current on our obligations
    to them.
    United Nations Peacekeeping
        I also ask the Subcommittee's support for the President's request
    for $231 million for the Contributions for International Peacekeeping
    Activities (CIPA) Account.
        As we have discussed over the years, U.N. peacekeeping provides one
    of a number of options available to us and to the world community to
    prevent or respond to conflicts. Although they are not the answer in
    all cases, well-designed U.N. operations can be effective in the right
    circumstances, and have the advantage of spreading costs and risks
    widely and fairly.
        Our CIPA request this year includes funds to pay our assessments
    for critical operations along Iraq's border with Kuwait, on the Golan
    Heights, in Bosnia, and the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, to
    name a few.
        This past year saw several U.N. successes. The U.N. observer
    mission in Liberia helped provide a secure environment for elections in
    August 1997 and then withdrew. The U.N. Transitional Administration in
    Eastern Slavonia (UNTAES) facilitated that region's peaceful
    reintegration into Croatia in January--it has now withdrawn, succeeded
    by a small U.N. policing program. And U.N. peacekeeping operations
    marked a success in Guatemala, with the implementation of the final
    peace agreement that was signed in December 1996.
        I visited Guatemala last May. At a guerrilla demobilization camp I
    saw firsthand how support from the U.N., USAID, and others had given
    the Guatemalan people a chance to recover from the debilitation of war
    and begin to build a true national community. Although the process of
    reconciliation in Guatemala still has far to go, the U.N. operation
    made a unique and indispensable contribution.
        In Tajikistan, where a peace agreement signed last fall is holding
    tenuously, the U.N. hopes to make similar progress this year. And in
    Angola, a U.N. observer mission is supervising the final phases of that
    country's peace process.
        As always, Mr. Chairman, I am aware of this Subcommittee's long-
    standing and long-justified desire to be consulted when new U.N.
    peacekeeping operations are planned--not just when the bills come due.
    I am committed, and I know Assistant Secretary Lyman and Ambassador
    Richardson are committed, to meeting this obligation.
        In this connection, I note the possibility that we will support a
    new operation or operations in Africa. I want to stress, Mr. Chairman,
    based on my recent visit to that continent, and my discussions with
    regional leaders, how important international peacekeeping has been and
    is to this part of the world. African leaders are determined to do more
    themselves to solve disputes within the region, and U.N. support can
    help them succeed.
        Important U.S. interests in Africa are served every time an area of
    instability and conflict is transformed into one of peace and
    development. This contributes to our economic interests, reduces the
    likelihood of costly humanitarian disasters and refugee flows, and
    expands the network of societies working to counter global threats such
    as illegal narcotics, crime, terror and disease.
                     managing for the twenty-first century
        Mr. Chairman, American leadership is built on American ideals,
    backed by our economic and military might, and supported by our
    diplomacy. Unfortunately, despite progress made last year with
    bipartisan support from this Subcommittee, the resources we need to
    support our diplomacy are stretched thin.
        Over the past decade, funding--in real terms--has declined sharply.
    Personnel levels are down. Training has been cut. And we face critical
    infrastructure needs that cannot be put off any longer.
        There was a time, not that long ago, when State Department managers
    could afford to be guided by a ``just in case'' philosophy. Planning,
    acquisitions and training could be based on what might be needed.
    Today, we are compelled by the pace of change and the tightness of
    budgets to practice ``just in time'' management. That requires putting
    personnel, resources and infrastructure where they are required, when
    they are required, and being prepared to reposition them rapidly and
    flexibly when they are not.
        Already, this has translated into smaller staffs, more versatile
    personnel, and better cost-sharing among agencies. It has meant
    selling, buying, renting and swapping properties around the world to
    achieve the most cost-effective mix. It has meant developing service
    programs which pay for themselves. And, through our reorganization
    planning, it has meant taking a hard look at functions which may be
    duplicative.
        But to continue our progress, we need to make some well-placed
    investments.
        This year our request for State Department Operating funds is
    $2.177 billion. This reflects an increase of 4.8 percent from fiscal
    year 1998, nearly half of which is attributable to inflation and
    mandatory pay raises. In addition, we are seeking an increase of $243
    million in our ``Security and Maintenance of U.S. Missions'' account,
    to provide much-needed upgrades and improvements in infrastructure.
    Infrastructure
        Like the rest of us, Mr. Chairman, our facilities are aging--Old
    State is 60; New State is 40. Our request this year includes funds for
    a portion of the long-awaited renovation project at C Street, although
    the lion's share of money for this project is being requested by the
    General Services Administration. Just as important, we are requesting
    funds for some of our most dire infrastructure needs overseas,
    beginning with two of our most crucial posts--Berlin and Beijing.
        In 1999, the Germans will complete the move of their capital from
    Bonn. We need to complete the same move by building a new embassy in
    the new capital.
        This move symbolizes the success of fifty years of partnership
    between the United States and Germany, a partnership cemented with the
    Berlin airlift 50 years ago this summer and which ultimately helped
    defeat Communism, bring down the Wall, and anchor Germany firmly within
    a strong Euro-Atlantic community. The victory reflected in Berlin's
    establishment as the capital of a united and democratic Germany is one
    in which Americans may take great pride, and for which we should be on
    the ground from the beginning.
        It is also a tremendous opportunity. Germany possesses the world's
    third-largest economy; it is host to the largest overseas contingent of
    U.S. troops; it is the driving force behind European integration; and
    it is a nation with whom we work closely on matters as diverse as
    building peace in Bosnia to safeguarding the global economy to
    exploring space.
        Accordingly, Mr. Chairman, we must move now to build our new
    facility, and assure the high quality representation our interests
    demand and our people expect. We estimate the total costs of designing,
    building and furnishing a new U.S. Embassy Berlin to be $120 million.
    In fiscal 1999, we are requesting $50 million--less than half the total
    cost--because we expect to raise the remaining funds required by
    selling excess U.S. property in Germany.
        Our presence in China is large, growing and vital to our interests.
    In recent years, the number of Americans visiting that country as
    tourists, students or for business purposes has mushroomed--as has the
    number of Chinese seeking to enter the United States. And as we have
    developed a broader agenda on which we seek to cooperate with China,
    U.S. agencies have sent more officials to our missions in that country.
    Total staffing increased by 15 percent last year alone.
        Unfortunately, as the Department's Inspector General has confirmed,
    with the exception of Hong Kong, our posts in China suffer from over-
    crowding, inadequate facilities, insufficient information technology,
    sub-standard housing, and serious safety and security deficiencies.
        We have developed an overall plan to address these issues,
    beginning this year, by building reasonably-priced housing in Shanghai
    and rehabilitating the existing Beijing chancery--both of which can be
    funded with proceeds from the sale of other properties. We are also
    requesting $200 million to acquire a site and design and construct a
    new Embassy for Beijing.
        Of course, the problems we face in China are not unique. In
    critical posts from Luanda to Kiev to Vladivostok, America's
    representatives are doing their jobs under conditions that are
    unacceptably primitive, unhealthy or unsafe. Due to budget restraints,
    we have requested funding for only a fraction of the needs we have
    identified, focusing on improving our safety programs and increasing
    the number of maintenance specialists we have on staff, in order to
    extend yet further the useful life of the infrastructure we have.
    Information Technology
        Our most pressing information technology needs are basic. We want
    to install late-20th century computer technology at every post before
    the 21st century begins. We need to replace old and overloaded phone
    switchboards before they experience what is known as ``catastrophic
    failure.'' We need to implement new information security features to
    protect our data and networks. And we want to ensure that, when the
    clock strikes midnight on December 31, 1999, our computers don't all
    crash and send us back to the age of quill pens and scribes.
        As communications become ever more sophisticated, and ever more
    reliance is placed on computer hookups, State and our sister agencies
    need more lines of access, known as ``bandwidth,'' between Washington
    and the field.
        Unlike your local phone company, we cannot always depend on local
    lines in foreign countries, but must often supplement the
    communications infrastructure available. And, of course, we must do the
    work in-house for security reasons. The resulting ``phone bill,'' Mr.
    Chairman, is the price we must pay for having the right person on the
    right phone line when the President, or you, or I, need to get through.
    I hope you will support us in working to put together a system that is
    secure, reliable, and capacious enough to meet the demands of the
    Information Age.
    Personnel
        Mr. Chairman, as Secretary of State, I can tell you that every
    American can be proud of the people--foreign and civil service and
    foreign nationals--who work every day, often under very difficult
    conditions, to protect our citizens and our interests around the world.
    I have never been associated with a more talented, professional or
    dedicated group of people.
        But to maintain the highest standards of diplomatic representation
    in this era, we must continue to emphasize high standards in
    recruiting, training and managing our personnel.
        We need to train our people to sift information as much as to
    gather it, to surf the web as much as to pound the pavement, and to
    look outside the traditional ``diplomatic sources'' for information,
    contacts and ideas.
        We need specialists who can keep up with fast-moving developments
    in electronic commerce, genetic engineering, or telecommunications. We
    need people with good computer skills, with the knowledge to staff our
    regional environmental hubs, and with the language and cultural
    training required to feel at home in faraway lands. And we need men and
    women who can monitor compliance with intellectual property law, assist
    Americans in trouble, report on human rights and promote our arms
    control agenda, all in the same career--and sometimes in the same week.
        And to do justice to the strength our nation finds in its
    diversity, we have to do better at hiring, retaining and promoting the
    best people America has to offer--from every background. We are making
    progress. I am particularly proud of the large numbers of women
    competing successfully to enter the Foreign Service this year. But
    there is much more we can do, from making our overseas facilities more
    accessible to persons with disabilities to showing more support for
    State Department families.
        I hope I can count on this Subcommittee as a partner in these
    efforts.
    Border Security
        Supported by the retention of Machine Readable Visa (MRV) fees, we
    will continue implementing a comprehensive border security strategy to
    improve consular systems and services.
        Consular systems are our nation's first line of defense against the
    flow of international terrorism and crime across our borders. We must
    be able to screen out the few visa applicants who would harm our people
    or violate our laws, without hindering the millions of legitimate
    visitors who enrich our lives and add tens of billions of dollars to
    our economy every year.
        With the MRV, we have the ability to check applicants' names
    against government records by computer, in every consular post. We are
    emphasizing improved training for consular officers, and working to
    provide even better computer equipment. We have also upgraded our
    passport-issuing services to meet record demand.
        I want to thank the Subcommittee for having the foresight to
    continue the legislation allowing the Department to retain MRV fees
    through fiscal year 1999, during which we plan to fund our border
    security programs at $296 million.
    Consolidation
        Mr. Chairman, many of our initiatives are directed, as I have
    discussed, at particular countries or regions. Others, such as our
    efforts to build prosperity, fight international crime and protect the
    environment, can best be considered in global terms.
        But whether we are dealing with regional or world wide issues, it
    is hard to lead in the 1990's with institutions designed for the
    1950's.
        That is why we worked with Congress last year to develop a plan to
    reorganize our foreign affairs agencies to reflect the fact that arms
    control, public diplomacy and international development belong at the
    heart of American foreign policy.
        As part of this reorganization, the Arms Control and Disarmament
    Agency (ACDA) and the United States Information Agency (USIA) are to
    integrate their activities into the Department of State. Unfortunately,
    legislation providing the necessary authorization for this
    reorganization was blocked, thus requiring the agencies to present
    separate budget requests for fiscal year 1999.
        I hope we will have the Subcommittee's support for early action on
    reorganization legislation this year. This is essential not only to
    move ahead with our management goals, but to ensure the effective
    implementation of policies and programs vital to U.S. interests.
        For example, it is a core purpose of American foreign policy to
    halt the spread and possible use of weapons of mass destruction, which
    remain--years after the Cold War's end--the most serious threat to the
    security of our people.
        This imperative reflects the value of the services provided to
    America by ACDA. As part of our effort to reorganize our foreign policy
    institutions, we have ``double-hatted'' ACDA Director John Holum as our
    Acting Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International
    Security Affairs, and ACDA has worked closely with the Department to
    develop an effective plan for integration.
        Today, ACDA's agenda includes: ratifying and implementing the
    Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty; continuing strategic arms reductions
    with Russia; taking steps, with other agencies, to limit the quantity,
    improve the security and prevent the diversion of fissile materials
    worldwide; implementing the Chemical Weapons Convention; negotiating an
    inspections regime to strengthen the Biological Weapons Convention; and
    beginning negotiations to ban the export of anti-personnel land mines.
    To accomplish all this, ACDA is requesting $43.4 million--a total
    operating budget smaller in constant dollars than that under which it
    is operating this fiscal year.
        USIA has also experienced cuts in staffing and--in constant-
    dollars--appropriations. But the importance of its mission has, if
    anything, increased, as the challenges of globalization demand a more
    comprehensive and sophisticated approach to America's public diplomacy.
    USIA's request for fiscal year 1999 is $6 million lower than its
    currently-available funds. Within this reduced level, USIA plans to
    accommodate several priority increases to expand field programs in East
    Asia; enhance broadcasting to central Africa and Russia; complete a new
    relay station for Asia; provide added support for Fulbright exchange
    programs; and provide improved high-speed telecommunications capacity
    to a dozen additional overseas posts.
        This request also includes funding for the National Endowment for
    Democracy, which receives funding from USIA for its important work
    supporting the development of democratic culture and institutions
    around the world.
                                   conclusion
        Mr. Chairman, half a century ago, a Democratic President and
    Republican Congress worked together to help forge the institutions that
    have shaped our foreign policy and defined the history of our age;
    institutions that proved instrumental in the defense and spread of
    freedom; the growth of prosperity; the defeat of Communism; and the
    confirmation over and over again of America's standing as a leading
    force for justice and law in the world.
        These institutions included NATO, the United Nations, the Voice of
    America, the OAS, the National Security Council and the Foreign Service
    Institute.
        Their architects could not have conceived that our ambassadors
    would one day be cabling Washington by computer in real time; that in
    promoting trade, our diplomats would be dealing not only with grain and
    steel but with bits, bytes and movie rights; or even for that matter,
    that a female Secretary of State would one day meet with a black
    president of South Africa.
        Our predecessors were not prophets. But because they stood tall;
    they were perhaps able to see a little bit further into the future than
    others. They also had faith in our people, in the principles upon which
    our nation was founded, in our determination to honor the commitments
    we make, and in our desire to base our lives, as individuals and as a
    nation, not on our fears, but on our hopes.
        Today, we have a responsibility to honor their faith; to reject the
    temptation of complacency and assume, not with complaint, but welcome,
    the leader's role established by our forebears.
        For it is only by living up to the heritage of our past that we
    will fulfill the promise of our future--and enter the new century free
    and respected, prosperous and at peace.
        Mr. Chairman, Members of the Subcommittee, thank you very much. And
    now, I would be pleased to respond to your questions.

        Senator Gregg. Thank you for that excellent statement and
    the wonderful quote at the end. It is the tradition of my
    chairmanship to always yield to the chairman of the full
    committee whenever he appears in our committee. For some
    unknown reason I have found that to be proper protocol. So I
    yield to my----
        Senator Stevens. And I similarly have found it to be proper
    protocol to thank you, Madam Secretary, and say I would like to
    submit questions for the record. Thank you very much.
        Secretary Albright. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Gregg. I will yield my time initially to Senator
    Campbell who arrived first, and was sitting here when I
    arrived.
        Senator Campbell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I, like always,
    have conflicts, and I have to go chair another hearing right
    about the time we vote. But it is a pleasure to welcome you,
    Madam Secretary, and discuss your Department's fiscal year 1999
    budget request. I was looking through your comments. They seem
    to be quite comprehensive. I am very supportive of the efforts
    you have done, and I admire your courage particularly because
    of the beating you took up there at that university. I know
    that was not easy. I do not know who made the decision to go up
    there and do a hearing at a university when you are talking
    about going to war, but a big mistake.
        Secretary Albright. Should have gone to Colorado.
        Senator Campbell. Should have come to Colorado Springs,
    they would have all been supportive of you. [Laughter.]

                                 Iraq situation

        But before we discuss today's budget hearings, I just have
    to take this opportunity to make a comment on the situation in
    Iraq. From my belief--and I am sure you may know more about it
    than I do--but it looked to me like we have just concluded the
    second gulf war, and we lost without firing a shot. In fact,
    according to yesterday's Washington Post, the Iraqi Government
    declared a national holiday and told the country Saddam Hussein
    has broken United States domination on the U.N. weapons
    inspection commission.
        Now I certainly admire your hard work, but boy, when I read
    headlines like that, frankly, it makes me sick to my stomach.
    After spending--we are hearing different amounts, but well over
    billions of dollars to show a significant force, the most
    significant since Desert Storm--I really question what we have
    accomplished. It seems to me that, No. 1, we have increased
    Saddam Hussein's stature among the Arab countries. He has
    tweaked us again. He obviously wants to be the new Nasser of
    the Middle East, and he looks like he is well on his way to
    doing that.
        We have allowed him to increase access to financial
    resources from the sale of oil, which I am convinced he will
    use to buy new improved arms technologies. We have made the
    next conflict, I think, just prolonged it, but it will surely
    come and be more difficult when we have to face it. We have
    diminished our stature with Israel and most of our world
    allies. We have undermined the sovereignty of this country by
    allowing the United Nations to broker the deal, and now we are
    sort of going along as the tail of that to support that
    brokered deal and not getting too much support from our allies.
    More importantly, we have given Saddam Hussein, who has really
    been a master of brinkmanship, more time to build a bigger
    arsenal, more time to rally international support, more time to
    increase the cost to American citizens. I think that when we
    talk about military conflicts, there is no question that they
    are entwined with public relations conflicts.
        We clearly have the ability to win a military conflict. But
    I thought it was a lose-lose deal from the beginning on the
    international public relations scale, because if we had bombed
    Iraq, and they would have put children and women in front of
    the places that were being bombed, we would have lost that one
    for sure. And a lot of Americans who were supporting the
    bombing would have gone the other way as soon as they had seen
    pictures on CNN of dead women and children.
        By the same token, by not doing it we have done what I have
    already mentioned, and that is increase Saddam Hussein's
    stature. I think we just led with our chin on that without any
    clearly defined goals, or any exit strategy, or any clear long-
    term plan about how we were going to handle it. I hate to see
    us now pull back everything only to have to put them back over
    there when Saddam Hussein makes his next move.
        I support, as most Americans, some kind of a peaceful
    resolution if we could find it. But I do not think we are ever
    going to find it with Saddam Hussein. I do not think he is ever
    going to agree to peace. I think the mentality in that part of
    the country is that you only negotiate at gunpoint, and that is
    it. Anything less than that is considered cowardice on the part
    of your adversary.
        I do not want to belabor that because I know that we have
    other questions to ask you about the expansion of NATO, which
    conceptually I kind of agree with, although I share the
    concerns of many of my colleagues about who is going to pay the
    bill. I know full well what we are paying well and recognize
    that the concept of NATO is that everybody brings something to
    the table for mutual defense of the members. But I am not sure
    some of the countries that want to come in are going to bring
    something to the table, and may end up simply being recipient
    countries.
        The ongoing question about the repayment to the United
    Nations, I understand what you are saying about that, but also
    recognize that one-half the time we go to the United Nations
    where we are paying a good portion of the bill, we end up with
    those people that are recipients of some of that American money
    voting against us at every turn. So I have some real concerns
    about that, too.

                               prepared statement

        I certainly appreciate you being here, and did not want you
    to take that as any kind of a personal affront. I know you have
    worked just tremendously hard and made a great, dedicated
    effort to doing the right thing, and I certainly admire you for
    that.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        [The statement follows:]

             Prepared Statement of Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell

        Good morning Mr. Chairman. It is a pleasure to be here this
    morning and I welcome you here today, Madam Secretary, to
    discuss the State Department's fiscal year 1999 budget request.
        Before we begin today's budget discussion, I would like to
    take this opportunity to comment on the situation in Iraq. We
    have just concluded the second Gulf War and it seems that we
    have lost without even firing a shot. In fact, according to
    yesterday's Washington Post, the Iraqi government declared a
    national holiday and told the country Saddam Hussein had broken
    U.S. domination of the U.N. weapons inspections commission.
        After sending $3 billion for the most significant show of
    military force since Desert Storm, what do we have to show for
    it? What have we accomplished?
        It seems to me that we have done little more than increase
    Saddam Hussein's stature among the Arab countries; we have
    allowed him increased access to financial resources from the
    sale of oil which he will inevitably use to buy new and
    improved arms technologies; we have made the next conflict,
    which will surely come, far more difficult now that we have
    diminished our stature with Israel and other world allies; and
    we have undermined the sovereignty of the United States by
    allowing the U.N. to broker this tenuous deal. More
    importantly, we have given Saddam Hussein, the master of
    brinkmanship, more time to build a bigger arsenal, more time to
    rally international support, and given ourselves more time to
    increase the cost of keeping our ships, planes, and troops in
    the Gulf at the expense of American taxpayers.
        It seems that we are rapidly becoming a toothless tiger by
    allowing our military operations to be led by public relations
    experts rather than our military leaders. We led with our chin
    by having no clear objective, exit plan, or clearly defined
    goals. So for now, Madam Secretary, we have no other choice but
    to sit and wait to see what other games Saddam Hussein wishes
    to play. Like everyone here, I hope for a peaceful resolution
    to this matter, but I have serious concerns about our approach.
        Mr. Chairman, I know that we have a number of very
    important budget items that we need to cover this morning and
    only a limited time to do it so I will bring my comments to a
    close.
        Again, I thank you Mr. Chairman and I look forward to
    today's testimony on the State Department's fiscal year 1999
    budget request.

                                      Iraq

        Secretary Albright. Thank you, Senator. Let me, if I might,
    take the opportunity to really give a better answer on Iraq.
    First of all I think we have to remember, we did not create
    this problem, nor did we create this crisis. There is no
    question that it is a difficult one to deal with. I believe
    that what we have done here is actually a win-win situation.
    First of all, it is very clear to us that Saddam Hussein has
    actually had to reverse course and allow access to all kinds of
    sites that he had never allowed access to before. He also has
    agreed that, or he has had to agree that UNSCOM can continue
    its work.
        What I am very pleased about is that Chairman Butler, who
    is the chairman of this United Nations inspector group, has
    made quite clear that he is satisfied with the arrangements
    that have been made. This is the statement that he made
    yesterday:
        ``I am perfectly satisfied that this document, applied
    properly with Iraq cooperation, strengthens my organization.
    This document is a very important one,'' Butler said. It is the
    first one that Saddam Hussein has personally engaged in since
    the end of the gulf war. The fine print in this document is
    what I call the thumbprint. Saddam Hussein has been involved in
    this and it has got real commitment in it to enable us to get
    our job done. I just hope they adhere to it.
        Now what we are saying, and as the aspects of how this is
    going to work becomes clarified as a result of very tough
    questions on our part, the proof of it is in the testing.
    UNSCOM will go back in and do the testing. That is a win
    situation.
        We have also said that we will keep our forces on high
    alert until we are sure of this. Then, Senator, as you know
    there was a great deal of sense, you stated it yourself, that
    we were not getting international cooperation. It will be very
    clear, if Saddam Hussein reneges on an agreement that he has
    made now publicly, that there will be a great deal more support
    for what we were doing. While I have to tell you, there was a
    lot of support already, and I can take more time to explain
    that.
        Now let me just say in terms of the publicity, I am not
    sure you would expect anything different from Saddam Hussein's
    controlled press or his controlled country that he would
    celebrate. We just cannot buy that. That is what he is doing,
    and I think we need to understand that he has actually reversed
    course on paper, and we now have to test it.
        Senator Campbell. One last comment, Mr. Chairman. First of
    all, anybody that believes Saddam Hussein is good for his word
    is being naive, in my opinion. I am concerned about keeping a
    high state of readiness, about the long-term costs, as any of
    us would. But you mentioned that we did not create that
    problem. No question about it, we did not. We did not create
    cancer either. But you cannot compromise it; you have to kill
    it or cut it out. I am absolutely convinced that we are going
    to be drug into some kind of a long, embroiled problem over
    there until Saddam Hussein simply is not in power any more.
        I apologize for taking so long.
        Secretary Albright. I hate to compare anything to cancer,
    but I truly do think that we have to work this problem. I have
    made very clear that we are ready to deal with a post-Saddam
    regime. We have worked in the past with opposition groups. We
    will do so in the future. We need to deal with this problem.
    But I am sorry, as with cancer, it cannot be resolved
    immediately.
        Senator Campbell. I understand. Comparing this to cancer
    gives a bad name to cancer.
        Secretary Albright. But I do think that the problem here is
    the following: That this is a difficult issue that we have to
    deal with in a sustained way. I think I feel comfortable that
    we are making the right choices. We have not given up on the
    use of force. We are testing the agreement, because I agree
    with you that anybody who believes Saddam Hussein's word is
    naive. I do not believe his word. The proof will be in the
    testing.
        Senator Campbell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Gregg. Senator Mikulski.
        Senator Mikulski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Welcome once again, Secretary Albright. I just want to echo
    what many of my colleagues say, that you continue to do an
    outstanding job as Secretary of State. And as somebody who got
    her start in politics as a protester, this is one protester who
    thinks you are doing pretty good.
        Secretary Albright. Thank you.
        Senator Mikulski. Let me just say a few things in terms of
    your testimony and then get immediately to my question. First,
    I really want to say that I support the administration's policy
    for paying our U.N. arrearage and paying our dues. The United
    States of America cannot do anything alone, and we cannot go it
    alone.
        If one looks at the agencies you describe on page 12 of
    your testimony, the World Health Organization, which protects
    the world against infectious disease and tracks the disease
    around the world and how to prevent it. Food and agriculture,
    to make sure that the world's food supply is safe and which we
    are going to be introducing an initiative with the Vice
    President later on this week. International labor, which is one
    of the most important human rights tools to eliminate the world
    of the scourge of child labor and even child slavery.
        So we cannot do that by ourselves. We need the world, and I
    think we need to pay our dues and act like a responsible
    country in order to do that.
        I would also like to associate myself with your remarks
    about recognizing the value of a professional foreign service,
    that there will be new skills and a new generation coming in. I
    believe this committee and this Congress should get behind
    supporting that.

                           inspection process in Iraq

        In terms of Iraq, I support the administration's direction
    here in which we need to test Saddam Hussein and not just rest
    on the agreement. I would seek clarification from you today
    about one of the aspects related to the inspection process. As
    I understand it, UNSCOM is supposed to come with, but that
    there is also a parallel process of something with untrained
    people, diplomatic corps, which seems to be vague, unclear, and
    perhaps untrained to really do the type of precise testing and
    evaluation that needs to be done.
        Could you comment? Do we have two tracks for inspection,
    one competent and the other show biz?
        Secretary Albright. Not quite. Thank you very much for what
    you said about the United Nations and our need to pay. It is a
    club and it has dues. We are a leading member of the club, and
    we have just refused to pay our dues, which is not the way that
    we Americans normally behave.
        Let me take a minute, because you have asked, to explain
    the UNSCOM structure. These inspectors were created after the
    gulf war, with a chairman appointed by the Secretary General.
    That chairman has two groups under him. One is a group of
    professional inspectors who have been divided into groups
    according to their expertise and what they are looking for. So
    there is a biological group, and a chemical group, et cetera.
    Then there are a group of commissioners, who are more like a
    board, part-time people who are also under the direction of the
    chairman, and on a regular basis, kind of interpret what they
    have seen. What we wanted as a part of this is to make sure
    that these presidential sites were actually under the
    inspection of the professionals, under that first group.
        Senator Mikulski. That is right.
        Secretary Albright. So what has happened is that a new
    group has been created under UNSCOM with Chairman Butler at the
    top of it and then a group within it that will be run now under
    Chairman Butler's direction by a commissioner, one of the
    people from the other side of it, which is also under Chairman
    Butler's direction.
        The reports are that the Secretary General has chosen a man
    we know very well, a Sri Lankan who had been Ambassador, who
    ran the NPT Conference, who is a disarmament expert. He will be
    the commissioner of this. Then under him there will be an
    inspector who will lead the team, and that will be an UNSCOM
    person.
        Now what has been agreed to is that a small group of
    diplomats would accompany the team and do no inspection at all,
    but be observers to the team. They will be set up in a way
    where they will not know exactly where they are going. It will
    be foolproof in terms of early warning. So we are comfortable
    with the way it has been set up.
        Senator Mikulski. But do you believe that with this third
    group that has been created that there will be, based on what
    you have just said, the competency to truly evaluate whether
    Saddam Hussein was complying with the U.N. resolutions? Or is
    this the possibility of a loophole where he could give the
    illusion of complying but because the expertise is not there,
    could essentially evade the kind of usual and customary and
    professional UNSCOM----
        Secretary Albright. It is our belief that that same
    expertise will be there. Again I go back to what Mr. Butler
    said. He said that, all of it comes through him as executive
    chairman, and I am looking forward to this development. It
    expands our staff and gives us an extra resource.
        Senator Mikulski. Madam Secretary, my time is almost up.
        Senator Gregg. Take a couple more minutes.
        Senator Mikulski. That might be a line of questioning
    others would pursue.

                                   Terrorism

        But I want to go to something else related to this new
    world of black biology, really ghoulish biology. Biology, when
    you are the Senator from NIH, you think of biology as saving
    lives, not destroying lives. This then goes to our preparedness
    against terrorism. Could you share with us how our own, to the
    extent that you could in an unclassified hearing, what the
    State Department is doing to both--in coordination to prevent
    us any type of attack, and do we have a coordinated interagency
    plan for responding to such an attack?
        Secretary Albright. Yes; thank you. First of all, our
    policy vis-a-vis terrorists is to make no concession to them,
    treat them as criminals, pursue them aggressively, apply the
    law, and place maximum pressure on state sponsors of terrorism.
    We have a long-established counterterrorism mechanism in which
    officials of key agencies meet regularly. The coordination
    involves both the deputy level and assistant secretary level,
    as well as the specialized working groups. State is the lead
    agency dealing with overseas terrorism, Justice and FBI deal
    with terrorism within the United States.
        Now annually, we also name state sponsors of terrorism,
    triggering a broad range of economic and other sanctions.
    Currently on the list we have Iran, Iraq, Libya, North Korea,
    Syria, Sudan, and Cuba. Then we designated 30 groups as foreign
    terrorist organizations in October 1997, and that triggers
    various restrictions under the Anti-Terrorism Act.
        Senator Mikulski. But what are we doing here to make sure
    that we are really ready? I am the ranking member of the FEMA
    committee, which was originally a cold war agency designed to
    help Americans faced with nuclear war. You and I are the same
    generation. Remember, we all used to run under desks, and they
    would blow air raid drills. I was in a Catholic school, and I
    would say my prayers, and we would wait.
        Now we are into the possibility of a biological action
    against an American city. I just wonder then, what is State's
    role? Then describe for us--because we will be asking Reno and
    Freeh and so on this same question.
        Secretary Albright. As I said, we have an interagency
    working group. I think it would be my sense that it is
    something that needs to be developed and evolved to deal with
    newer problems. But we do have a way of looking at it.
        There are some who believe that it ought to be even more
    centralized. But I think that we believe that it is important
    to do it through agency interaction. We will get back to you, I
    think, with some more detailed things and work with you more
    closely on it.
        Senator Mikulski. I would really encourage a sense of
    urgency within our own country about it. I believe that there
    is the leadership in the executive branch to do that.
        But thank you. I know my time is up, and I yield to my
    colleagues.
        Secretary Albright. Thank you, Senator.
        Senator Gregg. Senator Inouye.
        Senator Inouye. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. May I
    ask that my opening remarks be made a part of the record?
        Senator Gregg. Certainly.
        Senator Inouye. Madam Secretary, welcome. I thank you as
    one citizen for a job well done.
        Secretary Albright. Thank you.
        Senator Inouye. Madam Secretary, I have several questions,
    one on the peace process and the other on the East-West Center,
    but may I just submit them for your consideration?
        Secretary Albright. Yes. Thank you.

                             Jerusalem Embassy move

        Senator Inouye. I have just one question I would like to
    ask at this time. Three years ago we passed the Jerusalem
    Embassy Relocation Act, and the act stated that by May 1999 the
    Embassy in Tel Aviv will be moved to Jerusalem. Last year the
    Congress appropriated $9.5 million for architectural design.
    Can you give this committee a progress report on where we are
    at this time?
        Secretary Albright. Yes. Thank you, Senator. Let me just
    say that, obviously we have been asked to file reports about
    this. We have filed five such reports describing the options
    should the President decide to establish an Embassy in
    Jerusalem, and we have made arrangements with the Government of
    Israel for a site in west Jerusalem for a new diplomatic or
    consular establishment. We have made clear that we will keep
    our options open.
        Let me just say this, our next report is due to you on
    March 5. But also I have to say, and you asked about the status
    of the Middle East peace process, obviously the status of
    Jerusalem is one of the final status issue discussions. That is
    what was negotiated at Oslo One. I think that we have all
    determined that Jerusalem is a final status issue.
        Senator Inouye. Does that mean that the relocation will not
    be implemented until the peace process has been completed?
        Secretary Albright. As I said, we have kept our options
    open. But we believe that it is important to make sure that the
    issue of Jerusalem and its status remain in the final status
    negotiations.
        Senator Inouye. Then my followup question may have the same
    response. We have noted that children born in Jerusalem, in
    their birth certificate or their passport it says, born in
    Jerusalem, and not in Israel. May I ask why? If I am born in
    London it would say, born in England.
        Secretary Albright. I think for the same reason, Senator,
    because Jerusalem is a final status issue.
        Senator Inouye. If not, may I have a response to that?
        Secretary Albright. Yes.
        Senator Inouye. Thank you very much.
        Secretary Albright. Thank you very much.
        [The statement follows:]
                 Prepared Statement of Senator Daniel K. Inouye
        Madam Secretary, welcome. I would also like to thank you for taking
    the time to testify before this committee. I know you are quite busy
    with the situation in the Persian Gulf, the Middle East and the Asian
    economic crisis. I have a few questions that I would hope you might be
    able to shed some light on.
                                east-west center
        I have been advised that you interceded on behalf of several
    important educational and cultural exchange programs to ensure that
    they were not zeroed out in the President's Budget Request for fiscal
    year 1999. I would like to thank you for your efforts. These programs
    most certainly deserve the Administration's full support as they serve
    an important bridge between our neighbors in the North and South and
    the East and West. I support the increases that two of the programs
    received because I believe they play a vital role in our relations with
    other countries around the Globe. However, I am concerned that the
    third program, the East-West Center, did not receive the same
    treatment.
        One of the programs received a 40 percent increase in the
    President's Budget Request from the fiscal year 1998 appropriation. The
    other program received a 53 percent increase in the President's Budget
    Request from the fiscal year 1998 appropriation. While the East-West
    Center received a 58 percent decrease from the fiscal year 1998
    appropriation.
        It occurs to me that the Asia-Pacific region, the region where the
    East-West Center conducts its programs and studies is an area of great
    importance to the United States. The most serious multinational
    conflicts since World War II have occurred in Asia. The continuing
    economic crisis in this region is beginning to negatively impact the
    United State's economy. Now is the time to invest more resources not
    less.
                           middle east peace process
        The core bargain of the Oslo peace process was that one side would
    cede land and political authority and that the other would, once and
    for all, renounce terrorism and violence and commit to fighting those
    who continued to perpetrate such acts. Since the 1993 start of the
    peace process, in fact one side, Israel, has ceded land and political
    authority. Today, 27 percent of the West Bank and virtually all of Gaza
    are under the civil administration of the Palestinian Authority as is
    almost 98 percent of the Palestinian population. Yet on the Palestinian
    side, violence and terrorism seem to continue to be used as political
    tools. You yourself have said that there is no moral equivalence
    between bombs and bulldozers; and that the fight against terrorism is
    the ``sine qua non'' for progress in the peace process, and that the
    fight must be a ``total effort.'' After the recent meetings in
    Washington and the Middle East, however, you appear to blame both sides
    equally for the current stalemate.
                                   jerusalem
        The Jerusalem Embassy Relocation Act was passed in 1995. It
    requires the Administration to move the U.S. Embassy in Israel from Tel
    Aviv to Jerusalem by May, 1999. May, 1999 is approaching quickly.
                                      aid
        The Israeli government has recently put forth its initial thoughts
    about reducing economic assistance from the U.S., with the 10-12 year
    goal of phasing economic assistance to zero. The proposal fulfills a
    promise made by Prime Minister Netanyahu to a joint meeting of Congress
    in 1996.
                                 united nations
        Israel is the only country in the U.N. system denied access to a
    regional grouping--the mechanism through which countries are chosen to
    sit on the U.N.'s powerful committees, including the Security Council.

        Senator Gregg. I would, just following up on the Senator
    from Hawaii's comments, we did put the money in last year to
    start the design of the Embassy in Jerusalem. We did not do
    that because we did not expect it not to be built. We expect it
    to be built, and we are going to put in construction money.
    That is the policy of the Congress which passed by an
    overwhelming--99 to 0 vote in the Senate. So we are going to
    continue to pursue that case.

                                 Peace process

        On the issue of the peace process and Iraq, since that
    topic has been raised even though it may not be specifically
    current to this committee's hearing, I do think it is worth
    following up on in the sense that during the process of
    building up for this confrontation we did not have the support
    of Saudi Arabia and Egypt at the levels that we have had it in
    the past. Certainly we had it in 1991. And my sense was that
    one of the reasons Saudi Arabia and Egypt were not able to come
    forward with the aggressive support that we might have wanted,
    especially to allow us, in the case of Saudi Arabia, to launch
    attacks from that country, was because the peace process has
    come to a halt.
        It seems to me that as we pursue the policies of this
    administration, which is to now try again with Saddam Hussein
    and the process of investigating and determining whether or not
    he is complying with the U.N. resolutions, that we have a
    period when we can rebuild the efforts on the peace process.
        I think its reoccurrence is a predictable event, as the
    Senator from Colorado has certainly pointed out. Maybe 3 months
    from now, maybe 6 months from now, maybe 9 months from now, but
    we will be back in a confrontational position with this
    individual, but the next time we should have the support of
    Saudi Arabia and Egypt.
        My question to you is, what are we doing to get the peace
    process going again so that in turn we can get the alliance
    back, at least as it relates to Saudi Arabia and Egypt? Then I
    would follow that with a corollary question, what are we doing
    relative to getting the alliance back relative to Turkey, which
    is another launching site, so that we can use their facilities?
    I do not see how we can ever remove Saddam Hussein if we do not
    have the capacity to physically remove him. And we do not have
    the capacity to physically remove him if we do not have the
    cooperation of the neighboring states for launching
    capabilities.
        Secretary Albright. Yes; thank you, Mr. Chairman. First of
    all, let me say that 1991 was in many ways simpler because it
    was an Arab country invading another Arab country; something
    that was unheard of. Therefore, there was an outcry not only
    from the world but specifically the Arab countries. We are now
    dealing with a much more complicated problem, which is a threat
    of future problems rather than an actual concrete act. That is
    for one.
        Also, what was not, I think, made clear enough was that we
    actually had a great deal of support internationally with
    countries providing a variety of support, a couple of dozen in
    one way or another. Also, the Arab countries were much more
    supportive than was evident. I think that we are all aware of
    the fact that people speak to different audiences. The Arab
    leaders themselves are in the neighborhood with the bully, and,
    therefore, they are less likely to be vocal publicly. But we
    felt, all of us including Secretary Cohen and General Shelton,
    that had we had to use force that we had the cooperation that
    was necessary for the kind of strike that was intended. Those
    are the facts on that ground.
        As far as the Middle East peace process was concerned, 1997
    was definitely not a good year for the peace process. For a
    variety of reasons, the parties were not willing to make the
    tough decisions. The United States, however, was trying to push
    the process forward. I visited a number of times and also met
    with Prime Minister Netanyahu and Chairman Arafat in different
    places, pushing the process forward. But ultimately, they are
    the ones that have to make the hard decisions.
        We are going back on that, I can assure you. And whatever
    is happening with Saddam Hussein, we would be pushing in terms
    of trying to get the parties to make the hard decisions. I
    assure you that we will continue to do that. We hope very much
    that they will, in fact, make some of those decisions that only
    they can make. And we will do other things in terms of
    rebuilding alliances.
        On Turkey, again I think part of the issue was the
    relationship of what actually happened in 1991 versus what is
    happening now. We also need to work very hard to bring Turkey
    more into the European sphere, and help try to resolve the
    problems between Greece and Turkey on the Aegean issues as well
    as with Cyprus.
        Senator Gregg. I have made my points on that, so I do not
    want to spend the entire period discussing that because there
    are a lot of issues that we have that relate specifically to
    the funding that comes before this committee.

                                  Immigration

        Let me start with the question of immigration. It has been
    proposed that the State Department take over the activities of
    operating the naturalization process under immigration because
    of the disaster that the immigration agency pursued and
    basically represented over the last 1\1/2\ years. That was the
    report that was given to us by an independent commission
    evaluating the Immigration and Naturalization Service [INS],
    recommending that we split the agency, leave Border Patrol and
    enforcement with Justice and move the actual operation of the
    naturalization over to State. I would be interested in the
    State Department's reaction to that report.
        Secretary Albright. Mr. Chairman, we were pleased by the
    commission's favorable assessment of the Department's consular
    operations. Our focus now ought to be on how services are
    provided, not on which agency provides them.
        The White House Domestic Policy Council is leading the
    administration's effort to undertake a review of the
    commission's report and to formulate some recommendations. We
    have worked closely with the INS for many years and are
    prepared to help them in any way that we can as they reexamine
    their services and the best way to handle them.
        Senator Gregg. This is a huge issue. You are talking about
    taking over an agency which would literally double the size, I
    suspect, of the operational aspects of the State Department,
    both on a personnel level and from a monetary standpoint. So I
    really need something more than just a casual statement of what
    you are studying. Do you support taking over that sort of
    responsibility or do you not?
        Secretary Albright. Let me just say this, at this stage we
    are not prepared to make an answer, because what is happening
    is that there is a study going on. Because you are absolutely
    right, this is a huge proposal and the State Department
    actually has a lot of things that we are doing also. So I
    cannot give you just a glib answer on it because we are still
    waiting for the study. But I can assure you, Mr. Chairman, that
    we will be working with you very closely on this.
        Senator Gregg. It is possible that Congress may act this
    year on this issue. In fact it is likely that the Congress will
    act this year on this issue. So I suggest you accelerate the
    internal operation and the interdepartment operation and get us
    back your thoughts on it as soon as possible.
        Secretary Albright. I shall do that.

                                U.N. arrearages

        Senator Gregg. On this issue of arrearages for the United
    Nations. As you know, I worked very hard on this and we thought
    we had the whole deal. We thought we had it put together. We
    felt it was a good resolution. We were going to require the
    United Nations to meet certain benchmarks. But this did not
    fail on our watch. I feel a little bit like the tail clearly
    here is wagging the dog. How are we going to get the
    administration to settle out with the House Members, who have
    the same flexibility this time? There is no question, we are
    not going to be able to get the arrearages issue through unless
    you folks reach some sort of an accommodation on the Mexico
    City issue, which is really just a blip on the old radar screen
    compared to what we are talking about here. We cannot move the
    U.N. arrearages issue unless the administration is willing to
    sit down and seriously resolve that question with these Members
    who have the capacity to basically stop the process.
        Secretary Albright. Mr. Chairman, I weep with you at all
    the work that we did on this that went for naught last year. As
    I said in my statement, we are paying $100 million a year for
    starters for not having done what we should have, and also are
    losing a whole lot of influence. Senator Campbell was talking
    about countries voting with us. The truth is that our record is
    much, much better than it was in the 1980's. But part of our
    problem is the fact that we are not there paying fully. The
    British are the ones who waited 200 years to say this, but they
    said it is representation without taxation. So I think that
    that is a genuine problem here for us.
        But let me say, there is a solution to this. It is a very
    simple solution, and it is the democratic solution. That is
    that you vote on the issue of concern. The issue of prochoice
    or prolife is a huge issue in the American political scene and
    a very legitimate one. People on both sides of this issue feel
    very, very strongly. And there are good people on both sides of
    this issue. So what needs to happen is it needs to be separated
    from national security legislation. It needs to be voted up or
    down, as we usually do on issues.
        Senator Gregg. No; I have to disagree with you there.
    Because the way that Congress works, and you understand it, is
    that if you have the numbers in the Senate--and it only takes
    40 people--you can stop anything. This issue is really between
    the White House and the group of folks who feel strongly on it.
    It does seem to me that if the White House and the group of
    folks sat down and resolved it, that is the way to get it
    going. There is no way to move this issue legislatively until
    there has been resolution.
        Secretary Albright. I think that because this is an issue
    of principle to both sides, it is harder to compromise on it. I
    think that there has been misunderstanding about what some of
    the compromises suggested last year really would have done.
    First of all, I think people should understand that no taxpayer
    money goes for promoting abortions.
        Senator Gregg. I do not want to remake the case here.
        Secretary Albright. No; but I am just telling you that the
    compromises are compromises that basically are huge issues to
    both sides.
        Senator Gregg. There has to be a balancing. Somebody down
    there has to decide, is it more important to have the U.N.
    arrearages, or is it more important to get the last T crossed
    and the last I dotted on the issue of Mexico City? I do not
    want to get into the specifics of the debate because that could
    take us the balance of our lifetime it appears, but I am just
    telling you that we are not going to get this U.N. arrearages
    issue moving unless we can resolve that issue.
        Did you have further questions, Senator Campbell? We will
    go around again.
        Senator Campbell. Yes; I do not want to talk about
    abortion, I will tell you that.

                                UNSCOM observers

        I wanted to have you clarify something for me. Under the
    original agreement in 1991, Iraq guaranteed, as I understood
    it, unfettered access to the UNSCOM observers. I guess they
    defined what that meant--it is a matter of semantics--and they
    closed off the palaces. Would you tell me, Madam Secretary, the
    observers that are going to go with UNSCOM, what decisionmaking
    process will they go through? Do they have the authority to
    refuse UNSCOM's ability to inspect these so-called palaces now?
        Secretary Albright. Under what they signed they do not have
    the authority. Let me make something clear. This is the first
    time that Saddam Hussein has said unfettered, unconditional
    access to all sites. So that is for starters. They now have the
    authority, the UNSCOM inspectors, to go in. Whether he will
    allow them or not is the question.
        Senator Campbell. Basically then what is the job of the
    observers that are going to watch UNSCOM?
        Secretary Albright. They are basically going to have eyes
    moving in both directions. Which is they will watch to see if
    the Iraqis are actually allowing these various inspections to
    go on.
        They also will be there with the UNSCOM inspectors. But
    they cannot stop the UNSCOM inspectors from doing anything.
    They are there as observers and UNSCOM will continue to have
    operational control, deciding when to go in and what kind of an
    inspection to do. So they will observe.
        Senator Campbell. I thank you for that clarification.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Gregg. We do have a vote on. I know that Senator
    Mikulski has a couple points she wants to make, but let me just
    say that I do not want to keep you here through votes.
        There are a couple issues that we do need some more
    information on. No. 1, the Beijing Embassy. I cannot understand
    how we are going to spend $200 million to build these
    facilities. We could probably rebuild the Capitol for $200
    million. Somehow we have to get more specifics on that and get
    control over that so we do not end up with something like the
    Reagan Building.
        The year 2000 issue, which you alluded to, is a big issue
    which we need to get some more information on. And I also want
    to talk to you at some point about language study. Obviously
    your expansion in the area of capital activity is something
    this committee basically initiated for next year in the area of
    acquisition of technology. We are very committed to that. I
    want to go over some of those specifics, too. But I do not want
    to tie you up here all day.
        Secretary Albright. We will get you answers on all of
    those, Senators.
        Senator Gregg. Barbara.

                   Russian scientific community relationship

        Senator Mikulski. Madam Secretary, I will not keep you.
    There is one area that I would like to be able to pursue,
    perhaps not at this hearing with the vote. But I am concerned
    about the issue of Russian missile technology specialists being
    in Iran, and the whole issue of the United States' relationship
    with the Russian scientific community.
        Let me be clear. I am a strong supporter of the space
    station, and under the administration we moved to include the
    Russians in the space station and supported that, for two
    reasons: their technical expertise and their contribution to a
    scientific mission, and also that the missile technologists
    would be involved with the Americans in civilian-based
    technology and not selling their expertise around the world.
    They now are fading in meeting their responsibilities to the
    space station. For those of us who fund NASA, we are deeply
    concerned about that. You need to be aware of it. That could
    sink the space station this year.

                     Russian missile technology specialists

        No. 2, we are concerned then that their missile
    technologists are going around the world, and the most notable
    now is their involvement in Iran. We would like to know where
    they are, what they are doing, and what are we doing to bring
    them back into, one, their agreement on the space station and
    really meeting their responsibilities. And No. 2, that they are
    not exacerbating this proliferation of not only making weapons
    of mass destruction, but developing the technology to deliver
    it.
        Now we were a lot on Iraq today, but no conversation about
    Iran. I am not sanguine about Iran, and I am also not sanguine
    about the Russian involvement. So perhaps we could talk with
    your team about that, unless you wanted to comment now?
        Secretary Albright. Let me say that the issue of Russian
    relations with Iran on missile technology is something that
    concerns us a great deal. Whether it is in conversations that
    President Clinton has with President Yeltsin, or Vice President
    Gore with Prime Minister Chernomyrdin, or I with the foreign
    minister, this is a subject of constant discussion.
        We developed a good channel to deal with a lot of these
    problems and the Russians have, in fact, now put out an
    executive order to limit transfers. We are looking to see how
    all that is being carried out. There is a review process in
    place and it will be the subject when the Gore-Chernomyrdin
    Commission meets in March.
        I think this is a key problem. It is very difficult,
    actually, with pieces of equipment. It is obviously even more
    difficult when people are involved. So we need to focus on it
    more and more. The major threat of the 21st century is the
    proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, whether it is
    internally here as you mentioned or countries or people. We are
    focusing on this in the most intense way and are dealing with
    it on a case-by-case basis.
        But I agree with you, there has to be a more concerted
    effort on it, especially in the people part. The people part is
    very difficult because of the knowledge that people have in
    their heads, which is harder to monitor. We will work with you
    on that.
        Senator Mikulski. Let us keep working on it.
        Secretary Albright. Yes.
        Senator Mikulski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

                         Additional committee questions

        Senator Gregg. I also need to mention that we do want to do
    some followup questions on protecting family members and also,
    obviously, people who are working at the various delegations
    around the world from terrorist acts, and our concern about
    making sure that we give their families adequate protection.
        I will be submitting questions for Senator Lautenberg and
    Senator Domenici.
        [The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
    were submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the
    hearing:]
                   Questions Submitted by Senator Ted Stevens
            united nations conference on the law of the sea [unclos]
        Question. Since the beginning of this year, representatives for the
    State Department and the Department of Defense have met with a number
    of Senate offices to discuss the United Nations Conference on the Law
    of the Sea (UNCLOS) and to encourage Senate advice and consent to
    UNCLOS.
        Madame Secretary, for the record, I would appreciate your
    explanation of the implications for the United States delaying in
    becoming a party to UNCLOS. I would also appreciate your estimate of
    the costs associated with being a party to UNCLOS. Lastly, I would
    appreciate any brief responses that you may have to other common
    concerns that have been expressed about UNCLOS in recent years, such as
    seabed mining concerns.
        Answer. The Administration has placed the Law of the Sea Convention
    on its treaty priority list in the highest category of treaties for
    which it believes there is urgent need for Senate approval. A
    comprehensive and widely accepted Law of the Sea Convention has been an
    important and bipartisan objective of United States foreign policy
    throughout the last several decades. The Convention advances the
    interests of the United States as a coastal nation and as a global
    maritime power.
        In 1999, I signed an agreement on deep seabed mining which
    addressed satisfactorily each of the concerns that led to the United
    States decision in 1982 not to sign the Convention. One hundred and
    twenty-four governments, including all major OECD countries, are now
    Parties. Becoming a party to the Law of the Sea Convention will provide
    us with an important tool to protect our national security and other
    ocean interests.
        Non-accession by the U.S. would undermine U.S. leadership in
    pursuing market-oriented approaches to deep seabed mining activity as
    well as in protecting the substantial precedent setting gains we have
    made through weighted decision making. Nonaccession by the U.S. may
    also inadvertently push U.S. companies to overseas operations. It is
    important to note that under the 1994 Agreement, the United States is a
    provisional member in the International Seabed Authority until November
    16, 1998. But that provisional membership, and our ability to
    participate in drafting the rules and regulations governing deep seabed
    mining will expire if we are not a Party by November.
        The costs of participation are low. The Convention establishes two
    institutions:
        International Seabed Authority (ISA).--The 1998 budget for
    Authority amounts to $4.8 million, about half of which pays for
    Conference servicing expenses for the meetings that are drafting the
    mining code. The United States share of this amount is $1.2 million. In
    addition, the U.S. is responsible for 24 percent or $49,000 of the
    $196,000 Working Capital Fund. We do not anticipate that the budget for
    the Authority will need to increase in any substantial amount for the
    next few years, and the Authority has already reduced the length of its
    meetings in an effort to keep costs to a minimum.
        The ISA is responsible for administering the regime governing
    mineral resource development in areas beyond national jurisdiction. The
    U.S. obtained substantial concessions in the area of weighted voting to
    assure a voice commensurate with the investment made by U.S. companies.
    U.S. mining consortia invested nearly $400 million in developing deep
    seabed mining technology and the U.S. is interested in protecting this
    investment. The 1994 Agreement successfully addresses the issues raised
    in the 1980 Deep Seabed Hard Mineral Resources Act, which called for
    interim arrangements pending a global agreement. We are confident that
    the ISA will assure non-discriminatory access for U.S. citizens, under
    reasonable terms and conditions that do not impose significant new
    economic burdens.
        The ISA has successfully established a decision making arm of the
    Authority, known as the Council. Substantive decisions are made by a
    chambered voting arrangement, the effect of which is to allow the
    United States and two other industrialized countries acting in concert
    to block decisions. The United States was elected to the Consumer
    Chamber of the Council. The United States was also elected to the 15
    member Finance Committee, which has jurisdiction over all budgetary and
    financial matters and must decide on issues by consensus. Unless we
    join the Convention, however, this participation is available only
    until November, 1998.
        International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea.--This Tribunal which
    is located in Hamburg, Germany, opened for business on October 1, 1996.
    It has decided its first case and is currently working on a second
    case. The budget for the Tribunal is approximately $6.2 million for
    calendar year 1998. The U.S. share would be approximately $1.5 million.
    Again, we would not expect this number to increase substantially in the
    out years.
                       u.n. studies/projects on firearms
        Question. With regard to the work of the United Nations studies now
    proceeding through: (i) the U.N. Commission on Crime Prevention and
    Criminal Justice; and (ii) a panel established out of the New York U.N.
    headquarters entitled the ``Panel of Government Experts on Small
    Arms''; and (iii) the United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research
    (``UNIDR'') project and study on light weapons controls, please fully
    explain the U.S. role regarding each study or project, and whether or
    not the U.S. supports financially or otherwise U.N. efforts to regulate
    civilian ownership of firearms on a global level.
        Answer. A fundamental underlying premise to U.S. participation in
    all matters relating to firearms is that the U.S. will not support or
    accede to any agreement which conflicts with U.S. domestic law. In all
    matters involving firearms, the U.S. position is that civilian
    ownership of firearms is a domestic issue for each country to decide.
    The U.S. interest in firearms from a global perspective is to prevent
    illicit trafficking in firearms by criminals and by criminal
    organizations.
        The U.N. Commission on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice has
    held several regional workshops in which the U.S., as well as U.S. non-
    governmental organizations, participated. The U.S. is considering how
    the product from those workshops can best be applied to the problem of
    illicit trafficking in firearms by criminals and criminal
    organizations, in a manner that does not conflict with U.S. domestic
    law.
        The U.S. did participate in the Panel of Government Experts on
    Small Arms, which produced a consensus report last summer. The U.S.
    Arms Control and Disarmament Agency provided the U.S. expert. The
    Panel's recommendations dealt with measures to reduce the excessive and
    destabilizing accumulations and transfers of small arms and light
    weapons in specific regions of the world where such accumulations and
    transfers had already taken place, and measures to prevent such
    destabilizing accumulations and transfers in the future. Many of the
    specific measures recommended by the Panel relate to proposed national
    and international efforts to address illegal trafficking.
        The U.N. Institute for Disarmament Research (UNIDIR) is an
    independent research arm of the U.N. supported by voluntary
    contributions. It is based in Geneva and supported by U.N. member
    states' voluntary contributions and foundation grants. UNIDIR recently
    completed a multi-year study on Disarmament and Conflict Resolution
    (DCR) focusing on the experiences of eleven multilateral peace
    operations missions under the auspices of the U.N. or regional
    organizations in managing and controlling arms in the possession of
    warring parties (e.g., Somalia, Angola, Liberia, Cambodia, El Salvador,
    former Yugoslavia). The results of the project were published in a
    series of UNIDIR publications.
        Additionally, I would note that the U.S. participated in
    negotiating the first international instrument to combat illicit
    trafficking in firearms by criminals in the Organization of American
    States. The U.S. worked closely with U.S. non-governmental
    organizations throughout these negotiations to insure that U.S.
    domestic policies were fairly reflected in this international
    instrument.
                                    ukraine
        Question. Has the Ukrainian Government reformed its trade policies
    as conditioned in the fiscal year 1998 Commerce, Justice, State
    Appropriations bill? If not, do you think the release of the remaining
    $225 million for fiscal year 1998 to the Ukrainian Government is
    warranted?
        Answer. The Foreign Operations Appropriation Act for Fiscal Year
    1998 required that we withhold approximately half of the $225 million
    earmarked for Ukraine unless I certified that Ukraine had made
    significant progress toward resolving investor complaints. On April 29,
    1998, I decided to certify that the Government of Ukraine has made
    significant progress toward resolving U.S. investor complaints. We have
    worked very closely with the Government of Ukraine over the past year
    to push for resolution of investor complaints, including the twelve
    specific complaints covered by the legislation. Seven of the cases were
    resolved or there was significant progress toward their resolution.
        Since I announced my decision to certify, the Government of Ukraine
    has continued to work with us to resolve the remaining cases, and we
    continue to make progress.
        We remain concerned, however, about the remaining investor
    problems, and more generally about Ukraine's poor investment climate
    and the slow pace of economic reform. In conjunction with my decision
    to certify I directed the withholding of certain assistance funds to
    the Government of Ukraine in areas where reforms have stalled and such
    assistance cannot be used effectively. These funds will be redirected
    to the private and non-governmental sectors in Ukraine unless the
    Government of Ukraine implements the necessary reforms in these sectors
    and takes additional steps to resolve outstanding business cases in
    Ukraine.
                         ukraine minimum customs values
        Question. Do you agree that minimum customs valuation is
    specifically prohibited under the WTO? Do you believe the Ukrainian
    Government is singling out products of specific U.S. companies by brand
    name, and valuing the products of those companies at amounts greater
    than similar products for other countries? Is this type of practice
    GATT legal or acceptable to the U.S. Government?
        Answer. Imposition of a minimal customs valuation not based on the
    actual value of the product is specifically prohibited under Article 7
    of the WTO. Because Ukraine is not yet a member of the WTO, it is not
    legally required to adhere to the Article 7 requirement. However,
    Ukraine is pursuing negotiations to join the WTO, and is expected in
    that process to follow WTO guidelines as closely as possible and
    implement WTO norms and procedures. We have urged Ukraine to implement
    the WTO Agreement on Customs Valuation, which is a transparent, rules-
    based regime.
        We have raised these concerns with the Government of Ukraine, both
    in the context of WTO accession negotiations and in bilateral trade
    talks, and we will continue to do so. We are especially concerned that
    Ukraine has applied minimum customs values in ways that are
    discriminatory and harm U.S. products.
                                    ukraine
        Question. What actions do you plan to take to let the Ukrainian
    Government know of the State Department's concerns with these or other
    Ukrainian trade policies?
        Answer. During my March 6 visit to Kiev, I met with a group
    representing the U.S. business community in Ukraine, including a number
    of businesses that have raised with the U.S. Government problems they
    are having in Ukraine, such as Gala Radio and R&J Trading. The
    businessmen reviewed for me both company-specific problems and broader
    systemic obstacles to doing business in Ukraine.
        Earlier during my visit to Kiev, I raised with President Kuchma our
    concern over the treatment of U.S. businesses and investors. I
    emphasized the need for vigorous, effective action to improve the
    investment climate.
        We will continue to pursue this issue energetically with the
    Ukrainian government.
                           state's performance goals
        Question. How are the agency's annual performance goals linked to
    the agency's mission, strategic goals, and program activities in its
    budget request?
        Answer. We structured the Performance Plan with an explicit link
    between strategic goals and performance goals. There is not, however,
    the same direct connection to the account and activity structure in the
    budget justification. Given the difficulties of linking the existing
    budget structure to our strategic goals, this is unavoidable. Each goal
    is supported by several appropriations, and each appropriation supports
    multiple goals. Our ultimate objective is to identify both the
    appropriations and the dollar amount they contribute to the specific
    goals. The Congressional Presentation for the fiscal year 1999
    international affairs (Function 150) budget links resources, including
    State's, to the international affairs strategic goals by region. This
    is a first step toward performance budgeting.
        Question. Could you describe the process used to link your
    performance goals to your budget activities?
        Does the agency's Performance Plan link performance measures to its
    budget?
        Answer. We are linking our budget activities to our performance
    goals, not the other way around. In the Performance Plan, we have
    listed the appropriations supporting each strategic goal. Please see
    also the answer to the previous question.
        Question. Does each account have performance measures?
        Answer. Most Department of State accounts have performance measures
    which are discussed in State's fiscal year 1999 Congressional
    Presentation Document. As described above, we structured the overall
    Performance Plan with an explicit link between strategic goals and
    performance goals.
        Question. To what extent does your performance planning structure
    differ from the account and activity structure in your budget
    justification?
        Answer. The structure of the Performance Plan does not directly
    link to the account and activity structure in the budget justification.
    As mentioned in the answer above, we structured the Performance Plan
    with an explicit link between strategic goals and performance goals.
    Given the differences between the existing budget structure and our
    strategic goals, it is difficult to link them directly.
        Question. Do you plan to propose any changes to your account
    structure for fiscal year 2000?
        Answer. At this time, we have no plans to propose changes to the
    account structure for fiscal year 2000, although this is an issue we
    will want to discuss with the appropriate committees.
        Question. Will you propose any changes to the program activities
    described under that account structure? How were performance measures
    chosen?
        Answer. As mentioned in the previous answer above, we have no plans
    at this time to propose changes to program activities or the account
    structure for fiscal year 2000, although this is an issue we will want
    to discuss with the appropriate committees.
        The team charged with drafting the Performance Plan formulated the
    original performance measures, using the individual performance plans
    State bureaus prepared last year and other information prepared more
    recently by the bureaus for the CPD. The team referred the entire draft
    Performance Plan on two separate occasions to all bureaus for their
    review and advice. In many cases the performance measures were refined
    based on the comments team received.
        Question. How did the agency balance the cost of data collection
    and verification with the need for reliable and valid performance data?
        Answer. To avoid imposing new reporting burdens on bureaus, the
    team charged with drafting the Performance Plan sought to identify
    indicators that were based on data or information already collected by
    the Department itself, other agencies, or non-governmental
    organizations. As mentioned in the previous answer above, the team
    referred the entire draft Performance Plan on two separate occasions to
    all bureaus for their review and advice. In many cases the measures and
    indicators were refined based on the comments the team received.
        Question. Does your plan include performance measures for which
    reliable data are not likely to be available in time for your first
    performance report in March 2000?
        Answer. Most of our performance measures are based on qualitative
    assessments, not quantitative results. We believe that for now they and
    the data upon which they depend are adequate, representing as they do
    our first attempt to create a performance plan. We do not, however,
    consider them satisfactory for the long term. We will continue to
    assess how we can improve both our performance measures and their data.
    In fact, we are developing a software tool that will help gather data
    along strategic and diplomatic readiness categories. We welcome the
    assistance of OMB and the Congress in this difficult undertaking.
        Question. What are the key performance goals from your fiscal year
    1999 Annual Performance Plan that you recommend this subcommittee use
    to track program results?
        Answer. Our preference would be for the subcommittee to track the
    whole Performance Plan during the appropriations process as a good way
    to review State's performance on the range of its responsibilities for
    conducting U.S. foreign policy. Short of that, we would suggest
    focusing on the performance goals from one or two of the seven national
    interests, such as ``national security'' and ``American citizens and
    border security.''
        Question. For each key annual goal, indicate whether you consider
    it to be an output measure (``how much'') or an outcome measures (``how
    well'').
        Answer. We have tried throughout the course of our strategic
    planning effort to focus on outcomes and not outputs. In preparing the
    Performance Plan, we made a conscious effort to emphasize specific
    fiscal year 1999 actions that will produce outcomes. It is of course,
    impossible to exclude all reference to output measures, which include
    matters as important and diverse as passport issuance and demining
    operations.
        Question. State the long-term (fiscal year 2003) general goal and
    objective from the agency Strategic Plan to which the annual goal is
    linked.
        Answer. We derived the performance goals directly from the
    International Affairs Strategic Plan, which sets out the national
    interests and long-range goals we are pursuing in international affairs
    on behalf of the security, prosperity, and values of the American
    people. The Performance Plan clearly identifies which strategic goal
    each performance goal supports.
        Question. In developing your Annual Performance Plan, what efforts
    did your agency undertake to ensure that the goals in the plan include
    a significant number of outcome measures?
        Answer. Please see the answers to previous two questions above.
        Question. Do you have the technological capability of measuring and
    reporting program performance throughout the year on a regular basis,
    so that the agency can be properly managed to achieve the desired
    results?
        Answer. We have alerted responsible managers to the need for
    employees to understand the Performance Plan's contents, especially
    those areas for which they have primary responsibility; for bureaus to
    have the baseline information in place against which progress will be
    measured; and for bureaus and employees to be prepared when fiscal year
    1999 begins to collect the data necessary to track and document
    performance throughout the year. This is, however, a new way for us to
    operate. We cannot state conclusively one way or the other how well or
    quickly we will be able to report on performance throughout the year.
    Our focus with systems in the immediate future is to ensure they are
    Year 2000 compliant.
        Question. If so, who has access to the information--senior
    management only, or mid- and lower-level program managers too?
        Answer. The Performance Plan is built from individual Bureau
    Performance Plans. We are relying on mid- and lower-level managers as
    well as senior management to take primary responsibility for building
    and carrying out their own plans. They originated and have access to
    the available performance information.
        Question. Are you able to gain access easily to various
    performance-related data located throughout your various information
    systems?
        Answer. Tracking our progress against a Performance Plan represents
    a new way for the Department of State to operate. We do not yet know
    how easily we will be able to access and report performance-related
    data.
                     government performance and results act
        Question. The Government Performance and Results Act requires that
    your agency's Annual Performance Plan establish performance goals to
    define the level of performance to be achieved by each program activity
    set forth in your budget.
        Many agencies have indicated that their present budget account
    structure makes it difficult to link dollars to results in a clear and
    meaningful way. Have you faced such difficulty? Would the linkages be
    clearer if your budget account structure were modified?
        Answer. In the Performance Plan, we have listed the appropriations
    supporting each strategic goal. There is not a one-to-one correlation
    between goals and appropriations. Each goal is supported by several
    appropriations, and each appropriation supports multiple goals. Our
    ultimate objective is to identify both the appropriations and the
    dollar amount they contribute to the specific goal, although completing
    that objective is still some years away. Until we have some more
    experience in linking dollars to results, we are not planning to
    propose changes to the account structure.
        Question. If so, how would you propose to modify it and why do you
    believe such modification would be more useful both to your agency and
    to this committee than the present structure?
        Answer. At this time, we have no plans to propose changes to the
    account structure.
        Question. How would such modifications strengthen accountability
    for program performance in the use of budgeted dollars?
        Answer. At this time, we have no plans to propose changes to the
    account structure.
                           managerial cost accounting
        Question. What is the status of your agency's implementation of the
    Managerial Cost Accounting requirement, and are you using Activity-
    Based Costing?
        Answer. The Department of State has begun to identify actions
    needed to comply with Managerial Cost Accounting requirements. The
    Department's Strategic Plan under the Government Performance and
    Results Act has been finalized and the Department is working on the
    methodologies to assess achievement of Department goals and objectives
    under the plan. Price Waterhouse has been retained to provide an
    assessment of the work required to implement the Statement of Federal
    Financial Accounting Standard Number 4, ``Managerial Cost Accounting
    Standards and Concepts for the Federal Government.'' Concurrent with
    this initiative, cost accounting requirements are being incorporated
    into the Resource and Budget Integration Tool (RABIT) which will be
    used to identify cost data for future budget presentations; the
    International Cooperative Administrative Support Services (ICASS)
    system for inter-agency support functions at the post level; the
    Central Financial Management System; and integrated feeder systems that
    support our centrally managed financial management and program
    management needs. The Department has not determined if it will use
    Activity Based Costing.
                            measuring activity costs
        Question. Will you be able in the future to show this committee the
    full and accurate cost of each activity of each program, including in
    those calculations such items as administration, employee benefits, and
    depreciation?
        Answer. As cost accounting requirements become fully integrated
    into Department systems and management process, the Department will be
    able to accurately identify the costs of individual programs and
    activities. Current systems and data capabilities are heavily stressed
    and the Department's primary focus is on year 2000 compliance. As part
    of our initiative to implement the Federal Financial Management
    Improvement Act, the Department will implement standard cost accounting
    data structures and capabilities that will meet the Joint Financial
    Management Improvement Program system requirements as well as the
    Statement of Federal Financial Management Number 4 ``Managerial Cost
    Accounting Standards and Concepts for the Federal Government.''
                         measuring program performance
        Question. By doing so, would we then be able to see more precisely
    the relationship between the dollars spent on a program, the true cost
    of the activities conducted by the program, and the results of these
    activities?
        Answer. The Department's initiatives under the Government
    Performance and Results Act (GPRA) strategic planning process and the
    implementation of Statement of Federal Financial Accounting Standards
    under the Federal Financial Management Improvement Act (FFMIA) are
    directed at determining the efficiency and effectiveness of the
    Department of State identified programs and activities. Budget and
    other performance targets will be established under the strategic
    planning process and the Department plans to measure performance.
    However, precise measurement of our programs may still be many years
    away given the condition of our current systems and logistical problems
    around the world.
                     government performance and results act
        Question. Future funding decisions will take into consideration
    actual performance compared to expected or target performance. Given
    that:
        To what extent are your performance measures sufficiently mature to
    allow for these kinds of uses?
        Answer. We have made a good start with strategic planning and
    performance measurement in the past 18 months, but we are still far
    from having a fully functioning performance planning system. We have
    made great progress in creating an effective planning system by
    developing software that distributes resources (both people and money)
    by strategic goal, and by revamping annual Mission and Bureau Program
    Plans. Our performance measures are embryonic, and we are in the first
    year of associating dollars with goals. Developing a solid set of
    performance measures and indicators for our complex activities will
    take a good deal of effort and will entail close coordination with
    other agencies. We expect that the experience gained in the next
    several years as we refine our strategic planning and implement the
    fiscal year 1999 Performance Plan will better position us to take
    actual performance into account in making resource decisions.
        Question. Future funding decisions will take into consideration
    actual performance compared to expected or target performance. Given
    that:
        Are there any factors, such as inexperience in making estimates for
    certain activities or lack of data, that might affect the accuracy of
    resource estimates?
        Answer. We have made great progress in creating an effective
    planning system by developing software that distributes resources (both
    people and money) by strategic goal, and by revamping the annual
    Mission and Bureau Program Plans. We are still far from having a fully
    functioning performance planning system, however. Our performance
    measures are embryonic, and we are in the first year of associating
    dollars with goals. In addition, we are continuing to develop and
    refine data sources and baselines against which to measure progress.
    Developing a solid set of performance measures and indicators for our
    complex activities will take a good deal of effort and will entail
    close coordination with other agencies. We expect that the experience
    gained in the next several years as we implement the fiscal year 1999
    Performance Plan will allow us to make better estimates of funding
    requirements to achieve desired results and take actual performance
    into account when making resource decisions.
                           state's performance goals
        Question. Based on your fiscal year 1999 performance plan, do you
    see any need for any substantive revisions in your strategic plan
    issued on September 30, 1997?
        Answer. Our experience with the Performance Plan does not suggest
    any need for a substantive revision to the Department of State
    Strategic Plan we submitted last September. We do intend to refine the
    International Affairs Strategic Plan based on feedback we have received
    since its release. This will in turn result in some adjustments to the
    State Strategic Plan.
                                     ______

                Questions Submitted by Senator Pete V. Domenici
                            certification decisions
        Question. Could you provide the Committee with an idea of how the
    State Department reaches its decision to recommend that the President
    certify a particular country?
        Answer. In the fall, the Department of State's Bureau for
    International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs (INL) reviews and
    revises the ``majors'' list as appropriate. The list is based on the
    previous spring's ``International Narcotics Control and Strategy
    Report'' (INCSR)--produced by INL--and from other U.S. government
    sources. This proposed list is then cleared within the State Department
    and coordinated with other interested agencies. The Secretary transmits
    the proposed list to the President, who makes the final decisions
    regarding the list. The White House then transmits the ``majors'' list
    to the chairmen of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, House
    International Relations Committee, and the respective appropriations
    committees. The due date for the ``majors'' list is November 1.
        Between December and mid-February, the INL Assistant Secretary
    coordinates an interagency decision-making process to recommend whether
    countries should be certified fully based on their counternarcotics
    performance, denied certification, or granted a vital national
    interests certification. These recommendations are then presented to
    the Secretary of State for her consideration. By mid-February, the
    Secretary sends her recommendations to the President.
                u.s. law enforcement agencies and certification
        Question. What role do U.S. law enforcement agencies play in the
    certification process?
        Answer. The Departments of Justice and Treasury, as well as other
    agencies involved in foreign counternarcotics law enforcement efforts
    (such as the U.S. Coast Guard), provide much of the information used in
    the certification process. These law enforcement agencies participate
    in the interagency discussion and recommendation process beginning with
    the development of criteria and continuing through the analysis of
    performance leading to the Secretary's certification recommendations to
    the President.
                           mexico drug certification
        Question. How many man-hours did the State Department spend this
    year on the Mexico certification decision?
        Answer. We do not have a tracking mechanism for hours spent by
    individual Department of State personnel on specific issues, such as
    certification. We take the certification process very seriously and
    many people--from desk officers and support staff to the Secretary of
    State--are involved.
        Our staff members spend considerable time conducting research,
    analyzing data, preparing statistical summaries, consulting with other
    agencies, drafting, clearing and editing the International Narcotics
    Control Strategy Report, preparing Congressional testimony, answering
    inquiries from the Congress and the media, and so forth. Department
    principals actively participate in reviewing the findings, making
    recommendations, and, ultimately, implementing the President's
    decisions. Considerably more time is invested, however, in establishing
    the benchmarks or criteria for certification, preparing and conducting
    demarches and follow-up meetings with foreign government officials,
    providing program support to other governments to aid them in reaching
    these objectives, and reporting on the results.
        Because of the complexity of the drug situation in Mexico, and the
    fact that its anti-drug effort is so crucial to the success of our own
    national effort, more ``man-hours'' are probably spent on the Mexico
    review than any country other than perhaps Colombia.
                      improving the certification process
        Question. What are your views on the best way to improve the
    certification process? Is the process fatally flawed, or can you offer
    Congress a way to fix it?
        Answer. The State Department has already implemented a number of
    procedural changes to the certification process which are specifically
    designed to improve cooperation and reduce acrimony on key narcotics
    control objectives. The new mechanisms in place are designed to draw
    upon the wide expertise of our intelligence and law enforcement
    communities to ensure that the governments of these countries have a
    sense of ownership for key counternarcotics objectives.
        From the overseas perspective, we are keeping our embassies and
    host governments abroad engaged from the start in the certification
    process. Through our embassies, we have redoubled diplomatic efforts to
    engage host governments actively in finding the best means to meet our
    certification objectives. As the lead agency in the certification
    process, the Department is also reviewing the law for possible
    recommendations to improve it.
        Moreover, we are making a greater effort to utilize multilateral
    mechanisms such as the OAS drug body (known by the Spanish acronym
    CICAD) and the United Nations to advance certification goals, which
    are, after all, tied to the 1988 U.N. Drug Convention.
                            multilateral drug treaty
        Question. Do you support the notion of a multilateral drug treaty
    for the Western Hemisphere? If so, would the treaty involve supply
    reduction, demand reduction or both? How would such a treaty be
    enforced?
        Answer. The Department of State does not support the notion of a
    multilateral drug treaty for the Western Hemisphere. We believe that
    the 1988 United Nations Convention Against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic
    Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (the ``Vienna Convention''), to which
    all the countries in the Western Hemisphere are parties, provides an
    adequate framework for establishing international obligations for
    narcotics control. The Vienna Convention addresses the entire range of
    drug issues from supply reduction to demand reduction, including
    related matters such as money laundering, asset forfeiture, controlling
    precursor chemicals, extradition, and judicial assistance.
        The Department, however, does support the need for enhanced
    multilateral cooperation to overcome some of the limitations associated
    with bilateral antidrug efforts. Accordingly, we have proposed, and the
    countries of the hemisphere have endorsed, the idea of creating a
    multilateral counternarcotics monitoring and evaluation mechanism in
    the hemisphere. Among other objectives, the mechanism could be used to
    assess compliance with the Vienna Convention, strengths and weaknesses
    in antidrug programs, and where assistance could best be focused. This
    mechanism can be established without resorting to a treaty and we are
    working with all the countries in the hemisphere through the good
    offices of the OAS's Inter-American Drug Abuse Control Commission
    (CICAD) to develop this concept. This mechanism would not replace our
    most effective bilateral initiatives, but could go a long way towards
    filling some of the gaps they do not cover.
                             overall budget request
        Question. The Budget Request for 1999 asks for $1.3 billion more
    than this level [$18.6 billion] even excluding the arrears to these
    organizations [e.g., U.N.] and the IMF supplemental request. Since the
    Administration agreed to the $18.6 billion level in 1999 and made this
    level a priority, why is the Administration now asking for $1.3 billion
    more?
        Answer. We share your interest in economy, and we continue to press
    our international affairs budget for efficiencies.
        At the same time, our highest priority is to look after American
    interests abroad. This budget represents an appeal for bipartisan
    consensus to provide the funding we need to defend U.S. interests in
    the world.
        Our interests are changing in important ways. They are becoming
    more complicated and they are touching the lives of more and more
    Americans.
        Our International Affairs Strategic Plan is the definitive guide to
    how we are serving America's interests and how we are spending the
    funds we receive from Congress:
        Protecting the national security interests of the country.--This
    includes an approximate increase of $175 million for Bosnia. Last
    year's agreement assumed that our role would diminish. This is not yet
    possible.
        This category also includes an increase of approximately $85
    million to promote political and economic reform in NIS countries to
    ensure that we do not slip back into nuclear confrontation.
        Promoting America's prosperity.--Exports are an increase pillar of
    our prosperity. A portion of the $150 million increase in funding for
    Africa will promote trade. Part of the $41 million increase for the
    Peace Corps will also help develop new markets over the long term.
        Protecting American citizens abroad and defending America's
    borders.--This is an ongoing priority for everyone at the State
    Department.
        Protecting Americans from international narcotics trafficking,
    terrorism, and crime.--Our request includes a modest $41 million
    increase building on our recent successes in the Andes.
        Promoting democracy, human rights, and the rule of law.--Part of
    the Africa increase will also support this goal. Other funding
    increases in many regions support this goal.
        Providing humanitarian assistance.--A good portion of the $125
    million increase in NADR funding will enhance our demining initiatives
    around the world.
        Combating disease, environmental destruction, and excessive
    population growth.--This is part of our work in all regional areas. I
    look for it to receive even higher strategic and budgetary priority in
    the years ahead.
        In addition, our budget request includes an approximate increase of
    $412 million for diplomatic activities and infrastructure to support
    work toward all our goals. We have urgent funding requirements of $250
    million for the construction of new embassy buildings in Berlin and
    Beijing. We also face major expenditures to make our computers year-
    2000 compliant.
        I urge the Congress to provide the funding we need to defend
    American interests in an increasingly complex world, as it did last
    year. We ask for the minimum we need to keep our country safe and
    prosperous. We must lead in making the world a better place for our own
    good.
                    arrearages to international copper study
        Question. Madame Secretary, I was recently concerned to learn that
    the State Department remains in arrears on dues the United Sates must
    pay to participate in certain international organizations. On February
    13, I wrote to the Assistant Secretary for International Organizations
    to urge the Department to honor its participation in the International
    Copper Study Group. My information is that the U.S. Government is
    $9,950 in arrears on its 1997 dues, and that in January it received its
    assessment of $60,000 for 1998 dues.
        The United States is scheduled to chair the International Copper
    Study Group this coming year, but if our dues are not current, the
    chairman will have to step down from his post and the U.S. will lose
    its voting rights with eventual expulsion from the group.
        Has the State Department paid the $9,950 in arrears for the 1997
    dues for U.S. participation in the International Copper Study Group?
        Answer. Due to a shortfall of funding in 1997 of approximately $85
    million, we were regretfully forced to cut funding for virtually all
    international organizations including the International Copper Study
    Group (ICSG).
        Our fiscal year 1997 arrears to the ICSG total approximately
    $12,000. Our recent payment of our 1998 assessment ensures our full
    participation in the activities of the ICSG until June 30, 1999.
    Legislation to pay our arrears did not pass the Congress last year and
    is still pending. We are currently exploring whether we have the
    authority, and sufficient funds to pay our arrears to the ICSG.
        Question. Madame Secretary, in the conference report accompanying
    the 1998 Commerce, Justice, State, and the Judiciary Appropriations
    bill, the conferees highlighted their concern about these arrears, and
    ``agreed that the Department of State should take action to maintain
    the U.S. Government's vote in these organizations and should
    expeditiously submit a reprogramming to pay off shortfalls, if
    necessary.''
        Has the Department prepared a reprogramming request to address the
    arrears for the International Copper Study Group and organizations in a
    similar situation?
        Answer. No, the State Department has not yet prepared a
    reprogramming request to address the arrears for the International
    Copper Study Group and organizations in a similar situation. Since we
    have been unable to secure an arrears funding package from the
    Congress, we must examine whether we have the authority to pay arrears
    under current legislation and to see if there are sufficient funds to
    reprogram monies from within the current fiscal year budget.
        Question. If not, how does the Department intend to satisfy the
    arrears for the Copper Study Group?
        Answer. We are currently reviewing the issue and would hope to make
    a proposal on this matter in the near future.
        Question. The conferees on the 1998 bill also provided funding
    equal to the latest estimate of the cost of assessments for U.S.
    participation in international organizations provided by the State
    Department. The conferees expected this amount to be sufficient to
    fully fund current year assessments for U.S. membership in these
    organizations.
        What is the Department's intention with the payment of the 1998
    dues for the Copper Study Group now owing $60,000?
        Answer. The Department recently paid, in full, its 1998 assessment
    to the International Copper Study Group.
        Question. Does the Administration intend to honor its commitment to
    participate in these international organizations by paying its share of
    the dues?
        Answer. The President is committed to paying our assessments in
    full as demonstrated by the fiscal year 1999 budget request and paying
    our arrears to international organizations as demonstrated by the
    fiscal year 1998 supplemental request. Our ability to pay our share of
    the dues depends on full funding of the President's request which is
    based on estimated assessments.
                                 bosnia funding
        Question. Do you believe the American people will continue
    supporting the U.S. presence in Bosnia or Iraq or the next country in
    crisis if the world also looks to us to pay a major share of the costs?
        Answer. The American people will continue to support U.S.
    engagement in regions such as Bosnia and Iraq because they understand
    we have strong strategic interests in these regions.
        We are gratified by the support we have received from nations
    around the world.
        Our European allies are shouldering a significantly larger part of
    the burden than the U.S., in terms of money and troops, in the
    international effort to promote peace and stability in Bosnia.
        Our allies and partners in many parts of the world do share the
    burden of costs and risks. We will continue this policy but we will
    also judge when our own nation's interests require intervention.
                       funding the world's security needs
        Question. Is the U.S. responsible for funding the world's security
    needs?
        Answer. Each year, the President submits as part of budget Function
    150 a request for international security assistance. The level of
    funding requested--$6.158 billion in fiscal year 1999--reflects the
    amount needed to assist our friends and allies in addressing those
    requirements that help improve not only their security, but also that
    of the United States. The assistance we provide through the Foreign
    Military Financing (FMF) program, peacekeeping operations (PKO) funds,
    the International Military Education and Training (IMET) program, the
    Economic Support Fund (ESF), and the Nonproliferation, Antiterrorism,
    Demining and Related (NADR) programs account are the tools used to do
    this. These accounts fund programs which, among other things, develop
    stable bilateral and multilateral security relations; help prevent,
    manage, and diffuse regional tensions; prevent and resolve crises;
    promote regional cooperation; and help prevent the spread of weapons of
    mass destruction and their delivery systems. Our international security
    assistance funds are designed to meet only those discrete needs that
    the Administration deems to be in the U.S. national interest.
                           middle east peace process
        Question. Could you discuss the military balance in the region, and
    how the efforts by Iran, Iraq, Syria, and Libya to get weapons of mass
    destruction factor into that? What more can we do with Israel to
    bolster its qualitative edge?
        Answer. We remain very concerned about the large imbalance in the
    size and military capabilities of Iraq and Iran compared to those of
    our friends in the Gulf. Having militaries many times larger than those
    of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries, Iran and Iraq are in a
    position to use their forces or to threaten that use to apply strong
    coercive pressures contrary to U.S. interests. The presence of U.S.
    forces in the region and the strong cooperative relationship with the
    United States, including strong military sales and training programs,
    are essential elements in helping the Gulf states resist such coercion,
    and in also ensuring the security of other friends in the region, such
    as Israel, Egypt and Jordan. The prospect of the acquisition of weapons
    of mass destruction by Iran and Iraq, and by others such as Libya and
    Syria, would materially affect the regional balance contrary to U.S.
    interests across the entire region and would strengthen the coercive
    pressures any of these states could bring countries friendly to the
    U.S. beyond it. We are also concerned prospect of Syrian acquisition of
    could have on the Middle East peace.
        We are committed to doing all we can to help reduce the real threat
    posed to Israel and our other regional partners by WMD and advanced
    delivery systems. The United States helps Israel meet this threat as
    part of our commitment to Israel's security and to sustaining military
    edge. The U.S. helps Israel address strategic threats through a
    combination of actions and policies, including provision of $1.8
    billion annually to Israel for defense. Our active role in the Middle
    East Peace Process seeks, in part, to enhance Israel's security by
    reducing the regional threat and promoting dialogue. We are also
    involved with Israel in joint research projects to develop weapons
    systems, such as the Arrow anti-tactical ballistic missile system and
    the Tactical High Energy Laser, to counter the missile threat. The
    administration's nonproliferation and export control policies also
    serve to enhance the security of Israel and our other regional partners
    by seeking to control the spread of dangerous weapons and technologies
    in the Middle East and throughout the world.
        We are committed to continuing to support and cooperate with Israel
    on security matters in order to preserve Israel's qualitative military
    edge and to reduce the serious threat posed by WMD and missile systems.
                                     ______

             Questions Submitted by Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell
                     goals of military strike against iraq
        Question. What exactly do we expect to achieve by launching such an
    attack?
        Answer. The goals of air strikes would have been to diminish the
    threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program and reduce
    Iraq's capacity to threaten its neighbors. Although military operations
    could not have destroyed the entire WMD program, they would have left
    the program significantly worse off.
        Question. If the U.N. settlement does break down and the U.S.
    launches an air strike against Iraq, what will be the comprehensive
    exit strategy to ensure not only Iraqi UNSCOM compliance, but also to
    ensure that this operation does not turn into another Bosnia? How then
    do we sell such an attack to the American people?
        Answer. I would prefer not to speculate about the details of
    military operations we might undertake if Iraq interferes with UNSCOM
    inspections in the future. If air strikes alone were directed against
    Iraq, the exit strategy needed would be very different than if ground
    forces were also involved.
        We will continue our long standing military cooperation with our
    Gulf allies. Our concern for the security of the nations of the Gulf is
    ongoing. Our forces will remain deployed there at currently augmented
    levels so long as they are needed to ensure Iraqi compliance with the
    relevant U.N. Security Council resolutions. Once Iraqi compliance is
    assured, we will consider whether we can reduce the augmented level of
    forces deployed in the Gulf.
        We believe that a majority of the American people would have
    supported air strikes, had the President ordered them. We continue to
    believe that the American people would support air strikes in the
    future, should they become necessary.
        Question. How does allowing Saddam Hussein to sell oil help our
    position in this situation when it is entirely probable that he will
    use these monetary returns to purchase new and improved weapons
    systems?
        Answer. Under UNSCR 986 and subsequent ``oil-for-food''
    resolutions, the Government of Iraq does not touch the revenues paid
    for the oil sold. That money is put into an escrow account controlled
    by the United Nations, and is used solely for the purchase of
    humanitarian goods. There is thus no way for Saddam Hussein to get at
    it for the purchase of weapons.
        The humanitarian program established by resolution 986, and
    subsequent resolutions, is the largest U.N.-operated humanitarian
    program in the history of the United Nations. It serves an important
    goal of the international community: to demonstrate concretely that the
    United Nations, and in particular the members of the Security Council,
    remain committed to meeting the essential humanitarian needs of all
    Iraq's people. The United States strongly supports this program, of
    which it was one of the principal authors.
        Question. If an American air strike is launched on specific
    chemical and biological targets, what is the potential for collateral
    damage as a result of the release of these agents?
        Answer. If we knew where Iraq might be hiding chemical and
    biological agents, we certainly would ask UNSCOM to go there and
    destroy them safely, demanding with the rest of the Security Council
    that the Government of Iraq not block UNSCOM yet again.
        On the question of potential damage resulting from hypothetical
    bombing, this technical answer is not within the competence of the
    Department of State.
                            anticorruption: ukraine
        Question. What steps is the State Department taking to assist
    American companies and investors in this region?
        Answer. American firms operating in Ukraine expect their government
    to do its utmost to ensure a level playing field for their businesses,
    and the State Department and the U.S. Mission in Kiev are actively
    engaged in assisting American companies and investors in Ukraine in
    order to achieve that goal. Ukraine has been going through enormous
    changes from planned to market economics. Along the way there have been
    many problems, and corruption is one of them. The Ukrainian government
    needs to do more to reduce regulation, bureaucracy and inconsistent
    enforcement of laws and administrative requirements. All these
    contribute to corruption by creating opportunities for selective
    enforcement.
        The U.S. Government has in place a number of initiatives to try to
    assist the Ukrainians in dealing with such systemic obstacles to a more
    open and fair investment climate. One such program is our
    ``Transparency Initiative,'' which targets certain areas of direct
    relevance to the difficulties faced by U.S. businesses. Another area is
    law enforcement cooperation, which, among other things, includes
    efforts to help put into place reliable legal and enforcement
    structures to combat official corruption. We have also concluded a
    Bilateral Investment Treaty (BIT), which obligates Ukraine to provide
    our investors fair and equitable treatment in compliance with
    international law. Investors who encounter difficulties in Ukraine have
    several remedies open to them under the BIT, one of which is
    international arbitration. Ukraine has consented in the BIT to such
    arbitration, which is a powerful remedy for investors.
        In Ukraine itself, the U.S. Mission, including State Department,
    Commerce Department and USAID officials, has worked since the
    establishment of our relations with Ukraine to encourage the systemic
    and structural changes that will improve the investment and business
    climate. At the most senior policy levels, for example in the U.S.-
    Ukraine Binational Commission (Gore-Kuchma), we are doing our utmost to
    impress upon the Ukrainian leadership the critical need, in Ukraine's
    own best interest, of completing the development of a transparent,
    modern market economic system with reasonable opportunities for all.
    This has included raising, where appropriate, the problems faced by
    specific U.S. companies and investors.
        Question. In your opinion, Madame Secretary, should the Ukraine be
    certified this year to receive foreign aid in light of its record of
    treatment of U.S. companies?
        Answer. I have not yet reached a decision on that issue. Between
    April 1-9, senior officials from both governments will meet to review
    the business disputes that fall within the definition of the
    certification provision of the Fiscal Year 1998 Foreign Assistance
    Appropriations Act. When our review of all the facts is complete and I
    have received a recommendation, I will make a decision in accordance
    with the law.
        Question. Could you please have the State Department look into the
    situation of Gala Radio and report back to this subcommittee?
        Answer. The State Department, Commerce Department, and the U.S.
    Embassy in Kiev have been very actively engaged in efforts to assist in
    resolution of Gala Radio's problems. This is an extremely difficult and
    complex case. Gala Radio has recently filed a request for arbitration
    of its dispute with the Ukrainian government with the International
    Center for the Settlement of Investment Disputes' Additional Facility,
    as provided for in the U.S.-Ukraine Bilateral Investment Treaty (BIT).
    We are very pleased that the BIT provided the U.S. investor with this
    valuable remedy.
        Now that the case is in arbitration, we are working to ensure that
    the Ukrainian government understands the arbitration process and its
    obligations under it, including the obligation to refrain from any
    conduct that could undermine the fair and just resolution of the
    investor's claim. Our Embassy and the Department remain in regular
    contact with the investor, and we will continue to follow the situation
    closely and to take any appropriate steps toward the goal of the
    investor obtaining the full protection afforded by the BIT.
        I have personally raised this case with President Kuchma and have
    urged him to see to its resolution. This case, and those like it, which
    do so much to deter foreign investment in Ukraine, represent the most
    serious impediment to Ukraine's economic recovery.
        Question. What is your view on this proposed legislation?
        Answer. The Administration will continue to work with Congress on
    improving international free market conditions, especially as it
    pertains to opportunities for American business investments and
    operations. The issues involved, however, are complex and have major
    ramifications. In many of these countries, political and economic
    reform is undergoing an evolutionary process which, although progress
    is being made, it is sporadic and long term.
        The Administration has made good governance and transparency a
    primary goal in its foreign economic policy. We have been pleased that
    the international financial institutions have embraced this goal as
    their own. U.S. assistance and that of the international financial
    institutions play a key role in promoting good governance,
    accountability, a free and fair market and a level playing field for
    all investors.
                     united states role in assisting israel
        Question. What do you see as the State Department's primary role in
    assisting Israel to achieve its goal of peace with security?
        Answer. The U.S. welcomes its role in assisting Israel to achieve
    its goal of peace with security. The U.S. has an unshakable commitment
    to Israel's security. We have maintained and sought to strengthen that
    commitment even further.
        Our efforts to directly assist Israel in meeting its security needs
    are complemented by our efforts to promote a lasting peace between
    Israel and her Arab neighbors. In Israel's interests and at Israeli
    request, the U.S. is playing the role of honest broker. Nothing we have
    done or tried to do in the peace process would ever undermine Israel's
    vital security interests. Indeed, the best way to enhance that security
    is to produce a real peace through negotiation. At each step of the
    process, we have acted to minimize the risks Israel takes for peace.
        In its role as honest broker, the U.S. has called on both parties
    to make the tough decisions, because that is what is needed to get this
    process back on track and create the environment for the resumption of
    permanent status talks which Israel wants and which could foster peace
    and security. Our role has included putting forth some of our own ideas
    to break the current stalemate, in the interests of both peace and
    security. We are also pressing the Palestinians to do all they can to
    fight terror 24 hours a day, seven days a week. The Administration will
    seek to deepen our powerful bonds with Israel, while pursuing a lasting
    peace with security in the Middle East.
                           middle east peace process
        Question. The Israeli government has recently put forth its initial
    thoughts about reducing economic assistance from the U.S., with the 10-
    12 year goal of phasing economic assistance to zero. Would you please
    comment on the Israeli proposal?
        Answer. In late January, Israeli Finance Minister Yaacov Ne'eman
    began discussions with Members of Congress and Administration officials
    on a proposal that would gradually reduce Israel's annual $1.2 billion
    economic assistance to zero, while phasing in an increase in military
    assistance over the same 10-12 year period.
        We welcome Minister Ne'eman's initiative and note that it follows
    the initial efforts suggested by the Administration in fiscal year 1997
    and fiscal year 1998 to begin to adjust traditional bilateral
    assistance levels to the Middle East. We have asked the Israeli
    government for clarification of certain aspects of its offer, and are
    still formulating our response. We have also asked the Government of
    Egypt to provide its views on future U.S. bilateral economic
    assistance. We hope to work out a formula for fiscal year 1999
    assistance to the Middle East that meets our full range of regional
    requirements.
                                 nato expansion
        Question. What sort of financial safety net will secure the cost
    balance so that the U.S. is not forced to shoulder an unfair burden,
    should any of our EU allies decide that they are unable or unwilling to
    maintain their fair share of funding for NATO enlargement?
        Answer. We are confident that our European allies will pay their
    fair share of the costs of NATO enlargement. Our confidence is based on
    an established track record of nearly fifty years during which our
    allies consistently fulfilled their NATO financial obligations. We are
    further encouraged by the fact that NATO political leaders, both in
    Madrid and in Brussels acknowledged that there will be costs associated
    with NATO enlargement, and confirmed their nations' willingness to meet
    these costs.
        The fact is that the allies already pay 75 percent of NATO common
    costs year in and year out. According to NATO's estimates, the cost of
    adding these three states is expected to amount to less than 10 percent
    of NATO's annual budget, and there is no reason to believe that such a
    slight increment would not be met by both current and new members.
    While the U.S. pays about 25 percent of NATO common costs, our European
    allies pay the remaining 75 percent of those costs, which amounted to
    approximately $1.3 billion last year. Based on past performance and
    recent pledges to provide the resources to support a successful
    enlargement effort, we have every reason to be confident that our
    European allies will continue to fulfill their financial obligations to
    the Alliance.
        Question. What steps are being taken to ensure the new members, if
    ultimately approved, pay their full share.
        Answer. The three invited nations have publicly affirmed their
    willingness and ability to contribute fully to the Alliance, and we
    believe that they will do so.
        Between September and November of 1997, NATO held four rounds of
    accession talks in Brussels with Poland, and five each with Hungary and
    the Czech Republic. These discussions examined in detail the three
    states' military capabilities, their willingness to contribute forces
    to NATO activities, and their readiness to accept the political and
    legal obligations of NATO membership.
        These discussions led to acceptance by the Czech Republic, Hungary,
    and Poland, of NATO's proposed cost shares of 0.9, 0.65, and 2.48
    percent respectively. All three countries have also stated their
    willingness to meet target force goals which are currently being
    jointly developed by NATO and the three invited nations.
        All three invited countries also have plans for defense budget
    increases. For new members, the costs of NATO enlargement will be a
    manageable percentage of their planned military budgets.
        The Czech government, for example, has approved plans to increase
    their 1998 national defense spending to about $1.1 billion, which
    represents about 1.88 percent of projected GDP. The Czech Republic
    plans to link defense spending growth to the rate of GDP growth and to
    increase the percentage of GDP dedicated to defense by 0.1 percent
    annually for the next 3 years which will raise the percentage from the
    current 1.7 percent in fiscal year 1997 to 2.0 percent in 2000.
        The Hungarians have increased their 1997 national defense budget to
    about $800 million, which represents about 1.8 percent of projected
    GDP. Hungary also plans to link defense spending growth to the rate of
    GDP growth and to increase the percentage of GDP dedicated to defense
    by 0.1 percent annually for the next five years. This will translate to
    in increase in Hungarian defense spending in real terms by 3 to 8
    percent annually during the next four years.
        Poland spent 2.3 percent of GDP on defense in 1996. Poland's 15-
    year modernization plan calls for annual increases in defense spending
    which are pegged to the rate of GDP growth. Based on a conservative
    estimate of a 4.2 percent annual growth rate, Polish defense spending
    should increase approximately 3.2 percent annually.
        The facts described above show a firm commitment on the part of the
    three invited countries to pay their full share of NATO costs.
        Question. Could you please provide this subcommittee with the most
    recent cost estimates of the NATO enlargement proposal?
        Answer. The Administration's February 1998 Report to Congress on
    the Military Requirements and Costs of NATO Enlargement is the most
    recent U.S. government statement on NATO enlargement cost estimates.
        The Administration's Report endorses the NATO Cost Study assessment
    that the common-funded costs of enlargement will be about $1.5 billion
    from 1998 through 2008. The U.S. share of these common-funded
    enlargement costs is estimated to be around $400 million over this
    period. The General Accounting Office also validated these conclusions
    in its 6 March, 1998 Report to Congress, NATO Enlargement: Requirements
    and Costs for Commonly Funded Budgets.
        The NATO study and the earlier, February 1997 U.S. estimate came to
    different conclusions because they were different in several key areas.
    First, the portion of the Administration's earlier U.S. cost estimate
    that addressed what the Alliance would collectively pay is $4.9 to $6.2
    billion (not $27 to $35 billion), and should be compared to the $1.5
    billion NATO estimate.
        Second, prior to NATO's identification of new members, the
    Administration outlined general requirements and an illustrative cost
    estimate for four potential new members; after the July 1997 Madrid
    Summit at which NATO named the three invitees, NATO identified detailed
    military requirements and a common-funded cost estimate for three new
    members.
        Third, NATO's studies were based on more recent and detailed data
    on new members' infrastructure (e.g., airbases, road and rail
    networks), including site visits, that revealed better conditions than
    the Administration had previously assessed. Other factors included the
    following. The Administration assumed common funding for some
    requirements (e.g., airfield off-loading equipment) that NATO
    determined are nationally funded. The Administration also used higher
    cost factors for needed upgrades (e.g., air defense C\2\) in some
    instances.
        Finally, there were modest differences in requirements with a
    significant cost impact. While some military requirements differ, the
    differences are modest and not operationally significant. Both studies
    use the same reinforcement strategy and developed broadly similar
    military requirements, including the number and types of reinforcing
    forces and reception facilities. However, the Administration's study
    included some requirements that NATO did not include (e.g., more
    ambitious upgrades to airfields and training facilities).
        The Administration's review concluded that NATO developed a sound
    and reliable cost estimate, provided that the specific facilities to be
    selected during NATO's ongoing force planning process have essentially
    the same characteristics as those visited by the NATO International
    Staff during development of its cost estimate. The Department has every
    reason to expect that this will be the case, thus we are confident that
    NATO's estimate of $1.5 billion over ten years is an accurate
    assessment of enlargement common-funded costs.
                         international crime initiative
        Question. Madame Secretary, during a hearing about one year ago,
    you and I discussed serious new developments in international crime and
    its effect on Americans here at home and abroad. The Appropriations
    Committee, in its fiscal year 1998 Foreign Operations Committee report,
    expressed concern about the increase in crime abroad and its direct and
    indirect impact on the United States. The Committee also requested that
    you convene a new Secretaries, Task Force on International Crime, in
    cooperation with the Attorney General, the Secretary of the Treasury,
    and the ONDCP Director, and report to Congress by March 26, 1998 on
    specific issues which the Committee outlined.
        What is the status of your work on this Task Force?
        Answer. The Administration's International Crime Control Strategy,
    which will be released soon, addresses the issues we discussed and
    which were raised in the Committee report to which you refer. Please
    note that the Administration has meanwhile taken various steps to
    coordinate our foreign policy, national security and international law
    enforcement objectives along the lines of the Task Force described in
    the Committee report. For instance, the Special Coordination Group
    (SCG) for International Crime functions like the cabinet level working
    group to coordinate international crime control activities recommended
    by the Committee report. SCG is chaired by the Senior Director for
    Global Issues and Multilateral Affairs of the National Security Council
    and includes representatives from all relevant agencies in the
    Executive Branch.
        The SCG works to develop policies and programs to promote the
    Administration's entire range of law enforcement goals abroad. This
    includes, for example, the advancement of specific criminal cases and
    police training and other initiatives to build and strengthen judicial
    systems and institutions. An interagency working group chaired by the
    State Department's Bureau for International Narcotics and Law
    Enforcement Affairs coordinates specific training issues.
                              preliminary findings
        Question. Are there any preliminary findings you could share with
    us today prior to submission of your final report next month?
        Answer. The Administration views the International Crime Control
    Strategy as a fundamental plan of action. It will articulate eight
    broad goals accompanied by detailed objectives as a blueprint for an
    effective, long-term attack on the international crime problem. The
    Strategy is also designed as an expression of national will and a
    cohesive statement that the nation is resolved to reduce substantially
    international crime and its adverse impact on American people.
        Law enforcement concerns, always a factor in our foreign policy,
    have taken on fresh importance in the face of powerful and fast-moving
    criminal elements which harm the interests of the United States and its
    citizens, even when those elements operate well beyond our national
    boundaries. As we seek to minimize the threat with practical policies
    and programs, we welcome Congressional interest and ideas which redound
    to the common benefit of all Americans.
                     new steps to fight international crime
        Question. Do you have an update since last year's hearing on what
    new steps the State Department is taking to fight international crime?
        Answer. The President's forthcoming International Crime Control
    Strategy, which we will provide you upon publication, describes the
    many aggressive steps the State Department, and other agencies, have
    taken to organize and support U.S. efforts to fight international
    crime. In addition to sustaining on-going efforts, new initiatives to
    highlight from our $20 million program over the past year include the
    following:
      --Stronger and more focused international cooperation to attack money
            laundering. We have conducted major training seminars in Russia
            and Latin America; have negotiated a Caribbean training project
            with the EC; participated in multilateral anti-money laundering
            assessments in Cyprus, Romania, and several of the NIS; and
            supported the anti-money laundering alliance the President
            signed with Venezuela.
      --Stronger international anti-crime regimes. We have signed or are
            negotiating stolen car treaties with some 11 Latin American and
            East European countries; put in place a worldwide program to
            fight alien smuggling; led negotiations in the OAS on the
            recently signed treaty to control trafficking in firearms; and
            presided over the G-8 experts group on international crime
            where we were able to launch a new initiative against high-tech
            crime, worked toward a multilateral agreement against firearms
            trafficking modeled on the OAS treaty. We are working in the G-
            8 and elsewhere to deny criminals safe haven by improving
            cooperation on extradition and asset forfeitures.
      --Enhanced law enforcement and judicial institution building. To
            advance police cooperation, we are pursuing efforts to
            establish International Law Enforcement Academies (ILEA) in
            Latin America and Southeast Asia.
      --Identification and raised profile of emerging types of
            international crime. We have worked through G-8 and other fora
            to foster greater information sharing and international
            cooperation to combat environmental crime, theft of
            intellectual property rights, and other forms of international
            crime that harm America's consumers and investors and threaten
            our economic and security interests.
                      iran weapons technology acquisition
        Question. Over the past few years, Russia has been the major source
    of missile technology to Iran. News reports indicate that if the flow
    continues unabated, Iran may have the indigenous capability to assemble
    and test missiles within a year. The Senate is considering the Iran
    Missile Proliferation Sanctions Act, which has already passed the
    House. This Act would sanction entities--not the Russian government--
    involved in the transfer of missile technology to Iran.
        Do you agree with estimates of Iranian capabilities?
        Answer. Iran is pursuing a multi-track effort to develop both
    liquid and solid-propellant missile systems. We believe Iran possesses
    an extensive inventory of 300-kilometer range and 500-kilometer range
    Scud missiles. Iran purchased Scud missiles and related technology from
    North Korea and is probably close to achieving Scud production
    capability, if it has not already done so. Iran also is developing a
    medium-range ballistic missile. Once Iran's indigenous missile
    production capability is fully developed, Iran would pose a new
    proliferation risk if it were to begin to export Iranian produced Scuds
    and production technology.
        Question. Do you support the Iran Missile Proliferation Sanctions
    Act?
        Answer. No, the Administration does not support this bill. Current
    law provides an adequate basis for the United States to impose
    sanctions on foreign entities that contribute to Iranian ballistic
    missile capabilities. The Administration is committed to fighting
    terrorism and taking steps to halt the transfer of missile technology
    to countries of concern, such as Iran. We believe, however, that the
    bill in its current form would weaken the U.S. ability to persuade the
    international community to halt such transfers to Iran. Because of the
    bill's requirement to impose sanctions based on an unworkable, low
    standard of evidence, its broad scope of covered transactions and lack
    of a meaningful waiver provision, we believe the President would be
    required to impose sanctions worldwide in a manner likely to undermine
    U.S. nonproliferation goals and objectives. We believe the bill would
    be counterproductive to convincing foreign governments to control
    missile-related trade with Iran. For example, the standard of evidence
    is so low it could result in the imposition of an untold number of
    erroneous sanctions on individuals or business entities. Imposition of
    erroneous sanctions on a large scale could dissuade foreign governments
    or persons from cooperating with the U.S. to prevent the transfer of
    missile technology to Iran and harm U.S. foreign policy goals and U.S.
    commercial interests with other nations.
        Although the proposed law is of global scope, it is intended to
    deal with Russian entities involved with Iran's missile program. We
    have made progress with the Government of Russia on key aspects of its
    companies' cooperation with Iranian missile programs. Then Prime
    Minister Chernomyrdin signed an executive order on January 22
    substantially strengthening the Russian export control process,
    providing new authority to stop transfers of dual-use goods and
    services to missile programs and programs for weapons of mass
    destruction. We have been discussing with the Russians steps necessary
    to implement the order and ideas for U.S. Russian cooperation in the
    development of export control systems. We have received assurances that
    the new government will honor this commitment. Some concerns remain and
    we will continue to press our case at the highest levels of the Russian
    government.
        Question. The GAO has completed two reports commissioned by Members
    of Congress which address the issue of support by the International
    Atomic Energy Agency for programs in rogue states such as Iran and Cuba
    through the largely U.S. supported Technical Cooperation Program. U.S.
    contributions to the IAEA have been going to complete the Bushehr
    Nuclear Power Facility in Iran. The U.S. has explicit objections to the
    completion of this plant because it may advance Iran's nuclear weapons
    program. Should the United States continue to provide voluntary
    contributions to this program if it supports programs which do not
    coincide with U.S. nuclear non-proliferation and safety goals?
        Answer. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has not
    contributed to the construction of the nuclear power plant at Bushehr.
    Currently, the IAEA is funding only safety-related projects for the
    Bushehr reactor under its Technical Cooperation (TC) Program. The U.S.
    is opposed to the Bushehr project because the project will provide Iran
    with a rationale to acquire more sensitive nuclear facilities and with
    commercial channels that Tehran can use to pursue more sensitive
    nuclear technologies.
        The U.S. voluntary contribution to the IAEA technical assistance
    program is an important way the U.S. meets its commitment under Article
    IV of the Treaty on the NonProliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) to
    ``facilitate * * * the fullest possible exchange of equipment,
    materials and scientific and technological information for the peaceful
    uses of nuclear energy. Many developing countries party to the NPT view
    IAEA technical cooperation programs as a tangible benefit of their
    Treaty membership.
        Approximately 90 countries, including Iran and Cuba, are recipients
    of IAEA technical cooperation. The United States has made clear its
    opposition to nuclear cooperation with Iran and Cuba, but we believe
    that seeking to terminate all IAEA-sponsored TC with countries such as
    Iran and Cuba could undermine our overall approach to nonproliferation
    worldwide and even our efforts to ensure effective safeguards in those
    and other countries.
        That is because international political and financial support for
    the Agency's safeguards depends on adequate support for its TC program.
    Efforts to stop all TC to countries that have not been found to have
    violated their international obligations could jeopardize support for
    strengthening safeguards worldwide and especially for getting countries
    such as Iran to accept the Agency's strengthened safeguards system,
    which will improve our ability to detect any undeclared nuclear
    activities.
                          massacre in chiapas, mexico
        Question. Can you comment on the results of the visit to Mexico by
    Special Envoy for Latin America, Thomas McLarty, to investigate the
    status of this situation?
        Answer. Counselor to the President and Special Envoy to the
    Americas McLarty visited Mexico in January to become acquainted with
    new key members of the Mexican cabinet, meet the new City mayor, and
    discuss with them a broad multilateral issues. He also paid a courtesy
    call on President Zedillo and met with representatives of human rights
    NGO's and the National Human Rights Commission. The situation in
    Chiapas was one of the subjects covered in some of his conversations.
        Mr. McLarty's interlocutors outlined the complexity of the conflict
    in Chiapas and emphasized the difficulty in finding a peaceful solution
    to the situation. The Mexican officials recognized the international
    impact of events in Chiapas and discussed the Mexican Government's
    reinvigorated efforts to seek a negotiated settlement to the conflict.
    In addition, there was some discussion of the future need for economic
    and social restructuring in Chiapas.
        Mr. McLarty expressed our concern about the situation in Chiapas,
    especially the human rights aspects of it, and offered appropriate
    support for the Government of Mexico's efforts to find a peaceful,
    negotiated settlement to the conflict.
        Question. Could you please provide the subcommittee with a report
    on the current situation in Chiapas?
        Answer. The massacre of 45 indigenous peasants in Acteal, Chiapas
    last December 22 apparently was carried out by armed civilians (a
    paramilitary group), probably linked to local government and public
    security officials. Mexican President Zedillo quickly recognized the
    dimensions of the problem and took the investigation out of the hands
    of state officials who may have been compromised.
        The investigation so far has resulted in the issuance of over 120
    arrest warrants in connection with the massacre. More than 80 persons
    have been detained, including the mayor of the municipality where the
    massacre took place and a state police chief. Prosecutions of a number
    of individuals are underway.
        As a result of the massacre, the Chiapas state governor, the
    Gobernacion (Interior) Secretary, and the Government's special
    negotiator for Chiapas all were forced to resign. The new Chiapas team
    indicated renewed interest in dialogue and a political solution to the
    conflict in Chiapas. In mid-March, the Government sent draft
    legislation to the Mexican Congress to amend the Mexican Constitution
    in the areas of indigenous rights and culture.
        This move has been criticized by other parties and Zapatista
    insurgents as unilateral. The opposition National Action Party has its
    own draft bill, while the Party of the Democratic Revolution favors
    continuing work towards resolution of the situation through the Peace
    and Conciliation Commission (COCOPA) and inclusion of the Zapatistas in
    the terms of any settlement.
        The Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI) and the National Action
    Party may cooperate to pass a version of this legislation, but a way
    must still be found to resolve the conflict with the Zapatistas. The
    absence of a peace and conciliation settlement in Chiapas continues to
    impede social and economic reform and development in the state.
        We are following the investigation very closely through periodic
    special briefings by the Mexican Attorney General's Office. We tell the
    Mexican Government that we look forward to prosecution and punishment
    of those responsible, and to a long term, peaceful resolution of the
    situation in Chiapas.
                                  microcredit
        Question. What is the State Department doing, particularly in the
    Newly Independent States (NIS) and Africa, to support the goal of the
    1997 Microcredit Summit to provide access to microcredit programs for
    100 million of the world's poorest families?
        Answer. The State Department provides support for this goal in a
    variety of ways.
        First, through our embassies in the NIS countries and in Africa,
    the State Department works closely with USAID to implement USAID's
    Microenterprise Initiative. Since 1991, USAID has allocated about $175
    million for microenterprise funding in Africa. Since 1994, when
    programs began in a few NIS countries, about $39 million has been
    provided. Assistance is provided through enterprise funds, NGO
    intermediaries, loan guarantees, and technical assistance. USAID
    assistance has already paid off in Africa with programs such as Kenya's
    Rural Enterprise Program, Senegal's Agence de Credit Pour L'Enterprise
    Privee, and Niger's Bankin Raya Karkara. In the NIS, the poor are being
    served through such programs as USAID-funded FINCA International's
    Village Banking model. Since 1995, more than $1.7 million has been
    disbursed with defaults of only $600. Eighty-nine percent of recipients
    are women. Another highly successful program supported by USAID funds
    is that of Opportunity International in Russia.
        A second avenue of support is through the Ambassador's Special
    Self-Help (SSH) Program which funds a variety of projects at our
    embassies in Africa. Examples of projects supported by the SSH include
    purchase of a grain mill for a community of 50 women in Uganda, start-
    up funds provided to a 45 woman tailoring project in Kenya, and money
    to purchase stalls to house pigs for a farmers association in Ghana.
        A third way in which State Department supports the goal of the
    Microcredit Summit is through our support for programs and projects at
    the Multilateral Development Banks (MDB's).
        The World Bank-administered Consultative Group to Assist the
    Poorest (CGAP) is increasingly active in the microenterprise lending in
    Africa and the NIS. World Bank funding for microenterprise grew from
    $11.5 million in 1994 to $87.8 million in 1996, with Africa and the NIS
    being leading recipients. The Bank is continually working to improve
    the effectiveness of its programs to reach those most in need.
        The African Development Bank launched its Microfinance Initiative
    for Africa at the end of 1997. The Initiative has initial funding of
    $21 million and is designed to improve the performance of existing
    microfinance institutions by upgrading their technical and
    organizational capacity. In addition, the Bank often includes
    microfinance components in poverty alleviation project loans. A recent
    loan to Cameroon, for example, included support for small scale
    enterprises and self-employment for women.
        The European Bank for Economic Cooperation and Development (EBRD)
    is also supporting microlending activities, including through the very
    successful Russia Small Business Fund (RSBF), which was initiated in
    partnership with the G-7. The RSBF operates in 19 Russian regions and
    has received $30 million in support from the U.S. Technical and
    financial support is provided to Russian banks to offer small and micro
    loans. By the end of 1997, the RSBF banks had provided nearly 14,000
    micro loans totaling about $97 million. Using the RSBF model, the U.S.
    and EBRD are working together to create a microlending program in
    Ukraine. The State Department and other U.S agencies work closely with
    the MDB's in support of these efforts.
        The State Department also works closely with the African
    Development Foundation, which was established by the U.S. Congress in
    1980 to support the self-help initiatives of grassroots communities in
    Africa. During fiscal year 1994-1996, the Foundation assisted 79 micro
    and small enterprise projects in Africa.
                        international exchanges programs
        Question. The Administration's budget proposal shifts $7.5 million
    from USIA's overall International Educational and Cultural Exchange
    account to the Fulbright program under USIA. This is certainly great
    news, but it seems like the perfect case of robbing ``Peter to pay
    Paul'' as this increase will come at the cost of the other programs in
    the Educational and Cultural Exchange account.
        Can you please comment on this proposal?
        Answer. USIA's budget submission noted that built-in requirements,
    mainly price increases and Federal pay raises, will cost $5,873,000 in
    the Exchanges Programs account. In order to meet these cost increases
    and provide the Fulbright program with a modest increase within the
    Administration's overall budget limits, USIA had to make difficult
    decisions with regard to other exchange programs.
        The Fulbright program is the U.S. Government's oldest and most
    prestigious academic exchange program, offering a range of academic
    experiences. Having recently celebrated its 50th anniversary, the
    program is a vibrant multi-national partnership supported by more than
    fifty foreign governments as well as our own. In 1997, a report was
    issued by the National Humanities Center and strongly endorsed by the
    President. This report made numerous recommendations to strengthen the
    program for the future. One of these recommendations was to ``reaffirm
    federal support for Fulbright and the U.S. commitment to leadership in
    international educational exchange'' by restoring the ``recently
    reduced'' Fulbright budget to $125 million. Implementation of several
    of the other recommendations, such as improving record keeping,
    expanding the use of new technologies and broadening partnerships with
    foreign and U.S. institutions will also require budget increases for
    Fulbright.
        We are especially eager to initiate a program for American graduate
    students in Russia and to expand opportunities for Americans to study
    and do research in China and Vietnam. We intend to enlarge the
    specially designed exchanges which promote the Middle East peace
    process. In South Africa, we will soon have a new commission which has
    the potential to significantly impact educational reforms taking place
    in that country. We also plan to reward commissions which have
    demonstrated initiative in raising funds form host country and private
    sector sources such as the Philippines, Korea, Jordan, Morocco and
    Argentina.
        Question. What impact will this shift of funds have on the
    international Education Program?
        Answer. The shift of funds will cause some reductions in
    international and Cultural Exchange programs, particularly on USIA's
    contacts with American community organizations which support or are
    involved with international exchanges. Fewer Citizen Exchange grants
    will be completed in fiscal year 1999. The precise effect on community
    organizations is difficult to estimate since Citizen Exchange grants
    are defined during the fiscal year through consultations with
    geographic area offices and an analysis of overseas USIS post requests.
    However, overall Citizen Exchange grants will probably be reduced from
    a total of 60 in fiscal year 1997 to about 45 in fiscal year 1999.
        Fewer International Visitors also will result in less financial
    support to community organizations that support the international
    Visitor program. Local organizations are likely to experience
    reductions, since USIA's community support grants may be negatively
    affected by these budget reductions.
        Educational advising, which assists and prepares future foreign
    leaders to undertake study in the U.S., continues to play an important
    role in furthering U.S. public diplomacy objectives. However, hard
    budget decisions had to be made to meet built-in cost increases and
    provide the Fulbright program with a modest increase within overall
    budget limits. We gave priority attention this fiscal year to
    augmenting the Fulbright program budget to address its most pressing
    challenges and opportunities. Unfortunately, that meant reductions in
    other programs.
        USIA is working with private sector constituencies in local and
    state governments, corporations, and institutions of higher education
    to enlist them in providing support for the overseas advising centers.
    We also have projects underway to increase private sector and user-
    based cost-sharing, to partially offset some of the operational costs
    of running advising centers. However, private sector funding or fee
    recycling is unlikely to fully offset the cut in appropriated funds.
                        funding for war crimes tribunals
        Question. Please provide a summary chart of all funding from the
    U.S. provided to the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former
    Yugoslavia and Rwanda since their inception. Please indicate the amount
    of in-kind contributions as well. How much funding does the U.S.
    provide to the Trust Fund established to support the tribunals?
        Answer. Of the amounts in the attached table, ``U.S. Government
    Funding for War Crimes Tribunals,'' the in-kind and Trust Fund
    distributions break down as follows:

    Trust funds:
        Yugoslavia:
            Fiscal year 1994 PKO..................................  $700,000
            Fiscal year 1997 SEED.................................   500,000
            Fiscal year 1998 ESF..................................   400,000
                        --------------------------------------------------------------
                        ____________________________________________________

              Total............................................... 1,600,000
                        ==============================================================
                        ____________________________________________________
        Rwanda:
            Fiscal year 1994 IO&P.................................   500,000
            Fiscal year 1995 ESF..................................   900,000
                        --------------------------------------------------------------
                        ____________________________________________________

              Total............................................... 1,400,000
                        ==============================================================
                        ____________________________________________________
    In-kind contributions:
        Yugoslavia:
            Fiscal year 1993 DOD..................................   300,000
            Fiscal year 1994 PKO.................................. 2,300,000
            Fiscal year 1996:
                ESF............................................... 1,000,000
                SEED..............................................   136,000
            Fiscal year 1998 ESF.................................. 1,675,000
                        --------------------------------------------------------------
                        ____________________________________________________

              Total............................................... 5,411,000
                        ==============================================================
                        ____________________________________________________
        Rwanda:
            Fiscal year 1996:
                DOD...............................................   900,000
                IDA............................................... 1,240,000
            Fiscal year 1997 ESF..................................   194,000
            Fiscal year 1998 ESF..................................   456 000
                        --------------------------------------------------------------
                        ____________________________________________________

              Total............................................... 2,790,000

                                                        U.S. GOVERNMENT FUNDING FOR WAR CRIMES TRIBUNALS
                                                                    [In millions of dollars]
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                            Fiscal year--
                                                     -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------  Cumulative
                   Contribution source                                                                                     1998         1999        totals
                                                      1993 actual  1994 actual  1995 actual  1996 actual  1997 actual    estimate     request
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                    Former Yugoslavia

    Assessed contributions:
        Contributions for Intl. Organizations (CIO).  ...........  ...........  ...........        5.498       10.327        6.544       12.500       34.869
        Cont. for Intl. Peacekeeping Activities
         (CIPA).....................................  ...........  ...........  ...........      ( \2\ )      ( \2\ )        6.544       12.000       18.544
    Voluntary contributions:
        Economic Support Funds (ESF)................  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........        2.075  ...........        2.075
        Intl. Organizations and Peacekeeping (IO&P).    \1\ 0.500  ...........  ...........        1.000  ...........  ...........  ...........        1.500
        Support for Eastern European Democracy
         (SEED).....................................  ...........  ...........  ...........        0.136        0.500  ...........  ...........        0.636
        Voluntary Peacekeeping Operations (PKO).....  ...........        3.000  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........        3.000
        Defense Department (excess property)........    \1\ 0.300  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........        0.300
    Employees Detailed (State, DOD, DOJ, USAID).....  ...........        1.500        1.500        1.500        0.750        2.000  ...........        7.250
                                                     -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Subtotal..................................        0.800        4.500        1.500        8.134      11. 577       17.163       24.500       68.174
                                                     =======================================================================================================
                         Rwanda

    Assessed contributions:
        Contributions for Intl. Organizations (CIO).  ...........  ...........  ...........        1.683        7.317        7.092       12.500       28.592
        Cont. for Intl. Peacekeeping Activities
         (CIPA).....................................  ...........  ...........  ...........      ( \2\ )      ( \2\ )        6.577       12.000       18.577
    Voluntary contributions:
        Economic Support Funds (ESF)................  ...........  ...........        0.900        0.150        0.194        0.456  ...........        1.700
        Intl. Organizations and Peacekeeping (IO&P).  ...........        0.500  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........        0.500
        USAID/OTI--international Disaster Assistance  ...........  ...........  ...........        1.240  ...........  ...........  ...........        1.240
        USAID/AFR--Development Fund for Africa......  ...........  ...........  ...........        0.500  ...........  ...........  ...........        0.500
        Defense Department (excess property)........  ...........  ...........  ...........        0.900  ...........  ...........  ...........        0.900
    Employees Detailed (DOD)........................  ...........  ...........        0.105        0.800        0.600        0.200  ...........        1.705
                                                     -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Subtotal..................................  ...........        0.500        1.005        5.273        8.111       14.325       24.500       53.714
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Funding went to the U.N. Commission of Experts whose investigation led to the formation of the War Crimes Tribunals.
    \2\ The U.S. provided no CIPA funds for these years because the U.N. covered the peacekeeping share of tribunals costs from unencumbered balances from
      peacekeeping operations in Rwanda and Yugoslavia.

               Questions Submitted by Senator Ernest F. Hollings
                china facilities--new embassy building schedule
        Question. What is the schedule for building this new Embassy?
        Answer. Assuming the fiscal year 1999 appropriation request is
    enacted, the estimated schedule is as follows:

    Complete site acquisition............  November 1998.
    Award design contract................  April 1999.
    Complete design......................  May 2001.
    Award construction contract..........  June 2001.
    Complete construction................  October 2004.

                           china facilities--housing
        Question. What are we going to do about the housing situation?
        Answer. We have already taken a number of steps to improve the
    substandard conditions but much remains to be accomplished. The most
    serious problems are conditions in Beijing and exceptionally high lease
    costs in Shanghai, but all China posts except Hong Kong have some
    housing concerns. Meeting these concerns is a long-term effort to which
    we are fully committed.
        Beijing.--Embassy Beijing is engaged in a program to upgrade its
    poorest quality housing units. As a first step in that program, we
    acquired 21 new leased units earlier this year that are closer to
    Western life-safety and seismic standards and provide greater control
    over maintenance. We are also engaged in a phased effort to completely
    renovate a number of existing apartments. Because windows were leaking
    soot and grit-laden air, we recently installed new windows and air
    conditioning units in all apartments leased in the diplomatic compound.
    These apartments will also receive electrical and plumbing
    rehabilitation, making them safer and more functional for residents.
    For the longer term, the focus is on acquiring additional suitable
    housing--through lease or purchase--as units become available in
    Beijing. For example, we are considering the purchase of 28-32
    residential units in a Western-standard apartment building now under
    construction in an excellent location. In addition, we plan to
    construct, on a U.S.-owned site, 66 new apartments that will meet U.S.
    seismic, fire, life-safety, and security requirements.
        Shanghai.--We are ready to award the design contract for the
    construction of a new 31-unit housing compound on U.S.Government land
    that will reduce the need to pay exorbitantly expensive leasing costs.
        Guangzbou.--We are in the process of selecting one of two sites,
    available to us under the China Property Agreement, on which to
    construct residences and office space to replace inadequate existing
    space. Residences and offices are now collocated in a seismically and
    structurally deficient tower of a hotel which we lease.
        Chengdu.--Our plan is to exercise an option to purchase currently
    leased apartments and bring them up to standard.
        Shenyang.--With the fixed-rent schedule for the apartments and an
    option to purchase the building expiring in 2001, the goal is to
    exercise that option and provide extensive renovations.
                     china facilities--housing renovations
        Question. How much of the $19 million we gave you was spent to
    renovate housing in the meantime?
        Answer. The Department intends to earmark $3.4 million of these
    funds for specific use in China, such as for correcting life-safety
    deficiencies in the Beijing Chancery and upgrading staff housing. This
    $3.4 million will be in addition to other funds appropriated under the
    Security and Maintenance of U.S. Missions, plus available asset
    management funds, to carry out housing improvements in China in fiscal
    year 1998 and beyond.
        The remainder of the $19.6 million will be used for critical
    facility rehabilitation projects in Dhahran, Jeddah, Kampala, Manila,
    Suva, and Vientiane that would otherwise be delayed, and to ensure the
    timely replacement of overseas telephone systems that are not Year 2000
    compliant.
                 status of jerusalem embassy act implementation
        Question. What is the status of the effort to conduct architectural
    and engineering plans to move the U.S. Embassy from Tel Aviv to
    Jerusalem?
        Answer. There is no issue related to the negotiations between
    Israel and the Arabs that is more sensitive and volatile than
    Jerusalem. The President has made clear that he would take no action to
    undermine the peace process.
        Accordingly, we did not think it would have been prudent to expend
    the taxpayers' money on construction-related activities in light of
    uncertainties about timing and final decisions. Let me stress, however,
    that this does not prejudice our ability to establish an embassy in
    Jerusalem should that decision be made.
        In the meantime, we continue to pursue non-construction options to
    do so, and we are now better prepared, for example, to promptly lease
    space in Jerusalem. We are also working to preserve our options for
    constructing an embassy, in part by trying to ensure that ongoing
    construction by other developers near the site be in conformity with
    previously established requirements worked out between the U.S. and the
    Israeli government.
           selecting an architect for design of embassy in jerusalem
        Question. When will an architect be selected and these funds be
    obligated?
        Answer. Given the sensitivity of the Jerusalem issue to the ongoing
    peace negotiations and the agreement by Israel and the Palestinians to
    consider Jerusalem in their permanent status talks, the President feels
    strongly that no action should be taken which would undermine the peace
    process. We did not think it would have been prudent to expend the
    taxpayers' money on construction-related activities in light of
    uncertainties about timing and final decisions. In the meantime, we
    have positioned ourselves better to move on nonconstruction options to
    establish an embassy, should that be the decision.
                             oceans and atmosphere
        Question. Given that it has been more than 30 years since we looked
    at U.S. ocean policies, don't you agree that this legislation is
    necessary and timely?
        Answer. I believe we share a common view of the importance of the
    United States playing a leadership role in the protection and
    preservation of the world's oceans, including the traditional uses,
    such as navigation and fishing. From our standpoint, the single most
    important action that the Senate could take with respect to the oceans
    would be to give its advice and consent to accession to the 1982 United
    Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and ratification of the
    accompanying agreement fixing the deep seabed mining portions of the
    Convention.
        This year--the International Year of the Ocean--represents an
    excellent opportunity for the Nation to initiate a major review of its
    ocean policies and to take actions to improve our understanding of
    ocean resources and systems. The Administration supports enactment of
    an oceans bill that will contribute to the preservation of the Nation's
    ocean and coastal areas and does not infringe on the prerogatives of
    the President and the Executive Branch.
        We remain available to work with the relevant Committees to ensure
    that a final bill clearly and specifically reflects our mutual
    priorities.
        Question. Can I count on your help to get the S. 1213 enacted into
    law?
        Answer. The Department of State supports enactment of an Oceans Act
    of 1998. Enactment of such a bill can play a significant role in
    mobilizing public support for the review and implementation of an
    effective oceans and coastal policy for the United States, and in
    ensuring that the most expert advice would be available to government
    officials from the private sector, academia and other organizations. As
    I have noted, one guiding principle is a bill that will contribute to
    the preservation of the Nation's ocean and coastal areas and does not
    infringe on the prerogatives of the President and the Executive Branch.
        We look forward to continuing to work constructively with you on
    this matter.
        Question. When can we expect to see the top ocean-related policy
    positions at State filled (Under Secretary for Global Affairs and
    Assistant Secretary for Oceans, International Environment and Science)?
        Answer. We appreciate your interest in having the Administration
    fill these two key positions at the Department. We are facing daunting
    global challenges maintaining peace and security, protecting the
    environment, promoting democracy and increasing respect for the rule of
    law--that must be addressed with strong leadership from the Department
    and Congress.
        Toward this end, the Administration is working assiduously to fill
    these positions on a permanent basis. We intend to submit the names of
    highly qualified and distinguished leaders for the advice and consent
    of the Senate shortly.
        Note.--On April 2, the President nominated Mr. Frank Loy to be the
    Under Secretary for Global Affairs at the Department. Mr. Loy
    previously served in the Department as Deputy Assistant Secretary in
    the Bureau of Economic and Business Affairs and as Director of the
    Bureau of Refugee Programs. He is currently serving as chair of the
    Foundation for a Civil Society.
                                 u.n. arrearage
        Question. With respect to the U.N. arrearage issue, what reforms
    would the U.S. not achieve at the United Nations if we provide the
    funding now as you have requested?
        Answer. We are committed to a strong reform program in the U.N.
    independent of our arrears payments. By paying our arrears we will be
    able to continue to lead and drive an even more effective reform
    effort. However, even if monies were appropriated for arrears now, our
    conversations with U.N. member states indicate that we will not be
    successful in achieving an assessment rate reduction to 20 percent in
    the time frame envisaged in the Helms/Biden legislation.
        Question. If we provide the $921 million that you have proposed in
    the Supplemental at this point in time, aren't we simply providing
    Representative Smith and the House with more leverage over the
    Administration on the ``Mexico City'' issue?
        Answer. We continue to believe the ``Mexico City'' issue should
    stand on its own and not be linked to arrears payments to the U.N. and
    other international organizations, either in the authorizing or
    appropriations legislation. Therefore, we would hope that you would
    consider favorably the President's supplemental request for $921
    million without reference to ``Mexico City''.
        Question. But, your budget does not assume consolidation if you
    support the change, why not?
        Answer. Because of the absence of Congressional authorization to do
    so, the budget did not assume consolidation. The Department strongly
    supports the consolidation and is prepared to submit consolidated
    budgets in the future, when Congress grants us reorganization
    authority.
           planning for consolidation of the foreign affairs agencies
        Question. Where do you stand in all your planning for
    consolidation?
        Answer. Last year the President decided that the Arms Control and
    Disarmament Agency (ACDA) would be merged with the State Department
    within one year, and the United States Information Agency (USIA) within
    two years. The President also decided the Agency for International
    Development (AID) would remain a distinct agency with a separate
    appropriation, and the AID Administrator would be under the direct
    authority and foreign policy guidance of the Secretary of State and
    certain of AID's administrative functions would be shared with the
    Department. This decision reflects the fact that non-proliferation and
    arms control, public diplomacy, and international development are at
    the heart of American foreign policy. Under the guidance of the
    Reorganization Steering Committee, interagency task forces did an
    enormous amount of preparatory work on reorganization planning last
    year. ACDA Director John Holum has already been ``double-hatted'' as
    the Acting Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International
    Security Affairs, and we have begun reorganizing office space in the
    State Department in a way which supports the consolidation of ACDA and
    the Bureau of Politico-Military Affairs. In personnel assignments we
    are also actively exploring combined assignments with USIA for
    administrative and secretarial personnel.
        Our approach on all aspects of this merger and reorganization is to
    create a structure which addresses the substantive issues responsibly,
    eliminates unnecessary duplication and avoids unproductive disruption
    for the dedicated personnel of all the agencies involved. Recently I
    also asked Under Secretaries Bonnie Cohen and Tom Pickering to examine
    other issues related to the reorganization, including internal State
    Department streamlining and restructuring. Depending on the passage of
    reorganization legislation, we are generally ready to begin
    implementing the President's decision.
        Where we have been able to move ahead, as in the double-hatting of
    ACDA Director Holum as Acting Under Secretary, we have. But the bottom
    line is that we still need legislation from the Congress before we can
    move much beyond planning to implement the reorganization. I will
    continue to make sure that the State Department works closely with
    other foreign affairs agencies and Members and staff of the Congress so
    that the final reorganization product is one which serves the best
    interests of the country.
                  international affairs agency reorganization
        Question. Why shouldn't this subcommittee provide all fiscal year
    1999 appropriations for USIA and ACDA to the State Department? Wouldn't
    this facilitate consolidation while we wait for the House firebrands to
    stop holding the legislation?
        Answer. The reorganization legislation as currently drafted
    provides for consolidation of ACDA into the State Department by the end
    of fiscal year 1999 and USIA into State by the end of fiscal year 2000.
    If reorganization authority is enacted along these lines, the Congress
    could in fact provide ACDA's fiscal year 1999 appropriation to the
    Department of State. Separate appropriations for USIA would continue
    for fiscal year 1999, but would be part of the Department's budget
    request for fiscal year 2000. Appropriating all funding to the
    Department of State in the absence of authorizing legislation would
    result in a confusing and legally uncertain situation, and could
    compromise the ability of the foreign affairs agencies to function
    efficiently--potentially creating a resource and administrative crisis.
                       international rubber organization
        Question. You know Madame Secretary, when you push for
    International Organizations funding you are talking about groups like
    the United Nations, but there are a lot of other organizations, some of
    which are extremely important, directly related to American economic
    interests. For example, the International Natural Rubber Organization
    (INRO) which is of interest in the Southeast and Midwest which seeks to
    hold down the price of rubber to consumer nations or the International
    Copper Study Group which is important to Senator Domenici and Western
    States. In working with the State Department these groups feel they get
    the short-shrift while ``humanitarian organizations'' are given
    priority. Yet these organizations are about jobs here at home.
        Our conference report asked the Department to reprogram funds to
    ensure that the United States retained its vote in the INRO. Even
    though this only cost $100,000, I had to start objecting to other
    Department reprogrammings to get this bill paid. But your Department
    only paid up until April, and on June 30 we will lose our vote and all
    rights of participation in the organization after August 30.
        Why is it so difficult to get your assistance for an issue that
    costs so little? This is important to both Chairman Helms and me.
        Answer. The Administration shares Congressional concerns over
    arrears to INRO as well as to all international organizations and have
    spoken out strongly in support of these and other organizations. As you
    know, legislation authorizing payment of arrears has not passed the
    Congress. We are examining whether the Administration has the authority
    under current legislation, and whether there are sufficient funds
    appropriated for current assessments to allow us to do so in the case
    of INRO.
       international cooperative administrative support services [icass]
        Question. Can you give us a status report on how this ``ICASS''
    system is working?
        Answer. The International Cooperative Administrative Support
    Services (ICASS) system, has truly resulted in a revolutionary change
    in the way we manage the delivery of shared administrative support
    services and distribute the associated costs (approximately $600
    million) to U.S. Government agencies located at our diplomatic missions
    abroad. Fully implemented at 162 posts on October 1, 1997, ICASS is a
    remarkable interagency accomplishment that took just 30 months to go
    from initial concept to an operational reality.
        While in its earliest stages, ICASS will change for the better the
    way administrative services are delivered at each mission. ICASS has
    established locally empowered Councils representing all agencies at
    post to manage and evaluate all shared administrative services.
    Focusing on the needs of the customer, the Councils have clear
    financial and performance information to evaluate service alternatives,
    and share responsibility with the service provider for providing the
    most cost effective and responsive administrative support services.
        ICASS is still a work in progress as it evolves towards a system
    that ``allocates to each department and agency the full cost of its
    presence outside the United States.'' Now that the basic mechanisms of
    ICASS are in place, surpassing most Washington expectations, the
    emphasis needs to shift to the central management aspects of ICASS that
    will lead to improved services and lower costs.
        As the Department of State's OIG stated, ``Although it appears that
    ICASS is functioning successfully as an instrument for better cost
    allocation and enhanced financial management, it is only beginning to
    show some cost savings and efficiencies and has yet to prove itself as
    an instrument for reducing overall administrative costs overseas, or
    for effecting significant change in the delivery of administrative
    services.'' Progress has already been made in achieving this goal.
    Department of State procedures for providing overseas support are being
    systematically reengineered to improve their efficiency and
    effectiveness. Post ICASS Councils are reviewing their local services
    and recommending changes designed to improve quality and lower costs.
    Leadership, communication, sharing best practices, training,
    incentives, and increased accountability are all contributing to ensure
    ICASS' ultimate success.
        Question. Are the other agencies paying their bills?
        Answer. Agencies will receive ICASS bills in early April during the
    first year of actual ICASS operation, and we anticipate having no
    problems with the bills.
        The ICASS billing process is a marked change from the previous
    billing method. Two ICASS bills are sent to the ICASS agencies'
    headquarters each fiscal year. The initial ICASS bill is based on the
    initial ICASS budget submissions from posts. At this point, agencies
    are asked to pay eighty percent of their ICASS bill in order to
    capitalize the ICASS Working Capital Fund (WCF) and in recognition of
    the fact that the ICASS bills will change before the end of the fiscal
    year. ICASS agencies have been informed of the need to make payments as
    quickly as possible to keep the ICASS WCF solvent and have worked with
    the Office of Management and Budget to apportion their funds in order
    to make this eighty percent payment.
        The final ICASS bill is based upon the ICASS mid-year budget
    submission from posts. Agencies will be asked to pay the incremental
    difference between their initial payment and their final bill. The
    final payment will be due before the end of the fiscal year.
                                     nafta
        Question. Recently, the press has been filled with reports that
    NAFTA has increased the amount of drugs flowing from Mexico to the
    United States. A task force of border law enforcement officials charged
    that drug traffickers are exploiting increased commercial links under
    NAFTA. In addition, a spokesman for the Drug Enforcement Agency
    (``DEA'') said NAFTA is ``basically opening up the door for illegal
    drugs.'' Do you believe that NAFTA has increased the amount of drugs in
    the United States?
        Answer. The flow of illicit drugs from and through Mexico is a
    longstanding and serious problem, which predates the North American
    Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) by many years. NAFTA reduced tariffs and
    trade barriers, but it did not relax customs inspections.
        NAFTA has not resulted in a significant increase in the flow of
    illicit drugs to the United States. In fact, recent statistics indicate
    that the overall flow of illicit drugs from or through Mexico to the
    United States in 1997 declined somewhat. World production of cocaine is
    down by 100 metric tons, Mexico's cocaine seizures rose last year by
    over 10 metric tons, and we have detected fewer cocaine shipments
    through Mexico over the past year. Likewise, we believe that drug
    production in Mexico has declined.
        Decisions made by drug traffickers about production levels and
    smuggling routes and methods are most affected by the level and
    intensity of law enforcement efforts and by the level of drug
    consumption in their target markets, not by levels of legitimate
    commerce. Mexico's cooperation is essential to an effective U.S. anti-
    drug program, so we are working very hard to continue to build strong
    working relationships between U.S. and Mexican law enforcement
    agencies, as well as to encourage cooperation with legitimate Mexican
    exporters. The spirit of cooperation generated by NAFTA has enhanced
    anti-drug cooperation.
                               weather satellites
        Question. Madame Secretary, I understand that an agreement with the
    Europeans critical to the success of U.S. civil/military polar
    satellite convergence--with savings to us on the order of $2.1
    billion--is being held up in the State Department with lawyers
    unwilling to clear on language agreed to by all involved USG agencies
    in June 1996 and vetted back then through NATO. What's the holdup,
    given the urgent nature of this cooperation?
        Answer. The agreement in question was negotiated by NOAA and DOD
    with the European Meteorological Satellite Organization (EUMETSAT). The
    Department's review of the final text of the agreement revealed a
    possible inconsistency between the data denial annex, which contains
    important provisions on denying critical data to adversaries in crisis
    or war, and the Presidential Directive on ``Convergency of U.S.-Polar-
    Orbiting Operational Environmental Satellite Systems'' (PDD/NSTC-2 of
    May 5, 1994). We have suggested to NOAA and DOD various ways of
    resolving this issue, and we remain hopeful that a solution can be
    found. To allow crucial cooperative activities to go forward in the
    meantime, we approved an interim agreement with EUMETSAT.
        Question. Can you assure us that State will commit to resolving the
    issue to allow the NOAA Administrator to sign the agreement when the
    Director of the European Weather Satellite Agency comes to Washington
    in early May?
        Answer. We hope that NOAA and DOD will agree to a satisfactory
    approach for resolving this issue in time for the agreement to be
    signed in early May. The Department is committed to working with them
    toward that end.
                                     ______

                Questions Submitted by Senator Daniel K. Inouye
                            east-west center funding
        Question. Might I request that you share with me the thinking
    behind the disparate treatment of the East-West Center?
        Answer. The East-West Center has not been singled out by the State
    Department for less favorable treatment than the North-South Center or
    the Asia Foundation. USIA's fiscal year 1999 request to OMB sought an
    East-West Center appropriation of $12.3 million, a slight increase of
    the enacted fiscal year 1998 level. The State Department concurred in
    that request, taking note of such factors as those cited by Senator
    Inouye during the hearing, including the great importance we attach to
    the region and the value of the exchanges and research undertaken by
    the East-West Center. The East-West Center and North-South Center
    requests were initially rejected in their entirety. In the final stages
    of the appeals process, however, USIA and the Department intervened to
    secure $5 million for the East-West Center. Similarly, we were
    successful, on appeal, in obtaining a $2.5 million appropriation for
    the North-South Center.
        The Department requested an increase for the Asia Foundation
    specifically to accommodate the President's $5 million China Rule of
    Law Initiative. The activities envisioned in the initiative--field
    work, legal education, judicial training and exchanges of technical
    experts--fall more squarely within the experience and competence of the
    Asia Foundation and justified its selection to administer the
    initiative.
        Given the nature of deficit reduction pressures, we feel that the
    exchange centers did as well as could have been hoped and gains by one
    did not come at the expense of the others.
                      palestinian effort against terrorism
        Question. Would you characterize the Palestinian effort against
    terrorism and violence as meeting this standard? How would you describe
    the current state of Israeli-Palestinian security cooperation?
        Answer. Our standard for Palestinian compliance with its security
    commitments remains 100 percent effort, 24 hours per day, 365 days per
    year, both in terms of the Palestinians' unilateral actions to fight
    terror, and in their cooperation with Israel. From the beginning of the
    Oslo process, we have emphasized to the Palestinian leadership that
    maximum efforts on security were critical to sustaining the negotiating
    process. The ideas we are currently discussing with the parties would
    create a structure to ensure that the fight against terror will not be
    episodic, but will be comprehensive, systematic and enduring.
        We have seen, especially over the past several months, a concerted
    Palestinian effort against those who would threaten peace with terror
    and violence. The Palestinian Authority moved quickly to announce that
    it had concluded that the late March killing of a HAMAS bomb maker was
    the result of an internal HAMAS dispute, thus undercutting public
    accusations that Israel was responsible. This helped defuse real
    potential dangers for violence and terrorism. The PA has taken a range
    of actions against the HAMAS leadership and infrastructure, including
    widespread arrests of HAMAS activists and leaders. These steps,
    undertaken in the face of criticism from the Palestinian street over
    the ongoing impasse in the peace process, are significant and positive.
    Indeed, Prime Minister Netanyahu described the PA actions as important.
        This improvement needs to be sustained and further steps need to be
    taken. We will continue to press the Palestinian Authority to exert all
    possible efforts to prevent terror.
                         security cooperation and peace
        Question. Do you still believe that without security cooperation,
    the peace process will ultimately fail? If so, then how can the people
    of Israel be expected to support giving even more land to the
    Palestinian Authority if they are convinced that the Palestinian
    Authority is sincere in meeting its most fundamental responsibility?
        Answer. Maximum Palestinian efforts on security--unilaterally and
    in cooperation with Israel--remain essential for success of the peace
    process. That is why we have consistently pressed the Palestinians for
    100 percent effort and why the U.S. ideas we are currently discussing
    with the parties includes stepped up security actions on the part of
    the Palestinian Authority.
        The Oslo process is one of partnership, each side meeting its
    commitments and addressing each other's concerns. This is a reciprocal
    process. The Palestinians must meet their commitments on security and
    non-security issues. The parties' meeting their commitments--including
    Israel's commitment to the principle of land for peace--remains the
    best hope for reaching further agreements between Israel and the
    Palestinians, and paving the way for a comprehensive peace. That
    comprehensive peace, in turn, provides the best guarantee of the long-
    term peace with security in the region that the people of Israel and
    the peoples of the entire region deserve but have too long been denied.
          plans for moving the u.s. embassy from tel aviv to jerusalem
        Question. Being less than a year and a half away, what plans have
    been made for the Embassy move? Will it be possible to open an embassy
    by the required time? If not, since it is almost three years since the
    bill's passage, what steps can we see demonstrating that the process
    has begun?
        Answer. There is no issue related to the negotiations between
    Israel and the Arabs that is more sensitive and volatile than
    Jerusalem. The President has made clear that he would take no action to
    undermine the peace process. Accordingly, we did not think it would
    have been prudent to expend the taxpayers' money on construction
    related activities in light of uncertainties about timing and final
    decisions.
        The State Department has just submitted its report to Congress on
    the Jerusalem Embassy Act. Even from the beginning of the Act's entry
    into force, it would not have been possible to construct a new embassy
    within the time frame called for in the legislation. However, we have
    worked to ensure that it would be possible to open an embassy in
    Jerusalem quickly through non-construction options. As a result of our
    efforts such as real estate surveys, we are now better prepared to
    promptly lease space. We are also working to preserve our options for
    constructing an embassy, in part by trying to ensure that ongoing
    construction by other developers near the site be in conformity with
    previously established requirements worked out between the U.S. and the
    Israeli government.
                noting birthplace of jerusalem in u.s. passports
        Question. Please comment on the fact that the passports of American
    children born in Jerusalem say ``Jerusalem'' as place of birth, instead
    of ``Israel,'' when everywhere else in the world the country is listed?
    Does the U.S. Administration recognize any part of Jerusalem as being
    part of Israel?
        Answer. The practice of entering ``Jerusalem'' only in the passport
    is a long-standing one. This is a very difficult issue.
        However, given the agreement by Israel and the Palestinians
    themselves to leave discussion of Jerusalem to the permanent status
    talks and our determination not to take steps that could undermine
    permanent status negotiations between the parties, we do not believe
    that this is an appropriate time to change that practice.
        Israel and the Palestinians have agreed that Jerusalem is one of
    the issues to be discussed in the permanent status negotiations. It
    would be counter-productive for the U.S. to take any actions that could
    be interpreted as prejudging this sensitive issue.
               architectural designs for an embassy in jerusalem
        Question. In fiscal year 1998, $9.5 million was appropriated for
    the architectural designs for the embassy in Jerusalem. Has the money
    been used? For what? If not, do you plan on using those funds for the
    architectural designs? When?
        Answer. There is no issue related to the negotiations between
    Israel and the Arabs that is more sensitive and volatile than
    Jerusalem. The President has made clear that he would take no action to
    undermine the peace process.
        Accordingly, we did not think it would have been prudent to expend
    the taxpayers' money on construction-related activities in light of
    uncertainties about timing and final decisions. Let me stress, however,
    that this does not prejudice our ability to establish an embassy in
    Jerusalem should that decision be made. In the meantime, we continue to
    pursue non-construction options to do so, and we are now better
    prepared, for example, to promptly lease space in Jerusalem. We are
    also working to preserve our options for constructing an embassy, in
    part by trying to ensure that ongoing construction by other developers
    near the site be in conformity with previously established requirements
    worked out between the U.S. and the Israeli government.
                                 aid to israel
        Question. The Israeli government has recently put forth its initial
    thoughts about reducing economic assistance from the U.S., with the 10-
    12 year goal of phasing economic assistance to zero. The proposal
    fulfills a promise made by Prime Minister Netanyahu to a joint meeting
    of Congress in 1996. Would you please comment on the Israeli proposal?
        Answer. In late January, Israeli Finance Minister Yaacov Neteman
    began discussions with Members of Congress and Administration officials
    on a proposal that would gradually reduce Israel's annual $1.2 billion
    economic assistance to zero, while phasing in an increase in military
    assistance over the same 10-12 year period.
        We welcome Minister Ne'eman's initiative and note that it follows
    the initial efforts suggested by the Administration in fiscal year 1997
    and fiscal year 1998 to begin to adjust traditional bilateral
    assistance levels to the Middle East. We have asked the Israeli
    government for clarification of certain aspects of its offer, and are
    still formulating our response. We have also asked the Government of
    Egypt to provide its views on future U.S. bilateral economic
    assistance. We hope to work out a formula for fiscal year 1999
    assistance to the Middle East that meets our full range of regional
    requirements.
        Question. Please talk about the military balance in the region, and
    how the efforts by Iran, Iraq, Syria, and Libya to get weapons of mass
    destruction factor into that. What more can we do with Israel to
    bolster its qualitative edge?
        Answer. We remain very concerned about the large imbalance in the
    size and military capabilities of Iraq and those of our friends in the
    Gulf. Having militaries many times larger than those of the GCC, Iran
    and Iraq are in a position to use their forces or to threaten that use
    to apply strong coercive pressures contrary to U.S. interests. The
    presence of U.S. forces in relationship with the United States,
    including strong military sales and training programs, are essential
    elements in helping the Gulf states resist such coercion, and in also
    ensuring the security of other friends in the region, such as Israel,
    Egypt and Jordan. The prospect of the acquisition of weapons of mass
    destruction by Iran and Iraq, and by others such as Libya and Syria,
    would materially affect the regional balance contrary to U.S. interests
    across the entire region and would strengthen the coercive pressures
    any of these states could bring to bear against any of the countries
    friendly to the U.S. in the region and potentially beyond it. We are
    also concerned about the negative impact the prospect of Syrian
    acquisition of weapons of mass destruction could have on the Middle
    East peace process.
        We are committed to doing all we can to help reduce the real threat
    posed to Israel and our other regional partners by WMD and advanced
    delivery systems. The United States helps Israel meet this threat as
    part of our commitment to Israel's security and to sustaining and
    enhancing its qualitative military edge. The U.S. helps Israel address
    strategic threats through a combination of actions and policies,
    including provision of $1.8 billion annually to Israel for defense. Our
    active role in the Middle East Peace Process seeks, in part, to enhance
    Israel's security by reducing the regional threat and promoting
    dialogue. We are also involved with Israel in joint research projects
    to develop weapons systems, such as the Arrow anti-tactical ballistic
    missile system and the Tactical High Energy Laser, to counter the
    missile threat. The administration's nonproliferation and export
    control policies also serve to enhance the security of Israel and our
    other regional parties by seeking to control the spread of weapons and
    technologies in the Middle East and throughout the world.
        We are committed to continuing to support and cooperate with Israel
    on security matters in order to preserve Israel's qualitative military
    edge and to reduce the serious threat posed by WMD and missile systems.
                 israeli weog membership at the united nations
        Question. Israel is the only country in the U.N. system denied
    access to a regional grouping--the mechanism through which countries
    are chosen to sit on the U.N.'s powerful committees, including the
    Security Council.
        What are we doing to correct this? What is holding up Israel's
    efforts to gain admittance into the Western European and Others Group
    (WEOG)? Which countries are opposed to Israel's admittance to WEOG?
    What more can we do to increase our efforts to get Israel into WEOG?
        Answer. The United States strongly supports Israel's efforts to be
    included as a member of the WEOG at the United Nations. We believe that
    Israel, as a long-standing member of the U.N., should be granted the
    same privilege of belonging to a regional grouping and to participate
    fully in all activities of the U.N., as have all other members of the
    United Nations. Because of its geographical location, Israel would
    naturally belong to the Asia regional grouping, but this has not proved
    possible to date because of the strong opposition of Arab and other
    members of the Asia group. As a result, Israel and the United States
    have sought Israel's temporary admission to the WEOG until such time as
    Israel's formal admission to the Asia group becomes possible.
        Over the past several years, the United States has actively pushed
    Israel's candidacy for temporary WEOG membership through repeated
    bilateral contacts with other WEOG member governments. In 1996,
    multiple demarches and consultations were undertaken with foreign
    ministers in WEOG governments, including the United Kingdom, Austria,
    Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Iceland, Ireland,
    Italy, Luxembourg, Malta, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Madrid,
    Sweden, Turkey, Belgium, Australia, and New Zealand. As a result of
    joint efforts by the U.S., Israel, and Belgium, Israel's bid to join
    WEOG received support from some of WEOG's members at that time.
    Initially, the United Kingdom and Germany were opposed to Israeli
    membership in WEOG, but persistent efforts by the U.S. eventually
    garnered support from both governments. In addition, several WEOG
    members, while never expressing outright support for Israel's bid,
    indicated after talks with the U.S. that they would go along with an EU
    consensus in support of Israel's candidacy. In 1997, Administration
    officials have continued to press WEOG members bilaterally and through
    regional groupings on this issue.
        The WEOG has yet to reach a consensus on Israeli membership due to
    continuing internal disagreements. Opponents of Israeli membership have
    repeatedly said Israel belongs only in the Asian regional group; they
    are also concerned that temporary membership will evolve into permanent
    membership affecting already tight WEOG competition for regionally
    allocated seats in U.N. bodies. In addition, opponents are worried
    about setting a precedent and opening the door for WEOG membership to
    Baltic and Central European countries. Moreover, some of the stated
    reluctance on the part of WEOG members has stemmed from perceptions of
    Israel's role in the stalemate in the peace process.
        Israel is now advocating a temporary membership in WEOG that
    includes a two-year moratorium on Israeli candidates for WEOG seats in
    U.N. bodies. The United Kingdom and Germany continue to support Israel;
    primary opponents are Austria, Denmark, Finland, France, Ireland,
    Italy, Spain and New Zealand.
        On November 21, 1997, the United States Permanent Representative to
    the United Nations, Ambassador Bill Richardson, met with WEOG members
    in New York to reaffirm U.S. support for admitting Israel on a
    temporary basis. Ambassador Richardson said that three and a half years
    after WEOG first considered the question of Israel's temporary
    membership, Israel remains the only member state of the United Nations
    that is denied membership in a regional group. He noted that Israel is
    singled out for discriminatory treatment and that the isolation of
    Israel in the U.N. is not in the interests of the Western Group,
    Israel, or the Middle East peace process. Ambassador Richardson
    stressed that Israel's eventual goal is membership in a regional
    grouping with its neighbors; however, as a democratic Westernized
    country with a market economy, Israel is completely compatible with the
    WEOG. He noted also that Israel has offered not to compete with other
    WEOG members for regionally-allocated seats in U.N. bodies for the
    first few years of its membership, and that Israel has significant
    expertise to contribute to the U.N. He urged WEOG members to welcome
    Israel's bid for temporary membership.
        In response, Australia, Canada and Norway spoke in favor of
    Israel's admission; Luxembourg, speaking on behalf of the EU, stated
    the EU as a group had determined that the time is not right to grant
    Israel's request. Luxembourg underscored, however, that Israel's
    candidacies to U.N. bodies where there is no WEOG competition, and
    where the candidacy is not allocated to another regional group.
        During his resent visit to Israel, U.N. Secretary General Kofi
    Annan voiced his support for Israel's inclusion in one of the regional
    groups and full participation thereby in the U.N.'s several bodies.
    Although the decision on membership in a regional group rests upon the
    countries, not with the U.N., we welcome the Secretary General's public
    support of Israel's cause.
        The United States will continue to exploit every available
    diplomatic opportunity to engage the EU, its individual members, and
    other members of WEOG on behalf of Israel's temporary membership. As in
    the past, we will continue to coordinate our diplomatic efforts closely
    with those of the Government of Israel.
                                     ______

               Questions Submitted by Senator Frank R. Lautenberg
                 new agreement with iraq on weapons inspections
        Question. Why should we believe that he [Saddam Hussein] will honor
    a new agreement?
        Answer. We are highly skeptical that Saddam Hussein will fully
    honor this or any other agreement signed by his government--experience
    clearly indicates that he has little if any regard for international
    law, and that his word is not good.
        That is precisely why we, UNSCOM, the other members of the Security
    Council, and the Secretary General are united in our insistence that
    Iraq's commitment to provide immediate, unconditional, and unrestricted
    access to UNSCOM and the IAEA must be tested thoroughly and completely.
    U.N. Security Council Resolution 1154, which we supported, states
    clearly that the ``gravest consequences'' will follow if Iraq continues
    its past practices of obstruction, deception, and concealment. We hope
    Saddam Hussein heeds this clear warning.
                          response to iraqi violations
        Question. If Saddam Hussein again puts up obstacles to weapons
    inspectors or bars them from facilities, what will the Administration's
    response be?
        Answer. U.N. Security Council Resolution 1154 states clearly that a
    violation of Iraq's obligation to provide immediate, unconditional, and
    unrestricted access to UNSCOM and the IAEA would have the ``severest
    consequences'' for Iraq.
        The Administration has also repeatedly stated that it is prepared
    to use military force to compel Iraqi compliance with its obligations,
    and to diminish Iraq's ability to threaten its neighbors or
    reconstitute its Weapons of Mass Destruction and prohibited missile
    programs. U.S. and coalition forces remaining in the region are
    prepared to carry out such action if necessary.
                             iraq: long-term plans
        Question. What is the Administration's long-term plan? Do we
    explore ways to weaken Hussein by, for example, dramatically increasing
    support for opposition movements? Do we maintain a strong military
    presence in the Gulf forever? Are we planning for a day when Hussein is
    no longer in power? How?
        Answer. As long as Iraq continues to pose a threat to its neighbors
    in the region, to international peace and stability, and to our own
    vital interests, we will act to contain and diminish that threat using
    the most effective tools at our disposal.
        For the past seven years, we have successfully contained the
    threats posed by Iraq by: Enforcing multinational sanctions on Iraq,
    which denies Saddam Hussein the resources he would need to reconstitute
    his WMD and conventional military forces; supporting the efforts of
    UNSCOM and the IAEA to detect and destroy all aspects of Iraq's
    prohibited WMD and long range missile programs; and maintaining a
    significant military presence in the region to deter Iraqi aggression,
    and to enforce U.N. resolutions.
        We intend to continue efforts as long as necessary until Iraq
    demonstrates its peaceful intentions by complying fully and completely
    with all its international obligations, as laid out in more than 40
    U.N. Security Council Resolutions.
        Over the past seven years, we have also worked with human rights
    organizations and, as appropriate, Iraqi opposition elements to draw
    attention to the human rights abuses of the Baghdad regime and to
    develop a viable alternative to Saddam.
        In my March 26, 1997 remarks at Georgetown, I made clear that a
    change in government in Iraq could lead to a change in U.S. policy. We
    stand ready, in coordination with our allies and friends, to enter
    rapidly into a dialogue with a successor regime.
                              bosnian serb issues
        Question. Do you agree that facilitating the voluntary surrender or
    transfer to The War Crimes Tribunal of the indictees reportedly living
    in Banja Luka would make an important political statement about Prime
    Minister Dodik's commitment to ensuring implementation of the war
    crimes provisions of the Dayton Agreement?
        Answer. Yes. The U.S. has consistently called upon all parties to
    the Dayton Peace Accord to live up to their commitment of full
    cooperation with the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former
    Yugoslavia (ICTY) in The Hague.
        The new, strongly pro-Dayton government of the Bosnian Serb entity
    has publicly stated it is willing to facilitate the surrender of
    indictees, and has taken concrete steps to improve cooperation with the
    ICTY. It has allowed ICTY investigations in the Republika Srpska,
    including the search of government facilities, and it has supported the
    establishment of an ICTY office in Banja Luka. These actions already
    have induced a number of persons publicly indicted by the ICTY to turn
    themselves in. We fully expect that as pro-Dayton forces consolidate
    their rule in the Bosnian Serb entity, their cooperation with the ICTY
    will broaden and improve further.
        Question. Did the Prime Minister indicate that he would put a
    priority on facilitating the voluntary surrender or transfer of the
    indictees living in Banja Luka and all 43 indictees when you met?
        Answer. Yes. Prime Minister Dodik agreed on the need to prosecute
    war criminals, both in terms of compliance with Dayton and to bring a
    sense of justice to the RS. He has publicly stated that indictees
    should surrender and has actively facilitated the surrenders of several
    indictees since taking office.
        Question. Is the State Department providing such evidence to Prime
    Minister Dodik, and are we expecting any changes in his cabinet?
        Answer. We have discussed with Prime Minister Dodik the need to
    distance himself unequivocally from persons suspected of war crimes. To
    that end, we have shared with him information on a member of his
    cabinet about whom I have concerns regarding his activities and
    associations during the war (Justice Minister Petko Cancar).
        Mr. Dodik promised to investigate the matter. We have made it clear
    to him that the U.S. could not actively support a Bosnian Serb
    government that includes persons indicted or strongly suspected of war
    crimes. Prime Minister Dodik understands our position fully. He has
    promised to remove any member of his cabinet found to have committed
    war crimes.
        Question. Prime Minister Dodik now has a Finance Minister who is
    not loyal to Karadzic. Can you assure us that in the future those loyal
    to Karadzic and the Pale government--including the Bosnian Serb Co-
    President of the Federation--will not be involved in determining where
    any portion of loans goes within Republika Srpska?
        Answer. Pale and Karadzic have never been involved in determining
    where any portion of IFI loans goes within Bosnia and Herzegovina, and
    they will not be in the future.
        Our assistance, and that of other international donors, strengthens
    the moderate, pro-Dayton government of Prime Minister Dodik. This
    assistance and Mr. Dodik's reform measures will continue to break the
    political control of the Pale hard-liners in the RS, who already have
    no say regarding the allocation of our assistance in the RS.
        As an additional measure, U.S. and international experts are
    currently helping improve Bosnian--including Bosnian Serb--customs and
    fiscal procedures in order to render the Bosnian public finance system
    more efficient and curtail possibilities for corruption. Consequently,
    the Pale hard-liners' control over public finances is rapidly
    decreasing. They no longer hold key positions in the entity government,
    and the system is less and less open for them to abuse. Continued
    support for this reform process--and explicitly for Dodik--is the best
    way of ensuring that a pro-Dayton Serb is elected to replace Bosnian
    Presidency Member Momcilo Krajisnik in September.
              funding requested for yugoslavia war crimes tribunal
        Question. How will the increase in funding being requested in
    fiscal year 1999 be used? What are the top funding priorities for the
    Tribunals? Do they need prosecutors? Investigators? More judges?
    Courtroom space? Equipment? Supplies? Please indicate how much or many
    they expect they will need.
        Answer. The United States expects that during 1998 and 1999 there
    will be an increasing number of indictees awaiting trial at both
    Tribunals. The Tribunals will need additional resources to try arriving
    indictees and to pursue a number of major investigations that the
    Tribunals must complete to fulfill their mandates. For 1999, this will
    require a significant increase in their workload and, hence, their
    budget.
        The Tribunal's budget is set by the United Nations on a calendar
    year basis and is not public until October or November. Based on this
    process, the United States will not know the precise Tribunal budget
    needs for CY 1999 until after the start of the U.S. fiscal year. For
    example, it is not possible to know now the right mix for 1999 between
    prosecutions (including costs of trial support) and investigations.
        We believe that the Tribunals' needs for CY 1999 will include
    additional judges, prosecutors, investigators, courtroom support
    personnel, expenses of investigations, expenses associated with trials,
    courtroom space, translation and interpretation capacity, and witness
    transportation and security.
        Question. How will the additional assistance help expedite trials?
        Answer. The additional assistance requested will help alleviate
    capacity constraints now facing the Tribunals, which is important to
    allow suspects to be tried in a reasonable amount of time. The length
    of time an indictee must await trial is an important factor in
    facilitating further voluntary surrenders for both Tribunals.
        Constraints on the capacity of the Tribunals to try suspects in
    custody include (a) the number of physical courtrooms available to hold
    trials, (b) the number of judges who can hear trials and deliberate on
    cases already heard, (c) courtroom staff, including victim and witness
    unit staff to handle the logistics of bringing witnesses to the court,
    housing them safely, and arranging for their return to their homes, (d)
    investigators to locate and interview witnesses who have previously
    given statements to ensure that those witnesses are available to give
    evidence at trial, and (e) prosecution and defense counsel to prepare
    cases for trial and to appear in court. The additional assistance
    requested will expand the Tribunals' capacities in these areas, thereby
    reducing the length of time it will take to resolve the cases of all
    those now in custody.
        Question. Both Tribunals received large increases in their budgets
    from the U.N. in fiscal year 1998. Please indicate what the U.N. has
    budgeted for each tribunal in fiscal year 1998. Is this assistance
    adequate for them to carry out their responsibilities fairly and in an
    expeditious fashion?
        Answer. The ICTY's budget for calendar year 1998 is $68.83 million
    gross and $62.33 million net. The ICTR's budget is $58.99 million gross
    and $50.88 million net. (The United States' share of the tribunals'
    budgets is based on the net figure.)
        We believe both tribunals will carry out their responsibilities
    fairly. We are concerned, however, that if trials proceed at the pace
    some have so far, and if additional resources are not made available,
    some trials of accused now in custody might not begin until the year
    2000. This is an obvious deterrent to further voluntary surrenders, and
    both we and the Tribunals are looking into ways to address this
    situation. A number of the options under consideration, such as
    increasing the number of courtrooms or increasing the number of judges,
    will require additional resources.
                        funding for war crimes tribunal
        Question. Ambassador Gelbard reportedly said at a public forum
    organized by the U.S. Institute of Peace, ``The United States believes
    that a significant number of indictments will not stand up in court. We
    will not risk the lives of any soldier or anybody else to try to
    apprehend indicted war criminals if we believe that the cases are
    weak.''
        If this is the position of the U.S. government, what is the
    rationale for increasing funding for the International Criminal
    Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia?
        Answer. The Hague Tribunal's need for additional resources reflects
    the dramatic increase in the number of persons in custody--an increase
    largely due to U.S. government and Ambassador Gelbard's efforts to
    facilitate the surrender of indictees. Indictees include, but are not
    limited to, the use of troops. We remain committed to seeing that all
    indictees have their day in court.
        To assist with the backlog of cases before the ICTY, the Dutch, the
    U.S. and the United Kingdom have contributed funds for two new
    courtrooms. We are considering other proposals to make the Tribunal's
    work even more efficient. We do not want undue delays to be a
    disincentive to persons indicted by the Tribunal to turn themselves in.
    We need to provide the ICTY with the resources to administer justice
    speedily and fairly.
        There is no doubt that war crimes have been committed in Croatia
    and in Bosnia and Herzegovina during the war. In order to overcome
    ethnic tensions and establish a lasting peace, these crimes must be
    made public, the perpetrators brought to justice, and individual guilt
    allocated.
        This does not mean that every case investigated by the
    International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) will
    lead to an indictment, or that every trial will result in a conviction.
    The Hague Tribunal applies the most stringent standards of rule of law,
    including the presumption that a defendant is innocent unless proven
    guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
                     imf/u.n. arrears/population assistance
        Question. In light of the Asian financial crisis and the recent
    confrontation with Iraq over its failure to comply with U.N.
    resolutions on its weapons of mass destruction program, I think it's
    irresponsible to hold funding for the IMF and U.N. hostage to
    restrictions on private family planning organizations, especially when
    U.S. law already prohibits the use of taxpayer funds to perform or
    lobby for abortion. Our decisions should be based on an evaluation of
    their importance to U.S. economic and security interests.
        What is the reaction of countries abroad when the Congress doesn't
    consider policies on their merits and links vital national security
    issues with unrelated issues? How does this impact on your work?
        Answer. I share your commitment to advancing U.S. economic and
    security issues. Our actions around the world show a consistent
    determination to foster security, economic stability and human rights
    and democracy.
        Our actions in the Asian Financial Crisis demonstrate our
    determination to honor our commitment. From Indonesia to Korea we have
    stepped forward in support of the IMF to assist countries hit by
    economic difficulties. At the same time, we have stressed that our
    support of regional security and of human rights remain unchanged.
        When other countries do not agree with our policies, or with
    concerns raised by the United States Congress, we undertake to explain
    the concerns which motivate these policies and concerns.
        Nonetheless, it is difficult to explain concerns of the Congress
    when we refuse to meet essential international obligations. We must,
    for example, make good on our debt to the U.N. As the President said in
    his State of the Union Address, ``More and more, we are working with
    other nations to achieve our common goals. If we want America to lead,
    we've got to set a good example.'' We will soon confront another
    challenge to our leadership.
        We must provide the $18 billion for our IMF quota increase and NAB
    or risk undermining our leadership position in an organization critical
    both to our prosperity and security.
                                    algeria
        Question. What steps is the U.S. currently taking to support such a
    mission?
        Answer. The Department of State has on several occasions publicly
    condemned the atrocities being committed in Algeria. We deplore
    violence from any quarter and have urged strict respect for human
    rights by all parties. Our Ambassador to Algiers, Cameron Hume,
    recently visited the site of one of the massacres in solidarity with
    the victims.
        We have repeatedly asked the Algerian government to facilitate
    visits by international non-governmental organizations (NGO's) to
    Algeria in order to inquire into the human rights situation there and
    correspondingly we have urged these organizations to go to Algeria to
    perform such fact-finding missions.
        We also continue to urge the Algerian government to accept a visit
    by the U.N. Special Rapporteur on Summary, Extrajudicial and Arbitrary
    Executions or the U.N. Special Rapporteur on Torture.
        The real issue, however, is increased transparency which cannot be
    obtained without the willing cooperation of the Algerian government and
    even then, objective reporting will be difficult. We continue to
    maintain our focus on transparency and the quality of information
    gathered, rather than on the particular means by which that
    transparency is attained.
        Question. Will the U.S. support a resolution about Algeria at the
    U.N. Human Rights Committee meetings in March of this year?
        Answer. We continue to support any means of transparency which
    would serve to shed more light on the situation in Algeria, including
    increased access for foreign journalists, nongovernmental organizations
    (NGO's) and foreign parliamentarians. We are discussing ways to bring
    about more openness at the current session of the U.N. Human Rights
    Commission (UNHRC).
        In our efforts towards furthering transparency in Algeria, we
    continue to encourage the Algerian government to facilitate visits by
    internationals NGO's, journalists and parliamentarians, as well as
    encouraging these groups to undertake such visits. We have determined
    to maintain our focus on transparency and the quality of information
    gathered, rather than on the particular means by which that
    transparency is attained.
                              trafficking in women
        Question. What steps is the U.S. taking to combat the growing
    problem of trafficking of women?
        Answer. The U.S. is committed to combating trafficking in women and
    girls worldwide.
        The President's Interagency Council on Women established a senior
    governmental working group on trafficking to coordinate the USG
    response on trafficking in women and girls. The group focuses on the
    areas of prevention, victim assistance and protection, and enforcement.
    The working group consults closely with NGO's and members of Congress.
      --We are working jointly with the European Union, the Group of Eight,
            and the U.N., as well as the Governments of Israel, Italy, and
            Ukraine. For example, as directed by the President on March 11,
            1998, we are responding to the Government of Ukraine's request
            to jointly develop and implement a comprehensive strategy to
            combat trafficking from and to Ukraine. This U.S.-Ukraine
            cooperation can be expanded to other countries.
      --As directed by the President on March 11, 1998, the Interagency
            Council on Women will organize a conference for governmental
            and non-governmental representatives from source, transit, and
            destination countries and representatives from international
            organizations to call attention to the issue of trafficking in
            women and girls and to develop strategies for combating this
            egregious human rights violation.
      --The USG trains foreign border control and immigration officials to
            enhance their ability to implement border security and to
            identify traffickers and victims of trafficking. We also train
            foreign judges and prosecutors on enhance enforcement of laws
            against trafficking.
      --The State Department funded the development of a comprehensive
            database on U.S. and international legislation protecting women
            and children from commercial sexual abuse. The project analyzes
            laws, penalties, sentencing patterns, reporting requirements,
            law enforcement capabilities, extradition practices and victim
            assistance programs. An expected outcome of this project is
            prototype legislation and guidelines on enforcement and victim
            protection.
        State Department consular presence worldwide works with source,
    transit, and destination countries to develop strategies for protecting
    victims and expanding and enhancing anti-fraud training to stop the
    international movement of trafficked women and girls.
        The State Department developed a brochure targeted to potential
    victims of trafficking. The U.S. embassies in Poland and Ukraine
    distribute these brochures in the consular waiting areas and beyond. We
    plan to place the brochures in other U.S. embassies around the world.
        Question. What level of budget resources are being devoted to
    address this problem by region?
        Answer. Resources for combating trafficking in women and girls are
    woven into humanitarian assistance projects and law enforcement
    training programs around the world. Below are some examples in which
    resources for trafficking are clearly identifiable.
      --The Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration (PRM) has
            allocated $320,000 for a U.S. and European Union joint
            information campaign to combat trafficking in women and girls
            and to warn potential victims of methods used by traffickers.
            Our public awareness campaign is in Ukraine and the European
            Union supports a similar campaign in Poland. After July 1998,
            the U.S. will sponsor a seminar in Ukraine to evaluate the
            effectiveness of the dissemination campaign. If our campaign is
            deemed successful, it could be adapted and expanded to other
            critical source and transit countries worldwide. In the fiscal
            year 1998 budget request PRM has included funding to continue
            this prevention work.
      --The Bureau for International Narcotics and Law Enforcement (INL)
            allocated $2.18 million in fiscal year 1998 to the Immigration
            and Naturalization Service (INS) to conduct immigration
            training to deter migrant trafficking, including trafficking in
            women and children, in the former Soviet Union, Central America
            and South Africa.
      --INL also allocated $85,000 to the INS attaches in Vienna and Moscow
            to conduct two conferences for immigration officials in the
            region on migrant trafficking and trafficking in women and
            children.
      --INL awarded a partial grant of $233,000 in fiscal year 1997 to the
            University of Minnesota to develop a comprehensive database on
            U.S. and international legislation protecting women and
            children from commercial sexual exploitation.
        Question. Does the State Department believe that public education/
    awareness programs can be effective in combating this problem?
        Answer. Yes, the State Department believes that public education/
    awareness programs can be effective in combating trafficking in women.
    Following a Presidential directive on March 11, 1998, the State
    Department, the Department of Justice, and the President's Interagency
    Council on Women is working to increase national and international
    awareness about trafficking in women and girls. The State Department is
    working with USIA, as directed by the President, to expand public
    awareness campaigns targeted to warn potential victims of the methods
    used by traffickers.
        In a March 11, 1998 Executive Memorandum the President declared
    that this type of public education will ensure young women and girls
    are educated about this problem so that they will not fall prey to
    traffickers' tactics of coercion, violence, fraud, and deceit.
        Question. Does the U.S. government fund public education awareness
    programs? In which countries are they located?
        Answer. The U.S. has an information campaign in Ukraine underway.
    In November 1997, the U.S. and the European Union formally adopted a
    joint initiative to prevent trafficking in women from and through
    Eastern Europe and the New Independent States (NIS). The U.S.-EU
    initiative features an information campaign aimed at warning potential
    victims of methods used by traffickers. Local border and consular
    officials are also reached with the information which can help them
    deter trafficking in women from third countries around the region.
        The joint information campaign, which officially began on April 1,
    1998, will be initiated in a pilot project in Poland and Ukraine, two
    countries whose governments have shown a commitment to confronting
    migration problems and working cooperatively to protect potential
    victims of trafficking. In July 1998, the U.S. will sponsor a seminar
    in Ukraine which will bring together all entities involved in
    disseminating the campaign message and key target groups to evaluate
    our progress. If our campaign is deemed successful, it could be adapted
    and expanded to other critical source and transit countries worldwide.

                              subcommittee recess

        Senator Gregg. We very much appreciate your coming here
    today. Thank you, with your busy schedule and everything else
    going on.
        Secretary Albright. Mr. Chairman, I would like to say on
    behalf of all of us, how much we appreciate the interest and
    care you are taking with the State Department in terms of
    people. The kinds of questions that you have asked, I welcome
    so much because it shows a tremendous interest in the personnel
    of the State Department. What you have done to help us deal
    with, and sort through a lot of problems, by asking hard
    questions has really helped us to deal with many issues. So I
    am very grateful to you for everything.
        Senator Gregg. Thank you. We stand in recess until next
    Tuesday when we will hear from the FBI, DEA, and INS.
        [Whereupon, at 11:09 a.m., Thursday, February 26, the
    subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene at 10 a.m., Tuesday,
    March 3.]

    DEPARTMENTS OF COMMERCE, JUSTICE, AND STATE, THE JUDICIARY, AND RELATED
                  AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 1999

                                  ----------

                             TUESDAY, MARCH 3, 1998

                                           U.S. Senate,
               Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The subcommittee met at 9:59 a.m., in room S-146, the
    Capitol, Hon. Judd Gregg (chairman) presiding.
        Present: Senators Gregg, Domenici, Hutchison, Campbell, and
    Hollings.

                             DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

                        Federal Bureau of Investigation

    STATEMENT OF LOUIS J. FREEH, DIRECTOR

                        Drug Enforcement Administration

    STATEMENT OF THOMAS A. CONSTANTINE, ADMINISTRATOR

                     Immigration and Naturalization Service

    STATEMENT OF DORIS MEISSNER, COMMISSIONER

                                opening remarks

        Senator Gregg. We are going to start the hearing on
    Commerce, Justice, State. We are joined today by the leaders of
    the law enforcement community that this committee has
    jurisdiction over, people who work very hard on behalf of our
    Nation to make sure that we are a safer place for our
    countrymen and our families. We appreciate the time and effort
    that they have put into that purpose, and we especially
    appreciate the fact that in every agency that we will be
    hearing from today, they have people who put their lives on the
    line every day so that we are a safer society. They are on the
    front lines of protecting our daily concerns.
        We will go right down the line and start with the DEA and
    then go to INS and then to the FBI.
        OK. Mr. Constantine.

                             Opening statement--DEA

        Mr. Constantine. Senator, I really appreciate the
    opportunity to be here today and thank you and other members of
    the committee on behalf of DEA for the support that we have
    received for the past several years. The resources that have
    been appropriated for us have been put to use as we try to make
    American communities safer and to live up to our commitments to
    citizens across the country.

                                 Drug strategy

        We see the drug situation continuing to be extremely
    serious and affecting not only cities and urban areas but rural
    and suburban areas of the entire country. The cornerstone of
    DEA's strategy is really threefold. One element is what we call
    an investigation of the command and control of the
    international organized crime syndicates that are involved in
    the delivery of the cocaine, heroin, and most of the
    methamphetamine into the United States, with leadership based
    outside of the United States.
        We work these major investigations in cooperation with
    virtually every other Federal and major State and local agency
    in the country. For example, this weekend alone, information
    from an alert FBI agent in the Miami area, provided to DEA and
    to the Coast Guard and to people in the Bahamas in an operation
    that we have called OpBat, led to the seizure of two ships
    coming out of Colombia into the Caribbean with over 4 tons of
    cocaine. In addition to the seizure, we can work backward to
    the major figures responsible for the shipment and for the
    reception of the shipment.
        The second element is what we call major national
    organizations, which control heroin distribution and
    methamphetamine distribution, which are both increasing
    problems. The third, equally important element of the strategy,
    is trying to remove as much of the violence from the drug
    trafficking as we can. We do this with special programs such as
    our mobile enforcement team to assist smaller and mid-sized law
    enforcement agencies throughout the country.

                   investigations of major Drug organizations

        Perhaps two investigations that occurred during the last
    1\1/2\ years typify the investigations that we conduct against
    the leadership of major organizations. One was called
    Limelight, and one was called Reciprocity. They resulted in the
    arrest of over 100 people, the seizure of about 10 tons of
    cocaine, almost 11,000 pounds of marijuana, and about $18
    million in cash. We also were able to identify a major drug
    syndicate operating out of Juarez, Mexico from the Carillo
    Fuentes organization that had established tentacles throughout
    the United States, from Texas throughout the west coast, and
    for the first time in our experience, all the way to New York
    City.
        Whenever we are able to do this, we can see that we have an
    impact on these organizations. When we arrest the key workers
    within the United States, they have to be replaced by the
    organizations in Colombia and Mexico. Over the past several
    years, we have arrested over 100,000 key felons working with
    other Federal agencies and State and local agencies.
        Within the past 2 or 3 years, we have observed these
    organizations, one out of Juarez, Mexico, another out of
    Tijuana, as they have emerged as significant forces and changed
    their role from transporters of drugs for the Colombian
    organizations to independent operators who established their
    own programs within the United States. We have seen a similar
    problem in the Caribbean as groups from Colombia--like the
    seizure made over this weekend--are able to take those drugs,
    move them into the area of the Dominican Republic or Puerto
    Rico. From there, they try to get it into the United States for
    distribution at the midlevel by organizations out of the
    Dominican Republic.

                                DEA initiatives

        Our budget this year attempts to address those key issues.
    The first initiative would be a continuation of DEA's program
    to attack international organized crime through our liaison
    offices in other countries throughout the world. This is a
    followup to a number of years of such programs. We are asking
    for 17 additional special agents, most of them to buttress our
    support in the Caribbean as we are watching, again, the
    movement of cocaine through that area. We will be enhancing the
    support and the agents in Ponce, Puerto Rico; St. Thomas and
    St. Croix; Barbados; Curacao; Jamaica; Haiti; the Dominican
    Republic. In addition, we will be looking to open offices in
    Uzbekistan; in Hanoi, Vietnam, and in Trinidad and Tobago.
    Those will be a total of 17 agent positions. We also are asking
    for new intelligence analyst positions in Mexico to support the
    major investigations on traffickers from that country.
        The second initiative is what we call attacking
    international organized crime distribution systems within the
    United States. Understanding that the command and control very
    often comes from Colombia and Mexico, these organizations also
    have major operations within the United States. These are much
    more viable targets for us in the long run. We seek to augment
    the resources mostly in offices on the east coast to address
    those groups out of the Caribbean that are distributing heroin
    and cocaine. The second emphasis is on the growing role of
    methamphetamine, mostly in the Southwest, the Rocky Mountain
    States, the Midwest, and some of the Southeast.
        Forty-two of the 240 agent positions would be in those
    domestic offices that are affected by the influx of those
    violent groups coming out of the Caribbean. We would also be
    looking at their involvement in heroin trafficking.

                            Methamphetamine strategy

        The second part would be a followup for the methamphetamine
    strategy. Our methamphetamine strategy has been continuing for
    2 or 3 years now. This is a drug that has taken hold in many
    communities on the west coast, the Southwest, the Rocky
    Mountain States, and the Midwest and increasingly in the
    Southeast, into Georgia, the Carolinas and into Florida. We
    were asking for 100 new agent positions to follow up on the
    positions we received over the last 2 or 3 years. We will be
    placing them in those offices that are distinctly affected by
    methamphetamine. Also, we are requesting funding to establish a
    methamphetamine intelligence center, the national clandestine
    laboratory data base at EPIC, for recording all of the
    laboratories that we are seizing. There are a number of these
    small laboratories that only account for 10 or 20 percent of
    the methamphetamine, but are very destructive to the community.
    The other 80 percent of the methamphetamine is coming out of
    the Amezcua brothers organization out of Mexico. We target that
    as an international organized crime operation.

                                     Heroin

        Our third priority area in this is heroin trafficking. I
    think anybody who has read the paper has noticed that heroin,
    which was once 7 percent pure, is now being sold on the streets
    of the United States at 70 to 80 percent pure. We have a number
    of cities that have experienced a rapid increase in overdose
    deaths. Individuals who are now using heroin are in communities
    that thought they had escaped the problem like middle class and
    upper middle class communities. Examples that you can see are
    Plano, TX, and Orlando, FL. Baltimore also has had a
    significant problem, with numbers of people who are dying as a
    result of this heroin, which is part of an organized
    distribution scheme. It is, for the most part, heroin coming
    out of Colombia, that is predominately supplying the east coast
    market.
        Increasingly, what we call brown heroin or black tar heroin
    out of Mexico has gone from 5 percent of our seizures to 20
    percent of our seizures in just a 1-year period of time. We
    have seen a relationship developing between the Colombian
    organizations and organizations in Mexico, sharing
    sophisticated chemists to improve the quality of the heroin out
    of Mexico.
        I thought Plano, TX, was a classic example of how horrible
    the results can be when drugs become commonly used in a
    community, and the purity level and the international organized
    crime distribution system all come together. It is a city of
    considerable material benefits. It is a sought-after school
    system for people who move to the Dallas-Fort Worth area. The
    police chief, Bruce Glascock, is both a personal and
    professional friend of mine, one of the outstanding police
    leaders in the country and a vice president in the
    International Organization of Chiefs of Police.
        In a relatively short period of time, 14 young people in
    Plano, TX--many of them with great potential in life--were
    found dead or taken to hospitals as a result of overdose of
    heroin. An even more significant number were just dropped off
    in the parking lots of hospitals without any identification or
    without any explanation of the circumstances. Fortunately they
    did not die and were able to survive the events.
        We loaned out a number of DEA people to work with a special
    task force that was moving through the Plano area. We had our
    demand reduction experts meet with over 2,000 parents in
    special meetings in Plano, TX, for prevention programs. We
    eventually were able to identify the midlevel traffickers, who
    were people who lived in Texas. Their source was from Guerrero
    in Mexico. They knew when they were selling this heroin that it
    was high-level purity, and it was dangerous. It is my
    understanding that the local prosecutors are looking at it for
    possibly homicide statute implementation.

                                Methamphetamine

        Obviously, as we look at the methamphetamine, which as I
    have talked about involves virtually every State. We have been
    able to identify a major organization out of Dallas that
    controlled the methamphetamine trafficking out of California.
    It was a group associated and directed by the Amezcua brothers
    organization out of Mexico, who were responsible for this
    manufacture. Often, a laboratory is, unfortunately, very
    unsafe; sometimes located close to schools; once in an
    equestrian center where people were bringing their children for
    riding lessons, unknowing that there was this major laboratory
    conducted right back in the stables.
        We were, as a result of a joint investigation with the FBI
    and Customs, able to make an arrest of most of the major
    principals since they were in the United States, all the way
    down into Georgia and into Florida. We are spending, as you
    know, a substantial amount of our available funding for
    training of local law enforcement. In 1996, we had trained 200
    law enforcement officers in how to execute search warrants and
    conduct themselves at these very volatile chemical situation
    laboratories. Last year, we trained 900. We will train an
    additional 2,000 over the next 2 years, and we have produced a
    videotape for virtually every police officer in the country
    providing procedures for their own safety and evidence
    preservation.
        We also will be, as a result of our request in this budget,
    if successful, able to forward-base throughout the United
    States trucks and a great deal of lab equipment which are
    needed for the entry into these facilities. All of that is part
    of our budget proposal.

                               prepared statement

        I know your time is limited. That is a summation of our
    budget request this year.
        Senator Gregg. Thank you, and I will get into questions in
    a second.
        [The statement follows:]
                  Prepared Statement of Thomas A. Constantine
        Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: I appreciate this
    opportunity to appear before the Subcommittee today to discuss the Drug
    Enforcement Administration's fiscal year 1999 budget request. Before I
    provide you with details of this request, I first want to take the
    opportunity to express deep appreciation on behalf of the men and women
    of the Drug Enforcement Administration for the outstanding support you
    have provided to us over the past several years. The resources you have
    appropriated for DEA help us make American communities safer, and allow
    us to live up to our commitments to citizens across the nation who look
    to the government to rid their neighborhoods of drug trafficking and
    drug-related violence. DEA is working both domestically and
    internationally to target and arrest the most significant drug
    traffickers operating today, and we have had a number of successes
    within the past year, which I will discuss in some detail later in my
    statement.
        The drug situation in our nation continues to be an extremely
    serious problem, one which affects not only our major cities, but also
    the suburban and rural areas of our country. Despite dramatic
    reductions in violent crime rates in recent years, the problems of drug
    trafficking and abuse continue to diminish the quality of life for many
    of our citizens. The primary role for DEA as a law enforcement agency
    is to identify, apprehend, and bring to justice those individuals and
    organizations who are responsible for drug trafficking. The most
    important targets are the major organized crime syndicates based in
    Colombia and Mexico.
        No American citizen, whether living in Topeka, Kansas or in our
    nation's capital, is beyond the reach of these organized crime
    syndicates. Drug lords in Colombia and Mexico have created an
    infrastructure that enables them to manage drug-trafficking on an
    international scale. With a network of surrogates in the United States,
    international drug trafficking organizations have infiltrated and,
    subsequently decimated, far too many communities across the globe. They
    have become an occupying force in the war on drugs: sparking violent
    turf wars between rival drug lords, corrupting nascent political
    institutions in Latin and South America, and extending the plague of
    drug abuse and drug-related crime to communities across the United
    States.
        Although based abroad, organized crime syndicates have a direct and
    deleterious impact on Americans across the country. Drug trafficking
    unleashes a tidal wave of drug-related crime which overwhelms our
    judicial system and floods our prisons. Tens of thousands of homicides,
    assaults, and burglaries are committed each year by criminals as a
    direct result of drug abuse or drug gangs. The link between crime and
    drugs is clear: studies show that drug users are more frequently
    involved in crime and are more likely to have criminal records than
    non-users. Data collected in 1995 from male arrestees in 23 cities
    shows that the percentage testing positive for any drug ranged from 51
    percent to 83 percent. Despite a five year decline in national violent
    crime rates, law enforcement officials made a record 1.5 million
    arrests for drug violations in 1996. As a consequence, organized crime
    syndicates can augment their organizations with an unprecedented pool
    criminals in the United States, who are completely ingrained in the
    drug culture. These criminals serve as a ready supply for the drug
    syndicates surrogate army in the U.S. The size of this surrogate army,
    and their violent commitment to maintaining the profitability of their
    boss' drug trafficking organization, pose a serious threat to law
    enforcement agencies across the country.
        The costs of drug-related crime come not just from expenditures
    associated with defending our citizens from drug trafficking and
    related violence, but also with treating the victims of organized
    crime. Drug trafficking and abuse have generated an alarming increase
    in the number of drug-related emergency room episodes in recent years.

                      DRUG-RELATED EMERGENCY ROOM MENTIONS
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        1990         1996
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    All drugs.....................................      635,480      860,260
    Cocaine.......................................       80,355      144,180
    Heroin........................................       33,884       70,463
    Methamphetamine...............................        5,236       10,787
    Marijuana.....................................       15,706       50,037
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Drug-related crime and abuse exact a heavy toll on our society.
    Lost work productivity, juvenile delinquency, violent crime, automobile
    accidents, and a myriad of other social ills linked to illegal drug
    abuse cost our society an estimated $67 billion last year,
    approximately $1,000 for each family of four in the United States.
        The drug trafficking operations of organized crime syndicates not
    only generate violent crime in our communities and burden the taxpayer
    with the costs, but they also carry the plague of drug abuse to the
    very core of American society, the family. The drugs consumed by a
    father of three in Manchester, New Hampshire can be traced from his
    local dealer, to a middleman from the Dominican Republic operating in
    New York City, to a drug lord safely ensconced in his lavish villa in
    Colombia. While the father pays cash for the drugs, his wife and
    children pay the price for his drug addiction. The statistics are
    overwhelming:
      --One-quarter to one-half of all incidents of domestic violence are
            drug-related.
      --A survey of state child welfare agencies found substance abuse to
            be one of the key problems exhibited by 81 percent of the
            families reported for child maltreatment.
      --In 1996, 3.2 percent of pregnant women--nearly 80,000 mothers--were
            current drug users.
        The cost to these children and to society as a whole does not stop
    at birth. Saving these children, and their peers who succumb to drug
    abuse later in their young lives, will cost society nearly a million
    dollars per child.
        It is impossible to draw a line of demarcation between domestic
    drug abuse problems and international drug trafficking. The $20 an
    American addict spends each day for crack cocaine is ultimately
    funneled, by an organized crime syndicate, back to a drug lord, in
    Colombia or Mexico. Likewise, it is impossible to distinguish between
    domestic and international drug trafficking. Both are dominated by the
    same organized crime syndicates which exist as a seamless continuum.
    Unlike governments and law enforcement, they do not recognize or
    respect international borders. Access to the most sophisticated
    technologies, a willingness to resort to violence and bribery and a
    well-organized infrastructure enables them to transcend such barriers.
    Drug lords in Colombia and Mexico have established enterprises made up
    of networks of compartmentalized cells capable of extending drug
    trafficking operations into cities large and small within the United
    States.
        The powerful drug syndicate leaders from Colombia and Mexico are
    merely modern day versions of the mobsters that law enforcement in the
    United States has fought during this entire century, except that modern
    organized crime syndicates are exponentially more wealthy, powerful,
    and violent than their predecessors. Organized crime has always been
    founded on these same key principles, whether it was Al Capone in the
    1920's, the La Cosa Nostra families in New York in the 1950's and
    1960's, or today's Colombian and Mexican syndicates. Successful
    organized crime syndicates utilize hierarchical control, secret
    communications, corruption and violence to create an infrastructure
    that both shields them from law enforcement and facilitates their
    criminal activity.
        Over time, law enforcement in the United States has been able to
    effectively counter domestic organized crime by attacking the
    communications systems of the major crime syndicates. In the past,
    domestic organized crime was controlled by a few leaders who lived in
    the United States and were within reach of the U.S. criminal justice
    system. Today's syndicate leaders pose a more serious threat, operating
    from sanctuaries in Colombia and Mexico. They are outside the reach of
    U.S. law enforcement and, consequently, able to command their cells
    operating in the United States freely and effectively.
        The cornerstone of DEA's national investigative strategy,
    therefore, is to focus on attacking the command and control functions
    of the organized criminal syndicates that control virtually all of the
    cocaine, heroin, and methamphetamine trafficking in the United States
    today. In addition to building cases against the leaders of
    international drug trafficking syndicates and their surrogates, DEA has
    a responsibility to protect the citizens of the United States from the
    violence that is attendant to the drug trade.
        One of our major objectives is to lend support to those cities and
    towns in the United States which lack the resources to address these
    sophisticated and powerful drug trafficking groups. Many of the major
    cities in our country have recently reported dramatic reductions in
    violent crime. In New York City, an aggressive, zero tolerance campaign
    against crime has led to a sharp decrease in violent crime rates in a
    city once viewed as one of the most dangerous cities in the United
    States. Unfortunately, at the same time, violent crime rates have
    increased substantially in many smaller cities across our country.
    Later in this testimony I will detail for you some of DEA's efforts to
    address these issues with our Mobile Enforcement Teams and our REDRUM
    programs.
        Operations such as Limelight and Reciprocity, which target major
    Mexican drug trafficking groups operating in the United States, have a
    lasting effect on organized crime. The arrest of what seems to be a
    never ending stream of surrogates sent by syndicate leaders to the
    United States not only causes a steady degradation of the syndicates'
    ability to recruit individuals who can effectively control enormous
    drug distribution networks in the U.S., but, when fully exploited, also
    enables law enforcement to build investigations to the syndicates'
    highest levels. Our focus on the Cali organization's command and
    control functions in the U.S. enabled us to build formidable cases
    against the Cali leaders, which allowed our Colombian counterparts to
    accomplish the almost unimaginable--the arrest and incarceration of the
    entire infrastructure of the most powerful crime group in history.
        There have been many successes in our efforts against organized
    drug syndicates both here in the United States and abroad. DEA and our
    state and local task force partners have made more than 100,000 felony
    arrests for federal drug violations in the U.S. in the last four years.
    Many of those arrested were violent traffickers, who brought mayhem to
    the cities and towns where they ran their businesses. Their
    incarceration is in some part responsible for the decrease in crime in
    our major cities. A similarly increased focus of federal resources will
    have equal or even more demonstrable results in smaller cities.
        Results against sophisticated, powerful crime leaders and their
    organizations come are hard fought. We are pitted against a foe that
    has resources that rival our own. Nonetheless, recent history
    demonstrates that organized crime syndicates can be defeated. The Cali
    syndicate virtually disintegrated under intense investigative pressure.
    Amado Carrillo-Fuentes died trying to change his appearance through
    plastic surgery because of the scrutiny he was receiving from U.S. and
    Mexican law enforcement agencies. Persistent pressure all along the
    drug trade spectrum, in concert with complete and unfettered
    cooperation from our foreign counterparts, will result in successes
    commensurate with the resources invested. In short, effective drug law
    enforcement, combined with an appropriate focus on demand reduction,
    and the education of our youth will work and will result in far less
    crime in our communities and decreased drug use by our children.
    Mexico's Growing Role in the Cocaine Trade
        Trafficking groups from Mexico are a significant force in
    international organized crime. These organizations are no longer simply
    middlemen in the cocaine transportation business. With the disruption
    of the Cali syndicate, groups such as the Amado Carrillo-Fuentes
    organization, the Arellano-Felix organization, the Amezcua-Contreras
    brothers, and the Caro-Quintero group have consolidated their power and
    now dominate drug trafficking along the U.S./Mexico border and in many
    U.S. cities.
        Mexican traffickers now control the cocaine trade west of the
    Mississippi River and are making significant inroads into the cocaine
    market in some eastern cities, including New York; they dominate the
    methamphetamine trade in California, along the Southwest Border, and in
    states such as Georgia and Iowa. Additionally, heroin from Mexico now
    accounts for one-fifth of the heroin seized within the United States,
    up from only five percent last year.
        I have, on several occasions, provided the Congress with the names
    of those drug traffickers in Mexico who are directly responsible for a
    large share of the drugs and related violence that plague our cities
    and towns. I believe it is critical that we keep their names on the
    front pages so that there is no doubt about who supplies the drugs that
    addict and kill our children or our resolve to bring these individuals
    to justice.
                Amado Carrillo-Fuentes Organization
        Until July 4, 1997, when Amado Carrillo-Fuentes died in Mexico City
    after undergoing plastic surgery, he was considered the most powerful
    trafficker in Mexico. The Carrillo-Fuentes organization (ACFO), based
    in Juarez, is involved in the trafficking of cocaine, heroin, and
    marijuana. The ACFO's regional bases are in Guadalajara, Hermosillo,
    and Torreon, where the organization stores drugs for eventual shipment
    into the United States. After the death of Carrillo-Fuentes, gang
    warfare within Mexico and in U.S. border towns escalated, consuming
    individuals involved in the drug trade and innocents alike. As of this
    date, the ACFO continues to function effectively.
                Caro-Quintero Organization
        The focus of Miguel Caro Quintero's organization is on trafficking
    cocaine and marijuana. Miguel, with his two brothers Jorge and Genaro,
    runs the organization. They specialize in the cultivation, production,
    and distribution of marijuana, a major cash crop for many of the
    trafficking organizations from Mexico. This organization is believed to
    own many ranches in the Northern Border State of Sonora, from which
    drug smuggling operations into the United States are staged. In
    addition, like many of the other trafficking organizations in Mexico,
    they are also involved in the trafficking of cocaine and
    methamphetamine.
                Amezcua-Contreras Brothers Organization
        The Amezcua-Contreras organization is based in Guadalajara, Mexico
    and is headed by Jesus Amezcua, who is assisted by his brothers, Adan
    and Luis. They currently are the world's largest smuggler of ephedrine
    and clandestine producer of methamphetamine. The Amezcua organization
    obtains large quantities of the precursor ephedrine, through contacts
    in Thailand and India, which they then supply to methamphetamine labs
    in Mexico and in the United States.
                Joaquin Guzman-Loera Organization
        Although he is presently incarcerated in Mexico, Guzman-Loera is
    still considered a major threat by law enforcement in both the United
    States and Mexico. His brother, Arturo, has assumed the leadership role
    and the organization remains active in Mexico, along the Southwest
    border, in the Western and Midwestern regions of the U.S., as well as
    in Central America. The group transports cocaine from Colombia into
    Mexico and the United States for the remnants of the Cali and Medellin
    Cartels. The organization is also involved in the smuggling, storage,
    and distribution of Colombian cocaine, Mexican marijuana, and Mexican
    and Southeast Asian heroin.
                The Arellano-Felix Brothers Organization
        Benjamin Arellano-Felix is the head of this trafficking
    organization that operates in Tijuana, Baja California, and parts of
    the States of Sinaloa, Sonora, Jalisco, and most recently, Tamaulipas.
    Benjamin coordinates the activities of the organization through his
    brothers: Ramon, Javier, and Francisco. The Arrellano-Felix
    organization, the most violent of the Mexican trafficking organizations
    and reportedly was involved in the murder of Cardinal Posadas-Ocampo at
    the Guadalajara Airport in 1993. The United States recently filed for a
    provisional arrest warrant and placed Ramon Arellano-Felix on the FBI's
    ``Most Wanted'' list. The Mexican Government has offered a $1 million
    reward for information leading to the arrest of the Arellano-Felix
    brothers.
        DEA Organized Crime Enforcement Strategy.--This strategy is
    demonstrated in Operation Reciprocity and Limelight, cases which
    clearly prove the interrelation between high level traffickers
    headquartered in Mexico and their organizations in many U.S. cities.
    The Amado Carrillo-Fuentes organization was deeply involved in a
    sophisticated drug operation that stretched from Mexico to New York,
    Chicago, Grand Rapids, Tucson, and other parts of the U.S. At one
    point, several independent and seemingly unrelated investigations were
    being conducted in Texas, Arizona, Illinois, Michigan, and New York.
    Eventually these separate cases were combined under the umbrella
    investigations known as Reciprocity and Limelight.
        As is the case in most high-level international investigations that
    ultimately lead to the leadership of international organized crime
    rings, these investigations began with a seemingly routine event in the
    U.S. In late 1996, two troopers from the Texas Department of Public
    Safety stopped a van with New York plates on Interstate 30. They became
    suspicious when they learned that one man was from New York while the
    other was from El Paso, and they were not well acquainted. Neither man
    owned the van and their stories conflicted regarding where they were
    going and where they had been. The troopers found 99 bundles hidden in
    the vehicle's walls. They soon realized that the packages contained
    money, not cocaine.
        It took three hours to count the $1.3 million they had found. As
    the officers continued their search, they discovered another $700,000,
    bringing the total to more than $2 million. On December 3, 1996, after
    receiving an anonymous call, the Tucson Police Department and drug task
    force officers raided a warehouse containing 5.3 tons of cocaine. On
    December 13, 1996, the same Texas troopers stopped a northbound tractor
    trailer and seized 2,700 pounds of marijuana. Follow-up investigation
    connected this interdiction to their previous seizure of money, to the
    cocaine warehouse in Tucson, and to ongoing investigations in Texas,
    Arizona, Illinois, Michigan, and New York.
        All of these investigations provided our Special Agents and federal
    prosecutors with the key to investigating the operations of the Amado
    Carrillo-Fuentes organization. This powerful Mexican syndicate was
    apparently using U.S. trucks and employees to transport huge amounts of
    cocaine to various U.S. destinations. The resulting investigation,
    Operation Reciprocity, secured 40 arrests, the seizure of $11 million
    in cash, 7.4 tons of cocaine and 2,700 pounds of marijuana. A parallel
    investigation, Operation Limelight, resulted in the seizure of more
    than 4,000 kilos of cocaine, almost 11,000 pounds of marijuana, over $7
    million in cash, and 48 arrests. Evidence gathered in this
    investigation revealed that one driver alone had transported over 30
    tons of cocaine into the United States and had returned over $100
    million in drug profits to Carrillo-Fuentes in Juarez, Mexico.
        Mexican transportation groups have clearly added the East Coast to
    their sphere of influence and now deliver cocaine directly to New York
    City and other East coast markets. This role was once reserved for
    traffickers from Colombia and the Dominican Republic. These two
    operations, like their successful predecessors, Zorro I and Zorro II,
    show that law enforcement can strike major blows against foreign drug
    syndicates by targeting their command and control functions.
        Another example of DEA success against the domestic operations of
    the major Mexican trafficking groups was the recent indictment, by a
    federal grand jury in San Diego, of 10 members of the Logan Heights
    Gang on charges of serving as paid killers for the Arellano-Felix
    organization. The hallmark of many of the Mexican trafficking groups,
    most notably the Arellano-Felix organization, is their use of violence
    as a means of intimidation against potential witnesses and
    organizational rivals in both Mexico and the U.S. The indictment
    charges the members of this gang with acting as body guards and
    participating in missions to eliminate adversaries of the Arellano-
    Felix organization. This indictment proved to be an important step in
    our Southwest Border efforts against the Arellano-Felix group and was
    instrumental in ridding this San Diego neighborhood of some of its most
    violent offenders.
        Through our domestic drug investigations and with the assistance of
    our country office in Mexico, DEA has been able to build cases that
    have led to the indictment of the leaders of every major drug
    trafficking organization in Mexico. More than one-half of the priority
    requests for provisional arrest for extradition filed by the Department
    of Justice are for major drug traffickers. None of the leaders of the
    major drug syndicates were arrested in 1997.
        The Increasing Significance of the Caribbean.--While it is true
    that the majority of cocaine entering the United States comes across
    the U.S.-Mexican border, traffickers are reactivating their trafficking
    routes in the Caribbean. Colombian trafficking organizations dominate
    drug trafficking in the Caribbean. DEA has identified four major
    organizations based on the northern coast of Colombia that have
    deployed command and control cells in the Caribbean Basin to funnel
    tons of cocaine to the U.S. each year. Colombian managers, who have
    been dispatched to Puerto Rico and the Dominican Republic, operate
    these command and control centers and are responsible for overseeing
    drug trafficking in the region. These groups are also directing
    networks of transporters that oversee the importation, storage,
    exportation, and wholesale distribution of cocaine destined for the
    continental U.S.
        Many Colombian groups, particularly those who have risen to power
    since the Cali syndicate's fall, have returned to the traditional
    Caribbean routes to move their product to market. As these Colombian
    groups re-establish their ties with their Caribbean confederates,
    increasingly larger shipments transit the Caribbean. Seizures of 500 to
    2,000 kilos of cocaine are now common in and around Puerto Rico and the
    Dominican Republic.
        The incarceration and death of the leaders of the Cali drug
    syndicate were the antecedents for the most significant change in the
    wholesale U.S. cocaine trade in the last two decades. This change has
    become particularly evident over the last 12 months. Just a few years
    ago, Miguel Rodriguez-Orejuela and his powerful Cali syndicate
    controlled as much as 80 percent of the cocaine distributed in the U.S.
    He completely controlled every phase of the drug continuum, from
    manufacturing to distribution in cities and towns throughout the United
    States as varied as Chicago, Illinois and Rocky Mount, North Carolina.
        In the last year, however, criminals from the Dominican Republic
    have emerged as the dominant force in the wholesale cocaine and heroin
    trade on the East Coast of the U.S. Battered by the aggressive
    application of our organized crime enforcement strategy and the arrests
    of the syndicates' leadership in Colombia, many new Colombian drug
    traffickers have sought to pull back from the Cali syndicate's
    traditional modus operandi of ruling a monolithic organization and
    exercising complete control of the drug continuum: from cultivation and
    production, to the wholesale marketing of both heroin and cocaine.
    Instead, they have chosen to franchise a significant portion of their
    wholesale heroin and cocaine operations. The Dominican trafficking
    groups, already firmly entrenched as low-level cocaine and heroin
    wholesalers in the larger Northeastern cities, were uniquely situated
    to assume a far more significant role in this multi-billion-dollar
    business.
        Trust, the essential ingredient in forging a successful business
    relationship in the drug underworld, had already been established
    between Dominican and Colombian traffickers through relationships
    formed during hundreds of smuggling ventures in the Caribbean and
    through their long established relationships in New York, Newark, and
    Boston. From Boston, Massachusetts to Charlotte, North Carolina, well-
    organized Dominican trafficking groups are, for the first time,
    controlling and directing the sale of multi-hundred kilo shipments of
    cocaine and multi-kilogram quantities of heroin. Their influence is now
    spreading beyond the big city landscape into the smaller cities and
    towns along the East Coast.
        New England is now faced with numerous gangs from the Dominican
    Republic selling multiple kilogram amounts of cocaine and smaller
    amounts of heroin. For example, DEA and the Hartford Connecticut Police
    Department recently arrested 40 members of a Dominican trafficking
    group responsible for the sale of thousands of bags of heroin brought
    into Hartford from New York City. In New Haven, Connecticut, one
    Dominican trafficking group was responsible for about 90 percent of all
    the heroin being sold in the city. They have also participated in a
    variety of other crimes ranging from robbery to muggings, creating
    their own crime wave in the process.
        This sea-change in the wholesale heroin and cocaine markets is not
    unique to New York and New England. The Philadelphia area also is
    saturated with Dominican traffickers looking to claim a larger portion
    of these markets, and the Washington-Baltimore area routinely receives
    heroin shipments from New York-based Dominican groups. The Dominican's
    reach even extends into southern states. In July 1997, a group of
    Dominican traffickers were arrested in Charlotte, North Carolina after
    an investigation revealed they were transporting heroin from New York
    City to supply guests at private rave parties in the Charlotte area.
        At the same time, the increase in the flow of cocaine and heroin en
    route to the United States through the Caribbean has brought a new wave
    of drug abuse and attendant violence to the Caribbean. Approximately 70
    percent of all documented homicides in Puerto Rico are now drug-
    related. As a result, the number of drug homicides has increased
    dramatically in the last decade. In 1984, homicides in Puerto Rico
    numbered 483; by 1994, this figure had more than doubled. Today, while
    the murder rate in Puerto Rico has stabilized, with 864 homicides in
    1995 and 868 in 1996, it remains nevertheless, nearly twice as high as
    figures obtained prior to the invasion of major drug trafficking
    organizations.
        In order to address the rapid growth of drug trafficking and
    violence in the Caribbean region, in fiscal year 1998, Congress
    provided DEA with a total of 60 Special Agents and $34.2 million to
    build upon our successful Southwest Border Strategy and expand our
    operations into the Caribbean Corridor. In fiscal year 1999, we are
    requesting and additional 42 Special Agents and $5.6 million to enhance
    our domestic offices in major cities along the East Coast which are
    being detrimentally affected by the influx of violent trafficking
    groups based in the Caribbean. With the addition of these resources,
    DEA will be in a position to more fully meet the challenge of the
    Colombian and Mexican drug trafficking groups operating along our
    Southern frontier.
        Heroin from Colombia and Mexico.--The relatively recent influx of
    high quality, cheap heroin from Colombia and Mexico is a significant
    law enforcement and public health issue. During the past several years,
    South American heroin has accounted for the majority of DEA heroin
    seizures. In 1994, 32 percent of the heroin samples tested were of
    South American origin; in 1995, the total was 62 percent. In 1996,
    South American heroin continued to dominate the market, representing 52
    percent of heroin seizures in the United States.
        Cheap, high quality heroin--average purity of South American heroin
    in 1996 was 72.2 percent--continues to dominate East Coast markets
    including Boston, New York, Philadelphia, and Baltimore. The
    availability of South American heroin is not, however, limited to the
    Northeast; Orlando, Florida, for example, has been especially hard-hit
    by the drug. In 1995 and 1996, 48 individuals in this city died of
    heroin overdoses.
        The most dramatic drug related statistical increase in 1996 was in
    the amount of Mexican-produced heroin seized in the United States.
    Mexican heroin accounted for 20 percent of all heroin seized in the
    U.S., a fourfold increase from 1995. Combined, Colombian and Mexican
    heroin accounted for almost three-quarters of all the heroin seized in
    the U.S. during 1996. The emergence of Mexico in 1996 as the second
    most common source of heroin is consistent with the expansion of the
    cocaine and methamphetamine distribution networks of the major Mexican
    organized crime syndicates. The city of Plano, Texas has suffered an
    epidemic of heroin abuse, an epidemic whose origins can be traced to
    the distribution of extremely pure Mexican heroin in the community.
    After fourteen Plano teenagers and young adults died using uncut
    Mexican heroin, DEA worked with the Plano Police Department to
    establish an ad hoc task force to identify the suppliers of this
    Mexican black tar heroin. In November 1997, a major heroin distributor
    from Mexico and his four associates were arrested by the task force.
    These drug traffickers did not ``cut'' their product to reduce its
    purity. As a result, the heroin supplied by this organization was
    between 50 percent and 76 percent pure and, consequently, killed
    several teens experimenting with the drug for the first time.
        Mexican heroin has been available in the U.S. for many years, but
    the situation in Plano clearly illustrates the seriousness of the
    growing Mexican heroin problem. International organized crime groups
    from Mexico are directly supplying American communities with high
    purity heroin. In addition, the average size of Mexican heroin seizures
    has increased significantly, with some reflecting in the multi-kilogram
    range. These increases in seizure size reflect an increased
    availability of the product. These developments, increased purity and
    availability, will further spread the scourge which has already hit
    Plano to other communities, large and small, across the country.
        While heroin produced in Mexico dominates the marketplace in the
    western U.S., heroin produced and controlled by Colombian groups is
    marketed aggressively throughout the Northeast, and more recently, the
    Midwest. These two areas of the country easily contain the largest
    portion of the heroin addicted population in the U.S. New York City,
    with roughly half of the country's heroin addict population, continues
    to be the largest heroin market in the United States. As a result,
    traffickers have made the city the most significant heroin importation
    and distribution center in the country.
        In June 1997, DEA was able to strike a major blow against the New
    York City heroin operations of the Gamboa organization, a Colombian
    crime syndicate responsible for significant heroin and cocaine
    trafficking in the United States. The Gamboa syndicate was using South
    American smugglers to import eight kilos of heroin per month for its
    drug cell operating in New York City. In August 1997, a DEA
    investigation led to the arrest of Milton Gutierrez, the head of the
    New York City cell, and nine members of his organization and the
    seizure of 1.8 kilos of heroin and $65,000 in assets were also seized.
        Cases like this clearly illustrate increased heroin use in the
    United States. Coupled with the drug's low cost and deadly levels of
    purity, this is clearly cause for concern. Additional resources
    provided to DEA in fiscal year 1999 will allow us to continue to build
    upon our five-year heroin enforcement strategy, working to halt the
    continuing spread of this dangerous drug across the United States.
        The Spread of the Domestic Methamphetamine Market.--Known on the
    street by names like ``crank'' and ``speed,'' methamphetamine is a
    dangerous stimulant which possesses the same addictive qualities
    similar to those of crack cocaine. According to statistics from the
    Drug Abuse Warning Network (DAWN), the U.S. experienced a 209 percent
    increase in the number of methamphetamine-related emergency room
    episodes between 1990 and 1995. Following a brief drop during the first
    half of fiscal year 1996, total methamphetamine episodes skyrocketed by
    71 percent during the second half of the year.
        Today, DEA is taking part in more methamphetamine-related arrests
    and is seizing more clandestine laboratories per year than ever before
    in our 25-year history. Since fiscal year 1993, DEA arrests in
    methamphetamine-related investigations have consistently risen.
    Methamphetamine arrests increased by 45 percent in one year, rising
    from 3,920 in fiscal year 1996 to 5,780 arrests in fiscal year 1997.
    During fiscal year 1997, DEA was involved in the seizure of more
    methamphetamine laboratories (1,272) than in the three previous fiscal
    years combined (combined total equals 1,256).
        The illicit manufacturing of methamphetamine can occur anywhere an
    operator can set up laboratory equipment to synthesize the product
    (e.g., motel rooms, apartment complexes, industrial areas, farms, a
    neighbor's house, etc.). The caustic, flammable, and explosive
    chemicals required by ``cooks'' to produce methamphetamine endanger the
    lives of not only criminals, but innocent neighbors as well. The
    potential environmental damage caused by one clandestine laboratory can
    place an entire community at risk.
        Methamphetamine trafficking and production in the U.S. is currently
    divided between the thousands of small, independent organizations, who
    run ``mom-and-pop'' labs and the major Mexican syndicates networks who
    produce methamphetamine in super labs in Mexico and California. Both
    groups are producing more methamphetamine than ever before. However, it
    is the emergence of the Mexican syndicates and their growing domination
    of methamphetamine production and distribution that has redefined the
    methamphetamine problem in the U.S.
        The Mexican syndicates' dominance of the methamphetamine market can
    largely be attributed to two factors. First, Mexican organized crime
    has established access to enormous quantities of the precursor
    ephedrine from wholesale sources of supply on the international market.
    Second, these criminal groups regularly produce unprecedented
    quantities of high-purity methamphetamine in Mexican and Californian
    super labs. As previously indicated, the Amezcua-Contreras Brothers,
    operating out of Guadalajara, are the world's largest smugglers of
    ephedrine and clandestine producers of methamphetamine. The Amezcua
    Organization obtains large quantities of precursor ephedrine through
    contacts in Thailand and India, which they then use to make
    methamphetamine for subsequent distribution to Mexican trafficking
    groups operating in major U.S. population centers.
        Operation META.--For the last several years, the influence of
    Mexican organizations trafficking methamphetamine in the United States
    has increased dramatically. Operation META demonstrated just how
    extensive their involvement in the methamphetamine trade is. This
    multi-agency wiretap investigation targeted traffickers associated with
    the Amezcua brothers' methamphetamine trafficking organization, a
    syndicate which supplied its U.S. cells with methamphetamine, precursor
    chemicals, and cocaine.
        Amezcua cells manufactured methamphetamine in Los Angeles. In fact,
    during the META raids, operating methamphetamine labs were discovered
    near a day-care center and in an equestrian center where riding lessons
    were being conducted. This is typical of the disregard organized crime
    syndicates have for the safety and well-being of the American public.
    The labs discovered were capable of producing more than 300 pounds of
    methamphetamine.
        Drug traffickers along the border, such as those associated with
    the Amezcua Organization, have a major impact on the drug trafficking
    and violent crime situation throughout the United States. The Southwest
    Border Strategy brings together many federal, state and local law
    enforcement agencies and prosecutors' offices in a coordinated effort
    to target major drug traffickers operating along the southwest border
    of the United States. Operation META, an OCDETF investigation conducted
    as part of this strategy, resulted in more than 100 key arrests.
        Due to methamphetamine's increasing popularity in the West and its
    rapid spread eastward, an increasing number of independent trafficking
    and production networks are also being established. They feed the
    habits of customers typically found outside the Mexican syndicates'
    predominant areas of influence. These independent networks, which have
    proliferated in the Midwest, and more recently on the East Coast, are
    selling to users in rural areas, middle class suburbs, and on college
    campuses. Surging demand and increased profit margins are driving
    increased drug production, and luring more traffickers and chemists
    into the methamphetamine trade. Often, a minimal investment of $500 can
    yield profits as high as $4,000 to $18,000.
        Fifty percent of the clandestine labs seized by DEA in fiscal year
    1997 were located in the Midwest. States like Missouri, which four
    years ago experienced negligible clandestine laboratory activity, have
    become full-fledged production centers. Just last month, DEA, in
    cooperation with state and local law enforcement, seized its first
    major clandestine laboratory in the city of St. Louis.
        States as far east as Georgia, Kentucky, and New York are also
    beginning to see the effects of growing methamphetamine production and
    distribution. In August of 1997, DEA, in cooperation with the FBI and
    the Northern Kentucky Drug Strike Force, arrested Mexican national
    Enrique Ochoa-Montanez and seized approximately 35 pounds of
    methamphetamine and $14,000 in cash from a hotel in northern Kentucky.
    In December 1997, DEA's Atlanta Field Division was involved in the
    seizure of 10 pounds of methamphetamine being shipped via Federal
    Express from California, Texas and Mexico. The methamphetamine seized
    was linked to the drug trafficking operations of the Amezcua-Contreras
    Organization. Just last month, DEA Agents, again in cooperation with
    state and local law enforcement, arrested four people and seized 25
    pounds of methamphetamine in Marietta, Georgia. This seizure--half a
    million dollars worth of methamphetamine--had been manufactured in
    Mexico and was intended for distribution in the Atlanta area.
        Marijuana Eradication.--DEA is ardently striving to halt the
    continuing spread of marijuana trafficking and distribution across the
    United States. Marijuana is the most widely used and readily available
    drug in the United States and the only drug of abuse grown within our
    borders. Today, increasing numbers of our vulnerable, school age
    children have been misled to believe that use of marijuana is not
    harmful and that it should be used for medicinal purposes. In most
    instances, the call for the use of marijuana as a form of medical
    treatment is only a thin disguise, used by those who advocate the
    legalization of marijuana and other drugs. Although, in many circles,
    marijuana use continued to be viewed benignly, research suggests that
    the drug is harmful and is a gateway to the use of cocaine, heroin, and
    other drugs.
        In 1997, DEA continued to improve upon the effectiveness of its
    marijuana eradication efforts across the country, spending $13.6
    million to support 88 state and local agencies that participated in our
    Domestic Cannabis Eradication and Suppression Program (DCE/SP). Funding
    increases in 1997 allowed these state and local agencies to enhance
    their already aggressive eradication enforcement activities and
    resulted in the eradication of 3,827,133 cultivated outdoor plants,
    221,396 indoor plants, and 136,990 pounds of processed bulk marijuana.
    In addition, this program secured 17,070 arrests, and the seizure of
    4,713 weapons, and $39,562,165 in seized assets.
        Through these efforts, we have made significant headway in curbing
    the availability of domestically grown marijuana. Operational plans
    submitted by the 88 state and local law enforcement agencies
    participating in the DCE/SP indicate that the aggressive eradication
    efforts undertaken by the states have caused the outdoor cultivators to
    move their operations indoors, abandoning their larger outdoor plots
    for the safety/concealment of smaller, limited indoor cultivating
    areas. This has made marijuana cultivation harder to detect.
        Mobile Enforcement Teams.--Addressing the Issue of Violent Crime:
    DEA's Mobile Enforcement Team (MET) program was initiated in 1995 in
    response to the growing problem of drug-related violent crime that
    plagues neighborhoods and communities throughout our nation. The MET
    program represents the most ambitious domestic enforcement program that
    we have ever undertaken to attack drug-related violence in America.
    Through January 1998, our MET program was responsible for the
    completion of 122 deployments which resulted in 5,428 arrests and the
    seizure of 871 pounds of cocaine, 269 pounds of methamphetamine, 36
    pounds of heroin, 726 pounds of marijuana, and $7.9 million in assets.
        At the request of a police chief, sheriff, or district attorney, a
    MET (comprised of eight to twelve DEA Special Agents) works in concert
    with local police to dislodge violent drug offenders from the
    community. It is DEA's goal to ensure that the state and local
    officials requesting the MET deployment feel completely comfortable in
    inviting the agency into their community. DEA does not seek credit for
    its MET deployments, but instead encourages state and local officials
    to handle all press relations and media events surrounding the
    deployments as well as to take full credit for the accomplishments of
    the MET.
        DEA's MET's are primarily investigative in nature. Their mission is
    to dismantle drug organizations by securing the conviction and
    incarceration of those individuals dealing drugs and engaging in
    violence within a community. Evidence developed in the narcotics
    investigations may also be used to prosecute the same individuals for
    related crimes including murder, assault and/or other acts of violence.
        It is important to recognize that the MET Program was designed to
    target violent drug trafficking organizations (as identified by the
    requesting agency) which contribute significantly to increases in the
    level of violence in a particular community. The two factors which
    provide the highest measure of effectiveness by a MET deployment
    include: (a) whether the MET successfully dismantled the targeted
    organization identified in the initial assessment, and (b) whether the
    requesting agency and the community are pleased with the enforcement
    effort and/or assistance provided by the MET.
        The positive or negative outcome of these two primary factors are
    clearly outlined in the post-deployment reviews which are required six
    months after the completion of each MET deployment. These two factors,
    along with arrest and seizure statistics which document the number of
    violent drug traffickers removed from the streets, and pre and post-
    deployment area crime statistics, provide the most accurate measurement
    of the effectiveness of a MET deployment that can be obtained.
        Over time, our MET deployments have resulted in significant
    decreases in crime rates in targeted communities across the country.
    For example, following our MET deployment to El Cajon, California and
    subsequent arrest of members of the ``Orphans'' street gang, there was
    a 66 percent reduction in overall reported area crime and an 87 percent
    reduction in reported violent crime. Following our MET deployment to
    Pinal County, Arizona and the dismantlement of the area's ``Bloods''
    and ``Crips'' street gangs, calls for police service in the targeted
    areas dropped 60 percent and overall crime dropped a remarkable 43
    percent in the six months following the deployment.
        Other recent examples of successful MET deployments include:
    Louisville, Kentucky (July 1997-September 1997)
        This MET deployment was requested in response to a significant
    increase in narcotics trafficking and related violence occurring in the
    City of Louisville and surrounding communities, spurred by the
    operations of a large scale cocaine trafficking organization operating
    in the region. In April 1996, the violence associated with the
    operations of this trafficking group culminated with the murder of a
    DEA cooperating source. Immediately following the completion of DEA's
    MET deployment to Louisville, news reports indicated a nine to ten
    percent drop in area crime rates compared to the same period in 1996.
    In the particular section of the city where the MET concentrated its
    efforts, cocaine seizures increased by 40 percent, marijuana seizures
    increased by 60 percent and felony crimes were reported to have
    decreased by 21 percent.
    National City, California (October 1996-September 1997)
        This MET deployment was requested to assist National City in its
    efforts to address increasing violent criminal activity associated with
    members of the Old Town National City Gang (OTNC). The primary drugs
    distributed in the National City area include methamphetamine and
    heroin. At the conclusion of the deployment, 41 individuals were
    arrested, including 14 OTNC targeted members and associates. The
    deployment effectively dismantled the notorious OTNC gang and revealed
    a connection between the OTNC and Mexican trafficking organizations. As
    a result of the overwhelming success of this deployment, the Mayor of
    National City, California officially proclaimed October 7, 1997, as
    ``DEA MET Day.''
    Terrell, Texas (May 1997-November 1997)
        DEA's Dallas MET was requested to assist local law enforcement in
    Terrell in their efforts to address an epidemic of drug-related
    violence generated by three major crack cocaine distribution
    organizations operating in the area. These included the Keith Jackson
    Organization, the Robert Holliness/Maceo Haslip Organization, and
    Rebecca and Steward Womack group. The MET deployment resulted in
    federal and state charges being brought against 105 defendants for
    conspiracy and distribution of crack cocaine. This roughly one percent
    of the total population of the city of Terrell. With the exception of
    two remaining fugitives, all of the primary MET targets were arrested
    and each of the three trafficking organizations were effectively
    dismantled. The residents of Terrell and their City Council were
    extremely pleased with the effectiveness of the operation and expressed
    their gratitude to DEA officials.
        By combining the efforts of federal, state, and local law
    enforcement agencies, the MET initiative is making a difference in
    neighborhoods throughout the United States by restoring a sense of
    peace and order to communities formerly plagued by drug trafficking and
    its attendant violence. Today, we have a total of 23 MET's, established
    in 19 of our 20 domestic field divisions, with the exception of our
    newly established Caribbean Division. Of our 19 field divisions, four
    divisions have two MET's each, including Los Angeles, Miami, New
    Orleans, and Houston.
                     dea's fiscal year 1999 budget request
        In fiscal year 1999, we are requesting a total of 7,917 positions
    (3,692 Special Agents) and $1.26 billion. This request represents an
    increase of 508 positions (257 Special Agents) and $63.9 million over
    our fiscal year 1999 base budget. Program enhancements for fiscal year
    1999 are contained within two strategic funding initiatives:
    Initiative I--Attack International Organized Crime through the
            Expansion of DEA's Overseas Presence
        Within our first strategic initiative, we are requesting a total of
    37 positions (17 Special Agents) and $8.7 million to work with our
    foreign drug enforcement counterparts in building cases against the
    leaders of international drug trafficking networks which have a direct
    impact on the U.S. This strategy will be accomplished by opening new
    offices overseas, adding personnel to existing foreign offices, and
    where necessary, making security improvements to our overseas
    locations.
        New offices will be opened in Tashkent, Uzbekistan; Hanoi, Vietnam;
    and Trinidad-Tobago, and DEA will expand its existing presence
    throughout the Caribbean, Central America, and Asia by adding Special
    Agent and support personnel in Ponce; St. Thomas; St. Croix; Barbados;
    Curacao; Jamaica; Haiti; the Dominican Republic; and Manila,
    Phillippines. In addition, a total of five analyst positions for Mexico
    and an additional five positions and $1.1 million are requested to
    support enforcement programs coordinated in our foreign offices.
    Initiative II--Attack International Organized Crime's Domestic Drug
            Distribution Networks
        Through our second strategic initiative, we are requesting a total
    of 471 positions (240 Special Agents) and $53.1 million to fund a
    comprehensive approach to drug law enforcement within the United States
    by: (1) augmenting our resources in domestic locations affected by
    Caribbean-based drug trafficking organizations; (2) emphasizing the
    growing role of methamphetamine and heroin investigations in the U.S.;
    (3) improving federal, state and local law enforcement coordination
    across the country; and (4) providing the support infrastructure
    necessary to bolster agency enforcement operations throughout the U.S.
        A total of 70 positions (42 Special Agents) and $5.6 million are
    requested to enhance DEA domestic offices in cities that are being
    detrimentally affected by the influx of violent trafficking groups
    based in the Caribbean. DEA's implementation of the Caribbean Corridor
    Initiative coincides with its ongoing, and very successful, Southwest
    Border Strategy. It attacks the command and control functions of
    criminal organizations that import drugs across the Southwest border
    for distribution throughout the U.S. In an attempt to address the
    burgeoning flow of cocaine and heroin through the Caribbean Corridor,
    DEA's fiscal year 1998 appropriation provided the agency with 20
    Special Agent positions for its Caribbean Field Division and 40 for its
    Miami Field Division.
        DEA will direct these new resources against the Colombian cell
    managers' command and control functions and the network of Dominican
    traffickers sent to the U.S. to control the wholesale distribution of
    cocaine and heroin throughout the East Coast. Personnel enhancements
    will provide DEA with an increased ability to build prosecutable cases
    against the Colombian syndicates' leadership, while simultaneously
    allowing the agency to target their surrogates from the Dominican
    Republic and Puerto Rico who comprise the ever growing labyrinth of
    distribution networks on the East Coast.
        Funding for the Caribbean corridor will enable DEA to focus
    resources on major groups trafficking through Puerto Rico. For example,
    Alberto Orlandez-Gamboa, closely associated with the Urdinola-Grajales
    family, controls the distribution of thousands of kilograms of cocaine
    into New York and New Jersey. While safely based in Colombia, Gamboa
    controls a syndicate which conceals drug shipments in containers of
    fruits and vegetables shipped to the U.S. through Puerto Rico. In March
    1997, DEA arrested principal members of the Gamboa organization in
    Puerto Rico and seized over 600 kilograms of cocaine and $3 million in
    assets. In another investigation, this one conducted against Celeste
    Santana, DEA determined that Santana's organization controlled a
    transportation group which used a cadre of criminals at the Luis Munoz
    Marin International Airport to smuggle cocaine from Puerto Rico to New
    York.
        A total of 223 positions, including 100 Special Agents and $24.5
    million are requested to implement a comprehensive approach for
    targeting and investigating methamphetamine trafficking, production and
    abuse across the U.S. As I previously testified, the emergence of the
    Mexican syndicates and their growing domination of methamphetamine
    production and distribution has redefined the methamphetamine problem
    in the U.S. In order to attacking these syndicates as well as address
    the growth of ``mom'' and ``pop'' clandestine laboratory operations
    across the country, we are requesting 156 positions (100 Special
    Agents) and $13.7 million for the additional investigative resources
    necessary to target major methamphetamine trafficking organizations
    operating in the U.S. The primary purpose of these resources is to
    establish a sufficient level of Special Agent investigative strength to
    significantly reduce methamphetamine trafficking and production and
    ultimately, have an impact on the drug's availability on the streets of
    our communities.
        Many state and local law enforcement agencies, where emerging
    methamphetamine markets and producers exist, lack the requisite
    training and experience to investigate and dismantle clandestine
    laboratories. In fact, a survey conducted at the Methamphetamine
    Conference in February 1996 suggested that two-thirds (64 percent) of
    state and local law enforcement are having difficulties conducting
    methamphetamine investigations. Although roughly half attributed their
    problems to limited personnel, others cited financial constraints, poor
    intelligence resources, and an overall lack of knowledge of the hazards
    associated with clandestine laboratories.
        In an effort to address this problem, DEA has, to date, trained and
    certified a total of 2,016 state and local officers in clandestine
    laboratory investigative techniques. In our fiscal year 1998
    appropriation, we received a total of $4.5 million in reimbursable
    funding through the COPS Methamphetamine Program for additional
    clandestine laboratory training for state and local officers. With this
    funding, DEA anticipates training approximately 1,000 new state and
    local officers over the next two years. (Note: This funding was not
    part of DEA's direct appropriation, but was included in DOJ's COPS
    Program appropriation).
        Included in DEA's fiscal year 1999 methamphetamine program
    enhancement is a total of $392,000 to continue work to establish a
    National Clandestine Laboratory Database (NCLDB) at DEA's El Paso
    Intelligence Center. The NCLDB will give federal, state, and local drug
    law enforcement centralized intelligence on all clandestine laboratory
    seizures by collecting, storing, and processing information from
    approximately 3,000 law enforcement agencies located throughout the
    U.S. This database will provide a true national perspective on the
    clandestine laboratory problem, based on the information on laboratory
    operations received from all levels of law enforcement.
        Currently, DEA, through the Asset Forfeiture Fund (AFF), is the
    sole federal law enforcement agency funding clandestine laboratory
    cleanup projects. In fiscal year 1996, DEA was provided $2 million from
    the AFF to pay for clandestine laboratory cleanups. However, in
    response to the significant increases in clandestine laboratory
    activity, DEA obligated more than $4 million over the course of the
    year, a 100 percent increase in expenses. In fiscal year 1997, DEA
    spent $7.1 million on clan lab cleanups, as methamphetamine activity in
    the U.S. continued to gain momentum.
        In fiscal year 1998, DEA anticipates requiring approximately $9.6
    million for clandestine laboratory cleanups. During fiscal year 1998,
    we will receive a one-time $5 million reimbursement of funds from the
    COPS Methamphetamine Program for state and local clandestine laboratory
    cleanups. However, this funding must be used strictly for state and
    local clandestine laboratory cleanups; it cannot be used to offset the
    ever-increasing number of DEA case-derived clandestine laboratory
    seizures and related cleanups. DEA is therefore requesting a total of
    $4.1 million in direct program funding for fiscal year 1999 to
    supplement anticipated agency resources. This being the case, along
    with the uncertainty of AFF funding from year to year (AFF funding
    decisions are based on the total value of assets seized each year,
    which can fluctuate significantly), DEA will continue to need to
    supplement its own base program funding for clandestine laboratory
    cleanups in the years to come.
        In fiscal year 1999, DEA is also requesting 148 positions (95
    Special Agents) and $12.9 million to combat heroin trafficking,
    production, and distribution networks operating in the U.S. These
    additional positions are critical for DEA to maintain a heightened
    capability to address the growing availability of heroin in cities and
    towns, like Plano, Texas, across the country.
        An additional 28 positions (3 Special Agents) and $7 million are
    requested to improve cooperative drug law enforcement operations at the
    federal, state, and local level through enhanced coordination,
    information sharing and the minimization of duplicate efforts. This
    classified project, initiated in 1991, has been an immensely successful
    cooperative venture between DEA, the FBI, and the Department of
    Justice's Criminal Division. It must continue to expand to provide
    unique real time intelligence data to federal counter-drug efforts. A
    classified briefing properly detailing this request can be scheduled
    for appropriately cleared individuals.
        A total of 2 positions and $3.1 million is requested to establish
    an alternate backup site for DEA's Network Control Center (NCC). The
    purpose of a backup site is to prevent a worldwide ``shut down'' of
    DEA's communications due to a catastrophic event at DEA's primary NCC.
    Failure to provide an alternate site for the NCC potentially
    jeopardizes all agency-wide operations.
        Finally, as a separate program initiative, we are requesting an
    increase of $2.1 million for our Drug Diversion Control Fee Account
    (DDCFA).
        This enhancement request includes $500,000 for the purchase of
    computers, technical equipment and contract support to address our drug
    diversion case workload, as well as funding for expansion of DEA's
    Computer and Drug Forensics Programs. In addition, $1.6 million will be
    used for contract support, hardware, and software to re-engineer our
    Automated Reports and Consolidated Orders System (ARCOS) and Controlled
    Substances Act Systems (CSA).
        Again, Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank you and the committee
    for your continued support. I want to assure you that I am making every
    effort to ensure the additional resources you have given to DEA are
    applied in the most effective and efficient manner. I also want to
    assure you that the men and women of DEA are working tirelessly to
    bring to justice those responsible for the spread of heroin, cocaine,
    and methamphetamine in our country.
        As we saw with the Cali crime syndicate in 1995, effective drug law
    enforcement requires a commitment to years of painstaking
    investigation. The leaders of the powerful criminal groups who direct
    drug trafficking in our country issue their orders from the safety of
    sanctuaries in Mexico and Colombia. Without the complete cooperation
    and support of the governments in these countries, we cannot possibly
    hope to achieve the maximum benefit from the resources provided.
        Thank you for providing me with the opportunity to update you on
    the status of our drug efforts within the United States and detail
    DEA's fiscal year 1999 request for resources. I would be happy at this
    time to take any questions you may have regarding current agency
    operations or our requested program enhancements.

                          STATEMENT OF DORIS MEISSNER

        Senator Gregg. Commissioner Meissner.
        Ms. Meissner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the
    subcommittee, for the opportunity to be here today on behalf of
    the President's fiscal year 1999 budget request for INS. Let me
    start by thanking you for the support that you have given us
    over the last several years. The resources that Congress has
    generously provided to INS are producing dramatic and concrete
    results. The administration and Congress have worked together
    to make more progress in immigration in the last 5 years than
    has been made in decades.
        Through our joint efforts, we are addressing issues that
    had been ignored for years and are bringing vitality to a long-
    neglected agency. Our achievements are having a positive impact
    on communities around the country. In towns in the Nation's
    midsection, like Storm Lake, NE, where our efforts to identify
    illegal workers in meat packing plants have helped return $11-
    an-hour jobs to American workers; and along the Southwest
    border, in places like Brownsville, TX, where the reduced crime
    rate has been attributed to Operation Rio Grande, which we
    launched in August to improve the quality of life in south and
    west Texas communities.
        In San Diego, we have dramatically reduced illegal border
    crossings and pushed apprehensions to a 17-year low. In
    addition, last year, we removed 113,000 illegal aliens with
    criminal records or outstanding removal orders, 20,000 more
    than the goal that we had set. These removals ensure that
    criminal aliens are not released onto our streets or
    incarcerated further at the expense of State or local
    governments.
        We have also hired over 6,000 people in the last 2 years,
    including 1,000 Border Patrol agents each year, who were
    trained at facilities in Georgia and South Carolina. The list
    is far longer, and those examples are provided in our
    testimony. Once, we lacked the resources that we needed to do
    our job. Now, we are showing that, when given the staffing and
    the technology, combined with new strategies that we have
    developed, we can do the job. These milestones are being
    reached at a unique time in our Nation's history. Not since the
    turn of the last century has immigration offered so many
    opportunities and also posed so many challenges in the country
    and to the Federal Government.
        The reality is that the pressure of illegal activity and
    the demands created by legal crossings of our shores and
    borders have never been greater. There are more people coming
    in and out of our ports of entry to be inspected; more pressure
    from smuggling of contraband and illegal aliens by organized
    crime syndicates; more people applying for naturalization and
    other immigration benefits than at any time in history. These
    external challenges have created an enormous impact on our
    work, but we have had internal challenges to address as well.
        We have been addressing infrastructure issues, particularly
    questions of how to improve the performance of an agency that
    has two different but interdependent functions. The sheer
    growth of our agency demands that we examine how we are
    organized to carry out our mission and our responsibilities. In
    order to build on the results that we have achieved, we want to
    organize ourselves in a way which best achieves future success.
        We are working with the Department of Justice and the
    administration on a plan for structural reform that would
    significantly restructure the way business is done at INS. In
    order to draw on the best practices used by corporate and other
    governmental entities, INS has hired a management consulting
    firm, Booz-Allen & Hamilton, to assist us. Our proposal will
    soon be finalized and will be delivered later this month.
        Just as we are sparing no effort to apprehend or remove
    those who have no right to enter or remain in this country, we
    are also making every effort to serve those who have the right
    to be here, especially those who are eligible to become
    citizens. Our foremost challenge now is to improve the way that
    we provide our services to these individuals. Our Office of
    Naturalization Operations has built the foundation for an
    entirely new customer service orientation in the way that we
    handle not just citizenship but all immigration benefits.
        We are currently creating what we call application support
    centers all around the country, which are responsible solely
    for providing fingerprint and related services to our
    constituents. Ninety-two percent of our customers will be
    within 25 miles of an application support center, while others
    who are homebound or in remote areas will be served by mobile
    vans.
        Next fiscal year, we are seeking an increase of $413
    million and an additional 2,600 positions. What will we do with
    it? We will continue our efforts to make important differences
    at our borders, in the interior of our country, and at our
    offices that serve our customers. Highlights of some of those
    initiatives are as follows: for the border, we are requesting
    1,000 new Border Patrol agents to maintain the control we have
    gained in key areas and to continue deploying a significant
    number of new agents to Arizona, Texas, and New Mexico to
    further gain control there.
        We also plan to add more state-of-the-art technology and to
    construct 8 new Border Patrol facilities and undertake 10
    fencing and road projects. In order to address the fact that
    the incarcerated criminal population is outpacing INS resources
    for removing aliens from detention settings, we are planning to
    expand our staffing of the institutional hearing program at
    Bureau of Prisons release sites and at 12 of the county jails
    with the highest foreign-born populations. We also plan to add
    nine videoconferencing units at local jails throughout the
    country to enable us to more efficiently remove criminal aliens
    who might otherwise be released by local authorities.
        We are also seeking increases in our own detention
    capabilities through the construction of four projects to be
    completed in fiscal year 2000. We are requesting funding for
    over 1,000 new detention beds, including an additional 126
    juvenile beds as well as 122 new positions to support that
    space.
        In order to launch a comprehensive antismuggling
    initiative, we are requesting 124 positions, including 53
    special agents to concentrate on the staging areas in the
    interior of the country that are being used by smugglers. This
    will allow us to build on efforts like those in western
    Colorado, where we are intercepting dangerously overloaded and
    speeding vans containing aliens. To investigate a growing
    number of fraudulent immigration benefit applications, we
    request 70 positions to establish multidisciplinary fraud
    teams. To handle the complex tasks of moving legal traffic
    through and handling expedited exclusion of illegal traffic at
    the ports of entry, we are requesting 330 inspectors for the
    airports and 100 for the land ports of entry.
        To enhance efforts with other law enforcement agencies, we
    are seeking $17 million for JPATS, which is the air transport
    service with the marshals that returns deportable aliens to
    their home countries, and that will allow us to increase
    removal of criminal aliens and reduce commercial transport
    dependency; and 15 special agents for joint terrorism task
    forces to aid our Government's counterterrorism work.

                               prepared statement

        In summary, we will continue to produce results and to
    build on the progress we have made in the last several years.
    We will use the money that you provide to continue to do what
    you and what the American people expect of us; that is, to
    protect our Nation's tradition of being both a nation of
    immigrants and a nation of laws.
        Thank you very much.
        Senator Gregg. Thank you, Commissioner.
        [The statement follows:]
                      Prepared Statement of Doris Meissner
                                  introduction
        Thank you Mr. Chairman, and Members of the Subcommittee, for the
    opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the President's
    fiscal year 1999 budget request for the Immigration and Naturalization
    Service (INS). Mr. Chairman, I appreciate your efforts and those of the
    other Members of the Subcommittee to provide continued support and
    increased resources to INS to strengthen and enforce our Nation's
    immigration laws.
        Mr. Chairman, I have now been with INS for more than four years. It
    has been five years of constant change and unprecedented growth at INS.
    To paraphrase a recent article in Newsday (2/3/98), at times my
    experience here has been similar to managing in a storm. Since 1993, we
    at INS have been operating in a changing policy and statutory
    environment which includes significantly increased duties under new
    legislation, substantial staff and budget enhancements, and increased
    public demand for services. The new global economy is matched by global
    movements of people that are resulting in greater demands on the
    agency. Last year, 320 million people visited our country legally,
    compared to only 197 million ten years ago. We made 500 million
    inspections at our ports-of-entry last year, and turned back over half
    a million people at the ports-of-entry. In addition, INS formally or
    informally removed another 1.5 million who were not eligible to enter
    this country.
        The agency's mission is a complex one, with many challenges and new
    demands facing us. Yet, we have made and will continue to make
    significant improvements to our enforcement of immigration law as well
    as to our ability to deliver services to eligible immigrants.
        Mr. Chairman, the fiscal year 1999 budget I present to you today
    continues to build on our efforts to strengthen our borders, increase
    our enforcement efforts in the American workplace, remove record
    numbers of criminal and other deportable illegal aliens from America's
    streets and prisons, focus on customer service by processing
    applications for citizenship and legal entry into our country
    expeditiously, fairly, and with integrity, and enhance the
    professionalism of our workforce.
        Before I begin discussing the fiscal year 1999 budget request, I
    would like to take a moment to tell you about the notable achievements
    we have made.
                               border enforcement
        First, I would like to thank the Members of the Subcommittee for
    working with the Attorney General and me to develop a deployment plan
    for the personnel enhancements needed to support the Administration's
    Immigration Strategy, and particularly for allowing us to continue to
    deploy new agents to Texas and New Mexico in support of our recent
    operations.
        In 1994, the Attorney General and I announced a comprehensive
    border enforcement strategy, which balances enforcement efforts with
    improved facilitation of legal traffic. We continue to focus resources
    on critical operational areas of the southern border, in support of
    this strategy. We exceeded our fiscal year 1997 goal of 6,859 Border
    Patrol agents on-board by the end of the fiscal year, adding more than
    1,000 new agents over the course of the year. As of February 14, we had
    7,165 Border Patrol agents on-board. Since fiscal year 1993, we have
    almost doubled the number of Border Patrol agents. By the end of fiscal
    year 1998, we will have a total of 7,859 agents on-board (not including
    pilots). Border Patrol agent growth along the Southwest border will
    have increased by 71 percent over the same time period.
        New Border Patrol agent classes are scheduled throughout the year
    and we have developed a comprehensive growth management plan to meet
    the fiscal year 1998 goal. As part of the plan, we have also
    strengthened recruitment efforts through more focused outreach
    activities. We have also taken measures to help ensure that we are
    producing the best qualified agents to supervise the new officers. A
    newly designed competency-based promotional assessment system is now in
    place for all Border Patrol agents seeking promotions to supervisory
    and managerial positions at the GS-11 through GS-15 grade levels.
        In addition to providing the needed personnel enhancements for an
    effective border enforcement strategy, this Administration has
    outfitted agents with the equipment and technology necessary to perform
    their jobs more efficiently and safely. Focusing additional resources
    on new Border Patrol personnel and equipment has yielded significant
    results. Apprehensions have dropped dramatically in targeted areas.
    Operations such as ``Hold the Line'' and ``Gatekeeper'' have
    significantly diminished illegal immigration and alien smuggling in El
    Paso and San Diego. For example, in San Diego, historically the most
    heavily crossed area of the border, apprehensions are at a 17-year low.
    Another sign of our success is the shift of undocumented alien movement
    and organized migrant trafficking over the U.S. Border from traditional
    crossing points to areas that are more difficult for illegal migrant
    crossings.
        While our border management efforts from 1993 to 1995 focused on El
    Paso, San Diego and Arizona, beginning in 1997 we expanded our focus to
    South Texas and New Mexico. ``Operation Rio Grande,'' launched in
    August 1997 in Brownsville, Texas, is a special multi-year operation
    designed to gain and maintain control of targeted border areas through
    a combination of new technology and additional manpower. An important
    feature of ``Operation Rio Grande'' is the integration of a broad range
    of INS enforcement operations. Border Patrol agents, Inspectors at
    ports-of-entry, Investigators, Intelligence analysts, and Detention and
    Deportation Officers are all contributing to the operation. As part of
    the operation, in August 1997, 69 Border Patrol agents were detailed to
    Brownsville to step-up enforcement efforts. In September, we began
    deploying special response teams to ports-of-entry where we expect
    increased numbers of fraudulent entry documents. We anticipate
    significantly lowered apprehension and local crime rates as a result of
    the operation.
        One of the main goals of our border enforcement strategy is to
    improve the safety of American communities along the Southwest border.
    In the areas where we have launched major enforcement operations, we
    have heard from citizens about the improvements in their communities.
    We have seen a drop in crime rates in some of the areas. According to
    Assistant Chief David Bejarano of the San Diego Police Department,
    ``Operation Gatekeeper continues to be a major factor in reducing
    border area crime. There has been such a significant decrease in border
    crime that we have deployed some of our border area officers to other
    areas of concern. Before Gatekeeper, we had to maintain a continuous
    presence in the border area to deal with the excessive levels of crime
    and violence. It is without question the quietest and safest the border
    has ever been in this area.'' San Diego District Attorney Paul Pfingst
    echoed this sentiment in a September 1997 article in the San Diego
    Union-Tribune: ``The closer you get to the border, the more property
    crimes have dropped. That tells us that border enforcement is reducing
    crime.''
        Our progress along the border is also evident at the San Ysidro
    Port-of-Entry, which is one of the world's largest and busiest ports.
    Several years ago, commuters were forced to wait over two hours to
    cross the border into San Diego. Today, the average wait has been
    reduced to no more than 20 minutes. The Inspections staffs are working
    on incorporating the best practices from San Ysidro into other ports-
    of-entry. In fiscal year 1998, 281 additional Immigration Inspectors
    will be deployed to air ports-of-entry. The increased number of
    Inspectors will facilitate the travel of passengers and provide major
    improvements in meeting the processing time requirements at our
    international airports.
        These accomplishments could not have been made without the
    continued support of the Subcommittee.
                           removal of illegal aliens
        The removal of criminal and other deportable aliens is one of the
    key components of INS' comprehensive strategy to prevent and deter
    illegal immigration. During fiscal year 1997, INS removed more than
    113,000 criminal and other illegal aliens, an increase of more than
    44,000 over last year's record and 20,000 over its target of 93,000
    removals. Our target for fiscal year 1998 is a record 127,300 removals.
    We are well on our way to reaching this goal--according to our most
    current data, removals for first quarter of fiscal year 1998 totaled
    over 34,000; over 12,000 were criminal removals.
        Criminal alien removals totaled about 51,000 for fiscal year 1997,
    36 percent above the previous year. Of the criminal aliens removed, 61
    percent had convictions for crimes considered aggravated felonies under
    immigration law. Drug convictions accounted for 52 percent of the
    criminal alien removals.
        Removals of other deportable aliens reached almost 63,000 for last
    fiscal year, up 95 percent from fiscal year 1996. The expedited removal
    process, established by the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant
    Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA), contributed to this increase,
    producing about 23,000 mostly non-criminal removals in its first six
    months of implementation.
        In addition to the number of aliens formally removed, INS also
    removed almost 80,000 aliens without formal proceedings in fiscal year
    1997. This category includes several methods of removal, but most are
    aliens who elect to waive any hearing before an immigration judge and
    voluntarily return to their home countries. When combined with the
    formal removals, INS identified, apprehended and removed almost 193,000
    aliens in fiscal year 1997. This figure does not include an estimated
    1.3 million aliens apprehended and returned at the border.
        The INS removed a total of 14,851 criminal aliens through the
    Institutional Hearing Program (IHP), which involves identifying and
    processing deportable inmates prior to their release from Federal,
    State and Local institutions. Removals through the IHP program in
    fiscal year 1997 were 44 percent above fiscal year 1996 levels. During
    fiscal year 1997, four new sites were added to the Federal IHP,
    bringing the total number of sites to ten.
        The INS' ability to detain aliens is directly linked to our ability
    to remove them from the United States. In fiscal year 1997, INS was
    allocated funding for an additional 2,700 beds, bringing total
    detention capacity to 12,050. As of September 30, the number of aliens
    occupying available beds was 13,491. Criminal aliens occupied about 59
    percent of available detention beds through fiscal year 1997.
                     automation and technology improvements
        Many of our initiatives would not be successful without concurrent
    technology improvements. One example is IDENT, our fingerprint
    identification system. In fiscal year 1997, we met 105 percent of our
    IDENT deployment goal. IDENT allows agents to identify criminal aliens
    and repeat crossers who were apprehended previously. We performed ten
    IDENT upgrades and deployed the system at 114 new sites, primarily in
    the southern border states of California, Arizona, New Mexico, Texas
    and Florida. IDENT has been installed at all major sites along the
    Southwest border and provides agents with a significant tool in
    securing our Nation's borders. IDENT deployment will continue in fiscal
    year 1998 at smaller sites as well as new sites along the Southwest
    border.
        The INS also expanded the Datashare initiative with the Department
    of State (DOS). The increase in the exchange of data between DOS and
    INS has streamlined the Inspections and Immigration Adjudication
    process. A pilot program for Immigrant Visa automation and sharing of
    information is now in place at 15 consular posts and 16 ports-of-entry.
    About 53 percent of all Immigrant Visas issued have data transmitted
    through the Datashare initiative. We are currently working on the Non-
    Immigrant Visa phase of the Datashare program and plan to have a pilot
    running before the end of fiscal year 1998.
        Progress was also made in fiscal year 1997 on the implementation of
    a new Border Crossing Card (BCC), mandated by Section 104 of IIRIRA. To
    implement this provision, as of April 1, 1998, adjudication
    responsibility for the BCC will shift to the Department of State (DOS),
    and INS will be responsible for production of the card. There are three
    BCC production machines that will be operational in May 1998. Two
    additional machines will be operational in September 1998. These five
    machines will enable INS to produce the total estimated number of BCC
    cards, as well as other INS cards.
        As part of the mandate in Section 110 of IIRIRA to develop ways to
    automatically gather entry and exit information at all ports-of-entry
    in the United States, during fiscal year 1997, INS began testing an
    automated arrival and departure Form I-94 in the airport environment.
    Upon arrival in the United States, a traveler presents the new machine-
    readable form to an Immigration Inspector who records the arrival
    information. The Inspector then provides the traveler with a machine-
    readable departure card which the traveler returns when he leaves the
    United States. The automated I-94 is being piloted in cooperation with
    US Airways.
        The INS members of the Secure Electronic Network for Travelers
    Rapid Inspection (SENTRI) Team successfully deployed a Dedicated
    Commuter Lane as promised by the Attorney General in June 1995. This
    DCL, also known as a Pre-enrolled Access Lane (PAL) allows frequent,
    low-risk commuters who enroll in the program, to bypass the regular
    checkpoint procedures. This DCL lays the groundwork for a high-speed
    lane scheduled to be completed at the San Clemente checkpoint in 1998.
    The new effort will be based on the successful program already in place
    at Otay Mesa, California. In addition, the SENTRI Team has continued
    its efforts to deploy the secure, automated DCL to 5 additional sites
    along the southwest border, submitting a site survey report to Congress
    as part of the 1997 first quarter report on DCL's. Efforts to bring
    this technology to the northern border were also initiated in 1997.
        INS also developed an INTERNET Web site for the public, and
    implemented it on August 12, 1996. To date, the INS site is serving
    over 176,000 users per month and is currently averaging about 5,700
    visits a day. INS is serving customers from 86 different countries and
    over 200 cities representing all 50 States.
        On January 7, 1997, INS implemented a special Web page for
    Naturalization information. The page allows the user to look at
    naturalization eligibility requirements, get forms, and even take an
    online self-test of U.S. history and government. The new site has been
    successful even in the short time it has been operational. To date,
    33,618 users have accessed the site and 4,295 have taken the self-test.
        In fiscal year 1997, we also continued work on improving standard
    office automation infrastructure and educating INS users about new
    automation. The INS trained 13,300 people in the agency on basic
    automation so that they can effectively use the new equipment. For the
    sixth year in a row, INS has received the Federal Technology Leadership
    Award for our work on automation.
                              interior enforcement
        Interior enforcement is a necessary companion to border control as
    part of the Administration's immigration strategy. With the progress of
    our border enforcement strategy in regaining control along the border
    and deterring illegal immigration, we have seen increases in alien
    smuggling. As the border is becoming more difficult to cross illegally,
    there is an increase in the demand for fraudulent documents. Aliens are
    now showing up in the work forces of industries that previously were
    not part of the illegal labor stream, and we are broadening our efforts
    to deal with these changes.
        Our accomplishments demonstrate our commitment to interior
    enforcement. In fiscal year 1997, INS reached the largest worksite
    settlement ever against a Texas restaurant chain, which agreed to pay a
    $1.75 million fine for knowingly hiring and employing illegal aliens.
    We exceeded our goals in completions of worksite enforcement criminal
    cases by 29 percent and completions of administrative cases by 25
    percent. We completed over 5,000 lead-driven administrative cases in
    fiscal year 1997, exceeding fiscal year 1996 case completions by 46
    percent. Criminal cases presented to the U.S. Attorneys Offices
    increased by 80 percent from fiscal year 1996, to a total of 146 in
    fiscal year 1997.
        Fines levied against employers for substantive violations--hiring
    violations as opposed to paperwork violations--increased to 60 percent
    of total fines in fiscal year 1997, an increase of 39 percent over
    fiscal year 1996. Worksite enforcement cases completed against
    industries with a known history of noncompliance with the provisions of
    employer sanctions represented 56 percent of all cases. We also
    exceeded our goal for worksite apprehensions by 8 percent, apprehending
    19,040 unauthorized workers in fiscal year 1997. In addition, in fiscal
    year 1997, the INS entered into agreements with three states to share
    information from worksite enforcement operations to promote state-run
    replacement worker programs that foster the hiring of legal workers.
        In fiscal year 1997, INS also began three new pilot programs, two
    of which are joint efforts with the Social Security Administration, to
    test systems designed to quickly and accurately verify whether new
    employees are eligible to work in the United States. The INS began
    seeking employers to participate in the programs in September 1997.
        Significant progress has also been made in worksite enforcement
    thus far in fiscal year 1998. During the first quarter of fiscal year
    1998, we completed 1,011 lead-driven administrative cases. Ten criminal
    cases have been presented to the U.S. Attorneys and 132 fines were
    levied against employers.
             antismuggling, antiterrorism, and overseas deterrence
        In fiscal year 1997, INS successfully completed the investigation
    of 32,251 criminal alien cases, a 44 percent increase over fiscal year
    1996. Successfully completed cases are defined as those in which a
    subject was prosecuted, or removed, or a benefit was denied based on
    the outcome of the investigation. Criminal alien cases include large
    scale organizations involved in ongoing criminal activity or individual
    aliens involved in drug smuggling or terrorism.
        We achieved impressive results in connection with major smuggling
    cases. Examples of our success include a multi-regional/international
    investigation that resulted in the dismantling of an alien smuggling
    and exploitation ring in New York City involving deaf Mexicans. In
    addition, INS, for the first time, linked an anti-smuggling
    investigation in Arizona to a worksite enforcement investigation in
    Georgia, which resulted in the indictment of five people involved in a
    smuggling operation that provided undocumented workers to employers.
    The INS also participated in the first joint INS/FBI task force
    investigating alien smuggling.
        In an effort to deter global migrant trafficking, INS opened
    thirteen new overseas offices and assigned 45 additional officers as
    part of the initiative ``Operation Global Reach,'' which began in
    fiscal year 1997. For the first time, INS has established a permanent
    presence of criminal investigators and intelligence analysts overseas
    to work on deterring migrant trafficking in source and transit
    countries. Our overseas offices, working closely with host governments,
    were instrumental in crafting legislation criminalizing migrant
    trafficking in several Latin American and Carribean countries.
        cooperation with state and local law enforcement and communities
        The INS focused in fiscal year 1997 on improving community
    relations. A community relations officer (CRO) position was created to
    help identify and resolve immigration-related community issues and
    concerns and to educate the public on new immigration laws and
    regulations. By the end of fiscal year 1997, seven officers were on-
    board in key INS district and sector offices and another three CRO
    positions will be filled in fiscal year 1998. The CRO's dealt with a
    variety of issues, from responding to the public's need for information
    on IIRIRA implementation and the effects of welfare reform to
    responding to citizen reports of alien trafficking patterns and
    requests for information. CRO's implemented a major community relations
    operation in coordination with ``Operation Rio Grande'' along the
    Southwest border. In Illinois, the CRO helped resolve immigration-
    related conflicts and expanded state and city library citizenship
    outreach projects. In New York, the CRO conducted conferences and
    public education seminars with various community groups and local
    government representatives.
        In fiscal year 1997, INS held meetings with community groups from
    California and Texas to explain the issues of concern to INS underlying
    day labor site problems, and as a result, a grant was awarded by the
    Bureau of Justice Assistance to the Los Angeles County Commission on
    Human Relations to conduct a ``day labor project.'' The Commission's
    study will identify models of different day labor sites where community
    organizations and local law enforcement have effectively addressed
    issues of public safety surrounding the sites. The resulting document
    will provide information to cities and communities on ways to organize
    the sites, which should reduce the demand for INS presence.
        The INS also consulted with State and local law enforcement
    officers in Utah and Florida on the designation of immigration
    enforcement functions. A draft memorandum of understanding resulted
    from the consultations in Salt Lake City and is currently being
    reviewed by the Department of Justice.
        The Law Enforcement Support Center (LESC) was expanded during
    fiscal year 1997. The LESC, which is located in Burlington, Vermont,
    was started in fiscal year 1995. Since the LESC's inception, it has
    received and processed 94,800 status inquiries from law enforcement
    agencies in three states. The LESC currently responds to approximately
    7,500 queries a month. The following locations currently have access to
    the LESC: Arizona; Iowa; Nebraska; Utah; Vermont; Puerto Rico; San
    Diego County; and Florida.
                                   integrity
        Mr. Chairman, I realize that the Subcommittee has expressed
    concerns about several areas of INS' operations. I believe that we have
    made great strides in addressing the problem areas and working to
    ensure the integrity of our efforts.
    Naturalization Improvements
        The best example of our efforts to make significant improvement is
    our work on naturalization. The naturalization program has been our
    overriding concern for the past year. Addressing weaknesses in the
    naturalization program is contributing to most of the change currently
    underway at INS. In naturalization, we face one of our biggest
    challenges, ensuring public confidence and trust.
        In the time since I appeared before you last year, I have created
    the Executive Office of Naturalization Operations (EONO) to reengineer
    the naturalization process. Under EONO, INS has implemented strict
    quality assurance procedures to improve processing, prevent mistakes,
    and increase accountability. As you may know, INS has just finished its
    review of the cases of individuals naturalized from August 1995 through
    September 1996. The naturalization review was comprised of three
    separate studies conducted by INS and supervised and validated by KPMG
    Peat Marwick, an independent auditing and consulting firm.
        In the ``Criminal History Case Review,'' which looked at all cases
    where an applicant had a criminal history record with the Federal
    Bureau of Investigation, INS found 369 cases that were naturalized
    despite having been convicted of a felony or a crime of moral
    turpitude, and another 5,954 cases that failed to support
    naturalization. Most of the 5,494 cases are those where the applicant
    did not give accurate information about a criminal arrest, even though
    the arrest itself may not have disqualified the applicant from being
    naturalized. All of these cases are currently under review by the INS
    Office of General Counsel for possible revocation of citizenship.
    During the first quarter of fiscal year 1998, the Office of the General
    Counsel has reviewed a total of 2,158 cases, 1,481 of which may be
    appropriate for revocation.
        The ``Random Sample Review'' found that during the period before
    the implementation of quality assurance procedures, there was a high
    error rate in processing naturalization applications due to a lack of
    uniform processing standards and weak enforcement of the standards that
    did exist. We have taken the necessary steps to address these problems.
    KPMG reported in December that INS had made ``significant improvements
    in the internal controls of the naturalization process and greatly
    reduced the risk of incorrectly naturalizing an applicant.''
        During its first ten months at INS, the newly-created Executive
    Office of Naturalization Operations has achieved several significant
    accomplishments. The primary focus has been on creating an
    organizational structure and acquiring the personnel needed to
    restructure the naturalization process. As of February 24, 1998, INS
    had established 23 of 75 planned free standing Application Support
    Centers (ASC's) and 51 ASC's collocated with existing INS offices. All
    of these ASC's are currently open and taking fingerprints, in
    accordance with the Fiscal Year 1998 Appropriations Act, that required
    all fingerprints for INS benefits to be taken by INS or other law
    enforcement agencies. By mid-March, all 75 free standing ASC's will be
    open. For those who cannot reach the fingerprint sites, a fleet of 45
    vans will serve as mobile fingerprint centers or they will be directed
    to designated law enforcement agencies (DLEA's) operating under sole
    source contract agreements with the INS. All DLEA's will use INS
    fingerprint equipment and receive INS customer service training.
        We have also made significant progress with the Direct Mail
    program. Through the program, certain applications and petitions for
    benefits are mailed directly to an INS service center for initial
    processing, rather than to local INS district offices or suboffices. By
    using Direct Mail, INS standardizes processing, reduces processing
    times, and improves the quality of status information on cases provided
    to the public. Currently, more than half of the INS offices have
    transitioned to Direct Mail for all new naturalization applications. By
    April 15, 1998, all district office and sub-offices will be part of
    Direct Mail.
        We are also working closely with the consulting firm of Coopers &
    Lybrand L.L.P., which was contracted to assist us in reengineering the
    naturalization program. Coopers & Lybrand recently provided us with
    their proposed ``blueprint'' for the new naturalization process, which
    addresses issues such as changing testing procedures, establishing a
    telephone information and service center dedicated solely to
    naturalization issues, as well as other structural and procedural
    changes. We are moving forward to implement the plan. We are also
    developing backlog reduction plans for all of the naturalization
    offices. The steps being taken will dramatically improve the
    naturalization system, and help restore public confidence in the
    citizenship process.
    INSpect
        Another example of our commitment to addressing problem areas and
    ensuring integrity is the INS Program for Excellence and Comprehensive
    Tracking (INSpect). The program is a top to bottom review process that
    focuses on assessing office effectiveness; determining compliance with
    applicable laws, regulations, and procedures; measuring performance
    against established standards; and providing a means to share local
    successes and solutions applicable to service-wide problems. The
    program now consists of a corps of almost 800 subject matter experts
    who serve on INSpect teams on a rotating basis. During 1997, INSpect
    reviewed 8 INS offices which account for 23 percent of INS' field
    employees, issued 3 draft INSpect reports and one final report. The
    reports presented a total of 227 recommendations for corrections and
    improvements and 13 best practices or local successes with INS-wide
    applicability.
        INSpect also did a great deal of work with naturalization
    operations. The teams reviewed operations at all nine Service
    Processing Centers and worked with field offices in preparation for the
    KPMG audit, assessing agency-wide compliance with the Naturalization
    Quality Procedures. Other subjects INSpect teams have addressed include
    detention and deportation management and issues concerning temporary
    holding areas and transportation in Western Region.
    Restructuring
        The various proposals to restructure or dismantle the INS have also
    received considerable attention. As you may know, the President has
    committed to review these proposals. The development of a restructuring
    plan is being coordinated by the White House Domestic Policy Council
    staff. The Congress has set a deadline of April 1 for the
    Administration to provide a proposal to how to best restructure,
    organize and manage immigration responsibilities.
        I firmly believe that while INS' mission is complex, it is strongly
    interconnected. The Administration supports the view that enforcement
    and benefits are interrelated and that one should not be addressed
    without the other in mind. We have already taken steps to streamline
    the administrative infrastructure, deliver better services and improve
    enforcement capabilities. With this in mind, the Department of Justice
    has contracted with Booz-Allen & Hamilton, an independent consulting
    firm, to provide advice to INS on how to achieve an implementation
    strategy that is focused on functional, programmatic operations and
    greater separation between enforcement and service functions. Booz-
    Allen has reviewed restructuring options, consulted with other
    Government agencies that have enforcement and service functions, and
    will provide information to the Administration on the development of a
    restructuring strategy in time to meet the April 1 deadline. I am
    confident that we will develop a viable organizational structure that
    will enable us to succeed in our service and enforcement missions.
        As we examine issues of structure and reorganization, we will also
    have to look at other issues such as our pay compensation system and
    our management career development. There are currently a number of
    contradictions that exist in overtime and retirement compensation in
    various occupations.
                            fiscal year 1999 budget
        Now I will turn to the fiscal year 1999 budget and initiatives
    included in our request. For fiscal year 1999, we are seeking a total
    budget of $4.2 billion and 31,499 positions for INS to further
    strengthen the Administration's comprehensive immigration strategy. The
    fiscal year 1999 budget represents a $390 million increase in funding
    over the anticipated fiscal year 1998 spending level, and adds a total
    of over 2,600 positions.
        The INS budget for fiscal year 1999 continues to support the
    immigration goals and strategies that the Administration and the
    Service have pursued so effectively over the past several years. In
    addition, it incorporates information on performance measurements that
    will lead to better accountability regarding actual results achieved.
    The thrust of INS' fiscal year 1999 budget is to further extend the
    ongoing initiatives aimed at controlling our international borders--
    encouraging and accommodating lawful commerce while simultaneously
    discouraging and preventing the unlawful entry of illegal border-
    crossers and dangerous drugs. The INS intends to build on its
    successful multi-year strategy to effectively regulate the border, both
    at and between the ports-of-entry, deter and correct illegal employment
    in the interior of the United States, combat and punish the smuggling
    of people and narcotics, as well as other immigration-related crime,
    and remove quickly ever greater numbers of alien criminals and other
    deportable persons. Concentration on the border areas and on the
    buildup of the agent workforce will not be allowed to overshadow the
    need to link border control with the requirement to enforce the
    immigration laws at interior locations. To that end, specific funding
    is requested for interior enforcement initiatives.
        In addition to the expansion of INS' more visible enforcement
    functions, additional funding requested will strengthen the removal
    process, enhance interior investigative and enforcement functions,
    improve benefits processing for legal immigrants and prospective new
    citizens, and ensure that our employees and customers are provided
    adequate facilities supported by the most comprehensive and modern
    technology available. It is also necessary to ensure that the physical
    workplace of INS employees, both agent and support staff, keeps pace
    with the impressive growth of the agency's workforce. Also included in
    this budget are requests for the personnel and other resources
    necessary to efficiently and fairly enforce our immigration laws, as
    well as implementing the broad legislative mandates that Congress
    enacted in 1996. The intent of the INS fiscal year 1999 budget is to
    provide the INS with the personnel and tools essential to perform its
    vital purpose in the safest and most effective manner possible.
    Refine border management strategy
        The fiscal year 1999 budget includes $225 million and 1,726 new
    positions which will sustain facilitation of entry and control at
    ports-of-entry, and continue the INS' National Border Control Strategy
    of ``Prevention Through Deterrence.'' These funds will maintain the
    aggressive hiring and training efforts begun in fiscal year 1996 and
    continued in fiscal year 1997 and fiscal year 1998, once again bringing
    on-board a significant increase in the growing force of Border Patrol
    agents and other immigration officers.
        The request for new Border Patrol agents and Inspectors is
    complemented by requested increases in force-multiplying technological
    capabilities, which will enable INS to consolidate and expand upon the
    achievements of the past several years. The goal of the fiscal year
    1999 budget is to continue the expansion of our efforts to control the
    nation's borders and facilitate lawful commerce while deterring and
    denying the illegal movement of people and drugs.
        A total of 1,140 positions and $103 million is requested for the
    Border Patrol. These resources will provide an additional 1,000 Border
    Patrol Agents to join those already patrolling the Southwest border in
    California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas. The deployment of these new
    agents will confirm the Government's enduring commitment to the
    National Border Control Strategy. At this point, the Border Patrol has
    proven that it can control these border areas, and has achieved
    dramatic results in areas like San Diego County in California and the
    urban El Paso area in Texas. Recent expansion of efforts into the Texas
    and New Mexico border will continue. At the same time, INS will not
    neglect nor abandon its successful regulation and enforcement
    operations in those border sectors now under control. While the
    majority of the new agents will be deployed to the Southwest border,
    the Border Patrol intends to deploy additional Border Patrol Agents
    along the Northern border and maritime areas of south Florida.
        The Service's Border Patrol Agents are assisted in the successful
    accomplishment of their very difficult and demanding mission by state-
    of-the-art technology. The fiscal year 1999 budget provides for one
    position and $12 million in continued funding for development and
    deployment of an integrated electronic surveillance system (ISIS) that
    will, in effect, eventually help to create an ``electronic wall'' along
    the border. The ISIS system extends the efficiency and effectiveness of
    the line-watch Border Patrol Agents, especially in the more remote and
    desolate regions, helping to deny these areas to illegal aliens and
    drug smugglers. Fiscal year 1999 plans also call for $2.6 million for
    the installation of more Forward-Looking Infrared (FLIR) systems on
    Border Patrol aircraft, which will increase their night capabilities
    and the purchase of individual infrared pocket scopes and night vision
    goggles.
        The INS requests 100 Immigration Inspectors and $7.7 million for
    air ports-of-entry to improve facilitation by continuing the processing
    of passengers through primary inspection within the 45-minute standard.
    An additional 120 Inspectors, 10 Inspections support personnel and
    $10.1 million are also requested for land and air ports-of-entry to
    support the expedited removal process. Section 302 of IIRIRA grants
    Inspectors the responsibility to remove fraudulent applicants for
    admission back to their countries of origin. Of the 130 positions
    mentioned above, a total of 100 positions will be deployed at major
    land border ports and 30 positions will be deployed to airports.
        In addition, the Service requests 217 positions and $19.5 million
    to expand the departure management initiative at three major air ports-
    of-entry. Key improvements will allow INS to deploy additional
    automated I-94 equipment to allow INS to comply with Section 110 of the
    IIRIRA for automated entry and exit control. A total of 210 Inspectors
    is requested to staff airports to monitor the arrival/departure system.
    Additional improvements to the Non-Immigrant Information System are
    also requested as part of this initiative.
        Further funding of $8.7 million is requested for automation and
    reinvention of the inspections process at land, air, and sea ports of
    entry. At the airports and seaports, INS plans to install new IBIS
    equipment at 5 terminals, deploy 100 Portable Automated Lookout Systems
    (PALS) notebooks to remote locations to allow for queries on INS'
    lookout database, install Secondary 2000 equipment at 5 airports, and
    expand the INSPASS project to two additional sites in fiscal year 1999.
    A total of 6 positions are requested to support the deployment of these
    new automation initiatives. The INS has also requested resources to
    reimburse the U.S. Customs Service for communication costs related to
    the use of IBIS.
        In conjunction with Section 302 of IIRIRA, INS is required to
    expeditiously process asylum claims of expedited removal aliens. In
    order to meet the workload demands experienced at the land border and
    airports, INS requests a total of 60 Asylum Officers, 20 support
    personnel and $8 million for asylum offices nationwide. Without
    additional staff, the Asylum program will be unable to meet the
    projected growing needs for asylum case processing in fiscal year 1999.
    The INS also requests 12 positions and $1.9 million to provide the
    mandatory detention of inadmissible aliens in the expedited removal
    process.
        In order to support the increased deployment of officers to the
    airports and seaports in fiscal year 1999, INS requests 34 positions
    and $2.3 million for legal and management support. A total of 16
    attorneys and 8 legal support will handle the anticipated litigation
    needs resulting from the implementation of the expedited removal
    process. In addition, 10 management support positions will recruit,
    hire, deploy, and service the officers and other positions requested.
        The INS requests $0.6 million in resources to provide fraudulent
    document and mala fide passenger analysis training to international
    airline carrier personnel and other overseas officials in fiscal year
    1999. Three teams of 10 officers will be detailed for 60-day operations
    for Operation Disrupt at select high volume illegal migration sites
    globally.
        In fiscal year 1999, the INS is requesting $48.6 million to support
    new Border Patrol construction requirements. This request will provide
    $36.1 million for the construction of eight Border Patrol facilities.
    An additional $5.1 million is being requested in fiscal year 1999 for
    the planning, site development, and design work required to support the
    future construction of eight new facilities and four checkpoint
    systems. The INS is also requesting $7 million for eight military (JTF-
    6) and two other fencing and road projects. To help manage the
    additional construction requirements caused by the INS' massive growth
    in the last few years, $400,000 is being requested for six facility
    program specialists.
    Implement integrated interior enforcement strategy
        The fiscal year 1999 Budget includes $115 million to support 745
    new positions to address the presence and consequences of illegal
    migration in the interior of the U.S. The evolving Interior Enforcement
    Strategy for fiscal year 1999 complements INS' Border Control Strategy
    by creating an interior ``net'' to apprehend those who have eluded INS'
    front line of deterrence by using sophisticated alien smuggling
    organizations. This strategy supports greater compliance with the
    resource intensive provisions of IIRIRA by (1) responding to changing
    migration patterns of illegal aliens and (2) effecting criminal alien
    removals. INS' detention construction projects further strengthen this
    strategy by expanding detention space needed to detain the increased
    number of criminal and non-criminal aliens subject to removal.
        The request includes 124 positions (53 of which are Special Agents)
    and $13.2 million to increase anti-smuggling investigations and
    initiate the National Intelligence Assessment. These resources will
    concentrate on secondary urban staging areas in identified corridors.
    Interior anti-smuggling enforcement teams using expanded new
    investigative authorities (e.g., asset forfeiture, Title III
    intercepts, and establishment of proprietaries and RICO prosecutions)
    will continue these efforts at identified final destinations aiding in
    the identification and prosecution of conspirators. To systematically
    collect, assess, and disseminate intelligence in support of the
    comprehensive anti-smuggling program, dedicated intelligence positions
    will begin efforts to produce the national Intelligence Assessment.
        To investigate fraudulent immigration benefit applications, INS
    requests 70 positions (including 32 Special Agents) and $7.9 million to
    establish multi-disciplinary fraud teams located in the Service Centers
    and Asylum Offices. INS is experiencing increasing numbers of
    fraudulent applications as a result of IIRIRA. For example, certain
    districts are experiencing extensive cases of marriage fraud,
    conspiracy, and citizenship testing fraud. Furthermore, INS continues
    to identify and investigate large-scale fraud schemes, some involving
    hundreds, and even thousands of suspect ``beneficiaries.'' Special
    agents deployed on site at asylum offices and Service Centers will be
    well positioned to defeat and investigate fraud.
        Forty-three positions and $6.5 million are requested to increase
    INS' ground transportation, provide escorts for deportable aliens in
    transit to and from JPATS hubsites. An additional $10.5 million is
    requested to support increased INS movement of over 46,000 illegal
    aliens by JPATS, thereby reducing the need to remove aliens by
    commercial aircraft.
        A total of 30 positions (including 4 Special Agents) and $3.2
    million are requested to expand Community-Based Enforcement Teams to
    implement Section 133 of IIRIRA, which allows the Attorney General to
    deputize State and local law enforcement to perform certain functions
    of immigration officers. Three Community-Based teams consisting of a
    Special Agent and State and local law enforcement officers would be
    deployed to States with the highest illegal resident populations which
    request assistance from INS. This will allow INS to work closely with
    local law enforcement officials to address mutual problems associated
    with illegal immigration.
        Sixteen positions (including 15 Special Agents) and $3.1 million
    are requested to augment participation in the Joint Terrorism Task
    Forces (JTTF). The Alien Terrorist Removal Court, created in 1996, will
    increase the workload associated with the JTTF by requiring, among
    other things, the preparation of background reports on the proposed
    candidates and arrest of the alien terrorists. This initiative requires
    full-time dedicated Agents to correctly handle these classified removal
    cases having national security implications.
        A total of 294 positions and $31 million are requested for the
    Institutional Removal Program (IRP) to identify criminal aliens
    pursuant to IIRIRA provisions. These resources will support critically
    needed detention and deportation and investigations staff; detention
    space; alien transportation and welfare costs; and vehicles. The growth
    of the incarcerated criminal alien population is outpacing INS
    resources dedicated to removing aliens from institutional settings.
    INS' strategy includes expanding previously enhanced IHP States;
    increasing staffing at Bureau of Prison release sites; increasing staff
    at the existing 12 county jails with the highest foreign-born
    populations; directing resources at choke points to avoid backlogs at
    State prisons, and decreasing instances where intake sites cannot hold
    criminal aliens long enough for INS to get there with current
    resources. This request will also fund additional space at the Federal
    Correctional Complex at Allenwood and provide 9 additional Video
    teleconferencing sites.
        Forty-six positions and $4.5 million are requested to locate,
    detain, and remove those aliens with final orders who are not in INS
    custody. Section 305(a) of IIRIRA requires the detention of every alien
    who becomes the subject of a final removal order. INS must be prepared
    to locate and assume custody of aliens who receive final orders of
    removal. INS will use a number of approaches such as the use of
    absconder recovery and removal teams to ensure expeditious detention
    and removal of aliens with final orders.
        The Service is also requesting $22.5 million and 122 positions in
    fiscal year 1999 to support its growing need for detention space. The
    request for fiscal year 1999 includes: $9.4 million for 90 additional
    positions, vehicles, and start-up costs to support the activation of
    500 additional beds at the Port Isabel SPC; $9.4 million and 32
    positions to support an additional 126 juvenile beds, which will
    provide the INS with an average of 500 juvenile beds in fiscal year
    1999; and $3.7 million for the reimbursement to the Public Health
    Service (PHS) for 24-hour health care coverage at detention facilities
    given the growing number of INS detainees.
        In addition, for various detention construction projects, the
    Service is requesting $12.6 million to replace old, antiquated dorms
    and buildings that have not been adequately upgraded, add detention
    space to detain criminal and non-criminal aliens subject to removal,
    and approach congressionally mandated requirements to increase the
    number of illegal aliens detained under the Illegal Immigration Reform
    and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 Act (IIRIRA). It is projected
    that the Service's average daily population will increase from 8,592 in
    fiscal year 1996 to 23,863 in fiscal year 2001. Included in this
    request is $10.7 million for the construction of four detention
    projects to be completed in fiscal year 2000. An additional $1.9
    million is being requested for the planning, site development, and
    design work required to support four new detention projects scheduled
    for future construction.
    Improve institutional infrastructure
        The fiscal year 1999 INS budget includes $48.7 million and 54
    positions to support the INS' infrastructure requirements. The INS'
    rapid growth in personnel over the past six years continues to have a
    direct impact upon the agency's ability to meet its infrastructure
    demands. In fiscal year 1999, INS will continue to address its
    infrastructure weaknesses by increasing the replacement cycle of the
    agency's vehicle fleet, implementing a maintenance and repair system
    for its property inventory, and by improving and modifying INS'
    existing facilities.
        The Service is requesting $10 million and 4 positions to provide a
    more rapid vehicle replacement cycle, which will result in a better
    quality fleet, safer vehicles, lower operation and maintenance costs,
    less fleet down time, and an increase in future fleet disposal sales
    proceeds. At the end of fiscal year 1997, over 30 percent of INS'
    fleet, more than 3,000 vehicles, exceeded the Federal Property
    Management Regulation (FPMR) replacement standards. The fiscal year
    1999 request will provide a 17 percent annual replacement cycle for
    sedans and light trucks, a 14 percent replacement cycle for school-type
    vehicles, and an 11 percent replacement for interurban buses. The four
    automotive fleet analysts positions requested will oversee a
    consolidated INS Fleet Management Program.
        In fiscal year 1999, the INS is requesting $10.2 million and 43
    positions to address the mounting maintenance and repair costs of INS-
    owned buildings, roads, grounds, janitorial services, utility systems
    maintained by INS, border roads and fences, stadium lights, and
    communication towers. The resources being requested will provide
    funding to reduce the backlog of INS maintenance and repair projects
    which, between fiscal year 1999 and fiscal year 2003, are projected to
    cost between $140,000,000 and $191,000,000. These backlogged projects,
    which include several Service Processing Centers, Border Patrol
    checkpoints, and Border Patrol stations, represent the most serious
    safety and health problems within INS. The new positions which we are
    requesting and which will be dedicated to the field, are critically
    needed to manage the number of repair and alteration projects and
    provide maintenance of INS owned facilities.
        The INS is requesting $26.4 million and 5 positions to provide
    resources for new office space, above standard alterations, furniture,
    ADP cabling, telecommunications, and security requirements. A
    combination of factors, including: (1) historic space shortages; (2)
    current requirements for lease renewals, forced moves, consolidations
    and other unplanned actions; and (3) the new growth which the agency
    has been experiencing in recent years, have created an enormous backlog
    of ``One-Time'' construction requirements, which current practices of
    using dedicated funding and lapse resources cannot adequately support.
        The fiscal year 1999 budget includes $2.1 million for systems
    development, data management, and the implementation of its Computer
    Linked Application Information Management System (CLAIMS 4.0). The INS
    will use ADP and other emerging technologies to support efficient,
    effective and integrated operations and management.
        This request includes continued development and implementation of
    the CLAIMS 4.0 system with additional CLAIMS form types. CLAIMS 4.0
    will be less costly to maintain and more flexible to support various
    reporting requirements. The new system will support 2D bar code
    scanning, use of debit and credit cards for application fees,
    deployment of electronic filing, electronic submission to external
    agencies, scanning of biometric information with access to the
    electronic A-file, and the use of secure and state-of-the-art fraud
    resistant documents that include biometric data. A primary feature of
    the CLAIMS 4.0 system is its ``process control'' mechanism that will
    not allow the operators to skip steps or operations unless all data
    fields are complete.
    Improving professionalism
        The fiscal year 1999 budget includes $16.2 million and 81 positions
    to enable INS to continue its efforts to improve professional
    standards, build upon and enhance its current management systems, and
    provide the mission critical support needed to effectively carry out
    its enforcement and service roles. This initiative focuses on the
    overall professionalism of INS and its workforce, including resources
    for the Legal Proceedings program, the Office of Internal Audit,
    implementation of the Financial Management Information System,
    reduction of INS' Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) backlog, and
    resources to support records centralization projects. The following
    areas targeted for new resources address long-standing issues of
    improving accountability, accuracy, and appropriate staffing levels, as
    well as supporting the recent growth in legal casework primarily caused
    by the enactment of IIRIRA:
        Forty-five attorneys, 20 legal support personnel and $4.5 million
    are requested to address the critical staffing shortfalls in the Legal
    Proceedings program. The additional personnel will enable INS attorneys
    to provide legal advice and assistance to the INS' operations
    components, and to handle the program's work in such areas as employer
    sanctions, civil document fraud, Federal court litigation, asylum
    prescreening, labor cases, visa petitions, naturalization, conveyance
    seizures, and the training of INS officers.
        An additional 16 positions and $2 million are requested for the
    Office of Internal Audit (OIA). These additional resources will enhance
    the Service's capability to conduct internal investigations and
    comprehensive INSpect reviews of the field offices. The OIA workload
    has significantly increased over the past few years due to the agency's
    extensive personnel growth, new investigative responsibilities
    requiring OIA to review the files and disciplinary actions taken
    against potential witnesses in Federal trials, and an increase in case
    complexity and time-requirements.
        A $5 million request for the Office of Finance will allow INS to
    continue implementing its Financial Management Information System. This
    implementation of an integrated financial management system will give
    INS the ability to produce auditable financial statements that more
    accurately reflect the status and use of funds.
        Nineteen term positions and $4.7 million are requested to automate
    the tracking and processing of its Freedom of Information Act/Privacy
    Act (FOIA/PA) requests and to meet the current FOIA backlogs and
    anticipated workload. The development of the FOIA/PA Information
    Processing System (FIPS) program will enable INS to transform its
    existing paper-intensive, manual processes into a computer-based
    information processing system, placing INS in compliance with 1996
    electronic FOIA legislation.
    Improve and centralize INS records
        Five positions and $8.5 million are requested to support continued
    efforts to centralize and clean up INS records. The records
    centralization effort will allow INS to improve the way it accesses,
    stores, and delivers alien information. This compliments INS'
    verification strategy by improving the accuracy of data, enhancing
    response time, and increasing the accessibility of critical information
    used to stop those individuals who are not authorized from working in
    the United States, and to ensure that only those authorized receive
    entitlements. Records cleanup will increase data integrity, which will
    in turn lead to more rapid and accurate verification, and renewed
    confidence in INS records by all of its customers, both internal and
    external.
        Specifically, INS will utilize the funds to improve infrastructure
    for the Service's Records Program, which will be used in support of all
    areas within INS, on both the enforcement and services sides.
    Additionally, INS will expand the contracting of services to support
    records operations, allow the Service to institutionalize multilevel
    quality controls to ensure effective compliance with re-engineered
    records operating procedures during the transition to centralization,
    and promote the completeness, accuracy, and predictability of
    transition operations through increased standardization. The Service is
    currently using records contract support in Los Angeles, Chicago,
    Miami, New York, San Francisco, Houston, and Newark. A portion of these
    contractor resources will be redirected to support operations in the
    centralized records environment.
                                   conclusion
        These new fiscal year 1999 resources will give INS the personnel
    and tools needed to carry out the effective immigration strategy begun
    four years ago. I look forward to continuing to work with the
    Subcommittee. With your support of this budget request, we can carry
    forward the improvements made during the last few years. We have made
    great strides in addressing problems areas and working to ensure the
    agency's integrity. I want to work with you to alleviate your concerns
    and build your trust as we continue our efforts to make this nation's
    immigration system the best that it can be.
        This concludes my formal statement on the 1999 budget request for
    INS. I would be happy to answer any questions which you, Mr. Chairman,
    and Members of the Subcommittee may have.

                          STATEMENT OF LOUIS J. FREEH

        Senator Gregg. Director.
        Mr. Freeh. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning, members
    of the committee. It is a pleasure to appear here. Let me also
    begin by thanking this committee for its generous support of
    FBI programs; in particular, the counterterrorism resources
    which you expanded greatly over the past 2 years and which have
    been put to immediate good use for the protection of the
    country. Also, your resources in support with respect to the
    crimes against children program has been a phenomenal success:
    177 convictions; many more cases being developed in an area
    where all of us are very vulnerable.
        I also appreciate, Mr. Chairman, your comments with respect
    to the sacrifices that law enforcement officers make. As you
    know thus far this year, more State and local officers have
    been killed in the line of duty than in 1997, and those are
    trends which are very sobering for us here today.
        Let me just very briefly go over what is a much more
    lengthy submission, with your permission. The FBI in 1998,
    obviously, faces many of the same challenges but also many new
    challenges. In June, we will celebrate our 90th birthday as an
    institution. Many things have changed over those 90 years and
    many of the threats remain. Espionage and intelligence
    activities are still areas which occupy great interest and many
    resources. In addition to the traditional intelligence
    activities, as you know, we have approximately 23 foreign
    countries which conduct economic espionage in the United
    States, and since our economic security corresponds to our
    national security, that is an area of great vulnerability.

                                Terrorist threat

        The terrorist threat, as we have seen, unfortunately,
    continues unabated both overseas and at home; again, thanks to
    your support and the resources that the committee has provided,
    we have seen tangible results, whether taking Kasi back for
    trial in Fairfax County; the convictions of McVeigh and Nichols
    for domestic terrorism; or the return and multiple convictions
    of Yousef for the World Trade bombing case. Those are the cases
    which remind us of the increasing vulnerability and threats
    from both domestic and foreign terrorists.
        With respect to weapons of mass destruction, again, the
    support which this committee and the Congress provided put us
    in good stead several weeks ago in Las Vegas. Although the
    threat turned out to be not a credible threat, all of the
    indicia but, more importantly, the preparedness, including the
    equipment, the hazardous materials response unit which has been
    established in our laboratory, the cooperation and the
    prearrangements between the military and the Department of
    Justice, allowed us to respond to that event much more
    successfully than we would have in the absence of those
    resources and preparation.
        We have investigated over 100 cases in 1997 with respect to
    weapons of mass destruction. Although most of these have turned
    out to be noncredible, that is three times the number of cases
    from 1996. We are using the Nunn-Lugar-Domenici domestic funds
    to train local first responders all over the United States.
    Those are protections and benefits which will enure to all of
    the people of the country.
        We are concerned about both traditional and emerging
    criminal enterprises, not only Russian organized crime and
    Asian groups but even the traditional groups here in the United
    States such as La Cosa Nostra.

                                Encryption issue

        The encryption issue continues to be an issue which
    challenges public safety and national security, and we
    certainly support a continued commonsense dialog, as well as
    effective measures to balance an encryption policy so that we
    can have robust encryption and also not impinge on our national
    security or our protection. We see spies like Ames and
    terrorists like Yousef using encryption. Also now, to an
    increasing extent, drug dealers all over the United States are
    using various levels of encryption to defeat court-authorized
    electronic surveillance orders.

                                Budget increases

        With respect to the 1999 budget summary, very quickly, we
    have asked for $3 billion in direct budget authority, and that
    includes 28,834 permanent and reimbursable positions, which
    includes 11,677 agents, which will be the highest special agent
    complement that the FBI has had. We are asking for program
    increases in the amount of $94 million in direct budget
    authority and 340 permanent and reimbursable positions,
    including 146 special agents.

                        Counterterrorism and cybercrime

        Of the four major program areas where we have asked for
    increases, I would highlight counterterrorism and cybercrime as
    the first category. In many ways, in 1998, the computer and the
    modem have taken the place of the telephone and the motor
    vehicle 60 years ago. Law enforcement had to quickly retool and
    refocus its resources in the face of those technological
    developments. With respect to what the FBI does, both in
    national security and public safety, we need to retool and
    prepare to deal with these new, emerging types of technology
    which are being used to commit crimes of every category.
        Electronic intruders and computer sabotage cases
    specifically have begun to increase at an alarming rate.
    Already, the FBI is working 458 cases in the first quarter of
    1998. That is almost double the total number of cases in 1997.
    We are increasingly reliant in the United States on our
    national information infrastructure: all of our agencies, all
    of our businesses and, to a greater extent, our personal lives
    are directly related to safe, reliable, and protected commerce
    over these new electronic and technological means.
        We have set up in the FBI now, six computer investigation
    and threat assessment squads. We began in 1993 with one squad
    in Washington, DC. We now have squads in New York, San
    Francisco, and three other cities. For 1999, we have asked for
    the resources to establish six new computer squads around the
    country. To an increasing extent, these squads not only work on
    computer intrusion cases but also assist other squads when a
    search warrant turns up hard drives and disks instead of boxes
    of records. The squads are also charged with liaison with the
    private sector in those particular regions to deal with
    investigating cyber threats. These squads give us forensic
    capability in a venue which is very new to us.
        We established the Computer Investigation and
    Infrastructure Threat Assessment Center in July 1996. We are
    asking for resources to increase both the size and the
    capability of that facility and to incorporate it into the
    National Infrastructure Protection Center, which the Department
    of Justice has established in a coordinated fashion. Under the
    counterterrorism fund, $33.6 million is being requested for
    implementing the administration's policies with respect to the
    findings of the President's Commission on Critical
    Infrastructure, and this will be used to establish the National
    Infrastructure Protection Center. Both State, local, Federal as
    well as private sector participation will exist with respect to
    the center.
        We are also asking for additional resources to continue the
    preparation of State and local first responder resources with
    respect to weapons of mass destruction, reaction, and
    investigation.
        We have asked for funding for an information sharing
    initiative. More than one single issue which I receive when I
    travel around the field regularly to visit our 56 divisions is
    the real necessity to upgrade and renetwork the entire
    information collection, storage, retrieval, and analysis system
    of the FBI. Although we have a wide-area network and a Novell
    system which is adequate for present purposes, it is inadequate
    in terms of long-range investigative competence, particularly
    when the information which we are now acquiring is being
    acquired in digital form. We have asked for an initiative over
    the next 4 years which will give the FBI the equipment,
    training, and infrastructure to deal with what is increasingly
    the greatest challenge for an agency which collects
    information: which is the technological means of collecting,
    storing, analyzing, and then disseminating that information.
        I am happy to report that the NCIC 2000, as well as the
    IAFIS system, are on schedule and within budget. Both of those
    systems should be online by July 1999.

                   Indian country law enforcement initiative

        We have asked for enhanced funding with respect to an
    Indian country law enforcement initiative. We have found that
    although crime, particularly violent crime, has decreased
    around the country--25 percent decline in the murder rate, for
    instance--with respect to Indian country the murder rate
    unfortunately, has risen upward of 80 percent. There are fewer
    than one-half as many law enforcement officers per capita in
    Indian country than elsewhere in the United States. We have the
    responsibility to protect about 1.4 million citizens who live
    within those areas. We are having increasing difficulty
    addressing those problems with the current resources. So, we
    have asked for funding which will give primarily our eight
    field divisions, which deal with 90 percent of the crime in
    Indian Country, mostly violent crime, critical new resources.

                                  Hate crimes

        With respect to hate crimes and civil rights enforcement,
    the uniform crime report for 1996 reported 11,000 hate crime
    incidents, and we are concerned, as is the Congress and the
    country, with the alarming increase with respect to hate
    crimes. We have asked for some funding to establish an
    analytical capability which will give us some ability to better
    analyze and deal with the increasing number of hate crimes and,
    particularly, the increase in crimes with respect to color of
    law violations, violations by law enforcement officers, which
    are the most serious in many regards.
        We have established outreach programs and training programs
    with our State and local counterparts to do the very best we
    can to use our current resources to preempt and train away from
    the circumstances which have traditionally led to many of these
    abuses.
        We have also asked for some continued improvements to the
    FBI Academy firearms ranges at Quantico. Phase one, which was
    funded in 1996, has greatly increased or will increase the
    potential for firearms training which, as you know, is given
    there not only to the FBI but to DEA and to many State and
    local officers. We have asked for a continuation of that in
    1999 in the amount of $10 million.

                     Telecommunications carrier compliance

        We have also requested for 1999 $100 million as part of the
    Department's telecommunications carrier compliance fund. This
    is the money which was authorized for the first time in 1997--I
    am sorry; appropriated in 1997, authorized in 1994--to deal
    with the changes in telecommunications technology which have
    made it very difficult and would ultimately make it impossible
    to exercise interception orders without the switching
    infrastructure changes. This is the money which goes to the
    reimbursement of the carriers.

                        Narrowband radio communications

        We have also asked for some appropriations to deal with the
    narrowband radio communications problem, which is not just an
    FBI problem but a problem for 700,000 police officers around
    the United States. As you know, all law enforcement agencies
    are required, by 2005, to change from the current 25 megahertz
    frequencies to 12.5 megahertz. The narrow banding will make for
    more efficient communications; also, for more interoperability.
    The problem is that this migration is going to cost a
    substantial amount of money. There is no separate funding
    available at this time for that project, and we have asked for
    $64 million within the Department of Justice narrowband
    communications fund to begin what will be a 5-year effort to
    give the FBI, as well as the agencies represented here the
    capability and resources to make that migration and operate a
    radio system which works in the 21st century.
        The FBI now operates the largest civilian land-based mobile
    radio system in the United States, but the other Federal
    agencies and, derivatively, the State and locals, will also
    need this technology change and benefits to effectuate the
    change.

                               prepared statement

        Again, let me express my appreciation to you, Mr. Chairman,
    and the committee for your support of Federal law enforcement
    and particularly in the areas of counterterrorism and the
    crimes against children.
        Thank you very much.
        [The statement follows:]
                      Prepared Statement of Louis J. Freeh
        Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee. I am
    very pleased to appear before you today to discuss the 1999 budget
    request for the FBI.
        I would like to acknowledge the strong support of the Subcommittee
    for the FBI in the 1998 Justice Appropriations Act, especially with
    regard to funding provided for Counterterrorism activities and our
    efforts to combat child pornography on the Internet. I am also grateful
    for your support in providing us with additional authorities to become
    more competitive in recruiting, hiring, and retaining individuals with
    critical skills.
                           challenges facing the fbi
        Just a few short months from now, in June 1998, the FBI will
    celebrate its 90th Anniversary. Since its beginning in June 1908, the
    FBI has built a distinguished record of serving the American people by
    effectively responding to the crime and national security challenges of
    our times--the gangsters of the 1920's and early 1930's, the rise of
    interstate crime, the cold war era, the unrest of the 1960's, the
    emergence of international crime, and the uncertainty of the post-cold
    war world. Each of these challenges required the FBI to respond to new
    crime and national security problems. As I look ahead toward the
    challenges that face the FBI as it approaches the turn of the century,
    I am confident that our past will serve as a guide toward our future.
        There are many challenges facing the FBI as it approaches the 21st
    Century. Changes in national and world politics, economics, technology,
    and social conditions complicate efforts to reduce crime. These are
    formidable challenges, but not insurmountable. As old threats diminish
    and new ones appear, the FBI must meet each challenge with a flexible,
    proactive response. I would like to highlight several of the challenges
    facing the FBI today and in the future.
        Espionage and Intelligence Activities.--The fall of communism has
    not reduced the level or amount of espionage and other serious
    intelligence activity conducted against the United States. We still
    face a deadly, serious foreign interest in traditional intelligence
    activities. New challenges in the realm of intelligence and national
    security are emerging. To meet these challenges, the FBI must be able
    to counter threats posed by intelligence activities committed by non-
    intelligence personnel, maintain the integrity of the Nation's critical
    information and physical infrastructures, and counter technologically
    sophisticated adversaries exploiting advanced technologies to commit
    espionage.
        Terrorist Threat.--The threat posed by both international and
    domestic terrorists against Americans and United States national
    interests will continue for the foreseeable future. With your help, the
    FBI and the United States Government is in a better position to deal
    with this threat. Despite recent successes, such as the rendition of
    Mir Aimal Kasi from Pakistan and his conviction on charges of capital
    murder, the conviction of Sheik Omar Rahman for conspiracy, the
    convictions of Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols, and the conviction of
    Ramzi Ahmed Yousef, mastermind of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing,
    the Nation must remain vigilant. Terrorism is perpetrated by
    individuals with a strong commitment to the causes in which they
    believe. An action in one location can bring about a reaction somewhere
    else. As the United States develops a stronger investigative and
    prosecutive response to terrorists, the Nation may witness more
    attempts at reprisal at home and abroad.
        Weapons of Mass Destruction.--The FBI views the proliferation of
    weapons of mass destruction as a serious and growing threat to our
    national security. During 1997, the FBI initiated over 100 criminal
    investigations involving nuclear, biological, and chemical threats or
    incidents. Many of these threats were determined to be non-credible;
    however, the number of investigations has increased three-fold over the
    previous year. The ease of manufacturing or obtaining biological and
    chemical agents is disturbing. Available public source material makes
    our law enforcement mission a continuous challenge.
        In partnership with the Department of Defense and other federal
    agencies, the FBI is participating in the Nunn-Lugar-Domenici Domestic
    Preparedness Program that trains local first responders to contend with
    the consequences associated with an incident involving weapons of mass
    destruction. With this Committee's support, we are also upgrading the
    FBI's own weapons of mass destruction capabilities, including equipment
    and training.
        Emerging Criminal Enterprises.--Where the FBI's posture against
    traditional adversaries, such as organized crime, remained stable and
    predictable over a number of years, the current environment is
    characterized by emerging crime issues and groups which are less clear,
    more numerous, and which often transcend the FBI's traditional program
    management and investigative structure. For example, Russian crime
    groups are not only involved in typical organized crime activities,
    such as loan sharking, extortion, and prostitution, but also in such
    activities as medical fraud, tax evasion, and bank fraud. Asian
    criminal enterprises are not only trafficking in illegal narcotics, but
    they are also involved in the theft of computer and high-technology
    components. No longer can law enforcement easily categorize the illegal
    activities of organized criminal enterprises.
        Encryption.--One of the most difficult challenges facing all of law
    enforcement is how rapidly terrorists and criminals adopt advanced
    technologies to thwart law enforcement's ability to investigate those
    who wish to do harm to our Nation and its citizens. That is why
    encryption is one of the most important issues confronting law
    enforcement. Law enforcement remains in unanimous agreement that the
    widespread use of robust non-recoverable encryption will ultimately
    devastate our ability to fight crime and terrorism. Uncrackable
    encryption allows, and will continue to allow with increasing
    regularity, drug lords, terrorists, and even violent gangs to
    communicate about their criminal intentions with impunity and to
    maintain electronically stored evidence of their crimes impervious to
    lawful search and seizure.
        Convicted spy Aldrich Ames was told by his Soviet handlers to
    encrypt computer file information that was to be passed to them. Ramzi
    Yousef, convicted with others for plotting to blow up 11 United States
    owned commercial airliners in the far east, used encryption to protect
    files on his laptop computer. A major international drug trafficker
    recently used a telephone encryption device to frustrate court-
    authorized electronic surveillance. The FBI is encountering a growing
    number of cases where 56 bit Data Encryption Standard (DES) and 128 bit
    ``Pretty Good Privacy'' encryption are being used for protection by
    criminals.
        As Congress continues its work this session towards a balanced
    approach to the important issue of encryption, I urge you to consider
    public safety and national security concerns regarding encryption
    products and services manufactured for use in the United States or
    imported into the United States.
        Strategic Management Focus.--The 1999 budget is the first to be
    submitted in compliance with the Government Performance and Results
    Act. The FBI is continuing its efforts to integrate strategic planning
    and budget processes through an extensive strategic management focus
    under the leadership of the Deputy Director.
        FBI investigative and intelligence strategies must reflect the
    FBI's best judgement concerning the nature of the threat posed to the
    American people and the FBI's capacity to respond at both the national
    and local levels. Over the past several months, key managers
    responsible for the FBI's criminal investigative and national security
    programs have been developing operational, intelligence, technology,
    state and local assistance, and management strategies to guide the FBI
    as it enters the 21st century. At the heart of these strategies will be
    the core values and strengths that have served the FBI so well over the
    past 90 years. These strategies, which are still being completed, will
    also identify sound approaches for responding to the challenges
    associated with the dynamic nature of emerging crime problems and
    national security environment.
                              1999 budget summary
        The 1999 budget helps position the FBI along this roadmap to the
    future. For 1999, the FBI is requesting $3,014,654,000 in direct budget
    authority and 28,834 permanent and reimbursable positions, including
    11,677 agents. To carry out several priority initiatives, including
    those in the areas of counterterrorism and cybercrime, information
    sharing and Indian Country law enforcement, the FBI is requesting
    program increases totaling $94,004,000 in direct budget authority and
    340 permanent and reimbursable positions, including 146 agents. Within
    the Department of Justice General Administration programs, additional
    funding is proposed to support new and continuing initiatives related
    to counterterrorism, cybercrime, narrowband radio communications, and
    telecommunications carrier compliance. All of these programs will
    directly support FBI operations in 1999.
                        counterterrorism and cybercrime
        The criminal exploitation and illegal electronic intrusion into
    public and private sector computer networks is rapidly escalating into
    a major crime problem. The national and economic security of the United
    States relies extensively on a national information infrastructure
    (NII) that is vulnerable to disruptive forces. These forces include
    natural events, mistakes, technical failures, and malicious acts by
    hackers, disgruntled employees, criminals, industrial spies, foreign
    agents, and terrorists. The advent of complex computer and
    communications networks has produced a tandem capability for the
    potential of illegal information retrieval, disruption and/or
    destruction from various sources. White-collar criminals, economic
    espionage agents, organized crime members, foreign intelligence
    services, and terrorist groups have all been identified as ``electronic
    intruders'' with the potential to have immediate and severe
    consequences for every facet of government and industry.
        The United States is increasingly reliant on complex, networked
    infrastructures for its national and economic security and the welfare
    of its citizens. The movement of the United States towards an
    information-based economy, and the rapid expansion of electronic
    commerce, has greatly increased dependence upon the NII. Any protracted
    loss of critical infrastructure would severely impact national security
    and the national welfare. In recent years, unknown intruders have
    penetrated telecommunications carriers, Internet service providers, and
    other government, private and university systems. Lists of Frequently
    Asked Questions (FAQ's) outlining the specifics of system
    vulnerabilities are widespread. ``The Unofficial Web Hack FAQ,'' ``The
    Hacker FAQ,'' and ``How to Hack a Website'' are popular, accessible,
    and easily downloaded from the Internet. Knowledgeable observers and
    recent surveys predict that malicious acts directed against the NII
    will only increase in frequency and sophistication, and will continue
    to pose grave consequences and potential harm.
        The challenge facing the FBI today in the area of cybercrime is
    building the requisite capabilities to address this rapidly growing and
    evolving problem. Technology exploitation is an emerging problem which
    touches virtually every area of the FBI's mission, including white-
    collar crime, counterterrorism, foreign counterintelligence, violent
    crime, organized crime and drugs. The FBI must act now to identify,
    train, equip and deploy investigative resources to stay abreast of the
    growing caseload, as well as meet its responsibilities for
    infrastructure protection. We are building this capability at two
    levels: through specialized and highly trained field squads; and, the
    operation of a national-level center that supports field investigations
    and coordinates with other federal, state and local agencies and the
    private sector.
        CITA Squads.--One of our strategies for establishing a cybercrime
    investigative capability is the staffing of Computer Investigation and
    Infrastructure Threat Assessment (CITA) squads. Currently, there are
    three squads located in Washington, D.C., New York City and San
    Francisco. New squads are being established this year in Chicago,
    Dallas and Los Angeles.
        For 1999, the FBI requires $11,607,000 and 124 positions, including
    75 agents, to staff, equip, and train 6 additional CITA squads in
    Atlanta, Boston, Charlotte, Miami, Minneapolis, and Seattle. This would
    provide a total of 12 CITA squads by the end of 1999.
        National Infrastructure Protection Center (NIPC).--In July 1996,
    the FBI established the Computer Investigations and Infrastructure
    Threat Assessment Center (CITAC) to support our network of field CITA
    squads by providing in-house support to criminal and national security
    investigations and related activities. Since its establishment, CITAC
    has played critical roles in the successful resolution of several
    significant criminal and national security intrusion cases. Recent case
    experiences have underscored the importance of interagency
    collaboration when responding to the range of threats and incidents
    affecting the nation's critical infrastructure. Unfortunately, the
    intentions of intruders into critical information systems is not
    usually known at the outset of an event. Consequently, law enforcement
    agencies, the intelligence community, and the United States military
    must work together with private sector owners and operators in
    determining the appropriate government response to intrusions and
    attacks against the critical infrastructure.
        In recognition of the broad range of the threat to critical
    infrastructure, and to bring about an interagency capability to detect,
    assess, and act upon threats and intrusions, the Department of Justice
    and the FBI developed a plan in late 1997 to expand the scope of the
    CITAC into the National Infrastructure Protection Center (NIPC) that
    would provide more advanced analysis and warning, emergency support,
    training, and outreach capabilities than the current CITAC. The
    Attorney General has approved this plan and the CITAC is now the IPC.
    As proposed, the NIPC would be jointly staffed with other participating
    federal agencies, including the Department of Defense, and the private
    sector. I envision the NIPC as a national resource that supports cyber
    emergency response efforts and helps determine if an incident, or
    series of incidents, is either a criminal or terrorist act, an effort
    to collect intelligence, or, in fact, a hostile attack initiated by a
    foreign power.
        The NIPC concept was presented to the Administration for
    consideration as it makes policy decisions regarding the findings and
    recommendations of the President's Commission on Critical
    Infrastructure Protection. These decisions are currently being weighed
    by the Administration.
        Within the FBI's 1999 budget request, an increase of $10,412,000
    and 9 positions is requested for the operations of the NIPC at FBI
    Headquarters. These additional positions will allow the FBI to expand
    its present cyber and infrastructure watch and warning capability. This
    funding will also be used to develop a comprehensive and secure
    indication and warning system, acquire equipment for the new field
    squads, provide training programs and expand communications and sharing
    of investigative techniques and detection tools.
        Under the Counterterrorism Fund, $33,603,000 is requested for
    implementing Administration policies adopted to address the findings
    and recommendations of the President's Commission on Critical
    Infrastructure Protection. This funding could be used to support the
    expanded roles and responsibilities proposed for the NIPC.
        State and Local Preparedness.--As I indicated earlier, the FBI
    continues to work closely with the Department of Defense and other
    federal agencies to train State and local communities for contending
    with the consequences of weapons of mass destruction. For 1998, this
    Committee was instrumental in providing funding under the Attorney
    General's Counterterrorism Fund for first responder training and to
    allow States and localities to acquire basic personnel protective gear
    and detection, decontamination, and communications equipment that is
    necessary for responding to terrorist incidents involving chemical or
    biological agents or nuclear materials. We are working with the Office
    of Justice Programs to set up the framework for a grant program to make
    these equipment funds available to States and other appropriate local
    units of government.
        The President's 1999 budget request for the Counterterrorism Fund
    includes $16,000,000 to continue this multiyear effort to improve State
    and local capabilities for incidents involving weapons of mass
    destruction. I encourage the Committee to again support funding for
    this important initiative.
                              information sharing
        When I first became Director of the FBI in 1993, I set in motion
    the linking of the FBI's and DEA's drug databases so that agents and
    analysts from each agency could benefit from the sharing of case and
    intelligence information. That effort, called Drug-X, now extends to
    the Treasury Department's TEC's database. Similarly, in 1995, I
    established the FBI Counterterrorism Center to facilitate the sharing
    of intelligence and law enforcement information on terrorism among
    federal, State, and local agencies. As I look toward the future, I
    clearly see a continuing need for these and similar efforts among law
    enforcement to share case and intelligence information. Yet, as I look
    at where the FBI is today in terms of its own information technology
    capabilities, I must admit that we are several years and many dollars
    away from possessing the critical information technology infrastructure
    that will allow the FBI to realize the full benefits from its own case
    and intelligence information, much less be able to share that
    information electronically with others.
        One of the most recurring and critical needs cited by FBI managers
    in their operational strategies is for improved information technology
    and information systems that better serve the day-to-day case
    management and intelligence processing requirements of our street
    agents, intelligence analysts, and support staff.
        In order to bridge the gap between current automation and case
    management capabilities and the functionalities our managers believe
    are critical to successfully meeting the crime problems ahead of us, we
    are proposing a three-phase, multi-year Information Sharing Initiative
    to build a comprehensive computing infrastructure for the FBI. Our
    initial emphasis, for which $50,000,000 and 20 positions is requested
    for 1999, will be on upgrading existing equipment, networks, and
    software to support FBI-wide document/image management capabilities.
    Key features of the first module are the ability to store all
    investigative and administrative data in an electronic format and the
    ability to access and share this information between FBI locations.
    Communications services and capacities will be increased to permit the
    transmission of all types of data and graphics. Implementation of this
    capability would take approximately 18 months.
        Once our baseline information technology infrastructure is
    upgraded, we will focus upon improving analytical capabilities (phase
    2) and providing multi-level security that would allow sharing of
    information with other federal, State, and local agencies, consistent
    with a need to know such information (phase 3).
        Over the past several years, the Congress has generously supported
    major FBI information technology investments, such as the Integrated
    Automated Fingerprint Identification System and NCIC 2000. These
    systems will greatly improve the exchange of information between State
    and local law enforcement and ensure those vital criminal justice
    information services remain effective as we enter the 21st century. I
    ask your support for the first phase of the Information Sharing
    Initiative so that FBI field offices around the country can benefit
    from the application of information technologies which will enhance our
    internal case management capabilities.
                         indian country law enforcement
        While we can be encouraged that communities around the nation are
    experiencing reduced levels of crime, that is not the case for
    communities in Indian Country. For example, the murder rate nationwide
    declined 20 percent between 1992 and 1996; however, murders in Indian
    Country have risen 87 percent over the same period. A 1996 Indian
    Health Service report found that an Indian male is three times as
    likely to be murdered as a white male. Reported crime in Indian Country
    is twice as likely to be violent as compared to crimes reported
    elsewhere in the United States, yet there are fewer than half as many
    law enforcement officers per capita in Indian Country than elsewhere in
    the United States. Violent Indian gangs, many with juvenile members,
    are a frightening new reality on many reservations. Drug abuse has
    added to problems caused by alcohol abuse. The basic law enforcement
    protection and services that we often take for granted in many of our
    communities are severely inadequate for the more than 1.4 million
    people who live on or adjacent to Indian reservations, allotments, and
    dependent Indian communities governed by federally-recognized tribes.
        The federal government has a unique responsibility for providing
    for the safety of individuals living in Indian Country. For most of
    Indian Country, federal law enforcement is the only protection for
    victims of violent felonies. Between 1994 and 1997, 83 percent of the
    crimes on Indian reservations cases opened by the FBI involved either
    crimes of violence (47 percent) or the sexual or physical abuse of a
    minor child (36 percent). While 31 FBI field offices have some degree
    of Indian Country investigative responsibility, 90 percent of the cases
    opened between 1994 and 1997 were in just 8 field divisions located in
    western states.
        For 1999, the FBI requests an increase of 50 positions, including
    30 agents, and $4,657,000 to improve the delivery of law enforcement
    services in Indian Country. These agents will be assigned to FBI
    offices covering reservations and supporting task forces in Arizona,
    Colorado, Idaho, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, North
    Dakota, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming. These
    resources will allow us to add two more Safe Trails Task Forces and
    provide task force coverage to four additional reservations. Safe
    Trails Task Forces are interagency working groups that leverage the
    resources of the FBI, United States Attorneys, other federal agencies,
    state and local law enforcement and prosecutors, Indian Tribal police,
    and Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) investigators. We believe these task
    forces can be as effective in Indian Country as FBI Safe Streets Task
    Forces have been in communities across the nation. We will also
    continue training BIA and Indian Tribal police officers to develop the
    necessary basic and advanced investigative, evidence recognition and
    collection, and management skills needed to perform their duties and
    serve their communities.
        An important facet of our commitment to improving the full range of
    law enforcement services in Indian Country is victim/witness services.
    We are requesting an increase of $3,352,000 to hire 31 full-time
    victim/witness coordinators who will be assigned to key FBI resident
    agencies in Indian Country. These coordinators will work closely with
    FBI Agents and Safe Trails Task Force participants responding to and
    investigating crimes committed in Indian Country.
                    hate crimes and civil rights enforcement
        The consensus among law enforcement professionals, academicians,
    and community groups is that the hate crime problem is far more
    pervasive than currently recognized. The most recent Uniform Crime
    Report for 1996 reported nearly 11,000 hate crime incidents. These
    crimes involved murder, non-negligent manslaughter, forcible rape,
    aggravated assault, simple assault, intimidation, arson, and
    destruction, damage or vandalism of property. Participation among
    reporting law enforcement agencies is increasing--1996 data represents
    agencies covering approximately 86 percent of the Nation's population.
    Regrettably, law enforcement analysts recognize that further work is
    needed before a clear and reliable picture of the number of hate crimes
    in the United States is available.
        For 1999, we are requesting an increase of 3 positions (1 agent)
    and $196,000 to enhance the civil rights analytical capability at FBI
    Headquarters. These individuals will research and analyze civil rights
    and police misconduct cases to identify their causes, trends, and
    develop possible solutions to prevent further incidents.
        As the lead investigative agency for criminal violations of federal
    civil rights statutes, the FBI must be viewed by all stakeholders
    involved in these types of cases, including minority communities,
    special interest groups, and police agencies, as an honest, unbiased
    and aggressive force in the area of civil rights. At the field level,
    the FBI will be emphasizing its outreach programs to targeted audiences
    in order to build cooperative partnerships that will create a climate
    of trust between law enforcement and minority groups that encourages
    victims to come forward. As the Attorney General indicated last week,
    the FBI plans to redirect, within existing base resources, 40 agents
    for Hate Crime investigations.
        We are equally committed to providing training to police agencies
    to raise their recognition of events and actions that will result in
    civil rights violations committed under the color of law, with the goal
    of preventing such acts from occurring.
                   fbi academy improvements and construction
        Over the past several years, I have sought your help in ensuring
    the FBI's infrastructure is strong and solid. Congress has responded by
    supporting the construction of a new FBI Command Center, a new FBI
    Laboratory facility, and other important infrastructure investments.
    The 1999 budget proposes several increases for infrastructure projects
    and activities at the FBI Academy, located in Quantico, Virginia.
        FBI Firearms Range Project.--The existing outdoor firearms ranges
    at the FBI Academy have been in use and are virtually unchanged since
    the early 1950's. These ranges need modernization due to the stress
    from heavy new agent, in-service, and other training demands from both
    the FBI and Drug Enforcement Administration. There are associated
    environmental concerns resulting from the accumulation of lead in
    surrounding land and the potential for ground water contamination. In
    1996, Congress provided the FBI with funding for the first phase of a
    firearms range modernization project. Those funds have allowed us to
    acquire architectural and engineering services, begin lead abatement
    efforts, and relocate and modernize three existing outdoor ranges.
        For 1999, $10,000,000 is requested for the second phase of this
    project which includes plans for completing the lead abatement effort
    and the construction of an all-weather outdoor range and an obstacle
    and combat training facility.
        FBI Academy Master Plan.--An increase of $2,859,000 is requested to
    acquire architectural and engineering services to update the FBI
    Academy Master Plan. The plan will allow us to gather the information
    required for planning necessary improvements, maintenance, and future
    expansion required by existing facilities at the FBI Academy. It will
    also guide us in the most effective and efficient use of available
    land, space, and facilities at the complex to meet the needs of our
    Critical Incident Response Group and Engineering Research Facility. To
    support the activities of the FBI Academy Construction and Facilities
    Management staff, a direct increase of 3 positions and $141,000 is
    requested. Additionally, we are requesting 11 reimbursable support
    positions to provide operations and maintenance support for the new
    Justice Training Center which is expected to become operational in
    1999.
                     telecommunications carrier compliance
        I am very appreciative of the efforts of the Committees on
    Appropriations to move along the Communications Assistance for Law
    Enforcement Act (CALEA) initiative. Preserving the ability of federal,
    State, and local law enforcement to lawfully conduct electronic
    surveillance continues to be one of my top priorities. For 1999,
    $100,000,000 is requested in the Department's Telecommunications
    Carrier Compliance Fund to reimburse telecommunications carriers and
    others for eligible costs incurred in modifying equipment and
    facilities to comply with the CALEA.
                        narrowband radio communications
        The FBI operates the largest civilian land-based mobile radio
    system in the United States which provides clear and encrypted radio
    communications for 56 field offices and nearly 400 resident agencies.
    The fixed infrastructure for this system includes base stations in each
    field office and larger resident agencies, more than 12,000 mobile or
    vehicular radios, over 12,000 portable or hand-held radios, and nearly
    4,000 leased antenna microwave repeater and antenna sites and data
    communications links. The FBI also operates specialized radio
    communications systems that support national security operations, task
    forces, and other activities.
        By January 1, 2005, we are required to change over from the current
    25 megahertz radio bandwidth technology to more spectrally efficient
    12.5 megahertz bandwidth equipment. To comply with this mandate, it
    will be necessary to implement an entirely new radio system. None of
    the existing wideband equipment can be upgraded or retrofitted with
    narrowband technology.
        In order to comply with the narrowband radio communications
    mandate, the FBI is proposing a five-year effort to plan, design, and
    implement a single nationwide communications system that will replace
    the existing nationwide and specialized systems. Within the
    Department's Narrowband Communications Fund, the FBI is requesting a
    total of $64,079,000, of which $60,220,000 is new funding, to begin
    these processes. Additionally, direct FBI funding totaling $780,000 is
    requested to hire 7 engineers and specialists to serve on the FBI
    project team for the Narrowband Radio Communications project.
                                   conclusion
        Mr. Chairman, I would like to again express my gratitude for the
    Committee's strong support and confidence in the FBI. Both you and
    Senator Hollings should take pride in the leadership shown in the areas
    of ensuring counterterrorism preparedness and protecting our children
    from sexual predators and pedophiles. I believe your approach of
    balancing targeted increases in FBI investigative resources and
    capabilities in select areas with an emphasis on training for State and
    local law enforcement, encourages partnerships and cooperation that are
    the keys to an effective response to crime. I know that with your
    continued support, the FBI can build upon its successes and serve the
    American people proudly and effectively as the Nation moves into the
    21st century.
        This concludes my prepared remarks. At this time, I would like to
    respond to any questions that you may have.

        Senator Gregg. Thank you, Director, and congratulations on
    the birth of your sixth child, Colin; is that correct?
        Mr. Freeh. Thank you very much.
        Senator Gregg. We will probably have to go around the table
    a few times here because there are so many issues. One of the
    reasons I wanted to have you all together is because there is a
    lot of interchanging of responsibility here and overlap of
    responsibility, and I wanted to get into that issue at some
    point. So, I will limit my time to 10 minutes and then yield to
    the ranking member for whatever time he wants to consume. And
    then, we will go to the member from Colorado and move around
    the table again.

                            Iraqi spying allegations

        But let me start with you, Mr. Director. I noticed a fairly
    disconcerting news report this morning. I think it deserves to
    be aired here. What happened is that there was a report that
    there was an Iraqi spy who may have penetrated, at some level,
    our capability in the Mideast. I would be interested in getting
    an update, to the extent that you can give it to us, as to what
    happened.
        Mr. Freeh. Senator, I do not have a full response at this
    time. I spoke to John Lewis, who is the Assistant Director in
    our National Security Division, and he has not been able to
    validate that report or anything akin to that report. He is in
    discussions with some of the other agencies at this point. We
    have not been able to verify that, and I will certainly get you
    an update as soon as I can.
        [The information follows:]

                            Iraqi Spying Allegations

        On March 5, 1998, Assistant Director John F. Lewis,
    National Security Division, briefed Chairman Gregg regarding
    this matter.

                        Chemical and biological attacks

        Senator Gregg. On another subject which concerns this
    committee is the potential anthrax attack in Nevada, which,
    luckily, turned out not to be active anthrax. Give us your
    assessment of where we stand relative to our capacity to
    anticipate chemical or biological attacks against the country
    and our ability to respond to those attacks.
        Mr. Freeh. With respect to anticipating and preventing
    those attacks, which, of course, is our first priority, it
    depends really on the actors and the individuals concerned. If
    it is a group into which we have some coverage by an informant
    or some other means, such as undercover agents, perhaps, we can
    certainly anticipate and control----
        Senator Gregg. Well, of the 100 instances that they talked
    about, how many of those involved groups from outside the
    United States? What percentage?
        Mr. Freeh. I do not think any did. I think they were all
    local or domestic-derived cases except for a couple of
    examples. But they all, for the most part, as I indicated,
    turned out not to be credible.
        The problem with the chemical and the biological agents, as
    you well know, is an individual with not a great deal of
    sophistication can fabricate part of the essential ingredients
    for these kinds of chemicals or biological agents, and then,
    with a little bit of assistance and perhaps some other
    equipment, manufacture that into a much more damaging agent.
        So, if it is an individual acting alone, a microbiologist
    who has access to the blood of an animal that died of anthrax,
    for instance, it would be very hard to anticipate, without
    having someone directly placed or information which would come
    to us from an informant or a codefendant, so to speak. In terms
    of the larger groups, I think there is a better capacity to
    anticipate them, but that would vary based on our coverage.
        In terms of preparedness, we are much better prepared in
    1998, as we go through the Nunn-Lugar-Domenici training. We
    have a laboratory unit, which we did not have. We have
    protective equipment for our agents, particularly the evidence
    response teams and hostage response team.
        We are quickly proliferating, together with the Department
    of Defense a lot of training, techniques, and equipment around
    the country. I would say that my overall estimate at this point
    would still be that we are not in a state of preparedness,
    given the damage that one of these attacks could perform.
        Senator Gregg. Well, I know that we are ramping up, and
    that rampup is going to take some time. I have met with the
    folks at DOD and all of the other agencies that are involved
    here. I guess my question is, do you feel that we are ramping
    up as quickly as we can, considering the limitations on
    education and material distribution, and that it inherently has
    a time lag to it? Or is there something we should be doing that
    will more aggressively get the information out, get the
    equipment out that is necessary?
        Mr. Freeh. I think we are moving as quickly as we can,
    given the resources and the number of people----
        Senator Gregg. In a coordinated way.
        Mr. Freeh. Yes; I believe that we are, if you look at the
    training protocol between the Department of Justice and the
    Department of Defense, as it is now proliferating down to the
    firefighters and the rescue squads in major cities. There are
    120 cities which are online to receive this training in the
    next 18 months, I believe. So, it is moving very, very quickly.
    But again, you have to cover literally thousands of police
    departments and fire departments, and that is just the first
    responder aspect of it.

                              Encryption agreement

        Senator Gregg. I understand there may have been some
    tentative agreement reached on encryption over the weekend. Are
    you familiar with that?
        Mr. Freeh. There is an administration initiative which will
    seek to work directly with the major software and hardware
    manufacturers to see if a law enforcement solution can be
    achieved, and we are optimistic that this may produce some
    tangible results. Certainly, we will work very hard with the
    industry representatives to see what can be achieved.
        Senator Gregg. Have you received a reaction from the
    industry representatives to the presentation from the
    administration yet?
        Mr. Freeh. I have not yet, no.
        Senator Gregg. But you have made this presentation; is that
    correct?
        Mr. Freeh. I do not know that it has been made, Senator. I
    think it is in the process of being made. We have formulated a
    proposal for discussion, and we are hopeful that the industry
    will respond to it.

                                 Border control

        Senator Gregg. I am interested, Commissioner Meissner, on
    the question of Border Patrol. Could you tell me how closely
    you work with the DEA and with the FBI? How closely are the
    different agencies integrated? And then, I would like to get a
    comment from everybody else.
        Ms. Meissner. From the standpoint of drug enforcement, of
    course, the Border Patrol is the first line of response to
    drugs that come across the border illegally between the ports
    of entry. We also obviously work at the ports of entry
    themselves with the Customs Service jointly on drug
    interdiction. And then, our relationship with the FBI is to
    hand over case-related information, from the standpoint of
    further investigation and prosecution.
        Senator Gregg. Does it work? Is there a cooperative effort?
    Or are there some gaps?
        Ms. Meissner. I think that we are working together better
    than we have ever worked together. I think that everybody in
    the Federal law enforcement community would say that the
    additional resources that the Immigration Service has received
    have put us in a position to be responsive and to provide this
    first-line capability in ways that have been needed for a long
    time, and that is working very, very well. You know, the
    Attorney General has been absolutely committed to cooperation
    among Federal law enforcement agencies. We all are charged with
    that responsibility, and we are carrying it out.
        Now, in addition to cooperation at the border, we also have
    agents, investigators, assigned to joint task forces all over
    the country. Some of those task forces are FBI led; others are
    agency led. Some of them work at Federal-State-local
    coordination efforts, gang task forces in a number of cities.
    Coordination and task force participation and working proper
    roles and responsibilities across agency lines is something we
    take very seriously.

                            DEA and INS coordination

        Mr. Constantine. Senator, the cooperation has been
    outstanding with the Border Patrol. They set up these
    checkpoints on the border, and when traffickers are moving
    fairly large loads of marijuana or cocaine in between the
    various border crossing points, eventually, they have to hit
    these Border Patrol checkpoints. They have been remarkably
    successful. The Border Patrol immediately calls the DEA office.
    They proceed to the scene. There is the seizure of the
    narcotics, the identification--and this is where it really gets
    important--the identification of the people who are moving the
    narcotics. Then, all of the written material that they have on
    their person, is collected by an evidence team that goes over
    everything in a postarrest seizure. The retrieval of all of the
    data, then, becomes critical to these major investigations that
    I talked to you about before.
        So, the U.S. Customs Commissioner and the Border Patrol
    entered into a memorandum of understanding, but in all honesty,
    this is one case where a memorandum of understanding probably
    was not needed. The relationship had been so close over a long
    period of time and had been developed. This formalized a very
    good relationship, and now each of the local districts of the
    Border Patrol, if they wish, can co-locate in a DEA office. We
    have that on numbers of occasions. Often we will have two or
    three or four Border Patrol officers working right in the DEA
    office to assist them with the followup and the investigation.
    From our perspective in DEA, the Border patrol has been a
    really important part of this whole interdiction and seizure
    operation.
        Ms. Meissner. And I think the statistics bear that out. The
    Border Patrol seizes the largest amount of narcotics of any of
    the Federal agencies, and it is obviously a result of where we
    are.
        Senator Gregg. I do not want to monopolize all of the time
    here. I have a lot of questions I want to come back to but go
    ahead.

                                status of Mexico

        Senator Hollings. Thank you.
        Mr. Constantine, on the country of Mexico, according to
    your statement, things have not improved since your last
    appearance. In fact, they have worsened; is that not correct?
        Mr. Constantine. Well, there are some improvements since we
    last came here.
        Senator Hollings. Like?
        Mr. Constantine. Last year, if you recall, we had a major
    problem and a widespread identification of corruption in the
    civilian narcotics institutions to the point where they were
    totally dismantled by the Government of Mexico. We were in a
    position, at DEA at that point in time, where we really could
    not even share information, because we did not know who we were
    sharing it with.
        They have rebuilt some agencies that we now share
    information with on major investigations. The enforcement
    officers go through a vetting process. They are trained by a
    combination of DEA and FBI personnel to become proficient as
    inspectors and investigators. We see that as positive. That is
    something we had not seen before.
        The problem is that as of today, the traffickers in Mexico,
    the major organizations, have become more powerful since last
    year because of the development of methamphetamine trafficking;
    their movement from merely being transporters to being actual
    distributors within the United States and the tremendous amount
    of violence along the border, both directed at law enforcement
    officials in Mexico and increasingly at law enforcement
    officers in the United States, the Border Patrol, and many of
    the uniform forces.
        So, it has been kind of mixed. There have been some
    improvements. There are some cases being made. But the
    traffickers have undoubtedly become more powerful since last
    year and certainly more than they were 3 or 4 years ago.
        Senator Hollings. Well, you remember your testimony last
    year, whereby you said you would not trust the law enforcement
    officer to receive any information that we had, nor would you
    trust any in the military. Do you trust them now? Is that what
    you are saying?
        Mr. Constantine. Now, there are certain units, yes, that we
    do trust and we share information with. It is on a need-to-know
    basis. We feel comfortable with that. It has worked presently.
    We have not been compromised. The development of those units I
    think will probably take decades to really reach fruition. But
    you do not need an army to begin to develop that type of
    program.
        I think the real evidence of whether we will be successful
    or not is when the leaders of these major organizations--who
    are pretty much well known to everybody and have been indicted,
    most of them, in courts in the United States--are arrested.
    When you continue to dismantle those organizations like we have
    done with organized crime in the United States, then, I think
    we will have arrived where we can say we have been successful.
        Senator Hollings. But you provide the names to the Mexican
    Government, and no one is yet extradited, are they?
        Mr. Constantine. No, sir; they have not been extradited.

                             Certification process

        Senator Hollings. So, they have not cooperated. Were you
    consulted again on the certification and did you approve this
    certification this time?
        Mr. Constantine. Well, I never get involved in saying
    certify or decertify. I do not think it is part of my role. But
    I am always consulted, and my opinions are always treated with
    the utmost respect. I give it openly and candidly.
        Senator Hollings. That is different from last year. You
    said you were not consulted, or they did not give you any
    respect for your opinion. You were the Rodney Dangerfield of
    certification last year.
        Mr. Constantine. No; I do not think I said that, sir. All
    of the time that I have been here in Washington, I have always
    been treated fairly and have had a chance to speak my piece on
    the issues.
        Senator Hollings. You do not remember discussing the
    improvements you said occurred with Colombia and how you were
    working more closely with them, but that they totally
    disregarded your opinions regarding Mexico last year?
        Mr. Constantine. No, sir; I do not remember saying anything
    like that.
        Senator Hollings. Well, be that as it may, that is good
    news that Mexico is cooperating. But, as you indicate, you name
    the names, as Martha Mitchell used to do, and they still do not
    do anything about it. We do not get a single one extradited.
    What kind of cooperation or deservedness of certification is
    that?
        Mr. Constantine. The certification decision, as I said,
    Senator, ultimately rests with people who are in the State
    Department. There are some issues critical to law enforcement
    such as arrests, and I have said that repeatedly over the last
    4 years. Then, there are extraditions to face a jury of their
    peers. This is an important tool. And I think over the long
    term, that will be the measure of success.
        Senator Gregg. Can you get a conviction against those
    people if they are extradited to the United States?
        Mr. Constantine. We believe yes. They have been indicted in
    grand juries throughout the United States. We have indictment
    warrants and provisional arrest warrants issued. We definitely
    think we could get convictions if they were tried by a jury of
    their peers.
        Senator Gregg. I just wanted to make that clear.

                                  INS mission

        Senator Hollings. Well, if you were to ask anyone in this
    room which was the worse problem, immigration or drugs, I am
    confident that 99 percent would say drugs is a bigger problem
    in America than immigration. Yet, I am seeing here that we are
    adding 1,000 more agents to the INS, Ms. Meissner, and Mr.
    Constantine is only asking for 257. The FBI is asking for only
    146.
        I look at the DEA budget which is $1.1 billion, and yours
    is $4.1 billion, almost four times more than DEA, $3 billion
    more specifically. Now INS wants to go up by 1,000 agents, and
    General McCaffrey is saying that we ought to go to 20,000
    agents. In the meantime, our counterpart over on the House
    side, Chairman Rogers, said we ought to abolish the INS. What
    is your comment?
        Ms. Meissner. The Immigration Service has been very
    aggressively adding Border Patrol agents along with other
    resources to support our mission. Our mission is not only
    border protection; it is also implementing the immigration laws
    in the interior of the country and providing a range of
    adjudicative services to legal immigrants who are in this
    country. We also have substantial resources at our points of
    entry to inspect travelers. So, we are a multimission agency,
    and it is an agency, as you know, which has been growing with
    the Congress and the administration working, I think, very
    cooperatively in bringing about that growth.
        The Border Patrol has the mission not only of enforcing the
    law where illegal immigration is concerned, but it is a very
    important player in the war against drugs, and that, I think,
    will be increasingly the case as we gain control where illegal
    immigration is concerned. So, I think that one needs to look at
    the Border Patrol as a national resource; I mean, we are
    talking about borders that can be enforced where illegal
    crossing is concerned but that also allow traffic and commerce
    which is good for the economy of our country and good for other
    countries.
        Senator Hollings. I understand, but, of course, drugs are
    not only at the border, as you indicate, but they are found in
    our law enforcement; they are found in our grade schools. It
    is, by far and away, a greater national problem, you might say.
    And here we are appropriating $4 billion for immigration and
    only $1 billion for drugs. It strikes me that these priorities,
    perhaps, are backward. But, of course, Chairman Rogers is
    saying just abolish the INS.

                             reorganization of INS

        What is your comment about the fact that here is a
    responsible individual who chairs this appropriations
    subcommittee on the House side, and he says we ought to just
    divide the programs between the State Department and the Labor
    Department and Justice?
        Ms. Meissner. Well, I think the crucial thing to understand
    about the Immigration Service is that the responsibilities that
    we are charged with are very interconnected responsibilities.
    In order to enforce the immigration laws, both from the
    standpoint of preventing illegal immigration as well as
    providing services and facilitation to those people who are
    coming to the country legally, our enforcement and our
    adjudicative missions work together.
        We have been investing an enormous amount of funding in the
    capabilities of INS, particularly in its data systems and in
    its technology, and that investment has been for the purposes
    of building an infrastructure, building a capability for the
    Government to enforce the immigration law into the coming
    century.
        To abandon that effort at this point by dividing the agency
    up, dismantling those resources, splitting what are technology
    improvements that support both of the missions of the agency
    would be basically to deprive the country of a very substantial
    investment that was meant to be a long-term investment.
        Now, that is not to say that this is not an agency which
    deserves and needs reform. We have grown enormously, and as I
    said in my opening statement, we are asking the question, as I
    believe it is responsible to ask, whether we are structured in
    the best possible way to manage this new growth and to manage
    the increased mandates that we have been given.
        We believe that there are some structural changes that are
    in order. We will be offering those ideas in the coming weeks,
    but I do not think that splitting up the agency--nor does the
    administration think that splitting up the agency--is the way
    to solve the problem of effective enforcement of our
    immigration laws.
        Senator Hollings. Could you furnish the committee with a
    written position on the Committee on Immigration Reform's
    recommendation that you be abolished, please?
        Ms. Meissner. We will furnish that; yes, sir.
        Senator Hollings. I would appreciate it.
        [The information follows:]
                 Report of the Commission on Immigration Reform
        In its final report to Congress last fall, the Commission on
    Immigration Reform (CIR) called for significant reform to our Nation's
    immigration system. The major thrust of the CIR's proposed reform would
    move many immigration functions to the Departments of State and Labor
    and would consolidate all immigration enforcement into a new Federal
    law enforcement agency within the Department of Justice.
        In response to the CIR's recommendations, the President asked the
    Domestic Policy Council (DPC) to ``evaluate carefully the [CIR]
    proposal and other reform options designed to improve the executive
    branch's administration of the Nation's immigration laws.'' In
    conducting this review, the DPC, working closely with the Office of
    Management and Budget, consulted with the Departments of Justice,
    Labor, and State, CIR staff, immigration experts and advocacy groups,
    and other White House offices, including the National Security Council.
    This review examined organizational and restructuring options including
    those formulated by the CIR and members of Congress. From this effort,
    the Administration established a new framework for reform, and the
    Justice Department contracted with a management consulting firm to
    provide an independent assessment of structural options and assist in
    making the Administration's framework ``operational.''
    The Administration's Framework for Change
        The DPC review process concluded that the CIR report correctly
    diagnosed many of INS' longstanding problems--insufficient
    accountability between field offices and headquarters, lack of
    consistency, need for greater professionalism, overlapping
    organizational relationships, and significant management weaknesses.
    These problems have hampered the INS' ability to effectively enforce
    our immigration laws both at our borders and in the interior, and
    efficiently provide immigration and citizenship services. Improving the
    ability of the INS to pursue these critical priorities must be the goal
    of any reform plan.
        After careful consideration and study, the Administration concluded
    that the most effective way to achieve this goal is to implement
    dramatic and fundamental reforms within the INS. The Administration's
    reform plan untangles INS' overlapping and frequently confusing
    organizational structure and replaces it with two clear organizational
    chains of command--one for accomplishing its enforcement mission and
    one for providing services. Each operation would be headed by an
    Executive Associate Commissioner (EAC) who would report directly to the
    Commissioner through the Deputy Commissioner.
        The plan will eliminate the current field structure in which
    regional district offices serve both enforcement and service functions
    and will replace it with separate enforcement and service offices that
    bring the mix of staff and skills to local service caseload and
    enforcement needs. The result will be an INS organization with
    strengthened accountability and improved efficiency and effectiveness.
    The plan will allow each operation to focus its unique knowledge,
    skills, and abilities, while also retaining the essential integration
    functions needed to coordinate these operations.

                       Investor Immigration Visa Program

        Senator Hollings. With respect to the Investor Immigration
    Visa Program, this committee instituted that particular program
    back in 1990, and as far as we know, it has been highly
    successful. Necessarily, if you are getting an immigrant who is
    going to invest $1 million and thereby use that $1 million to
    leverage exports or leverage export companies over the 8-year
    period, it builds up into quite an industry and quite a
    business.
        Now, with respect to a normal request that would go through
    with the moneys and the bank arrangements all made, we find out
    that there were some lawyers within your Department who thought
    differently; perhaps it was not being done efficiently or
    effectively. Be that as it may, the law is the law; the policy
    is the policy, and Senators on all sides, in a bipartisan
    fashion, wrote over 1 month ago to get a response to this
    particular freezing on application processing of these
    investments, with the banks, with the individuals involved,
    with the money invested, so much to the point that law cases
    are now being threatened all over. We got no answer from your
    office.
        What is the answer?
        Ms. Meissner. Well, you will be getting an answer. This is
    a very complex matter, as you know.
        Senator Hollings. It is not so complex; it is very simple.
    The program has been working. What is wrong? Can you come to
    the committee and provide evidence that we are being defrauded,
    or it is not run efficiently, or a bunch of incompetents have
    taken over, or the Government is losing money? If it is, it has
    not become complex. Lawyers in your Department have made it
    complex.
        Ms. Meissner. Well----
        Senator Hollings. Your lawyers think they run the Congress
    and that they can make the laws. Tell them to run for Congress
    if they want to go ahead and change the law. But there is
    nothing complex about it. We want this program to continue.
        Ms. Meissner. Well, the intent of this legislation, as you
    know, was to provide----
        Senator Hollings. I know it very well; I wrote it.
        Ms. Meissner. Exactly.
        Senator Hollings. Yes, ma'am.
        Ms. Meissner. And we are obviously charged with carrying
    out the intent of the statute.
        Senator Hollings. And why the change is my question.
        Ms. Meissner. We are looking at whether the investments are
    actually investments and are actually producing employment as
    the Congress intended.
        Senator Hollings. Right.
        Ms. Meissner. We do not have a final answer for you. There
    are cases that are in the pipeline, as you and I discussed when
    we talked about this earlier. We are very carefully assessing,
    in complex investment circumstances, whether indeed these are
    investment-producing and employment-producing. I think we are
    about finished with that analysis, and we will be coming to you
    with the results of our analysis.
        Senator Hollings. But the thrust is retroactivity, and that
    is once a company or individual gets things moving regarding
    the investment, the Government cannot just close it down and
    leave them retroactively at a loss.
        Ms. Meissner. We have held some cases in abeyance, but we
    are fully prepared to address them as soon as we are clear
    whether the congressional intent is being met. And, as I said,
    we will be coming to you about the results of that.
        Senator Hollings. Well, you leave us no option other than
    to rewrite the intent all over again and make sure it continues
    regardless of your lawyers.
        Ms. Meissner. I think the intent is very clear; the intent
    is very clear. The issue is whether the investments meet the
    intent.
        Senator Hollings. That changes the whole program. You can
    find one or two that might not meet it, and let us clean that
    up. But, when you take the whole program and grind it to a
    halt, and everybody hangs in abeyance; everybody has got to get
    paid; the investments are there; the payments are made; the
    export businesses have been promulgated and flourished and are
    now in movement, and just all of a sudden, they seem to have no
    sensitivity to what is going on--sensibility would be a good
    word--but in any event, let us get an answer, and let us find
    out where we are, because people are losing money.
        Ms. Meissner. I am very cognizant of that, and we have
    moved this as quickly as we possibly can. We are very close to
    a conclusion, and we are very sensitive to the financial
    repercussions.

                         status of CALEA implementation

        Senator Hollings. With my time limited, Judge Freeh, what
    is your situation regarding CALEA? You say it is optimistic
    now. That is the first time I have heard it is optimistic. That
    is good. Tell me about it.
        Mr. Freeh. With respect to the CALEA, the status of it
    right now is the Congress has appropriated $102 million, which
    has not yet been expended. That is funding to reimburse
    manufacturers as they change their switches. We are in a final
    negotiation, although there is an impasse currently. There is a
    dispute between the Department of Justice and the
    representatives of the carriers as to what features are
    mandated by the statute which you passed in 1994.
        Senator Hollings. So, what is the goal? Is that the case?
    Are you asking for too much or not enough?
        Mr. Freeh. The Department of Justice believes the $500
    million which has been authorized, $102 million of which has
    been appropriated, will be sufficient to meet the needs of law
    enforcement. The industry has come in at the 11th hour and said
    why do you just not reimburse us for all of the switches that
    are in place by October 1998? Unfortunately, that was not the
    statute that you passed in 1994, and it would require hundreds
    of millions of dollars more, which we do not agree to. So, if
    we do not get a solution from the industry, we are going to go
    to the FCC, and the Attorney General will file a petition this
    month.
        Senator Hollings. Thank you.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Gregg. Thank you, Senator Hollings.
        [The information follows:]

                                     CALEA

        On March 27, 1998, the Department of Justice and the FBI
    filed a petition with the FCC opposing the interim standard
    adopted by the telecommunications industry. The interim
    standard is considered to be 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.

                     prepared statement of senator campbell

        Senator Gregg. Senator Campbell.
        Senator Campbell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I am going to submit a statement and some questions to the
    agencies for a response.
        [The statement follows:]

             Prepared Statement of Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell

        Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate your holding this
    morning's hearing and I welcome Director Freeh, Mr.
    Constantine, and Commissioner Meissner here today to discuss
    their respective budgets for the 1999 fiscal year. I know we
    have a lot to cover this morning, Mr. Chairman, so I will make
    only a few brief comments.
        The budgets that we will be discussing today are, as I see
    it, among the most important in the entire federal spending
    package. They represent the very essence and cornerstone of
    America's effort to waging the ongoing wars against crime,
    drugs, and a rising tide of illegal immigration. In my home
    state of Colorado, there are a number of projects and
    initiatives in each of these budgets in which I have a great
    deal of interest. This year, I will be paying close attention
    to the DEA's support of the Rocky Mountain HIDTA, as well as
    the scourge of methamphetamines which have become a tremendous
    problem in my state and across the country. I am also
    interested in the efforts currently being taken to combat
    international crime. As a Coloradan, I also have a great deal
    of concern for the current focus of INS efforts on the interior
    and the problem of illegal aliens facing Colorado law
    enforcement.

        Senator Campbell. I would like to use my few minutes just
    to really make a few comments, because I am a very big
    supporter of all three agencies. I would like to just say to
    you, Louis, that I really appreciate the sensitivity to the
    rising crime rate on Indian reservations. We have been dealing
    with it in the Treasury Subcommittee, as you know, and on those
    reservations which are close to metropolitan areas, we are
    seeing a huge influx of gangs from the cities. These are Indian
    kids, Indian gangs, but they have been led astray by some of
    their counterparts, whether it is the Crips or the Bloods or so
    on in the cities. I think that that Safe Trails Program, as
    near as I can understand it, is really a step in the right
    direction to try to coordinate some law enforcement and some
    preventive measures, too.
        I know, as you do, as all of you do, that a lot of our
    crime now is related to drugs, and all law enforcement is going
    to have jobs for a long time, because until we can convince
    people that they do not need it, you are not going to cut down
    the supply. As long as the American people demand it, it will
    find ways to get across the border or be manufactured here.
        I also appreciate your comments on working with local
    communities about preparedness in case of attacks from
    terrorists. I was in Colorado Springs just recently; had the
    opportunity to visit Fort Carson, bristling with guns and M-1A1
    tanks and everything you can imagine. And the same day, I went
    by the Colorado Springs water filtration plant, and I could not
    help but thinking if someone was a terrorist and really wanted
    to hurt the people of that community, would they go to Fort
    Carson, or would they go to where the water supply is? And it
    is a logical answer.
        I think it is really important what you are doing, that--
    you know, you cannot put guards at every water supply, I guess,
    but it would seem to me that that is factored in your road map
    to the future.
        And to Mr. Constantine, this is kind of provincial, but I
    really appreciate your support for our placing a DEA agent in
    Steamboat Springs, CO, and the support you have given to HIDTA,
    too. We live in an area in the Rocky Mountain States that is
    seeing a huge increase in the use of methamphetamines. As you
    probably know, drugs take the path of least resistance, and as
    we crack down in Miami or Los Angeles or the borders, we see a
    bigger influx into those Midwestern States and the Rocky
    Mountain States. It is complicated, too, by the fact that we
    have a terrific number of illegal immigrants in Colorado. We
    have over 45,000.
        We have a funny situation, I guess, in Colorado. Maybe
    resort communities have this all over the United States, but
    there is kind of a backlash. We are being told to crack down on
    these illegal immigrants, but guess who is hiring them? Local
    businesses who cannot get anybody else to work. And I know that
    we have tried to do that. We have tried to increase the
    presence through letters we have written to you, to increase
    the presence of agents in that area.
        And then, we get quiet little calls. Nobody wants to sign
    their name to it, but we get quiet little calls from employers
    in agriculture and in the tourist industry, and they said my
    gosh, if you crack down, I am going to lose all of my
    employees, and I cannot make it and all that stuff. Well, they
    cannot have it both ways. If you want to reduce drug
    trafficking, if you want illegal immigration to be reduced, you
    have to accept the responsibility of, you know, doing the right
    thing and trying to hire more Americans.
        So, anyway, I just want to say that I really do support
    what you are doing; I know it is a budgetary process that we
    have to go through. But it is a tough job, and I am reminded,
    you know, a few years ago, I do not know which agency it was,
    but I was flying a little plane that I own down around Casa
    Grande, AZ, and when I was landing there, there were two other
    planes in the pattern behind me. And I parked, and the plane
    that pulled up beside me had four fishermen in it, and they had
    been traveling around just above ground level down around the
    border there somewhere looking for some fishing holes, and they
    just barely got parked, and another plane, an agency plane--do
    not know who it was; DEA or INS or who--pulled in right beside
    them, and these guys jumped out with guns and got all four of
    these fishermen down on the ground, and I want to tell you--it
    scared the hell out of them.
        But I guess they had spotted them cruising around under
    radar right along the border, and they thought they were drug
    trafficking. That is one of the things I might mention where it
    is a tough job. I mean, these fishermen were very angry when
    they collected their thoughts, but the agencies themselves,
    they felt they had pretty good cause.
        So, I just wanted to tell you: I certainly respect the work
    all three of you are doing. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Gregg. Thank you.
        Senator Domenici.
        Senator Domenici. Mr. Chairman, and members of the
    subcommittee, I have been unable to come to every meeting that
    you have held, but this one, I made a special effort, because I
    wanted to at least state for the record what you already know,
    Mr. Chairman, and that is that everybody is delighted that we
    have a balanced budget. We will probably have a balanced budget
    announced tomorrow by CBO, indicating that we are in balance
    this year with about $5 to $8 billion and probably over the
    next couple of years between $10 and $20 billion or $25
    billion.
        I think that those who come before us with budgets that
    have significant increases should know that the total
    discretionary moneys available are essentially on the program
    authority, essentially a freeze. We talked about a five-tenths
    percent increase, but CBO estimates that it is just about a
    freeze and that the outlays are actually about $2 billion less
    than a freeze in terms of what is going to be available to
    spend for discretionary programs.
        So, I look forward with interest as to how all of the
    increases that have been proposed by the President are going to
    be achieved. My own thinking is that unless we choose to
    eliminate some programs in these bills and somewhere in
    Government that Congress is not going to let the appropriators
    spend user fees and other mandatory program savings in
    appropriations. I know you are terribly concerned about what is
    the definition of each of these things, because obviously,
    there are user fees in every bill, and the President proposes
    many more and proposes that we use them to pay for programs.
        Now, having said that, I do not say this to minimize the
    importance of the portion of the budget represented by the
    three of you. It is, for all intents and purposes, if it is
    being run effectively, it is probably one of the highest
    priorities in the United States, these programs: DEA, what we
    do with our border and the immigration assault taking place,
    including drugs coming through, and the FBI's role with
    reference to counterterrorism and the like and many other
    activities.
        I would like to first ask DEA, first, Director Constantine,
    I want to tell you that, as I did last year, you are a welcome
    addition to our very formidable leaders in crime prevention,
    and from my standpoint, we are delighted to have you. The
    working together between the FBI and others and your
    professionalism are showing, and that is thanks to many men and
    women but probably significantly to your leadership.

                    status of fight against Methamphetamines

        You know, last year, Congress approved $11.05 million for
    54 DEA agents to address the problem of methamphetamine
    trafficking. Would you please give the subcommittee a brief
    progress report on the use of these resources to combat that
    new, growing source of drugs? While you are at it, the
    administration has a $24.6 million, 223 position request,
    including 100 new agents, to continue the investigation and
    dismantling of the drug labs in the United States. I would like
    you to tell us how that is going to be done and generally to
    assess for us the spread of these kinds of laboratories, which
    are, in some parts of America, including Missouri, I
    understand, reaching the scourge stage.
        Are we doing enough about it? Do you need any other tools?
    Could you talk with us a moment about that new issue.
        Mr. Constantine. It is a two-tiered problem. About 90
    percent of all of the methamphetamine that is distributed and
    used in the United States is controlled by organized crime.
    This is a relatively new phenomenon in the United States.
    Formerly, it was a drug used and sold by a motorcycle gang kind
    of a--small laboratories, primitive operations.
        We have seen, since about 1991 or 1992, very sophisticated
    methamphetamine organizations, primarily operating almost
    totally out of Mexico. The leadership that we have identified
    is known as the Amezcua brothers. There are about three or four
    of them and a whole huge, large family supporting them. They
    will either smuggle into the United States manufactured
    methamphetamine in the amounts of 200 or 300 pounds at a time,
    or they will smuggle into the United States precursor drugs,
    usually ephedrine or pseudoephedrine, which they will order up
    on the international market at the tonnage amounts, usually
    from Eastern European countries. It is then brokered through
    countries like India or Holland and shipped to what are really
    straw purchasers, very often in Mexico or Central America.
        We find these organizations operating not only along the
    border, but also through distribution rings in Georgia and
    North Carolina and Polk County, FL; in Denver, CO, and in Salt
    Lake City and Boise, ID. It is a problem that we address in
    these major organized crime investigations usually in concert
    with the FBI and State and local law enforcement.
        Most often, those are title III court-authorized
    eavesdropping investigations, which is why the encryption issue
    that Director Freeh has been involved in is so critical to us.
    An example was an operation that we took down that began in
    Dallas. It was capable of manufacturing and delivering 300
    pounds of methamphetamine at a time throughout the United
    States. We arrested all of the principals from California to
    Florida and seized the laboratories that were involved in those
    manufacturers. Now, that is very much labor intensive because
    of all of the title III work and surveillances that you have to
    do.
        The second problem that we think is responsible for about
    10 to 20 percent of the methamphetamine in the country is in
    these small laboratories that we saw in Missouri. Now, we see
    them proliferating around the United States. They are
    individuals who have gotten a recipe for the manufacture of
    methamphetamine over the Internet. They either steal the
    precursor drugs from a farmer's field or purchase it, small
    amounts from legitimate sources. They set up these laboratories
    in hotel rooms, in cars, and in barns. They are extremely
    dangerous because of the volatility. There have been any number
    of explosions or deaths in the laboratory. There is also a big
    problem in the laboratory cleanup.
        They care little about the safety of other people. You and
    I may be staying in a hotel, and they may decide to rent a room
    and set up a laboratory in that room and could set fire to the
    room and certainly leave all of the hazardous waste behind.
        We have seen, for example, in Missouri the number of
    laboratories that we have encountered in that State go from a
    number of 20 or 30 3 years ago up to almost 800, a little over
    800, in that period of time. We see similar types of operations
    in Arkansas and Oklahoma and California and other States, and
    my sense is that these things tend to proliferate.
        Senator Domenici. Let me stop you. That is a great
    explanation for the committee of what is going on out there.
        Do you need the added personnel requested in the
    President's budget to continue your effort?
        Mr. Constantine. Yes, sir; that is the bare minimum to be
    able to attack, because what once was a problem for major
    cities is now a problem for every small town in Iowa and in
    Arkansas and Missouri. So, to get those resources to those
    locations, to assist State and local law enforcement, that
    amount would be critical to fulfilling the long-term operation.
        Senator Domenici. Director Freeh, do you agree?
        Mr. Freeh. Yes, sir, I do; and as the Administrator
    mentioned, we work very closely on these cases, but he has made
    a major initiative on this particular problem, and I think
    these resources would be well used.

                          controlling Methamphetamine

        Senator Domenici. Are we going to be able to control this,
    or is it such that it is going to be almost impossible?
        Mr. Constantine. Well, I think people have made significant
    steps to control this drug. The Attorney General had taken it
    as an issue 2 years ago and directed us to do a number of
    things to improve the situation.
        The answer to all of these problems, I think, is the
    prevention program. I am extremely impressed with these ads
    that the Partnership for a Drug-Free America is putting on with
    your support. I think if we sound the alarm bell long enough
    and loud enough, we will reach people and stop them from using
    the drug, and we can keep it from becoming the crack cocaine of
    the next century, and I think we are far ahead programmatically
    and philosophically than we were in the 1980's, when all of us
    in law enforcement were overwhelmed by the crack cocaine thing.
    So, I think it does afford us an opportunity to get ahead of
    it.
        Senator Domenici. Mr. Chairman, I might say that the reason
    I raised the question, I knew something about it. I had had
    occasion to talk to Senator Bond, and he is out in these rural
    towns now every weekend. He said it is something to behold in
    the State of Missouri. It has absolutely gone wild in terms of
    gangs as they relate to this chemical drug, and thousands of
    teenagers are involved in the gangs and this new kind of drug.
    He is figuring it is so bad that they do not know what can be
    done about it. I think it is important that we take a look.

                      need for separate Immigration agency

        I have two other questions. I will try to make them as
    quick as I can. With reference, Ms. Meissner, in terms of your
    Department and the work you do, I heard some of Senator
    Hollings' thoughts and suggestions. I do not agree with those
    as they pertain to whether or not we need your Department and
    every single person who is there and more. Clearly, there have
    been some serious management problems. You inherited some, and
    there are still some, but obviously, we gave you a terrible job
    when you have the American border as exposed as it is. With
    poverty rampant in Mexico and drugs coming from the south, your
    problem is very difficult. I hope we can continue to add
    personnel, and I hope, in turn, you will continue to make them
    ever more productive.
        Ms. Meissner. Thank you.

                          INS resources in New Mexico

        Senator Domenici. I have a question regarding my home
    State. I do not know if I want to be specific here today, but,
    you know, just because we do not have a whole lot of big cities
    on that border, we seem to get shortchanged on personnel all of
    the time. I would just remind you that the way the criminals
    use this border is wherever it is weak, they go. If you do not
    make sure that New Mexico, including a couple of its ports of
    entry, a couple of its stopovers that are inland, if you do not
    plug them once you plug El Paso and a couple of communities in
    that direction in Texas, they are going to find this way to do
    it. They are not coming across to use it all there; they are
    coming across to get disseminated.
        So, I would ask that you look carefully at that, and if you
    could give us your best estimate of what is a fair figure for
    New Mexico and what you intend to do.
        Ms. Meissner. Absolutely. We have been short in New Mexico,
    as you know. I think that almost everybody would agree that the
    way we have put the border strategy together over the last
    several years is one that makes sense over the longer term,
    which is that we have attempted and very successfully built up
    in the four highest corridors of illegal traffic. We are moving
    very effectively in those four corridors to gain control. Our
    effort now, increasingly, has to be to link those operations,
    and New Mexico is a critical link in that chain.
        I just checked the figures before coming to this hearing,
    and it turns out that New Mexico has almost one-half of the
    agents that are in the El Paso-New Mexico sector. With the
    agents that you will be receiving out of this year's
    deployment, we will be able to staff our checkpoints in New
    Mexico more than 90 percent of the time. We will be not quite
    at 100 percent, but we will be between 90 and 95 percent, and
    that is absolutely critical in New Mexico, because, as you say,
    people are transiting the State in order to get elsewhere.
    Those highways are absolutely central to the ability of the
    traffic to move, and we will be able to provide quite a strong
    deterrent both where immigration and drugs are concerned out of
    this year's deployment of resources in New Mexico.

                            First responder training

        Senator Domenici. Mr. Chairman, my last question has to do
    with counterterrorism and first responder training. In 1995 or
    1996, we passed a very big amendment on the DOD bill. It was
    called the Nunn-Lugar-Domenici amendment. It had $385 million a
    year authorized for counterterrorism and first responder
    activities.
        The Department of Defense transferred, Director Freeh, $40
    million of that program from DOD to you, and that $40 million
    or some portion of it is what you are talking about in your
    statement with reference to first responder activities. I am
    hopeful that we can continue to fund the program in Defense.
    Who knows, with the budget being tight, whether they will get
    more money or not? But, hopefully, you can continue this work.
        You know, everybody during the Iraq war, the Iraq crisis,
    started asking what are we doing to protect our cities? No one
    knows that we have started in a rather remarkable way, but it
    is not easy. Cities do not want to hear of a terrorism attack,
    much less prepare themselves for it, and the FBI is leading the
    efforts to train local personnel. There is no question that it
    is frightening to train a community in responding to a
    biological intervention in their water system which has the
    potential for killing everybody in their town, but that is the
    world we live in.
        Mr. Freeh. The funds have been very productive, Senator. As
    you know, the Nunn-Lugar-Domenici funds go really to the first
    responders, which is exactly where the rubber meets the road in
    these circumstances. The Department is also establishing some
    training centers, one in Alabama and one with the New Mexico
    Institute of Mining and Technology. The Nunn-Lugar-Domenici
    program will bring into their seminars in the next 18 months
    enough first responders to at least have the first coverage.
    Although as I mentioned to the chairman before, I do not think
    we are anywhere near a state of total preparedness; we are
    miles ahead of where we were a couple of years ago, and this
    effort, if it continues, will eventually go to 120 cities in
    the next 18 months, which is very critical.
        Senator Domenici. So, you are telling us that you believe
    that you are fully utilizing existing expertise and facilities
    in the United States to meet your needs, and that we will soon
    be getting some practical evidence of the dissemination of
    those training programs into our cities.
        Mr. Freeh. Yes; and I think we saw a little bit of that in
    Las Vegas. The response out there which turned out not to be a
    bona fide anthrax threat, was really a product of the
    community, particularly the law enforcement and the emergency
    services community, the State and local community responding in
    a coordinated fashion, because they had prepared and trained
    for that.
        Senator Domenici. Thank you very much.
        I have questions I will submit for the record, Mr.
    Chairman. Thank you very much.
        Senator Gregg. I will just note that this committee is
    going to hold a special hearing on March 31 on
    counterterrorism, and the Attorney General will be present.
        Senator Domenici. The subcommittee itself?
        Senator Gregg. Right; on the issue of coordination of
    counterterrorism efforts.
        Senator Domenici. Good.
        [The information follows:]

               Nunn-Lugar-Domenici Domestic Preparedness Program

        The Department of Defense's (DOD) Domestic Preparedness
    Program was formed under the fiscal year 1997 Defense
    authorization bill (Public Law 104-201), commonly known as the
    Nunn-Lugar-Domenici legislation. The bill provides funding for
    DOD to enhance the capability of Federal, state, and local
    emergency responders in incidents involving nuclear,
    biological, and chemical terrorism.
        The Department of Defense received $39.8 million to provide
    training under Nunn-Lugar-Domenici in 1998. DOD retains these
    monies, but in conjunction with FBI, Environmental Protection
    Agency, Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), Department
    of Energy (DOE), and Public Health Service, provides training
    and reimburses agencies for costs incurred. The Department of
    Justice did not receive Nunn-Lugar-Domenici funding from
    Congress.

                             Border Patrol in Texas

        Senator Gregg. Senator Hutchison.
        Senator Hutchison. One year ago, I was very concerned about
    what I heard about the strategy of the Border Patrol basically
    starting in California and making its way very slowly to Texas.
    In the meantime, Texas was being overrun by illegal drugs and
    illegal aliens being imported.
        I am very pleased to say that you stepped up to the line,
    Ms. Meissner, and addressed our concerns, because I think you
    listened. I appreciate the fact that you went out for yourself
    and saw that Texas was, indeed, a sieve; 1,200 miles of border
    being a sieve is a tough situation, and it makes everyone's job
    in law enforcement harder.
        Your response was not only to help us earmark over 600 of
    the new Border Patrol agents into the Texas/New Mexico region
    but also to immediately go in in August, in Operation Rio
    Grande.
        I want to ask you what your results show from Operation Rio
    Grande, and what the commitment is to continue this kind of
    targeted effort along the Texas border?
        Ms. Meissner. First of all, thank you, Senator, for those
    kind comments, and thank you personally for your working with
    me on this and seeing it through, because I think that we have
    really developed a very positive partnership on this, and I aim
    to continue it.
        Operation Rio Grande is here to stay. It is a permanent
    operation on the border in south and west Texas in the way that
    our other operations on the Southwest border are. We will
    continue to amplify it with resources, obviously in this
    deployment but in the resources that we are requesting for the
    next fiscal year. The administration is requesting 1,000 Border
    Patrol agents in fiscal year 1999, and a portion of that,
    obviously, is devoted to continuing to bring Operation Rio
    Grande to the point where we gain control.
        Now, we are doing it step by step. Our target, first, has
    been Brownsville, as you know. The results in Brownsville are
    extremely favorable; and, in fact, I would like to really
    provide for the record some of the commentary that we have
    received in letters, in newspaper stories, and so on, because
    there is no question that it is having an impact on the
    community and on the life of that community that is
    exceptionally positive.
        There is no crime on the river anymore. The panhandlers
    have left downtown. The merchants now believe that they are
    able to have a much more thriving business because of the state
    of life in the communities, and in the community, we are still
    intercepting aliens on the outskirts but not along the river.
    The violence and the banditry has disappeared.
        So, we are obviously continuing that effort as we go
    westward and are increasingly focusing on Laredo and Del Rio.
    Deployment of the resources which are going in now in fiscal
    year 1998 began in January; 670 of those agents are going to
    Operation Rio Grande. We believe it will take a couple of years
    to actually complete that very vast expanse of border, as you
    say, but it is working, and once we are there and have
    established control, we stay.
        So, this is an area that is important not only for
    immigration enforcement but extremely important for drug
    enforcement, and the drug enforcement implications and
    consequences of this are also very positive and will continue.
        Senator Hutchison. Well, let me say that everything I hear
    in the border communities echoes exactly what you have said.
    They are beginning to have confidence now that there is a
    safety factor along the border in these formerly very dangerous
    areas, and I am glad to hear you say that you think it will be
    a 2-year project, because I hope that what you mean is that you
    are going to move up to Laredo, Del Rio----
        Ms. Meissner. Exactly.
        Senator Hutchison. And then, into these remote areas where
    the people are least able to handle the influx, and they may
    need the beefing up in that out-year all the way up to El Paso.
        Ms. Meissner. Yes; and I would actually say 2 to 4 years. I
    mean, what we now have seen, based on our experience in
    California, is that it essentially took us 3 to 4 years to take
    control, but it is now a totally transformed border, and Texas
    is more challenging because of the vast area.
        [The information follows:]
               Impact of Operation Rio Grande, on Brownsville, TX
        Since Operation Rio Grande began in Brownsville, we have noticed a
    steady decline in the Crime Rate. Below is how the crime rate decreased
    by the month, compared to the previous year.
        September--decreased by 23.98 percent.
        October--decreased by 26.16 percent.
        November--decreased by 11.86 percent.
        December--decreased by 26.85 percent.
        January--decreased by 21.57 percent.
        Average decrease for the five (5) months is 22.08 percent.
        The crime rate on the river itself, (River Banditry) has completely
    ceased, especially on Zone 1 and 2. Beatings, theft and rape of aliens
    on the riverbank are not occurring anymore.
        The presence of pan-handlers (beggars, jugglers, etc.), are not
    seen or reported in the downtown area anymore.
        The downtown business owners are not reporting thefts or loitering
    by juveniles aliens at all.
        We are still apprehending groups of aliens (OTM's) in the
    Brownsville area that are suspected of being smuggled, but this is not
    occurring in the downtown areas, zones 1 and 2. These groups are
    shifting to the outskirts of town, approximately 7 or 8 miles east or
    west from the downtown area.
        Other variables identified (minimal complaints from citizens on
    aliens) to determine effectiveness of operations are showing that
    Operation Rio Grande is doing what is was designed to do: Achieve a
    positive impact on the quality of life in the City of Brownsville.
        Gary, I hope this is what you are looking for. Let me know if you
    need more. I may send you some more statistics coming in from
    Brownsville, but this will get you started.
                                     ______

                                   memorandum
                            U.S. Department of Justice,
                        Immigration and Naturalization Service,
                                                      January 26, 1998.
    Subject: Letters of Support, Operation Rio Grande, McAllen Sector.
    To: Office of the Regional Director.
    From: Office of the Border Patrol.

        Please find the attached letters of support forwarded for your
    information from McAllen Sector Chief Jose E. Garza. The letters were
    sent to the Chief from the community leaders and citizens. The letters
    are full of praise to the sector on several issues.
        The issue of improving the levee road and lighting of the river
    near Progreso Lakes of McAllen Sector's Harlingen station area is one
    of the themes. The writing citizens and leaders remark on how
    enthusiastic and responsive the Border Patrol and its' Agents have been
    throughout the Rio Grande initiative.
        The comments from law enforcement officials and city mayors are in
    a positive vein that expresses their appreciation for the outreach
    effort McAllen has made. The letters speak well of the investment made
    in continued outreach and to the many diverse groups to whom the sector
    has reached. This outward show of support is a good example of McAllen
    Sector's adherence to the strategy and their continued perseverance to
    keep focus on the operation within the community. This continued effort
    has provided a valuable return to the sector and the service in that we
    have had very little negative press and no substantial opposition to
    ``Rio Grande.''
        If you require further information regarding this matter please
    contact DRCPA Ronald D. Vitiello of my staff at (214) 767-7039.

                                              David V. Aguilar,
                                           Assistant Regional Director.
                                     ______

                                            The Vision Company,
                                      Weslaco, Texas, January 25, 1998.
    Chief Sector Officer Joe Garza,
    U.S. Border Patrol Office
    McAllen, Texas.
        Dear Chief Garza: Please know that, in my opinion and perception as
    a resident living in the immediate borders of the Rio Grande River,
    Operation Rio Grande, appears to be a great success. The flow of
    illegal aliens and drastic curtailment of drug smuggling appears to
    have subsided since additional personnel, vehicles, and new strategies
    have been added or implemented.
        Was pleased to be part of a group of various representatives from
    the U.S. Water and Boundary Commission, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
    Department, port chiefs of the U.S. Immigration and U.S. Customs
    Services, Central Power and Light Company, and property owners to study
    and discuss the different issues and possible problems of expanding
    Operation Rio Grande in and around the Progreso Point of Entry
    spearheaded by SBPA Adrian Zarate recently. I was pleased that
    discussion centered on all aspects from different perspectives
    including security, environmental, and landowners' views. The addition
    of much needed lighting, weather proofing the levees, and even the
    possibility of using cameras is important to augment the manpower
    energies of the present personnel and equipment.
        Please know that you have my wholehearted support in your
    continuing implementation of Operation Rio Grande, and the addition of
    innovative technology to stem these serious problems associated with
    individuals attempting to ford the Rio Grande River illegally or sail
    illicit drugs across.
        Hope 1998 is a wonderful and fruitful year for you, your family,
    and staff. You do know that you can call me at any time as you have a
    friend of the U.S. Border Patrol and all efforts of Operation Rio
    Grande.
                Very truly yours,
                                       Dr. Christina Fernandez,
                                         President, The Vision Company.
                                     ______

                                    San Pedro-Kenedy Ranch Co.,
                                      Sarita, Texas, December 22, 1997.
    Jose E. Garza,
    Chief Patrol Agent, McAllen Sector,
    United States Border Patrol.
        Dear Chief Garza: Please accept this as a letter of appreciation
    and commendation to the Kingsville Station of your command sector.
        I have found the agents to be very responsive when they are called
    for assistance and to be very diligent in their patrol of some very
    isolated areas. I would dread to think of the additional amount of
    damage and destruction by illegal aliens that property owners in this
    area would suffer if not for the efforts of the Kingsville Border
    Patrol.
        In working with other law enforcement agencies of the areas, I
    think that I can also express their appreciation for the cooperation
    that exists with the Border Patrol.
        In this large and isolated area, the Border Patrol agents are often
    the first to arrive at the scene of major accidents. Their presence has
    made the difference between life and death for numerous victims. Their
    compassionate actions have also been responsible for saving numerous
    illegal aliens that have been overcome by the heat and long distances
    that they had failed to prepare for.
        Again, I would like to express my appreciation for the many
    positive contributions that the Kingsville Border Patrol agents make to
    Sarita, Kingsville, and all the surrounding areas and for the
    invaluable assistance they provide me in my capacity as ranch security.
                Sincerely,
                                                    Joe Stiles,
                                                              Security.
                                     ______

                            Kenedy County Sheriff's Department,
                                      Sarita, Texas, December 17, 1997.
    U.S. Border Patrol,
    Kingsville, Texas.
        To Whom It May Concern: Please let this letter serve as a formal
    appreciation for the assistance that U.S. Border Patrol Agents have
    extended to the Kenedy County Sheriff's Department and the residents of
    Kenedy County.
        As you are aware, Kenedy County is a large County and it has been
    because of the assistance of Border Patrol that calls for emergency
    response have been answered. Every time there is a major accident,
    Border Patrol is the first to respond and arrive at the scene at all
    hours to assist and give medical attention to the injured victims until
    Sheriff deputies and EMS units arrive. In addition, Border Patrol has
    always assisted in the search of reported dead bodies in the Kenedy
    Ranch as well as reported missing or sick illegal immigrants.
        This County is extremely appreciative for the considerable
    assistance that has been provided to us by U.S. Border Patrol. This
    department, as well as all travelers passing through our County, can
    never repay Border Patrol for their dedicated service. Our hats off to
    all agents for a job well done.
        May you all have the best holiday season and many well wishes for
    the upcoming new year.
                Respectfully,
                                         Rafael M. Cuellar, Jr.
                                                               Sheriff.
                                     ______

                               Spohn Kleberg Memorial Hospital,
                                                     December 22, 1997.
    Jose E. Garza,
    Chief Patrol Agent, McAllen Sector,
    United States Border Patrol.
        Dear Chief Garza: It is with great pleasure that I reaffirm and
    commend the Kingsville Border Patrol agents for their continuing
    efforts to not only contain illegal drug trafficking, but also their
    commitment to the community in which they work. The Kingsville Border
    Patrol agents are very concerned with the well-being of the aliens and
    often bring these individuals to our hospital for treatment if
    necessary. The core values of Spohn Health System include
    responsiveness to need as well as dignity of person. We believe, as
    custodian's of God's people when we're judged upon that day, the only
    things we get to keep are those we gave away. The Kingsville Border
    Patrol agents practice this belief daily by assisting in the aid of the
    sick and injured aliens.
        Additionally, the Kingsville Border Patrol agents demonstrate their
    commitment to the community by donating toys to the children on our
    Pediatric Unit during the Christmas season. You may even see one of the
    agents impersonating the jolly man himself.
        Spohn Kleberg Memorial Hospital is pleased to have the Kingsville
    Border Patrol agents working for Kingsville and the surrounding
    communities Spohn Health System serves.
                Sincerely yours,
                                            Donna Upchurch, RN,
                                               Associate Administrator.
                                     ______

                               Progreso Lakes, Texas, December 9, 1997.
    Joe Garza,
    Chief Patrol Agent,
    McAllen, Texas.
        Dear Chief Garza: This letter is reference the proposed lighting
    and caliche road construction project near the Progreso Lakes levee
    area. Supervisor Adrian Zarate met with me and my husband on Friday,
    November 28, 1997, to explain ``Operation Rio Grande'' to us. We
    strongly feel this is a very worthwhile endeavor that would surely help
    secure our homes here in Progreso Lakes.
        Adrian explained he had met with the farmers owning land in the
    area, representatives from Fish and Wildlife, Water and Boundary,
    Bridge Owner and Custom and Immigration heads from the Progreso Port of
    Entry. He took this group of people to the areas that would be affected
    by ``Operation Rio Grande'' so as to address any concerns they may have
    on this project. The meetings were very productive and in the end all
    were in agreement with the proposal.
        On December 5, 1997, Adrian worked a sixteen hour day in order to
    make himself available to all the citizens of Progreso Lakes. Enclosed
    are the names from all the families supporting ``Operation Rio
    Grande''. Adrian told us that you had worked very hard in making
    ``Operation Rio Grande'' a reality for all the citizens of the Rio
    Grande Valley and for this we would all like to say how fortunate we
    are in having you as the head of the Border Patrol.
                Sincerely,
                                             Beverly and Joseph Meyers.

        Families from Progreso Lakes who support ``Operation Rio Grande'':
        Henrietta Escalon, Raul Galvan, Benito Arambula, Pedro Escalon,
    Flora Galvan, Eliazar Galvan, Manuel Galvan, Servando Galvan, Santiago
    Galvan, Jr., Arturo Galvan, Eleno Maldonado, Michael Guerrier, Manuel
    Oviedo, Nere Galvan, Gerald Baker, Ted Sunderland, Woodie Cellum,
    Harold Seiver, George Pults, James Hunt, John Whitfield, A.C. Fuller,
    Randy Winston, Lloyd Heggen, Judith German, Bill Swinnea, Martin David,
    Johnny Guin, Benton Beckwith, Tomas Cuellar, Arturo C. Cuellar, Jr.,
    Arturo C. Cuellar, Sr., Burton Villarreal, Robert Gonzalez, Jimmy
    Payne, Virginia Dwyer, Tim Reid, Butch Emery, Chester Pflugard, Alex
    Young, Edwin C. Farrell, Rene Luna, Robert Perales, Bill Davis, Michael
    Zink, John Gonzales, Jane Gonzales, Roland Ramirez, Sigfriedo Flores,
    Clay Flores, Leroy Riemenschneider, L.T. Moss, Ignacio Garcia, Connie
    Lincoln, Norman Maxwell, Harold Cain, Don Fletcher, William Cain,
    Donald Riemenschneider, John Trainor Evans, Dorothy Egleston, James
    Thomas, Raul Mendez, Pedro Trevino.
                                     ______

                                        City of Progreso Lakes,
                              Progreso Lakes, Texas, December 16, 1997.
    Chief Joe Garza,
    United States Border Patrol,
    McAllen, Texas.
        Dear Chief Garza: We have recently been in contact with Supervisor
    Adrian Zarate with regard to the Border Patrol coverage in and around
    the area of the Progreso International Bridge. As you know, this bridge
    is situated in our city and therefore is of more than casual interest
    to our citizens. It is our yards through which illegal traffic flows.
        Since the inception of Operation Rio Grande we have seen a marked
    decrease in illegal traffic. We credit the added vigilance as the
    reason for this dramatic decline. At the same time we will not be
    lulled into a false sense of security, this is an ongoing battle and as
    such requires continual monitoring. We stand ready to support our
    Border Patrol.
        Supervisor Zarate has impressed us with his enthusiasm for his
    proposal. He has researched the project in a manner that takes into
    consideration the impact this operation would have on the citizens and
    their environment, without compromising the safety of his agents. He
    has consulted with biologists, farmers, businessmen and local citizens
    and requested input from those who would be immediately effected.
        As you well know, one of the integral components of this operation
    is the addition of caliche to the levy in the immediate vicinity of the
    Bridge. Having driven on these levees, I can assure you that in
    inclement weather they are impassable. In regard to lighting the
    levees, some residents have reservations about the unforeseeable
    effects on crops, insects, and wildlife as well as light pollution, but
    weighing these factors against the safety of agents and citizens alike
    solidifies our support.
        While Progreso Lakes was incorporated in 1979, it has been home to
    many of our citizens for several decades. We hold special concern for
    the safety of our elderly and our children who, each in their own way,
    seem most vulnerable. Over the years we have seen the complexion of
    illegal foot traffic change from the lone alien looking for work who
    would timidly approach you with queries such as ``which way is north?''
    or ``which way to Chicago?'' to a more threatening and dangerous
    traffic that has no regard for person or property.
        We on the front-lines of this nations war on drugs are glad that
    the U.S. Border Patrol has recognized our plight and we support the
    measures it is taking to implement this project to the fullest.
        Thanking you for your time and attention to our situation, I am
                Very truly yours,
                                                   Karen Evans,
                                          Mayor, Progreso Lakes, Texas.
                                     ______

                                            B&P Bridge Company,
                                     Progreso, Texas, December 1, 1997.
    Joe Garza,
    Chief Patrol Agent,
    McAllen, TX.
        Dear Mr. Garza: I have recently met with Mr. Robert Vargas, Port
    Director of Progreso International Bridge, Adrian Zarate, U.S. Border
    Patrol, along with representatives of U.S. International Water Boundary
    Commission, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and Central Power and
    Light. It was a unanimous agreement of all the parties that this
    section of the river must be lighted to enhance Border Patrol efforts
    to stem the flow of illegal aliens.
        I totally support the lighting of this section of the border and
    because the lights will be visible from Mexico, this will discourage
    persons from attempting to cross the river.
        Since Border Patrol began the current operations, we have not had
    any vehicles stolen or broken into in our parking lots.
                Sincerely,
                                                         Sam R. Sparks.
                                     ______

                                   City of Progreso, December 15, 1997.
    Joe Garza,
    Chief Patrol Agent,
    McAllen, Texas.
        Dear Chief Garza: On or about December 16, 1997 Supervisor Adrian
    Zarate explain to me his project, ``Operation Rio Grande''. Mr. Zarate
    stated that said project was composed of lighting and cliche road
    construction on the levee of the Rio Grande River which are South of
    the City of Progreso.
        In order for me to make a need assessment for the project, Mr.
    Zarate gave me a tour of the area. At which time, I saw the composition
    of the levee and that it was not weather proof which makes it hard to
    travel during raining weather. The terrain with all the brush and
    darkness is an invitation for crossing that sector of the Rio Grande
    River which in turn would be lighted. Thus, such project would deter
    illegal crossing and at the same time reduce crime in our City.
        With this in mind, may this correspondence serve as a letter of
    support for the proposed project as reference above.
                Sincerely,
                                                 Arturo Valdez,
                                               Mayor, City of Progreso.
                                     ______

                                                     November 29, 1997.
    James M. Fernandez,
    Progreso, Texas.
    Chief Joe Garza,
    U.S. Border Patrol,
    Weslaco, Texas.
        Dear Sir: On Wednesday, November 26, 1997 we attended a meeting at
    the Progreso Intl. bridge regarding the proposed lighting and weather-
    proofing of the levee east and west of the port of entry. This informal
    meeting was conducted by your representative, Adrian Zarate who
    presented us with details of the proposed project.
        We are farmers and/or land owners along the proposed East 2.25 mile
    section of the levee and were asked to attend this meeting so as to get
    answers to any concerns we may have resulting from the proposed
    project. The laying of caliche on the levee did not give us any
    problems at all. This would benefit us greatly at times of wet weather
    giving us all-weather access to at least our property boundaries along
    the levee.
        Of concern to some of us was the actual placement of the utility
    poles to be used. It was explained to us by a CPL representative that
    the poles would be placed along the lower north side of the levee,
    within the IBWC right of way, and out of the way of any access by any
    of our farm equipment in adjacent fields. We asked about the type of
    lighting and how far into the fields on the south side the lighting
    would cover. We were told that the range of the lights would be from
    150 to 180 feet but that the lights would be aimed toward the east and
    west and not directly south. We were told that this was to meet
    concerns of wildlife agencies, who were also at the meeting, and also
    to get the maximum effect with the least number of lights.
        Concern over the possibility of increased insect activity resulting
    from the lighting was discussed. Light draws insects at night, both
    harmful and beneficial, and we all grow insect sensitive crops along
    the proposed project. From some experience by a few of us with crops
    growing near lighting in other areas and from what little information
    from entomologists and others we could get, the insect concern would
    probably be slight.
        Access on the levee was also a concern. With the caliche on the
    levee there will be a possibility of increased auto traffic by those
    who don't have any business there. We have gates controlling our north/
    south access roads. We were assured that only land owners and operators
    and their representatives would be allowed access on the levee. The
    IBWC will upgrade their ``Not For Public Use'' signs and the patrols on
    the levee are or will be authorized to enforce this access. We were
    very satisfied with this controlled access.
        Besides the caliche we will be getting a great benefit from this
    proposed project--security. It is frightening and dangerous to try to
    do any farm work such as irrigating at night, but we have to do it.
    Once the project is completed and operational and the alien and drug
    traffic is curtailed to the extent possible, not only will it be safer
    to check our farming operations at night along the levee, but also the
    safety and reduced alien traffic north of the levee will carry over.
        This proposed project is not a ``rush job''. All concerns;
    landowners', farmers', wildlife, and immigration are being addressed.
    We believe it will be a good project as long as these concerns continue
    to be addressed and because of this we support you in this endeavor.
                Sincerely yours,
                                       James M. Fernandez,
                                       Art Beckwith,
                                       O.D. Emery,
                                       Marvin Fuller,
                                       Tim Reid.
                                     ______

                           Hidalgo County Sheriff's Department,
                                                      December 2, 1997.
    U.S. Border Patrol Chief Joe Garza,
    Agent In Charge,
    McAllen, Texas.
        Dear Chief Garza: I would like to say that I totally support and
    appreciate the proposed project of lighting the Project Sector and also
    adding caliche on the road leading to the levee in the Progreso Lakes
    area. Not only will this be of benefit to the residents, but will also
    help our Deputies when patrolling those areas.
        I strongly feel that the lighting will eliminate a lot of the
    illegal crossing which occurs in that area, thus cutting down on the
    crime.
                Sincerely,
                                     Enrique ``Henry'' Escalon,
                                                Hidalgo County Sheriff.

        [Clerk's note.--The attached newspaper articles are being retained
    in the subcommittee's files.]

        Senator Hutchison. I appreciate that we are now getting the
    attention, because it is more of a challenge. There is no
    question when you have these vast open spaces. But I appreciate
    the team that you have put together and the people who are
    living with it day in and day out are also very optimistic.

                         Mexican Government cooperation

        I would like to turn to you, Mr. Constantine, for two
    issues, one of which is one that you have already addressed, I
    understand, and that is the certification process with Mexico.
    I am paraphrasing, and feel free to correct if I have a
    misimpression, but from what I have read that you have said in
    the newspapers and perhaps what you said today, you think that
    the progress has been minimal from Mexico. And I would like to
    ask you if you think that this is a sorting out time, or do you
    think that the higher levels of the Mexican Government are not
    trying to cooperate with the United States in the drug fighting
    efforts?
        Mr. Constantine. Yes; what I said originally was that I try
    to avoid getting involved in the certification decision
    discussion. What I try to do is, as a career police officer,
    analyze what is the crime problem. What is the impact on the
    citizens of the United States? What you have is these very
    powerful criminal organizations with the command and control in
    Mexico who send into the United States--it is not just along
    the border; but it is New York; it is Chicago; it is Milwaukee,
    and it is Salt Lake City--their operatives to carry out drug
    trafficking.
        And last year, when we met, this was a very, very difficult
    situation, because all of the civilian law enforcement agencies
    in Mexico had been totally dismantled, and there was nobody
    with whom we could legitimately share information. What I have
    said here today, and I said in previous testimony last week,
    there have been some improvements in that in which there are
    specially selected units that have been selected by the
    Government of Mexico and have been put through a very vigorous
    background process. They have been trained by the FBI and the
    DEA.
        Now, they are the beginning, and it is a small beginning,
    but you have to start some place, and this does take a fairly
    long period of time.
        Senator Hutchison. Does that indicate to you that there is
    an effort on the part of the people at the higher levels of the
    Mexican Government to address this issue?
        Mr. Constantine. The people that I meet with, Senator, I
    think honestly want to improve the situation. The problem is
    the infrastructure for law enforcement has been so badly
    damaged by corruption that rebuilding is very, very difficult.
    And simultaneously, while that is happening, the trafficking
    organizations out of Mexico have become much more dangerous to
    citizens of the United States than they were 5 years ago and
    much more dangerous. If you look at Juarez, Mexico since the
    death of Carillo Fuentes on July 5 of last year, there have
    been 50 people murdered in drug-related killings in that city,
    one-sixth of them in one restaurant. It was an upscale
    restaurant, the Max Finn restaurant, where they just walked in
    and sprayed the whole crowd with automatic weapons fire.
        There have been numbers of doctors who have been
    assassinated; numbers of police officers and prosecutors. So,
    you are in a situation right now where there is a beginning
    attempt to improve the law enforcement structure. But it is a
    raid against this very powerful enemy, and that is how I assess
    it and look at it.
        Senator Hutchison. Well, my dilemma is that I do have to
    decide on the issue of certification, and I have to decide if
    it is better to work in a cooperative spirit with Mexico and
    try to give every indication that this is a joint effort or
    whether we slam the door in their face and have harsh rhetoric
    and turn them into, if not enemies, certainly adversaries. And
    I have taken the former approach: that we should work with them
    in a spirit of cooperation, understanding that it is very
    difficult, and perhaps progress is slower than we thought.
        So, I think it is important as we are looking at the issue
    is are they trying? And is there a commitment at the highest
    level? And that is how I am looking at this. The President has
    said that he is going to certify that the effort is there, and
    I think that we need to, (a) go forward without the harsh
    rhetoric that would perhaps lessen cooperation; but, (b) I
    think we need to look at another method of measure rather than
    the hammer approach, and I am working with others in the
    Senate, hopefully, for an alternative to this either
    certification or decertification, black and white approach and
    seeing if there is not something which would bring in law
    enforcement officials, of which the three of you would be
    important, into a kind of high level group along with the drug
    czar that would start setting standards and goals and reporting
    on those but without the decertification that has such, I
    think, debilitating effects on our relationship.
        So, I would ask you, even though you have tried to avoid
    the issue, if you do not think that cooperation will get us
    more in the long run than confrontation?
        Mr. Constantine. Well, obviously, you know, my whole role
    in life has been cooperating with other law enforcement
    agencies to try to achieve a result, and I have avoided
    confrontation everywhere. This is always a difficult time for
    me in this city, because I lay out what I see as a police
    official, and I deal with facts and try to stay out of any
    types of policy or political issues that are beyond my
    capacity. I think eventually, the ultimate test of how
    successful we are and how successful the programs are will be
    in the cooperation of identifying the leadership of all of
    these organizations in Mexico. Most of them have been indicted
    in courts in the United States for substantial felony crimes
    that have impacted citizens in the United States, and when they
    are arrested and brought to justice and, hopefully, before a
    jury of their peers that they have injured that then, I think
    we can say that it has been successful.
        And I leave for others the responsibility of making the
    evaluation of what political process or what policy we should
    have as a Government. I will always tell elected officials in
    this country the truth as I see it as candidly and as clearly
    as I possibly can, and then let other people make that
    decision.
        Senator Hutchison. Well, I understand that you are
    reluctant, but it makes it very difficult for us with the
    process we have, and I hope that we can change it and move
    toward setting goals of extradition of those people. That would
    certainly be high on the list, and I want to work to do that.

                               raid on Pharmacies

        Let me turn to one more local issue to which I would like
    your response, and that is recently, the DEA raided 25 local
    pharmacies in a rather small town in Texas and followed up with
    letters requesting up to $400,000 in fines per pharmacy for
    what appeared to be paperwork violations. I would like to know
    what the dollar amount is in the proposed fines, and what is
    the DEA going to do? I mean, is this going to be a pattern? Or
    is there going to be some ability in the DEA to judge what are
    paperwork violations, and if there is a pharmacy that is
    trafficking illegal drugs, clamp down, but if it is a pharmacy
    that has sloppy paperwork, is there another approach that could
    be taken that would not shut down the pharmacy?
        Mr. Constantine. Yes; Senator, these are what we call
    diversion investigations. Part of the responsibility of DEA is
    a regulatory function. In this particular case, it was brought
    to our attention that there were a number of drug stores of
    substantial national corporations with a reputation for
    professionalism and cooperation with us in many ways. They did
    have some violations where the paperwork was not as it should
    be.
        There were letters sent to them from an assistant U.S.
    attorney indicating that they had violated certain laws and
    certain regulatory acts and that the fine per each act was, I
    believe, potentially $25,000 per incident. I am now
    paraphrasing this--in an interest of maybe saving everybody
    money and time, if they would come in and in essence plead
    guilty to this, the matter could be resolved. If they did not,
    then, there would be a more extensive look at their records.
        I thought this was Government acting inappropriately. We
    got a hold of our SAC, Julio Mercado and he worked
    cooperatively with the U.S. attorney, Mr. Paul Coggins. They
    went to that community and, in essence, apologized to all of
    the individuals involved for the letter, for the strategy, and
    for the policy.
        I cannot tell you today where they are at in the regulatory
    answer to it. However, it was our opinion in DEA that that
    letter and that approach in Wichita Falls was totally
    inappropriate, and we have told all of our SAC's not to use
    that type of approach again. That does not exculpate people who
    may have committed violations of the law or violations of
    policy. There are procedures to handle that. But this was, I
    thought, a threatening letter, a dunning letter that was not
    something I was comfortable with in my experience in law
    enforcement.
        And I think we have repaired the damage in that community,
    for those individuals and those major corporations as well as
    small-town drug stores. I think we have recognized what went
    wrong there and have tried to straighten it out.
        Senator Hutchison. So, you will have some sort of----
        Mr. Constantine. National policy, yes.
        Senator Hutchison [continuing]. A national policy.
        Mr. Constantine. Yes.
        Senator Hutchison. Where there would be warnings or a
    differentiation between a real violator and a minor paperwork
    violation.
        Mr. Constantine. The law is set out--and I am not an expert
    on it--in the regulations of the Controlled Substances Act.
    Businesses have to follow certain procedures that are published
    as rules, and everybody knows what they are. I have always
    found that discretion was important. As a uniformed trooper on
    the road, you did not write a traffic ticket to everybody who
    jaywalked. At the same point in time, if there was someone who
    was speeding or acting recklessly or a drunken driver, you
    enforce that vigorously. It is called discretion in law
    enforcement, and you try to teach it. There cannot be any
    template, I do not think, to arrest everybody or to let
    everybody go. You have to weigh in all of the implications of
    the violation and then determine----
        Senator Hutchison. You said there will be a national----
        Mr. Constantine. Yes, ma'am.
        Senator Hutchison. [continuing]. Policy and training.
        Mr. Constantine. Yes, ma'am.
        Senator Hutchison. Thank you.

                       INS fingerprint submissions to FBI

        Senator Gregg. Thank you, Senator.
        Just a couple of questions. Where do we stand on the
    fingerprint relationship between the INS and the FBI, which was
    one of the major problems that created the huge amount of
    people being approved for citizenship who should not have been
    approved?
        Ms. Meissner. Well, we have worked intensively on this
    issue, both within INS and between INS and the FBI. We have
    entirely revamped the fingerprint procedure between the two
    agencies. The FBI now answers our fingerprint requests 100
    percent of the time; in other words, for every fingerprint that
    we submit, we wait until we have a response from the FBI. The
    FBI's response time is very favorable; they are turning them
    around very quickly, because we have worked out a situation
    between the two of us where we are submitting the fingerprints
    increasingly through an electronic technology.
        We now barcode all of the fingerprints so there is no
    chance of matching a fingerprint to a different application
    than the one that it belongs to. We have put into place a
    network of fingerprint centers. We call them application
    support centers. They will be fully operational later this
    month. They mean that you now have your fingerprints taken by
    the Federal Government, supervised by the Federal Government or
    by a local law enforcement agency; no private entities are any
    longer taking fingerprints.
        We are installing machines in all of those fingerprint
    centers so that increasingly, the fingerprints will be
    electronically scanned to capture them as compared with the old
    ink method. That means that the rate of rejection of
    fingerprints has gone down to less than 2 percent from what it
    was, which was over 50 percent with the ink method. And
    ultimately, we will be digitally transmitting fingerprints to
    the FBI. The FBI is beginning to have that capability. The
    machines that we are installing----
        Senator Gregg. How many machines do you have?
        Ms. Meissner. Right now, I would have to get you that
    number, but they will be in all of the more than 100
    fingerprint centers that we have and several machines in each,
    so, we are talking about several hundred fingerprint machines.
        Senator Gregg. And how many times in the process of the
    application is the person fingerprinted?
        Ms. Meissner. They are fingerprinted once, but that
    fingerprint has a code attached to it.
        Senator Gregg. How many times is it confirmed?
        Ms. Meissner. It is confirmed at least three times in the
    process.
        [The information follows:]

                            INS Fingerprint Machines

        INS has completed a cost benefit analysis with the help of
    Booz-Allen & Hamilton that concluded that fingerprint machines
    and not inked prints were the most cost effective approach for
    fingerprinting. INS has purchased 100 fingerprint machines to
    date using fiscal year 1997 funding. Currently there are 70
    machines in use at Application Support Centers (ASC's) across
    the country. At only one of the sites (Spokane, Washington), is
    INS testing the electronic transfer of fingerprint minutiae
    from an ASC directly to the FBI. The FBI is working with INS to
    modify certain aspects of the transmittal, and INS will expand
    the pilot to one or two other sites later this spring. Until
    these technical questions are resolved, INS will continue to
    have the fingerprint cards sent from the ASC to the appropriate
    Service Center, which then sends the cards to the FBI. The FBI
    responds to the originating Service Center, which forwards the
    information to the appropriate district office, so that the
    information is available to the adjudicators in the field.
        INS is in the process of completing a second cost benefit
    analysis that will help determine the type of machine and from
    which vendor INS should purchase additional machines. Once that
    is determined, INS will purchase 350 additional machines, using
    the fiscal year 1998 funding. The time frame for this purchase
    is May 1998, and INS expects to have fingerprint machines in
    100 percent of the ASC's by the end of the fiscal year.

        Senator Gregg. Director Freeh, how is this working, this
    electronic fingerprint communication, in your opinion?
        Mr. Freeh. It is working well, Senator. The INS is going to
    install fingerprint scanners in the four service centers which
    will allow electronic submissions. INS also will have live
    scanning devices at 46 locations for electronic transmission of
    criminal fingerprint data. That is really the key to this
    problem.
        The other aspect of it is the overall fingerprint backlog
    that has fallen from where it was, unfortunately, 1 year ago,
    at 2.9 million cards to be put into the process to now 700,000.
    The turnaround time for civil submissions--these are not
    electronic; these are the normally received ones--is down to 19
    days. So, with the technology, I think we have really turned
    the corner.

                             FBI Fingerprint Center

        Senator Gregg. How is this center working, the new center,
    the fingerprint center?
        Mr. Freeh. The INS center?
        Senator Gregg. No; your new fingerprint center.
        Mr. Freeh. Very well, sir. There are 1,100 technicians who
    are all on board, hired over the last year, and that is
    principally why the backlog is down. And as the IAFIS system
    comes online next July, the turnaround time is going to be
    dramatic. It will be 24 hours for all civil and criminal cards
    and 2 hours for criminal priority cases so----
        Senator Gregg. It just seems to me that the whole key to
    this question of having new citizens be citizens we want comes
    down to being sure that we can adequately check their
    background and that the person who takes the test is the person
    who applied and that the person who takes the oath is the
    person who applied. And so, I think that we have spent all of
    this money on this fingerprint capability, and it took a while
    to get it up and running, but obviously, you are going to take
    advantage of it. But I do encourage you--obviously, I do not
    have to encourage you; you are doing it--to continue to
    aggressively pursue utilization of all of this new equipment,
    new capability and to make sure that we aggressively check
    people's backgrounds through the use of this new technology,
    which I am sure you are going to do.
        Ms. Meissner. I can certainly assure you that we are doing
    that.
        Senator Gregg. Do you have some additional questions?
        Senator Domenici. Yes; I do.
        Senator Gregg. Why do you not go ahead?
        Senator Domenici. Is this too late for you?
        Senator Gregg. No; go ahead; I have got a couple more, but
    shoot.

                      use of INS funds for new Technology

        Senator Domenici. Well, I want to ask the same questions of
    you, Commissioner, that I asked of Mr. Freeh with reference to
    new technology. Could you provide the subcommittee with a
    breakdown of the funding that has been utilized by INS to
    develop a core technology program producing proven results in
    your Department?
        Ms. Meissner. Absolutely; this has been a major element of
    our budget requests for several years now. Modernization has
    been a key objective. The systems that we are putting into
    place are working very well. Six years in a row, we have gotten
    Federal technology leadership awards, and I would be happy to
    give you more detail. It is the key to the future for us.
        Senator Domenici. Well, I am sure that there are some that
    you do not want to put on record. In any event, in response,
    would you put on the record for us what the technology
    breakthroughs have been, provided they do not do harm to your
    approach to law enforcement? I think it is interesting that
    there are so many institutions in the United States doing
    research in this area, and they all call upon us to go visit
    them. They have new technologies, and sometimes, we cannot
    quite figure out how our departments and agencies are going
    about getting the best and finding the best. I would submit
    what you tell us you are doing to a group of experts and ask
    that they report, if the chairman desires, on whether the
    highest and best technology is being used.
        Ms. Meissner. I would be happy to do that.
        [The information follows:]

                            Technology Breakthroughs

        The following technological breakthroughs have been put
    into place by the INS.
        The INS has developed the first open Automated Fingerprint
    Identification System (AFIS), IDENT. All other known working
    AFIS's use proprietary solutions which have historically locked
    the user into a single vendor for the life of the system. All
    the known working systems store the fingerprint data in the
    vendor's proprietary format in a way that makes it unusable by
    any other competing product. To consider switching vendors, the
    user must be willing to throw away all the fingerprints
    captured to date or be willing to run two systems in parallel
    fashion. This has led to three primary vendors selling AFIS
    products to Federal, State and local law enforcement agencies,
    which has resulted in many incompatible systems that cannot
    share fingerprints. The INS system, IDENT has demonstrated that
    it can run with two or more of the previously competing
    vendors' products performing matches on the same data base. The
    INS' AFIS system is capable of processing images from other law
    enforcement AFIS' that are capable of transmitting a copy of
    the original image using the National Institute of Standards
    and Technology standard or sending our images to their systems
    for checks.
        The INS has developed the first fully automated,
    operational inspection station, the INS Passenger Accelerated
    Service System (INSPASS) for inspecting arriving passengers at
    major airports. This project pioneered the use of the hand
    geometry biometrics in this type of application.
        The INS has developed the first automated, operational
    vehicle inspection port-of-entry, the Secure Electronic Network
    for Travelers Rapid Inspection (SENTRI). Testing continues with
    use of facial and voice recognition as a method of eventually
    making SENTRI capable of operating in a fully automated
    capacity.
        The INS has developed the first fully automated,
    unattended, remote-monitored, vehicle port-of-entry that uses
    voice biometrics to identify and clear pre-enrolled persons
    moving to/from the United States and Canada.
        The INS has developed use of video to operate low-risk,
    low-volume ports-of-entry with inspections being done from a
    remote, staffed port-of-entry, thus allowing the INS and U.S.
    Customs Service to keep open a port-of-entry that would
    otherwise not have sufficient people to staff it 24 hours a
    day.
        The INS has developed significantly more secure
    identification documents, including the following: a new re-
    entry document that resembles a passport, but uses a new
    printing process to print on a Teslin paper in color, in a way
    that makes it very difficult for someone to alter the printed
    page; a new INS-issued identification card for permanent
    resident aliens (green card); a new INS-issued identification
    card for employment; and a new Department of State-issued
    identification card for Border Crossers.
        The identification cards referenced above include multiple
    security features resulting in what the INS Forensic Document
    Laboratory calls the most secure document that they have seen
    produced. In addition to the security features, this card is
    introducing the first large volume use of the ``Write Once,
    Read Multiple Times'' optical memory/storage on an
    identification card.
        The INS is using the 2D Bar Code printed on a benefit
    application that stores in computer readable form all the data
    on the form, thus saving the data entry costs previously
    required to process the application.
        The INS is using commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) mapping
    software and data to display operational data that enables
    management to understand better what processes are working and
    in what ways, plus enables them to plan better for future
    activities and resource use. Arrests, sensor alarms, etc., are
    being displayed on pictures captured by satellite, thus showing
    activities relative to the trails that the aliens use and over
    topographical maps to show the terrain.
        The INS has developed semi-smart sensor monitoring systems
    that utilize day/night camera configurations that will
    automatically locate an alarming sensor, point, zoom, and focus
    the camera to the activity area, giving the operator a live
    video of the activity thus making more effective use of our
    resources, e.g., officers no longer need to respond to sensor
    alarms that were set off by animals, and the officers know what
    to anticipate when responding to these remote sites.
        The INS is using ``data mining'' software that enables its
    officers to analyze data from both the INS data collections and
    from outside sources, which is used to investigate suspected
    persons, business, etc., resulting in the identity and the
    prosecution of criminals.
        The INS has developed a ``camp monitoring'' system used for
    emergency operations that keeps track of persons in detention
    by use of a bracelet that contains an embedded Radio Frequency
    Tag. A hand-held reader is used to read the unique serial
    number of the bracelet, which then performs an automatic lookup
    in the data base to identify the person from the biographical
    data previously captured on them.

                                 Indian country

        Senator Domenici. With reference to Indian country, Mr.
    Freeh, I know that with everything you have to do as Director
    of the FBI, you certainly do not need any questions today about
    Indian country. Be that as it may, you do have jurisdiction, as
    does the U.S. attorney's office, in the sovereign States
    wherein Indian tribes or reservations lie to enforce the big 10
    criminal major crimes act which is part of our national code
    making Indians or Indian people responsible for those crimes to
    the Federal Government. Other crimes can be made by their own
    ordinance or by State law or the like, but those, you have the
    sole jurisdiction over.
        I will tell you this morning, one of the most disheartening
    things at a breakfast of county leaders from my State, I talked
    to the Navajo police chief. Now, this is not the sheriff of the
    county or three counties or four within which Navajos live but
    the non-Indian police chief that they have hired. He tells me
    for the entire Navajo Reservation, for his work, he has the sum
    total of 31 policemen.
        Now, if one can imagine a reservation with about 250,000 to
    325,000 people four times the size of Delaware, and you have 31
    law enforcement people for your around-the-clock activities,
    you know that they are in for some big problems. I wonder if
    you might submit for the record any analysis that you could
    come up with of new funding in the 1999 budget that is going to
    be targeted toward Indian law enforcement initiatives? Could
    you provide the subcommittee with an analysis of the funds that
    will be redirected to this initiative from within the
    Department if that is the case? Maybe you would like to talk
    with us a bit about this problem if you are familiar with it.
        It is a very serious one, and I understand it is
    deteriorating rapidly because of lack of law enforcement, lack
    of jails, lack of facilities, and, you know, it can go
    unnoticed.
        Mr. Freeh. Yes.
        Senator Domenici. For some of us, it cannot go unnoticed.
        Mr. Freeh. I would be very privileged to submit that to
    you. As I mentioned in my earlier statement, we have, in the
    1999 budget, a request for 30 new agents for crimes in Indian
    country. We would expand from four to six the number of Safe
    Trails task forces where we work with the Navajo services. We
    have also asked for an additional 31 positions for victim
    witness assistance specialists, full time for Indian country.
        As I have mentioned, although the violent crime and
    homicide rate have fallen in the country 20 percent, it is 87
    percent higher in Indian country, and they have, as you noted,
    one-half of the per capita policing resources. So, I will
    provide you with what we already have, and as I have indicated,
    we have asked for these new positions in the 1999 budget, and I
    agree with you: it is a critical area of our responsibility,
    and we need to beef it up.
        [The information follows:]

                                 Indian Country

        While a reported crime in Indian Country is twice as likely
    to be a violent crime as crime reported in the rest of the
    United States, there are only half as many police officers per
    capita in Indian Country. Criminal investigative services in
    Indian Country are provided by the FBI, Bureau of Indian
    Affairs (BIA), Tribal Police, and/or State or county law
    enforcement, exercising either exclusive or concurrent
    jurisdiction, depending upon the State in which the reservation
    is located or the type of crime committed. During 1997, the FBI
    initiated 1,668 new investigations pertaining to crimes in
    Indian Country focusing primarily on felony crimes of violence
    and the physical/sexual abuse of children. The day-to-day
    violence involves homicides, assaults and rapes. The crimes are
    generally reactive in nature and demand that the FBI closely
    coordinate its response and investigations with the BIA
    Criminal Investigators and the various tribal law enforcement
    officers with which it works.
        The investigations of the sexual/physical abuse of children
    in Indian Country are among the most sensitive cases worked by
    the FBI and are priority investigative matters. Under reporting
    of child sexual abuse cases is an issue the FBI is addressing.
    Improved reporting rates will increase the FBI's investigative
    case loads.
        Just as juvenile crime has increased throughout the United
    States, it has increased in Indian Country. After decades of
    stable birth rates, the births in Indian Country began to rise
    sharply during the 1970's. The 1990 Census reported that while
    26 percent of all Americans were under the age of 18, the
    percentage of the Native American population under the age of
    18 was 34 percent. The incidence of juvenile crime in Indian
    Country is exacerbated by chronic unemployment, low levels of
    educational attainment, geographic displacement and family
    disruption. Difficult social and economic conditions have
    contributed to an increase in the number of gangs in Indian
    Country. Gang-related violence is a new phenomenon that is
    causing grave concern among Native Americans. Geography is
    often a contributing factor to addressing not only this crime
    problem but all of the crimes occurring in Indian Country. For
    example, the Navajo Nation is an immense area of 15,971 square
    miles in Arizona, Utah, and New Mexico. Drive-by shootings have
    increased and some homicides have been tied to gangs. FBI
    Agents must sometimes travel long distances to reach crime
    scenes, which can be as far as 200 miles from their offices,
    and in remote areas of their territories. There are identified
    gangs in Indian Country made up primarily of juveniles who
    mimic criminal street gangs established in non-Indian
    communities. Homicide, rape, robbery and weapons violations are
    the most prevalent crimes committed by gang members.
        The total enhancements requested for the Department of
    Justice for the Indian Country Initiative for 1999 totals 122
    positions and $157,475,000. This request includes:

                                                     INDIAN COUNTRY
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                         Positions        Agt/Att         Amount
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    FBI Agents and Support..........................................              50              30      $4,657,000
    FBI Victim/Witness Specialists..................................              31  ..............       3,352,000
    AUSA's and Support..............................................              35              26       3,466,000
    Correctional Grants.............................................  ..............  ..............      52,000,000
    Juvenile Justice Grants.........................................  ..............  ..............      20,000,000
    Drug Testing/Treatment..........................................  ..............  ..............      10,000,000
    Tribal Courts...................................................  ..............  ..............      10,000,000
    COPS............................................................               6  ..............      54,000,000
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

        FBI.--50 positions (30 agents) and $4,657,000 to be
    dedicated to Indian Country Investigations; and 31 support
    positions and $3,352,000 for full time Victim/Witness
    Specialists to be assigned to FBI resident agencies with
    jurisdiction in Indian Country.
        USA.--35 positions (26 attorneys) and $3,466,000 in support
    of the violent crime programs of the offices of the United
    States Attorneys with significant areas of exclusive Federal
    criminal jurisdiction.
        OJP/Correctional Facilities Grants.--$52,000,000 for
    construction and renovation of detention facilities in Indian
    Country.
        OJP/Juvenile Justice Crime Control and Prevention.--
    $20,000,000 to implement a new juvenile justice prevention and
    intervention initiative in Indian Country.
        OJP/Drug Testing/Treatment.--$10,000,000 to local units of
    government and Indian tribes for the planning, implementation
    and enhancement of comprehensive programs of drug testing, drug
    treatment, and graduated sanctions for individuals within the
    criminal justice system.
        OJP/Tribal Courts.--$10,000,000 for discretionary grants to
    assist tribal governments in the development, enhancement, and
    continuing operation of tribal judicial systems.
        Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS).--six positions
    and $54,000,000 to improve law enforcement capabilities on
    Indian lands.

        Senator Domenici. I wonder, Mr. Chairman, in that regard,
    while I missed the presentation of the Attorney General--I
    could not get here, and I am sorry about that; I should have
    sent word, and maybe you would have held her for a little bit.
    I wonder if I could submit a question to her with reference to
    the U.S. attorney's office increased activity on Indian
    reservations.
        Senator Gregg. Certainly.
        Senator Domenici. Or just what their level of activity is.
    I understand, in New Mexico, at least, there is a recognition
    that they must do more, but I wonder what it is across the
    country.
        Senator Gregg. No problem; give us the question, and we
    will submit it.
        Senator Domenici. If I give you the question, you will
    submit it?
        Senator Gregg. Absolutely.

                       Certification decision--lead role

        Senator Domenici. My last question--you know, I had a whole
    series of them on Mexican drug certification, but I will not
    ask them. I will just ask one question, and maybe you will
    choose not to answer it, but it just seems to me that when a
    certification of any country, be it Colombia, which we refuse
    to certify, yet, we grant them some national interest waiver;
    and yet, certification is recommended for Mexico, it raises a
    lot of questions.
        I guess I would ask you: do you think it would bring more
    credibility to the certification process if the law enforcement
    agencies, say the Justice Department or the Justice Department
    and the DEA were to take the lead role in certification
    decisions?
        Mr. Constantine. I probably would not answer that, Senator.
    The Attorney General would be better to answer that for the
    Justice Department than I. I have tried to avoid the whole
    question of certification as a law enforcement official for
    fear that it would be inappropriate; it would be perceived
    incorrectly. I do not know what the Attorney General's position
    would be.
        Senator Domenici. OK.
        Mr. Constantine. She would have to speak for herself.
        Senator Domenici. I accept that answer, and I assume that
    if we had her here, she would say she accepts the determination
    by the President of the United States that it be the Secretary
    of State; so, we will get nowhere unless we have a debate on
    the floor of the Senate about it, and maybe that will happen
    this year.
        I assume that is the same position you would take,
    Director?
        Mr. Freeh. Yes, sir.
        Senator Domenici. And you?
        Ms. Meissner. Yes.

          Indicted Mexican nationals or Americans who reside in Mexico

        Senator Domenici. Could I ask, of the list of indicted
    Mexican nationals or Americans who now reside in Mexico and
    have been indicted in the United States by a grand jury, do you
    have a list of those who have not yet been arrested and/or
    tried or returned to the United States that you might give us
    for the record?
        Mr. Constantine. Yes; we will.
        Senator Domenici. Would you coordinate so we have the full
    list?
        Mr. Freeh. Yes, we will.
        Senator Domenici. Has there been a substantial diminution
    in that list from last year, when we had similar discussions
    here, or is the list about the same size?
        Mr. Constantine. I think the list of the individuals whom
    we have identified as leaders have been indicted in provisional
    arrest warrants. Then, there have been one or two arrests of
    midlevel people, and there have been extradition papers filed
    on four or five, but none of the principals has been arrested,
    and there have not been any extraditions yet to the United
    States.
        Senator Domenici. Might I just ask: do our law enforcement
    people have some reasonable understanding as to where these
    people are? I mean, are they findable in Mexico? Could law
    enforcement find them?
        Mr. Constantine. It is difficult, obviously, for us, with
    only 45 people in a country that large, to be able to locate
    individuals who have a whole network that they have developed
    of ex-law enforcement officials for their own security, law
    enforcement officials whom they have corrupted. They have
    intimidated entire communities through violence. When you have
    intimidation and corruption, which is the life-blood of
    organized crime, honest citizens are often unwilling to come
    forward for fear that they would suffer some great penalty.
        Senator Domenici. Director Freeh.
        Mr. Freeh. We do not have the capability, the United States
    law enforcement resources, of finding fugitives or indictees in
    Mexico. As to the capability of the Mexican Government, I am
    not an expert on that. I know we have many leads in terms of
    telephone connections and travel connections which we regularly
    pass on to the Mexican authorities, and they have been
    exceedingly difficult in terms of their apprehension ability.
        Senator Domenici. Well, Mr. Chairman, I want to say,
    because I am sure that sooner or later, the State Department is
    going to be interested. You know, I am very sympathetic to an
    ongoing cooperation between America and Mexico. You know we
    live on that border--New Mexico does, Texas does, California
    does. We know the problems Mexico has. I do say it is rather
    difficult to go through certification last year and just beg
    the participants, our State Department and the Government of
    Mexico, to apprehend some indicted people who are indicted by
    American grand juries. We beg them to send some of them here to
    be tried and find little or no result or little or no
    enthusiasm, as evidenced by action.
        It does not make it easy to stand up and say, they are
    doing everything they can in drug and crime prevention in
    Mexico as it pertains to the United States of America. So, I do
    not know where it will all come out, but that issue is going to
    come up again. We would appreciate the list being as impeccable
    as you can give, because every time we say there are 120,
    somebody says there are only 30.
        Senator Gregg. Yes; we would like to get that list. But I
    think, obviously, the sensitivity of the Senators from New
    Mexico and Texas and the ranking member from South Carolina is
    significant on this point. You have to ask yourself--and I
    recognize you are not going to comment on this, and I
    appreciate that you do not want to get into this policy--but
    you have to ask yourself: what is the point of this
    certification exercise if you have a country that so clearly is
    not cooperating in the exercise, and yet, we will not take any
    action against them, because we feel it would be, from a public
    policy standpoint, the wrong decision, and it would have
    international ramifications which would be counterproductive.
    So, why even have the certification process if we are simply
    not going to use it effectively in this area? It is very
    obvious we are not getting cooperation; so, why pursue a
    process which we are being duplicitous by saying we are going
    to certify them when clearly, they should not be certified?
        Senator Domenici. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Gregg. Thank you.
        [The information follows:]

                           Indicted Mexican Nationals

        The following is a list of known subjects believed in
    Mexico who have been indicted in the United States. Some of
    these subjects are under arrest or incarcerated in Mexico, due
    to Mexican law enforcement efforts.
        Arellano Felix, Ramon. Provisional Arrest request 10/97.
    Also has drug charges in Mexico.
        Caro Quintero, Rafael. Provisional Arrest requested 1/97.
    Currently serving a sentence in Mexico. Also has drug charges
    in Mexico.
        Del Toro, Jose. Arrested on 11/21/97. U.S. Murder Charges.
        Fleitas, Juan Jesus. Arrested 8/3/97 on local charges. Also
    has armed robbery and murder charges in Cuba.
        Gonzales Castro, Jaime. Arrested 6/97; Extradition granted
    11/97. Also has drug charges in Mexico.
        Guitierrez, Rosendo. Extradition granted; Appeal pending
    Also has sex offense charges in Mexico.
        Ladino Avila, Jaime Arturo. Arrested 5/28/97. Extradition
    granted 9/4/97. Also has drug charges in Mexico.
        Malherbe, Oscar. Provisional Arrest requested 5/28/97.
    Arrested 3/4/97. Documents submitted 4/28. Extradition granted
    but not final; Facing Mexican drug charges.
        Martin, William Brian. PA requested 1/96. Extradition
    granted; remanded for rehearing. U.S. Drug Charges.
        Paez-Martinez, Arturo. Arrested 11/97. Extradition
    documents submitted 1/8/98. Also has drug charges in Mexico.
        Robles, Tirso Angel. Arrested 11/96. Extradition granted.
    Appeal pending. Also has drug charges in Mexico.
        Vasquez Mendoxa, Agustin. Provisional Arrest requested 7/
    94. Also has murder and drug charges in Mexico.
        Besides these known fugitives, there are approximately 25-
    30 individuals under arrest at any given time in Mexico who
    have been found extraditable or who are facing extradition
    proceedings at the request of the United States. There is no
    way of knowing how may defendants charges in the United States,
    whether U.S. or Mexican citizens, have fled to or are residing
    in Mexico.

                      audits of the Naturalization process

        Senator Gregg. I did have a couple of additional questions.
    Are you going to continue annual outside audits of the
    naturalization process?
        Ms. Meissner. Well, we, as you know, have been intensively
    involved in a series of audits with a firm, KPMG Peat Marwick.
        Senator Gregg. Right.
        Ms. Meissner. We now have a series of things in place that
    we believe assure the integrity of this process: the
    fingerprint change that we just described; the random reviews
    within the agency.
        Senator Gregg. Well, are you going to continue the outside
    audits?
        Ms. Meissner. Right now, we do not have plans for an
    outside audit, but that is because we have built in the
    protections that the outside auditors were reviewing; we have
    built those into the system.
        Senator Gregg. I understand that.
        Ms. Meissner. And into the software that supports the
    system.
        Senator Gregg. But I think this committee is going to want
    you to continue outside audits for a couple of years to make
    sure that this committee is comfortable that the systems are
    working.
        Ms. Meissner. Well, we would be happy to talk to you about
    that, and I would be happy to describe to you more fully the
    protections that are in place.
        [The information follows:]

            Immigration and Naturalization Service Oversight Audits

        Future review of naturalization operations will be done
    internally at the field level with periodic mandated reviews of
    compliance with established process controls. Field offices
    will be required to report review results up through the chain
    of command. This is being referred to as the formal Quality
    Assurance Program within INS.
        INSpect reviews will continue to cover the naturalization
    process.
        The Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General
    may also review portions of the naturalization process as it
    sees the need to do so. For example, the Inspector General is
    currently reviewing implementation of the Application Support
    Centers.

                               Title V exemption

        Senator Gregg. On the issue of technology, are you finding
    that the exemption we gave you has given you the capacity to
    hire the types of people that you need, or do you need a
    further exemption? Basically, in your opening statement, you
    have outlined the fact that technology-related crimes are
    becoming your fastest growing concern.
        Mr. Freeh. Yes, sir; we have not been able to utilize what
    I said last year and would say with greater fervor this year is
    a critical title V waiver in all of the specific scientific and
    technical areas that are in the statute. Unfortunately, we have
    not been able to implement that yet. As you know, the OMB did
    not approve of the waiver. We have been directed to sit down
    and negotiate with OMB with respect to the particulars of the
    implementation. We are doing that now. It is going to be,
    unfortunately, a few more months before we have the plan
    written where we can start utilizing the authority.
        Senator Gregg. But do you not find it ironic that this
    administration, which claims to be a great crimefighting
    administration, would be using accounting methods to stand in
    the way of what is probably the most rapidly expanding area of
    crime prevention?
        Mr. Freeh. As I said, we need to utilize that exemption
    quickly. It is very important that we take advantage of it. I
    think the Congress was very prudent and forward-looking in
    giving it to us, and we will work out the details as quickly as
    we can.

                          FBI laboratory construction

        Senator Gregg. And how are things going with the laboratory
    construction?
        Mr. Freeh. Very well, Senator. We have the final design
    analysis under consideration. Dr. Kerr, as you know, the new
    laboratory director, thinks that everything is online and
    within the $130 million appropriation for the physical
    construction. They have already started the construction on the
    parking annex. This fall, they will start the actual office and
    laboratory building. We have, as you know, the conference
    center incorporated in the design which will give us the
    ability to teach State, local, and foreign partners. So, it is
    going fairly well.

                             FBI-DEA cross training

        Senator Gregg. You and the DEA are cross training down
    there?
        Mr. Freeh. Yes; we have been for many years and will
    continue to do so. We utilize almost all of the facilities
    jointly, and the Justice Training Center, which is nearing
    completion, I believe, will be a good integration of the way it
    has been handled so far.
        Mr. Constantine. Your thoughts are correct, Senator, and
    the Director and I have talked about this again and again for
    the last 4 or 5 years. There is a need for these two agencies,
    both very large, both with a big responsibility to work
    together, and if we do not cooperate, not a mandatory fashion
    but in an actual spirit of trying to do it together, I do not
    think we serve the public very well.
        Senator Gregg. Well, you do all serve the public very well,
    and we do very much appreciate the fact that your people put
    tremendous hours in and put their lives at risk in many
    instances, and this committee will continue to strongly support
    your efforts, and keep up the good work.

                         Additional committee questions

        I will have questions submitted for the record from
    Senators Domenici, Campbell, Inouye, and Byrd.
        [The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
    were submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the
    hearing:]
                     Immigration and Naturalization Service
                Questions Submitted by Senator Pete V. Domenici
                   use of technology in law enforcement--ins
        Question. There is no dispute that federal funding for law
    enforcement agencies has dramatically increased over the past ten
    years. With the increases provided in recent years, Congress has funded
    significant numbers of additional personnel, but only now are the
    Administration and the Congress really focusing upon the technology
    that can help these law enforcement agencies do their job more
    effectively. Commissioner Meissner, could you please provide the
    Subcommittee with a breakdown of the funding that has been utilized by
    INS to develop or procure improved technology to support the work of
    our law enforcement personnel?
        Answer. Following is a breakdown of the funding that has been
    utilized by the INS to develop or procure improve technology to support
    the work of our law enforcement personnel for fiscal years 1995 through
    1998:

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        Enforcement     Inspections
                               Fiscal year                                systems         systems          Total
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    1995............................................................     $57,559,800     $16,409,000     $73,968,800
    1996............................................................      50,926,600      23,275,800      74,202,400
    1997............................................................      92,016,100      21,604,700     113,620,800
    1998............................................................      43,333,000      36,864,000      80,197,000
                                                                     -----------------------------------------------
          Total.....................................................     243,835,500      98,153,500     341,989,000
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Question. What types of advanced technology do these agencies use
    in fighting crime, drugs, and illegal immigration?
        Answer. The following advanced technology is used in fighting
    crime, drugs, and illegal immigration:
    Enforcement
        Night Vision--includes long-range scopes that are both portable
    (mounted on a vehicle) and fixed, (e.g., mounted on a pole, building,
    etc.). The Integrated Surveillance Information System (ISIS) project
    incorporates the night vision, day vision, and sensor assets into a
    semi-intelligent monitoring system that is managed by the Integrated
    Computer-Aided Detection (ICAD) and mapping system, which allows the
    agent to see the activity on both a topographical map and a satellite
    map.
        Day Vision--includes permanently-mounted camera systems that are
    used remotely to monitor high-risk or high-volume areas of the border.
    Many of the new systems we are now installing include a combination of
    a night-vision camera along with a normal daylight camera, which gives
    a more effective 24-hour-a-day coverage.
        Sensors--that detect movement in a given area, thus permitting the
    unattended monitoring of certain areas without leaving the border
    uncovered.
    Computer software
        ENFORCE--the INS' modern enforcement case management system that
    will become the integrated enforcement system and tool for the support
    and management of all enforcement activities, from identification of a
    lead through investigation, arrest, booking, detention, to disposition
    (e.g., deportation, prosecution). ENFORCE will manage bed space,
    arrange for transportation to/from facilities, track persons while in
    custody, and analyze data from INS data collections along with data
    from external sources helping identify subjects, cases, etc.
        IDENT--the INS' positive identification system which is operating
    across the Southwest Border and at other selected INS sites around the
    country. IDENT permits the INS officer to identify the subject
    positively for the first time, since many of the people INS arrests
    either have fraudulent documentation with false names or no
    documentation.
        ICAD--the INS' automated system to track sensor alerts, perform
    path analysis, and to process dispatch tickets. Additionally, ICAD
    tracks an officer while dispatched, alerting the radio operator when
    the agent does not call in a prescribed time, enhancing officer safety.
    Plus, today, ICAD is forming the key link that ties together the
    technology that forms the INS ISIS project. The ISIS links the INS
    sensors and its night/day vision technology together to form a semi-
    smart system that permits more efficient use of the INS resources.
        The INS systems ICAD, IDENT, and ENFORCE are starting to produce
    vital management planning information. Information produced by these
    systems has aided field supervisors in staffing shifts, as well as in
    predicting trends in criminal activities that allows INS to pro-
    actively distribute resources for maximum effect. The information has
    been used to identify patterns in apprehensions that have led to the
    identity of smugglers and the smuggling organizers. Coupling the data
    together from across the Southwest Border has enabled INS to better
    evaluate the effectiveness and productivity of its enforcement
    activities.
        Radios--both new ones for new officers and replacement ones as INS
    converts its former antiquated radio system to a state-of-the-art voice
    encrypted radio system that enhances officer safety, while providing
    compatibility with other federal law enforcement agencies. The radio
    program also moves INS to a narrowband system, which is necessary to
    make INS compatible with the administrative mandate to move to a
    narrowband system to free up band width for commercial use.
    Inspections
        We are using several forms of leading-edge technology that are
    permitting us to automate various phases of the inspection process for
    the low-risk segment of the traveling public, thus freeing the
    inspectors time to focus on the unknown and higher-risk travelers. The
    following projects highlight those initiatives that support automating
    various aspects of the inspection process:
        INSPASS--the INS system to automatically conduct an inspection of
    enrolled low-risk travelers (airports and pedestrian lanes) and speeds
    up the inspection process for all involved.
        SENTRI--the INS system used to process vehicles that are pre-
    enrolled in the system speeding up border crossing for both the users
    of SENTRI and those who do not.
        Automated Permit Port (APP)--the INS project that is designed to
    use remote monitoring of Ports-of-Entry, which permits ports to operate
    without actual human presence, while continuing to offer the inspection
    service to the traveling public. Usually used on small, low-risk ports
    where it is not cost effective to keep the port staffed full-time, or
    in some cases, where the volume of traffic does not justify even
    keeping the port open. The APP allows more effective use of the INS
    officer time while letting ports remain open for the traveler.
    Inspections are done by an officer in another port that is staffed.
    Inspector time is thus made available for other inspection activities.
        Arrival/Departure management--the INS project to capture arrival
    and departure data, thus permitting a better accounting of who came
    into the country and if and when they left.
        Question. What does INS plan to achieve with the technology funding
    provided by Congress in the 1998 Commerce, Justice, State, and the
    Judiciary Appropriations Act?
        Answer. The INS envisions the following achievements with the
    technology funding provided in fiscal year 1998:
    Enforcement
        Acquisition and deployment of additional sensors, and night and day
    vision systems.
        Deployment of our ISIS project to the initial planned sites, which
    integrates our night and day vision with our sensor program to create a
    system that can automatically capture live video of an event triggering
    a sensor, thus permitting the monitoring employee to see what is taking
    place. This will allow deployment of officers much more efficiently/
    effectively. Officers will not need to be deployed to check on a sensor
    that has been set off by an animal. Also, officer safety will be
    improved, e.g., the officer will know what they are walking into.
        Deployment of ENFORCE to our initial planned sites, which has now
    integrated the INS' IDENT system into it.
        Continued deployment of our Encrypted Voice Radio System, which
    will: (1) increase coverage, eliminating many of the dead spots that
    now threaten officer safety; (2) increase security by encrypting radio
    communications; and (3) give the INS officer compatibility with other
    federal law enforcement agencies, i.e., ability to talk to them using
    compatible radios permitting joint activities, and being able to call
    on fellow officers from other agencies in an emergency.
    Inspections
        Install INSPASS at as many additional airports as funding will
    permit (User Fee funded).
        Install SENTRI at additional ports.
        Continue to build the INS' Arrival/Departure management system,
    while expanding the prototype to other airlines/airports.
        Build a system that can capture and verify the biometrics of
    persons crossing the land borders using the new Border Crossing Cards
    being issued by the State Department.
        Question. How does the Administration's request for 1999 build upon
    the current program?
        Answer. The Administration's fiscal year 1999 requests the
    following technology funding to build upon the current program:
        Enforcement operations are enhanced primarily through more
    deployment of systems that were designed and built with funding
    provided between fiscal year 1995 through fiscal year 1997. Plus, we
    are continuing to convert the INS radio infrastructure to the new voice
    encrypted narrow band system and acquiring more force multiplying
    technology like camera systems, sensors, and night vision equipment.
        Available funding will be used to expand deployment of inspections
    systems designed and built with funding provided between fiscal year
    1995 through fiscal year 1997, plus systems built with User Fee
    funding. Work will continue to build the INS Arrival/Departure
    management system and to find a workable solution to processing users
    of the Border Crossing Cards by capturing and verifying that the user
    of the card is the same person to whom it was issued by comparing
    biometrics information.
        Question. What are the most significant areas that INS intends to
    address with technology resources?
        Answer. The INS will focus on the following areas in the use of
    technology funding:
    Enforcement
        As funding permits, we will acquire technology that will enable the
    Border Patrol to patrol the border more thoroughly by augmenting the
    agent with resource multiplying technology, e.g., be able to see
    further, see over obstacles, sense alien movement, and detect
    contraband or persons that are being concealed.
        Detention Augmentation--we will be looking at the use of alternate
    means of tracking low-risk persons who should be in detention, but are
    not because there is not enough bed space, e.g., a system that would
    require the alien to call in at prescribed times, that would verify the
    location of the call and, through the use of a biometrics verifier,
    that the caller is the person they say they are.
        High speed pursuit--we will be looking at technology to safely stop
    a car that is trying to run so that the vehicle does not get away and
    there is no need for a high speed pursuit.
        Portable/remote access to the INS information system--we will be
    looking for cost effective technical solutions that will enable our
    agents to have access to the INS information systems from very remote
    locations.
        Officer safety--we will be looking for technology to better protect
    our officers from technology that violators of the law are using,
    (e.g., armor penetrating bullets, radio frequency jamming devices).
    Inspections
        Our plans include:
        Building a system that will facilitate the management of arriving
    and departing travelers, capturing data that will enable INS to track
    who has entered the country and whether they have left.
        Building a system that will enable the capture of a biometrics from
    a person attempting to use a Border Crossing Card and verify that the
    user is the legitimate holder of the card, which is complicated by the
    volume of users and the logistics of capturing biometrics data from a
    pedestrian lane and from multiple persons riding in a vehicle.
        As funding permits, acquiring technology that will enable the
    Inspector to screen both persons and vehicles more thoroughly for
    smuggled contraband and smuggled aliens. We will be looking for
    technology that can detect the presence of persons and/or contraband
    hidden in vehicles, containers, etc.
        We are studying methods to stop cars that are attempting to get
    away from a Port-of-Entry. Such attempts can occur at either high or
    low speed and generally pose different problems than high speed
    enforcement pursuits.
        We will be looking at the state of facial recognition technology to
    determine the feasibility of using it to screen persons awaiting
    inspection, looking for a few very high priority persons, e.g.,
    terrorists.
                                     ______

             Questions Submitted by Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell
                               catch and release
        Question. Madam Commissioner, I note that the fiscal year 1999
    budget request includes a significant increase--745 new positions--for
    improved efforts in Interior Enforcement. Like many western states,
    Colorado continues to face a very serious problem with illegal
    immigration. The INS has estimated that 10,000 illegal immigrants have
    settled in Colorado in the past five years, bringing the total to
    45,000. This problem was plainly illustrated during the 1996 INS
    ``Operation Mountain Pass'' in which agents recovered more than 1,200
    illegal aliens that were being smuggled through Colorado.
        Time and time again, I hear of incidents in Colorado where INS
    knows the location of illegal immigrants, but either picks them up only
    to release them later, or simply does nothing at all.
        How many of the 745 new positions that are being created for the
    interior are likely to be assigned to Colorado?
        Answer. The revised interior enforcement strategy will be the
    steering mechanism for interior enforcement policy and operations in
    the future, and will provide a systematic method for determining the
    appropriate mix of occupational resources and functions in critical
    locations. Until the strategy is completed, there is no accurate way to
    forecast the number of positions to be allocated to Colorado from the
    fiscal year 1999 Interior Enforcement Initiative.
        Question. What additional assistance can the INS provide Colorado
    law enforcement?
        Answer. In an effort to train local law enforcement while
    conducting INS operations, the Denver District will shortly initiate
    Operation Common Ground. This operation will detail, for a period of 3
    to 4 weeks, INS enforcement officers to rural communities to work with
    and train local law enforcement. The goal of this operation is to
    address the immigration issues of the locations while providing the
    local law enforcement officers with a better understanding of
    immigration law. This approach has already been successfully used in
    Steamboat, CO, for three weeks in February 1998.
                                     ______

               Questions Submitted by Senator Ernest F. Hollings
                               ins restructuring
        Question. Hal Rogers on the House side appears set to abolish INS
    and divide your programs between the State Department, Labor
    Department, and some new Justice agency. This will likely be one of the
    most significant issues in the fiscal year 1999 Commerce, Justice and
    State bill. Could you provide us with your assessment of this proposal,
    which I believe came out of the Commission on Immigration Reform?
        Answer. In its final report to Congress last fall, the Commission
    on Immigration Reform (CIR) called for significant reform to our
    Nation's immigration system. The major thrust of the CIR's proposed
    reform would move many immigration functions to the Department of State
    and Labor and would consolidate all immigration enforcement into a new
    Federal law enforcement agency within the Department of Justice.
        In response to the CIR's recommendations, the President asked the
    Domestic Policy Council (DPC) to ``evaluate carefully the [CIR]
    proposal and other reform options designed to improve the executive
    branch's administration of the Nation's immigration laws.'' In
    conducting this review, the DPC, working closely with the Office of
    Management and Budget, consulted with the Departments of Justice,
    Labor, and State, CIR staff, immigration experts and advocacy groups,
    and other White House offices, including the National Security Council.
    This review examined organizational and restructuring options including
    those formulated by the CIR and members of Congress. From this effort,
    the Administration established a new framework for reform, and the
    Justice Department contracted with a management consulting firm to
    provide an independent assessment of structural options and assist in
    making the Administration's framework ``operational.''
        Question. What is your alternative?
        Answer.
    The Administration's Framework for Change
        The DPC review process concluded that the CIR report correctly
    diagnosed many of INS' longstanding problems--insufficient
    accountability between field offices and headquarters, lack of
    consistency, need for greater professionalism, overlapping
    organizational relationships, and significant management weaknesses.
    These problems have hampered the INS' ability to enforce our
    immigration laws effectively both at our borders and in the interior,
    and provide immigration and citizenship services efficiently. Improving
    the ability of the INS to pursue these critical priorities must be the
    goal of any reform plan.
        After careful consideration and study, the Administration concluded
    that the most effective way to achieve this goal is to implement
    dramatic and fundamental reforms within the INS. The Administration's
    reform plan untangles INS' overlapping and frequently confusing
    organizational structure and replaces it with two clear organizational
    chains of command--one for accomplishing its enforcement mission and
    one for providing services. Each operation would be headed by an
    Executive Associate Commissioner (EAC) who would report directly to the
    Commissioner through the Deputy Commissioner.
        The plan will eliminate the current field structure in which
    regional district offices serve both enforcement and service functions
    and will replace it with separate enforcement and service offices that
    bring the mix of staff and skills to local service caseload and
    enforcement needs. The result will be an INS organization with
    strengthened accountability and improved efficiency and effectiveness.
    The plan will allow each operation to focus its unique knowledge,
    skills, and abilities, while also retaining the essential integration
    functions needed to coordinate these operations.
    Improved Customer-Oriented Services
        Creates new local service offices.--The new immigration services
    operation would locate new service offices in immigrant communities
    around the country. These offices would focus on providing efficient
    and effective service, while maintaining the integrity of application
    processing. The offices would provide a range of services including:
    providing information to applicants, taking fingerprints and
    photographs, testing, and interviewing. Depending on community needs,
    some offices would be configured as full-service centers and others
    could serve as satellite locations to perform specific functions. These
    new service facilities would have a standard ``look and feel'' with
    clear signs, comfortable waiting rooms, evening and weekend hours, and
    other customer-friendly features.
        Establish accountability and clear lines of authority.--The heads
    of the local service offices would report to an Area Service Director.
    The Area Service Director would report directly to the Executive
    Associate Commissioner for Immigration Services. Area Service Directors
    would have the flexibility to move case processing responsibilities
    among offices within their area to maximize efficiency.
        Establishes clear standards for customer service.--The Area Service
    Directors would be held accountable for meeting a nationally-
    established standard for timely processing and courteous service at all
    locations throughout the area.
        Offers high-tech answers.--This new framework provides high-tech
    ways for people to receive better service through remote service
    centers. As part of this restructuring effort, INS will re-examine the
    capabilities of the four service centers that handle the automated,
    bulk processing workload of the current district offices. These centers
    currently take applications, create electronic records of them, and
    conduct the pre-processing necessary before an examination is
    administered. Under the new structure, more work would be shifted to
    the service centers, thus allowing local offices to focus on core
    activities which require interaction with customers. In addition, the
    capabilities of the centralized phone centers which will provide
    information to applicants and the public will also be examined.
    A Strengthened and Integrated Enforcement Operation
        Establish a single, coordinated enforcement function.--The plan
    creates an operational chain of command dedicated solely to immigration
    enforcement, focuses comprehensively on illegal immigration problems at
    the border, and establishes better linkages with interior enforcement
    through a single point of accountability for performance. This approach
    would strengthen professionalism and improve results. This structure
    also would ensure priorities are shared and allow close coordination of
    day-to-day operations among each enforcement discipline.
        Integrating enforcement and strengthening accountability.--The new
    enforcement operations areas would combine all functions related to the
    enforcement of immigration laws. Each enforcement area would be
    organized according to four functions, and led by a single director.
    The Area Enforcement Director would report directly to the Executive
    Associate Commissioner for Enforcement.
        Organizing enforcement areas by function.--The enforcement areas
    would be organized around four functional goals: managing the border;
    inspections and management at ports-of-entry; investigations and
    removals; and detention.
      --Border Patrol.--The Border Patrol would perform its current border
            management functions of deterring illegal immigration,
            apprehending illegal aliens, and working to dismantle smuggling
            rings.
      --Inspectors.--By putting inspectors in the enforcement chain of
            command, the plan recognizes the critical role that ports-of-
            entry play in INS' border management strategy. This would give
            the ports a stronger role in the enforcement side of the agency
            and inspectors a direct reporting relationship to the Area
            Enforcement Director.
      --Investigations and Removals.--This plan would also bring
            investigators, intelligence officers, and deportation officers
            into one multi-disciplinary component to focus on removals and
            the pursuit of fraud, smuggling, and illegal employment at the
            workplace. Offices in the field would be located in areas with
            the greatest demand for those functions--similar to the
            traditional Special or Resident Agent-in-Charge (SAC/RAC) law
            enforcement model used by the FBI.
      --Detention and Enforcement Support.--This framework would improve
            the logistical coordination of transporting criminal and
            illegal aliens and detaining them in long-term facilities by
            centralizing the current district office detention and
            transportation operations. Under the new framework, this
            component would be better able to manage open bed space at INS
            and contract facilities and improve and monitor conditions at
            these facilities.
    Shared Support
        Providing the right tools.--The ``shared support'' operations
    (e.g., records and data management, technological support, employee
    relations, and administrative support) would serve as the
    administrative and technological backbone upon which both enforcement
    and service operations depend under the new framework. Under this new
    structural framework each side of the agency has the appropriate
    administrative and technological tools to do its jobs in the most
    efficient and cost-effective way. These would range from new computer
    software systems that are ``user-friendly'' for enforcement agents and
    service officers, to appropriate training to strengthen
    professionalism.
        Improving accountability.--Under this restructuring plan the shared
    support function will be held accountable for meeting the needs of the
    enforcement and service operations in a timely and effective manner.
        Managing essential records.--An important cohesive function of the
    shared support operation is the management of all of INS' files and
    electronic databases. INS' records are the foundation of its work--
    whether in law enforcement or the provision of services to its
    customers. For example, the information contained in those records
    tells an INS deportation officer that an individual has overstayed his
    visa and the last address at which he might be found. It also tells an
    adjudicator whether a person has ever entered without inspection,
    therefore jeopardizing the alien's eligibility to become a legal
    permanent resident.
    New ``Strategy'' Office
        Setting priorities and assessing results.--The Administration's
    proposed structure includes the creation of a small, new ``strategy''
    unit that would focus on setting priorities, long-range strategic
    planning, and policy development, as well as analyzing the
    effectiveness of their implementation. The unit would draw heavily on
    staff from headquarters and the field, as well as create subject area
    task forces to draw on the expertise of individuals accountable for
    each program.
    New Chief Financial Officer Role
        Enhancing accountability and efficiency.--The new structure
    establishes a Chief Financial Officer to ensure effective allocation,
    control, and monitoring of the agency's finances. This would enhance
    accountability for managing the agency's resources and ensure that
    immigrant services and enforcement have clearly separated and defined
    resource streams.
    Other Management Improvements
        INS recognizes that a fundamental restructuring is only one aspect
    of improving its ability to build a more effective organization. As
    part of its reform efforts, the agency also is planning management
    initiatives such as fundamentally redesigning outdated business
    processes and the creation of new training opportunities for employees.
    Conclusion
        Preserving our country's tradition as a nation of laws and a nation
    of immigrants requires one agency with clearly defined operational
    lines of authority and accountability. This new structure will allow
    our nation to better control its borders and provide improved service
    and benefits to the immigrant community. The Administration's plan is a
    bold initiative to strengthen the INS' capacity to accomplish this
    critical mission.
                              interior enforcement
        Question. Last year I raised the issue of local police arresting
    illegal aliens and INS officials telling them to let them go. I've read
    through your budget and you talk about interior enforcement
    initiatives. Yet I keep reading about the Southwest Border. Do any of
    your interior enforcement initiatives change INS presence in South
    Carolina?
        Answer. In fiscal year 1997, the INS added 3 special agent
    positions to the Charleston, SC, Suboffice as part of the 10 Per State
    Congressional mandate contained in the Illegal Immigration Reform and
    Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996. These special agents have
    reported on board and should create a more responsive relationship with
    state and local law enforcement authorities. In fiscal year 1999, INS
    is requesting 223 investigations program positions under the Interior
    Enforcement Initiative. Thus far, we have not begun the deployment
    planning process for fiscal year 1999 positions. If we were to receive
    all the positions requested in the fiscal year 1999 budget, I would
    expect to see positions allocated to the Atlanta District. As you know,
    the Charleston, SC, Suboffice is part of the Atlanta District, and this
    district has many of the industries that attract illegal alien workers.
                              border patrol growth
        Question. Commissioner Meissner, as you know, General McCaffrey,
    the Drug Coordinator, has proposed going up to 20,000 Border Patrol
    agents, from the current authorized level of 7,859.
        Have you looked at what would be needed to increase this level,
    including what additional training load can be handled at the
    Charleston Border Patrol Academy?
        Answer. The Border Patrol Satellite Academy at Charleston, South
    Carolina was initially established because INS' temporary training
    requirements for the next several years far exceeded the capacity of
    the FLETC. Initial plans called for INS to train approximately 4,000
    Border Patrol agents from April 1996 to January 1999. With this
    training requirement in mind, the original plans were to close the
    temporary training facility in Charleston in fiscal year 1999.
        In 1996, the Congress passed the Illegal Immigration Reform and
    Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA) of 1996, which called for an
    additional 1,000 Border Patrol agents per year through fiscal year
    2001. Taking into consideration the authorization for 1,000 new agents
    per year, attrition, and personnel movement to other agency positions,
    the INS anticipates it will need to train approximately 2,000 new
    Border Patrol agents per year through fiscal year 2001. Beyond fiscal
    year 2001, just to maintain the increased staffing levels, INS
    anticipates it will need to train approximately 1,500 new Border Patrol
    agents per year indefinitely. The INS will also be training
    approximately 2,700 Immigration Officers in fiscal year 1998 and 2,300
    in fiscal year 1999. Current projections indicate that the INS will
    need to train approximately 1,500 Immigration Officers per year through
    fiscal year 2002.
        In addition, the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) has
    recommended that an additional 1,000 Border Patrol agent positions be
    added in fiscal year 2002, and 700 more in fiscal year 2003, in order
    to reach a total Border Patrol agent strength of 12,500 by the end of
    fiscal year 2003. If the Congress acts on this plan, it will further
    increase the basic training requirements for both initial hires and
    replacements.
        The INS is also experiencing a substantial increase in its advanced
    training backlog. A five-year analysis shows that in order to reduce
    the advanced training backlog, INS will have to provide advanced
    training to approximately 9,400 journeyman and senior-level Border
    Patrol agents and 14,100 journeyman and senior-level Immigration
    Officers by fiscal year 2002 (this does not include the positions in
    the ONDCP proposal). Presently, INS conducts advanced training at the
    FLETC Advanced Training Facility in Artesia, New Mexico. It appears
    that a requirement by the Bureau of Indian Affairs to conduct
    additional basic training classes in Artesia, New Mexico, may impact
    FLETC's ability to accommodate INS' advanced training requirements at
    Artesia in the future.
        In fiscal year 1995, when the training facility was planned for
    three years, neither the INS nor FLETC anticipated the massive hiring
    and training requirements. However, within the next five years, INS
    will be required to provide basic and advanced in-service training to
    approximately 20,000 Border Patrol agents and 24,000 Immigration
    Officers.
        Still, the ultimate goal is to gradually phase down the Charleston
    operation and move completely back to FLETC sites. However, given the
    requirements stated above, INS is requesting that the Charleston
    facility remain open until FLETC is able to meet all of INS' basic and
    advanced training requirements. No phase-down of the Charleston
    operation should begin until adequate capacity at FLETC actually
    exists.
        Question. INS would need to augment the mess hall and renovate
    additional quarters at the Academy if you had to exceed 2,000 trainees
    per year, wouldn't you?
        Answer. Yes, if the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center cannot
    meet our needs, the INS would have to expand the Charleston Border
    Patrol Academy facilities. We would have to expand the sleeping
    quarters, driver training track, dining facility, firing range, and
    physical training facility. Additional classrooms and office space also
    would be required.
                           immigrant investor program
        Question. The Immigration Act allows immigrant visas for foreigners
    who invest in qualifying, job-creating enterprises in the United
    States. This program has been quite successful; however your general
    counsel unilaterally proposed to change the rules governing this
    program, and would propose such changes in a manner that would
    retroactively affect applications that have already been received and
    are under process. Six months ago your INS officials started holding up
    the program.
        On February 4, Senators Spencer Abraham, Leahy, Inouye, Kennedy,
    and I wrote you expressing concern about this INS action, and we
    specifically stressed that any changes should be effective in the
    future and should not apply to applications already received.
        We have not received an answer from you. Why?
        Answer. My staff is working on a response to your letter, and we
    will send it as soon as it is completed. My staff also met with your
    staff and others on March 6 and March 9, 1998, to brief them on the
    investor visa program and hear your concerns in detail. We have
    provided your staff with a copy of a December 9, 1997, legal opinion by
    our General Counsel on the immigrant investor program, and are
    available to answer any questions that you may have concerning this
    program.
        Question. My constituents have asked for a meeting with you to
    explain the positive job-creating aspects of this program. To date,
    your office has been unwilling to set such a meeting. Why?
        Answer. On March 13, 1998, my Chief of Staff, the Deputy General
    Counsel, the Acting Assistant Commissioner for Adjudications, the
    Director of Congressional Relations and other staff met with attorneys
    representing your constituents in order to hear their concerns related
    to the immigrant investor visa program. This meeting has given your
    constituents the opportunity to meet with Service officials at the
    highest levels who understand the details of this programs and can best
    answer their questions and address their concerns. The Service is
    committed to an open and continuous dialogue with all parties
    interested in this program and others.
        Question. When people up here argue that INS is not service-
    oriented and inaccessible, I hope you will keep this in mind. We write
    a law and then unelected, unappointed INS officials decide to
    unilaterally reinterpret it. This change could cost thousands of jobs.
        Answer. Immigration and Naturalization Service officials have not
    unilaterally reinterpreted the law. After a thorough review of selected
    petitions under the immigrant investor visa program, the Service
    discovered that a number of petitions that are either pending or have
    been approved are, as matter of fact, not in compliance with the plain
    language of the law passed by Congress and long-standing regulations
    promulgated by the Service. The review of a number of immigrant
    investor petitions revealed that many aliens are filing petitions under
    which they will invest only a small portion of the amount of the
    capital required by the law. By law aliens are required to invest
    either $1,000,000, or $500,000, depending on where the investment is
    made. Under the terms of the investment plans filed with some
    petitions, aliens are required only to invest about 10 percent of the
    statutory minimum ($100,000 or $50,000) in actual job-creating U.S.
    businesses. Under other investment programs little or no money is
    reaching job-creating U.S. businesses. While it is possible that, when
    the money from hundreds of aliens is pooled together, these smaller
    investments will create some jobs, the law passed by Congress requires
    that the investment by each alien create ten jobs and that each alien
    invest the full $1,000,000 or $500,000. An alien who does not
    demonstrate that he or she will create ten jobs, or who does not invest
    the required amount of capital, is not eligible for an immigrant
    investor visa. The Service will deny or revoke only those petitions
    that do not meet the requirements of the statute and regulations.
        After identifying certain petitions that appeared not to comply
    with the law, the Service, on December 1, 1997, decided to delay the
    adjudication of petitions containing provisions identified by our
    General Counsel as not conforming to current law. The Service continues
    to adjudicate all other immigrant investor visa petitions. The entire
    investor visa program has not been put on hold. Also, there was no hold
    or delay of adjudication at the Service between August and December of
    1997.
        Some of your constituents may be under the impression that there
    was a hold beginning in August of 1997 because in August the State
    Department began, under applicable regulations, to consider returning
    petitions to the Service for revocation. The State Department in fact
    returned a number of petitions in August of 1997, and the return of
    these petitions has obviously delayed action on them. The Service's
    review of EB-5 petitions was in part initiated because of the problems
    identified by the State Department in these returned petitions, but the
    Service did not begin to hold cases for review until December 1, 1997.
    After that date, when the State Department became aware of the
    Service's review of certain types of petitions, the State Department
    began to prepare cases for return to the Service for possible
    revocation.
                                     ______

                Questions Submitted by Senator Daniel K. Inouye
                           immigrant investor program
        Question. Since summer of last year, the Immigration and
    Naturalization Service (INS) has suspended the processing of certain
    investor immigrant visas (EB-5), which are issued to foreign investors
    who invest in a qualifying, job-creating enterprise in the United
    States.
        I understand there is a review in progress at the INS on rules
    governing what types of investment plans are allowable under the
    investor visa program. While I do not object to a policy review, I am
    concerned about the length of time it is taking the INS to implement
    any administrative changes. Potential investments and jobs for
    Americans hang in the balance. For example, I am aware that potentially
    thousands of jobs are being threatened in the State of West Virginia
    alone. Hawaii is one of two states that is operating as a regional
    center and any prolonged delay will adversely impact our already
    sluggish economy.
        The INS has heard from a host of Senators, Republican and Democrat
    alike, who have expressed concern at the INS' handling of this matter.
    On February 4, 1998, I and four other Senators sent a letter to the
    INS, requesting that any changes anticipated be made prospectively
    rather than retroactively. To date, there has been no response to our
    letter.
        Congressional intent when passing this provision was to encourage
    foreign investment and job creation in the United States. We wish to
    ensure that the positive effect of this provision of law on the United
    States economy is not diminished.
        How long will the suspension for the EB-5 cases continue?
        Answer. After identifying certain petitions that appeared not to
    comply with the law, the Service, on December 1, 1997, decided to delay
    the adjudication of petitions containing provisions identified by our
    General Counsel as not conforming to current law. The Service continues
    to adjudicate all other immigrant investor visa petitions. The entire
    investor visa program has not been put on hold. Also, there was no hold
    or delay of adjudication at the Service between August and December of
    1997.
        Some of your constituents may be under the impression that there
    was a hold beginning in August of 1997, because in August the State
    Department began, under applicable regulations, to consider returning
    petitions to the Service for revocation. The State Department in fact
    returned a number of petitions in August of 1997, and the return of
    these petitions has obviously delayed action on them. The Service's
    review of EB-5 petitions was in part initiated because of the problems
    identified by the State Department in these returned petitions, but the
    Service did not begin to hold cases for review until December 1, 1997.
    After that date, when the State Department became aware of the
    Service's review of certain types of petitions, the State Department
    began to prepare cases subject to the Service's review for return to
    the Service for possible revocation.
        Those cases that are currently under review will be held until the
    Administrative Appeals Office of the Service can issue precedent
    decisions providing guidance to adjudicators and the public regarding
    the deficiencies in the petitions being held and on what types of
    investments comply with current law and regulations. This will take
    approximately 3 to 4 more months.
        Question. What is being done to ensure that the positive effect of
    this provision of law on the U.S. economy is not going to be diminished
    by the INS actions?
        Answer. The delay of the adjudication of certain petitions is not
    the result of a review of the rules of the EB-5 program, rather it is
    the result of the review of a representative sample of petitions to
    determine whether they comply with existing law. EB-5 petitions that do
    not contain the provisions that contravene current law continue to be
    adjudicated and the U.S. economy will continue to benefit from
    investments made by these aliens. The review of a number of immigrant
    investor petitions revealed that many aliens are filing petitions under
    which they will invest only a small portion of the amount of the
    capital required by the law.
        By law aliens are required to invest either $1,000,000 or $500,000
    depending on where the investment is made. Under the terms of the
    investment plans filed with these petitions, aliens are required only
    to invest about 10 percent or less of the statutory minimum ($100,000
    or $50,000) in actual job-creating U.S. businesses. Under some
    investment programs it appears that little or no money is reaching job-
    creating U.S. businesses. While it is possible that, when the money
    from hundreds of aliens is pooled together, these smaller investments
    will create some jobs, the law passed by Congress requires that the
    investment by each alien create ten jobs and that each alien invest the
    full $1,000,000 or $500,000. An alien who does not demonstrate that he
    or she will create ten jobs, or who does not invest the required amount
    of capital, is not eligible for an immigrant investor visa. The Service
    will deny or revoke only those petitions that do not meet the
    requirements of the statute and regulations. To delay the processing of
    such petitions and possibly deny them will not undermine the positive
    effects that Congress intended the EB-5 program to have on the U.S.
    economy. Rather, it will ensure that investors are actually investing
    the amount of capital required by Congress and actually creating ten
    American jobs. The Service will thereby ensure that this program has
    the positive effect Congress intended it to have on the U.S. economy.
        Question. Can the INS provide assurances that if any changes are
    anticipated in the EB-5 program they will be made prospectively rather
    then retroactively?
        Answer. The Service does not intend to make retroactive changes in
    the rules governing the EB-5 program. The Service is applying current
    laws and rules to pending, and some approved, applications and may deny
    applications or revoke approvals based on those rules. Because the
    Service has approved some petitions in the past that do not conform to
    current law, it may appear to some that the Service's proper
    application of the law is a retroactive change in the rules. However,
    the Service has an obligation to faithfully apply the laws passed by
    Congress and its own published regulations.
        We are making every effort to be fair to aliens who have entered
    the United States as immigrant investors. The Service has decided not
    to initiate rescission proceedings against aliens who have obtained
    lawful permanent resident status without conditions based on petitions
    that may have been improperly approved. Also, the Service has requested
    an opinion from the Office of Legal Counsel on whether the Service has
    authority to approve petitions to remove conditions on permanent
    resident status for aliens who have filed petitions determined not to
    be in compliance with current statute and regulations. If the Service
    does have the authority to approve such petitions, it will review
    petitions on a case-by-case basis to determine if an approval is
    warranted. With respect to aliens who have not yet entered the United
    States as immigrant investors, the Service believes that it is
    compelled to revoke EB-5 petitions that have been approved despite the
    fact that they do not comply with current law and deny new petitions
    that do not comport with current regulations.
                                     ______

                        Federal Bureau of Investigation
             Questions Submitted by Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell
                          denver metro gang task force
        Question. Director Freeh, the Metro Denver Gang Task Force is
    composed of federal, state, and local officials to address the issue of
    gang-related crime in the Denver Metro area.
        Would you please provide the subcommittee with your views on the
    effectiveness of this Task Force?
        What additional assistance can the FBI provide to the Metro Denver
    Gang Task Force?
        Answer. The FBI has established 157 multi-agency Safe Streets Task
    Forces in 56 field offices. The mission of these task forces is to
    coordinate law enforcement efforts and address strategically the most
    prevalent violent crime problem in a community. This is accomplished in
    concert with local, state and federal agencies who have statutory
    jurisdiction. The emphasis is to reduce the incidence of violent crimes
    that pose the most serious threat to American society. This is
    accomplished by establishing long term, proactive investigations,
    focusing on violent crimes and the apprehension of violent fugitives.
        The FBI's Denver Field Office has identified violent crime
    involving gangs as one of the most serious problems in Denver,
    Colorado. In response to this problem, the FBI in conjunction with
    local law enforcement, have joined together to form the Metro Gang Task
    Force. Although, the Denver Metro Gang Task Force is not a designated
    FBI Safe Streets Task Force, the task force has modeled itself after
    other Safe Streets Task Forces.
        In 1997, the Metro Gang Task Force brought forth the first
    Racketeering Influenced Corrupt Organization prosecution against a
    violent street gang in Colorado. Historically, this street gang was
    responsible for a large percentage of violent crime in the area in
    which they operated. Based on feedback from local law enforcement and
    public officials, the Metro Gang Task Force has had an impact on
    reducing violent crime in the Denver, Colorado area.
        The Metro Gang Task Force obtains funding from several sources,
    such as the Office of National Drug Control Policy, to meet the task
    force's operational and administrative expenses. The FBI provides
    specific case funding on FBI cases. At this time, the Denver Field
    Office has not made any specific requests for additional assistance
    with respect to the Metro Gang Task Force, but the FBI is willing to
    review any such request.
                              international crime
        Question. During hearings with Attorney General Janet Reno and
    Secretary of State Albright, I discussed serious new developments in
    international crime and its effect on Americans here at home and
    abroad. The Appropriations Committee, in its fiscal year 1998 Foreign
    Operations committee report, expressed concern about the increase in
    crime abroad and its direct and indirect impact on the United States.
    The committee also requested the Secretary of State to convene a new
    Secretaries' Task Force on International Crime, in cooperation with
    Attorney General Reno, the Secretary of Treasury, and the ONDCP
    Director, and report to Congress by March 28, 1998 on specific issues
    which the committee outlined.
        Although Secretary Albright's report is not due to Congress until
    later this month, I would be interested to know what is the current
    status of your participation in the formation of this task force?
        Answer. As of March 18, 1998, the FBI has not participated in the
    formation of this task force.
        Question. Are there any preliminary thoughts you wish to share with
    us here today on what the Justice Department and the FBI can do to help
    countries reduce and prevent crime?
        Answer. Yes. A substantial portion of FBI investigations have some
    foreign connection. Because international crime has rapidly become one
    of the FBI's most important challenges, the FBI has developed a
    strategy to address these challenges now and to reduce the impact of
    international crime on the citizens, economy, and the national security
    of the United States. Included in this strategy are three types of
    assistance to countries to reduce and prevent crime: foreign law
    enforcement training, the FBI Legal Attache (Legat) program, and the
    assignment of criminal investigators to Drug Enforcement Administration
    (DEA) offices overseas pursuant to Resolution Six.
    Foreign Law Enforcement Training
        As changes in the world order create new opportunities for
    democracy, an increase in criminal activity in emerging democracies and
    third world nations is occurring. To combat the threat posed by
    criminal activity abroad, the FBI is pursuing a broad spectrum of
    international training initiatives. The FBI's International Training
    Program supports the FBI's investigative mission by developing ``cop-
    to-cop'' relationships and building foreign law enforcement expertise.
        The FBI manages the operation of the International Law Enforcement
    Academy (ILEA) in Budapest and provides instruction at the ILEA-South
    (Latin America and the Caribbean), which is currently managed by the
    Treasury Department. The FBI will also provide training at the proposed
    ILEA-Asia (to become operational in 2000). The ILEA's have served and
    will serve as the law enforcement training centers for officers from
    designated regions of the world. Training at the ILEA's is focused on
    the mid-level manager and is designed to meet the needs of the
    participating countries. All funding for the ILEA's is provided by the
    Department of State (DOS); however, the FBI and the other participating
    agencies provide instructors and program managers for the oversight of
    the ILEA's.
        Currently, the FBI conducts international training courses, other
    than the ILEA's, with funding from the DOS through such acts as the
    Freedom Support Act, the Support for Eastern European Democracies Act,
    and the Foreign Assistance Act for International Auto Theft training
    initiatives.
      --The FBI received funding from the DOS to implement National Crime
            Information Center (NCIC) training initiative. This funding is
            primarily for those foreign law enforcement entities that seek
            to implement a large-scale criminal data base that will serve
            the same purpose as the NCIC System.
      --The FBI conducts in-country training courses in one- and two-week
            sessions in foreign countries to meet each country's particular
            training needs. The in-country training ranges from basic
            investigative techniques to internal audit courses.
      --Other contributions to the FBI's International Training Initiative
            are the in-country Training Needs Assessments and Practical
            Case Training (PCT) initiatives. At the host government's
            invitation, the FBI, together with host country personnel,
            conducts an analysis of the country's crime problem and police
            training needs. The FBI then provides the host government with
            recommendations to enhance its techniques and capabilities
            through FBI assistance and training.
      --The PCT initiative is an on-the-job training program that enables
            foreign police entities and FBI agents to work together on
            actual investigations of mutual interest. Foreign officers
            travel to the United States to participate in interviews, grand
            jury testimony, interaction with the U.S. Attorney's office,
            and hands-on experience with various investigative operational
            techniques. The PCT initiative also involves sending FBI agents
            to foreign countries to train their counterparts in the same
            way.
      --At the FBI Academy in Quantico, Virginia, the FBI provides
            traditional executive development programs, that is, the
            National Academy, the National Executive Institute, and the Law
            Enforcement Executive Development Seminar, and includes
            officials from the emerging democracies around the world in
            these training initiatives.
    Legat Program
        The FBI Legat is the front line of defense in keeping foreign-based
    crime as far away as possible from U.S. shores. Legats are operational
    links with foreign law enforcement and security agencies. As of March
    19, 1998, there are 92 highly trained investigators in 32 cities,
    working to develop the strongest possible law enforcement relationships
    in key countries around the world. These relationships have proved
    themselves many times in critical situations when the success of an
    investigation hinges on expedient host country support and cooperation.
    Resolution Six
        To coordinate investigations of multi-jurisdictional, international
    drug trafficking organizations and their attendant money laundering
    operations with all foreign agencies that assist the United States, the
    Department of Justice (DOJ) Office of Investigative Agency Policies
    (OIAP) issued Resolution Six concerning the conduct of DOJ criminal
    investigations overseas. The FBI will provide criminal investigative
    personnel to certain DEA overseas offices. To date, the FBI has
    assigned three agents to the DEA offices at Bogota, Colombia; Mexico
    City, Mexico; and Bangkok, Thailand.
                                     ______

               Questions Submitted by Senator Ernest F. Hollings
           communications assistance for law enforcement act [calea]
        Question. Judge Freeh, we are obviously behind schedule on
    implementing the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act. As
    I understand it, industry claims that the FBI has tried to enhance its
    capabilities and capacity to conduct court-ordered electronic
    surveillance in a digital environment. How do you respond? Why has it
    been so difficult to reach an agreement that the Justice Department and
    industry can live with?
        Answer. The purpose of CALEA is to preserve law enforcement's
    ability to conduct electronic surveillance commensurate with the
    authority embodied in underlying electronic surveillance statutes. The
    FBI, on behalf of all federal, state and local law enforcement, has
    sought to maintain electronic surveillance capabilities and to ensure
    sufficient capacity exists in the future to accommodate all lawfully-
    authorized electronic surveillance requests. However, industry has not
    agreed with the capabilities we consider necessary to enable law
    enforcement to receive the same information in the future that it
    previously received through traditional interception methods. With such
    different views toward implementation requirements, it has been
    difficult for law enforcement and industry to reach agreement. However,
    law enforcement has been working diligently over the last eight months
    to address industry's concerns while maintaining important law
    enforcement requirements.
        Some in industry have expressed concerns with respect to a set of
    capabilities that law enforcement believes is required if it is to
    continue to meet evidentiary and minimization requirements in the
    digital age. These are the so-called ``punch list'' missing
    capabilities that are not included in industry's proposed CALEA
    standard. In an effort to respond to industry concerns regarding the
    legality of these items, the Department of Justice undertook an
    extensive legal review of law enforcement's ``punch-list'' missing
    capabilities and provided industry its legal opinion. The Department
    concluded that nine ``punch list'' missing capabilities were required
    by CALEA and the underlying electronic surveillance statutes.
        With respect to industry's concerns over law enforcement's capacity
    requirements, the FBI has developed application language within the
    Final Notice of Capacity which allows telecommunications carriers and
    manufacturers to determine the impact of its switching systems. The
    Final Notice of Capacity contains a high-end capacity ceiling that law
    enforcement would expect from any one switch if a carrier chooses to
    deploy a switch-based solution. The Final Notice of Capacity also
    defines a ceiling for both call identifying information-based
    interceptions and call content-based interceptions. The Final Notice of
    Capacity was published in the Federal Register on March 12, 1998.
        Recent meetings between the Department, the FBI and the
    telecommunications industry have concluded with a commitment by the
    industry and law enforcement to work together intensively and
    cooperatively for the next 60 days. During this 60-day period, industry
    and law enforcement will: (1) assess the technical feasibility of
    developing solutions that fully meet law enforcement requirements; (2)
    clarify the financial implications of developing solutions that fully
    meet law enforcement requirements; and (3) develop corresponding CALEA
    solution development timelines. While the 60-day exercise is underway,
    the Department and the FBI filed a deficiency petition with the Federal
    Communications Commission (FCC) opposing the interim standard adopted
    by the telecommunications industry. Industry and law enforcement are
    continuing technical and pricing discussions during the 60-day period.
        Question. What happens if industry is not compliant under the law?
    What disincentives are there for the industry to be in non-compliance?
        Answer. CALEA requires the telecommunications industry to develop
    and deploy CALEA-compliant solutions in their networks by October 25,
    1998, with or without an industry adopted standard. CALEA allows a
    court to issue enforcement orders against a telecommunications carrier
    after that date if a carrier is unable to comply with an affirmative
    request from law enforcement for lawfully-authorized electronic
    surveillance on their equipment, facilities or services. Those carriers
    who cannot comply with a lawfully-authorized electronic surveillance
    request are subject to $10,000 per day fine per surveillance court
    order.
        The Attorney General recognizes the telecommunications industry's
    concern over the compliance date and has offered not to pursue
    enforcement actions against a carrier under section 108 of CALEA with
    regard to the CALEA mandate that a carrier meet the assistance
    capability requirements by October 25, 1998. The Attorney General would
    also support a carrier's petition to the FCC requesting extensions of
    the October 25, 1998, compliance date. Forbearance and support of
    extension requests would be contingent upon industry's good faith
    efforts to develop a solution that is consistent with law enforcement's
    requirements.
        The law enforcement community asserts that fully CALEA-compliant
    solutions must allow law enforcement to maintain the integrity of
    interceptions and the ability to intercept the same information that it
    previously received through traditional methods, that is, before the
    advent of advanced telecommunications services and features
    necessitated electronic surveillance efforts to be effected within a
    carrier switch or network facilities. Law enforcement believes that the
    capabilities and capacity that it is seeking will neither enlarge nor
    reduce the authority found in underlying electronic surveillance
    statutes.
                    federal bureau of investigation academy
        Question. Director Freeh, one of the things that I am always asked
    about by local law enforcement officials when I journey in my state is
    the FBI State and Local Academy at Quantico. The problem is that it is
    very difficult to get a law enforcement officer into the Academy. For a
    small state like South Carolina we are told that there just aren't many
    opportunities, and our Agent in Charge can nominate only one or two
    people per class.
        But when I asked my staff to take a look at this issue, they
    pointed out that the FBI reserves about 10 percent of the available
    space for foreigners who are nominated by your legal attaches overseas.
        Given the limited nature of spaces available and the number of
    American law enforcement officials who want to attend the Academy, why
    are you reserving these spaces for foreigners? Isn't that why we agreed
    to let you establish a training school in Budapest?
        Answer. The National Academy (NA), which began in July of 1935, has
    included international students since the fourth session of the
    program. In fact, the number of students from friendly foreign
    governments invited to attend the NA was increased by President John F.
    Kennedy in an effort to build bridges of cooperation among law
    enforcement agencies worldwide.
        When the NA program relocated to the FBI Academy in Quantico,
    Virginia, the total number of students were increased to 250 per
    session (1,000 per year) and the number of international students
    averaged in the upper twenties. In the last two years, the NA has
    expanded to 270 students per session; however, the number of
    international students has remained the same. Upon relocation of the
    DEA to the Justice Training Center (anticipated in the summer of 1999),
    the NA plans to expand each session to 300 students (1,200 per year)
    without an increase in international student participation.
        The FBI believes international students provide a valuable element
    to the NA experience and the domestic law enforcement attendees. They
    share their experience in law enforcement, their culture, and through
    this interaction both domestic and international students develop a
    better understanding of the law enforcement profession.
        The sharing of the NA experience between domestic and international
    students inaugurates a lifelong relationship. One of the most effective
    methods of building rapport and eliciting law enforcement cooperation
    from foreign countries is through training. The value of these
    relationships to U.S. law enforcement is that they have a worldwide
    network of contacts to assist them in carrying out their duties
    especially when matters become extra-territorial.
        The purpose of opening the International Law Enforcement Academy
    (ILEA) in Budapest was not to replace the opportunity for a limited
    number of foreign law enforcement officers to attend the NA. The
    curriculum offered at the ILEA in Budapest is based upon a key concept
    of the NA, namely, bringing together law enforcement officers from
    varying jurisdictions and sizes of departments so that students may
    build ``cop-to-cop'' relationships among their classmates and exchange
    ideas, experiences, and practices. The ILEA training academy at
    Budapest allows a greater number of foreign law enforcement officers to
    receive training that is based upon the NA approach. Finally, given the
    growing trans-national nature of many crimes problems, state and local
    law enforcement students attending the NA often look forward to the
    opportunity to share their NA experience with a limited number of
    foreign law enforcement officials.
                                  puerto rico
        Question. Director Freeh, I was wondering if you could discuss the
    situation in Puerto Rico. I've heard that the drug and corruption
    problem there is severe and that it is a hardship post for FBI and DEA
    agents.
        How bad is the situation and is Puerto Rico a platform to bring to
    narcotics into the mainland United States?
        Answer. The overall crime problem in Puerto Rico and the Caribbean
    is serious. Causal factors center principally around Puerto Rico, which
    is a drug transit zone and a center for drug/gang activity. Colombian,
    Dominican and Puerto Rican criminal groups transport illicit drugs into
    the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and the continental United States.
    Other significant factors, which contribute to the overall crime
    problem in Puerto Rico, include drug-related violent crime, money
    laundering, illegal immigration and alien smuggling.
        Colombian drug traffickers use Dominican transporters to receive
    airdrops, off-load drug shipments and transport drugs into the United
    States. Dominican criminal groups are used because of their expertise
    in smuggling aliens and contraband into the United States and their
    willingness to violate the law. Dominican drug distribution
    organizations also control much of the retail drug distribution in the
    Northeastern United States and are expanding their operations to other
    cities along the Eastern seaboard. It has been estimated that between 7
    and 12 tons of cocaine are smuggled into Puerto Rico each month and
    that 80 percent of this cocaine is transported to the United States. An
    inter-agency assessment concluded that approximately 33 percent of
    cocaine entering the continental United States, does so via the
    Caribbean.
        With regard to retention of FBI agents in Puerto Rico, the FBI is
    conducting an on-site review/assessment of the issues related to Puerto
    Rico as a post of duty that will be completed in the near future. It
    addresses a number of sub-issues including safety and health care for
    FBI employees and their families, housing and education for their
    children, taxes/surcharges imposed by the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico,
    and the overall cost of living. Various options are being explored to
    address the retention issue. These issues are currently being addressed
    in a separate working group with the Department of Justice.
                                     ______

                 Questions Submitted by Senator Robert C. Byrd
         integrated automated fingerprint identification system [iafis]
        Question. Under the FBI's incremental build approach for the IAFIS,
    you have been making available some functions of the new system to
    State and local law enforcement at early dates, rather than waiting
    until the full system is available for operations. I am told that
    Federal, State and local users are very receptive to this approach and
    are enjoying successes because of it. What accomplishments have been
    achieved from the early availability of certain IAFIS functions to
    Federal, State, and local users?
        Answer. While the primary purpose in adopting the incremental
    development approach was to reduce the risk of systems integration, the
    FBI has been able to deploy some IAFIS capabilities early. The first
    two, of a total of six, IAFIS builds were completed in 1996. These two
    builds provided FBI latent fingerprint specialists with the capability
    to conduct a limited number of latent fingerprint searches per day
    against several small fingerprint data bases representing approximately
    500,000 criminal subjects.
        Using this capability, the FBI latent specialists have, as of March
    19, 1998, been able to identify 21 latent fingerprint images from old
    cases that they had not been able to identify prior to the introduction
    of this new technology. In some cases, the results confirmed the
    identity of subjects previously known and connected with the crime. In
    many others, however, new, previously unknown subjects were identified,
    providing the investigators with new leads in the case. Local, State,
    and Federal agencies have been made aware of this capability and are
    being encouraged to submit important unsolved cases to the FBI
    Laboratory for processing against these data bases.
        The full potential of IAFIS will only be realized when the need to
    transport and process paper fingerprint records is eliminated. The
    ability to provide positive identifications of criminal subjects while
    they are still in custody can only be effected if fingerprints are
    captured and transmitted electronically from local, State, and Federal
    agencies to the FBI for processing. Many local, State, and Federal
    criminal justice agencies do not currently have the technology to
    enable them to capture and transmit fingerprint records to the FBI
    electronically.
        In 1997, as an additional initiative under the IAFIS project, the
    FBI began the development of an inexpensive fingerprint card scan
    system that could be made available to State and Federal agencies to
    help them develop the capability to submit fingerprints electronically.
    Several pilot versions of this system, known as the Interim Distributed
    Imaging System (IDIS), were deployed during the summer of 1997, and the
    first full function IDIS was installed at the Colorado Bureau of
    Investigation in December 1997.
        In order to support the transmission of electronic fingerprint
    records from State agencies using the IDIS, the FBI also had to provide
    a communications network. The CJIS Wide Area Network (WAN), an integral
    part of IAFIS design, was developed and deployed early in order to fill
    this need. With an intensive effort beginning in the spring of 1997,
    the FBI successfully completed connections to all 50 State
    identification bureaus by October 1, 1997. Using IDIS and the CJIS WAN,
    several State and Federal agencies are currently transmitting
    fingerprint records electronically to the new fingerprint facility in
    Clarksburg, WV.
        Furthermore, over the last year, as IAFIS nears completion,
    INTERPOL has shown increasing interest in using IAFIS standards and
    technology to exchange criminal justice information among its member
    countries. Since it would benefit law enforcement to have the same
    standards in place not only nationally but world-wide, the FBI has been
    working closely with INTERPOL to foster their participation. In January
    of this year the FBI installed an IDIS at INTERPOL headquarters in
    Lyon, France, and effectively demonstrated that fingerprint data and
    other images could be transmitted internationally using Internet
    technology. The success of this pilot has led the FBI to rename IDIS
    the ``International'' Distributed Imaging System.
        Another accomplishment is the conversion of the 32 million criminal
    fingerprint card master file into digital images and the loading of
    these digital fingerprint images into the fingerprint image storage and
    retrieval subsystem. The fingerprint image storage and retrieval
    subsystem became operational in October 1997. Today, FBI fingerprint
    examiners are using the subsystem to conduct over 40,000 fingerprint
    comparisons each day. As a result, local, State, and Federal users are
    receiving a significant benefit because their fingerprint
    identification requests are being processed more quickly and response
    times have been significantly reduced.
        Question. In early 1997, the FBI was reporting a fingerprint card
    processing backlog of almost 2.9 million cards, with an average receipt
    of over 51,000 cards per day. To alleviate this backlog, the FBI
    committed itself to hiring 1,100 new employees for its operations in
    Clarksburg. What is the current status of the backlog of fingerprint
    cards?
        Answer. As of the close of business March 9, 1998, the FBI total
    count was 540,956 fingerprint cards, down from approximately three
    million at the beginning of calendar year 1997.
        Question. What are your current average receipt and turnaround
    times for both civil and criminal submissions?
        Answer. The combined daily average receipts for criminal and civil
    fingerprint cards for fiscal year 1998, from October 1997, through
    February 1998, are 47,837 fingerprint cards per day with average
    closeouts running at 56,770 per day for the same time period. The
    current turnaround time as of March 3, 1998, is 34 days for criminal
    fingerprint card submissions and 24 days for civil fingerprint card
    submissions.
        Question. What are your projections for 1999?
        Answer. Based on the trend for the past ten years, the FBI
    anticipates fingerprint receipts totaling approximately 14 million
    cards in fiscal year 1999.
        Question. How does this compare to the situation which existed in
    early 1997?
        Answer. If these 14 million fingerprint cards are realized, it will
    represent an increase of 1.2 million cards, and an 8.9 percent increase
    compared with receipts in fiscal year 1997.
        Question. The FBI has done a remarkable job in hiring its
    fingerprint identification staff in West Virginia. I have visited and
    am impressed with the new facility in Clarksburg. This new facility is
    at least as large as space the Criminal Justice Information Services
    (CJIS) Division formerly occupied in Washington, D.C. Operating this
    new stand-alone facility requires a number of services such as
    maintenance, shipping, warehousing, automotive fleet, security, and
    utilities, which were funded by the FBI overhead at FBI Headquarters
    when the division was still located there. Now that all of CJIS
    Division functions have been relocated to Clarksburg, do you anticipate
    funding requirements for Clarksburg facility operations and maintenance
    that are not included in the fiscal year 1999 budget request?
        Answer. The CJIS Division Complex is located on 986 acres and
    consists of: (1) nine buildings, providing over 781,000 square feet of
    space for a computer center, offices, storage, and infrastructure
    activities, (2) three miles of roads, and (3) parking for over 2,000
    vehicles. As of March 2, 1998, the CJIS Division had 3,013 personnel
    assigned to the facility in Clarksburg, West Virginia. As you note, the
    CJIS Division has assumed the responsibility of performing many
    functions that were previously handled by other FBI Headquarters
    Divisions. Now that the complex has been operational for over two
    years, the CJIS Division, using historical data, estimates that the
    annual cost for operations and maintenance (O&M) of the Complex at
    approximately $4.074 million in direct funding. Through 1998, the FBI
    funded the O&M of the facility through the funding appropriated
    annually for the Revitalization and Relocation project. As IAFIS
    development funding will be nonrecurred once the system comes on line,
    it will be necessary to address potential shortfalls in O&M funding in
    future budget requests. Estimated annual O&M costs are summarized in
    the following table:

    Estimated West Virginia Complex O&M Costs

            Item                                                        Cost

    Electric......................................................  $845,000
    Water.........................................................    74,100
    Sewer.........................................................    37,050
    Gas...........................................................   256,500
    Building Maintenance Supplies................................. 1,026,000
    Site Repairs/Landscape Maintenance/Custodial.................. 1,282,500
    Trash Removal.................................................    57,000
    Security Uniforms/Equipment...................................   105,450
    Automotive Supplies...........................................    31,350
    Internal Communications and Electronic Building Management
        Sys- tems.................................................   359,100
                        --------------------------------------------------------------
                        ____________________________________________________

          Total Direct Funding Requirement........................ 4,074,050

        Question. I am told that connecting the IAFIS to more than 50 other
    Federal, State and local control terminal agencies will require a
    dedicated, secure telecommunications network called the CJIS Wide Area
    Network, or CJIS WAN. I understand that the CJIS WAN was implemented
    using IAFIS development funding but that recurring operating and
    maintenance costs will be needed. What are the estimated annual
    operating costs for the CJIS WAN for 1998 and 1999? Are you
    anticipating operating and maintenance requirements for the CJIS WAN
    that are not included in the fiscal year 1999 budget request?
        Answer. The CJIS WAN was successfully connected to all 50 States by
    October 1, 1997, using IAFIS development funding. As IAFIS development
    funding will be nonrecurred once the system comes on line, it will be
    necessary to address potential shortfalls in O&M funding in future
    budget requests. Estimated operating and maintenance costs for 1999 are
    listed on the following table.

    Estimated CJIS WAN O&M Costs

                                                                      Fiscal
            Item                                                   year 1999

    Leased telephone circuits.....................................$1,687,200
    Technical support equipment...................................   114,000
    Engineering and Operations support............................   795,800
    Maintenance of hardware and software..........................   114,000
                        --------------------------------------------------------------
                        ____________________________________________________

          Total Funding Requirement............................... 2,711,000

        The telecommunications costs include the leased line recurring
    costs and maintenance services provided by Sprint, the FBI's FTS 2000
    service provider. The projected costs were derived from pricing data
    obtained from Sprint. Engineering and Operations support includes
    contracted support to augment FBI staffing to provide on-going
    administration of the CJIS WAN. Hardware and software maintenance
    support projections are based on estimates provided by vendors for
    equipment used as part of the CJIS Hub installed in the CJIS Division
    at the FBI West Virginia Complex.
        Question. The CJIS Division will be bringing on-line three major
    systems in 1999: the IAFIS, NCIC 2000, and National Instant Check
    System. I would expect that these activities will require a high level
    of interaction with systems users across the nation, as well as the
    need for regularly scheduled audits of State operations for compliance
    with policies governing these systems. I am told that to be responsive
    to the law enforcement and criminal justice communities will require
    additional funds to support CJIS Division travel activities. Are
    current levels for travel funds available for providing training and
    related services to the law enforcement and criminal justice community,
    as well as performing scheduled audits of State Control Terminal
    Agencies, sufficient to meet anticipated demand in 1999?
        Answer. Bringing on-line the National Instant Check System, NCIC
    2000, and IAFIS will require additional travel by FBI staff to prepare
    State and local end-users and technical staff to ensure a smooth start-
    up of these three major systems. These demands will be in addition to
    regularly-planned travel for system audits, training, and advisory
    policy board meetings. The level of funding available in the 1999
    budget will necessitate the establishment of priorities for travel.
        Question. Are additional funds needed to protect the significant
    investment in these valuable criminal justice systems?
        Answer. The FBI always wishes to maximize its interaction and
    assistance to the criminal justice community at the local, State and
    Federal level. The types of services provided by the CJIS Division
    requires constant interaction with users to identify their requirements
    and modify, when agreed to, policies and procedures to meet their
    requirements. Travel to numerous locations throughout the United States
    and some foreign locations is required in order for the CJIS Division
    to liaison properly with law enforcement agencies.
        The implementation of the new automated systems will require
    additional travel by CJIS Division employees to: (1) provide training
    to the users on the use of the new systems, and (2) audit the users to
    ensure the accuracy of the data contained within the systems. For
    example, after deployment of the NCIC 2000 system, the States will have
    a three-year transition period to convert existing systems to the new
    capabilities. State and other Federal agencies will require assistance
    from the FBI as they convert their systems. It is anticipated that the
    frequency of technical conferences will increase with additional
    attendees in fiscal year 1999 due to the implementation of the new
    systems.
        Question. The new Integrated Automated Fingerprint Identification
    System (IAFIS) is scheduled to become operational in the third quarter
    of 1999, or mid-1999. I understand that, for a while, the FBI will be
    operating both the current system and the IAFIS in parallel while you
    make the transition from one system to the other. IAFIS development
    funding will be reduced in the fiscal year 1999 budget as you come to
    the end of the system development phase; yet I am concerned that
    funding be available to operate the system during this transition
    period. Does the FBI still plan for the IAFIS system to meet its target
    for full operational capability in fiscal year 1999?
        Answer. The FBI still expects to deliver a fully operational IAFIS
    system in fiscal year 1999 as planned.
        Question. Do you anticipate IAFIS operational costs in fiscal year
    1999 that are not currently covered by IAFIS development funding?
        Answer. For 1999, the amount of funding requested for the
    Revitalization and Relocation project will support IAFIS through the
    third quarter of 1999 when the system comes on line. The final costs
    for delivery of the IAFIS system will determine the availability of
    funds for operations and maintenance (O&M) during the fourth quarter of
    1999. Shortfalls, if any, would have to be covered from other FBI
    funds. As IAFIS development funding will be nonrecurred once the system
    comes on line, it will be necessary to address potential shortfalls in
    O&M funding in future budget requests. The estimated O&M requirements
    for IAFIS for the fourth quarter of 1999 are listed in the following
    table:
            Item                                                        Cost

    Hardware Maintenance..........................................  $461,337
    Software Maintenance.......................................... 1,534,921
    System Engineering and Technical Assistance (SETA)............ 1,179,781
    Operations Personnel..........................................   381,647
    Renewals for Commercial Off The Shelf (COTS) Software.........   340,202
    Service Provider Training..................................... 1,115,112
    Prerequisite Training.........................................   285,000
                        --------------------------------------------------------------
                        ____________________________________________________

          Total Direct Funding Requirement (one-quarter only)..... 5,298,000
                                     ______

                        Drug Enforcement Administration
                Questions Submitted by Senator Pete V. Domenici
                           mexico drug certification
        Question. Once again this year, the Administration has taken the
    controversial step of certifying that Mexico is fully cooperating with
    the United States in the drug war. It has been widely reported that you
    disagree with that decision, particularly in light of the continued
    corruption and increased drug violence in Mexico in the last year.
        What role does DEA play in the certification process?
        Answer. During the course of the drug certification process, I
    provided the Attorney General with DEA's factual assessment of the drug
    enforcement situation in the various countries being evaluated for
    certification purposes. My comments are limited to law enforcement
    issues, and I do not make a recommendation as to any country. The
    Attorney General then makes her recommendation to the Department of
    State.
        Question. Did DEA recommend to the Administration that it not
    certify Mexico this year? What specific facts led the DEA to make the
    recommendation that it made?
        Answer. As I have previously indicated, I did not make a
    recommendation to the Attorney General as to whether or not Mexico
    should be certified. I simply updated her on the state of drug
    enforcement efforts in Mexico.
        Question. Do you think it would bring more credibility to the
    certification process if a law enforcement agency like the Justice
    Department or DEA took the lead role in the certification decision?
        What role does the State Department play in the work the DEA does
    with Mexico regarding drug trafficking? Which federal agencies are the
    most informed about the specific counternarcotics activities undertaken
    by a particular country and the level of cooperation the United States
    receives from particular countries?
        If Congress were to change the certification law, is there any
    reason why the Justice Department or DEA could not assume the lead
    responsibility for advising the President on whether a country is fully
    cooperating with the drug effort?
        Answer. Law enforcement agencies such as DEA provide policy makers
    with specific and unbiased information regarding the performance and
    progress of the anti-narcotics efforts of the various countries being
    considered for certification. We have the ability to provide an
    assessment of each nations progress against the organized criminal
    syndicates who control the drug trade in their country and their
    ability to both accept and share sensitive information in a secure
    manner. There are a number of other social, economic and political
    variables outside the drug law enforcement arena, which have become
    part of the certification process. I believe that the current role of
    law enforcement is appropriate.
        Concerning cooperative efforts between the State Department and DEA
    on drug related issues in Mexico, the Department of State, Bureau for
    International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs (INL) works closely
    with DEA in providing both training and law enforcement related
    equipment to the Government of Mexico. Currently, all purchases of
    equipment by DEA for the foreign counternarcotics operations of host
    nation law enforcement are facilitated by INL. Through the publication
    of the International Narcotics Control Strategy Report (INCSR), INL
    provides statistics, derived from data supplied by Mexican authorities,
    on eradication efforts, drug seizures, and arrests in Mexico.
        There are a number of law enforcement and other government agencies
    in the United States that are well-versed in a variety of drug-related
    issues in Mexico, including: the Department of Justice's Criminal
    Division, the Office of National Drug Control Policy, the Federal
    Bureau of Investigation, the U.S. Customs Service, the Border Patrol,
    the Central Intelligence Agency, and the Department of Defense, in
    addition to the Department of State.
        Question. Do you agree with the Administration's decision to
    decertify Colombia, but grant it a national interest waiver, while
    fully certifying Mexico? Were these decisions consistent given each
    country's level of cooperation? How would you compare the level of
    cooperation received from Colombia with that of Mexico? Did Mexico do a
    better job, a worse job, or about the same?
        Answer. As you know, I have made a policy decision within DEA not
    to comment on the ultimate certification decisions of the President,
    because certification is a process for diplomatic and political
    institutions. As a law enforcement agency, DEA is primarily responsible
    for investigating and incarcerating the leaders of the organized drug
    crime syndicates that control the flow of drugs to and within our
    country. We work closely with our host nation law enforcement
    counterparts to identify and target the leaders of these drug
    syndicates and their methods of operation. Based on these operations,
    we provide advice to diplomatic and political officials regarding the
    extent of the drug problem and progress made by nations where drug
    command and control operations are based. In terms of the cooperation
    that the United States receives from Mexico and Colombia in the drug
    law enforcement arena, we have received varying degrees of cooperation
    from Colombia and Mexico, based, in large part, on their institutional
    strengths and weaknesses.
    Mexico
        In Mexico, the Government of Mexico has made some progress by
    reconstituting its drug law enforcement infrastructure since the
    disclosure of the scandalous drug corruption of General Gutierrez-
    Rebollo last year. The Mexican Government must also be credited with
    placing the law enforcement pressure on the Amado Carrillo-Fuentes
    organization that resulted in the death of Amado Carrillo-Fuentes,
    although his organization continues to operate, and a reign of violence
    has been unleashed as his would-be successors battle for control of the
    organization.
        Some progress also has been made in the development of law
    enforcement cases. For example, former Jalisco state Governor Flavio
    Romero de Velasco was jailed on January 24, 1998, in connection with
    his ties to drug lords Rigoberto Gaxiola Medina and Jorge Abrego Reyna
    Castro. Romero is accused of laundering drug money, accepting bribes,
    and providing a safe haven for drug lords in his western state between
    1977 and 1983.
        While there have been some positive developments in United States-
    Mexican drug law enforcement cooperation, unfortunately, the Government
    of Mexico has made very little progress in the apprehension of known
    syndicate leaders who dominate the drug trade in Mexico and control a
    substantial share of the wholesale cocaine, heroin, and methamphetamine
    markets in the United States. There have been a number of procedural
    changes as the Mexican Government restructures its institutions charged
    with enforcing the drug laws. New personnel have been brought in to
    replace corrupt or ineffective officials. However these changes have
    yet to produce significant results. The ultimate test of any progress
    is measured by apprehending the syndicates' leadership and bringing
    them to justice.
        One promising program for cooperative law enforcement with the
    Government of Mexico was a proposed series of Bilateral Border Task
    Forces (BTF's). In 1995, the United States and the Government of Mexico
    developed the concept of the BTF's, which, as envisioned, were to be
    located in Mexico, at locations along the United States-Mexican border.
    The main objective of these task forces was to target the major Mexican
    drug trafficking organizations and their command and control centers
    operating at various points along the border. The BTF's were to be
    composed of Mexican counternarcotics agents from the now disbanded
    National Counter-Drug Institute (INCD), along with United States law
    enforcement agents from the DEA, FBI, and U.S. Customs Service. The
    task forces were to be physically located in Mexico, with United States
    law enforcement agents traveling to Mexico on a daily basis, from home
    offices in the United States. In concept, the goal of these task forces
    was for the United States ``commuter'' agents to bring their Mexican
    counterparts in the BTF's timely information from drug investigations
    in the United States.
        Regretfully, the BTF's have yet to achieve their full potential,
    due in large part, to the lack of sustained financial support for the
    program by the Government of Mexico. DEA continues to provide both
    extensive financial resources and intensive training to the Mexican
    vetted units, but there have been few significant arrests, drug
    seizures, or intelligence leads developed by these vetted units.
        The Government of Mexico is attempting to build a reliable civilian
    law enforcement agency to replace the former anti-drug agency, INCD,
    which had been seriously corrupted at virtually every level. The new
    agency is called FEADS, Special Prosecuting Office for Crimes Against
    Health. The Organized Crime Unit (OCU), operating in the FEADS
    headquarters in Mexico City, was set up in 1997, pursuant to the
    Organized Crime Law passed in 1996. The DEA has provided assistance to
    the OCU in the development of personnel selection systems and extensive
    narcotics enforcement training to the new OCU agents.
        Although reconstitution of law enforcement institutions is under
    way in Mexico, this is a difficult and lengthy process that may take
    decades. Several programs have been initiated, but the institution-
    building process is still in its infancy. There are now some
    individuals and small organizations with whom we are able to interact
    on specific cases. We limit this exchange, however, to individual cases
    when we are sure the information would not put our agents or sources of
    information at risk.
        The problems of establishing a corruption-free law enforcement
    infrastructure are not insurmountable. However, it is essential that it
    be established because of the enormous damage these criminal
    organizations, based in Mexico, are causing to U.S. citizens, as well
    as to Mexican. The only effective law enforcement strategy is to bring
    these criminals to justice and ensure that they are punished in a
    manner commensurate with their vicious acts.
    Colombia
        In Colombia, the political environment continues to hinder United
    States Government counterdrug efforts. Divergent anti-drug agendas
    within the Colombian Government, a frail judicial system, widespread
    official corruption, and a weak institutional resolve to confront the
    drug problem continue to limit Colombia's ability to cooperate with the
    U.S. Government in the counterdrug arena. In addition, Colombia is
    struggling with a violent insurgency and counterinsurgency both of
    which have links to drug trafficking. Our continued counterdrug efforts
    and accomplishments in Colombia are a testament to the professionalism
    and dedication of the Colombian drug law enforcement forces.
        The Colombian National Police (CNP) is a major law enforcement
    organization with a historical tradition. The CNP had significant
    corruption problems in the 1980's and early 1990's, but took the
    dramatic steps necessary to address that corruption and have progressed
    to become a professional and trusted ally.
        Over the past two and one-half years, all of the top Cali drug
    lords have been either captured by the CNP, died, or have surrendered
    to Colombian authorities. These unprecedented drug law enforcement
    successes were the culmination of years of investigative efforts by the
    CNP and the DEA. The CNP continues to pursue significant drug
    investigations, as follows:
      --In April 1997, as the result of critical intelligence provided by
            the CNP, Venezuelan authorities arrested Colombian drug lord
            Justo Pastor Perafan. Perafan was extradited to the United
            States for prosecution in May 1997. Perafan's trafficking
            organization smuggled multi-ton quantities of cocaine to the
            United States and Europe via containerized maritime cargo.
      --In August 1997, Julio Caesar Nasser David was arrested by the CNP.
            Nasser David headed a major polydrug trafficking and money
            laundering organization based out of Colombia's North Coast.
            His organization smuggled multi-ton quantities of cocaine and
            marijuana via shipping and containerized cargo. Over $200
            million in drug proceeds have been seized from Nasser David by
            the DEA and Swiss authorities. Nasser Davis also is charged in
            the United States with serious narcotics felonies.
      --North Valle del Carca drug lord Jose Orlando Henao Montoya
            surrendered to Colombian authorities in September 1997, to face
            illicit enrichment and money laundering charges.
      --In February 1998, the CNP arrested Colombian drug trafficker Jose
            Nelson Urrego. Although primarily linked to the Northern Valle
            del Cauca drug organization, Urrego also has provided drug
            transportation services to the Medellin and Cali cartels.
        The fact that the CNP, and other members of Colombia's law
    enforcement community, were able and willing to pursue operations
    against the drug underworld is a testament to their professionalism and
    dedication. The CNP's counterdrug successes have come at a high price.
    In 1997, more than 160 CNP personnel died in the line of duty--most of
    whom were involved in counterdrug operations.
        However, Miguel Rodriguez Orejuela and his associates, who
    comprised the most powerful international organized crime group in
    history, initially received ridiculously short sentences for their
    crimes. In January 1997, his brother, Gilberto Rodriguez Orejuela was
    sentenced to 10\1/2\ years in prison on drug trafficking charges. As a
    result of Colombia's lenient sentencing laws, however, Gilberto may
    serve only five years. Miguel, originally sentenced to 9 years, was
    later sentenced to 21 years on Colombian charges based on evidence
    supplied by the United States Government. With further sentence
    reductions, Miguel is expected to serve less than 13 years in prison.
    The sentences imposed and actual time to be served are woefully
    insufficient and not commensurate with the gravity of the offenses.
        Even now, the Rodriguez-Orejuela brothers are able to run part of
    their illicit operation from prison cell blocks equipped with private
    quarters, telephones, indoor soccer facilities and a private kitchen,
    due to Colombia's lax prison system. As a consequence, even though they
    are in prison, they remain among the most powerful cocaine traffickers
    in the world. Colombia's inability to control their operations fully is
    the major factor in the rise of independent Colombian trafficking
    groups.
        Last year, the Colombian National Police took control of four
    maximum security prisons from the Colombian Bureau of Prisons, in an
    effort to prevent traffickers from carrying out their operations from
    jail. In June 1997, the CNP raided a dozen communications centers in
    Bogota and Cali that were being used by the jailed drug lords to manage
    operations. Nevertheless, the jailed drug lords remain able to continue
    to direct some aspects of their trafficking operations from prison,
    albeit with greater difficulty than before the CNP actions.
        The dysfunctional Colombian justice system lacks the expertise and
    resources necessary to prosecute and incarcerate most criminals.
      --In October 1997, a Colombian judge dismissed murder charges against
            jailed Cali drug trafficker Ivan Urdinola. Although the judge's
            decision is under investigation by Colombian authorities,
            Urdinola may be released from prison in 1998. There is clause
            in Colombia's new extradition law which states that the law
            will not be applied retroactively. This clause ensures that the
            Cali drug lords, and other Colombian drug traffickers, will not
            face extradition for crimes committed prior to December 17,
            1997, the date that the constitutional extradition amendment
            became law.
      --Colombia's lenient sentencing codes remain intact. These codes,
            which permit substantial sentence reductions for surrender,
            confession, cooperation, and work/study, continue to allow most
            drug traffickers to serve prison sentences that are low by
            international standards.
        In June 1997, the Government of Colombia approved the creation of
    the Aviation Control Program. As of October 1, 1997, all Colombian-
    registered aircraft are subject to search and inspection by the CNP.
    The CNP systematically identifies all Colombian aircraft by utilizing
    tamper-resistant stickers placed throughout the aircraft. Each sticker
    has a bar code that, when read, allows the CNP to check the sticker
    information with a database of all parts and serial numbers registered
    with that aircraft. Each aircraft is subject to search every six months
    for illegal alterations to the aircraft and/or illicit drug residue.
        The CNP leadership also has taken important steps in recent years
    to counter the effects of corruption on their organization. Since the
    early 1990's, the CNP has dismissed more than 14,000 police officers
    for corruption. The CNP continues to be enthusiastic in its support of
    new ``tools'' to root out corruption. One of these important ``tools''
    is the program of special units, made up of DEA-trained and vetted
    Colombian police officers who continue to work closely with DEA to
    conduct sensitive investigations.
        We can and will continue to fully identify and build cases against
    the leaders of the new criminal groups from Colombia as well as the
    resurgent splinter groups of the old Cali syndicate. These criminals
    have already moved to make our task more difficult by withdrawing from
    positions of vulnerability and maintaining a much lower profile than
    their predecessors. A number of initiatives hold promise for success:
      --Our Country Team's Flow Reduction Strategy will complement the air
            bridge interdiction program by focusing USG resources on those
            cocaine transportation and production organizations located
            south and east of Colombia's Andes Mountains.
      --The U.S. Embassy's Information Analysis/Operations Center (IAOC)
            will be increasingly utilized to coordinate and analyze
            tactical information regarding the transportation and
            production activities of drug trafficking groups active in the
            Colombian territories south and east of the Andes Mountains.
            The IAOC is comprised of Embassy personnel from the DEA Bogota
            Country Office and U.S. Military's Tactical Analysis Team.
            Indirect support and staffing also are provided by the Defense
            Attache Office and the State Department.
      --The special unit program, funded under the Andean Initiative, will
            make it possible to convert existing partially vetted units of
            the CNP into fully vetted teams. These teams of investigators
            will work closely with DEA to conduct drug investigations.
        In sum, although significant progress has been made in Colombia on
    the drug enforcement front through the efforts of the CNP, the weak and
    tainted political and judicial systems within the country continue to
    hinder long-term success in the country's continued fight against drug
    trafficking. In Mexico, although there appears to be willingness on the
    part of the country's leadership to attack the operations of the major
    Mexican drug syndicates, progress is slow, and the corruption within
    the country's law enforcement institutions will continue to make
    success a daunting task.
                                     ______

             Questions Submitted by Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell
                                     hidta
        Question. Mr. Constantine, we in Colorado appreciate the help and
    support of the DEA and the Justice Department in the operation of the
    Rocky Mountain HIDTA. This new high intensity drug trafficking area
    designation under General McCaffrey's ONDCP already has had a
    significant impact on coordinating law enforcement efforts in targeting
    illegal drug trafficking in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming.
        What are your plans this year to expand the DEA's support of the
    Rocky Mountain HIDTA and other drug trafficking initiatives in the
    West?
        Answer. The Rocky Mountain High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area
    (HIDTA) covers a three state region (Colorado, Utah and Wyoming) with
    each state adapting the HIDTA program to its specific needs based on
    local problems and trafficking threats. The Rocky Mountain HIDTA was
    authorized and funded as part of the fiscal year 1997 appropriation.
    First year funding for federal agencies participating in this HIDTA was
    dedicated primarily to the establishment of a joint intelligence
    center. DEA has taken the leadership role in establishing this
    intelligence center which includes members of numerous federal, state
    and local law enforcement agencies within the Rocky Mountain HIDTA
    region. The intelligence center, located in the DEA's Denver Division
    Office, is currently managed by a DEA supervisor and includes one DEA
    Special Agent and Intelligence Analyst.
        DEA takes no direct funding from the Rocky Mountain HIDTA; instead,
    DEA has encouraged area officials to direct HIDTA funding to state and
    local agencies in an effort to provide them with the resources
    necessary to engage in joint enforcement programs and task force
    operations with DEA, while channeling more of their own manpower,
    investigative and equipment support into existing programs. DEA Denver
    currently has 43 Special Agents operating in enforcement groups in the
    State of Colorado. Although none of these agents are specifically
    designated HIDTA agents, each of these agents work on a case-by-case
    basis with their state and local counterparts on HIDTA related
    investigations.
        The DEA Denver Division supports the Rocky Mountain HIDTA through
    interaction between our established operational and support groups and
    HIDTA participating agencies. Each element in DEA's organizational
    structure cooperates across a wide cross section of HIDTA participating
    agencies in all of the initiatives established by the Rocky Mountain
    HIDTA. In the near future, DEA will be opening a new Post of Duty in
    Steamboat Springs, Colorado, consisting of two DEA Special Agents.
    These agents will also work closely with other participating agencies
    on HIDTA structured initiatives.
        DEA played a key role in developing the Rocky Mountain HIDTA
    methamphetamine strategy, with a DEA Assistant Special Agent in Charge
    (ASAC) acting as chairman of the Methamphetamine Investigative Support
    Team (MIST). The DEA Denver Clandestine Laboratory Group is the
    cornerstone of the Colorado Methamphetamine strategy. The DEA
    supervisor and nine Special Agents, who work closely with the Douglas
    County Sheriff's Deputy assigned to this group, will support all the
    members of the Methamphetamine Investigative Support Team. This support
    will include technical and investigative assistance, training and
    equipment. The MIST will work to combat the continuing increase in the
    number of clandestine laboratories in Colorado.
        DEA's Denver Task Force, with six Special Agents and a supervisor,
    works with seven state and local officers from five participating
    agencies in support of identified HIDTA initiatives. This task force
    also works in coordination with three additional local task forces who
    receive program funding in furtherance of Rocky Mountain HIDTA
    initiatives.
        DEA's Denver Transportation Group, includes a DEA supervisor and
    five Special Agents who work with seven Denver Police Department
    detectives in support of the HIDTA Transportation Initiative. DEA has,
    in turn, supported the Denver Police Department's HIDTA Narcotics
    Trafficking Initiatives by assigning one Special Agent full-time to
    their Major Peddler Unit.
        DEA is supporting the Aurora Police Department HIDTA initiatives
    through the assignment of two Special Agents full time to their
    Metropolitan Gang Task Force. In addition to DEA personnel, this unit
    includes representatives from the Aurora Police Department, Denver
    Police Department, FBI, and the National Guard. The primary objective
    of the task force is to target major gangs and the violence associated
    with these groups.
        The DEA office in Colorado Springs has a co-located task force
    which includes a DEA supervisor, five Special Agents, and six state and
    local officers assigned from four HIDTA participating agencies. The
    office supports several of the HIDTA initiatives including the Drug
    Transportation Initiative and the Gangs/Violence initiative.
        DEA's Glenwood Springs Resident Office has a task force comprised
    of a DEA supervisor, four Special Agents and seven state and local
    officers from four departments, all of which are participating in the
    area HIDTA. Again, the office supports several initiatives, including
    the Transportation Initiative, the Gangs/Violence Initiative and the
    Methamphetamine Initiative. The office also provides support to several
    Western Slope departments, including Grand Junction and the Mesa County
    Sheriff's Office, in their investigative efforts in support of HIDTA
    initiatives. Opening of a proposed DEA Post of Duty for the City of
    Grand Junction, Colorado is currently being reviewed by personnel at
    DEA Headquarters.
        A DEA Post of Duty has officially been approved for Steamboat
    Springs, Colorado. Two Special Agents will be assigned to this area to
    work with a local, three county, GRAMNET (Grand, Moffat and Routt
    County Narcotics Enforcement Team) task force. The Steamboat Springs
    Post-of-Duty will open in upcoming months.
        The Investigative Support Center (ISC) is presently staffed with a
    DEA supervisor, one DEA Special Agent, a DEA Intelligence Analyst and
    seven analysts from HIDTA participating agencies. This unit provides
    indices checks (e.g., NADDIS, CCIC, TECS, etc.) for HIDTA participating
    agencies and, to date, has provided case support to 26 separate HIDTA
    investigations. This unit has performed a vital role in providing
    investigative support for agencies with previously limited intelligence
    capabilities. The ISC has also provided training and specialized
    assistance to a number of HIDTA participating agencies.
        The DEA Denver Division has provided direct support to the Rocky
    Mountain HIDTA training initiative through the provision of
    instructors, space, lesson plans and training materials. The expertise
    garnered by DEA through years of training has been made available to
    HIDTA participating agencies and their members through the teachings of
    qualified, experienced DEA instructors.
        In sum, the unique quality of the Rocky Mountain HIDTA is that all
    investigative efforts include combined federal, state and local
    cooperation under HIDTA umbrella initiatives. In the future, DEA will
    continue its leadership role in unifying other agencies under the HIDTA
    program.
        Question. Will additional DEA agents be assigned to Colorado to
    work with the Rocky Mountain HIDTA?
        Answer. While DEA Special Agents in Colorado are not specifically
    designated as HIDTA agents, each of our enforcement groups, whether
    full-time or on a case-by-case basis, work with state and local units
    who receive HIDTA funding. In fiscal year 1998, our Denver Field
    Division received a total of five additional Special Agents. Three of
    these agents will be assigned to DEA offices in the State of Utah,
    while the remaining two agents will be assigned to DEA's new office in
    Steamboat Springs, Colorado, which is slated to open in the near
    future. As previously indicated, plans for the opening of an office in
    Grand Junction, Colorado are also under review. As is the case in our
    existing offices in Colorado and throughout the Denver Field Division,
    the new DEA Special Agents assigned to these offices will work on high
    profile investigations with local agencies receiving HIDTA funding.
        DEA is committed to providing the utmost support to other federal,
    state, and local agencies in the fight against drug trafficking. It is
    DEA's intent to continue to increase the number of DEA Special Agents
    assigned throughout the United States, including those assigned to the
    Denver Field Division.
                                methamphetamine
        Question. Mr. Constantine, I know you share my concern about the
    growing problem of methamphetamine, especially its dangerous impact in
    the Western United States. Just with the past 10 days, the police chief
    of Grand Junction, Colorado--Chief Gary Konzak--stated how the grand
    valley area is ``in jeopardy'' from methamphetamine.
        Last year, the Treasury Subcommittee which I chair, addressed the
    methamphetamine problem, with a new ONDCP and the Justice Department
    received additional funding for the DEA to combat this problem.
        What are the agency's plans this year to increase efforts to fight
    methamphetamine?
        Will the agency please look into the meth problem in the Grand
    Junction area, throughout Colorado, and the Rocky Mountain region
    generally, and report back to this committee its findings and
    recommendations?
        Answer. In answering your question, let me first begin by
    addressing the methamphetamine problem from a national perspective and
    then move to an explanation of the problem and our efforts within the
    State of Colorado and more specifically, in the City of Grand Junction.
    National Methamphetamine Perspective
        Over the course of the past several years, DEA has been
    aggressively addressing the growth of methamphetamine trafficking
    across the U.S. through our Methamphetamine Enforcement Initiative.
    This initiative has provided the agency with an integrated and
    coordinated strategy in support of the National Drug Control Strategy,
    and the National Methamphetamine Strategy. It focuses our intelligence
    and enforcement efforts against the organized drug syndicates,
    independent domestic methamphetamine traffickers, and rogue chemical
    companies responsible for the smuggling, production, and distribution
    of methamphetamine throughout the U.S. Through our demand reduction
    efforts, the training of state and local law enforcement officers, and
    our major investigative efforts, we are committed to ensuring that
    methamphetamine does not become the ``crack'' cocaine of the 1990's.
        The cornerstone of our national investigative strategy is to focus
    on attacking the command and control functions of the organized
    criminal syndicates that control virtually all of the cocaine, heroin,
    and methamphetamine trafficking in the United States today. This task
    is accomplished through the extensive use of Title III wire intercepts
    against the communications infrastructure of these organizations.
        Today, it is estimated that upwards of 80 percent of the available
    supply of methamphetamine in the United States is produced by Mexican
    organized crime syndicates. The Mexican syndicates' dominance of the
    methamphetamine market can largely be attributed to two factors. First,
    Mexican organized crime has established access to enormous quantities
    of the precursor ephedrine from wholesale sources of supply on the
    international market. Second, these criminal groups regularly produce
    unprecedented quantities of high-purity methamphetamine in Mexican and
    Californian super labs, which is then trafficked to states across the
    U.S., including Colorado.
        The Amezcua-Contreras Brothers, operating out of Guadalajara,
    Mexico, are the world's largest smugglers of ephedrine and clandestine
    producers of methamphetamine. The Amezcua Organization obtains large
    quantities of precursor ephedrine through contacts in Thailand and
    India, which they then use to make methamphetamine for subsequent
    distribution to Mexican trafficking groups operating in major U.S.
    population centers. The effectiveness of the national investigative
    strategy in targeting the methamphetamine trafficking operations of the
    Amezcua Organization can be best witnessed in Operation META.
        Operation META demonstrated just how extensive the involvement of
    the major Mexican trafficking organizations is on this country's
    domestic methamphetamine trade. This multi-agency wiretap investigation
    targeted drug traffickers associated with the operations of the
    Amezcua-Contreras Organization, which was supplying its U.S. cells with
    methamphetamine, precursor chemicals, and cocaine.
        Drug traffickers along the border, such as those associated with
    the Amezcua Organization, have a major impact on the drug trafficking
    and violent crime situation throughout the United States. Our Southwest
    Border Strategy brings together many federal, state and local law
    enforcement agencies and prosecutors' offices in a coordinated effort
    to target major drug traffickers operating along the Southwest border
    of the United States. Operation META, an OCDETF investigation conducted
    as part of this strategy, resulted in more than 100 key arrests.
        In addition to the methamphetamine operations of the major Mexican
    drug trafficking organizations, in recent years, the United States has
    witnessed a rapid expansion in the number of small, independent,
    methamphetamine organizations operating throughout the country. The
    illicit manufacturing of methamphetamine in smaller, ``mom and pop''
    operations, which typically produce anywhere from two to three ounces,
    to a pound of methamphetamine, can take place anywhere the operator can
    set up laboratory equipment to synthesize the product (e.g. motel
    rooms, apartment complexes, industrial areas, farms, a neighbor's
    house, etc.). The caustic, flammable and explosive chemicals required
    by ``cooks'' to produce methamphetamine endanger the lives of not only
    the criminals, but law enforcement personnel and other innocent
    bystanders as well.
        Over the course of the past two years DEA has dedicated significant
    agency resources to nationally address the growth of the burgeoning
    methamphetamine trade. In fiscal year 1997, we expanded our overall
    interdiction and chemical control efforts along the Southwest Border
    through an enhancement of 54 Special Agents for the Southwest Border
    Initiative. In June 1997, we established a Special Operations Section
    to target Mexican methamphetamine command and control operations.
        During fiscal year 1997, we also conducted a total of 23 one-week
    clandestine laboratory investigative and safety training classes for
    state and local law enforcement officers at sites in San Diego,
    California, Overland Park, Kansas, and at the FBI Academy/Camp Upshur
    in Quantico, Virginia. A total of 914 state and local officers were
    trained. A one-time transfer of funds from ONDCP allowed DEA to provide
    much needed clandestine laboratory safety equipment (e.g., air
    monitors, air purified respirators, fire resistant clothing, etc.) to
    each state and local officer completing the course.
        We also produced and distributed nationwide a new public awareness
    videotape entitled ``Methamphetamine--Trail of Violence.'' A series of
    clandestine laboratory awareness posters and two videotapes, one which
    details and illustrates the chemicals found in the new ``Nazi'' formula
    labs, and another called ``Chemical Time Bombs,'' were also distributed
    to clandestine laboratory enforcement teams throughout the U.S. In
    fiscal year 1996 and 1997, several of our field divisions held
    conferences to educate state and local authorities on the growth and
    hazards associated with methamphetamine trafficking, production and
    abuse in the United States.
        Over the course of fiscal year 1997, DEA made a total of 5,780
    arrests for the manufacture and wholesale trafficking of
    methamphetamine and seized 1,366 clandestine methamphetamine
    laboratories. We also initiated a total of 3,209 methamphetamine cases
    and seized 1,175 kilograms of methamphetamine and amphetamine.
        In fiscal year 1998, DEA received a resource enhancement of 60
    Special Agents and $11.046 million to execute a three-prong approach
    for attacking methamphetamine production, trafficking and abuse in the
    U.S. This approach entails: (1) increased enforcement to target major
    methamphetamine trafficking organizations; (2) hazardous waste removal
    and laboratory services; and (3) clandestine laboratory training to DEA
    personnel and state, local and foreign law enforcement organizations.
        Because of the hazardous nature of the waste produced, clandestine
    laboratory sites require professional, costly cleanup services. In
    addition to the aforementioned funding, in fiscal year 1998, the COPS
    program provided us with a one-time reimbursement of $9.5 million for
    state and local clandestine laboratory cleanup and training. This
    funding included a total of $5 million for state and local clandestine
    cleanup operations and $4.5 million for clandestine laboratory training
    for state and local officers. To date, DEA has provided clandestine
    laboratory training to over 2,000 state and local officers across the
    U.S. With the additional $4.5 million provided to the agency in fiscal
    year 1998 through the COPS program, we anticipate training an
    additional 1,600 state and local law enforcement officers over the
    course of the next two years.
        For fiscal year 1999, in an effort to build upon the Southwest
    Border Initiative and the National Methamphetamine Strategy, we are
    requesting the additional resources necessary to implement a
    comprehensive approach for targeting and investigating methamphetamine
    trafficking and production. This approach will increase domestic
    enforcement efforts; enhance chemical control; expand intelligence
    programs; and improve environmental protection. The request includes an
    enhancement of 100 Special Agents to target methamphetamine trafficking
    in emerging markets and/or producer states.
    Methamphetamine in the Rocky Mountain Region and Colorado
        Regarding the methamphetamine situation in the Rocky Mountain
    Region, and more specifically, within the State of Colorado, nearly
    every office within the DEA Denver Field Division reports an alarming
    increase in the use and trafficking of methamphetamine in recent years.
    Throughout the Denver Field Division's four-state area of
    responsibility (Colorado, New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming),
    methamphetamine trafficking is controlled primarily by organizations
    based in Mexico with distribution cells in both Mexico and California.
    Much of the methamphetamine encountered through the Division's
    enforcement and interdiction efforts is transported into Colorado from
    Southern California and, to a lesser extent, directly from Mexico.
        Small domestic clandestine laboratories have increased
    significantly throughout the Division as well. During the second
    quarter of fiscal year 1998, a total of 59 methamphetamine laboratories
    were seized by DEA offices within the Denver Field Division, as
    compared to 42 during the second quarter of fiscal year 1997. Most of
    these laboratories were ``mom and pop labs,'' capable of producing
    small but steady quantities of methamphetamine. With methamphetamine
    ``recipes'' readily available on the Internet and precursor chemicals
    attainable through veterinary supply companies, hardware and discount
    stores, high-purity methamphetamine is produced throughout the Rocky
    Mountain region with relative ease.
        Interstate 70, a major east-west highway connecting the West Coast
    to the Midwest and Eastern United States, traverses Colorado from the
    Utah border, through Grand Junction and Denver, to the Kansas border.
    Consequently, law enforcement officials in the Grand Junction area
    report increases in both methamphetamine interdiction seizures and
    local methamphetamine distribution.
        According to Drug Abuse Warning Network (DAWN) statistics,
    methamphetamine emergency room incidents in the City of Denver
    increased from 31 in 1992, to 106 in 1996. Methamphetamine treatment
    admissions increased in the city by 300 percent between 1991 and 1996.
    In 1997, preliminary data shows that 18.5 percent of methamphetamine
    treatment admissions in Denver were new users.
        In 1997, almost 90 percent of methamphetamine users entering
    treatment in the City of Denver were Caucasian, and almost one-third
    were 25 years of age or younger. According to an ethnographic study by
    the University of Colorado School of Medicine, most methamphetamine
    smokers are middle to lower class suburbanites who are attempting to
    enhance work performance or maintain more than one job.
        DEA's Colorado Springs Resident Office (RO) reports that Mexican-
    produced methamphetamine continues to pervade Southern Colorado,
    exceeding the availability of cocaine in the area. Methamphetamine is
    gaining in popularity and has become the drug of choice for many users.
    The impact of methamphetamine trafficking in Colorado Springs has been
    seen through rising overall crime rates, particularly burglaries,
    assaults, and murders. The Colorado Springs Police Department has
    identified an organized network of methamphetamine users that has been
    known to commit numerous systematic burglaries in order to garner
    enough money to purchase the drug.
        Our Glenwood Springs RO, which includes the Grand Junction area of
    Colorado, reports that methamphetamine is readily available in ounce,
    pound and kilogram quantities. Multi-kilogram quantities are regularly
    encountered through interdiction efforts on the highway and at the
    local bus terminal.
        DEA arrest statistics in Colorado reflect the growing impact of
    methamphetamine distribution and use throughout the state. In Denver,
    methamphetamine accounted for 8.7 percent (38) of all DEA arrests (436)
    in fiscal year 1995. In fiscal year 1996, methamphetamine accounted for
    12.8 percent (60) of all arrests (468). In fiscal year 1997,
    methamphetamine accounted for 19.5 percent (92) of all arrests (471).
    During the first two quarters of fiscal year 1998, methamphetamine
    accounted for 20.8 percent (60) of all arrests (288).
        A similar trend is evidenced by the growing number of
    methamphetamine investigations initiated by DEA in the City of Denver.
    Methamphetamine investigations represented 14.77 percent (35) of all
    cases initiated by DEA in Denver (237) in fiscal year 1995. In fiscal
    year 1996, methamphetamine investigations represented 15 percent (35)
    of all new cases initiated (232). In fiscal year 1997, methamphetamine
    investigations represented 19.8 percent (50) of all cases initiated
    (252). During the first two quarters of fiscal year 1998
    methamphetamine investigations represented 27.9 percent (29) of all
    cases initiated (104).
        Both the DEA Colorado Springs RO and the Colorado Springs Police
    Department report that methamphetamine is the top investigative
    priority in Southern Colorado. In fiscal year 1995, methamphetamine
    accounted for 28.9 percent (35) of all arrests (121) made by the
    Colorado Springs RO. In fiscal year 1996, methamphetamine accounted for
    20.9 (18) of all arrests (86). In fiscal year 1997, methamphetamine
    accounted for 27.1 percent (35) of all arrests (129). During the first
    two quarters of fiscal year 1998, methamphetamine accounted for 27.6
    percent (16) of all arrests (58).
        Methamphetamine investigations represented 21.1 percent (11) of all
    cases initiated by DEA in Colorado Springs (52) in fiscal year 1995. In
    fiscal year 1996, methamphetamine investigations represented 22.4
    percent (15) of all new cases initiated (67). In fiscal year 1997,
    methamphetamine investigations represented 31.7 percent (26) of all
    cases initiated (82). During the first two quarters of fiscal year
    1998, methamphetamine investigations represented 45.9 percent (17) of
    all cases initiated (37).
        Arrest statistics provided by our Glenwood Springs RO reflect a
    similar trend. In fiscal year 1995, methamphetamine accounted for 7.7
    percent (5) of the total arrests (65) made by the Glenwood Springs RO.
    In fiscal year 1996, methamphetamine accounted for 20.6 percent (14) of
    all arrests (68). In fiscal year 1997, methamphetamine accounted for
    22.7 percent (34) of all arrests (150). In the first two quarters of
    fiscal year 1998, methamphetamine accounted for 20.9 percent (18) of
    all arrests (86).
        In fiscal year 1995, methamphetamine investigations represented 25
    percent (8) of all cases initiated by DEA in Glenwood Springs (32). In
    fiscal year 1996, methamphetamine investigations represented 24.4
    percent (11) of all new cases initiated (45). In fiscal year 1997,
    methamphetamine investigations represented 25 percent (21) of all cases
    initiated (84). During the first two quarters of fiscal year 1998,
    methamphetamine investigations represented 21.6 percent (8) of all
    cases initiated (37).
        The Glenwood Springs RO reports that the vast majority of the
    methamphetamine encountered in Western Colorado is transported from
    Southern California, to Denver and the Midwestern United States.
    Mexican-produced methamphetamine is transported primarily by Mexican
    couriers traveling via bus, train, and automobile from California and
    Mexico. During the second quarter of fiscal year 1998, the Glenwood
    Springs RO was involved in six separate multi-kilogram seizures of
    methamphetamine, all of which was destined for points east. Our
    Glenwood Springs RO reports that during the second quarter of fiscal
    year 1998, more seizures and undercover buys focused on methamphetamine
    than in previous quarters. Additionally, current deployments by DEA
    Denver's Mobile Enforcement Team (MET) are targeting Mexican
    methamphetamine traffickers in Eagle and Garfield Counties in Colorado.
        The City of Grand Junction has experienced a significant impact
    from the flow of methamphetamine from out-of-state sources. More
    frequent and larger quantities of the drug are being encountered in
    highway and bus station interdictions, as well as in local
    investigations. According to the Grand Junction Police Department,
    fourteen search warrants executed since January 1, 1998, resulted in 25
    arrests for methamphetamine and weapons charges. Eighty percent of the
    investigations currently being pursued by the Grand Junction Police
    Department's Narcotic Unit are targeting methamphetamine traffickers.
    Of all the investigations being conducted by the Department's General
    Detective Bureau, 60 percent are methamphetamine-related. Additionally,
    local authorities report an increase in methamphetamine abuse among
    local residents. Fully 90 percent of all drug use charges are for
    methamphetamine violations.
        Recent investigations suggest that Grand Junction may be evolving
    into a staging area for distribution of methamphetamine throughout
    Colorado. Earlier this year, a DEA Denver MET deployment targeted a
    methamphetamine organization, with a California source of supply, who
    utilized a Grand Junction hotel room as a distribution center. Another
    investigation being conducted by the DEA Glenwood Springs RO involves a
    trafficker and money launderer who moved his base of operations from
    California to Grand Junction. To date, six pounds of methamphetamine
    have been seized in this investigation. Yet another case by the
    Glenwood Springs RO began by targeting a local cocaine dealer in Aspen,
    Colorado. Subsequent investigation led to the ultimate source of
    supply, a Mexican organization in California. One of the group's
    distributors, who was arrested with eight pounds of methamphetamine,
    operated out of Grand Junction and indicated that he trafficked 100
    pounds of methamphetamine per month in the area.
        During the second quarter of fiscal year 1998, DEA Special Agents,
    in conjunction with Grand Junction Police Officers, made the following
    seizures at the Greyhound Bus Station in Grand Junction:
      --On January 9, 1998, two Mexican brothers in this country illegally
            were found to be carrying a total of approximately seven pounds
            of methamphetamine. They both stated that they were en route
            from Los Angeles to Topeka, Kansas.
      --On January 14, 1998, a passenger was found to be carrying
            approximately ten pounds of methamphetamine. The passenger
            stated that he was traveling from San Francisco, California, to
            Denver.
      --On January 30, 1998, a passenger was found to be carrying
            approximately five pounds of methamphetamine. The passenger
            claimed to be traveling from Los Angeles to Marshall, Iowa.
      --On February 12, 1998, two individuals were found to be carrying
            just over five pounds of methamphetamine. The passengers stated
            that they were traveling from Anaheim, California, to Denver.
        Operation Pipeline highway interdiction efforts have also netted
    significant methamphetamine seizures throughout the State of Colorado.
    For example, on February 6, 1998, the Colorado State Police seized
    3,447 grams of methamphetamine during a highway stop in Morgan County,
    Colorado. The driver had a California identification card, but claimed
    to be coming from Mesa, Arizona. He was on record for his involvement
    in another DEA case in Utah. Additionally, INS records indicate that he
    was deported from El Paso, Texas, to Mexico in 1994.
        On March 25, 1998, during a highway interdiction stop outside
    Glenwood Springs, almost 47 pounds of amphetamine was discovered in a
    vehicle bearing California plates. The driver and the passenger claimed
    that they were going to Sioux City, Iowa. Three days later, on March
    28, 1998, another highway interdiction stop led to the seizure of six
    pounds of methamphetamine. The vehicle had California license plates
    and the driver had a California license. It was determined that the
    passenger of the vehicle, who was in the United States illegally, was a
    member of the same organization responsible for the 47 pound seizure
    three days prior. DEA Special Agents conducted a controlled delivery of
    the six pounds of methamphetamine, which was destined for Greeley,
    Colorado.
    Recommendations
        In the years to come, DEA will continue to address the threat posed
    by domestic and international methamphetamine trafficking through
    aggressive law enforcement initiatives, intelligence collection and
    dissemination, federal, state and local training programs, and demand
    reduction initiatives. Within the Rocky Mountain Division, we will
    support regional task forces established with other federal, state and
    local agencies, sharing resources to present a unified front in
    attacking the growing regional methamphetamine traffic.
        In the State of Colorado, we will continue to develop our
    cooperative statewide methamphetamine strategy in an effort to combat
    the growing problems posed by area methamphetamine trafficking. This
    strategy includes HIDTA coordinated investigations in the areas of
    Intelligence, the Southwest Border, Gang/Drug-related Violence,
    Clandestine Laboratories, and Interdiction. The strategy also includes
    efforts to improve regional demand reduction activities and heighten
    public awareness regarding the dangers of methamphetamine use.
        The methamphetamine strategy will focus our investigative efforts
    against the command and control operations of the major organized crime
    syndicates thereby working to significantly impact the drug trafficking
    situation in the State of Colorado. We will also continue our plan for
    office expansion throughout the state, beginning with the opening of a
    two-agent Post-of-Duty in the City of Steamboat Springs, and moving on
    to other areas such as Grand Junction, which are replete with
    methamphetamine trafficking and abuse.
        In the end, we as a nation must continue our efforts in the
    methamphetamine arena until the specter of the national methamphetamine
    crisis diminishes and the safety and well being of our communities and
    children are restored.
                                     ______

               Questions Submitted by Senator Ernest F. Hollings
                               drug certification
        Question. Administrator Constantine, last year we spoke at length
    about the Administration's certification of performance in
    counternarcotics efforts. This year the President certified Mexico as
    cooperating, and allowed Colombia a certification based on U.S.
    national interests.
        Were you consulted on these certifications, and were you in
    agreement with all of them?
        Answer. During the course of the drug certification process, I
    provided the Attorney General with DEA's factual assessment of the drug
    enforcement situation in the various countries being evaluated for
    certification purposes. My comments are limited to law enforcement
    issues, and I do not make a recommendation as to any country. The
    Attorney General then makes her recommendation to the Department of
    State.
        Question. How much progress is Mexico really making? Does this
    improvement extend to areas at the border, like Baja California, where
    most honest law enforcement officials have been killed by the drug
    cartels?
        Answer. The Government of Mexico has made some progress by
    reconstituting its drug law enforcement infrastructure since the
    disclosure of the scandalous drug corruption of General Gutierrez-
    Rebollo last year. The Mexican Government also must be credited with
    placing the law enforcement pressure on the Amado Carrillo-Fuentes
    organization that eventually led to the death of Amado Carrillo-Fuentes
    during plastic surgery to alter his appearance. Despite his death, his
    organization continues to operate and a reign of violence was unleashed
    last summer as his would-be successors battled for control of the
    organization.
        Some progress also has been made in the development of law
    enforcement cases. For example, former Jalisco state Governor Flavio
    Romero de Velasco was jailed on January 24, 1998, in connection with
    his ties to drug lords Rigoberto Gaxiola Medina and Jorge Abrego Reyna
    Castro. Romero is accused of laundering drug money, accepting bribes,
    and providing a safe haven for drug lords in his western state between
    1977 and 1983.
        While there have been some positive developments in U.S.-Mexican
    drug law enforcement cooperation, unfortunately, the Government of
    Mexico has made very little progress in the apprehension of known
    syndicate leaders who dominate the drug trade in Mexico and control a
    substantial share of the wholesale cocaine, heroin, and methamphetamine
    markets in the United States. There have been a number of procedural
    changes as the Mexican Government restructures its institutions charged
    with enforcing the drug laws. New personnel have been brought in to
    replace corrupt or ineffective officials. However these changes have
    yet to produce significant results. The ultimate test of any progress
    is measured by apprehending the leadership and bringing them to
    justice. This is, of course, a challenge for both our countries, as
    more traffickers operate on both sides of the border. The Arellano-
    Felix brothers, for instance, are known to have traveled to the United
    States.
        One promising program for cooperative law enforcement with the
    Government of Mexico was a proposed series of Bilateral Border Task
    Forces (BTF's). In 1995, the United States and the Government of Mexico
    developed the concept of the BTF's, which, as envisioned, were to be
    located in Mexico, at locations along the U.S.-Mexican border. The main
    objective of these task forces was to target the major Mexican drug
    trafficking organizations and their command and control centers
    operating at various points along the border. The BTF's were to be
    composed of Mexican counternarcotics agents from the now disbanded
    National Counter-Drug Institute (INCD), along with United States law
    enforcement agents from the DEA, FBI, and U.S. Customs Service. The
    task forces were to be physically located in Mexico, with United States
    law enforcement agents traveling to Mexico on a daily basis, from home
    offices in the United States. In concept, the goal of these task forces
    was for the United States ``commuter'' agents to bring their Mexican
    counterparts in the BTF's timely information from joint drug
    investigations in the United States.
        Regretfully, the BTF's have yet to achieve its full potential, due
    in large part, to the lack of sustained financial support for the
    program by the Government of Mexico. DEA continues to provide both
    extensive financial resources and intensive training to the Mexican
    vetted units, but there have been few significant arrests, drug
    seizures, or intelligence leads developed by these vetted units.
        The willingness of major Mexican trafficking organizations to
    murder and intimidate witnesses and public officials has been a key
    factor in the threat they pose to both the United States and Mexico
    today. Drug traffickers continue their brazen attacks against both the
    United States and Mexican law enforcement officials and their sources
    of information.
        Over the past two years, a number of officials in or from Tijuana
    have been murdered in what are believed to be drug-related killings.
    However, it is an overstatement to say that ``most honest law
    enforcement officials in Baja California have been killed by drug
    cartels.'' The motivation behind the deaths of these officials is not
    always clear. While some were likely killed in retaliation for the
    actions they were taking against major trafficking organizations,
    others are suspected of working in collusion with traffickers and are
    believed to have been killed as a result of trying to work both sides.
    Unfortunately, few of these murders have been solved, resulting in less
    confidence in law enforcement's capability and resolve to tackle the
    major drug organizations.
        The violent activities of the Mexican Drug Syndicates are not
    limited to Baja California, but are common all along the United States/
    Mexico border. Often this violence involves rival drug organizations
    and/or innocent bystanders. For example, in the State of Chihuahua,
    since the July 1997, death of major drug lord Amado Carrillo-Fuentes, a
    battle for control of the lucrative Juarez drug smuggling corridor has
    ensued. Over 50 people have been killed in Juarez as a result of this
    power struggle. The violence associated with the competing groups was
    epitomized in a gangland style machine-gun shooting at the Max Fin
    Restaurant in Juarez in August 1997. Six drug traffickers and two
    innocent bystanders were killed in that incident.
        The Government of Mexico is attempting to build a reliable civilian
    law enforcement agency to replace the former anti-drug agency, INCD,
    which had been seriously corrupted at virtually every level. The new
    agency is called FEADS, Special Prosecuting Office for Crimes Against
    Health. The Organized Crime Unit (OCU), operating in the FEADS
    headquarters in Mexico City, was set up in 1997 pursuant to the
    Organized Crime Law passed in 1996. The DEA has provided assistance to
    the OCU in the development of personnel selection systems and have
    provided extensive narcotics enforcement training to the new OCU
    agents.
        Although reconstitution of law enforcement institutions is under
    way all across Mexico, this is a difficult and lengthy process that may
    take decades. Several programs have been initiated, but the
    institution-building process is still in its infancy. There are now
    some individuals and small organizations with whom we are able to
    interact on specific cases. We limit this exchange, however, to
    individual cases when we are sure the information would not put our
    agents or sources of information at risk.
        The problems of establishing a corruption-free law enforcement
    infrastructure are not insurmountable. However, the need for sound law
    enforcement institutions in Mexico is urgent because the trafficking
    organizations are getting more powerful every year. The only effective
    law enforcement strategy is to bring these criminals to justice and
    ensure that they are punished in a manner commensurate with their
    vicious acts.

                              subcommittee recess

        Senator Gregg. The subcommittee stands in recess until
    tomorrow at 10 a.m., when we will hear testimony from the
    Secretary of Commerce.
        Thank you very much.
        [Whereupon, at 12:06 p.m., Tuesday, March 3, the
    subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene at 10 a.m., Wednesday,
    March 4.]

    DEPARTMENTS OF COMMERCE, JUSTICE, AND STATE, THE JUDICIARY, AND RELATED
                  AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 1999

                                  ----------

                            WEDNESDAY, MARCH 4, 1998

                                           U.S. Senate,
               Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The subcommittee met at 9:57 a.m., in room S-146, the
    Capitol, Hon. Judd Gregg (chairman) presiding.
        Present: Senators Gregg, Stevens, Domenici, and Hollings.

                             DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

                            Office of the Secretary

    STATEMENT OF WILLIAM M. DALEY, SECRETARY OF COMMERCE
    ACCOMPANIED BY:
            W. SCOTT GOULD, CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER/ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR
                ADMINISTRATION
            MARK E. BROWN, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF BUDGET

                      Secretary Daley's summary statement

        Senator Gregg. The subcommittee will come to order. Thank
    you, Mr. Secretary, for being early. I am not going to take any
    time for an opening statement, so let's go right to the
    Secretary to see what he has to say. I understand Senator
    Hollings is coming, but he said he is running a little late,
    and we should start.
        Secretary Daley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am pleased to
    present the President's 1999 budget request for the Department
    of Commerce. Not since Senator McClellan sat in your seat, and
    C.R. Smith, the 18th Commerce Secretary sat in mine, has a
    President submitted a balanced budget. So I am extremely
    delighted to be part of this new era.
        This is the first budget that I have had the opportunity to
    really participate in putting together.
        So I think as I stated last year to you, I believe strongly
    that we must hold every position and program to a stern test:
    is it the most efficient and cost-effective way to get the job
    done. And I believe this budget reflects that.

                                Economic growth

        Our request for $4.9 billion ensures we continue to help
    grow the economy without growing ourselves, and at the same
    time investing in areas that our strategic plan has identified
    as most important for the next century. The request is a $701
    million increase, or 16.7 percent over the 1998. Two-thirds of
    that is for the 2000 census. Without that census, the increase
    would be 5.6 percent.
        Let me highlight what is new in four strategic areas,
    beginning with economic infrastructure and trade in particular.
    I had the opportunity 2 weeks ago to visit Asia, and obviously
    our trade deficit with Asia will rise because of the economic
    difficulties in Asia right now. I tried to be very frank with
    our friends in Asia, and stated that there is no quicker way to
    undermine support to help them recover than to see either new
    trade barriers or foot dragging on prior commitments.

                                 Trade deficit

        I made it clear that this administration and the Congress
    must know that the increase in our trade deficit is not due to
    such practices. With this in mind, our budget request
    strengthens efforts to insure that other countries are
    complying with trade laws. This includes expanding our trade
    compliance activities, including increasing staff to meet our
    new responsibilities under the Uruguay round for enforcement of
    antidumping and countervailing duty laws.
        At the same time we want to expand our trade promotion.
    Last year, our advocacy helped American firms with 60
    contracts, together worth about $18 billion. Even so, we are
    still outmanned and outgunned by several of our key
    competitors.
        I refer you to chart 1, Mr. Chairman, which is attached to
    my statement. This compares what countries spend in
    nonfinancing export promotion programs which are basically
    those activities that we do at Commerce. For every 3 cents
    which we spend, Japan and Germany spend 5, the United Kingdom,
    7, France 18, and Canada 33 cents. This is per $1,000 of GDP.
        Chart 2 looks at the relative staffing levels for export
    promotion, per $1 billion of GDP. Again, we are among the
    lowest. Our competitors are investing vastly more than we do.
    We do, however, accomplish more with less. But if these
    disparities persist, we risk losing sales and contracts in
    emerging markets around the world. For that reason, we want to
    add a small number of staff overseas for our commercial service
    offices.
        Let me also mention that the President wants to help
    communities and workers adversely affected, whether it is by
    trade, technology, or other factors. Focusing on trade,
    specifically, we do propose $250 million over 5 years to help
    these communities as part of a new initiative under the
    Economic Development Administration.

                                Decennial census

        Second, the census is the most important job which we will
    undertake in this Department over the next 3 years, one of the
    most important undertakings which the Government can take.
        President Clinton has directed me to produce the most
    efficient, cost effective, and clearly the most accurate census
    in the history of our Nation. A total of $856 million is
    budgeted, which is an increase of $466 million. The staff will
    increase by 5,500 in 1999. By any measure, the census is a
    massive and complex undertaking. We need to make preparations
    to count more than one-quarter of 1 billion people who do not
    readily respond to Government questionnaires. We need to
    complete the address list for 118 million residences, get
    computers operational, and finalize our statistical design.
        Finally, we will have to fill at least 260,000 related jobs
    at the peak in 2000. For the 1990 census, we found we had to
    recruit 10 people for every 1 that was actually employed. Some
    people we recruit do not show up for employment tests, some
    people who pass the test don't come for training, and some who
    pass the tests and training do not show up to work. There is a
    high turnover, as you can imagine, of those who are employed.
    And all this is going on in an economy where we have more jobs
    than we have people available.

                                Census sampling

        Our request assumes the use of sampling, since we remain
    firmly committed to it. I do recognize that there is a great
    difference on the Hill regarding this issue. So we have
    included $36 million to keep the option for a nonsampled
    census. But in our view, without sampling, costs will go way
    up, and accuracy way down.
        Third, with regards to technology, innovations have created
    new industries and transformed existing ones. But as the keeper
    of critical economic data, we are straining to keep up.

                              upgrading Statistics

        Our industry classifications were developed when Franklin
    Roosevelt was President, and our current measures of poverty
    were developed at about the same time Senator Glenn first
    visited space. As he revisits space, we would like to revisit
    these numbers.
        So we are requesting $57 million to upgrade our Nation's
    statistics. We are requesting an additional $141 million for
    several ongoing initiatives across the Department to promote
    cutting edge innovations.
        For example, next year we will start constructing an
    advanced measurement laboratory in Gaithersburg. We have a
    small request of $2.3 million, but it is an important one, we
    believe, if we want to expand the very successful Baldrige
    awards into both health care and education.
        Fourth, we will increase our investments in several
    sustainable development areas, seeking an additional $123
    million for NOAA. The loss of life and property damage caused
    by El Nino is devastating. We cannot prevent the bad weather,
    but we can predict it so that communities and businesses can
    better prepare themselves. We predicted that El Nino would be
    as devastating as it has been 6 months in advance, better than
    it has ever been done before.
        I refer you at this time, Mr. Chairman, to chart No. 3. We
    would like to increase average lead time for flash flood
    warnings to 42 minutes, which would be up 18 minutes from 1994.
    In chart 4, we want to increase average lead time for tornado
    warnings to 11 minutes, which is up 6 minutes from 1994.
        We already have made great strides and this saves money as
    well. For example, in the last 4 years, we have become 25
    percent more accurate at predicting where hurricanes will
    strike. And for each mile of coast line that does not need to
    be evacuated, we save at least $1 million.

                          Natural disaster initiative

        Just yesterday I announced a 5-year, $305 million
    initiative to help communities better prepare for and recover
    from natural disasters. This is one example of how we can pull
    together the incredible resources of this Department, working
    more effectively by trying to work closer together.

                               Management review

        Our budget request also will fully fund the recommendations
    of our management review of the National Weather Service, which
    Gen. Jack Kelly oversaw, who is now the new Director of the
    National Weather Service. His management challenge is daunting,
    but I do have confidence in him and his new team's ability to
    deliver.
        We also are requesting an additional $35 million to better
    manage marine fisheries and $22 million to assess pollution
    runoff problems. Many of you may recall the terrible pfiesteria
    outbreak in the Chesapeake Bay region, and this is exactly the
    sort of problem which we plan to address.
        Let me close on this, Mr. Chairman: last year you had a
    number of concerns which I promised to address. I said I would
    reduce the number of political positions by 100, and we have
    done that. I said we would address longstanding security
    issues, and we have done that, cutting the number of current
    security clearances by more than one-third, with many more to
    come. I also said that we would reform the Advanced Technology
    Program and the Minority Business Development Administration,
    and I believe strongly that we have made substantial progress
    in both of those areas.
        Last year you asked me many questions regarding trade
    missions. One year later, after putting new guidelines in place
    and visiting 21 countries, I can say that when the American
    Government stands behind our businesses, we do have tremendous
    impact.
        Last year our trade missions alone brought billions of
    dollars in new business to American firms and workers. It has
    been a most productive year that would not have been possible
    without your support and the support of this entire committee.

                               prepared statement

        I thank you and look forward to an even more successful
    year as we get into 1999, and I look forward to any questions
    that you or the members may have.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        [The statement follows:]
                     Prepared Statement of William M. Daley
        Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, I am pleased to
    appear before you today to give a report on our successes of the past
    year at the Department of Commerce and to present our $4.9 billion
    budget request for fiscal year 1999.
        But even before I begin my report and discuss my proposal for the
    fiscal year 1999 budget, I want you to know what a pleasure it is to be
    part of a truly historic effort to bring the first balanced budget
    request before the Congress since C.R. Smith, the 18th Secretary of
    Commerce. As the 32nd Secretary of Commerce, I have worked hard to
    assure we are doing more with less, while still providing key
    investments to help the nation prepare for the next century.
        Last year, I promised several actions to improve the management and
    operations of the Department and to respond to past criticisms. I'm
    pleased to report that we have:
      --Reduced political staffing at the Department by the 100 positions
            that I promised. Our new ceiling of 156 will be maintained.
      --Revised our trade mission criteria to assure open selection of
            participating companies. Through the efforts of our Advocacy
            Center, we supported $6.8 billion in U.S. content exports in
            fiscal year 1997.
      --Addressed long standing security issues throughout the Department,
            in response to the President's national security review.
            Security clearances have been reduced by 27 percent. I am
            appointing a Deputy Assistant Secretary, who will report
            directly to the CFO to head our new efforts. I will be
            reorganizing many existing security offices within the
            Departmental structure and increasing overall security
            resources by 25 percent.
      --Moved aggressively to address issues on the IG's top ten list of
            weaknesses. Four have been dropped from the IG's most recent
            list, including NOAA satellite programs, the National Marine
            Fisheries Service Seafood Inspection Performance-Based
            Organization (PBO), the NOAA Vessel Buyout Program and the
            Advanced Technology Program's (ATP) commercial pricing and
            incremental funding.
      --Made progress on several remaining weaknesses identified by the IG,
            including reforming the NWS based on General Kelly's study,
            NIST's capital improvements facilities program, and
            Departmental management of procurement deficiencies,
            information technology, property management and oversight
            functions, and financial management systems.
                            fiscal year 1999 budget
        The fiscal year 1999 budget I'm presenting is $4.9 billion, $701
    million over fiscal year 1998 and a 16.7 percent increase. Fully two-
    thirds of the increase funds the costs of the 2000 Census. Without the
    Census, our budget increases by 5.6 percent, to cover inflation and key
    investment programs that I will describe in a minute.
        The Department has not set off on a path of growth--we continue to
    be the smallest cabinet agency and have 3,300 fewer employees on board
    today than at the start of this administration. Setting aside the
    Patent Office staffing, which is paid for by fees, and the Decennial
    Census, we will not grow overall in employment through the end of
    fiscal year 1999.
        Our Strategic Plan, submitted last September under the provisions
    of Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA), focuses on three
    themes: economic infrastructure; science/technology/information; and
    resource and asset management and stewardship. The materials I have
    submitted to support this budget--our Annual Performance Plan, our
    Budget-in-Brief, and bureau budget justifications--build from the plan.
    Performance measures in each document provide the annual slice of
    outcomes we anticipate will occur with the funding of the budget
    request.
        Through our plans, we are helping to grow the economy, without
    growing ourselves. We may be small, but we will keep doing the big work
    that will expand opportunities for American workers and American
    businesses. If you look at how American corporations have done well in
    the last decade--they got leaner. But they also invested in new
    products and factories that are their future.
        So, this budget manages in a way that invests in our future. Our
    future is trade; it is making government work better in a new economy,
    where technology is the engine for growth; it is fostering what we call
    sustainable development; and it is conducting the best Census ever.
                            economic infrastructure
        First is the area of trade. The President talked at length about
    this in his State of the Union address. Today record high exports
    account for fully one-third of our economic growth. The President wants
    to keep it that way. Government-wide, we will be strengthening trade
    advocacy, trade promotion, and the Trade Promotion Coordinating
    Committee.
        In fiscal year 1999, ITA's budget will allow us to: provide
    advocacy support to U.S. firms for 700 overseas projects, with a total
    project value of $145 billion. Gross exports derived from advocacy will
    reach $12 billion; create a minimum of 10,500 New-to-Export firms and
    36,800 New-to-Market firms; increase the number of firms receiving
    export assistance through the U.S. and Foreign Commercial Service from
    11,500 to 14,000; and review 15 more applications for free trade zones
    to support an increase of 25,000 jobs.
        Let me highlight these changes in outputs proposed in our fiscal
    year 1999 budget with an example of the work of our U.S. Export
    Assistance Centers (USEAC). The Deep South Bowling Pro Shop, Inc., has
    increased its international sales from $75,000 in 1995 to $850,000 in
    1996. By seven months into 1997, Deep South Bowling had exceeded 1996
    sales and had entered five international markets. Since March 1996, the
    Delta USEAC has been providing trade statistics, trade leads, contacts,
    and market research and trade finance services to Deep South Bowling.
    With the advice of the Delta USEAC, the company has also implemented a
    new marketing tool--an Internet website--that has generated a
    tremendous response, with approximately 35 percent of all inquiries
    originating outside the United Sates. These types of experiences are
    repeated each working day through out the country.
        Likewise, we will move to provide for compliance with our trade
    laws by: expanding the Trade Compliance Center's activities and
    developing a database for use in monitoring compliance; increasing
    staff to initiate 130 Antidumping/Countervailing Duties (AD/CVD) Sunset
    Reviews; implementing the National Defense Authorization Act of 1988,
    Chemical Weapons Convention, the Fastener Quality Act, encryption
    controls, and preventive enforcement to stop illegal shipments before
    they reach their destination; and decreasing export licensing
    processing time from 35 days in fiscal year 1997 to 33 days in fiscal
    year 1999; and commodity classifications from 25 days in fiscal year
    1997 to 20 days in fiscal year 1999.
        At the same time, the President knows that some workers and
    communities have not shared in the benefits of trade. As he said in his
    State of the Union message, we help communities in a special way when
    their military base closes. So, we propose $250 million, over five
    years, to help communities adjust as part of a brand new Economic
    Development Administration program. The new program will operate under
    existing authorities used successfully under EDA's Defense program over
    the past five years.
        Let me give you an example of the type of results we might expect
    from the trade impacted communities program based on the Defense
    program results. In September, 1994, EDA provided $750,000, with
    $250,000 in local funds, to establish a $1 million Revolving Loan Fund
    to the Berkeley-Charleston-Dorchester Council of governments to provide
    capital for business development loans to assist in recovery from the
    effects of the Charleston Naval Base complex closure that was
    identified in BRAC 93. This fund has been very successful; to date it
    has leveraged $12.6 million in private sector dollars, and created or
    saved 591 jobs. An additional 906 jobs are projected to be created over
    the next 3 years.
        By the way, I want to note here what a fine job EDA has done to
    seek new ways to meet the requirements of GPRA. Studies completed for
    EDA by Rutgers University provide the basis from which we project that
    EDA's fiscal year 1999 public works investments could produce 49,000
    new jobs over the next nine years--at an average cost of around $3,000
    per job. They will also leverage private investment of $1 billion. We
    are looking for ways throughout the Department to include in our budget
    and Annual Performance Plan measures that let Congress and the American
    public know what the funds we seek will produce.
        Our support for Minority Business remains strong, and we will be
    adjusting its programs under new leadership this year. In fiscal year
    1999, the $28 million requested will allow MBDA to assist in obtaining
    more than 900 contracts, valued at $600 million, for assisted
    companies. We will broaden and expand the scope of business assistance
    which MBDA offers by developing an MBDA Intranet; hiring a Chief
    Information Officer; establishing an interagency Minority Business
    Council; initiating more collaborative efforts with community, state
    and federal agencies, including SBA; and maintaining an electronic
    process to match business opportunities with minority-owned businesses.
                      science, technology, and information
        Second, we will invest more to make government work better in our
    new economy. Technological change has created dynamic new industries
    and transformed existing ones. We also have seen innovations in
    government. Yet as the keeper of the critical economic data, we are
    straining to keep up.
        For example, the discrepancy between the government's product-side
    (GDP) and income-side (GDI) measures prevents an accurate assessment of
    the Nation's productivity and our ability to sustain the current level
    of economic expansion without renewing inflationary pressures. And our
    industry classifications were developed more than 60 years ago. Our
    current measures of poverty were developed when John Kennedy was
    President. To address these problems we will invest $57 million to
    upgrade our nation's statistics. This request includes:
      --Improving our measure of Gross Domestic Product and other key
            economic statistics by better monitoring of industries, goods,
            and services, especially in rapidly growing sectors such as
            services and computers.
      --Updating income and poverty measurement to incorporate the now
            substantial non-cash programs such as food stamps and housing
            assistance, and tax changes such as the earned income tax
            credit.
      --Expanding the American Community Survey, a major statistical tool
            of the future, from testing and evaluation to a more robust
            level of data collection (from 9 to 37 sites) in preparation
            for comparisons with Census 2000 data.
      --Incorporating the North American Industry Classification System
            (NAICS) into all Census Bureau economic data, including
            releasing over 200 reports from the 1997 Economic Census in the
            new format and converting 70 percent of all surveys to NAICS.
        Technological change has been responsible for as much as half of
    the economic growth in the United States in the last 50 years. You can
    see the growth-inducing power of technology even at the level of
    individual firms. A Commerce Department analysis shows that firms using
    advanced technologies are more productive and profitable, pay higher
    wages and increase employment more rapidly than firms that do not.
        The evidence is convincing. At the macroeconomic level, the
    industry level, and the firm level, technology is the engine of
    economic growth. And the so-called enabling technologies--such as mass
    production, machine numerical control, and the transistor--have been
    powerful engines of growth.
        The Department will continue to invest in several high impact
    technology initiatives that will help American firms adopt technologies
    to grow faster, export more, pay higher wages and hire more people. An
    additional $141 million is requested for these efforts.
        For the Advanced Technology Program, we are requesting $260 million
    total. We will continue to strengthen this program while living within
    the limitations on new programs that Congress has provided. We propose
    to grow the program to $399 million over the next five years, and we
    continue to believe that ATP is fulfilling its mission to promote and
    enable innovative industrial R&D as a driver for the Nation's economy.
    We have strong evidence of this in a recent analysis of more than 200
    ATP projects that shows that the program has stimulated and accelerated
    the pace of technology development, and is enabling significant
    technological breakthroughs, not just simple incremental advances.
    Catalyzed by this work, industry already has identified more than 1,000
    potential applications for these technologies, many offering dramatic
    improvements over existing technology.
        We appreciate the inclusion of significant construction funds for
    NIST in the fiscal year 1998 budget, and have included $40 million of a
    total of $218 million needed over 44 months for the construction of the
    Advanced Measurement Laboratory (AML) in Gaithersburg. We've asked for
    $115 million in advanced appropriations for AML construction, and want
    to work with you to assure approval of funding in a cost effective
    manner this year. We have the most talented scientists in the world,
    and they need world-class laboratories.
        One such scientist is Dr. William Phillips of NIST. He was awarded
    the 1997 Nobel Prize in Physics for his pioneering research in laser
    cooling of atoms. His exceptional work highlights a key role of
    Commerce in pushing the limits of measurement science and laying the
    foundations for the basic measurement technology support required by
    U.S. science and industry. His research may lead to dramatically
    improved measurements of time and length, which are likely to be needed
    by U.S. industry in the development of advanced technology in the next
    century.
        I'd also like to offer one more example of the critical importance
    of our technology programs. By catalyzing innovation in enabling
    technologies and strengthening essential measurement and standards
    capabilities, we provide two fundamental ingredients in the complex
    recipe for technology-led economic growth. However, we do not overlook
    another key ingredient--the capacity of the Nation's smaller firms to
    grow, create jobs, and improve the economy. Through the Manufacturing
    Extension Partnership network, we assist the Nation's smaller
    manufacturers in adopting new technologies and improving their business
    practices.
        The budget for the Manufacturing Extension Partnership program
    actually reflects a slight reduction as MEP Centers increase their
    matching share of operating costs. However, we will be supporting
    operations at the same number of centers, and expect to reach 30,000
    companies through MEP, increasing sales for those companies by $389
    million. MEP's successes are built one firm at a time.
        For instance: a comprehensive evaluation by the California
    Manufacturing Technology Center, affiliated with the NIST MEP, helped
    A&R Tarpaulins, a 17-person company in Fontana, California, to increase
    sales by two-thirds--about $600,000--and to halve its inventory costs.
    To accommodate continued growth, this minority-owned manufacturer of
    truck cover systems and industrial fabrics also added seven new
    employees to its payroll.
        A lot of creative work is being done in healthcare and education.
    We need to recognize and promote improvements in productivity and
    effectiveness in these sectors, that are so fundamentally important to
    our society, using the Baldrige Award approach. Both the education and
    healthcare sectors say they want to share in these successful
    techniques. The Foundation for the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality
    Award--which endowed the business award with more than $10 million when
    it began in 1987--has committed to raise $15 million for healthcare and
    education awards if the Federal government does its share. The time is
    ripe, and we are requesting $2.3 million to do it.
        Protecting intellectual property so that Americans reap the benefit
    of their efforts is of critical importance to me as well. The budget
    for the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) increases by $95 million, all
    funded through fees, in fiscal year 1999. PTO will increase employment
    by 830 FTE, with total employment rising to 6,358 FTE. PTO will use the
    increased staffing to immediately address growing workloads. By the end
    of fiscal year 1999, PTO will process 75 percent of all patent
    inventions within 12 months, for an average cycle time of 13.8 months,
    and will provide trademark applicants a three month turnaround on first
    action notices. These increases allow PTO to put the maximum effort
    feasible into patent and trademark production. Investments in
    automation and reengineering will yield electronic receipt of trademark
    applications in fiscal year 1999 and processing of trademark applicants
    in 2002; of international patent applications in 2000, and of all
    patent applications in 2003. To secure these improvements, and with the
    expiration of the PTO surcharge at the end of fiscal year 1998, the
    Administration proposes to maintain patent fees at current levels while
    forgoing CPI increases this fall and next fall. This will provide
    consistent fees for the immediate future, and allows $116 million to be
    returned to the Treasury in fiscal year 1999 to support a balanced
    Federal budget.
        Commerce is also a leader in promoting an advanced
    telecommunications structure in America. Our Information Infrastructure
    Grants program will continue at about the fiscal year 1998 level of $22
    million but will increase the number of model programs demonstrated
    from 332 to 382. Additionally this year we will provide new funding to
    help public broadcasting stations keep pace as the industry converts to
    digital equipment. Nation-wide coverage for public broadcast recipients
    will be maintained at 95 percent.
                            sustainable development
        Third, we will invest in several sustainable development areas.
    This goal provides the effective management and stewardship of our
    Nation's resources and assets to ensure sustainable economic
    opportunities. Our investments in sustainable development are intended
    to make sure our environment is healthy; that we have the best weather
    service on earth; and that all Americans are helped should disaster
    strike.
        The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
    represents 43 percent of the Department's budget; and has the biggest
    increase this year, outside of the Census Bureau, of $123 million. In
    large measure, the increase represents the costs of the next weather
    satellites that we must procure to provide continuous polar-orbiting
    and geostationary coverage in the future. But I would like to highlight
    some of the other significant work going on within NOAA that supports
    our plans in Commerce and greatly benefits the Nation.
        Weather is not just an environmental issue--it is a major economic
    factor. At least one trillion dollars of our economy is weather
    sensitive. For example, the problems caused by El Nino this year are
    apparent on both coasts. Continued advances in science since the last
    El Nino in 1982 allowed NOAA to successfully forecast, six months in
    advance, the 1997/1998 El Nino, one of the biggest meteorological
    events of this century. They have been working with other agencies that
    have El Nino response and emergency preparedness responsibilities,
    including FEMA, AID, and state and local authorities, to provide
    advance notice to the public to help reduce loss of life and property.
    Our forecasts are important to many sectors of the economy, helping
    water resource managers, agricultural decision-makers, energy managers,
    state and local emergency planners to plan more efficiently.
        In addition to our El Nino research and forecasting, a fundamental
    responsibility NOAA has is understanding global carbon dioxide,
    greenhouse gas trends, and other trends that have great impact on
    sustainable development issues. We are working hard to ensure effective
    communications of the state of this science to policy-makers worldwide.
    In 1997, Dr. Dan Albritton of our Aeronomy Laboratory in Boulder,
    served as science advisor to the U.S. delegation at the Kyoto
    Conference on Climate Change. In this role, he ensured the U.S.
    delegation had full access to the best available scientific
    understandings of climate change in their negotiation of the Kyoto
    Protocol. An increase of $4 million is requested to continue to improve
    our understanding of climate and air quality.
        We are increasing the funding for National Weather Service (NWS)
    operations by $28 million and $17 million for operation of new
    technology. This will fully fund the recommendations of my management
    review of NWS to assure the best quality weather services in the World.
    I announced a new Director for the National Weather Service two weeks
    ago. General Jack Kelly, former head of the Defense Weather Service and
    leader of the management review, will assume his duties shortly. We
    also will put in place a Chief Financial Officer for NWS. As part of my
    Natural Disaster Reduction Initiative (NDRI), the Weather Service will
    expand efforts to improve flood forecasting, as was done in the Pacific
    Northwest this past year. The Seattle Times praised them with the
    headline: ``NWS Forecasters Hit Bulls-Eye Twice.'' Other aspects of our
    NDRI include efforts in NIST to make buildings and utility lines more
    resistant to natural disasters. And we will use EDA to reduce the
    response time to communities or regions seeking assistance after a
    disaster. This initiative brings together the many parts of Commerce
    that help build disaster-assistance jobs and communities.
        However, we still have some work to do in this area. While the
    hardware procurement for the Advanced Weather Interactive Processing
    System (AWIPS) is underway and systems are working well, I cannot
    certify that I have a satisfactory program that I can deliver to you
    for $550 million at this point. I am reviewing my options, and have
    asked our CFO to keep you advised of our actions at each step along the
    way. We are verifying all costs using a contractor, and NOAA is
    providing the day to day management that the AWIPS program deserves.
        Our sustainable development initiative will provide an increase of
    $35 million in our fisheries programs. With these increased resources,
    NOAA will be able to assess 79 percent of the 231 identified fish
    stocks and 27 our of 39 Fishery Management Plans will have access
    controls implemented. We will develop 25 recovery plans for depleted
    marine mammals and endangered species, and we expect to see
    improvements for some 15 species next year. Further, a portion of these
    funds will continue restoration of West Coast salmon stocks, a
    Presidential priority, through multi-agency recovery programs and
    coordination with private land owners.
        The President's budget includes $22 million for the Clean Water
    Initiative. These funds provide the necessary resources to meet both
    the scientific and management needs to address polluted run-off, the
    major source of pollution in coastal waters today. Polluted run-off
    problems can be seen everywhere including harmful algal blooms,
    pfiesteria, red and brown tides, as well as hypoxia in the Gulf of
    Mexico. The consequences of polluted run-off are significant for the
    national economy. Last year, for example, in the Chesapeake Bay, $40
    million was lost to the local economy because of the pfiesteria
    outbreak. It is estimated that over $1 billion has been lost during the
    past decade because of harmful algal blooms. Of the $22 million, $12
    million is included in the Coastal Zone Management program to support
    state efforts to address polluted run-off; $9 million is for scientific
    research and monitoring of harmful algal blooms, including pfiesteria;
    and $1 million is to address toxic pollution through the Coastal
    Resource Coordinators program.
        Though I am describing our fiscal year 1999 budget request, I would
    like to note an important initiative the Department is involved with in
    1998 that links to our fiscal year 1999 budget request. As part of the
    United Nations-designated 1998 Year of the Ocean, Commerce is
    continuing its commitment to the health and sustainability of our
    oceans. I am proud to say that I am co-leading, with Secretary Dalton
    of the United States Navy, the Federal government's efforts in this
    important area. In particular, NOAA is focusing its efforts on
    improving the quality of coastal waters, protecting habitat for marine
    resources, understanding and predicting the role of the oceans as a
    driver of global climate, making marine transportation safer and more
    efficient, and building awareness of the importance of oceans in our
    daily lives. Our fiscal year 1999 efforts will build on this
    foundation.
        Finally, for NOAA, I want to point out that we are seeking to
    resolve the long-standing problem of providing adequate ship time to
    conduct NOAA's missions. Funds are provided in the Administration's
    projections for the four years starting in fiscal year 2000 to acquire
    the equivalent of four additional ships. Whether we construct new ships
    or provide the days at sea by other means, we think this initiative
    will put NOAA's ocean going requirements on firm footing.
                                decennial census
        The fourth, and last, area for investment is the 2000 Census.
    President Clinton directed me to perform the best census ever. That
    means producing the most efficient, the most cost-effective, and the
    most accurate census in the history of our nation. A total of $856
    million is budgeted for fiscal year 1999 to conduct the 2000 Census, an
    increase of $466 million. It will be a crucial year--the year final
    preparations are made. The decennial staff will increase from 4,204 to
    10,378. The funds will be used to complete the work on addresses; set
    up the field infrastructure; print questionnaires; and develop the
    computer system.
        The Administration remains firmly committed to conducting the most
    accurate census possible, and to this end, the funding we have
    requested assumes the use of sampling in 2000. The budget provides all
    the funds necessary for sampling. In addition, we have included $36
    million for planning and testing census methodologies and acquiring
    additional field offices. This is in compliance with the
    Administration's agreement with Congress to maintain ``two tracks'' and
    allow for a final decision on the use of sampling by March 1, 1999. A
    great deal more money will be required to fund a non-sampling census
    should Congress decide to do so. Without sampling, the cost of the
    Decennial Census will increase, and its accuracy, especially with
    regard to groups that are traditionally undercounted, will decrease. I
    look forward to working with you on this important issue.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for this opportunity to review the
    progress we've made at Commerce in my first year as Secretary, and our
    requirements for the coming fiscal year. Last year I stated that we
    would hold every program and position to a stern test: keeping those we
    need in order to meet our goals, and searching for new and more
    efficient ways to get the job done. Our plans and budget reflect this
    approach. It has been a productive year, and I look forward to working
    with you and the Members of the Committee to pass our budget.

                Chart 1.--Non-Financing Export Promotion Programs

    Canada............................................................  0.33
    France............................................................   .18
    United Kingdom....................................................   .07
    Germany...........................................................   .05
    Japan.............................................................   .05
    United States.....................................................   .03

    1996 Expenditures per $1,000 1995 GDP.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

               Chart 2.--Relative Export Promotion Staffing Levels

    France............................................................  2.80
    Canada............................................................  1.53
    United Kingdom....................................................  1.00
    Germany...........................................................   .50
    Japan.............................................................   .28
    United States.....................................................   .28

    1996 Staff per $1 billion of 1995 GDP.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Chart 3.--National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Flash Flood
                                    Warnings

                        [Average lead time (in minutes)]

    1994 act..........................................................    18
    1995 act..........................................................    26
    1996 act..........................................................    39
    1997 act..........................................................    40
    1998 estimate.....................................................    40
    1999 projection...................................................    42

       Chart 4.--National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Tornado
                                    Warnings

                        [Average lead time (in minutes)]

    1994 act..........................................................     6
    1995 act..........................................................     9
    1996 act..........................................................    10
    1997 act..........................................................    10
    1998 estimate.....................................................    10
    1999 projection...................................................    11

        Senator Gregg. Thank you, Mr. Secretary, and I would like
    to acknowledge the fact that you have done a very good job of
    living up to the statements that you made last year to this
    committee relative to a variety of areas--political appointees,
    management improvements, and trade issues. A very impressive
    first year as leader of the Department of Commerce, and I have
    a lot of respect for the efforts you put in.
        A couple of specific questions. You mentioned that you are
    starting this new initiative which is a cross-agency effort on
    the issue of disasters. What is the title of it?

                     Natural disaster reduction initiative

        Secretary Daley. Natural disaster reduction initiative.
        Senator Gregg. Where are you getting the funds for that?
    How are you allocating the $315 million?
        Mr. Brown. $55 million is from NOAA, $3 million from EDA,
    and $3 million from NIST.
        Senator Gregg. So it's how much? It's not $315 million?
        Mr. Brown. $61 million. It is $305 million over 5 years.
        Senator Gregg. OK. So $55 million is coming from NOAA?
        Mr. Brown. Yes, sir.
        Senator Gregg. And what accounts will that come out of?
        Mr. Brown. It is a combination of the Weather Service and
    the National Ocean Service within NOAA.
        Senator Gregg. Is this going to be new people, a new
    program, or is it just going to be people and program
    reoriented to be working as a team with other agencies?
        Mr. Brown. NIST is new funding, about $3 million. And then
    NOAA's $55 million is new funding for the Weather Service for
    many of the recommendations of General Kelly's review.
        Senator Gregg. We would like to get a comprehensive
    statement of where the money is coming from, what it represents
    in the new program, if it represents a reallocation of
    resources, and how that is going to affect the different
    agencies so that we can see how the money is flowing throughout
    the Department.
        Secretary Daley. We will get that to you.
        [The information follows:]
       U.S. Department of Commerce Natural Disaster Reduction Initiative
        The fiscal year 1999 request is for $61 million in new budget
    authority as described below.
        The Natural Disaster Reduction Initiative links several Commerce
    programs that have the common goal of reducing and mitigating the
    economic and environmental impacts of natural disasters.
        This initiative will improve the Nation's planning and response to
    natural disasters, significantly reducing the loss of life and
    property. It includes funds to provide better planning, improve
    available information, improve infrastructure design and construction,
    and promote long-term economic recovery from disasters.

                                                     FUNDING LEVELS
                                                [In millions of dollars]
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        Fiscal year--
                                                   -------------------------------------------------------   Total
                                                       1999       2000       2001       2002       2003
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    NIST..........................................          3          3          3          3          3         15
    EDA...........................................          3          3          3          3          3         15
    NOAA..........................................         55         55         55         55         55        275
                                                   -----------------------------------------------------------------
        Total.....................................         61         61         61         61         61        305
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NIST
        Additional resources (13 full-time equivalent employees and $3
    million) will initiate a research program to develop standards to
    reduce the potential damage to critical economic infrastructure,
    lifelines, and communications systems.
    EDA
        $3.4 million in funding will support local post-disaster economic
    recovery efforts to accelerate recovery after disasters and before
    supplementals are enacted. Specifically, the funds will allow EDA to
    enhance its relationship with the Federal Emergency Management Agency
    (FEMA) by more effectively coordinating early post-disaster recovery
    response, and building local capacity in communities through joint EDA-
    FEMA sponsored recovery and mitigation training, to more effectively
    plan and implement actions to safeguard jobs and insulate their local
    economy from future disasters.
    NOAA
        Funding will support:
        NOS.--$4.5 million (assessing coastal risks and hazards, damage
    assessment and restoration, harmful algal blooms and hypoxia research).
        NMFS.--$2.3 million (habitat conservation and damage assessment and
    restoration).
         OAR.--$7 million (improving predictions/weather research, health
    of the atmosphere, HPCC mesoscale modeling, space weather hazards,
    hypoxia, aquatic nuisance species/NISA implementation).
        NESDIS.--$1.1 million (environmental observing services).
        NWS.--$40 million, including $28.3 million and 8 FTE to be
    associated with the restoration of operational infrastructure based on
    the Kelly Report recommendations, continuation of weather service
    modernization, surface observing system, upper air observing systems,
    advanced hydrological predictions).
        Program Support.--$0.1 million (Gulf Stream IV jet operations).

        Senator Gregg. I notice we have been joined by the chairman
    of the full committee, which is an honor and a privilege. As it
    is the tradition of this committee to always recognize the
    chairman whenever he attends, I will recognize the chairman of
    the full committee if he should have some questions or
    thoughts.

                                   NOAA fees

        Senator Stevens. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and
    Senators. I am sorry I am a few minutes late, Mr. Secretary.
        I only have two comments. We have had some conversation
    about it--the ex-vessel value of fish being unloaded at the
    dock being subject to tax. It reminds me, we had a similar
    proposal during the last administration, and it suffered an
    untimely--or a timely death. Let's put it that way. I hope this
    one goes the same way.
        I am disturbed about Coast Guard user fees, too. Both of
    them start off so small that they are almost unobjectionable.
    But once they get in place, they are subject to being raised by
    just executive action. I think we have to take a very serious
    look at that.
        I do not know what the rest of the committee thinks about
    it, but I cannot understand those two provisions of the bill.
    Other than that, I am very pleased with the overall
    presentation, Mr. Chairman, and look forward to the hearing.
    Thank you.
        Senator Gregg. Well, I think the chairman has obviously
    flagged two items that will go down to the sea. [Laughter.]
        Secretary Daley. If I could just briefly respond, we did
    have a good conversation, Mr. Chairman, about this. I know that
    this was brought up once before, and it was a substantially
    higher amount and was immediately disposed of.
        We do feel that obviously the cost of many of our
    activities have gone up. We feel that the users and the
    beneficiaries of much of our activities should pay a part of
    that cost, and it is a difference that I am sure will be worked
    out shortly. But we appreciate your comment.
        Senator Gregg. I have some other questions, but let me
    yield to Senator Hollings.
        Senator Hollings. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

                                   NOAA Corps

        While Chairman Stevens is here, let me make note that we
    wrote you about the NOAA Corps. It has been very interesting
    watching Government up here, first hand, now, for 31 years, and
    noticing that Government develops a sort of esprit and a
    dedication.
        I remember the old Environmental Science Services, where
    they took the Uniformed Division of the Coast and Geodetic
    Survey. That unit became the NOAA Corps, which gets us right up
    to the present where we are now seeing recommendations that you
    get rid of the NOAA Corps. The Department of Commerce's own
    study shows it saves absolutely nothing, and on the contrary,
    it decimates a dedicated public service which need not be done.
        The truth of the matter is I'll never forget a fellow named
    Mike Dingman, who used to head up the Signal Corp. When Ronald
    Reagan came to town he requested a study of the Government
    agencies in order to reorganize and cut them back and determine
    whether or not they were worthwhile.
        I served on the Grace Commission at this time. But Dingman
    headed up the study of Federal employees. And I will never
    forget his report whereby he constantly said, maybe the
    assistants and deputy secretaries in Government agencies would
    not be able to last very long in private, free enterprise. But
    he said that the ranking folks in the innards of Government,
    grades 18, 19 and coming on down, would be paid by private
    industry three and four times more.
        I can tell you right now to get the word of a U.S. Senator,
    private industry would pay us $400,000 to $500,000 per year.
    There isn't any doubt in my mind.
        So you have these valuable people in the NOAA Corps who are
    doing an outstanding job. And just for a fetish of getting rid
    of the Government, we now have this move to disband them. You
    see the whole intent when Republicans came to town here 2 or 3
    years ago was to get rid of the Government, abolish your
    Department, abolish Energy, Education, Housing, and everything
    else like that, and they saw an opportunity to show they had
    done something. So they got rid of Tourism--which was a
    mistake. We were hardly spending a thing on it.
        I have a question about the statistics, for them to show
    that something was done--don't just stand there, do something,
    get rid of something, let's get rid of the NOAA Corps. And ATP.
    [Laughter.]
        Which is really doing a wonderful job. Senator Stevens and
    I wrote to you about it. I think we ought to hold on to them. I
    mean, we in the Congress are determined not to get rid of the
    NOAA Corps.
        Secretary Daley. Well, Mr. Chairman, and Senator, it is
    obvious that Congress has been pretty adamant about their
    desire not to do away with the corps.
        We are trying to evaluate exactly what is the minimum
    number of officers we need in the corps. There is a
    disagreement, obviously, on the need to have these people in
    the military, or in uniform, I should say. The Navy, as I
    understand it, except for their fighting ships, is staffed by
    civilian people, not uniformed people, I should say a minimum
    amount of military people.
        Senator Hollings. But you see, the Congress is putting all
    the schoolchildren in uniforms. [Laughter.]
        Oh, yes. We are beginning to love that now. And we think
    they ought to have uniforms. As they do up in New Hampshire.
    I've seen them. [Laughter.]
        Senator Gregg. Very nice uniforms.
        Senator Hollings. They are. They all have the same clothes.
    They've got everything----
        Senator Gregg. They're called parkas.
        Senator Hollings. In any event, you should look into the
    uniform issue.
        Secretary Daley. We will.
        Senator Hollings. And I, like the chairman, commend you.
    You have gotten some things going. With respect to the fishing
    fleet, we finally got some money for the NOAA fleet. And you
    and I, Senator Gregg, put some money in there, and Senator
    Stevens and I and others have been trying to develop that
    fleet. Because again it is going to save money. It provides
    jobs, and it is a needed program.

                                     AWIPS

        On AWIPS, specifically, how are you going to do this
    program for $550 million? You did the right thing. You created
    the software within your Department of Commerce. And you got
    the plan ongoing, but I think we are going to have to put more
    money in. I don't see how you can do it with the commitment at
    $550 million.
        We are just going to have to get more money. Isn't that
    right?
        Secretary Daley. Well, it looks as though, Senator, to be
    able to provide the level of service that the citizens need, we
    will not be able to do it for $550 million. I am waiting, to be
    honest with you, to meet with General Kelly, who had a series
    of evaluations done on exactly how much more over the $550
    million we will need, and what sort of cuts, if we do have to
    cut any sort of functionalities, will be necessary in order to
    keep the amount over $550 million to a minimum. So I hope to
    have that report and give it to the committee within the next
    10 days. To be very frank with you, we have improved the AWIPS
    program by bringing in the software design into the Department.
        I am extremely disappointed at the fact that what has been
    assured to me as being able to be done by the Weather Service,
    and that was to live within the cap, is not possible at this
    point. And I think General Kelly will address that. It is, in
    my opinion, a very serious problem that reflects poorly on the
    budget management by the Weather Service of their operation. At
    the same time, we plan to be talking to the primary contractor
    on this project, to see and discuss with the people in the
    budget department and with the people in the General Counsel's
    Office as to what options we may have with that contractor.
        Senator Hollings. Well, I commend you. You are on top of
    it, and you are working it, and I trust you will let us know
    what is realistically needed. I can't see the Congress, with El
    Nino and other natural disasters, voting to cut Weather Service
    and weather projections.
        And like you say, you have 25 percent improvement on
    surveys and estimates and everything else of that kind.
        So, Mr. Chairman, I think this is good. I have some
    concerns regarding EDA and other matters, but let me yield to
    you and see what other questions we have.
        Senator Gregg. Well, AWIPS, obviously, is a major issue. I
    do acknowledge as you do that the Secretary has aggressively
    pursued it, and obviously you have some problems there.
        I guess my reaction is, hopefully, the problems are
    properly in order now, and you have them under control. If that
    is the case, the next step is to make sure we get what we need
    as a system, and not in order to arbitrarily reach the cap,
    which I can understand from management's standpoint we need to
    reach and not exceed.
        But if we end up just staying with a cap, because it's the
    cap, and end up losing some flexibility that the system might
    otherwise have, then that maybe undermines the whole process.
    It is a tough management call. You are going to have to make
    it. We know you are on top of it.
        Secretary Daley. It is difficult, Mr. Chairman, and quite
    frankly I am disappointed that we assured the Congress that we
    would be able to live with the cap. We would have been better
    off if we had had a better handle on the situation so we could
    have been more honest 1 year ago when we made that assurance.
    And that is why I am, at this point, unable to give you the
    assurance of exactly what the amount is.
        Senator Gregg. Well, when you give us the amount, give us
    the programmatic activities that you are going to include, and
    if you are dropping any programmatic activities, the ones that
    you are going to drop.
        Secretary Daley. Those will be the options that I am
    waiting for from General Kelly, and then we will forward them
    to you immediately.

                           Decennial census sampling

        Senator Gregg. OK. On the census, you mentioned the issue,
    as far as this Department is concerned, relative to the
    Congress' funding issues, and also from a public policy
    standpoint. Do you see a way of reaching an accommodation with
    the House on this issue?
        Secretary Daley. Well, we must reach some accommodation by
    the spring of 1999 in order to have the confidence so that as
    we put the actual program together and finalize it being put
    together in 1999 that we are all on the same wavelength.
        If we were not to do sampling the cost would be
    substantially greater. There is a Supreme Court case that has
    been filed. The court may decide for all of us this issue. If
    they don't, then it gets back to where the political system is
    going to solve the problem.
        I am hopeful that we can solve it and sampling will
    survive. As I mentioned, we believe strongly. I understand the
    politics of the debate, but at the same time, doing the census
    either way presents an incredible management challenge.
        It is the largest peace time mobilization. As I mentioned,
    just in filling the slots, 260,000 people are employed at any
    given time, is going to be a very difficult task.
        So I would very much hope that by the end of this session--
    early in 1999, this issue has got to be settled one way or the
    other. Am I optimistic? I am generally an optimistic person,
    but it is going to be tough.
        The sort of statements being made by the inspector general
    and the GAO in reports reflects their criticism and comments
    and concerns based upon the uncertainty of where Congress and
    the administration is going--the traditional or the sampling.
    And that is really the heart. Even though the inspector general
    and GAO both support, and it is strongly stated there,
    sampling, the heart of their concern is the fact that there is
    this uncertainty that continues. So that is a long answer. The
    short answer would be I am optimistic that it can be resolved.
        Senator Gregg. Are there meetings? Is there a process for
    reaching an agreement beyond just waiting for the Supreme Court
    to make a decision?
        Secretary Daley. Last fall there was an agreement reached
    to get us through this process, to change the dress rehearsals
    so that the dress rehearsal in Columbia, SC, will use the
    traditional method. And then try to have a review based upon
    how the dress rehearsals go. And then from our perspective, we
    will have a better understanding of the accuracy and the cost
    effectiveness of both methods.
        But I think it will either take a Supreme Court decision to
    give us a clear answer. If the court were to rule that sampling
    was unconstitutional, obviously that would end it, at least for
    the time being. On the other hand, if there is no definite
    decision by the Supreme Court, we will have to resolve it. We
    do have ongoing discussions with the House and the House
    leadership, but this year we seem to be buying a little time
    and peace to get through the dress rehearsals.

                     Patent and Trademark Office relocation

        Senator Gregg. Now, the Patent and Trademark Office has
    requested the ability to move to a new campus, which would cost
    $1.3 billion--at least that is the initial estimate, which is a
    phenomenal amount of money to build a building for the Patent
    and Trademark Office. And we have just been through building a
    building downtown on Pennsylvania Avenue, which was a disaster.
    We have a concern, as I have expressed to you in private
    meetings, that could also be a disaster.
        I am just wondering what sort of management initiatives are
    being taken to first make a decision as to whether or not this
    type of move is necessary, whether this type of construction is
    necessary, and if it is necessary, how do we do better than
    what happened downtown, working, obviously, with GSA.
        Secretary Daley. First of all, we do feel that there has to
    be--and this began in 1995--a review of the needs of the PTO.
    We are presently in about, I think, 17 locations in the Crystal
    City area, and the need to consolidate into a fewer number of
    buildings is extremely important to us for a better operation.
        At the same time, these leases in the 17 buildings are in
    the process of expiring, so they have to be renewed. The needs
    of the PTO and the costs to them are going to be substantial,
    whatever option we choose, of staying in the locations, or
    fewer locations. If those buildings and the space needs of the
    PTO can be met by some rather substantial improvements in those
    buildings, or the option of going to a new building that GSA
    would be the landlord of and we would be the tenant of, and
    would pay rent that would be less than the rent we are paying
    now in all of these locations when we add it up in the present
    location.
        I am as sensitive as you, Mr. Chairman, to the fact that
    this is a substantial amount of money, and is a major step by
    PTO. But we feel strongly that this review had to be done, and
    at this rate it is moving forward in a way that I think we will
    get the best dollar in rent that we will have to pay, for the
    taxpayers.
        But we will continue to be sensitive. We have had four or
    five reviews done on different aspects of this. I have asked in
    the last 3 days, for a study to be done of the needs,
    comparisons of other locations and other consolidations that
    have taken place recently in the Government, and would like by
    the middle of April to have that study done. And, obviously, we
    will transmit it to you immediately. But the bottom line is our
    space needs in PTO will cost a tremendous amount of money.
    Whether it is in the consolidation into one or a number of
    buildings has got to be determined. GSA would be the landlord,
    and we would be their tenant, paying less than what we are
    paying now. That's the goal.
        Senator Gregg. Well, I can only speak for myself, but I
    don't resist the idea of moving. I don't resist the idea of
    even building a whole campus if that is the concept. What I am
    concerned about is that it be done with efficiency and that it
    not end up being a disgrace, so the taxpayers don't end up
    feeling that they have been taken to the cleaners the way they
    were downtown in a building which, regrettably, ended up with
    the name Ronald Reagan on it. So as we step into this water, I
    want to make sure that we are not making the same mistakes we
    made before so many times, when the Government decides to do a
    project of this size.
        Secretary Daley. Well, we will keep you very informed of
    how we are moving, and what is happening with this process.
    And, as I say, as soon as this study is given to me it will be
    given to you.
        I am as concerned as you about the appearance to taxpayers.
    And at the same time, we do need to do it, and I think we have
    to do it in a judicious way that doesn't raise this spectacle
    of what has happened with other buildings.
        Senator Hollings. What about the Portals Building? The FCC
    doesn't want to go there. How about the Patent Office going
    there?
        Secretary Daley. To be honest with you, Senator, I am not
    sure whether that building would meet our needs technically.
    First of all, I am not sure about the amount of space in that
    building.
        Senator Hollings. It is not enough?
        Secretary Daley. No, sir.
        Senator Gregg. You are looking for 2 million feet?
        Secretary Daley. A little less than 2 million. Right now we
    have about 1.7 million.
        Senator Hollings. Well, I think the point ought to be made
    on the record that the Patent Office doesn't cost the taxpayers
    a red cent. I mean, they more than pay their way with the fees
    and everything else like that. Just like we make money on drug
    enforcement from the sale of all the planes, properties, and
    everything else that we seize.
        When you come right down to it, they ought to take care of
    the needs of the Patent Office. Like the chairman, I am
    concerned that we don't waste money. But we ought not to be
    puny with the Patent Office, because they have been more than
    paying their way through their fees over the years.

                         Under Secretary for Technology

        With respect to the Under Secretary for Technology, Mary
    Good has been gone for quite a while. Do you have a replacement
    yet?
        Secretary Daley. Gary Bachula has been the Acting Under
    Secretary, and has done a fine job. At the same time, Senator,
    we have a name that has been going through the process, and we
    hope to have that nomination put to the Hill very shortly. It
    has been through a rather long and tedious process of vetting,
    as they call it. So we hope to have that nomination from the
    President very shortly.

                        Manufacturing technology centers

        Senator Hollings. With respect to the manufacturing
    technology centers, they have been working, and working
    extremely well to the point that both authorizing committees
    now have lifted the sunset provisions. Do you support that?
        Secretary Daley. We do support that. There has been a
    reduction in the funding, as you will see in 1999, because
    there was a schedule that had been laid out in the legislation
    that the Federal portion of funding was reduced from 50 to 40
    to 33 percent and more of that would be local support. So there
    is some very small reduction in the funding. But we do support
    that concept.
        Senator Hollings. And your September study showed that the
    program had really accelerated research and development in the
    technology area. That there had been over 1,000 new
    applications and 210 projects with over 100 patents filed. And
    many of the applications, I have noted here, are brand new
    technologies. The program is working.
        Secretary Daley. It is working. We have done very well,
    especially reaching out, as you know better than anyone,
    Senator, to the small- and medium-sized businesses.
        Senator Hollings. Some have suggested that the National
    Academy of Sciences make a study of the Advanced Technology
    Program. It would suit this Senator, because the National
    Academy of Sciences made a study that supported the program's
    inception. That's how we started it. Would you object to the
    National Academy of Sciences making a study?
        Secretary Daley. Not at all. Because I think they would
    show what we feel, and that both ATP and MEP have been huge
    successes.

     assistance to communities affected by Trade dislocation or technology
                                  improvement

        Senator Hollings. Regarding the amount of moneys in EDA.
    The President announced the program in his State of the Union,
    talking about your famous accomplishments with trade impacted
    communities. Instead of 100,000 jobs, there have been estimates
    of up to 600,000. I think 400,000 is more accurate, from
    studies that I can find. Do we have sufficient funds in the
    Economic Development Administration to take care of that
    impact?
        Secretary Daley. Well, we are asking for additional funds,
    about $250 million over 5 years. We are trying to put a
    concerted effort together to give additional assistance to
    communities that are affected by trade dislocation or
    technology improvement.
        Most of the dislocations in jobs over the last couple of
    years have been more technology related than trade related. But
    in some areas of the country, the impact to a community because
    of a trade dislocation is rather enormous. So we are attempting
    to put a program together in EDA that will specifically be
    targeted to those needs, and we feel strongly that EDA's
    success in so many other ways, in working with local
    communities, will be replicated in this program.

          impact of Asia economy on United States imports and exports

        Senator Hollings. As Secretary of Commerce, what is your
    judgment of the Asia financial crises, the impact on commerce
    and the economy here in the United States?
        Secretary Daley. Well, there is no doubt that it is going
    to have an impact. As these economies drop in their activities,
    our exports will be affected.
        As I mentioned earlier in my statement, Senator, on my trip
    last week we tried to once again strongly indicate to the three
    places I went to, Japan, Korea, and Singapore, the need to make
    sure that the market opening activities that have been going on
    and the commitments that have been made are lived up to.
        There is no doubt, with our strong economy, that our
    consumers will continue to be rather ravenous in their
    appetite, as well as our companies, and our imports will
    increase, and they will increase by the end of the year rather
    substantially.
        Regarding our exports, there seems to be a disagreement
    right now. Many of the business leaders have expressed the
    opinion that they do not foresee in the near future a
    tremendous negative impact on their exports. That was the
    analysis of many of the Business Council members last week.
        But we have real concerns about the potential impact,
    because when you have such a slow down in the economies in
    Asia, which has been a major part of our export growth, that is
    going to have an impact probably in the second half of this
    year, not the first half. So the bottom line is that our
    imports, as you know, are going to increase substantially.
        Senator Hollings. Well, we have a vote, as the chairman
    indicated. Let me just reiterate his comments. You have done an
    outstanding job. I used to go around the halls trying to count
    heads to see how many votes I could get so they wouldn't
    abolish the Department. But you have given us character and
    credibility, even with the other side of the aisle, which is
    wonderful. And I thank you, sir.
        Secretary Daley. I appreciate that.
        Senator Gregg. I think we have 7 minutes on the vote.
    Senator Domenici is here.
        Senator Hollings. I'm sorry. I didn't notice. You're so
    quiet when you came in. He was our chairman, you know. Been
    around this thing for years.
        Senator Gregg. I know. Between the two of you, you have 10
    times more knowledge than I have.
        Senator Domenici. Senator Hollings, I would agree that
    Secretary Daley has added some real distinction to this office.
    But I wouldn't get carried away about it.
        Senator Hollings. Well, I like to be fair and reasonable.
    [Laughter.]
        Senator Domenici. I think we're just not in a mood right
    now to get rid of departments, but you can rest assured that
    when the time comes, Commerce will be at the top of the list
    again. You will have to go back to work. Commerce and Energy
    are one and two, or two and one, depending on from whom we
    hear. Of course, we have a little bit of kinship, you and me,
    because I don't want to get rid of the Energy Department, and
    you don't want to get rid of Commerce. So we may be brothers
    before this is finished.
        Senator Hollings. Oh, yes.
        Senator Domenici. In any event, Mr. Chairman, I just wanted
    to make a general observation, and I don't know whether this
    helps you or harms you. I want to repeat, as the Budget
    Committee reports out the discretionary pot of money, all the
    discretionary spending, which is bound by a statutory cap in
    terms of dollars, both budget authority and outlays, that the
    CBO has just told us that it is now equivalent to a freeze in
    program authority, that number, and essentially it's about $2
    billion in outlays less than a freeze.
        I note without adding them all up, Mr. Secretary, the $700
    million increase that is in here for Commerce, that two-thirds
    of it is for the census. I understand that. Nonetheless there
    is a $700 million increase when we must operate under a freeze.
        I note with interest that the Justice Department part of
    the bill is $2.6 billion higher than last year. I only say this
    because it looks to me like it's going to be very hard to give
    anybody increases of any significance.
        Senator Gregg. We also have big problems with trust funds,
    too.

                        Patent and Trademark Office fees

        Senator Domenici. That's correct. Now, what I really wanted
    to talk about, and it is as much a principle with me as it is
    dollars. Essentially, we have a Patent and Trademark Office
    that many of us have been worried about for a long time. We
    hope it is as modern as it can be, and we hope our patent and
    trademark laws are as modern as they can be--although it is
    interesting that they have been in existence with very few
    changes for many, many years, with a dramatically changing
    economic and market world.
        The President, in his budget, by using some new language,
    actually puts money into this bill, Senator Hollings, to be
    spent on appropriated accounts by raising the Patent Office's
    fees, to a degree significantly in excess of what is needed to
    run the office.
        So we have a fee situation that is being used to supplement
    the General Treasury in terms of collecting taxes, even though
    we don't call them that, and then spending them.
        I have already spoken to the Secretary. It is not his
    fault, saying that is going to meet with a lot of opposition,
    especially since the President did it this year with such
    abandon. It is not just in this program, but he did it
    throughout the budget.
        So in order to spend more money, he has got user fees and
    the like that he is collecting, that he asked us to collect. I
    am quick to say, there is nothing illegal about that. There is
    nothing antibudget about that. But it just is a very
    interesting approach when you have caps that you have already
    agreed to, in terms of what your domestic spending was going to
    look like. Then you come in the back door and spend a
    considerable amount more. In fact, we think we are over $120
    billion in new spending through this and other approaches.
        Mr. Secretary, is it not a fact that if we were to adopt
    the President's plan with the new designation for the PTO
    surcharge--otherwise it would expire--but he puts it back in so
    we will be collecting more than is needed to run the office
    efficiently?
        Secretary Daley. We do collect more than we need at this
    time. And you are right, Mr. Chairman. There obviously are
    funds that are unused and have been for the last couple of
    years.
        Senator Domenici. So the interesting thing is the President
    puts in a rescission of that surcharge, and then comes in
    another way and designates it as something new and puts it back
    into the bill. I think we ought to be careful about that,
    because how many of these are we going to do in the budget
    year?
        Also, I am of the opinion that programs like EDA and those
    that are related to it, that they ought not to be getting
    significant increases either this year when we have the
    problems we've got, and there are a few increases requested in
    those programs.
        Senator Hollings, if I thought a new program, and there is
    a new program here contemplated, if I thought a new program
    would help the cities that are adversely affected by changing
    exports and imports, I would be right there with it. I don't
    find that very many of the Federal programs that come into
    those communities do very much good other than put in some
    executives to run things, and give you a few little pluses here
    and there in an economic development plan. I just think the
    local communities have a tough job replenishing the lost jobs
    with new ones, and I don't think we can make it very much
    easier. So I personally don't want any more new programs, but I
    might lose out on that $50 million one. I don't know.
        Senator Gregg. Well, we've got about 4 minutes until the
    vote. Have you voted?
        Senator Domenici. I have not.

                         Additional committee questions

        Senator Gregg. So I think we will just wrap up the hearing.
    There are some questions we want to submit to you.
        Secretary Daley. Certainly.
        Senator Gregg. I would say, generally, on the NOAA accounts
    that obviously this committee is very interested in the NOAA
    accounts, and always has been, Senator Stevens and myself,
    Senator Hollings and a few others.
        Senator Hollings. I also have some questions, Mr. Chairman,
    to submit.
        Senator Gregg. Very good.
        [The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
    were submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the
    hearing:]
                         Additional Committee Questions
                 government performance and results act [gpra]
        Question. How are the agency's annual performance goals linked to
    the agency's mission, strategic goals, and program activities in its
    budget request?
        Answer. Our annual performance goals are cited in our fiscal year
    1999 detailed budget justifications and Budget in Brief. They are
    linked to the common set of goals and objectives contained in the
    Commerce Strategic Plan and Fiscal Year 1999 Annual Performance Plan,
    which bring all of the Department's program activities together under
    three Strategic Themes.
        Question. Could you describe the process used to link your
    performance goals to your budget activities?
        Answer. All bureaus have participated in the development of the
    Commerce Strategic Plan, and have contributed to the development of its
    three strategic themes and program-oriented goals and objectives. Our
    bureau budget requests are organized around those Themes, goals, and
    objectives.
        Question. Does the agency's Performance Plan link performance
    measures to its budget? Does each account have performance measures?
        Answer. Yes. The Fiscal Year 1999 Annual Performance Plan contains
    performance measures for each major program, and provides an appendix
    linking them to the budget requests. Each bureau has performance
    measures.
        Question. To what extent does your performance planning structure
    differ from the account and activity structure in your budget
    justifications? Do you plan to propose any changes to your account
    structure for fiscal year 2000? Will you propose any changes to the
    program activities described under that account structure?
        Answer. Our performance planning structure (i.e., our program
    structure) and our account/activity structure are the same. We will not
    contemplate any proposed changes for our account structure or program
    activities in fiscal year 2000 until we have completed the fiscal year
    2000 planning process later this spring and summer.
        Question. How were performance measures chosen?
        Answer. Performance measures were proposed initially by bureau
    program, policy, and budget staffs, and were selected in final form
    after negotiations with Office of the Secretary and Office of
    Management and Budget staffs.
        Question. How did the agency balance the cost of data collection
    and verification with the need for reliable and valid performance data?
        As is true of all other agencies, Commerce struggles with the need
    to balance the costs of data collection/verification with the need to
    provide programs and services at the least cost to the American people.
    Where possible, we use existing data sources and data verification
    processes, in order to avoid requesting additional resources for data
    collection. In some cases, this has meant using surrogate (rather than
    specifically-designed) measures.
        In our initial stages of GPRA implementation, we found that this
    data issue actually consists of two elements: deciding what and how to
    measure our activities, and then securing the data we need to measure
    them. In most cases, we have reached consensus on the first element,
    but we and other agencies are rapidly approaching the point where
    existing data do not satisfy the needs of GPRA, and where the resources
    needed in order to gather the desired data are in short supply.
        Question. Does your plan include performance measures for which
    reliable data are not likely to be available in time for your first
    performance report in March 2000?
        Answer. Our Fiscal Year 1999 Annual Performance Plan identifies the
    performance measures which we believe are important to use but for
    which we currently lack data and data sources. Although addressing
    these problems will be a priority for us in the second half of fiscal
    year 1998, it is not yet clear if we will have the necessary data for
    our first Annual Performance Report, due in March 2000.
        Question. What are the key performance goals from your Fiscal Year
    1999 Annual Performance Plan that you recommend this subcommittee use
    to track program results? For each key annual goal, indicate whether
    you consider it to be an output measure (``how much'') or an outcome
    measure (``how well''). State the long-term (fiscal year 2003) general
    goal and objective from the agency strategic plan to which the annual
    goal is linked.
        Answer. See Attached listing.
                      Chapter 4-A: Economic Infrastructure
                             (performance measures)
        Chapter 4-A sets forth goals, objectives, and performance measures
    for program activities described in Chapter 1 and links them to our
    budget request.
        Chapter 4-A of the Annual Performance Plan contains goals,
    objectives, and quantitative performance measures pertaining to
    economic infrastructure. The performance measures are numbered to
    correspond to the goals and objectives discussed in Chapter 1.
    1.0 EXPORT GROWTH
                1.1 Implement the President's National Export Strategy in
                        conjunction with the Trade Promotion Coordinating
                        Committee.
        ITA's fiscal year 1999 budget request is $286.5 million, with 2,329
    FTE.
                1.1.1 Strengthen trade advocacy, trade promotion, and the
                        Trade Promotion Coordinating Committee. (ITA)

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Fiscal year--
                                  ------------------------------  Key annual
                                     1997      1998      1999        goal
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Projects (#).................       590       650       700  Output.
    Value of exports ($B)........       111       135       145  Output.
    Satisfied customers (percent)  ........  ........  ........  Output.
    Projects successfully                11        12        14  Output.
     completed (percent).
    Gross exports supported ($B)          7        10        12  Outcome.
     \1\.
    Gross jobs supported (#) \1\.  ........  ........  ........  Outcome.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ ITA's efforts to quantify ``additionality'' (i.e. value added from
      its trade programs) and the related performance measures listed above
      (``Dollar value of gross exports supported'' and ``Number of gross
      jobs supported'') although focused, remain a work in progress.
    Note.--For some measures, quantitative means are not fully appropriate
      or may not be available at this time. In these instances, we explain
      the approach we are using to assess progress in footnotes. The use of
      shading throughout Chapters 4A-4C indicates that measurement areas
      will receive priority attention in fiscal year 1999.

                1.1.2 Increase trade assistance targeted to small and
                        medium-sized businesses. (ITA)

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Fiscal year--
                                  ------------------------------  Key annual
                                     1997      1998      1999        goal
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Counseling sessions (#)......   534,903   363,762   378,279  Output.
    Clients (#)..................   335,883   180,996   193,035  Output.
    Satisfied customers from             95        95        95  Output.
     counseling (percent).
    Matching services (#)........     1,384     1,410     1,410  Output.
    Custom agency reports (#)....    14,938    17,372    17,648  Output.
    Satisfied customers (percent)  ........  ........  ........  Output.
     \1\.
    Reports distributed (#)......   502,425   524,242   542,619  Output.
    Trade events (#).............       473       440       465  Output.
    Firms attending (#)..........    11,982    10,290    10,825  Output.
    Satisfied customers from       ........  ........  ........  Output.
     events (percent) \1\.
    New-to-export firms (#)......    10,021    10,541    10,649  Outcome.
    New-to-market firms (#)......    33,957    35,339    36,806  Outcome.
    Gross exports supported ($)..  ........  ........  ........  Outcome.
    Gross jobs supported (#).....  ........  ........  ........  Outcome.
    Firms that actually export           30        32        32  Outcome.
     (percent).
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ ITA is examining several survey methodologies aimed at accurately
      measuring customer satisfaction.

                1.2 Enforce U.S. trade laws and agreements to promote free
                        and fair trade.
                1.2.1 Expand trade law enforcement efforts. (ITA)

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Fiscal year--
                                  ------------------------------  Key annual
                                     1997      1998      1999        goal
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Applications reviewed (#)....        84       100       115  Output.
    Applications processed (#)...       122       122       122  Output.
    Entries monitored (#)........     4,600     4,800     5,000  Output.
    Petitioners counseled (#)....        54        54        54  Output.
    Investigations conducted (#).        11        11        11  Output.
    AD/CVD orders issued to the           7         7         7  Output.
     U.S. Customs Service (#).
    Requests processed (#).......       225       225       225  Output.
    Reviews conducted (#)........       147       147       147  Output.
    AD/CVD sunset reviews          ........        65       130  Output.
     conducted (#).
    Gross exports ($B)...........        17        20        22  Outcome.
    Gross jobs supported (#).....   370,000   380,000   400,000  Outcome.
    Duty-free scientific
     equipment imported/made
     available to U.S. non-profit
     educational/research
     institutions ($M)...........        34        34        34  Outcome.
    Duty-free articles imported
     to improve quality of life
     for disabled ($K)...........       230       235       240  Outcome.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

                1.2.2 Expand compliance monitoring efforts. (ITA)

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Fiscal year--
                                  ------------------------------  Key annual
                                     1997      1998      1999        goal
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Number of agreements entered        220       100        10  Output.
     into database.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

                1.3 Strengthen and institutionalize trade advocacy efforts,
                        placing special emphasis on the ``Big Emerging
                        Markets'' (BEM's) and major projects.
                1.3.1 Continue emphasis on trade with the BEM's without
                        losing focus on mature markets. (ITA)

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Fiscal year--
                                  ------------------------------  Key annual
                                     1997      1998      1999        goal
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Agreements (#)...............         6         6         6  Output.
    Satisfied customers (percent)       100       100       100  Output.
    Contribution from cooperators        72        67        67  Output.
     (percent).
    Gross exports supported ($)..  ........  ........  ........  Outcome.
    Gross jobs supported (#).....  ........  ........  ........  Outcome.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

                1.4 Restructure export controls for the twenty-first
                        century.
        BXA's fiscal year 1999 budget request is $52.2 million, with 433
    FTE.
                1.4.1 Streamline and reform U.S. export controls. (BXA)

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Fiscal year--
                                  ------------------------------  Key annual
                                     1997      1998      1999        goal
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Licensing decisions (#)......    10,554    10,100    10,100  Output.
    Commodity classifications         3,359     4,200     4,200  Output.
     completed (#).
    Applications process within        99.8        98        98  Outcome.
     statutory time frames
     (percent).
    High risk transactions denied       317       303       303  Outcome.
     (#).
    Low risk transactions             8,715     8,500     8,700  Outcome.
     facilitated (#).
    Average processing times for         35        34        33  Output.
     license application (days).
    Average processing times for
     commodity classifications
     (days)......................        25        22        20  Output.
    Commodity classifications
     processed within regulatory
     time frames (percent).......        25        35        50  Output.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

                1.4.2 Promote export control cooperation with the
                        independent states (NIS) of the former Soviet Union
                        (FSU), the Baltics, Central Europe, and other
                        countries in order to facilitate legitimate trade
                        in high-tech goods and technology, and to help stop
                        the proliferation of specific items to rogue states
                        and terrorists. (BXA)

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Fiscal year--
                                  ------------------------------  Key annual
                                     1997      1998      1999        goal
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    International cooperative            36        40        42  Output.
     exchanges (#).
    Establishment of effective     ........  ........        30  Outcome.
     NIS control system elements.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

                1.4.3 Implement the Nation's encryption export policy.
                        (BXA)

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Fiscal year--
                                  ------------------------------  Key annual
                                     1997      1998      1999        goal
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Encryption commitment plan
     and progress report reviews
     (#).........................        37        41       100  Output.
    Encryption key recovery agent         9        50       100  Output.
     reviews (#).
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

                1.4.4 Oversee domestic implementation of the Chemical
                        Weapons Convention. (BXA) \1\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ The CWC is a new activity for BXA.

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Fiscal year--
                                  ------------------------------  Key annual
                                     1997      1998      1999        goal
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    CWC inspections (#)..........  ........  ........        40  Output.
    CWC facility agreements (#)..  ........  ........       140  Output.
    Data declarations processed    ........  ........     2,000  Output.
     (#).
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

                1.5 Maintain a fully effective law enforcement program and
                        protect U.S. national security, foreign policy,
                        nonproliferation of dual-use commodities, counter-
                        terrorism, nonproliferation of chemical weapons,
                        and public safety interests.
                1.5.1 Investigate criminal and administrative violations of
                        the specific statutes and regulations, and impose
                        civil sanctions for those violations. (BXA)

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Fiscal year--
                                  ------------------------------  Key annual
                                     1997      1998      1999        goal
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Completed enforcement               998     1,100     1,350  Output.
     investigations (#).
    Investigations accepted for
     criminal or administrative
     remedies (#)................        60        66        73  Outcome.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

                1.5.2 Develop and implement measures to prevent export
                        control law violations, including reviews of
                        unlicensed shipments as well as conducting pre-
                        license checks and post-shipment verifications
                        concerning licensed transactions. (BXA)

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Fiscal year--
                                  ------------------------------  Key annual
                                     1997      1998      1999        goal
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Pre-license checks completed        379       400       500  Output.
     (#).
    Post shipment verifications         301       325       375  Outcome.
     completed (#).
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

                1.5.3 Conduct export enforcement outreach with the U.S.
                        export community, and expand outreach and education
                        programs to train U.S. exporters how to identify
                        and avoid illegal transactions. (BXA)

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Fiscal year--
                                  ------------------------------  Key annual
                                     1997      1998      1999        goal
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Enforcement seminars (#).....         4         6         8  Output.
    Anti-boycott help phone calls     1,226     1,300     1,300  Output.
     (#).
    Firms assisted through         ........  ........       800  Output.
     enforcement outreach (#).
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

                1.6 Facilitate transition of defense industries.
                1.6.1 Promote U.S. economic security, technological
                        competitiveness, and defense diversification. (BXA)

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Fiscal year--
                                  ------------------------------  Key annual
                                     1997      1998      1999        goal
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Defense industry advocacy      ........  ........       130  Output.
     assistance requests (#).
    Strategic industry analyses         716       485       485  Output.
     (#).
    Value of facilitated exports        2.3       5.0       5.0  Outcome.
     ($B).
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

    2.0 IMPROVED ECONOMIC STATISTICS
                2.1 Strengthen the public's understanding of the U.S.
                        economy and its competitive position by improving
                        Gross Domestic Product and other national,
                        regional, and international economic accounts data.
        ESA's fiscal year 1999 budget request is $53.7 million, with 570
    FTE. Census' fiscal year 1999 is $1.19 billion, with 16,510 FTE.
                2.1.1 Develop new and improved measures of real GDP and
                        prices. (ESA)
                2.1.2 Provide updated measures of the Nation's investment,
                        savings, and wealth. (ESA) \2\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ Objective 2.1.1 and 2.1.2 have the same performance measures.

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Fiscal year--
                                  ------------------------------  Key annual
                                     1997      1998      1999        goal
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Develop new methods and         ( \1\ )   ( \2\ )   ( \3\ )  Output.
     source data.
    Extend quality adjustments
     and improve measurement of
     hard-to-measure goods and
     services....................   ( \4\ )   ( \5\ )   ( \6\ )  Output.
    Developed improved measures     ( \7\ )   ( \8\ )   ( \9\ )  Output.
     of capital stock.
    News releases of BEA data (#)        49        50        50  Output.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Extended BEA's new chain weighted measures of output and prices to
      all 5 major accounts, including estimates of Gross State Product,
      National wealth, GDP by Industry, and International Investment.
    \2\ Begin revising and updating estimation methods for components
      contributing to the $100 billion statistical discrepancy between the
      product and income estimates of GDP.
    \3\ Develop updated source data and associated estimating methods for
      the 10 major product-side components and the 4 major income-side
      components accounting for the bulk of the statistical discrepancy.
    \4\ Extended quality adjustments to another key high-tech product,
      telephone switching equipment.
    \5\ Extend quality adjustments to additional high-tech products, such as
      cellular phones and prepackaged software.
    \6\ Develop new concepts and methods for measuring hard-to-measure goods
      and services, such as custom computer software and financial services.
    \7\ Developed updated depreciation and valuation methods that raised the
      estimate of the Nation's productive capital stock by 22 percent.
    \8\ Initiate research on developing regional capital stock estimates for
      all 50 states.
    \9\ Develop estimates of the Nation's capital stock and investment in
      computer software. Such estimates will address much needed
      modernization in BEA's estimates used in analyzing productivity and
      the Nation's growth potential

                2.1.3 Provide improved measures of U.S. international trade
                        and finance. (ESA)

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                   Fiscal year--
                                        ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------  Key annual goal
                                                       1997                             1998                             1999
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Development of new measures of       Incorporated first benchmark     Publish results of benchmark     Extend annual selected services  Output.
     international transactions.          data on U.S. portfolio           survey on trade in 5 of the      surveys to collect key data
                                          investment abroad in 50 years    most important types of          quarterly on large and rapidly
                                          into balance of payments         ``affiliated'' services.         growing types of international
                                          accounts; the updated sample                                      trade, such as insurance,
                                          and increased coverage                                            finance, transportation,
                                          resulted in raising the                                           computer and information
                                          estimate of U.S. investment                                       services and communication
                                          abroad by $333 billion.                                           services.
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                2.2 Improve national and local census and survey data
                        through better business practices and public
                        cooperation.
                2.2.1 Develop efficient and innovative business practices
                        to improve cost, timeliness, and the quality
                        performance of Census data. (ESA)

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Fiscal year--
                                  ------------------------------  Key annual
                                     1997      1998      1999        goal
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Operational processing         ........  ........         4  Output.
     centers (Decennial Census)
     (#).
    Operational Regional census    ........        12        12  Output.
     centers.
    Final 1998 Dress Rehearsal     ........  ........         3  Output.
     results released (#).
    1998 Dress Rehearsal           ........  ........         3  Output.
     redistricting products
     released.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

                2.2.2 Increase the level of public cooperation by
                        simplifying public response, building partnerships,
                        and implementing a customer focused marketing plan.
                        (ESA)

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Fiscal year--
                                  ------------------------------  Key annual
                                     1997      1998      1999        goal
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Response rate for cross              93     91-95     91-95  Output.
     sectional surveys (percent).
    Data releases describing
     economic status of all U.S.
     households (#)..............        16        16        16  Output.
    City style addresses           ........  ........       100  Output.
     canvassed (percent).
    Non-city style addresses       ........        25       100  Output.
     canvassed (percent).
    Planned field partnerships            3        42        89  Output.
     established (percent).
    Census forms printed           ........  ........       100  Output.
     (percent).
    Response rate for American           98     95-98     95-98  Outcome.
     Community Survey (percent).
    Program participation for
     American Community Survey (#
     of sites)...................         8         9        37  Outcome.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

    3.0 JOB CREATION AND ECONOMIC HEALTH OF OUR COMMUNITIES
                3.1 Establish, retain, or expand commercial, industrial,
                        and high-technology enterprises to stimulate the
                        creation of private sector jobs for unemployed and
                        underemployed residents of economically distressed
                        areas.
        EDA's fiscal year 1999 budget request is $398.0 million, with 285
    FTE.
                3.1.1 Build, rebuild, and expand vital public
                        infrastructure facilities that offer substantial
                        employment potential and improve the capacity for
                        economic growth in distressed areas. (EDA)

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Fiscal year--
                                  ------------------------------  Key annual
                                     1997      1998      1999        goal
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Public Works-Jobs created and/
     or retained (# direct,
     nonproject, indirect).......    50,400    54,000    49,000  Outcome.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

                3.1.2 Overcome specific capital market gaps and encourage
                        greater private sector participation in economic
                        development activities by establishing or expanding
                        revolving loan funds in economically distressed
                        areas. (EDA)

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Fiscal year--
                                  ------------------------------  Key annual
                                     1997      1998      1999        goal
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Economic Adjustment Revolving
     Fund Federal, State, local
     non-EDA dollars invested
     ($M)........................  ........
                                               \1\ 12
                                              \2\ 1.5  \1\ 31.5
                                                        \2\ 4.0  Outcome.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Private.
    \2\ Other.

                3.2 Help distressed communities adversely affected by
                        defense-related downsizing, natural disasters or
                        economic dislocation and build their capacity to
                        stimulate, maintain, or expand economic growth.
                3.2.1 Promote comprehensive, inclusive economic planning in
                        distressed communities to identify economic
                        problems, assess the availability of local and non-
                        local resources, and formulate and implement
                        realistic development strategies. (EDA)

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Fiscal year--
                                  ------------------------------  Key annual
                                     1997      1998      1999        goal
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Planning and Economic
     Adjustment strategies--
     Increased community
     participation (Grantee self
     evaluation out of  10)......  ........       8.5       8.5  Output.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

                3.2.2 Provide technical assistance to communities to solve
                        specific economic development problems, respond to
                        development opportunities, and build and expand
                        local organizational capacity in distressed areas.
                        (EDA)

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Fiscal year--
                                  ------------------------------  Key annual
                                     1997      1998      1999        goal
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Technical assistance--Quality
     of evaluation or feasibility
     study (Grantee self-
     evaluation out of 10).......  ........       9.1       9.1  Output.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

                3.3 Provide new knowledge, analyses and technical
                        information which serve both to assess economic
                        development problems and to mobilize non-federal
                        resources for their solutions at the local level.
                3.3.1 Study and research emerging and anticipated economic
                        development problems. (EDA)

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                   Fiscal year--
                                        ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------  Key annual goal
                                                       1997                             1998                             1999
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Research and evaluation............  ...............................  Research results disseminated    Research results disseminated    Output.
                                                                           thru conferences,                thru conferences,
                                                                           publications, & Internet to      publications, & the Internet
                                                                           practitioners.                   to practitioners.
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                3.3.2 Provide technical assistance to local governments,
                        community-based organizations and small businesses
                        on economic development-related issues through
                        colleges and universities.\3\ (EDA)
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \3\ Measures are being developed under a national research grant.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                3.3.3 Aid firms and industries injured by import
                        competition by providing technical assistance in
                        diagnosing problems and assessing opportunities
                        through business assistance centers. (EDA)

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Fiscal year--
                                  ------------------------------  Key annual
                                     1997      1998      1999        goal
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Trade adjustment assistance--
     Sales and employment (jobs
     created/retained for all
     firms completing programs)
     (percent increase):
        Sales....................  ........       +20       +20  Outcome.
        Jobs.....................  ........       +10       +10
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

    4.0 SUPPORT FOR MINORITY BUSINESS
                4.1 Improve opportunities for minority-owned businesses to
                        have access to the marketplace.
        MBDA's fiscal year 1999 budget request is $28.1 million with 120
    FTE.
                4.1.1 Match procurement opportunities with minority
                        business enterprise capability electronically.
                        (MBDA)

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Fiscal year--
                                  ------------------------------  Key annual
                                     1997      1998      1999        goal
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Matched (#)..................  ........       500     1,000  Output.
    Dollars matched ($M).........  ........        10        20  Outcome.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

                4.1.2 Bring together Federal, State, local and private
                        sector resources for minority business enterprises.
                        (MBDA)

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Fiscal year--
                                  ------------------------------  Key annual
                                     1997      1998      1999        goal
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Memoranda of Understanding          117       140       200  Output.
     (MOU's) signed (#).
    Business assisted (#)........     1,000     1,500     1,750  Output.
    Value of assistance ($M).....        30        45        53  Outcome.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

                4.1.3 Provide management and technical assistance to
                        minority business enterprises. (MBDA)

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Fiscal year--
                                  ------------------------------  Key annual
                                     1997      1998      1999        goal
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Business assisted (#)........     7,518     7,819     8,053  Output.
    Management and Technical
     Assistance (M&TA) hours
     approved....................   126,294   131,346   135,286  Output.
    Contracts approved (#).......       825       858       884  Output.
    Value of contracts approved         221       220       226  Outcome.
     ($M).
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

                4.1.4 Establish business resource centers through joint
                        ventures to assist minority business enterprises.
                        (MBDA)

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Fiscal year--
                                  ------------------------------  Key annual
                                     1997      1998      1999        goal
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    BRC's (#)....................         7         8        11  Output.
    New business served (#)......  ........  ........       400  Output.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

                4.1.5 Arrange delegations of pre-qualified minority
                        companies to participate in domestic and
                        international trade missions. (MBDA)

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Fiscal year--
                                  ------------------------------  Key annual
                                     1997      1998      1999        goal
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Domestic/international trade   ........         2         7  Output.
     missions (#).
    Business assisted (#)........        20        40       140  Output.
    Amount ($M)..................  ........         5        17  Outcome.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

                4.1.6 Create franchise opportunities with major
                        corporations for minority business enterprises.
                        (MBDA)

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Fiscal year--
                                  ------------------------------  Key annual
                                     1997      1998      1999        goal
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    MOU's signed (#).............  ........         1         4  Output.
    Business assisted (#)........  ........         1         4  Output.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

                4.1.7 Create opportunities for minority business
                        enterprises through acquisitions, mergers and joint
                        ventures. (MBDA)

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Fiscal year--
                                  ------------------------------  Key annual
                                     1997      1998      1999        goal
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Agreements (#)...............  ........         1        25  Output.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

                4.2 Improve the opportunities for minority-owned businesses
                        to pursue financing.
                4.2.1 Promote minority business lending with financial
                        institutions. (MBDA)

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Fiscal year--
                                  ------------------------------  Key annual
                                     1997      1998      1999        goal
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    MOU's signed (#).............         5        20        30  Output.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

                4.2.2 Arrange loan pre-qualification for minority business
                        enterprises. (MBDA)

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Fiscal year--
                                  ------------------------------  Key annual
                                     1997      1998      1999        goal
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Approved loan packages (#)...       900       600       600  Output.
    Value ($M)...................       211       160       160  Outcome.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

    5.0 TECHNOLOGICAL INNOVATION
                5.1 Provide technical leadership for the Nation's
                        measurement and standards infrastructure, and
                        assure the availability of essential reference data
                        and measurement capabilities.
        US/OTP's fiscal year 1999 budget request is $10 million, with 50
    FTE. NIST's budget request is $715.0 million, with 3,295 FTE.
                5.1.1 Anticipate and address the Nation's most important
                        needs for physical and information-based
                        measurements and standards. (TA) \4\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \4\ The Department of Commerce is among the agencies participating
    actively in the Research Round Table, which is developing consensus
    approaches to planning/measurement issues under the ``Alternative
    Format'' provision of GPRA. The Alternative Format is built upon peer
    review and economic impact studies. NIST's Measurement and Standards
    Laboratories are evaluated annually by the National Research Council
    and this information will also be used. Objectives 5.1.1, 5.1.2, 5.1.3,
    and 5.2.2 will use the Alternative Format.

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Fiscal year--
                                  ------------------------------  Key annual
                                     1997      1998      1999        goal
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Standard Reference Materials      1,278     1,293     1,308  Output.
     (SRM) available (#).
    SRM units sold (#)...........    39,358    38,928    38,142  Output.
    Standard Reference Database          58        60        62  Output.
     (SRD) titles available (#).
    SRD units distributed (#)....     5,102     5,200     5,300  Output.
    Calibrations and tests            8,902     9,000     8,900  Output.
     performed (#).
    National Voluntary Laboratory
     Accreditation laboratories
     enrolled (#)................       854       900       900  Output.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

                5.1.2 Strengthen the national system of standards,
                        measurement, measurement traceability, and
                        conformity assessment. (TA)

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Fiscal year--
                                                     ---------------------------------        Key annual goal
                                                         1997       1998       1999
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    NIST patents filed and licenses issued (#)......         44         40         40  Output.
    Standards committees involving NIST staff (#)...      1,167      1,175      1,175  Output.
    Requests to the central NIST WWW server (#).....    978,563  1,000,000  1,000,000  Output.
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                5.1.3 Provide leadership in harmonizing international
                        measurements and standards to facilitate
                        international trade. (TA)

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Fiscal year--
                                  ------------------------------  Key annual
                                     1997      1998      1999        goal
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Leadership positions held by
     NIST staff on international
     committees (#)..............        48        59        59  Output.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

                5.2 Improve the technological capability, productivity, and
                        competitiveness of small manufacturers.
                5.2.1 Build an effective, nationally-integrated system of
                        manufacturing extension services that is widely
                        accessible to small businesses. (TA)

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Fiscal year--
                                  ------------------------------  Key annual
                                     1997      1998      1999        goal
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Companies served by extension    21,988    26,000    30,000  Output.
     service providers (#) \1\.
    Activities completed by          28,578    30,943    33,473  Output.
     providers \2\ (#).
    Increased sales ($M).........       214       305       389  Outcome.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Anticipated increases for companies served and activities completed
      for fiscal year 1998 and fiscal year 1999 are based on actual
      increases between fiscal year 1996 and fiscal year 1997 and MEP's goal
      of increasing the system-wide penetration rate.
    \2\ Anticipated increases for companies served and activities completed
      for fiscal year 1998 and beyond are based on actual increases between
      fiscal year 1996 and fiscal year 1997 and MEP's goal of increasing the
      system-wide penetration rate.

                5.2.2 Introduce state-of-the-art technology and business
                        practices to a wide array of small- and medium-
                        sized manufacturers in the United States. (TA)

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Fiscal year--
                                  ------------------------------  Key annual
                                     1997      1998      1999        goal
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Inventory savings by MEP             31        44        56  Outcome.
     clients ($M).
    Labor and material savings by        27        38        49  Outcome.
     MEP clients ($M).
    Client capital investment           156       222       284  Outcome.
     ($M).
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

                5.3 Assist U.S. businesses in continuously improving their
                        productivity and efficiency by adopting quality
                        management practices.
                5.3.1 Develop and continuously improve the Malcolm Baldrige
                        National Quality Award, broadly disseminate
                        criteria for evaluating performance, and promote
                        quality awareness and performance excellence. (TA)
                        \5\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \5\ TA/NIST will also use stakeholder review and economic impact
    studies via the Alternative Format.

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Fiscal year--
                                  ------------------------------  Key annual
                                     1997      1998      1999        goal
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Quality Program documents       494,217   600,000   625,000  Output.
     requested from the WWW (#).
    State and local quality award        56        60        65  Output.
     programs supported (#).
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

                5.3.2 Promote quality awareness and business excellence
                        practices of small service businesses and
                        manufacturers. (TA) \6\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \6\ TA/NIST will use stakeholder review and economic impact studies
    via the Alternative Format.

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Fiscal year--
                                  ------------------------------  Key annual
                                     1997      1998      1999        goal
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Quality Program documents       494,217   600,000   625,000  Output.
     requested from the WWW (#).
    State and local quality award        56        60        65  Output.
     programs supported (#).
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

                5.4 Accelerate technological innovation and the development
                        of new technologies that underpin future economic
                        growth.\7\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \7\ TA/NIST will also use economic impact studies.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                5.4.1 Encourage the development and rapid diffusion of high
                        risk, enabling technologies that generate broad-
                        based economic benefits through innovative
                        products, services, and industrial processes. (TA)

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Fiscal year--
                                  ------------------------------  Key annual
                                     1997      1998      1999        goal
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Cumulative amount of industry
     cost-sharing commitments
     over project lives ($B).....     1.172     1.467     1.827  Outcome.
    Participants (active                800       900       900  Output.
     projects) (#).
    Active projects including
     those funded in current
     fiscal year (#).............       312       360       367  Output.
    Projects funded over project        352       434       528  Output.
     lives.
    Technologies under                   60       110       160  Outcome.
     commercialization (#).
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

                5.4.2 Develop improved technological and organizational
                        mechanisms for supporting the rapid adoption of new
                        technologies. (TA) \8\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \8\ In addition to these figures, TA/NIST will be developing
    information on annual increases.

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Fiscal year--
                                  ------------------------------  Key annual
                                     1997      1998      1999        goal
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Competitions completed per            7         9         9  Output.
     year.
    New project starts during            64        82        94  Output.
     year.
    Industry cost sharing               142       295       360  Output.
     commitments for new project
     starts.
    Technologies under                   60       120       160  Outcome.
     commercialization.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

                5.5. Coordinate and lead Presidential initiatives and
                        interagency efforts to enhance industry
                        competitiveness in partnership with industry,
                        academia, and the States.
                5.5.1 Coordinate and lead interagency efforts to develop
                        the technology base for next generation
                        automobiles, promote technological achievement, and
                        foster international technology cooperation. (TA)

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Fiscal year--
                                  ------------------------------  Key annual
                                     1997      1998      1999        goal
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Achieve a successful
     Partnership for a New
     Generation of Vehicles
     (PNGV) Peer Review conducted
     by the National Research
     Council.....................         1         1         1  Output.
    Increase the number of high
     quality National Medal of
     Technology nomination
     submissions (percent
     increase)...................  ........  ........        20  Output.
    Increase the number of Medal
     nomination submissions from
     women and ethnic minorities
     (percent increase)..........  ........  ........       100  Output.
    Increase the total media
     coverage of the Medal
     Program (percent increase)..  ........  ........        20  Output.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

                5.5.2 Coordinate and lead interagency efforts to strengthen
                        technology partnerships between States and the
                        Federal government. (TA)

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Fiscal year--
                                  ------------------------------  Key annual
                                     1997      1998      1999        goal
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    U.S. Innovation Partnership
     program implementation
     initiatives facilitating
     State/Federal innovation
     partnerships  (#)...........  ........         2         3  Output.
    Fund the Experimental Program
     to Stimulate Competitive
     Technology (EPSCoT) projects
     funded (cumulative #).......  ........         4        10  Output.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

    6.0 PROTECTING INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY
                6.1 Help protect, promote, and expand intellectual property
                        rights system throughout the U.S. and abroad.
        PTO's fiscal year 1999 Salaries and Expenses spending will be
    $785.5 million, with 6,358 FTE.
                6.1.1 Participate in international cooperative
                        arrangements. (PTO)

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      Fiscal year--
                                                     Baseline \1\ --------------------        Key annual goal
                                                                     1998      1999
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Developing countries provided with technical             47          47        52  Output.
     assistance (#).
    Technical assistance activities completed (#)..          59          59        64  Output.
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ For PTO, the Baseline is actuals from fiscal year 1996.

                6.1.2 Cooperate with other government agencies to ensure
                        that intellectual property concerns are adequately
                        addressed. (PTO)
    7.0 INFORMATION INFRASTRUCTURE
                7.1 Support the development of a National Information
                        Infrastructure (NII) that will be accessible to all
                        Americans.
        NTIA's fiscal year 1999 budget request is $47.9 million, with 288
    FTE.
                7.1.1 Administer the Information Infrastructure Grants
                        program to assist educational, health care and
                        other social service entities in planning and
                        developing the telecommunications and information
                        infrastructure. (NTIA)

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Fiscal year--
                                  ------------------------------  Key annual
                                     1997      1998      1999        goal
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    NII print materials              20,000    65,000    75,000  Output.
     distributed (#).
    Electronic access to           ........    11,000    11,000  Output.
     information (#).
    Presentations and contacts     ........       900       900  Output.
     (#).
    Applications received (#)....       924       750       750  Output.
    Grants awarded (#)...........        55        40        40  Output.
    Reviewers meet evaluation      ........       100       100  Output.
     criteria (percent).
    High risk sites visited        ........       100       100  Output.
     (percent).
    Awardees counseled (percent).  ........       100       100  Output.
    Quarterly reports in           ........       100       100  Output.
     compliance (percent).
    Information Infrastructure
     models for non-profit and
     public service (#)..........       169       275       382  Outcome.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

                7.1.2 Improve delivery of communications products and
                        services to the public through Executive Branch
                        initiatives in legislative and regulatory forums.
                        (NTIA)

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Fiscal year--
                                  ------------------------------  Key annual
                                     1997      1998      1999        goal
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Increased identification of
     new technologies and their
     application to government
     operations \1\..............  ........  ........  ........  Outcome.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Precise measurement tools do not presently exist in this area;
      however, we are working with the telecommunications community to
      develop rational approaches to assessing these issues.

                7.1.3 Ensure that educational and cultural benefits of
                        public broadcasting are widely available, and the
                        use of telecommunications technologies to improve
                        effectiveness of distance learning. (NTIA)

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Fiscal year--
                                                     ---------------------------------        Key annual goal
                                                         1997       1998       1999
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Maintain current access to public radios by
     rural populations (new coverage) (#)...........  1,000,000    750,000    750,000  Output.
    Maintain current access to public television by
     rural populations (new coverage) (#)...........     50,000     30,000     30,000  Output.
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                7.2 Advocate international telecommunications policies to
                        help open international markets and promote U.S.
                        interests.
                7.2.1 Improve international competitiveness of the U.S.
                        telecommunications industry. (NTIA)

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Fiscal year--
                                  ------------------------------  Key annual
                                     1997      1998      1999        goal
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    ``Lessons learned'' packages
     completed for foreign
     governments (#).............  ........  ........       175  Output.
    Extent of adoption of          ........  ........  ........  Outcome.
     packages.
    Outreach plans and reports on  ........        10        20  Output.
     foreign markets (#).
    Improvement in liaison with    ........  ........       100  Outcome.
     U.S. companies (#).
    Interagency policy             ........         5        12  Output.
     identification exercises (#).
    Cost-effective programs
     funded from private sector
     sources for U.S.
     telecommunications
     objectives (#)..............  ........  ........        10  Output.
    Outreach meeting held with            2         4         6  Output.
     U.S. carriers (#).
    Increased U.S. companies       ........  ........  ........  Output.
     competing for new markets
     \1\.
    Adoption of U.S. Internet
     standards in the
     international community \1\.  ........  ........  ........  Outcome.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ NTIA is examining several survey methodologies aimed at accurately
      measuring these impacts.

                7.3 Set policies for efficiently and effectively managing
                        the Federal use of the radio spectrum, and prepare
                        for international radio spectrum setting
                        conferences of the ITU.
                7.3.1 Ensure that government needs for vital
                        telecommunications services are met nationally and
                        internationally. (NTIA)

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Fiscal year--
                                  ------------------------------  Key annual
                                     1997      1998      1999        goal
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Development of database of
     allocated bands and of
     automated method for
     accessing/using database....   ( \1\ )   ( \1\ )   ( \2\ )  Output.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Planning and initial implementation steps.
    \2\ Fully implemented.

                7.3.2 Coordinate U.S. preparations for international
                        frequency allocation conferences and lead U.S.
                        delegations to these conferences. (NTIA)

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Fiscal year--
                                  ------------------------------  Key annual
                                     1997      1998      1999        goal
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Development of long-range
     plans to meet U.S. spectrum
     needs.......................  ........   ( \1\ )   ( \2\ )  Outcome.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Develop draft.
    \2\ Complete implementation.

                7.4 Provide leadership in developing telecommunications
                        policy initiatives in emerging areas of national
                        priority.
                7.4.1 Implement the President's Global Electronic Commerce
                        initiative regarding the governance of the Internet
                        domain system, Internet content restrictions, and
                        international privacy. (NTIA)

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Fiscal year--
                                  ------------------------------  Key annual
                                     1997      1998      1999        goal
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Development of private sector
     approach to Internet
     governance..................  ........   ( \1\ )   ( \2\ )  Outcome.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Draft for comment.
    \2\ Fully implemented.

    8.0 PROTECTING LIFE AND PROPERTY
                8.1 Promote safe navigation by revolutionizing U.S. marine
                        and air navigation, mapping and surveying; assist
                        commercial shipping in moving increased cargoes
                        safely and efficiently; and provide a precise
                        satellite-derived reference system as the basis for
                        the Nation's geographical positioning needs.
        NOAA's fiscal year 1999 budget request is $2.12 billion, with
    12,358 FTE.
                8.1.1 Build, maintain and deliver a digital nautical
                        charting database to underpin new electronic
                        navigational systems which integrate satellite
                        positioning, tidal heights and currents, radars and
                        sonars, and navigational aids; and update nautical
                        surveys using full-bottom coverage hydrographic
                        technologies. (NOAA)

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Fiscal year--
                                  ------------------------------  Key annual
                                     1997      1998      1999        goal
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Nautical charts linked to
     geographic data (Vector
     Charts) available in digital
     data base (percent).........        25        80       100  Output.
    Nautical paper chart suite           23        35        40  Output.
     updated (percent).
    Critical area survey backlog         12        16        19  Output.
     reduced (percent).
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

                8.1.2 Provide mariners with predictions of water level,
                        tides and currents, and weather conditions in major
                        ports. (NOAA)

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Fiscal year--
                                  ------------------------------  Key annual
                                     1997      1998      1999        goal
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    National Water Level
     Observation stations
     modernized (percent)........        78        80        75  Output.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

                8.1.3 Transform the obsolete spatial reference frame into a
                        Global Positioning System (GPS)-based system of
                        precisely positioned markers and GPS continuously
                        operating reference stations to support the digital
                        revolution in mapping, charting, and surveying.
                        (NOAA)

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Fiscal year--
                                  ------------------------------  Key annual
                                     1997      1998      1999        goal
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Continuously Operating               53        65        75  Output.
     Reference Stations installed
     (#).
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

                8.2 Improve short-term warning and forecast products and
                        services to enhance public safety and the Nation's
                        economic productivity by enhancing the ability to
                        observe, understand, and model the environment, and
                        effectively disseminate products and services to
                        users.
                8.2.1 Maintain modernized National Weather Service
                        operations to continue improving the timeliness and
                        accuracy of short-range environmental predictions
                        which have immediate impact on individuals and many
                        sectors of the economy; improve customer service to
                        the public, emergency managers, the media, and
                        private forecasters through effective communication
                        and utilization of critical weather data and
                        information necessary for protection of life and
                        property. (NOAA)

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Fiscal year--
                                  ------------------------------  Key annual
                                     1997      1998      1999        goal
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Flash flood warning:
        Lead time (min.).........        40        40        42  Output.
        Accuracy (percent).......        83        83        85  Output.
        No lead time (percent)...        27        27        27  Output.
    Severe Thunderstorm Warnings:
        Lead time (min)..........        18        18        19  Output.
        Accuracy (percent).......        84        84        84  Output.
    Tornado Warnings:
        Lead time (min.).........        10        10        11  Output.
        Accuracy (percent).......        59        65        70  Output.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

                8.2.2 Maintain continuous operational satellite coverage
                        (of the Nation) critical for warnings and
                        forecasts. (NOAA)

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Fiscal year--
                                  ------------------------------  Key annual
                                     1997      1998      1999        goal
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Accuracy of tropical cyclone
     landfall warnings with 24
     hour lead time (kilometers).   \1\ 125       140       135  Output.
    Temperature forecasts:
        Accuracy (percent).......        86        86        87  Output.
        Freezing onset (percent).        76        77        78  Output.
    Heavy snow forecasts:                45        50        55  Output.
     Accuracy (percent).
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Fiscal year 1997 preliminary measure for tropical cyclone (or
      hurricane) landfall warning is not representative of a typical
      hurricane season as only one landfall storm occurred during the fiscal
      year.

                8.2.3 Strengthen observing and prediction systems through
                        scientific, technological and programmatic
                        advances, and international cooperation. (NOAA)

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Fiscal year--
                                  ------------------------------  Key annual
                                     1997      1998      1999        goal
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Flash flood warning:
        Lead time (min.).........        40        40        42  Output.
        Accuracy (percent).......        83        83        85  Output.
        No lead time (percent)...        27        27        27  Output.
    Severe Thunderstorm Warnings:
        Lead time (min)..........        18        18        19  Output.
        Accuracy (percent).......        84        84        84  Output.
    Tornado Warnings:
        Lead time (min.).........        10        10        11  Output.
        Accuracy (percent).......        59        65        70  Output.
    Accuracy of tropical cyclone
     landfall warnings with 24
     hour lead time (kilometers).   \1\ 140       135       125  Output.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Fiscal year 1997 preliminary measure for tropical cyclone (or
      hurricane) landfall warning is not representative of a typical
      hurricane season as only one landfall storm occurred during the fiscal
      year.

               Chapter 4-B: Science, Technology, and Information
                             (performance measures)
        Chapter 4-B sets forth goals, objectives, and performance measures
    for program activities described in Chapter 2 and links them to our
    budget request.
        Chapter 4-B of the Annual Performance Plan contains goals,
    objectives, and quantitative performance measures pertaining to
    science, technology, and information. The performance measures are
    numbered to correspond with the goals and objectives discussed in
    Chapter 2.
    1.0 CUTTING-EDGE SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
                1.1 Partner with industry to accelerate the development and
                        application of cutting-edge technologies.
        US/OTP's fiscal year 1999 budget request is $10.0 million, with 50
    FTE. NIST's fiscal year 1999 budget request is $715.0 million, with
    3,295 FTE.
                1.1.1 Anticipate and address the Nation's most important
                        needs for physical and information-based
                        measurements and standards. (TA) \9\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \9\ The Department of Commerce is among the agencies participating
    actively in the Research Round Table, which is developing consensus
    approach to planning/measurement issues, such as this, under the
    ``Alternative Format'' provision of GPRA. The Alternative Format is
    built upon peer review and economic impact studies. In addition to the
    information shown here, Objective 1.1.1, 1.1.2, and 1.1.3 will use the
    Alternative Format.

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Fiscal year--
                                  ------------------------------  Key annual
                                     1997      1998      1999        goal
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Standard Reference Materials      1,278     1,293     1,308  Output.
     (SRM) available (#).
    SRM units sold (#)...........    39,358    38,928    38,142  Output.
    Standard Reference database          58        60        62  Output.
     titles available (#).
    SRD units distributed (#)....     5,102     5,200     5,300  Output.
    Calibrations and tests            8,902     9,000     8,900  Output.
     performed (#).
    National Voluntary Laboratory
     Accreditation laboratories
     enrolled (#)................       854       900       900  Output.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

                1.1.2 Introduce state-of-the-art technology and business
                        practices to a wide array of small- and medium-
                        sized manufacturers in the United States. (TA)

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Fiscal year--
                                  ------------------------------  Key annual
                                     1997      1998      1999        goal
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Inventory savings by MEP             31        44        56  Outcome.
     clients ($M).
    Labor and material savings by        27        38        49  Outcome.
     MEP clients ($M).
    Client capital investment           156       222       284  Outcome.
     ($M).
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

                1.1.3 Encourage the development and rapid diffusion of high
                        risk, enabling technologies that generate broad-
                        based economic benefits through innovative
                        products, services, and industrial processes. (TA)

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Fiscal year--
                                  ------------------------------  Key annual
                                     1997      1998      1999        goal
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Cumulative amount of industry
     cost-sharing commitments
     over project lives ($B).....     1.172     1.467     1.827  Output.
    Participants (active                800       900       900  Output.
     projects) (#).
    Competitions completed/year           7         9         9  Output.
     (#).
    Active projects including
     those funded in current
     fiscal year (#).............       312       360       367  Output.
    Projects funded over project        352       434       528  Output.
     lives.
    Technologies under                   60       120       160  Outcome.
     commercialization (#).
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

                1.2 Collect, preserve, and disseminate government
                        technical, scientific, and business information.
                1.2.1 Play a leadership role in assisting Federal agencies
                        with dissemination of their scientific, technical,
                        and business information. (TA)

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Fiscal year--
                                                     ---------------------------------        Key annual goal
                                                         1997       1998       1999
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Information products cataloged and indexed (#)..    109,453    120,000    120,000  Output.
    Items in archives (#)...........................  2,661,365  2,781,365  2,901,365  Output.
    Items distributed (#)...........................  1,558,179  1,401,490  1,437,000  Output.
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                1.2.2 Provide services and infrastructure to control
                        scientific, technical, and business related
                        information, and increase the effectiveness of
                        systems for locating and delivering information in
                        the form required by customers. (TA)

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Fiscal year--
                                                   ------------------------------------        Key annual goal
                                                       1997        1998        1999
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Documents stored electronically (#)...........      44,290     175,000     425,000  Output.
    Documents Reproduced from Electronically
     Stored Media (#).............................      78,481     150,000     300,000  Output.
    System accessed (#)...........................  15,279,953  23,000,000  25,000,000  Output.
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                1.3 Conduct domestic and international policy analyses on
                        issues affecting the research, development, and
                        commercialization of technology and related issues
                        affecting U.S. competitiveness and in partnership
                        with industry, academia, and the States--develop
                        policy options to improve U.S. economic growth, job
                        creation and quality of life.
                1.3.1 Monitor and assess what competitor nations are doing
                        to support R&D and enhance their industrial
                        competitiveness. (TA)

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Fiscal year--
                                  ------------------------------  Key annual
                                     1997      1998      1999        goal
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Publish reports and
     disseminate analysis of
     other nation's technology
     policies, to inform U.S.
     policy making and assist
     U.S. industry (#)...........         2         2         2  Output.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

                1.3.2 Monitor and assess the technological strengths,
                        weaknesses and barriers faced by U.S. industrial
                        sectors, and translate those assessments into
                        policy options with partners in industry, academia,
                        and the States. (TA)

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Fiscal year--
                                  ------------------------------  Key annual
                                     1997      1998      1999        goal
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Conduct roundtable
     discussions to obtain
     industry perspectives on
     high priority technology
     policy issues (#)...........         5         2         3  Output.
    Conduct PACE events to foster
     technology partnerships
     between the Federal
     government, industry, and
     academia  (#)...............         1         4         4  Output.
    Undertake major advocacy
     effort to turn USOTP
     analysis into actions (#)...         1         1         1  Output.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

    2.0 COLLECTING AND DISSEMINATING ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION
                2.1 Implement seasonal to interannual climate forecasts.
        NOAA's fiscal year 1999 budget request is $2.12 billion, with
    12,358 FTE.
                2.1.1 Deliver useful seasonal to interannual climate
                        forecasts for the U.S. and collaborate in a
                        multinational effort to generate and use similar
                        forecasts; assess the impacts of climate
                        variability on human activity and economic
                        potential, and improve public education so that
                        climate forecasts are understood and acted upon.
                        (NOAA)

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Fiscal year--
                                  ------------------------------  Key annual
                                     1997      1998      1999        goal
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    ENSO forecasts:
        (Accuracy correlation)          .81       .81       .81  Output.
         \1\.
        Lead time (years) \2\....       .50       .50       .50  Output.
    U.S. Temperature prediction:
        Skill score (percent) \3\        19        20        20  Output.
        Lead Time (years)........       .50       .50       .50  Output.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Accuracy is the pattern correlation of the forecast relative to
      actual conditions.
    \2\ Lead time is measured in years (e.g. 0.25 is one season).
    \3\ Skill score means 100 times the number of correct forecasts divided
      by the number of forecasts made (N), with adjustments for those cases
      where the actual conditions are equal to the climatological or random-
      choice expectation (E).

                2.1.2 Enhance global observing and data systems required to
                        provide data for the initialization and validation
                        of model predictions of seasonal to interannual
                        climate variations. (NOAA)

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Fiscal year--
                                  ------------------------------  Key annual
                                     1997      1998      1999        goal
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    ENSO observing system          ........        50        75  Output.
     operational (percent).
    New and improved data sets            7        12        12  Output.
     developed and produced (#).
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

                2.1.3 Invest in process and modeling research that leads to
                        improved predictability of temperature and rainfall
                        distributions. (NOAA)

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Fiscal year--
                                  ------------------------------  Key annual
                                     1997      1998      1999        goal
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Continental Scale
     International Project
     research programs
     implemented (percent).......        40        40        60  Output.
    Global Ocean-Atmosphere-Land
     System (GOALS) experiments
     implemented (percent).......        15        15        20  Output.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

                2.2 Predict and assess decadal to centennial change.
                2.2.1 Characterize the agents and processes that force
                        decadal to centennial climate change; develop
                        models for the prediction of long-term climate
                        change, carry out scientific assessments, and
                        provide human impacts information. (NOAA)

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Fiscal year--
                                  ------------------------------  Key annual
                                     1997      1998      1999        goal
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Operational ozone stations to
     measure greenhouse gases
     (#).........................         2         2         3  Output.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

                2.2.2 Examine the role of the ocean as a reservoir of both
                        heat and carbon dioxide to address a major source
                        of uncertainty in climate models. (NOAA)

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Fiscal year--
                                  ------------------------------  Key annual
                                     1997      1998      1999        goal
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Completion of study in the
     North Atlantic to determine
     the air-sea carbon dioxide
     flux (percent)..............        10        50       100  Output.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

                2.2.3 Ensure a long-term climate record by enhancing
                        domestic and international weather networks,
                        observing procedures, and information management
                        systems; guide the rehabilitation of the ozone
                        layer by providing the scientific basis for policy
                        choices associated with ozone-depleting compounds.
                        (NOAA)

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Fiscal year--
                                  ------------------------------  Key annual
                                     1997      1998      1999        goal
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Additional data sets
     developed and improved for
     detecting multi-decadal and
     multi-century changes and
     variations in climate (#)...        16        15        15  Output.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

                2.2.4 Provide the scientific basis for better air quality
                        by improving the understanding of high surface
                        ozone episodes in rural areas and by establishing a
                        monitoring network to detect cleaner air quality.
                        (NOAA)

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Fiscal year--
                                  ------------------------------  Key annual
                                     1997      1998      1999        goal
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Completion of initial state
     of science assessment for
     rural ozone chemistry
     (percent)...................        50        75       100  Output.
    Completion of upgrade and
     operation of early detection
     of air quality stations
     (percent)...................        30        50        60  Output.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

    3.0 PROTECTING INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY
                3.1 Promote awareness of, and provide effective access to,
                        patent and trademark information.
        PTO's fiscal year 1999 Salaries and Expenses spending will be
    $785.5 million, with 6,358 FTE.
                3.1.1 Consistently achieve customer satisfaction by
                        understanding and supporting customer needs. (PTO)

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      Fiscal year--
                                                     Baseline \1\ --------------------        Key annual goal
                                                                     1998      1999
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Customer Satisfaction with Key Products and
     Services (percent)............................          84    ........        90  Outcome.
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ For PTO, the Baseline is actuals from fiscal year 1996.

                3.1.2 Promote the use and accessibility of intellectual
                        property information. (PTO)

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      Fiscal year--
                                                     Baseline \1\ --------------------        Key annual goal
                                                                     1998      1999
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Customer Satisfaction with Ease of Access                84    ........        90  Outcome.
     (percent).
    Top 100 Metropolitan Areas Served by Patent and
     Trademark Depository Libraries (percent)......          55          55        58  Output.
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ For PTO, the Baseline is actuals from fiscal year 1996.

                3.1.3 Develop the highest quality information products and
                        services which deliver information when, where, and
                        in the format needed. (PTO)

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      Fiscal year--
                                                     Baseline \1\ --------------------        Key annual goal
                                                                     1998      1999
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Products and Services Meeting Schedules or
     Cycle Time Standards (percent)................          63          63        80  Output.
    Top 100 Metropolitan Areas Served by Patent and
     Trademark Depository Libraries (percent)......          55          55        58  Output.
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ For PTO, the Baseline is actuals from fiscal year 1996.

    4.0 PROMOTING AN ADVANCED TELECOMMUNICATIONS STRUCTURE
                4.1 Support the development of a National Information
                        Infrastructure that will be accessible to all
                        Americans.\10\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \10\ Precise measurement tools do not presently exist in this area;
    however, we are working with the telecommunications community to
    develop rational approaches to assessing these issues.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        NTIA's fiscal year 1999 budget request is $47.9 million, with 288
    FTE.
                4.1.1 Administer the Information Infrastructure Grants
                        program of grants to assist State and local
                        governments, universities and school systems,
                        hospitals and other health care providers, and
                        other social service entities. (NTIA)

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Fiscal year--
                                  ------------------------------  Key annual
                                     1997      1998      1999        goal
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Increased number of entities
     connected to the NII
     (schools, libraries (percent
     increase)...................        40        75        90  Output.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

                4.1.2 Improve the delivery of communications services and
                        products to the public, through Executive Branch
                        attention to the issues, legislative initiatives,
                        and Federal Communications Commission (FCC)
                        dockets. (NTIA)

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Fiscal year--
                                  ------------------------------  Key annual
                                     1997      1998      1999        goal
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Maintain in access for rural         95        95        95  Output.
     areas (percent).
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

                4.1.3 Improve the international competitiveness of the U.S.
                        telecommunications industry and the ability of U.S.
                        businesses and consumers to have access to high
                        quality, reasonably-priced international services.
                        (NTIA)

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Fiscal year--
                                  ------------------------------  Key annual
                                     1997      1998      1999        goal
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Increased adoption of U.S.-    ........  ........  ........  Outcome.
     supported standards.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

                4.2 Engage in technical research to improve
                        telecommunications system planning, design, and
                        evaluation and to support government and industry
                        efforts in these areas.
                4.2.1 Ensure that all government needs for vital
                        telecommunications services can be satisfied
                        nationally and internationally. (NTIA)

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Fiscal year--
                                  ------------------------------  Key annual
                                     1997      1998      1999        goal
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Increased identification of
     new technologies for
     governmental application....        60        80        80  Output.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

                4.2.2 Ensure that the educational and cultural benefits of
                        public broadcasting are available to as many people
                        as possible; educational entities are able to use a
                        variety of telecommunications technologies to
                        improve the effectiveness of distance learning;
                        minorities and women have increased access and
                        control of public telecommunications; and blind and
                        hearing-impaired persons are able to participate
                        more fully in society through the use of
                        telecommunications. (NTIA)

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Fiscal year--
                                  ------------------------------  Key annual
                                     1997      1998      1999        goal
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Develop international
     Internet standards for
     content identification and
     promote their use as a non-
     governmental solution to
     cross-border policy issues..  ........  ........         1  Output.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

    5.0 COLLECTING AND DISSEMINATING ECONOMIC AND DEMOGRAPHIC DATA
                5.1 Provide Gross Domestic Product and related national,
                        regional, and international economic statistics in
                        the most accurate, timely, cost-effective, and
                        easily accessible way possible.
        ESA's fiscal year 1999 budget request is $53.7 million, with 570
    FTE. Census' fiscal year 1999 is $1.19 billion, with 16,510 FTE.
                5.1.1 Reduce respondent burden and increase accuracy and
                        timeliness through electronic filing of BEA's
                        surveys of direct investment and international
                        services. (ESA)
                5.1.2 Increase accuracy, reliability, and timeliness,
                        across the national, regional, and international
                        programs, through standardized data transfer and
                        on-line interactive editing and processing systems
                        for source data. (ESA)

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                   Fiscal year--
                                        ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------  Key annual goal
                                                       1997                             1998                             1999
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Increase accuracy, reliability and   Retired mainframe computer       Re-engineer at least 20 of the   Expedite re-engineering of       Outcome.
     timeliness across national           after migrating over 90          highest priority computer        remaining computer
     regional and international           applications to local area       applications to improve          applications in priority order.
     programs.                            network.                         timeliness, quality, and
                                                                           accessibility of BEA's data by
                                                                           better utilizing new system
                                                                           capabilities..
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                5.1.3 Increase the timeliness and accessibility of data
                        products to a wide range of customers through
                        Internet and other electronic gateways. (ESA)

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Fiscal year--
                                  ------------------------------  Key annual
                                     1997      1998      1999        goal
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Analyses on near term
     prospects and composition of
     economic activity in U.S....        50        50        50  Outcome.
    Provide focal point for data
     dissemination:
        Internet subscriptions...     7,000     8,000     9,300  Outcome.
        Internet site licenses...       700       800       925  Outcome.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

                5.2 Provide products and services of greater value and
                        satisfaction to Census national and local
                        information base customers.
                5.2.1 Develop customer- and market-driven Census products.
                        (ESA)

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Fiscal year--
                                  ------------------------------  Key annual
                                     1997      1998      1999        goal
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Surveys converted to North
     American Industrial
     Classification Code System
     (NAICS) (percent)...........  ........  ........        70  Output.
    Business register converted    ........  ........       100  Output.
     to NAICS (percent).
    Releases of Principal Federal
     Economic Indicators (#):
        Monthly..................        10        10        10  Output.
        Quarterly................         3         3         3  Output.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

                5.2.2 Provide easier access to, and greater customer
                        satisfaction with, Census products and services.
                        (ESA)

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Fiscal year--
                                  ------------------------------  Key annual
                                     1997      1998      1999        goal
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    NAICS-based 1997 census        ........  ........    350/50  Output.
     reports released (# and
     percent).
    Publish 1998 American          ........  ........         9  Output.
     Community Survey results.
    Participation in the American
     Community Survey (ACS) (# of
     sites)......................  ........  ........        40  Output.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

                5.3 Provide information on economic events and the workings
                        of the economy.
                5.3.1 Provide information, analyses and guidance on pending
                        economic policy decisions. (ESA)

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Fiscal year--
                                  ------------------------------  Key annual
                                     1997      1998      1999        goal
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Analyses on the near-term
     prospects and composition of
     economic activity in U.S (#)        50        50        50  Output.
    Analyses and reports on
     capability and utilization
     of small, disadvantaged
     businesses..................  ........  ........  ........  Output.
    Policymakers provided with
     comprehensive, accurate and
     timely assessments on the
     economy.....................  ........  ........  ........  Output.
    Policymakers provided with
     bases for determining levels
     of minority business
     participation in Federal
     procurement programs........  ........  ........  ........  Output.
    Major studies, working paper
     and reports on U.S.
     industrial performance......        12        12        12  Output.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

                5.3.2 Provide a focal point for data dissemination bringing
                        together business, economic, and trade statistics
                        in formats that are easy to use and located at a
                        ``one-stop shop.'' (ESA)

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Fiscal year--
                                  ------------------------------  Key annual
                                     1997      1998      1999        goal
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    STAT-USA Internet                 7,000     8,000     9,300  Output.
     subscriptions (#).
    STAT-USA Internet site              700       800       925  Output.
     licenses.
    National Trade Data Bank free
     distribution to Federal
     Depository Libraries........     1,091     1,091     1,091  Output.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

    6.0 EXPAND OPPORTUNITIES THROUGH EXPORTS
                6.1 Employ ITA's comprehensive industry sector, technical,
                        and country information bases to counsel U.S. firms
                        (especially small and medium-sized firms) on
                        appropriate export strategies, and provide
                        comprehensive and up-to-date information to these
                        firms to support business strategies, and related
                        analyses to the USTR for trade negotiations.
        ITA's fiscal year 1999 budget request is $286.5 million, with 2,329
    FTE.
                6.1.1 Expand and enrich ITA's general trade, industry
                        sector, technical, and country information, and
                        increase their utility to ITA's industry clients'
                        export decision making. (ITA)
                6.1.2 Broaden and improve ITA's information distribution
                        network (e.g., use of the Internet, increased
                        support of the National Trade Data Bank, etc.) to
                        ensure that information reaches a larger universe
                        of small- and medium-sized companies in a more
                        timely fashion. (ITA)
                6.1.3 Expand and improve marketing activities undertaken to
                        make ITA's clients more aware of ITA's extensive
                        information resources. (ITA)
                6.1.4 Complete identification of the trade agreements
                        negotiated by the U.S. and construct a searchable
                        database of these agreements. (ITA)
                6.1.5 Continue to update the Commercial Service's client
                        contact and management system, and migrate the
                        client information to a widely-used and robust
                        application platform to maintain our ability to
                        provide trade and economic data worldwide. (ITA)

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Fiscal year--
                                  ------------------------------  Key annual
                                   1997 \1\    1998      1999        goal
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Matching services (#)........     1,384     1,410     1,410  Output.
    Custom agency reports (#)....    14,938    17,372    17,648  Output.
    Satisfied customers (percent)  ........  ........  ........  Output.
     \2\.
    Reports distributed (#)......   502,425   524,242   542,619  Output.
    New-to-export firms (#)......    10,021    10,541    10,649  Outcome.
    New-to-market firms (#)......    33,957    35,339    36,806  Outcome.
    Value of gross exports         ........  ........  ........  Outcome.
     supported ($) \3\.
    Gross jobs supported (#) \3\.  ........  ........  ........  Outcome.
    Firms that actually export           30        32        32  Outcome.
     (percent).
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ The measures presented below display aggregate data for all of the
      five ITA ``objectives'' listed above.
    \2\ ITA is examining several survey methodologies aimed at accurately
      measuring customer satisfaction.
    \3\ ITA's efforts to quantify ``additionality'' (i.e. value added from
      its trade programs) and the related performance measures listed above
      (``Dollar value of gross exports supported'' and ``Number of gross
      jobs supported'') although focused, remain a work in progress.

                6.2 Restructure export controls for the twenty-first
                        century, and facilitate transition of defense
                        industries.
        BXA's fiscal year 1999 budget request is $52.2 million, with 433
    FTE.
                6.2.1 Implement the Nation's encryption export policy.
                        (BXA)

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Fiscal year--
                                  ------------------------------  Key annual
                                     1997      1998      1999        goal
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Encryption commitment plan           37        41        40  Output.
     and progress report (#).
    Encryption key recovery agent         9        50       100  Output.
     reviews (#).
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

                6.2.2 Oversee domestic implementation of the Chemical
                        Weapons Convention (CWC) by the business community.
                        (BXA) \11\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \11\ The CWC is a new activity for BXA.

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Fiscal year--
                                  ------------------------------  Key annual
                                     1997      1998      1999        goal
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    CWC inspections (#)..........  ........  ........        40  Output.
    CWC facility agreements (#)..  ........  ........       140  Output.
    Data declarations processed    ........  ........     2,000  Output.
     (#).
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

                6.2.3 Promote U.S. economic security, technological
                        competitiveness, and defense diversification. (BXA)

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Fiscal year--
                                  ------------------------------  Key annual
                                     1997      1998      1999        goal
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Strategic industry analyses         716       485       485  Output.
     (#).
    Value of facilitated exports        2.3       5.0       5.0  Outcome.
     ($B).
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

    7.0 PROVIDING ASSISTANCE TO ECONOMICALLY DISTRESSED AREAS
                7.1 Help both rural and urban communities incorporate
                        technology as a tool for their economic
                        development.\12\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \12\ The measurements below apply to all objectives under Goal 7.1.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        EDA's fiscal year 1999 budget request is $398.0 million, with 285
    FTE.
                7.1.1 Help distressed communities plan for technology-led
                        economic development. (EDA)
                7.1.2 Help distressed communities build infrastructure
                        necessary for technology-based economic
                        development, including business incubators,
                        industrial technology research centers and
                        laboratories, technical skills training centers,
                        and entrepreneurial development centers. (EDA)
                7.1.3 Provide technical assistance to communities to
                        develop the networks and linkages necessary for
                        technology-based economic development, including
                        the creation of electronic networks and trade and
                        commerce organizations. (EDA)

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                   Fiscal year--
                                        ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------  Key annual goal
                                                       1997                             1998                             1999
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Technology-based Economic            ...............................  Technology-based economic        Technology-based economic        Outcome.
     Development.                                                          development projects are         development projects are
                                                                           funded under EDA's regular       funded under EDA's regular
                                                                           program authorities. Outcomes    program authorities. Outcomes
                                                                           are measured as part of total    are measured as part of total
                                                                           program performance.             program performance.
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                Chapter 4-C: Stewardship of Resources and Assets
                             (performance measures)
        Chapter 4-C sets forth goals, objectives, and performance measures
    for program activities described in Chapter 3 and links them to our
    budget request.
        Chapter 4-C of the Annual Performance Plan contains goals,
    objectives, and quantitative performance measures pertaining to
    economic infrastructure. The performance measures in Chapter 4-C are
    numbered to correspond to the goals and objectives discussed in Chapter
    3.
    1.0 PROTECT OCEAN AND COASTAL RESOURCES
                1.1 Build sustainable fisheries that increase the Nation's
                        wealth and quality of life, support increased
                        fishing industry job opportunities, improve the
                        safety and wholesomeness of seafood resources, and
                        expand recreation opportunities.
        NOAA's fiscal year 1999 budget request is $2.12 billion, with
    12,358 FTE.
                1.1.1 Assess the status of fishery resources, to improve
                        the scientific basis for policy decisions,
                        including the elimination of overfishing, the
                        rebuilding of overfished stocks, the conservation
                        of fish habitat, and the minimization of bycatch-
                        related mortality; advance fishery predictions
                        through research and applications. (NOAA)

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Fiscal year--
                                  ------------------------------  Key annual
                                     1997      1998      1999        goal
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Fish stocks assessed (of 231         79        79        79  Output.
     identified) (percent).
    Completion of information            85        90        95  Output.
     technology procurement
     (percent).
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

                1.1.2 Manage for economic growth and sustainable fisheries
                        by working with Fishery Management Councils,
                        foreign nations and others to plan for reducing
                        excessive fishing and capital investment; provide
                        research and services for fishery-dependent
                        industries to maximize the potential benefits from
                        the Nation's marine resource. (NOAA)

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Fiscal year--
                                  ------------------------------  Key annual
                                     1997      1998      1999        goal
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Fishery Management Plans with
     controlled access
     implemented (#).............        25        26        27  Output.
    Magnuson-Stevens Act           ........  ........        20  Output.
     requirements met (percent).
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

                1.1.3 Ensure adequate compliance with fishery regulations.
                        (NOAA)

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Fiscal year--
                                  ------------------------------  Key annual
                                     1997      1998      1999        goal
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Fleets using vessel
     monitoring systems for
     spatial/temporal regulations
     (#).........................         3         3         5  Output.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

                1.2 Recover protected species through conserving marine
                        species, recovering those in danger of extinction,
                        and maintaining healthy marine ecosystems upon
                        which they depend.
                1.2.1 Assess the status of, and impacts to, protected
                        species. (NOAA)

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Fiscal year--
                                  ------------------------------  Key annual
                                     1997      1998      1999        goal
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Annual investigations of              7        10        10  Output.
     mortality of protected
     species (#).
    Annual review of conservation        11         7        11  Output.
     program status (#).
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

                1.2.2 Develop and implement conservation and recovery plans
                        for depleted marine mammals and endangered and
                        threatened species. (NOAA)

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Fiscal year--
                                  ------------------------------  Key annual
                                     1997      1998      1999        goal
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Cumulative recovery plans            10        25        25  Output.
     developed (#).
    Annual recovery plan priority         8         8        15  Outcome.
     activities implemented (#).
    Annual species with status           12        16        15  Outcome.
     improved (#).
    Cooperative conservation              4        10        10  Output.
     programs implemented (#).
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

                1.3 Sustain healthy coasts to promote more productive and
                        diverse habitats for fish and wildlife, cleaner
                        coastal waters for recreation and the production of
                        seafood, and achieve sustainable economies for
                        coastal communities based on well-planned
                        development and healthy ecosystems.
                1.3.1 Protect, conserve and restore coastal habitats and
                        their biodiversity. (NOAA)

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Fiscal year--
                                  ------------------------------  Key annual
                                     1997      1998      1999        goal
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Acres of coastal habitat         12,000    26,000    43,000  Outcome.
     restored (#).
    Resource damage cases settled        26        29        32  Output.
     (#).
    Interagency restoration              16        20        55  Output.
     projects (#).
    Fishery management plans with
     essential fish habitat
     provisions (#)..............  ........         1         8  Output.
    Coastal management tools
     improved (#):
        Monitoring...............         8        10        12  Output.
        Remote sensing...........         7         7         7
        Ecosystem models.........         6         7         7
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

                1.3.2 Promote clean coastal waters to sustain living marine
                        resources and ensure safe recreation, healthy
                        seafood and economic vitality. (NOAA)

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Fiscal year--
                                  ------------------------------  Key annual
                                     1997      1998      1999        goal
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Coastal states with approved
     nonpoint pollution programs
     (of 35) (percent)...........        77        83        91  Output.
    Coastal states with
     implemented nonpoint
     pollution pro-  grams.......  ........  ........        20  Output.
    Percent of the 40 largest
     U.S. coastal ecosystems
     with:
        Reduced risk from                15        20        25  Outcome.
         hazardous chemicals.
        Water quality assessments        20        25        28
        Toxics assessments.......        20        25        28
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

                1.3.3 Foster well-planned and revitalized coastal
                        communities that sustain coastal economies, are
                        compatible with the natural environment, minimize
                        the risks from nature's hazards, and provide access
                        to coastal resources for the public's use and
                        enjoyment. (NOAA)

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Fiscal year--
                                  ------------------------------  Key annual
                                     1997      1998      1999        goal
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Coastal states with approved
     coastal management programs
     (of 35 states) (percent)....        89        94        97  Output.
    Number Coastal management
     tools improved for:
        Natural hazard risk               2         2         7  Outcome.
         assessment.
        Coastal hazard mitigation  ........  ........         5
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

    2.0 MANAGING INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY
                2.1 Grant exclusive rights, for limited times, to inventors
                        for their discoveries, and enhance trademark
                        protection.
        PTO's fiscal year 1999 Salaries and Expenses spending will be
    $785.5 million, with 6,358 FTE.
                2.1.1 Maximize the business contribution of patents by
                        reducing cycle time for inventions, reengineering
                        business processes, achieving electronic processing
                        of patent applications, assessing fees commensurate
                        with resource utilization and customer efficiency,
                        and exceeding customer expectations through the
                        competencies and empowerment of employees. (PTO)

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      Fiscal year--
                                                     Baseline \1\ --------------------        Key annual goal
                                                                     1998      1999
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Original invention filings (#).................     158,427     191,700   201,300  Output.
    Applications disposed (#)......................     180,196     194,600   218,700  Output.
    Applications disposed per examiner FTE (#).....        87.2        87.2      89.4  Output.
    Average cycle time of original inventions
     processed  (months)...........................        14.6        15.7      13.8  Outcome.
    Original inventions achieving 12 Month or less
     cycle time (percent)..........................          47          50        75  Outcome.
    Customer satisfaction (percent)................          50          57        65  Outcome.
    Employee satisfaction (percent)................          41          65        70  Outcome.
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ For PTO, the Baseline is actuals from fiscal year 1996.

                2.1.2 Maximize the business contribution of trademarks by
                        reducing pendency time, implementing reengineered
                        processes, and transforming trademark processing
                        into a fully electronic operation. (PTO)

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Fiscal year--
                                  ------------------------------  Key annual
                                     1997      1998      1999        goal
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Trademark applications filed    200,640   250,000   275,000  Output.
     (#).
    Applications disposed per FTE       221       206       204  Output.
     (#).
    Pendency to first action            5.9       5.9       3.9  Output.
     (months).
    Pendency time to disposal/         16.5      16.0      15.5  Output.
     registration (months).
    Customer satisfaction                64        70        80  Outcome.
     (percent).
    Employee satisfaction                42        65        75  Outcome.
     (percent).
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

    3.0 SUPPORT THE DEVELOPMENT OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY
                3.1 Promote the development of an advanced
                        telecommunications and information infrastructure
                        to efficiently serve the needs of all Americans,
                        create job opportunities for American workers, and
                        enhance the competitiveness of U.S. industry in the
                        global marketplace.
        NTIA's fiscal year 1999 budget request is $47.9 million, with 288
    FTE.
                3.1.1 Set policies for efficiently and effectively managing
                        the federal use of the radio spectrum, and prepare
                        for international radio spectrum-setting
                        conferences of the International Telecommunications
                        Union (ITU). (NTIA)

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Fiscal year--
                                  ------------------------------  Key annual
                                     1997      1998      1999        goal
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Long-range plans to meet
     public safety and emergency
     needs.......................         1   ( \1\ )   ( \1\ )  Output.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Amendment.

                3.1.2 Support the development of a National Information
                        Infrastructure (NII) that will be accessible to all
                        Americans. (NTIA)

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Fiscal year--
                                  ------------------------------  Key annual
                                     1997      1998      1999        goal
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Development of models for
     utilization of the
     information infrastructure
     (# reports).................         1         1         1  Output.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

                3.1.3 Promote national policies to increase competition and
                        efficient investment in telecommunications and
                        information industries, enhance consumer welfare
                        and economic and social opportunities for all, and
                        remove impediments to the growth and vitality of
                        these sectors. (NTIA)

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Fiscal year--
                                  ------------------------------  Key annual
                                     1997      1998      1999        goal
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Increase in the national
     average for telephone
     penetration (percent).......      93.9        94      94.1  Output.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

                3.1.4 Administer the Information Infrastructure Grants
                        program which provides grants to assist State and
                        local governments, universities and school systems,
                        hospitals and other health care providers, and
                        other social service entities. (NTIA)

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Fiscal year--
                                  ------------------------------  Key annual
                                     1997      1998      1999        goal
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Increase numbers of entities         40        75        90  Output.
     connected to the NII
     (percent).
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

                3.1.5 Ensure that all government needs for vital
                        telecommunications services can be satisfied
                        nationally and internationally. (NTIA)

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Fiscal year--
                                  ------------------------------  Key annual
                                     1997      1998      1999        goal
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Engineering reviews..........        60        80        80  Output.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

                3.1.6 Ensure that the educational and cultural benefits of
                        public broadcasting are available to as many people
                        as possible, educational entities are able to use a
                        variety of telecommunications technologies to
                        improve the effectiveness of distance learning,
                        minorities and women have increased access and
                        control of public telecommunications, and blind and
                        hearing-impaired persons are able to participate
                        more fully in society through the use of
                        telecommunications. (NTIA)

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Fiscal year--
                                  ------------------------------  Key annual
                                     1997      1998      1999        goal
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Develop international
     Internet standards for
     content identification and
     promote their use as a non-
     government solution to cross-
     border policy issues........  ........  ........         1  Outcome.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

    4.0 ECONOMIC ASSISTANCE TO DISTRESSED COMMUNITIES
                4.1 Enable communities that have acquired military
                        installations during the recent defense downsizing
                        to convert their use to civilian functions for
                        local economic benefit.
        EDA's fiscal year 1999 budget request is $398.0 million, with 285
    FTE.
                4.1.1 Help communities design and implement strategies for
                        adjusting to base closures or natural disasters
                        that are causing, or threaten to cause, serious
                        structural damage to the underlying economic base.
                        (EDA)
                4.1.2 Help communities replace, transform or expand
                        infrastructure facilities of military installations
                        to retain or create substantial employment
                        potential. (EDA)

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                   Fiscal year--
                                        ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------  Key annual goal
                                                       1997                             1998                             1999
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Defense Adjustment.................  ...............................  The Defense Adjustment program   The Defense Adjustment program   Outcome.
                                                                           uses the tools available under   uses the tools available under
                                                                           EDA's other programs,            EDA's other programs,
                                                                           especially the Economic          especially the Economic
                                                                           Adjustment program. Outcomes     Adjustment program. Outcomes
                                                                           are measured as part of total    are measured as part of total
                                                                           program performance.             program performance.
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                4.2 Enable communities to achieve long-term economic
                        recovery from the devastation of their productive
                        resources by natural disasters.
                4.2.1 Help communities adversely affected by natural
                        disasters to improve their capacity for economic
                        recovery or adjustment. (EDA)

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                   Fiscal year--
                                        ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------  Key annual goal
                                                       1997                             1998                             1999
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Disaster Assistance................  ...............................  Disaster assistance projects     Disaster assistance projects     Outcome.
                                                                           are funded under EDA's regular   are funded under EDA's regular
                                                                           program authorities. Outcomes    program authorities. Outcomes
                                                                           are measured as part of total    are measured as part of total
                                                                           program performance.             program performance.
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                4.3 Enable distressed communities to practice and implement
                        sustainable economic development.
                4.3.1 Help communities develop an integrated approach that
                        incorporates early local planning, full
                        participation of stakeholders, and a comprehensive
                        strategy to conserve resources and sustain
                        community and quality of life. (EDA)
                4.3.2 Help communities redevelop Brownfields. (EDA)
                4.3.3 Help distressed communities develop eco-industrial
                        parks and respond to economic dislocation caused by
                        national environmental policies. (EDA)

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                   Fiscal year--
                                        ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------  Key annual goal
                                                       1997                             1998                             1999
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Sustainable Development............  ...............................  Sustainable development          Sustainable development          Outcome.
                                                                           projects are funded under        projects are funded under
                                                                           EDA's regular program            EDA's regular program
                                                                           authorities. Outcomes are        authorities. Outcomes are
                                                                           measured as part of total        measured as part of total
                                                                           program performance.             program performance.
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Question. In developing your Annual Performance Plan, what efforts
    did your agency undertake to ensure that the goals in the plan include
    a significant number of outcome measures?
        Answer. In preparation for fiscal year 1999, each bureau was tasked
    with developing a balanced set of performance measures which contained
    output as well as outcome measures. These measures are contained in our
    Fiscal Year 1999 Annual Performance Plan and in our budget
    justifications.
        Question. Do you have the technological capability of measuring and
    reporting program performance throughout the year on a regular basis,
    so that the agency can be properly managed to achieve the desired
    results? If so, who has access to the information--senior management
    only, or mid and lower-level program managers, too? Are you able to
    gain access easily to various performance-related data located
    throughout your various information systems?
        Answer. As is true for all agencies, the sources, reporting
    periods, reporting systems, and access to the systems containing our
    data vary. Some information is available on an ongoing basis, while
    other data are produced only annually. Under GPRA, our initial emphasis
    has been on assuring that data are available at least on a schedule
    that ties to the budget analysis cycle.
        Most information is at the senior program official level, but is
    available to the bureau and Departmental planning/budgeting process as
    needed, for GPRA purposes.
        Question. The GPRA requires that your agency's Annual Performance
    Plan establish performance goals to define the level of performance to
    be achieved by each program activity set forth in your budget.
        Many agencies have indicated that their present budget account
    structure makes it difficult to link dollars to results in a clear and
    meaningful way. Have you faced such difficulty? Would the linkages be
    clearer if your budget account structure were modified? If so, how
    would you propose to modify it and why do you believe such modification
    would be most useful both to your agency and to this committee than the
    present structure? How would such modification strengthen
    accountability for program performance in the use of budgeted dollars?
        Answer. We are able to link our budget structure to our set of
    goals and objectives at the bureau or account level. However, since
    many of our bureaus/accounts contain more than one program for which
    there are goals and objectives, we are among the agencies lacking an
    information system or cost accounting system which can support an exact
    tie between our program resources and our program accomplishments at a
    detailed level.
        We believe that the improvements needed fall into the areas of
    information or cost accounting systems, rather than changes in the
    budget account structure, are needed. Therefore, we have two system
    development initiatives underway. First, we are developing the Commerce
    Administrative Management System (CAMS), a Department-wide approach to
    integrating all management systems into a single relational database,
    revolving around a Core Financial System (CFS). We are also creating a
    Budget Formulation and Tracking System, which will automate the budget
    formulation process and link it fully with CAMS and program planning/
    measuring activities.
        Question. Under one of the new accounting standards recommended by
    the Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board (FASAB) and issued by
    the Office of Management and Budget, this year for the first time all
    Federal agencies are required to have a system of Managerial Cost
    Accounting.
        The clearly preferred methodology for such a system, as stated in
    that standard, is the one known as ``Activity-Based Costing (ABC),''
    whereby the full cost is calculated for each of the activities of an
    agency. What is the status of your agency's implementation of the
    Managerial Cost Accounting requirement, and are you using Activity-
    Based Costing?
        Answer. All of the bureaus in the Department of Commerce have
    already met the requirements of the FASAB cost accounting standard, but
    in some cases they are using manual systems. All of our bureaus will
    eventually implement an automated cost accounting system and adopt ABC.
    In fact, an ABC-capable module is included in the new CFS that we are
    intending to implement Department-wide after a thorough pilot at the
    Bureau of the Census. We expect to implement the CFS cost accounting
    module systematically as part of bureau implementation of the
    Department's CFS.
        Question. Will you be able in the future to show to this committee
    the full and accurate cost of each activity of each program, including
    in those calculations such items as administration, employee benefits,
    and depreciation?
        Answer. The systems we are implementing are designed to capture the
    ``full'' cost of an output as defined in the FASAB standard. By
    definition full costs include such items as administration, employee
    benefits, and depreciation. All of the bureaus now have in place
    sufficient systems that can consistently and regularly provide the full
    and accurate cost of each program.
        Question. By doing so, would we then be able to see more precisely
    the relationship between the dollars spent on a program, the true costs
    of the activities conducted by the program, and the results of these
    activities?
        Answer. Yes, the relationships between dollars spent on a program,
    cost of activities and results are presently available from all of the
    bureaus and are currently being costed out. However, there is a
    distinction in how this process takes place in each of the bureaus.
    Some of the bureaus have automated this process and some can only
    perform it on a manual basis.
        Question. Future funding decisions will take into consideration
    actual performance compared to expected or target performance. Given
    that: To what extent are your performance measures sufficiently mature
    to allow for these kinds of uses? Are there any factors, such as
    inexperience in making estimates for certain activities or lack of
    data, that might affect the accuracy of resource estimates?
        Answer. We believe that the performance measures provided in our
    budget justifications and Annual Performance Plan comprise a useful
    basis for negotiating our funding needs with the Congress, and we look
    forward to an ongoing discussion over these measures. We believe that
    most of them are sufficiently mature to allow for funding decisions to
    be made.
        At the same time, we are among the agencies with programs that are
    difficult to measure in simplistic ways. For example, we are active in
    the Research Round Table, the group of agencies with long-term
    scientific Research and Development (R&D) programs which has evolved an
    ``Alternate Format'' to the performance measurement processes used by
    easier-to-measure programs. The ``Alternative Format'' is based on peer
    review, tailored interim measures which are relevant to this specific
    type of science, and supportive data. For fiscal year 1999, we propose
    to use this format in some of our research programs at the National
    Institute of Science and Technology. In addition, we believe that there
    are other program areas which require longer periods in order for
    results to become clear (including economic development and
    environmental preservation) or which have multiple sources of input and
    impact (such as law enforcement and international trade).
        We believe that our resource estimates have been highly accurate
    over time. The occurrences of changing estimates has been localized to
    topics of emerging knowledge (such as the Weather Service Modernization
    effort) or ``first-time-ever'' initiatives where there are no
    estimating benchmarks to rely on.
        Question. Based on your fiscal year 1999 performance plan, do you
    see any need for any substantive revisions in your strategic plan
    issued on September 30, 1997?
        Answer. We do not see the need for substantive changes to our
    Strategic Plan at the present time. The process of developing an
    effective Strategic Plan is a difficult one, and the Plan we provided
    to the Congress in September 1997 contains the goals and objectives we
    will use for managing our programs over the next few years. We are
    prepared to revise the Commerce Strategic Plan in three years, as
    required under the Act.
                                     ______

             Questions Submitted by Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell
        Question. On Tuesday, March 3, 1998, Treasury Secretary Rubin and
    Federal Reserve Chairman Greenspan testified before the Appropriations
    Foreign Operations Subcommittee. A good part of their testimony focused
    on how the IMF's conditions for receiving financial assistance will
    result in further opening of Asian economies like Thailand, Indonesia,
    and South Korea.
        What actions will the Department of Commerce and the International
    Trade Administration be taking to make the most of this market-opening
    opportunity for the American business community?
        Answer. The Commerce Department and ITA took steps early on to
    ensure that the financial crisis in Asia would not deter market access
    for U.S. businesses. We conducted a fact-finding mission to Asia in
    order to assess the situation first hand. In January, Ambassador David
    Aaron, Under Secretary for ITA, announced the Commerce Department's
    four-point initiative to help the U.S. business community deal with the
    crisis and to continue to successfully do business there. Our four-
    point program includes:
      --Mounting a comprehensive effort to assemble analysis and market
            information to help companies keep abreast of the rapidly
            changing Asian landscape. This analysis, prepared by Senior
            Commercial Officers of the U.S. and Foreign Commercial Service
            (US&FCS) based in Asia, is distributed to US&FCS export
            assistance centers and ITA's Trade Information Center to use in
            ongoing counseling efforts.
      --Increasing the number of high-level visits to key Asian countries
            for fact-finding and to ensure that markets remain open to U.S.
            firms.
      --Increasing the number of major conferences and seminars to be held
            in cities across the country that will focus on issues critical
            to companies by providing updated economic information, lessons
            learned by other companies who continue to be successful in
            Asia, and advice on how exporters can overcome the current
            difficulties and continue their Asian business operations.
      --Establishing a special Asian information program within the
            Department's Trade Information Center (tel. 1-800-USA-TRADE),
            that will make all Commerce Department information on Asia
            easily accessible to U.S. exporters.
        In conjunction with this four point initiative, the Department's
    Senior Commercial Officers (SCO's) in the ASEAN markets of East Asia
    met last month to develop a region-wide strategy for reporting on the
    crisis and counseling U.S. firms. Additionally, all East Asia SCO's are
    meeting with Departmental management in Los Angeles this month. In
    concert with other export-promoting agencies like the Trade and
    Development Agency and Ex-Im Bank as well as local multipliers like
    American Chambers of Commerce, the commercial sections have developed a
    joint approach to informing and guiding U.S. companies active in the
    host-country market or seeking new business opportunities. The
    commercial sections counsel U.S. companies on getting paid during the
    crisis, but also on taking advantage of the dollars' strength to pursue
    mergers and acquisitions opportunities, and provide guidance on the
    changes brought about by the crisis itself and by host-country
    compliance with IMF programs. We are also monitoring the effects of the
    crisis on trade barriers and developing case studies of its impact on
    various industry sectors. In addition, our commercial sections are
    electronically submitting dozens of up-to-the-minute reports, promptly
    downloaded to the Internet, detailing the impact of the crisis on
    American business.
        Our Import Administration unit's Subsidy Enforcement Office is
    stepping up its enforcement efforts, particularly in light of the Asian
    financial crisis, to closely monitor the economic policies of IMF
    funding recipients to ensure that they do not unfairly increase exports
    through export or production-related subsidy programs. The focus of
    this monitoring is to ensure compliance with the subsidy-related
    conditions of the IMF rescue packages and to uncover potential subsidy
    programs that may be actionable under U.S. countervailing duty law or
    the WTO Subsidies Agreement.
        For the time being and near future, we have scheduled the following
    outreach events which will focus on Asia:
      --The Asia Pacific Business Outlook Conference in Los Angeles (March
            16-18), with the University of Southern California as partner;
      --The ASEAN Ambassadors and Senior Commercial Officers' Tour (June 1-
            16), which will visit Phoenix, Kansas City, Greenville, SC,
            Washington, DC, and New York City, with the U.S.-ASEAN Business
            Council and Department of State as partners;
      --The Korea Caravan (June 1-12), which will visit Chicago, Cleveland,
            Cincinnati, Columbus, Detroit, Omaha, St. Louis, Dallas,
            Houston, and Denver, with the Korea Economic Institute and
            Department of State as partners; and
      --Several seminars have been scheduled in Fort Lauderdale, Florida,
            Portland, Oregon, and Durham, North Carolina.
                           opening of asian economies
        Question. What new opportunities do you see this opening of Asian
    economies presenting to small and mid-sized American companies?
        Answer. In spite of the crisis, Asian governments will selectively
    continue financing major projects to which U.S. firms are well-
    positioned to contribute because of their recognized expertise. This is
    especially true in the construction, environmental, information-
    technology and power-production sectors, in countries like Korea,
    Malaysia, the Philippines and Thailand. Even as the nations affected by
    the crisis seek to increase their exports, they need to import
    indispensable materials and components, as well as the latest
    technology--all of which often come from U.S. suppliers. U.S. firms
    willing to accept delayed payments over the short term and to bring
    financing or take an equity position in certain projects can actually
    do better now than before the crisis. Service providers in the high-
    tech sector are in demand, but may have to adjust their clients'
    payment schedule. U.S. software firms, in particular, are making
    headway in the Asian markets, especially with customized products to
    banks and other finance-based corporations. In general, U.S. firms can
    benefit from the trend toward outsourcing services by local companies
    forced to downsize. U.S. companies can also expand or maintain their
    presence by importing to the country of destination and selling to
    their distributors in the local currency. Chain convenience stores,
    too, remain accessible and eager customers for U.S.-made consumer
    goods.
        Furthermore, the IMF packages are different for each country, yet
    in every case, the reforms are intended to strengthen the Asian
    economies over the longer term. In the case of Indonesia, if reforms
    are implemented as pledged, this would result in the ultimate
    elimination of many monopolies and cartels, remove most Government
    support for national car and national airplane projects, and
    rationalize tariffs and remove non-tariff barriers. Such changes would
    create further business opportunities for U.S. firms while producing a
    more open, transparent market in which to do business.
        In Thailand, many firms are re-evaluating their plans because of
    the economic turmoil. However, reports of international companies'
    expanding or looking for opportunities to expand operations are
    surfacing. The General Electric Capital's announcement of the
    acquisition of a 49 percent stake in Asia Finance Public Company is an
    example. Foreign investment opportunities will also result from the
    Thai government's planned privatization of state-owned enterprises.
        In Korea, the IMF program has resulted in new opportunities for
    American firms in certain industries. The program for Korea will
    increase long-term opportunities in the financial services sector,
    since ceilings on foreign equity are being removed, and financial
    service commitments made in the OECD are being bound in the WTO. The
    IMF program should also have a broad impact on the general transparency
    and openness to imports of the Korean system.
        In a review of the impact of the IMF program on Korea's
    environmental sector, it was noted that although existing government
    projects will be affected by the won's devaluation, domestic
    environmental companies will continue to need the latest technology,
    much of which can come from the United States. In addition, the new
    government is committed to refocusing attention on the environmental
    sector, providing new opportunities for American firms.
        The Department of Commerce will assist American companies to take
    advantage of opportunities which might present themselves through
    aggressive advocacy, up-to-date information on Asian markets, working
    through the TPCC to discover additional financing mechanisms, and in
    any other effective manner.
                    colorado's role in u.s. competitiveness
        Question. My home state of Colorado is geographically fortunate. It
    is geographically centrally located in between America's Eastern and
    Western Seaboards. It is also roughly geographically equal-distant
    between Europe and Asia. Furthermore, Denver is also home to a new,
    state of the art airport, Denver International Airport (DIA). Colorado
    also has a highly skilled and internationally oriented workforce. These
    collective attributes give Colorado key strengths that the United
    States needs to compete in the increasingly competitive international
    economy.
        Do you agree that these factors enable Colorado to play a key role
    in advancing our national economic competitiveness?
        Answer. The factors cited are definite advantages that Colorado has
    for competing internationally. The location, highly skilled work force,
    and well organized airport should encourage exporting.
        However, each of these factors is complex. Despite Colorado's
    proximity to Mexico, this southern neighbor ranked ninth among
    Colorado's export markets in 1996. This was an improvement over the
    previous year, but it appears our Colorado-based Export Assistance
    Centers could place more emphasis on Colorado exporters looking at
    Mexico as a potential market.
        Japan last year purchased one-sixth of Colorado's $6 billion in
    exports, including high-tech, medical equipment and technology,
    consumer goods, and beef. It is possible the financial turmoil in Japan
    and other Asian countries could make those markets more difficult to
    penetrate during 1998, despite our increased efforts to assist Colorado
    exporters in those markets. However, there is still strong Colorado
    exporter interest in Asia which should provide long-term positive
    results. On March 3, the Department of Commerce's office in Denver, the
    U.S. Export Assistance Center (USEAC), organized a seminar for the
    World Bank and the four regional multilateral development banks. The
    USEAC brought officials from bank headquarters in Manila, London, and
    Washington, DC to Denver to brief Colorado companies on business
    opportunities through $45 billion worth of development bank-funded
    projects. The Asian Development Bank received the highest interest
    among the 110 attendees.
        Canada is another country which offers a potentially lucrative
    market for many Colorado exporters. Until recently, activities by the
    USEAC in Denver and the Colorado International Trade office (which
    cooperate very closely to maximize scarce resources) met with limited
    success in their programs to promote exports to Canada. However, in the
    summer of 1997, the USEAC sponsored a series of meetings in Colorado
    Springs and Denver with the U.S. Commercial Attache in Toronto and a
    commercial officer from the Canadian Consulate General in Minneapolis,
    which covers Colorado, on the advantages of exporting to Canada. Eighty
    companies attended these seminars and, several months later, three
    Colorado companies participated in Canadian trade shows to locate
    distributors for their products--pet store equipment and apparel. Two
    of these small firms (one from Colorado Springs and the other from
    Denver) made sales and found Canadian distributors. As a follow-up, our
    Senior Commercial Officer for Canada, Mr. Dale Slaght, will participate
    in World Trade Day on May 19-20 in Denver, sponsored by the World Trade
    Center and the Export Assistance Center. Following this two-day event,
    Mr. Slaght will travel to the Western Slope for meetings with exporters
    from Glenwood Springs to Montrose. Similarly, the Director of our Trade
    Center in Mexico City will participate in World Trade Day and meet with
    Colorado exporters to discuss the Mexican market.
        With respect to the Denver International Airport, the lack of
    international flights into DIA and dissolution of a strong state
    tourism authority in Colorado have impacted the level of international
    tourism to the state. However, I hope the current direct British Air
    flights from London to Denver will be followed by similar agreements
    for other cities in the future.
        Question. What actions can the Department of Commerce and the ITA
    take to further develop this potential, both for Colorado and for the
    Nation as a whole?
        Answer. The Department is committed to developing our country's
    strengths. Our USEAC, in Denver, which also includes the Small Business
    Administration's International Office and the Export-Import Bank, has
    ten employees and three offices that include assisting exporters in
    four states (and part of a fifth).
        In addition to continuing to serve our traditional constituency,
    the Denver USEAC has begun to focus on the historically under-served
    populations in Colorado and the three neighboring states for which it
    has responsibility. In summer of 1997, the USEAC began regular visits
    to Western Slope companies. As a result, we held an exporting seminar
    there in December and will open an associate office, known as the
    Export Center, in Montrose to serve Western Colorado. We also
    anticipate the opening of one associate office in Wyoming this summer.
        Our international trade specialists often visit exporters in their
    factories or offices. In California or New York, our specialists can
    drive from one appointment to another within minutes. In Colorado, a
    round-trip air fare to Grand Junction or Pueblo can cost $300 to $350.
    To enhance our capabilities in these regions outside Denver, the USEAC
    is leading a Rural Initiative that will place Internet access, the
    National Trade Data Bank (a goldmine of international market
    information for exporters) and other tools for Electronic Commerce, to
    assist isolated exporters. Our trade specialists will also travel to
    these associate offices regularly to provide face-to-face export
    advice.
        During the last fiscal year the Denver USEAC assisted 150 companies
    from 4 states to make at least 260 foreign sales that they would not
    have made without USEAC help.
        During the week of April 6, our director Nancy Charles-Parker will
    visit your office to brief you and your staff on our services, which
    can be of considerable assistance to your constituents. We will provide
    ``success stories'' documenting how our staff have facilitated specific
    export sales, through information, our commercial network in 70 foreign
    countries, advocacy, trade missions and shows, and market access
    assistance. Additionally, Ms. Charles-Parker will participate in the
    Reservation Economic Summit in Denver, April 7-9. The USEAC will
    participate in an exporting workshop and have a booth on services for
    Native American exporters.
                      colorado foreign trade zones [ftz's]
        Question. What about establishing a portion of Colorado as an
    International Trade Zone in order to promote international trade?
        Answer. Foreign-trade zones are designated sites licensed by the
    Foreign-Trade Zones Board that allow domestic activity involving
    foreign items to take place prior to formal Customs entry; duty-free
    treatment is accorded items that are re-exported and Customs duty
    evaluations on items sold in the U.S. market are deferred until the
    items leave the zone, thus, offsetting Customs advantages available to
    overseas producers who compete with producers located in the United
    States. Foreign-trade zones have a very positive impact in that they:
    help facilitate and expedite international trade; encourage and
    facilitate exports; help domestic plants improve their competitiveness
    with foreign plants; assist state/local economic development efforts;
    and help create employment opportunities. The FTZ regulations,
    application guidelines, locations of zones and contact persons, details
    of FTZ Board actions, and other general information can be found on the
    Import Administration Web site under Foreign-Trade Zones:
    www.ita.doc.gov/import__admin/records/.
        Colorado has two foreign-trade zones in the following locations:
      --Denver (since 1985); sponsored by the City/County of Denver. This
            zone consists of two general-purpose sites: a warehouse
            facility in Denver, as well as a site at the Denver
            International Airport. (Contact person--Randy Moore 303-640-
            7100).
      --Colorado Springs (since 1984), sponsored by the Colorado Springs
            Foreign-Trade Zone, Inc. The zone consists of a site located at
            the Colorado Center planned industrial park, adjacent to the
            Colorado Springs Municipal Airport. A sub-zone site was
            approved for Apple Computer, but it is inactive. (Contact
            person--Robert Scott 719-471-8183).
        Zone sponsors may apply to expand their zones. To do so, expansion
    sites must be in an eligible location, and applicants must demonstrate
    a need, a net positive economic effect and consistency with public
    trade and economic development policy.
                       business relationships with russia
        Question. I would like to bring to your attention the activities of
    the Russian-American Chamber of Commerce, based in Denver, Colorado. As
    a member of their American Advisory Council, I have first-hand
    familiarity with their many successes. The Russian-American Chamber of
    Commerce is also distinguished by the fact that it is located far
    outside of the Washington D.C. beltway.
        The Russian-American Chamber of Commerce has achieved prominence as
    a key national advocate favoring the expansion of U.S.-Russian
    commercial relations and has played a significant role in the $5
    billion American companies have invested in Russia today.
        In the summer of 1997, during the Denver Summit of the Eight, the
    Russian-American Chamber of Commerce hosted President Yeltsin for a
    business roundtable with key American companies. It was the only
    meeting, outside of the official Summit of Eight activities, that
    President Yeltsin granted. This meeting resulted in a billion dollar
    joint venture that is stimulating economic development and creating
    jobs and income for both Russia and America.
        Question. How high a priority does the Commerce Department place on
    America's business partnership with Russia?
        Answer. The Department of Commerce places very high priority on
    significantly expanding trade and investment with Russia and devotes
    considerable resources toward improving market access, creating more
    favorable business conditions, identifying business opportunities, and
    helping U.S. companies conclude commercial contracts. This is part of
    our approach in helping Russia become a market-based democracy.
        Question. What is the Department of Commerce doing towards this
    end?
        Answer. The Secretary of Commerce serves as the U.S. chairman of
    the U.S.-Russia Business Development Committee (BDC) which, under the
    auspices of the Gore-Chernomyrdin Commission, works to remove legal,
    regulatory, and practical impediments to trade and investment;
    facilitate conclusion of commercial projects; develop information and
    contacts in key industries and regions; and create synergy between
    government and private sector resources and initiatives. Key issues
    being addressed by the BDC include market access, taxation of business,
    energy production sharing arrangements, standards, product
    certification and customs procedures, rule of law, and crimes against
    business. Working groups promote sectoral and regional business
    development. The Counselor to the Department is the U.S. Ombudsman for
    Energy and Commercial Cooperation with Russia. His ongoing
    consultations with Russian government and parliamentary officials and
    advocacy on behalf of U.S. companies are removing impediments and
    building a track record of successful conclusion of commercial
    ventures, such as the Memorandum of Agreement signed at the Tenth
    Meeting of the Gore-Chernomyrdin Commission between Conoco and Lukoil
    to develop the northern areas oilfields.
        The Department also operates several programs specifically directed
    to assisting U.S. companies doing business in Russia. The Business
    Information Service for the New Independent States (BISNIS) provides
    extensive, client-oriented information, counseling and trade leads to
    U.S. companies on the rapidly changing Russian market. BISNIS responds
    to over 200,000 inquiries a year from U.S. companies of all sizes and
    to date has assisted U.S. companies in generating over $1.7 billion in
    trade and investment transactions. Nine ABC's located across Russia
    offer business services for U.S. companies new to the market and helps
    them locate Russian partners. Since inception, the ABC network has
    successfully served over 2,700 U.S. companies throughout the New
    Independent States, resulting in over $206 million of reported U.S.
    export sales. The Special American Business Internship Training (SABIT)
    program, which provides training for Russian entrepreneurs, also helps
    American companies develop business relationships in Russia. Over 900
    U.S. companies have trained more than 1,200 NIS executives, reaping
    over $100 million in export revenues from SABIT-sponsored
    relationships. The Department's U.S. & Foreign Commercial Service
    covers Russia from end to end with posts in St. Petersburg, Moscow, and
    Vladivostok, and is among the largest of our US&FCS posts in the world.
        These efforts have helped increase U.S.-Russian trade turnover by
    50 percent, from $3.2 billion in 1993, to $7.5 billion in 1997.
                    cooperation with business organizations
        Question. How best can the Department of Commerce work
    cooperatively with private organizations such as the Russian-American
    Chamber of Commerce to create opportunities for American companies in
    Russia and other countries around the world?
        Answer. The Department of Commerce has excellent working
    relationships with U.S. business umbrella organizations such as the
    Russian-American Chamber of Commerce, the U.S.-Russia Business Council,
    the American Chamber of Commerce in Russia, and many industry sector
    trade associations. The Department works closely with these
    organizations to improve the business environment for American
    companies in Russia and increase bilateral trade and investment.
        The Department views business input as central to the work of both
    the Business Development Committee and the Gore-Chernomyrdin
    Commission. U.S. business concerns, such as tax reform and reform in
    the commercial energy sector, drive the agenda of the Business
    Development Committee (BDC) and the work of the U.S. Ombudsman. At the
    last meeting of the Commission, March 10-12, representatives of the
    U.S.-Russia Business Council, the American Chamber of Commerce in
    Russia, and the Petroleum Advisory Forum made presentations to the BDC
    meeting chaired by Secretary Daley and Minister Fradkov. The private
    sector also participates actively in the work of the BDC's fifteen
    working groups and sectoral subgroups, as well as in the BDC's Joint
    Commercial Tax Dialogue, the U.S.-Russia Working Group on Taxation, the
    Joint Standards Dialogue, and the newly-established Joint Commercial
    Customs Dialogue.
        The Department continually looks for opportunities to cooperate
    with private sector organizations in carrying out trade promotion
    activities such as conferences, roundtables, and trade missions.
    Departmental officials, for example, often participate as speakers at
    conferences organized by the Russian-American Chamber of Commerce. The
    Seattle-based Foundation for Russian-American Economic Cooperation
    plays a vital role in the successes of our U.S. West Coast-Russian Far
    East Working Group. The Department's Business Information Service for
    the New Independent States (BISNIS) co-sponsored with the National
    Association of Home Builders' Building Technology Information Center
    three highly successful teleconferences between Moscow and Washington
    on the Russian construction market. We believe such public-private
    sector partnerships strengthen the effectiveness of American trade
    promotion in Russia and elsewhere around the world.
                                     ______

               Questions Submitted by Senator Ernest F. Hollings
           economic development administration [eda] trade adjustment
        Question. In EDA you are requesting a new $49 million initiative to
    assist ``Trade Impacted Communities.'' I should point out that as of
    last year the U.S. Labor Department had certified that well over
    100,000 workers have lost their jobs directly as a result of the North
    American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). Outside estimates are closer to
    600,000. So Mr. Secretary, how many jobs is this EDA program going to
    address through this program? Aren't you going to require a whole lot
    more money just to address NAFTA? Is this part of a Presidential effort
    to remarket Fast Track for the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade
    (GATT)?
        Answer. Under the Trade Adjustment Assistance Program for Workers,
    the Department of Labor provides direct assistance to individuals who
    have lost their jobs as a result of trade opening agreements such as
    GATT, the World Trade Organization (WTO) and NAFTA. The Community and
    Economic Adjustment Initiative (CEAI), proposed by the Department of
    Commerce in EDA's fiscal year 1999 budget request, will not duplicate
    the Department of Labor's program, but instead will complement it by
    assisting the communities in which the workers live.
        Communities adversely impacted by trade experience structural
    economic change at the local level. The impact is similar to the
    structural changes that result from defense downsizing, natural
    disasters or significant plant closures. The design of CEAI is modeled
    on EDA's successful defense, disaster and economic adjustment programs.
    Initial funding assistance is offered to an affected community to
    develop a local adjustment strategy. This planning process may be
    undertaken by an existing governmental or economic development entity
    or by a new entity such as the base reuse authorities that were formed
    to redevelop closing military facilities. In the case of trade-impacted
    communities, the adjustment strategy will serve as the locally-prepared
    blueprint for developing or strengthening economic sectors to compete
    more effectively within the new trade environment. To implement the
    community economic adjustment strategy, EDA can fund technical
    assistance projects to evaluate options or provide technical assistance
    to businesses, projects for construction of critical public
    infrastructure necessary for the development of new and competitive
    economic sectors, and revolving loan fund projects to provide capital
    to local businesses. EDA proposes approximately $9 million to fund
    adjustment strategies and approximately $37 million to fund
    implementation projects.
        We expect CEAI outcomes to track the outcomes of EDA's other
    economic adjustment assistance programs at project maturity. An
    evaluation of the effectiveness of EDA's Defense Adjustment Program by
    Rutgers University (November 1997) provides a picture of the potential
    effectiveness of the CEAI program. The Defense Adjustment study
    concluded that Defense construction projects produced 124 jobs per $1
    million of EDA funding, while completed Defense Revolving Loan Fund
    grants produced 304 jobs per $1 million of EDA funding. An evaluation
    of the effectiveness of EDA's Public Works (Construction) Program by
    Rutgers University (May 1997) concluded that, for every $1 million of
    EDA investment, 327 jobs were created and $10 million in private sector
    dollars were leveraged in the community.
                                  census 2000
        Question. The Census Bureau's budget is requested to increase by
    $480 million to $1.028 billion. That's a lot of money. Could you give
    us an update on the dress rehearsal?
        Answer. The Dress Rehearsal in General: The Census 2000 Dress
    Rehearsal in Columbia, South Carolina; Menominee, Wisconsin; and
    Sacramento, California continues on schedule. Printing of the
    questionnaires needed for data collection is completed. Starting in
    mid-March, our temporary field staffs began delivering these
    questionnaires to households in areas of the test sites containing
    predominately non-city style addresses. In early April, the U.S. Postal
    Service will start delivering questionnaires to households in areas of
    the test sites containing predominately city style addresses. In
    preparation for receiving questionnaires from these households, we have
    installed the data capture system in our Jeffersonville, Indiana
    processing facility. On March 1, we initiated our promotion campaign in
    all three dress rehearsal sites. Including paid advertising for the
    first time, the promotion campaign will continue throughout the initial
    data collection period. Finally, we completed the initial phase of our
    quality check program (Integrated Coverage Measurement) by creating an
    independent list of addresses in selected areas of the test site.
        The Dress Rehearsal in South Carolina: As of mid-March,
    approximately 400 temporary workers have been hired (including the
    address listing work last year) at the Columbia, South Carolina site
    which includes the surrounding counties of Chester, Lee, Chesterfield,
    Marlboro, Darlington, Newberry, Fairfield, Richland, Kershaw, Union and
    Lancaster. The Census Bureau anticipates peak staffing of about 1,300
    temporary workers at the end of May. The duration of these jobs will
    vary from a few weeks to nine months. In November 1997, we leased
    office facilities and opened a Dress Rehearsal Local Census Office in
    Columbia which will remain open until July/August 1998.
        The Columbia site was selected because it contains living
    situations and socioeconomic characteristics that are not found in a
    predominantly urban environment. The Columbia site provides our only
    opportunity to test procedures for developing the census address list
    in an area containing a mixture of house number/street name and rural
    route and box number addresses. Since this site has a relatively high
    proportion of African Americans, it provides an opportunity to test
    procedures for reducing the differentials for this racial group.
    Furthermore, the site selected represents the size of typical local
    census offices planned for Census 2000, which is necessary to provide
    an understanding of the effectiveness of census operations.
        Question. Could you give us an update on the oversight board?
        Answer. The fiscal year 1998 appropriations bill provided $4
    million to support Census Monitoring Board operations. The Board is
    authorized to use the General Services Administration as the provider
    of all its administrative support, which is what most small boards and
    commissions elect to do. The Census Bureau will deposit the funds in
    the Board's Treasury account for its use. The Bureau will not monitor
    expenditures further.
        Question. Could you give us an update on the appointment of a new
    Director?
        Answer. The Administration is in the process of identifying an
    individual for appointment as the new Director of the Census Bureau. We
    currently have an Acting Director, Mr. James Holmes, who is a career
    Bureau employee with 30 years of experience managing data collection
    activities.
        Question. How much does it look like we are going to have to pay
    per hour to get Census takers?
        Answer. It is unclear at this time what hourly pay rates will be
    necessary to successfully recruit and retain enumerators. The Bureau
    has engaged an independent consultant group, WESTAT, to help us examine
    this issue. The Interim Report of WESTAT analysis is enclosed.
        The Bureau is evaluating the WESTAT interim findings on pay rates
    in the Dress Rehearsal sites. Given that the Nation currently has the
    lowest unemployment in two decades, the Dress Rehearsal testing of pay
    rates in Columbia, South Carolina will be particularly informative in
    that unemployment is very low in that area. The Bureau will be in a
    better position to determine necessary pay rates when our analysis of
    the Dress Rehearsal results is complete.
        Question. Is $4.1 billion still a good estimate of what it will
    cost to conduct a census that includes statistical sampling? If that is
    so, what is your best estimate for what it would cost to conduct a
    full-enumeration, traditional census?
        Answer. We haven't changed our plan for Census 2000, but we are
    conducting ``dual-track'' activities pursuant to the 1998 Commerce,
    Justice, State Appropriations compromise. To plan for both a sampling
    and a non-sampling census, we are spending an additional $31 million in
    fiscal year 1998; and we have asked for an additional $36 million in
    fiscal year 1999. The $36 million request for fiscal year 1999 does not
    include all the funding that we would have requested if we did not
    expect to do sampling in 2000. Furthermore, the Bureau is conducting
    the Dress Rehearsal in fiscal year 1998 to validate our plan, including
    assumptions affecting cost. If the Dress Rehearsal exposes necessary
    changes to the plan, it is very possible that our cost estimates may
    increase or decrease.
        The cost for a non-sampling census would depend on the accuracy
    goal that Congress expects. The estimate provided to Congress last year
    was that replicating a 1990 style census would add about $800 million
    to the cost. This, however, would only achieve a level of accuracy
    equivalent to the 1990 results, estimated at 1.9 percent undercount.
    Legislation last year set a target of getting as close to 100 percent
    accuracy as possible without sampling. Such a goal, without sampling,
    would be far more expensive than an additional $800 million. In fact,
    the National Academy of Sciences has concluded that, without sampling,
    no amount of money spent on the old methods alone could achieve
    satisfactory accuracy. The Bureau, therefore, maintains that sampling
    is the best methodology. In response to a request from Representative
    Rogers, the Bureau is currently trying to determine the possible cost
    of a census that increases accuracy but does not use sampling.
                                  hanbo steel
        Question. Approximately one year ago, U.S. manufacturers presented
    the Department with requests to pursue a WTO dispute settlement action
    with South Korea regarding the $6 billion in government directed loans
    to the now bankrupt Hanbo Steel. Please detail what steps the
    Department has taken in responding to this request. Does the
    Administration have plans to pursue this request? If not, why not?
        Answer. Please be assured that I take this matter very seriously. I
    wholeheartedly support the strong enforcement of our trade laws and our
    rights under the WTO Subsidies Agreement.
        Import Administration (``IA''), an agency within the Department of
    Commerce, is the administrator of the countervailing duty law and
    coordinator of the U.S. Government's subsidies enforcement efforts. IA,
    working closely with United States Trade Representative (USTR), has
    been reviewing allegations brought to the Department and USTR by
    members of the U.S. pipe and tube industry concerning the Korean
    Government subsidization of Hanbo Iron & Steel. Staff in both agencies
    have reviewed and analyzed the allegations and evidence contained in
    the industry's complaint.
        In order to develop as much information as possible about the
    subsidy practices, in addition to the U.S. industry's complaint, IA
    staff have reviewed information contained in the Commerce Subsidies
    Library, researched Internet sites, and discussed the issue with other
    Commerce offices which routinely collect information on specific
    country and industry practices. After this initial research, the U.S.
    embassy in Seoul was contacted to discuss our findings and determine
    what further information could be provided by embassy personnel.
        Last April, after conducting this research and consulting with the
    domestic industry, USTR and Commerce forwarded a series of questions to
    the Korean Government to seek explanations and clarification of the
    Hanbo bankruptcy, the government's role (if any) in extending and
    facilitating the extension of credit to Hanbo on commercially
    inconsistent terms, the Government's role (if any) in assisting the
    construction, development and operation of Hanbo's new production
    facility on Asan Bay, and the extent and nature of government
    assistance to banks, creditors and suppliers whose financial status had
    been placed in jeopardy as a result of the Hanbo bankruptcy. At the end
    of April, the United States raised these same concerns at the regular,
    spring meeting of the Subsidies Committee. A few months later, the
    Korean Government provided a ``position paper'' which attempted to
    refute generally the allegations cited in the U.S. steel industry's
    complaint, but did not directly address the more detailed questions
    submitted by the United States in April. Subsequently, we drafted
    supplementary questions, and forwarded those and the unanswered
    questions from April back to Seoul in mid-September. As a further sign
    of our seriousness, we included a statement of the Administration's
    concerns regarding the potentially extensive subsidization of Korea's
    steel industry in the ``Watch NIST'' of USTR's Super 301 announcement,
    issued on October 1. The Korean Government provided somewhat more
    detailed answers to all of our questions on November 4, 1997.
        The Administration is studying the Korean Government's responses,
    and we are monitoring the financial and other reforms to which Korea
    has committed in the context of its IMF rescue plan. These points were
    also covered during my recent trip to Korea. At the same time, we have
    been working closely with the domestic industry to gather additional
    information on potential subsidies and to document the extent to which
    any such subsidies may have caused adverse effects to U.S. interests.
    We expect to finalize our assessment of this information in the near
    future to determine what future steps may be appropriate.
                          subsidization of hanbo steel
        Question. During your trip to Korea did you request that President
    Kim cease all subsidization of Hanbo and divest itself of its
    controlling interest in POSCO rather than merely turning over Hanbo
    assets to POSCO? If so, what was his response?
        Answer. First let me say that helping Korea achieve a rapid, strong
    and lasting economic recovery is in the best interest of American
    business. Korea is our fifth largest export market, and actually in
    recent years has been one of the few countries with whom we have had a
    trade surplus. Korea's economic problems will put our trade into
    deficit this year, but we need to press for more openness in Korea so
    that when their economic health returns, our exports will shoot back
    up.
        Accordingly, my visit in Korea centered on the following four
    themes: (1) to show strong U.S. support for Korea during the economic
    crisis; (2) to stress the need for continued economic reform and market
    openness; (3) to show the continued commercial engagement of the U.S.
    in Korea's recovery; and (4) to learn of the problems and challenges
    faced by American exporters during the crises. I emphasized that
    exporting their way out of their problems was not acceptable, and also
    stressed that they needed to remove practices that had been restricting
    our exports.
        These are the points I stress in all of my meetings, particularly
    with the then President-elect Kim Dae Jung and his economic advisors.
        Regarding Hanbo, I know that U.S. industry is concerned that the
    Korean Government may be providing subsidies inconsistent with Korea's
    international obligations. Import Administration has been watching the
    situation closely. All information provided by the Korean Government
    and U.S. industry will be reviewed to determine what further steps
    should be taken.
                    hanbo steel--public financial statement
        Question. I understand that Hanbo Steel, a publicly-traded company
    has not issued a public financial statement since June 1996. Since part
    of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) relief package requires
    transparent financial reporting, when do you think we can expect to see
    Hanbo's financial statements?
        Answer. We have raised the issue of Hanbo's lack of financial
    disclosure with the Korean Government. Such financial disclosure is
    required under not only internationally accepted accounting practices
    but also Korean law.
        The conditions of the IMF rescue package calling for corporate
    disclosure and greater transparency of corporate balance sheets will
    put additional pressure on Hanbo to issue current reports. We are
    committed to seeking a full disclosure of Hanbo's current financial
    situation and will continue to press the Korean Government on this
    issue.
                             hanbo steel bankruptcy
        Question. It is my understanding that Hanbo Steel filed for
    bankruptcy in January 1997 but has not shuttered any capacity. In fact,
    the February 16, 1998 Business Week stated that even Korean steel
    manufacturers are concerned with Hanbo's actions. Do you expect this
    bankrupt steel manufacturer will shutter any of its steel capacity? If
    so, when might we expect such an action?
        Answer. We will seek to ensure that any restructuring of the
    company will be handled in an open and transparent manner, and in
    accordance with commercial considerations. Recent press reports
    indicate that Hanbo Steel intends to sell the most controversial part
    of its Tanjin facility, the Corel plant, with bidding open to both
    foreign and domestic purchasers.
        We will continue to carefully follow all aspects of the Hanbo Steel
    bankruptcy proceedings and to press the Korean government for a full
    accounting of the activities of the company.
        Question. Severe devaluations in currencies are traditionally
    followed by internal inflation in the country whose currency has been
    devalued. Do you expect to see an increase in inflation in Korea? If
    that inflation did not occur in a particular industry or sector, would
    it be appropriate to conclude the government was artificially
    restraining price increases? Would such government actions be
    appropriate under the IMF agreement?
        Answer. A number of factors may affect whether the inflationary
    pressure on a particular industry mirrors that of the economy as a
    whole. These can include the capital intensivity of the industry, the
    source of its external financing, and its reliance on domestically
    produced versus imported inputs. Industries that are capital-intensive,
    that borrow heavily and that consume imported inputs will tend to
    experience higher inflation than those that do not.
        The IMF rescue package contains several conditions relating to
    monetary policy that are designed to lessen the inflationary impact of
    the recent won devaluation. For example, the package calls for an
    immediate tightening of monetary policy to restore calm to the markets
    and limits money growth in 1998 to a rate consistent with containing
    inflation at five percent or less.
        It would require extensive analysis to determine whether an
    industry-specific rate of inflation lower than the national average was
    the result of market force or government interference in the
    marketplace. If we found that the Korean government was taking actions
    to ease the effects of inflation on a specific industry or sector, we
    would evaluate whether such action violated Korea's WTO or IMF
    commitments.
                         nonmarket economy methodology
        Question. Can you assure me that the Administration and the
    Department are fully committed to preserving the nonmarket economy
    methodology of the U.S. antidumping law in the WTO accessions of Russia
    and China?
        Answer. The Department of Commerce has been working closely with
    USTR on China's and Russia's accession to the WTO. We are aggressively
    seeking a provision in China's protocol of accession that will confirm
    that WTO members can continue to use alternative methodologies, such as
    our surrogate country methodology with respect to nonmarket economies.
    Negotiations with Russia are at a very preliminary stage, but we are
    committed to preserving our ability to apply our nonmarket economy
    methodology as long as the statutory criteria require it.
                                 import surges
        Question. What policies will the Department be implementing to help
    U.S. workers and manufacturers deal with import surges from Asia,
    particularly those that are beyond the reach of the dumping law.
        Answer. As you know, foreign producers engage in dumping when they
    set their U.S. prices below the price they charge at home for the same
    goods or below what it costs to produce the goods. Home market prices
    and costs can be affected by a number of factors, one of which is the
    exchange rate. The recent devaluation of Asian currencies may make it
    possible for Asian exporters to lower their U.S. prices, raising
    concerns about import surges, without raising their dumping margins. At
    the same time, as the cost of capital and imported inputs rises, home
    market prices and costs are likely to rise, making it possible that
    dumping margins will increase.
        Beyond Commerce's continued vigilant enforcement of the antidumping
    and countervailing duty law, we are committed to closely monitoring the
    economic policies of Asian countries to ensure that the IMF conditions
    are met and to ensure that they are not seeking to unfairly increase
    exports by instituting export or production-related subsidy programs.
    Specifically, if the monitoring indicates that the governments are not
    living up to their international commitments, Commerce would evaluate
    whether such actions violate provisions of the IMF conditions, U.S. law
    or the WTO Subsidies Agreement and, as such, are actionable.
               international trade administration reorganization
        Question. I keep hearing about a pending reorganization of the
    International Trade Administration (ITA). Where does this effort stand?
        Answer. I have reached no final conclusions, but we have considered
    various models of organization for ITA for some time. We have concluded
    that, if we proceed, it would be best to minimally impact the present
    arrangements and to only do those things that would appreciably impact
    our operation. For example, we hope to sharpen the focus of the mission
    of each sub-organization to better improve accountability. At present,
    too many of our functions are dispersed across several organizations.
        Question. Could you describe the options you are looking at?
        Answer. We hope to group like functions in order to streamline our
    operations at headquarters. This would have the effect of saving
    resources which would allow us to achieve our main goal of increasing
    field staffing. We hope to redirect modest staffing increases to both
    the domestic and foreign field.
        I anticipate that we will reach our final conclusions in the near
    future and consult fully with Congress prior to engaging in any action.
                impact on u.s. exports of asian financial crisis
        Question. Speaking of your trade promotion programs, do you have an
    assessment of how badly the Asian economic ``meltdown'' will impact
    U.S. exports?
        Answer. In 1997 U.S. export performance was already somewhat
    weakened by declining sales to Asia. Our overall merchandise trade
    deficit reached $199 billion last year, with U.S. sales to Japan
    dropping by 2.9 percent, to Korea by 5.6 percent. With export orders to
    Asia still weakening, our total trade deficit will undoubtedly grow
    this year. Sectors likely to be most heavily impacted include
    semiconductor equipment, chemicals, and agricultural products.
        During this period of economic downturn, we are seeking to reduce
    barriers to U.S. exports and lay the groundwork for more hospitable
    treatment of our products. During my recent trip to the region, I
    emphasized to the countries I visited the importance of continuing to
    pursue market-opening measures. In addition, the IMF stabilization
    packages contain critical trade-related commitments of importance to
    U.S. businesses in these markets, and we are actively working to assure
    the timely and complete implementation of these reform measures.
        Our International Trade Administration bureau has announced a four
    point plan to help U.S. companies overcome business problems they are
    facing in Asia due to the financial crisis. The four points are:
      --Launching a comprehensive effort to develop analysis and market
            information to help companies keep abreast of the rapidly
            changing Asian landscape.
      --Arranging high-level visits to key Asian countries for fact-finding
            and to ensure that markets remain open to U.S. firms.
      --Holding a series of seminars in cities around the country
            (locations and dates to be announced soon) that will focus on
            issues critical to companies by providing updated economic
            information, lessons learned by other companies which continue
            to be successful in Asia, and advice on how exporters can
            overcome the current difficulties and continue their Asian
            business operations.
      --Establishing a special Asian information program within the
            Department's Trade Information Center (tel. 1-800-USA-TRADE),
            that will make all Commerce Department information on Asia
            easily accessible to U.S. exporters.
        It is important to recognize that in the longer term the Asian
    financial crisis will actually create opportunities for future U.S.
    export growth. While they are currently experiencing the severe shocks
    of bankruptcy, inflation, unemployment, and currency devaluation, these
    countries, once they begin to recover, will again generate a heavy
    demand for U.S. products. For that reason we have been taking a number
    of steps, including holding seminars and disseminating market analysis
    and information, to provide advice to U.S. companies on dealing with
    the current crisis and to make them aware of business opportunities as
    they arise.
                ita civil servants advancing a political agenda
        Question. Finally, I have been a major supporter of ITA. We need to
    compete with the Japanese, French and Germans--and ITA are our soldiers
    in promoting U.S. goods and services overseas. But, I have developed
    some concerns lately. Last year there were reports that domestic U.S. &
    Foreign Commercial Service officers were being told to ``promote Fast-
    Track'' in their dealings with state and local officials and the
    private sector. Now the Journal of Commerce reports that ITA officials
    are going into high schools to promote ``free trade.''
        Mr. Secretary, if Clinton Administration political officials want
    to promote these politically controversial, policy initiatives--I may
    agree with you, but clearly it is your right. However, do you think it
    is appropriate for career ITA civil servants to be advancing this
    political agenda? Isn't this stealing time away from their job which is
    to promote or protect U.S. business?
        Answer. The International Trade Administration has one goal, and
    one goal only: to assist the American business community as our
    nation's manufacturers enter into overseas markets and expand their
    market presence. This occurs each time a businessperson calls the Trade
    Information Center for immediate, short-term business counseling; when
    a client enters an Export Assistance Center to explore international
    marketing strategies; when a company needs an explanation and
    clarification of an existing United States trade agreement; and when
    ITA officials ensure that foreign products are being sold at their fair
    value in U.S. markets. These examples, and countless others, are the
    day-to-day activities of ITA that have a positive impact on the
    American business community.
        American products are reaching international markets at levels that
    were unthinkable ten years ago. These U.S. exports have significantly
    contributed to the current economic growth and will continue to provide
    strength to the American economy for years to come provided that
    American manufacturers have unencumbered access to international
    markets. Study after study has demonstrated that American products are
    competitive internationally only when the playing field is level. If
    certain countries have excessive tariffs on American products, those
    markets become non-viable. One need only look to Canada and Mexico
    where our exports have increased tremendously over the past five years
    to see the benefits of having free and open trading partners.
        It is true that the Department of Commerce and ITA, under my
    leadership supported the Fast Track Initiative last year. Let me assure
    you, however, that ITA civil servants were not participating in
    partisan, political activities. Rather, it was the Department's
    objective to explain the benefit of free trade to our clients, the
    American exporting community. By educating our clients about the
    benefits of free trade we are able to ``promote and protect U.S.
    business,'' and help U.S. business recognize and deal with unfair trade
    practices.
                                    tourism
        Question. Travel and tourism ranks as the first, second, or third
    largest employer in 32 states and the District of Columbia. In my state
    of South Carolina, tourism is a $6.9 billion industry and 113,000 South
    Carolinians' jobs depend on tourism.
        Nationally, the tourism industry produced a record $26 billion
    trade surplus in 1996 (the last year for which statistics are
    available), attracting more than $90 billion in foreign revenue.
    Realizing the significance of this industry, the private sector and the
    Federal Government committed to develop a cooperative approach to
    tourism economic development at the 1995 White House Conference on
    Travel and Tourism (WHCTT). Conference delegates made ten priority
    recommendations to improve our national tourism strategy. All of these
    recommendations are due to be implemented by December of this year.
        Question. What progress has been made on implementing the White
    House Conference's recommendations?
        Answer. The Federal Government has played a role in implementing or
    helping to implement many of the White House Conference's top ten
    priorities. Members of the Tourism Policy Council (TPC), which I chair,
    have worked diligently to complete their contributions to these
    priorities set by the delegates to the White House Conference. The TPC
    is the Federal Government's interagency coordinating committee on
    policies and programs that affect tourism development in this country.
        Question. What work is left to be done?
        Answer. The top two priorities of the WHCTT called for the
    structure and creation of an organization that would work to promote
    the United States abroad. Congress passed, and President Clinton
    signed, the U.S. National Tourism Organization Act of 1996 (22 U.S.C.
    Sec.  2141 et seq.), which established the U.S. National Tourism
    Organization (USNTO). The USNTO is privately managed and its activities
    are driven by the private sector. The organization's primary goal is to
    work for an increase in the U.S. share of the global tourism market.
    The Act, however, did not fund the USNTO and discussions on the funding
    issue are on-going within the industry and between the USNTO and
    members of Congress. As part of the cooperative approach set forth in
    the Act, the head of the USNTO sits on the TPC.
        The third top priority was for the Congress to fund current and
    future transportation needs adequately through the use of the
    transportation trust funds. Congress is currently considering
    reauthorization of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act
    (ISTEA). The Administration supports increased funding for
    transportation programs within the limits established by the balanced
    budget agreement.
        The WHCTT's fourth top priority was that Congress should make the
    Visa Waiver Pilot Program (VWPP) permanent. There are two bills
    currently in Congress that would extend the VWPP for up to three years.
    The Administration supports a multi-year extension, which would
    continue to ease entry for low risk travelers.
        The fifth priority called for Federal agencies to leverage
    technology to facilitate the process of travelers entering the United
    States. The Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) has expanded
    its use of ``alternative inspection systems'' that expedite entry into
    the United States without sacrificing border security. The INS uses
    computerized databases, scanning and biometric recognition, video
    telecommunication technologies (including INSPASS), remote video
    inspection, and dedicated commute lanes. The U.S. Customs Service and
    the INS have expanded their use of electronically transmitted passenger
    information to expedite the clearance of international passengers. As
    of August 1997, over 56 percent of required data checks are completed
    prior to passenger arrival through their Advanced Passenger Information
    System.
        The sixth priority called for the Department of Commerce to account
    accurately for the expansion of travel and tourism-related businesses
    in the new North American Standard Industry Classification System
    (NAICS) as a revision to the U.S. Standard Industrial Classification
    (SIC). OMB coordinated the creation of the NAICS; the Department of
    Commerce served on the revision committee. Through the participation of
    Tourism Industries of the Department of Commerce and representation of
    industry views to the committee, the NAICS does more accurately reflect
    travel and tourism related business activity.
        However, the more accurate tool for accounting for the economic
    activity of travel and tourism businesses is the Travel and Tourism
    Satellite Account (TTSA), which will show a complete picture of the
    industry's value to the national economy and was a recommendation also
    of the WHCTT. The Department of Commerce has begun development of the
    TTSA, but further funding is essential in order to complete it.
    President Clinton, in his fiscal year 1999 budget submission, has
    requested an additional $1 million for improving statistical research
    in international travel. Half of that amount, $500,000, would be
    devoted to completing the TTSA. The other $500,000 would be used to
    expand the respondent base for the In-Flight Survey of International
    Air Travelers, so that our data is more accurate.
        The seventh priority was to establish a nation-wide toll-free
    multilingual visitor emergency assistance hotline. Although the Federal
    Government is not involved in the development, installation, or
    maintenance of the system, specific TPC members have supported the
    concept of the toll-free system by recognizing its role in encouraging
    international visitation. The TPC has provided a letter to the private
    sector task force working on the development of the toll-free number
    which supports the concept of the hotline and provides guidelines for
    distributing information about the hotline along with the distribution
    of INS' and Customs' forms which international passengers receive
    before entry into the United States. The hotline is not yet
    operational, but we understand the private sector has been working on
    its development.
        The eighth priority called for the development, by a consortium, of
    a strategic plan for curriculum development. To our knowledge, the
    private sector has not yet convened the consortium on which the
    Departments of Labor and Education would serve under this priority.
        The ninth priority called for regional natural and cultural tourism
    summits. The Department of the Interior and the National Endowment for
    the Arts have participated in many such summits around the country,
    such as in Nevada, North Carolina, Missouri, Connecticut, Indiana,
    California, and Hawaii. A Memorandum of Understanding among nine
    Federal agencies established a cooperative framework that coordinates
    and supports this priority.
        The Administration has also been involved in implementing many of
    the other WHCTT recommendations, such as expanding the number of ``open
    skies'' aviation agreements and developing an electronic clearinghouse
    of data and information on travel and tourism available within the
    Federal Government. A report by the TPC on the Administration's
    activities is currently being cleared and will be submitted to
    Congress.
                            tourism data collection
        Question. The President's fiscal year 1999 budget includes a $1
    million increase to $3 million in the International Trade
    Administration's Trade Development budget to assist in implementing
    recommendations of the 1995 White House Conference on Travel and
    Tourism and to provide for the collection of comprehensive travel and
    tourism statistics. This is the good news. However, I understand that
    in fiscal year 1998 there is a shortfall in the ITA budget, and tourism
    statistics are on the line.
        The tourism industry relies on ITA data to market services from
    airline travel to destination marketing to retail advertising. How are
    you working to ensure data collection is not being compromised in
    fiscal year 1998, and how will this extra $1 million improve statistics
    collection, analysis, and dissemination in fiscal year 1999?
        Answer. The President's request for an additional $1 million for
    travel research would be evenly divided between the development of a
    permanent set of accounts for the Nation's Travel and Tourism Satellite
    Account (TTSA) and the expansion of the respondent base for the In-
    Flight Survey of International Air Travelers, the primary research
    program directly administered by Tourism Industries (TI) at the
    Department of Commerce.
        In addition to the INS I-94 database, the In-Flight Survey of
    International Air Travelers is the integral resource for BEA in
    configuring the national travel account for the balance of trade and
    the generation of the Gross Domestic Product. It also represents the
    only source of information for the travel and tourism industry, which
    includes states, cities and private sector suppliers. The information
    generated ranges from psychographic and demographic profiles, to
    economic impact analysis to trends and forecasts of international
    travel to and from the U.S.
        The respondent base for the In-Flight Survey only represents 0.2
    percent of the overseas and Mexican air travelers to the U.S. Though
    this is statistically acceptable for national estimated visitation
    numbers and trends, it restricts in-depth subgroup analysis for the
    majority of states and cities, which comprise the majority of users of
    our data. They, with the private sector, have taken over USTTA's
    responsibility of marketing the United States with the expectation, as
    set forth in the U.S. National Tourism Act, that the Federal Government
    would provide the statistical tools to allow them to efficiently plan
    promotional programs and measure the effectiveness of their efforts.
    International spending by states alone on tourism promotion is close to
    $20 million. An expanded respondent base will assist the Department to
    fulfill its mandate of providing comprehensive data for all levels of
    users, ensuring more export assistance for a broader base of small to
    medium-sized businesses and second-tier destinations. Increasing the
    base of this survey program also provides more accurate trade estimates
    by the BEA and the Tourism Industry (TI), thus, giving more credibility
    to economic impact tourism data.
        In fiscal year 1998, TI will continue its responsibility for the
    collection, analysis and dissemination of tourism statistics for the
    industry. The respondent base for the In-Flight Survey of International
    Air Travelers will drop from 95,000 respondents in 1997 to 69,000. This
    will create difficulties in fully meeting the needs of states and
    cities for in-depth analysis of overseas visitors to their destination.
        One important program that will continue in 1998 is the building of
    a TTSA. The TTSA will fulfill the responsibility to provide improved
    economic accountability on the impact of travel and tourism at the
    National, state and local levels as well as fulfill the recommendation
    from the White House Conference on Travel and Tourism and the 1998
    Strategic Plan for the Tourism Policy Council. This account will serve
    as the source for the industry's dialogues with policy makers and
    investors for this critical export by having a credible and
    standardized economic tool, a satellite account. A prototype of this
    account is being developed in fiscal year 1998 through a joint
    partnership with the BEA. In order to continue in fiscal year 1999 to
    accomplish a permanent set of accounts associated with our national
    system of accounts, it is estimated that computer development,
    expertise and additional information collection costs will be $500,000.
                               tourism marketing
        Question. The January 1998 report of the U.S. National Tourism
    Organization pointed out that the U.S. Government's financial
    contribution to promoting tourism falls well below that of our
    competitors. Even in 1993, more than 25 other national governments
    spent more promoting tourism, including tiny Jamaica, Bermuda, and
    Switzerland. Since the disbanding of the United States Travel and
    Tourism Administration, our tourism promotion budget has become
    practically non-existent. While the private sector spends $1 billion
    marketing tourism products abroad, I understand that the Visit USA
    program, the U.S. National Tourism Organization's program designed to
    market the United States as a destination, is still getting off the
    ground.
        How can the United States hold its place as the number two
    international tourism destination (behind France) without a national
    tourism marketing effort?
        Answer. The U.S. National Tourism Organization Act sets forth the
    spirit of a public/private partnership for the promotion of the United
    States as an international travel destination. Over $1 billion in 1996
    has already been invested by states, cities, and the private industry
    sectors to promote U.S. tourism products. The Federal Government has
    invested slightly over $2 million to fulfill its role in providing
    marketing and economic research statistics for the industry's decision
    making for international tourism investment. It is through the Federal
    investment in research that the $1 billion plus marketing investment
    can be targeted to provide the greatest return on investment to ensure
    the expansion of this export for the creation and support of U.S. jobs
    and economic development.
        Question. What is the Department of Commerce doing to market U.S.
    tourism abroad? What will the proposed $1 million in fiscal year 1999
    allow us to achieve?
        Answer. The proposed additional $1 million is directed at the
    improvement in the reliability and usefulness of the research and
    economic statistics vital to the market selection and policy decision
    making of the industry, states and cities. One-half of the proposed
    funding, $500,000, would be used to enhance the respondent base of the
    In-Flight Survey of International Air Travelers which serves as the
    critical tool for marketing decisions and investments. The expansion
    would enable more in-depth analysis for states and cities to understand
    market trends for refining their targeted international marketing
    efforts and to measure their return on investment. The other half of
    the funding, $500,000, would be used to finalize the development of the
    TTSA for accurately measuring the impact of the industry on the U.S.
    economy and job creation. This is important because at present there
    are challenges in providing credible data for clearly defining the
    enormous impact that travel and tourism, both domestic and
    international, has on the U.S. economy. These are natural growing pains
    as a manufacturing economy makes room for a growing services sector.
    For example, growing from a $26 billion industry in 1986 to a $90
    billion industry in 1996, travel and tourism's export contributions to
    the U.S. economy have grown 346 percent in the last decade. Travel and
    tourism represents the largest services export and the third largest
    export overall. To ensure that this impact and more is considered for
    policy makers and the accountability of a shifting economy, the
    investment in the permanent TTSA will: provide a national account to
    examine tourism as an economic phenomenon; offer national policy makers
    insights into tourism and the role it performs in their economies; and
    profile the size of tourism capital investment, and the means to
    analyze its link with tourism supply and job creation in local
    economies.
          national oceanic and atmospheric administration [noaa] corps
        Question. Secretary Daley, the Vice President's National
    Performance Review recommended abolishing the NOAA Corps in 1994. The
    Corps is the seventh uniformed service in the United States and these
    officers fly our hurricane and El Nino research aircraft and drive
    NOAA's ships. This proposal to dismantle the Corps seemed to be ill-
    conceived and by the Department's own analysis--it would not save
    anything.
        For the past several years, Congress has rejected this proposal.
    Nevertheless, the Department is not allowing any new Corps officers to
    be brought into the service. While we are refusing to dismantle the
    Corps, the Administration is ``de facto'' dismantling the Corps. The
    service is aging and morale is plummeting.
        Chairman Stevens and I have written to you urging the Department to
    allow the accession of new Corps officers. We haven't received a
    response. Are you willing to allow the accession of new Corps officers?
        Answer. NOAA has not recruited new officers for several years.
    Initially, the Corps' ranks were planned to be reduced by nearly 30
    percent between fiscal year 1994 and now as part of an overall agency
    streamlining effort. This personnel reduction reflects the downsizing
    of NOAA's fleet--from 22 ships in 1989 to 15 vessels today. NOAA
    management decided not to recruit new officers initially because of the
    streamlining plan and continued the hiring freeze because it was
    consistent with the proposed disestablishment of the Corps.
        While Congress considers the future of NOAA's uniformed service, I
    have asked NOAA management to evaluate further its personnel
    requirements and priorities for functions currently performed by the
    NOAA Corps. The purpose of this analysis is to identify the minimum
    number of staff required to operate the current fleet of NOAA's ships
    and aircraft and perform related functions essential to NOAA's mission
    such as hydrographic field surveys.
        The evaluation will allow NOAA to better determine its total
    personnel requirements for these functions and deploy the current
    complement of Corps officers to the highest priority positions. If this
    evaluation indicates a need for additional personnel in order to meet
    NOAA requirements, we will take steps to recruit the number of people
    required. We will be happy to brief you and other members once we have
    finished this analysis.
                                   noaa fleet
        Question. Mr. Secretary, I want to congratulate you for taking the
    action to continue the NOAA fleet. As I understand it, in the
    ``outyears'' or in long term budget projections, the Commerce budget
    includes $159 million for fisheries vessels. It is about time that we
    begin investing in infrastructure for the agency. As you know, this
    subcommittee fought to allow you to plan to modernize the fleet. The
    House wanted to bar you from even designing new vessels.
        Most NOAA vessels are nearing 30 years of age. It seems to me that
    NOAA is not going to be able to continue surveys of marine fisheries,
    marine mammals and endangered species if we don't make this investment
    in infrastructure. Do you agree?
        Answer. The Department agrees that replacement fisheries research
    capability will be required in the very near future if NOAA is to meet
    its marine fisheries, marine mammal, endangered species and habitat
    responsibilities. There are several recent developments concerning this
    subject. The National Research Council's 1997 review of NOAA's stock
    assessment process confirmed this by stating ``diminishing the quality
    of fishery-independent data by failing to modernize NOAA fishery
    research vessels could imperil existing and future data sets.'' A 1996
    NOAA contract study conducted by naval architects and a 1997 study by
    the Military Sealift Command at NOAA's behest have concluded that there
    are no existing vessels available based on NOAA criteria in the private
    sector or the university community that could meet NOAA's fisheries
    research requirements. However, a 1998 feasibility study for NOAA led
    by the Maritime Administration has confirmed that NOAA's vessel
    requirements can be feasibly met. Recently, NOAA asked Rear Admiral
    Craig Dorman, USN (Ret.) to review NOAA's fisheries research vessel
    requirements to ensure that only the essential needs for new vessels
    are being specified. This review and a current request to ship builders
    for cost information will assist NOAA in updating outyear budget
    estimates.
        NOAA is using the fiscal year 1998 money appropriated by Congress
    to minimize the risk of getting a vessel that does not meet our needs.
    The work includes developing specifications for the hull form and
    propeller that will ensure quietness and the necessary speed and
    pulling power, specifying the general arrangement of laboratories,
    sampling, propulsion, electrical equipment, and developing the
    solicitation materials.
        Question. Your testimony indicates that you might enter into long-
    term leases instead of building new NOAA vessels. Is there any analysis
    that this approach makes economic sense?
        Answer. NOAA has revised its economic model for Fisheries Research
    Vessels acquisitions, taking into account current and likely interest
    and taxation rates. Using output from this model and other data, NOAA
    will determine the most cost effective method of gathering fisheries
    data, whether it be via NOAA-owned and operated ships, leases, charters
    or a combination of these methods. The Department will use this
    information as it formulates future budget requests, ensuring that the
    most efficient method of gathering fisheries data will be employed.
        Vessels which can support both trawling and environmental data
    collection will likely have no other use without a refitting, so
    leasing terms in instances where vessels have specific missions would
    have to be long enough to amortize the cost of the vessel. As such,
    legislation would have to be enacted to allow for leases of ten years
    or more.
                                  awips again
        Question. Let me ask one last NOAA question, the National Weather
    Service's AWIPS program forecasting and communications system has been
    plagued with development, cost, and schedule problems since we started
    in 1992. It seems to me that in the last year we have made a tremendous
    amount of progress, but there are new cost containment issues in
    software development and deployment costs. What are the options you are
    considering? If you certify and deploy a system at the $550 million
    cost cap, will it be sufficiently capable? If you deploy the system
    now, can we expect the National Weather Service to upgrade the system
    with planned product improvement?
        Answer. The program plan we are proposing results in the most cost-
    effective outcome for achieving required capabilities, while complying
    with legislation. The National Weather Service (NWS) will deliver AWIPS
    to all planned locations with sufficient capability to replace primary
    existing systems within the $550 million cap (Build 4). Build 4
    includes initial Interactive Forecast Preparation to support public and
    aviation forecasts and to automate NOAA Weather Radio broadcasts,
    hydrologic prediction system for river basins, some service backup and
    site system monitoring, partial NEXRAD workstation functionality, and
    initial integration of local data acquisition and dissemination
    systems. Significant field staffing reductions (106 positions) are
    achievable and sustainable with these capabilities. Under this plan,
    deployment would be accelerated so that all planned sites would be
    installed by June 1999 with complete Build 4 capability.
        We will have an independent assessment conducted of proposed
    requirements beyond software Build 4.2, to ensure that any further
    development is cost effective and/or operationally required to perform
    the mission of the NWS. This we will do under planned product
    improvement/systems evolution. This independent assessment will be
    completed by August 31, 1998.

                              subcommittee recess

        Senator Gregg. With that, the subcommittee stands in recess
    until tomorrow at 10 a.m. when we will have testimony from the
    National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the Small
    Business Administration.
        [Whereupon, at 10:44 a.m., Wednesday, March 4, the
    subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene at 10 a.m., Thursday,
    March 5.]

    DEPARTMENTS OF COMMERCE, JUSTICE, AND STATE, THE JUDICIARY, AND RELATED
                  AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 1999

                                  ----------

                            THURSDAY, MARCH 5, 1998

                                           U.S. Senate,
               Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The subcommittee met at 10 a.m., in room S-146, the
    Capitol, Hon. Judd Gregg (chairman) presiding.
        Present: Senators Gregg, Stevens, Domenici, and Hollings.

                             DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

                National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

    STATEMENT OF D. JAMES BAKER, UNDER SECRETARY FOR OCEANS
                AND ATMOSPHERE
    ACCOMPANIED BY:
            TERRY D. GARCIA, ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR OCEANS AND ATMOSPHERE
            ANDREW H. MOXAM, ACTING CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

                                opening remarks

        Senator Gregg. Will the Subcommittee on Commerce, State,
    and Justice convene? We are going to hear from NOAA on their
    thoughts about their budget. Do you have any opening statement?
        Senator Hollings. No, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Gregg. Do you have any opening statement Senator
    Domenici?
        Senator Domenici. No, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Gregg. So we will turn to you. Give us your ideas.
        Dr. Baker. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will make this brief.
    Thank you for the opportunity to testify on the President's
    1999 budget request.
        I am accompanied by Terry Garcia, who is our Deputy
    Administrator, Bill Mehuron, our Acting Deputy Under Secretary,
    and Andy Moxam, who is our Acting Chief Financial Officer.
        Let me state up front that it is simply because of
    investments that have been supported by this subcommittee that
    NOAA has become a leader in weather and climate research and
    forecasts, environmental monitoring and research, ocean
    management, fisheries management, and sustainable use of the
    coast.
        We think we have a good budget and it represents an
    appropriate balance among environmental assessment, prediction,
    and stewardship needs of the Nation. And I think the best
    example of what we have done recently comes from the value of
    the forecasts of the 1997, 1998 El Nino, which really worked
    very well.
        We continue to see El Nino effects. We expect to see them
    through March and April, and then in May and June we expect
    that we will go back to normal conditions.
        The El Nino reminds us of the importance of the ocean to
    the weather and climate system. In recognition of this
    importance, the United Nations has declared 1998 to be the year
    of the ocean. NOAA has planned a year long series of events to
    remind us of the value of oceans in our daily lives, and is
    leading the Federal interagency effort to review the status of
    ocean-related problems.
        Legislation has been introduced in Congress by Senator
    Hollings that highlights the importance of the ocean and sets
    up a commission to review future oceans policy. We strongly
    support that congressional action, and I would like to thank
    Senator Hollings for his interest and his commitment to these
    important issues.
        Senator Hollings. Thank you, sir.

                               Year of the ocean

        Dr. Baker. The year of the ocean presents NOAA with a
    chance to educate more Americans than ever before on the
    tremendous importance and fragility of our Nation's oceans,
    coastal and Great Lakes resources, and to highlight the role
    that NOAA plays in the Federal Government.
        Other ocean issues have been in the news this year,
    highlighting the contributions that NOAA makes. For example,
    the biological consequences of polluted runoff is increasingly
    seen in many coastal areas. We have seen the effects through
    last year's outbreak of pfiesteria, in harmful algal blooms,
    red tides, brown tides, hypoxia, and dead zones in the Gulf of
    Mexico--all of which have significant economic consequences.
        Because of the support of this committee to this important
    topic, NOAA is now playing a key role in the interagency effort
    to assist the State and coastal communities in assessing,
    monitoring, and responding to harmful algal bloom outbreaks.
        Another important success is NOAA's pioneering use of the
    flexibility in the Endangered Species Act to work cooperatively
    with States--with Oregon and Maine--to develop new ways to
    develop conservation plans for salmon that avoid Federal
    listing of the species.
        We will continue to work with the States to find innovative
    approaches for carrying out our trustee responsibilities.

                                    Overview

        Our total 1999 request is $2.117 billion in new budget
    authority. It is a net increase of $123.5 million over the 1998
    enacted level. It allows us to perform an essential role in a
    number of interagency and Presidential initiatives, including
    the natural disaster reduction initiative, the President's
    clean water initiative, the south Florida ecosystem restoration
    initiative, and the National Oceanographic Partnership Program.
        Significant changes in our 1999 budget include $33.6
    million to implement statutory requirements to restore
    America's fisheries, protect marine species that are faced with
    extinction, and preserve habitat important to living marine
    resources.
        We have not requested new funds for oceanographic vessels
    in fiscal year 1999, but we do have an agreement with the
    Office of Management and Budget for four new fishery vessels,
    the first of which would start in the year 2000. And we have
    some planning money in our budget for that beginning activity.
        That is a major step for us, to convince the Office of
    Management and Budget that we should move ahead on fishery--I
    should say vessel replacement for NOAA, not just fishery
    vessel.
        We have $22 million for the clean water initiative, which
    will help provide research and management to address polluted
    runoff, ranging from pfiesteria to harmful algal blooms, and
    general issues of pollution, the nonpoint source pollution
    issue which is a major source of pollution in coastal waters
    today. And we have $5 million for the administration's south
    Florida ecosystem initiative.
        We will also continue to chart the Nation's coastal waters,
    including the continued reduction of the critical backlog for
    hydrographic surveys, in providing precise positioning
    information throughout the GPS system to mariners.
        We have $55 million as our part of the interagency natural
    disaster reduction initiative, pulling together the NOAA
    activities to provide a better job of getting weather warnings
    and forecasts out to the public.
        The remainder of our budget supports advanced hydrologic
    predictions, improved regional scale weather prediction,
    replacement of the obsolete radiosonde upper air monitoring
    network, some new research relating to ozone and air
    particulate standards that EPA can use, as well as work on
    coastal hazards, risk atlases for coastal areas, and research
    into harmful algal blooms.
        For NOAA's environmental satellites, our 1999 funding will
    insure that our GOES and our polar orbiting satellite programs
    will be continued. We have an increase of $153 million from the
    enacted level for acquisition of our GOES N-Q spacecraft. The
    competition in that program has led us to a savings of close to
    $500 million over our original estimates.
        We have an additional $65 million required to meet NOAA's
    commitment to share development costs with the Department of
    Defense for our national polar orbiting operational satellite
    system, an increase of about $30 million over last year. But
    this is where we have saved a lot of money by pulling together
    both the defense and the civil programs into a single program.
        In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I want to note that more than
    in most years we have seen the dramatic impact of weather and
    climate changes on the economy and the safety of the world, and
    we have begun to see, I think, in an important way the role of
    the ocean.

                               prepared statement

        Our contributions for water, climate, and fisheries
    management issues have been in the news more than ever. Our
    technology services, resource management capabilities, and
    dedicated people have performed very well.
        We believe that our 1999 request will help insure the
    continued delivery of these essential services. Thank you.
        [The statement follows:]
                    Prepared Statement of Dr. D. James Baker
                                  introduction
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the Subcommittee, for this
    opportunity to testify on the President's fiscal year 1999 Budget
    Request for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
    As America moves into the 21st century, our domestic security and
    global competitiveness will depend on the types of capabilities,
    services and products delivered by NOAA. In a period of strongly
    competing government priorities, the President's fiscal year 1999
    Budget Request for NOAA demonstrates the Agency's important
    contributions by providing the resources to maintain essential
    services, ensure continuing progress in critical investment areas, and
    address statutory obligations. This proposed budget represents an
    appropriate balance among the environmental assessment, prediction and
    stewardship needs of the Nation. I am accompanied today by Terry
    Garcia, Assistant Secretary for Oceans and Atmosphere; William O.
    Mehuron, Acting Deputy Under Secretary for Oceans and Atmosphere and
    Andy Moxam, Acting Chief Financial Officer/Chief Administrative
    Officer.
        In recognition of how important the ocean is to us all, the United
    Nations has declared 1998 as the Year of the Ocean. As the only
    government agency with ``ocean'' in its name, NOAA is pleased that the
    challenges of caring for our ocean and coastal waters and the benefits
    the Nation reaps from them are being highlighted throughout the year.
    Our ocean and coastal waters are vital to America's economic well
    being. One-third of the U.S. Gross Domestic Product is derived from
    coastal counties. The number of people who depend on our shores for
    sustenance is increasing with over half of our population living within
    50 miles of the coast. Roughly 95 percent by weight of all U.S. foreign
    trade is transported by water and passes through our ports and 85
    percent of all tourism dollars are received in the coastal states.
    Living marine resources are vital to many coastal areas. The commercial
    fishing industry, for example, harvested $3.5 billion worth of fish in
    1996, and recreational fishermen took an estimated 64 million fishing
    trips.
        Although the economic significance of our ocean and coastal
    resources is indisputable, a growing body of evidence alarmingly
    indicates that our oceans and Great Lakes are threatened. Many of our
    commercial and recreational fisheries are over-fished. In addition,
    polluted runoff is being connected to deadly and dangerous algal blooms
    such as Pfiesteria, and red tides producing paralytic shellfish
    poisoning and other poisons, all of which threaten our coastal
    communities.
        The Year of the Ocean presents NOAA with a chance to educate more
    Americans than ever before on the tremendous importance and fragility
    of our Nation's ocean, coastal and Great Lake resources.
                                 the noaa role
        The Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) of 1993 requires
    that agencies develop strategic plans that contain goals, objectives,
    and performance measures for all major programs. The Department of
    Commerce (DOC) has embarked on an effort to capitalize on the synergy
    between DOC programs, and to implement a strategic plan which
    enunciates a central mission statement and links our programs together.
    The Commerce Strategic Plan, issued in September 1997, has three
    strategic themes. They are:
        Theme 1.--Build for the future and promote U.S. competitiveness in
    the global marketplace, by strengthening and safeguarding the Nation's
    economic infrastructure;
        Theme 2.--Keep America competitive with cutting-edge science and
    technology and an unrivaled information base; and,
        Theme 3.--Provide effective management and stewardship of the
    Nation's resources and assets to ensure sustainable economic
    opportunities.
        As part of the Department of Commerce, NOAA's mission is to
    describe and predict changes in the Earth's environment, and to
    conserve and manage the nation's coastal and marine resources to ensure
    sustainable economic opportunities. NOAA conducts research to develop
    new technologies, improve operations, and supply the scientific basis
    for managing natural resources and solving environmental problems.
    NOAA's comprehensive system for acquiring observations--from satellites
    and radars to ships and submersibles--provides the quality data and
    information needed for the safe conduct of daily life and the basic
    functioning of a modern society. Common end products and services
    include weather warnings and forecasts, climate observations and
    predictions, environmental technologies, marine fisheries statistics,
    nautical charts, assessments of environmental changes, and hazardous
    materials response information. These capabilities, products and
    services support the domestic security and global competitiveness of
    the United States, and affect the lives of nearly every citizen every
    day.
        With its public and private partners, NOAA is a leader in climate
    diagnostic research and forecasts, environmental monitoring and
    research, fisheries management, and sustainable use of the coast. Most
    recently, NOAA demonstrated its scientific preeminence by the
    successful advance forecast of the 1997/1998 El Nino and the provision
    of global climate change information to policymakers at the U.N.
    climate conference in Kyoto, Japan. In fulfilling NOAA's key trustee
    responsibilities for marine resources, NOAA has taken a number of
    important steps to ensure the recovery of overfished species, such as
    the New England groundfish. NOAA is also pioneering innovative federal-
    state partnerships through the Endangered Species Act to recover marine
    species at risk. NOAA has played a key role in developing a national
    strategy for Harmful Algal Blooms and in Federal efforts to assist the
    states and coastal communities in assessing, monitoring, preventing,
    and responding to harmful algal bloom outbreaks such as Pfiesteria,
    red, and brown tides.
        NOAA's strategic planning process defines and validates its
    business activities, guides the development of operating plans, and
    forms the basis for management decisions. The Strategic Plan provides
    the framework for articulating and organizing the agency's goals and
    work objectives. NOAA's goals for the future will enhance opportunities
    for our citizens, the health of the U.S. economy, the protection of our
    environment, and the sustainable use of our natural resources.
        The challenge of investing strategically in the Nation's future is
    accompanied by the requirement to be more effective, to identify and
    realize opportunities for savings and to focus the efforts of
    Government on what matters to people. Performance is what counts, and
    the fiscal year 1999 budget includes measures which track results to
    the level of investment. Success in this changing world increasingly
    will depend on partnerships with business and industry, universities,
    state and local governments, and international partners. NOAA will
    continue to develop partnerships to leverage resources and talent, and
    provide the means for meeting program requirements more effectively.
                   highlights of the fiscal year 1999 budget
        To ensure the continued delivery of essential services, technology
    and science to the Nation, NOAA's total fiscal year 1999 request is
    $2.117 billion in new budget authority. This request provides the
    resources needed for NOAA to achieve its mission. This request also
    allows NOAA to perform an essential role in a number of interagency and
    Presidential initiatives, including, the Natural Disaster Reduction
    Initiative, the President's Clean Water Initiative, the South Florida
    Ecosystem Restoration Initiative, and the National Oceanographic
    Partnership Program. Significant changes in the fiscal year 1999 budget
    include:
      --$28.3 million (as part of the interagency Natural Disaster
            Reduction Initiative (NDRI)) to maintain the National Weather
            Service operational infrastructure and ensure the provision of
            weather warnings and forecasts to the public, consistent with
            the recommendations contained in a study conducted by John F.
            Kelly, BGD/Gen (Ret), An Assessment of the Fiscal Requirements
            to Operate the Modernized National Weather Service during
            Fiscal Years 1998 and 1999. Additional increases for NDRI
            include $4.2 million for the Advanced Hydrologic Prediction
            System (AHPS), a real-time modeling and data analysis system
            which will significantly improve flood forecasting and water
            management in the U.S.; $3.4 million to continue the
            replacement of the currently obsolete radiosonde upper air
            monitoring network; $1 million for the Health of the Atmosphere
            program which will answer key science questions associated with
            proposed lower ozone and particulate matter standards now under
            consideration by the Environmental Protection Agency; $1.5
            million for the Damage Assessment and Restoration Program
            (DARP) to fulfill NOAA's legislative mandates and public
            trusteeship responsibilities for coastal and marine resources;
            $1 million for research dealing with coastal hazards such as
            harmful algal blooms and the growing hypoxic ``dead'' zone in
            the Gulf of Mexico; $5 million to lease or purchase a massively
            parallel processing computer for NOAA's Forecast System
            Laboratory to improve national and regional-scale weather
            prediction models; and $1.4 million to expand work with coastal
            states in developing risk atlases. In total, NOAA's request
            includes $55 million for important new activities to reduce the
            cost of natural hazards.
      --$33.6 million to continue the Administration's commitment to
            restore the wealth of American's fisheries, protect marine
            species faced with extinction, and conserve habitat important
            to living marine resources through the implementation of NOAA's
            management and research obligations under the Magnuson-Stevens
            Fishery Conservation and Management Act, Endangered Species
            Act, Marine Mammal Protection Act, and other authorities.
            Meeting these commitments will require additional resources to
            manage effectively the Nation's billion dollar commercial
            fisheries and the marine recreational fisheries enjoyed by
            millions around the country.
      --A total of $22 million for the Clean Water Initiative. These funds
            provide the necessary resources to meet both the scientific and
            management needs to address polluted run-off, the major source
            of pollution in coastal waters today. The biological
            consequences of polluted runoff problems can be seen in many
            coastal areas and include the increase in harmful algal blooms,
            Pfiesteria, red and brown tides, as well as hypoxia in the Gulf
            of Mexico. The economic consequences of polluted run-off are
            significant. Last year for example in the Chesapeake Bay, $40
            million was lost to the local economy because of the Pfiesteria
            outbreak. It is estimated that over $1 billion has been lost
            during the past decade because of harmful algal blooms. Of the
            $22 million requested, $12 million is included in the Coastal
            Zone Management program to support state efforts to address
            polluted run-off; $9 million is for scientific research and
            monitoring of harmful algal blooms, including Pfiesteria; and
            $1 million is to address toxic pollution through the Coastal
            Resource Coordinators program.
      --$153.4 million is requested for NESDIS to continue to ensure
            continuous Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellite
            (GOES) and Polar-orbiting satellite coverage, including
            environmental observing services. This increase is primarily
            for acquisition of GOES N-Q spacecraft which contract was
            awarded to Hughes in February 1998. An additional $64.7 (an
            increase of $30.7 million over the 1998 enacted levels) is
            required to meet NOAA's commitment to share development costs
            with the Department of Defense for the National Polar-orbiting
            Operational Environmental Satellite System (NPOESS).
      --$5.1 million to support $2.6 million in ongoing activities (NOS/
            Coastal Ocean Science $1.3 million; NMFS $1.3 million) and $2.5
            million for new contributions (NOS/ORCA $1.9 million; NMFS $0.6
            million) to the Administration's South Florida Ecosystem
            Restoration Initiative. The South Florida Initiative is an
            integrated effort among federal, tribal, state and non-
            governmental partners to halt the degradation and restore the
            function of the South Florida ecosystem. NOAA supports the only
            portion of the South Florida Initiative exclusively devoted to
            restoring and protecting the coastal and marine portions of the
            South Florida ecosystem.
      --$4 million needed to improve our understanding of climate and air
            quality and provide the scientific basis for national policy
            decisions in key environmental areas. This request also
            includes $2 million for the Climate and Global Change program
            to augment current efforts to develop regionally specific
            seasonal-to-interannual climate modeling and prediction over
            North America, and to improve the definition of sources and
            sinks of atmospheric carbon dioxide. The request also includes
            an increase of $1 million to continue the Administration's
            support for the Global Learning and Observations to Benefit the
            Environment (GLOBE) program.
        Highlights of the request are presented, as follows, in the context
    of the NOAA Strategic Plan with an emphasis on the major operational
    units and programs contributing to the strategic goals. NOAA's
    Strategic Plan describes the goals and objectives that have been
    established to achieve its vision. The Strategy consists of seven
    interrelated goals that are grouped into two missions, Environmental
    Assessment and Prediction and Environmental Stewardship. Resources for
    program administration, acquisition of data, aircraft services, and
    supporting infrastructure are included in the total request for each
    strategic goal.
                    environmental assessment and prediction
        Advancing Short-Term Warning and Forecast Services.--To provide
    significantly improved short-term warning and forecast products and
    services that enhance public safety and the economic productivity of
    the Nation.
        The Nation continued to experience the benefits associated with the
    weather service modernization in fiscal year 1997. Improvements in the
    accuracy and timeliness of severe weather and natural hazards event
    warnings and forecasts are directly linked to modernized technologies,
    such as Next Generation Weather Radars (NEXRAD), new and improved
    weather satellites. Deployment of the Advanced Weather Interactive
    Processing System (AWIPS) around the country is the cornerstone of
    modernization. These improvements have been attributed to saving lives
    and reducing the impacts of natural disasters. For example:
      --Record flooding occurred in the Upper Midwest, Ohio Valley and the
            Pacific Northwest during fiscal year 1997. Flood potential
            statements were issued by the National Weather Service (NWS)
            eight weeks in advance of the Upper Midwest Flooding and three
            to seven days in advance of the Pacific Northwest flooding.
            NWS's success was pointed out by the headline in the December
            31, 1996, Seattle Times ``NWS Forecasters Hit Bulls-Eye
            Twice.'' Using rainfall estimates provided by the state-of-the-
            art Doppler weather surveillance radar, meteorologists were
            able to pinpoint the location and movement of intense rain
            cells and provide timely and accurate flood warnings.
      --In addition, tornado outbreaks in Arkansas and Texas resulted in
            over 50 deaths and extensive property damage. However, the use
            of advanced remote sensing technologies and Doppler radar
            allowed NWS forecasters to issue tornado warnings with lead
            times from 18-32 minutes, minimizing the loss of life.
        NOAA requests $1,325 million to address this strategic goal, a net
    increase of $175 million over the amount enacted for fiscal year 1998.
    NOAA accomplishes this goal primarily through the efforts of the
    National Weather Service (NWS), the National Environmental Satellite,
    Data and Information Service (NESDIS) and the Office of Oceanic and
    Atmospheric Research (OAR).
        For the NWS, the request provides $489.3 million for operations and
    research, a net increase of $34.8 million from the 1998 enacted levels.
    This includes $28.3 million to implement the budgets and associated
    program activities recommended in the study conducted by John J. Kelly,
    BGD/Gen (Ret). In addition, NOAA requests $152.8 million, a net
    decrease of $32.9 million, for major systems acquisition supporting the
    modernization. Within the total amount for NWS operations, an increase
    of $4.2 million is requested to initiate the national implementation of
    Advanced Hydrologic Prediction System (AHPS), a real-time modeling and
    data analysis system which will significantly improve flood forecasting
    and water management in the U.S. Within the total amount for systems
    acquisition, the NWS requests $67.7 million for continued acquisition
    and deployment of the Advanced Weather Interactive Processing System
    (AWIPS), a decrease of $49.2 million over the 1998 enacted levels.
        This request provides $502.6 million for NESDIS, to ensure
    continuous Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellite (GOES) and
    Polar-orbiting satellite coverage including environmental observing
    services, an increase of $153.4 million from the fiscal year 1998
    enacted levels. This increase is primarily for acquisition of GOES N-Q
    spacecraft, the contract for which was awarded to Hughes in February
    1998.
        An additional $64.7 million is required to meet NOAA's commitment
    to share development costs with the Department of Defense for the
    National Polar-orbiting Operational Environmental Satellite System
    (NPOESS), an increase of $30.7 million over fiscal year 1998.
        This request provides OAR a total of $52.7 million, a net decrease
    of $3.5 million from the 1998 enacted levels, to advance the science of
    weather forecasting over land, sea, and space and to improve weather-
    related observing technologies. Many of these activities are key
    components of the interagency NDRI, which will improve the Nation's
    resiliency to extreme natural events.
        Implementing Seasonal to Interannual Climate Forecasts.--To
    increase society's ability to mitigate economic losses and social
    disruption by working together with academic and multinational
    partners, in order to issue monthly and seasonal probability outlooks
    for temperature and rainfall for up to a year in advance.
      --During fiscal year 1997, NOAA successfully forecasted, with six
            months lead time, the 1997/1998 El Nino. NOAA worked in
            partnership with agencies having El Nino emergency
            preparedness/response responsibilities, including the Federal
            Emergency Management Agency, the Agency for International
            Development, and state and local authorities.
      --Continuing progress was also made by NOAA towards operational
            status of the ENSO observing system, including the TOGA/TAO
            buoy array, to monitor waters of the Pacific for the signs of
            an emerging El Nino.
      --Positive skill was achieved in forecasting seasonal U.S.
            temperature for 15 out of the last 17 monthly forecasts.
        NOAA requests $105.4 million to address this strategic goal, a net
    decrease of $0.5 million from the amount enacted in fiscal year 1998.
    This goal will be accomplished primarily through the efforts of the
    NOAA Climate and Global Change (C&GC) Program, the OAR Environmental
    Research Laboratories (ERL's), NESDIS, and the NWS National Centers for
    Environmental Prediction.
        This request provides $59.9 million for OAR and the Office of
    Global Programs for a number of seasonal-to-interannual activities.
    Part of these funds will be used to maintain the El Nino-Southern
    Oscillation (ENSO) observing system on an operational basis, to provide
    essential measurement for skillful forecasts of the ENSO phenomenon.
    This $59.9 million includes $4.9 million for NOAA to capitalize on its
    investments to understand and predict climate variations on seasonal to
    interannual timescales in: (1) essential research for understanding
    climate variability, and using this understanding for improved
    forecasts (2) expanded ocean/climate observations, (3) improved and
    expanded international climate predictions and application, and (4)
    improved understanding of regional impacts in the United States. NOAA
    requests an additional $2 million in fiscal year 1999 to expand climate
    assessment activities, particularly in the area of regional
    applications for North America.
        The request includes $4.7 million for NWS climate prediction
    activities including monitoring global climate variability, forecasting
    El Nino variability, and forecasting U.S. seasonal temperature and
    precipitation variability.
        This request also contains $37.2 million for continued operation of
    NOAA's three National environmental data centers, including the
    development of the NOAA Virtual Data System and a program to rescue
    valuable aging environmental data.
        Predict and Assess Decadal to Centennial Changes.--In the global
    environment, specifically for: climate change and greenhouse warming,
    ozone layer depletion, and air quality improvement.
        NOAA continues to make progress in understanding and documenting
    decadal to centennial climate changes. NOAA is providing major
    scientific input and leadership to the Intergovernmental Panel on
    Climate Change (IPCC), the World Meteorological Organization (WMO),
    United Nation's Environment Programme (UNEP), and North American
    Research Strategy for Tropospheric Ozone (NARSTO).
      --During 1997, NOAA scientists provided preparatory input to and
            served as the science advisor for the U.S. delegation at the
            Third Meeting of the IPCC in Kyoto, Japan (December 1997).
      --In fiscal year 1997, NOAA improved the representation of the oceans
            in coupled climate prediction models and improved understanding
            of the role of the oceans in the carbon cycle.
      --NOAA also produced the first reliable record of decadal changes in
            North American water vapor, which is a key component of the
            radiation balance in the climate system.
        NOAA requests $86.9 million to address this strategic goal, a net
    decrease of $1.2 million from the amount enacted for fiscal year 1998.
    This goal will be accomplished largely through the efforts of the NOAA
    Climate and Global Change Program and the Office of Oceanic and
    Atmospheric Research (OAR).
        NOAA's OAR requests a total of $71.9 million for this goal, which
    includes increases of $1 million for GLOBE and $1 million for the
    Health of the Atmosphere program.
        In fiscal year 1999, the increase in NOAA's Health of the
    Atmosphere research program will be concentrated on providing the
    scientific basis for improved air quality. Base funding in this area
    includes characterizing rural ozone episodes and making needed upgrades
    to critical air quality monitoring networks.
        The fiscal year 1999 increase will also allow a new focus on the
    science needed for decisions associated with the recent rulings on new
    lower U.S. ozone and fine particulate matter standards, including
    measurements, modeling, defining chemical composition, and regional
    transport of ozone and fine particulate matter. Also included is a net
    decrease of $3.2 million for program reductions, terminations and
    distributed infrastructure changes.
        Promote Safe Navigation.--By working to revolutionize U.S. marine
    navigation, mapping and surveying, and to provide a precise satellite-
    derived reference system as the basis for the Nation's 21st Century
    positioning needs.
      --During 1997, NOAA's National Ocean Service (NOS) produced 338 new
            editions of nautical charts, set the stage for private sector
            partnerships to update nautical surveys, installed 194 Federal
            Base Network stations and 28 continuously operating reference
            stations that will form the basic positional framework for the
            Nation's future spatial data infrastructure, and entered into a
            cooperative agreement to research, develop and implement a
            commercially viable national Physical Oceanographic Real-Time
            System (PORTS) project.
      --In addition, NOAA tested Global Positioning System (GPS) technology
            designed to measure real-time under-vessel clearance for ships
            to help prevent groundings. NOAA also evaluated new technology
            to improve the efficiency of shoreline mapping for nautical
            charts and other coastal geographical needs.
        NOAA is preparing a report that responds to three requests
    contained in the conference report accompanying fiscal year 1998
    appropriations. NOAA was requested to address the future of its
    hydrographic fleet, mechanisms and alternatives to maintain a core set
    of capabilities, and a plan to acquire not less than 50 percent of its
    hydrographic services from the private sector by fiscal year 1999. The
    plan, currently under review, will focus on those three issues. NOAA
    distributed a draft copy of the plan to the navigation community and
    held a meeting with interested constituents on January 29th. The
    purpose of the meeting was to obtain the navigation community's input
    and views on the draft plan. We have incorporated their comments into
    the plan, which is undergoing final review.
        A more comprehensive analysis of the nautical charting program was
    presented to this subcommittee last spring. It analyzed the surveying,
    charting, and water level programs; and provided options for reducing
    the survey backlog. The continual maintenance policy for the nautical
    chart suite mentioned in that testimony has been implemented. Also, the
    Coast Guard is conducting tests of NOAA's digital raster charts and we
    are hopeful the Coast Guard will deem this product as a suitable
    supplement to using paper charts. Finally, NOAA's implementation of
    vector format data for major ports and harbors is on schedule for
    delivery in December of this year.
        NOAA requests $86.2 million to address this strategic goal, a net
    decrease of $6.6 million from the amount enacted for fiscal year 1998.
    This goal will be accomplished largely through NOS mapping, charting,
    geodesy, and tide and current observation subactivities. NOS requests
    $50.9 million to acquire hydrographic data, update nautical surveys,
    and deliver digital nautical charting databases, a decrease of $5.3
    million from the fiscal year 1998 enacted levels. This funding will
    allow the continued reduction of the critical survey backlog.
        NOS requires $11 million to acquire oceanographic data and to make
    available marine predictions and advanced oceanographic observations
    systems important to pilots and port authorities, a decrease of $0.4
    million from 1998. NOS requests $19.2 million to provide a national
    spatial reference system that utilizes the GPS for navigation and
    positioning, a decrease of $1.5 million from 1998. This funding will
    bring 20 more Continuously Operating Reference Stations (CORS) online,
    making the CORS System 75 percent complete.
        The fiscal year 1999 proposed appropriation establishes authority
    to collect fees to begin to offset costs associated with providing
    navigation services. A proposal for the fee is being developed in
    conjunction with the U.S. Coast Guard and is estimated to offset the
    overall NOAA budget authority and appropriation by $2.5 million in
    fiscal year 1999.
                           environmental stewardship
        Build Sustainable Fisheries.--To increase the Nation's wealth and
    quality of life through sustainable fisheries that support fishing
    industry jobs, safe and wholesome foods, and recreational
    opportunities.
      --During fiscal year 1997, NOAA continued to provide national
            leadership to maintain and improve the health of U.S.
            fisheries. NOAA has made good progress toward assessing the
            status of fishery stocks through numerous surveys and technical
            reviews.
      --In addition, NOAA advanced fishery predictions through research on
            multi-species modeling changes and in the ocean climate and
            predator-prey dynamics that also address global ecosystems.
      --NOAA has also implemented harvest capacity reduction programs, and
            reduced capacity by 19 percent in the New England groundfish
            fishery through a buy-back program.
      --NOAA developed, after extensive public comment, proposed and
            interim final essential fish habitat guidelines to the Fishery
            Management Councils in accordance with the requirements of the
            Magnuson-Stevens Act.
        NOAA requests $327.9 million to address this strategic goal, a net
    decrease of $32.3 million from the amount enacted for fiscal year 1998.
    NOAA's National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), the Office of Oceanic
    and Atmospheric Research (OAR) and the National Ocean Service (NOS)
    have primary responsibility for accomplishing this goal.
        Within this amount NMFS' request is $258.4 million which includes:
    $9 million in base program restorations and increases to expand the
    collection, evaluation, and dissemination of fisheries data including
    the development of strategies for bycatch reduction; an increase of
    $8.1 million is requested for fisheries management programs under the
    provision of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management
    Act, including funding for Regional Fishery Management Councils and
    NMFS to develop and amend fishery management plans to end overfishing
    and rebuild stocks, implement the new national standards, include
    essential fish habitat identifications, and meet other requirements; an
    increase of $1.5 million specifically for implementation of the
    Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act's National
    Standard 8 requirements for additional economic data; $0.9 million in
    additional funds to improve at-sea and shoreside compliance; and funds
    to provide grants and other assistance for fisheries development
    programs.
        To accomplish this goal, OAR requests $25.8 million in the Sea
    Grant Program, National Undersea Research Program (NURP), and marine
    environmental research to: improve technologies for tracking and
    estimating aquatic biomass; advance aquaculture and economic growth
    initiatives; apply new computing techniques; and provide for other
    research activities including in-situ undersea research. In addition,
    NOS requests $9.2 million to strengthen abilities to assess and predict
    natural and human-induced changes and their impact on fisheries health,
    including funds for NOAA to continue participating in the Global
    Ecosystem Dynamics project (GLOBEC) in the northwest Atlantic. The
    request also includes an increase of $0.6 million for NOAA's Ecology
    and Oceanography of Harmful Algal Blooms (ECOHAB) research program to
    improve prediction and control of this coastal threat.
        The fiscal year 1999 request includes proposed appropriation
    language to authorize the collection of user fees to begin to offset
    costs associated with providing fisheries research, management, and
    enforcement. A proposal for the fees is being developed, and receipts
    will be collected from fees assessed on landings of commercial
    fishermen in the U.S. The $19.8 million in estimated fees will be used
    to offset the overall NOAA budget authority and appropriation in fiscal
    year 1999.
        Although no new funds are requested for new vessels in fiscal year
    1999, funds to acquire replacement fisheries research vessel capacity
    are planned for future budget requests in fiscal year 2000-2003. NOAA's
    National Marine Fisheries Service requires new fisheries research
    vessels to replace the existing research fleet that has an average age
    of 34 years. These ships do not meet accepted international standards
    for acoustic quietness, an important factor in determining fish
    populations and setting fishery management quotas.
        NOAA is presently using several approaches to collect marine data
    with ships. For oceanographic and atmospheric data, NOAA is using three
    agency ships and outsourcing arrangements with UNOLS. For nautical
    charting data, NOAA is using three agency ships and contracts with
    private industry. For fisheries stock assessment and research and
    marine mammal research, NOAA is using nine agency ships and outsourcing
    arrangements with private industry. NOAA expects to continue this
    approach for the next several years while expanding the amount of
    charting data collected by private industry.
        Recover Protected Species.--To conserve marine species and to
    recover those in danger of extinction.
      --NOAA both listed species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and
            made substantial progress at reversing the decline of others in
            fiscal year 1997. The southern Oregon and California
            populations of coho salmon were listed as threatened with
            extinction, and stocks of steelhead trout as endangered or
            threatened on the Upper Columbia River (Oregon, Washington and
            Idaho) and the northern California coast. Also listed as
            endangered was the Steller sea lion population in the western
            Gulf of Alaska.
      --During 1997, NOAA implemented several marine mammal take reduction
            plans and updated fifty marine mammal stock assessments
            pursuant to its responsibilities under the Marine Mammal
            Protection Act. NOAA also strengthened turtle excluder device
            requirements, increased cooperation with Mexico to maximize
            hatchling production of turtles, and conducted hundreds of ESA
            Section 7 and Section 10 consultations. These and other
            accomplishments have improved the status of these species while
            minimizing the impact of conservation measures on economic and
            social activities.
        NOAA is working with the states to find innovative means to manage
    and conserve depleted species that preclude the need for Federal
    listing under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). NOAA has made use of
    the ESA's flexibility to work cooperatively with the States of Oregon
    and Maine to develop conservation plans for salmon that avoided
    listings.
        NOAA requests $80.7 million to address this strategic goal, a net
    increase of $7.9 million over fiscal year 1998 enacted levels.
    Primarily through the efforts of NMFS, a total of $37.3 million is
    needed for status reviews and stock assessments; and $38.8 million, is
    required for developing recovery, conservation and take reduction plans
    for the management of protected and depleted species.
        These requested increases will ensure that NMFS can address major
    responsibilities for responding to west coast salmon listings under the
    ESA, expand recovery actions for endangered Kemp's ridley turtles,
    strengthen Atlantic right whale recovery efforts, and establish
    cooperative conservation program agreements under the ESA with
    additional states, including Alaska, California and Washington.
        The increase also will support the recently enacted International
    Dolphin Conservation Program (providing for domestic implementation of
    the international agreement and ensuring the U.S. meets its study and
    tracking obligations under the agreement), continues a four-year study
    on the effects of encirclement of dolphins as a method for harvesting
    tuna, and develops a tracking and monitoring system for verification of
    ``dolphin-safe'' tuna being imported into the U.S. The desired outcome
    of this effort is to recover species in danger of extinction in a
    manner compatible with the sustainable use of marine resources.
        Sustain Healthy Coasts.--In order to maintain the health,
    productivity, and biodiversity of the Nation's coastal ecosystems.
      --In fiscal year 1997, NOAA provided technical support to the
            Environmental Protection Agency at 350 Coastal Superfund waste
            sites and critical data and resources to the interagency South
            Florida Ecosystem Restoration effort by initiating an
            integrated coastal monitoring program. NOAA also provided
            technical and scientific assistance to the U.S. Coast Guard at
            over 98 oil and chemical spills in coastal waters.
      --In fiscal year 1997, NOAA jointly sponsored research with the
            National Science Foundation in the Great Lakes and along the
            Pacific and Atlantic coasts to improve predictions of lake and
            ocean conditions, and the effect of events such as El Nino on
            coastal resources. NOAA has also sponsored innovative research
            on the causes and effect of the cumulative stresses on our
            Nation's estuaries.
      --In fiscal year 1997, as in prior years, NOAA reviewed upwards of
            10,000 Federal permits, including over 1,500 comprehensive
            evaluations to avoid, minimize, and mitigate, if necessary,
            Federal actions that may adversely affect fish habitat.
        NOAA requests $227.7 million for this goal, a net decrease of $14.6
    million from the fiscal year 1998 enacted levels to address the
    practical needs and concerns of resource managers, to strengthen the
    watershed and regional management frameworks provided by federal-state
    partnerships, such as the Coastal Zone Management program, and to build
    partnerships with coastal communities.
        This goal will be accomplished primarily through the efforts of
    NOS, NMFS, OAR and NESDIS. The fiscal year 1999 request includes $153
    million for NOS, an increase of $18.3 million over the fiscal year 1998
    enacted levels. The OAR request includes $40.2 million, a decrease of
    $15.7 million from the fiscal year 1998 enacted levels. The NMFS
    request includes $18.4 million, a decrease of $0.3 million below fiscal
    year 1998. The NMFS request includes an increase of $2.3 million for
    habitat restoration activities and base funding for the Restoration
    Center to restore degraded habitats and to transfer technology to the
    public and private sectors. The NESDIS request includes $6.2 million,
    no change from the fiscal year 1999 base.
        Fiscal year 1999 funding for this goal supports NOAA's
    contributions to several important interagency efforts and
    Administration priorities including: the Natural Disaster Reduction
    Initiative (NDRI), the National Oceanographic Partnership Program
    (NOPP), the South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Initiative and the
    Clean Water Initiative.
        NOAA requests $99.8 million to protect, restore and understand
    coastal habitats. Included in this request is an increase of $3 million
    to allow the Damage Assessment and Restoration Program to recover funds
    for restoration following damage to natural resources for which NOAA is
    the federal trustee. A $2.5 million increase ($1.9 million NOS; $0.6
    million NMFS) will provide monitoring and research critical to the
    interagency South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Initiative; and $1.4
    million ($1 million, NOS; $0.4 million, OAR) will support analysis of
    the causes and impacts of hypoxia or low oxygen ``dead zones'' in the
    northern Gulf of Mexico. The request also includes $0.8 million (a
    reduction of $0.7 million from amounts provided in fiscal year 1998) to
    implement the National Invasive Species Act.
        NOAA has also proposed the creation of a new Office of Response and
    Restoration (ORR) within NOS, which will include the existing Hazardous
    Materials Response and Assessment Division (HAZMAT) and the Damage
    Assessment Center. The creation of this new office consolidates
    recognized expertise within NOS to fulfill a range of NOAA
    responsibilities, including planning for and working to prevent spills,
    providing scientific support during spill events, assessing risk to
    NOAA trust resources, recommending protective cleanup strategies, and
    restoring injured resources. ORR will provide a focal point, thereby
    strengthening and facilitating coordination between all of the agency's
    coastal resource management programs, NOAA's response and restoration
    programs, and other Federal and State agencies with analogous
    responsibilities. NOAA is confident that the consolidation of existing
    expertise into ORR will insure the development of effective solutions
    for protecting and restoring coastal resources threatened by releases
    of oil and hazardous materials. In addition, the creation of ORR will
    allow for the development of new capabilities designed to reduce risk
    to coastal resources from hazardous material releases and other
    environmental threats.
        To promote clean coastal waters, NOAA requests $75.8 million. This
    includes a total of $22 million increase to support a number of
    activities for addressing degraded coastal waters as part of the
    Administration's Clean Water Initiative.
        The new funds will allow NOAA to help coastal states monitor,
    maintain, and improve coastal water quality by attacking the major
    cause of coastal water pollution, runoff pollution from nonpoint
    sources, as well as address associated symptoms such as hypoxia and
    harmful algal blooms. Three new states, Georgia, Texas, and Ohio
    entered the Coastal Zone Management Program in fiscal year 1997 and
    1998, the first additions to the program in 10 years. (NOAA expects to
    add Minnesota to the program in fiscal year 1999). The increase will
    allow these three new states to begin developing coastal non-point
    source pollution control programs, as well as allowing the 29 states
    with approved coastal non-point control programs to begin implementing
    their programs. In addition, the new funding will enable NOAA to
    continue leading the multiagency National Pfiesteria Research and
    Monitoring Strategy and ECOHAB as well as providing grants to states,
    universities, and communities to conduct rapid monitoring and
    assessment response activities to harmful algal bloom events. NOAA will
    also have enhanced capability to protect and restore NOAA trust
    resources impacted by hazardous waste sites by conducting natural
    resource assessments and remediations.
        In addition, NOAA requests $6.5 million to help reduce the costs of
    natural disasters in coastal areas. As part of the interagency NDRI,
    $1.4 million in new funding in fiscal year 1999 will initiate the
    development of coastal risk characterization to provide critical
    information to local, state, federal, and private entities in order to
    assess the exposure and vulnerability of coastal communities to natural
    hazards. The increase will also enable NOAA to apply satellite-derived
    data provided through the NESDIS Ocean Remote Sensing Program to more
    effectively evaluate and mitigate natural hazards in coastal areas and
    reduce the impact of natural hazards on coastal habitat.
        The fiscal year 1999 request will allow NOAA to continue these
    activities and address serious new concerns, such as the introduction
    and spread of non-indigenous species, the growing hypoxic, or ``dead-
    zone'' in the Gulf of Mexico, the causes and impacts of harmful algal
    blooms, and the rising costs of natural disasters in coastal
    communities.
        In addition, NOAA's request reflects our proposal to establish a
    new science office within the National Ocean Service to build the
    strong scientific foundation essential for sustainable use of coastal
    resources. This science office will integrate a comprehensive suite of
    research, monitoring, assessment, and technical assistance capabilities
    into national centers of excellence to address critical national
    coastal environmental problems, build better linkages among NOAA's
    coastal programs that are responsible for ocean, coastal, and Great
    Lakes resources, and strengthen the scientific basis underlying
    effective coastal management. The office will provide high-quality
    science for predicting coastal ocean, Great Lakes, and watershed
    processes, and will deliver data, information, products, and technical
    assistance to NOAA and to its other Federal, state, academic, non-
    governmental, and public partners. It will also capitalize on a strong
    regional presence and partnerships between NOAA and external scientific
    and technical expertise to improve the scientific basis for
    environmental decisions in coastal areas of the U.S. Through this new
    science office, the National Ocean Service will not only improve its
    ability to better serve its management responsibilities in the coastal
    zone and other coastal protected areas, but will also provide NOAA with
    an important new tool for improving its efforts to build sustainable
    fisheries, recover protected species, and maintain coastal habitat
    areas essential for our nation's fisheries and coastal economies. The
    establishment of the new scientific office is a direct response to
    recommendations provided by NOAA's Coastal Stewardship Task Force to
    improve the effectiveness of NOAA's coastal programs.
                   reducing costs and improving effectiveness
        In an environment of tightening dollars and increasingly complex
    challenges, NOAA is reducing costs and improving program effectiveness.
    NOAA is saving money through streamlining personnel and processes,
    outsourcing where appropriate, and leveraging external resources and
    talent. NOAA holds managers accountable for results and requires use of
    performance measures to validate progress. The highest priority is
    given to ensuring that critical services are provided as efficiently
    and effectively as possible.
                                   conclusion
        As I have discussed above, NOAA's fiscal year 1999 budget
    represents the most cost effective means to promote the Nation's
    environmental and economic advantage, while maintaining an appropriate
    balance among the environmental assessment and prediction and
    environmental stewardship needs of the Nation. We welcome the coming
    discussions on our goals, priorities, and operations with the Congress,
    our constituents, and the public. We believe that our budget will be
    well received by all these groups because our budget represents
    essential levels of investment to generate major economic returns.
    Every day, in some way, every person in the U.S. is affected by the
    mission of NOAA. Our budget enables us to continue this service.
        Thank you. If you have any questions, I am prepared to answer them
    at this time.

        Senator Gregg. Thank you, Doctor. I would simply echo a
    comment that you made, which is that NOAA deserves to be
    congratulated for the excellent job it did in predicting El
    Nino. There is no question that you said it was coming. I do
    not think anybody really recognized the impact of it, but you
    certainly predicted it.
        Equally important is much of the work you have been doing
    in other wind-dramatic events and weather-dramatic events, such
    as tornadoes. I think your agency has certainly acquitted
    itself very well over the last year in using its resources to
    inform the public on very critical issues.
        Let me yield to the chairman of the full committee since he
    has joined us.

            Community development quotas [CDQ's] sunset legislation

        Senator Stevens. Thank you very much. I do have to move on,
    but I visited with Dr. Baker yesterday. Since then, Dr. Baker,
    I have had an inquiry from the Pacific Fisheries Management
    Council about the CDQ's for crab, and particularly the delay--I
    think you have gotten a letter from them, too, about that. I do
    not know if you have seen it yet. But my memory is that CDQ's
    sunset at 2002, and it looks like you are not even going to
    implement these until 2000. I do not see how we will have the
    time to determine whether there is a fair way to allocate
    opportunities to the indigenous people of these remote villages
    unless they can be approved. So I would hope that we could move
    on with that.

                                 Fishery stamps

        The other thing I wanted to tell you, Mr. Chairman, Senator
    Hollings, and Senator Domenici, is I suggested to Dr. Baker
    yesterday that we consider creating something like a duck
    stamp, but instead a fishery stamp. Something to try to get a
    revenue stream into some of these areas, from those people who
    are really taking advantage and using the system. Not on a user
    fee concept as such, but as a one-time thing. Maybe annually.
    Somehow to devise one, depending on the fishery you are in. Our
    people who hunt have not had any objection to duck stamps. We
    have, in the State of Alaska, a king salmon stamp. I do think
    that they have been totally acceptable to the fisherman to
    acquire it as a condition of using a fishing license to fish
    for king salmon.
        I sympathize, Dr. Baker, with not having any new revenue
    streams, and I must confess that the conversation came up in
    conjunction with the proposed fee on ex vessel value of
    commercial catch, which President Bush tried also, at a higher
    level, and I assume everyone will understand that those of us
    from the fishing communities are still opposed to that concept.
    But I do believe that there is enormous growth of recreational
    fishing and recreational boating. There should be some way to
    establish a stream of revenue, and I think the people involved
    that I know would support it.
        I would hope that we could have a discussion along the
    line, and maybe even with Dr. Baker's assistance, and see if we
    cannot initiate an alternative to these user fees that are in
    this budget. I have no specific questions for Dr. Baker today,
    and I thank you for the courtesy.
        Senator Gregg. I think that is an interesting idea. I know
    that New Hampshire also has a fish stamp. We have a duck stamp,
    too. So it does have some credibility.
        Senator Hollings. You could have a cod stamp.
        Senator Gregg. We could have a cod stamp. Striped bass
    stamp. Flounder.
        Senator Stevens. We would have to have a whole room full of
    stamps if you are going to have one for each species.
        Dr. Baker. After our discussion yesterday, Senator Stevens,
    we put a group to work on that within NOAA. I think it is a
    great idea.
        Senator Gregg. I think it has some potential.
        Senator Stevens. Yes.
        Senator Gregg. Senator Hollings.

                                Turtle extruder

        Senator Hollings. His issue is crabs. Mine is turtles and
    the turtle extruder, the device tested last June that was
    approved and permitted, but you never made the ruling on it.
    The permits expire next month. And it's stuck in the
    bureaucracy. Can we get a ruling on the turtle extruder?
        Mr. Garcia. Senator, we expect to have the final rule out
    in the next couple of weeks. The final rule will be effective--
    it will be in time for the shrimping season.
        Senator Hollings. You could give us a ruling tomorrow.
    What's the matter?
        Mr. Garcia. It is on its way to OMB.

                                  Oceans study

        Senator Hollings. With respect to the oceans study, you
    have a $1 million amount that we put in temporarily last year,
    hoping to get it started last year. But it costs $6 million for
    the hearings and everything else associated with the study.
    We're going to need $5 million more. Now, the House is going to
    mark it up at the end of this month, I think, and we'll follow
    soon after. And we do appreciate your input to this, because we
    want to get experts like yourself involved. But we have to have
    the money to get this project on its feet.

                                   NOAA Corps

        Now regarding the NOAA Corps. The policy, from what I
    understand, is that the executive branch executes laws as
    mandated, not execute the laws as some executives may want
    them. The NOAA Corps still exists. You have letters about it.
    But you, by attrition, are just getting rid of it, which is in
    contradiction to the policy as set out by the Congress. We
    still want the NOAA Corps, and by your words and actions you're
    ruining the morale and everything else over there.
        Dr. Baker. Senator Hollings, I understand fully what you
    are saying, and I want to say that we have gone through a
    process of downsizing the NOAA Corps simply because we have
    fewer vessels. That has been one process that we have
    undergone.
        Then the administration asked us in addition to the
    downsizing to look at this question of disestablishment. And as
    you know it was administration policy to propose
    disestablishment of the corps and to turn those functions over
    to civilians.
        Senator Hollings. Which the Congress disagreed with.
        Dr. Baker. Which the Congress has told us that they
    disagree with. And I have heard that message loud and clear. We
    have gone back to the administration and said we want to look
    at this, and we have gone inside, and we are looking very
    carefully right now.
        We expect to have an answer back to you shortly on what is
    the minimum size of the NOAA Corps that we need to carry out
    the essential functions that the corps can do. And we have
    promised to have an answer back by March 18 on that.
        Senator Hollings. At the same time, fortunately, and
    commendably, you have more money in here for fisheries and
    vessels. So you are building up the NOAA fleet and doing away
    with the actual corps itself.
        You need to reconcile that, and get policy in step with the
    Congress, please.
        Dr. Baker. We are working very hard on that, and I think we
    are slowly bringing OMB around to this point of view.
        Senator Hollings. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Gregg. Maybe we can bring them around more
    dramatically.
        Senator Hollings. You can.
        Senator Gregg. Senator Domenici.
        Senator Domenici. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

                             gap in Radar coverage

        Dr. Baker, on my last trip to New Mexico, I talked to
    meteorologists there, and they expressed concern about a very
    large gap in radar coverage in New Mexico, especially in the
    northwest corner, the four corners area.
        This area includes the city of Farmington, which is a very
    fast growing metropolitan area. I have a map here. I am going
    to share it with you, leave it with you, which shows where this
    most pronounced gap in radar coverage is.
        I would like to ask you today, if you would please look at
    this situation for me and describe in detail the gaps in this
    coverage, especially in that four corners area shown on the
    maps.
        I would like to know whether you have any plans for doing
    anything about it, and if you do, how much it might cost, and
    if you don't, why you don't.
        Dr. Baker. Certainly, Senator.
        [The information follows:]

                    Radar Coverage in the Four Corners Area

        There are no current plans to increase radar coverage in
    the Four Corners area. The National Weather Service believes
    that the much improved radar coverage, combined with the other
    components of modernization is sufficient to provide equal or
    better weather services.

                 assessment of overall Radar coverage in Mexico

        Senator Domenici. I would suggest one other problem that
    you might look at. I think you might recall, although it was a
    very, very small tornado, but New Mexico had a tornado in the
    little town of Cimarron, close to this area that I am
    describing.
        It was never expected up there, and interestingly enough,
    the radar at Cannon Air Force Base did not see any sign of
    this. The Nexrad system, which I believe is in existence,
    didn't pick it up, and the Albuquerque radar can't see it
    because of the surrounding mountains.
        I wonder if there are any proposed changes to increase
    coverage in this area since that tornado in 1996. I would say,
    so there is no misunderstanding, I believe you are doing an
    excellent job in New Mexico, but I would like you to assess the
    overall Weather Service coverage of our State. Sometimes it
    gets by, and they leave gaps, and I think that exists. Would
    you do that, please?
        Dr. Baker. We will do that.
        [The information follows:]
                 Assessment of the Radar Coverage in New Mexico
        Under the National Weather System (NWS) modernization, radar
    coverage for New Mexico has been substantially improved over what
    existed prior to modernization. Prior to modernization, there was very
    limited radar coverage in New Mexico from three NWS radars in western
    Texas, and through use of Federal Aviation Administration Air Traffic
    Control radars which provided very little precipitation information.
        Now with the modernized Next Generation Weather Radar (WSR-88D)
    network in place, Doppler radar coverage in New Mexico is provided by
    ten radars. Four of these are located in New Mexico and the other six
    in surrounding states. The vast majority of New Mexico is covered by
    Doppler radar, however, there are a few areas that do not have complete
    radar coverage. The areas without complete radar coverage are mostly
    mountainous terrain which blocks radar signals (see attachment Figure
    2-1b). The attachment (Figure 2-1a) also shows the almost complete lack
    of radar coverage that existed prior to modernization within the Four
    Corners area of New Mexico.
        Doppler radar is only one part of the composite suite of new
    observational systems that modernization has brought into operation.
    New geostationary satellites and automated surface observing systems,
    combined with Doppler radar, enable NWS to provide equal or better
    weather service under the modernization.
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T11MA05.000

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T11MA05.001

        Senator Domenici. Mr. Chairman, I am going to leave with
    you for submission to the next witness questions on the SBA,
    particularly on their Women's Entrepreneurial Program, and if
    you would submit them for me I would be very pleased.
        Senator Gregg. I certainly will.
        Senator Domenici. Thank you very much.
        Senator Gregg. Thank you.

                     Natural disaster reduction initiative

        Doctor, on this interagency disaster task force that we
    heard about yesterday from the Secretary, you are the biggest
    contributor in the Department. Of course, you are the biggest
    part of the Department, so that is reasonable. But of the $55
    million, where is that coming from? Is it going to mean that
    you are going to have to make programmatic changes? Will it
    take away from other programmatic activity? Or is it just a
    shifting around in the flow chart?
        Dr. Baker. There are two pieces to that, Senator Gregg.
    One, we felt it was very important that we address the
    recommendations of the study that General Kelly made about what
    was needed to have adequate base funding for the National
    Weather Service. So of the $55 million for NOAA, $28.3 million
    funds the recommendations of the Kelly study to make sure that
    our infrastructure is in place.
        Then we are proposing new funding for a number of things
    that range from new applications of our advanced hydrologic
    prediction system--this is a system that takes into account not
    only existing water in the system, but also what our radars are
    saying about water that is falling, or water that might be
    falling, so we can do a much better job of flood forecasts.
        We are doing that in two areas now, and our natural
    disaster reduction initiative allows us to go to two new areas.
    So a total of four. One is the Red River area up in North
    Dakota, and the other is the Columbia River system in the
    Pacific Northwest.
        Our hope is that eventually we will be able to have this
    advanced hydrologic prediction system everywhere in the country
    that we expect to see flash floods. But we are making a start
    there.
        We are also putting part of that funding into biological
    natural disasters, looking at pfiesteria and hypoxia research,
    and part of the funding is going to enhance our oilspill
    response activity.

                                 AWIPS program

        Senator Gregg. The AWIPS program. Yesterday we heard from
    the Secretary that you folks are on the verge of a final
    decision as to funding levels. How much over the $550 million
    are we going to be? What are we going to be dropping from the
    program because we could not afford it?
        Dr. Baker. Senator, this has been an issue of concern to
    all of us as we go forward with our modernization. It is the
    last piece of modernization.
        We have gone through two restructurings of the program
    since I have been the Under Secretary, and I know there were
    restructurings before. When I first came in 1993, we made a
    major change in the way the program was put together.
        We did another change in 1996, pulling out the software
    development from the contractor, and we have been doing regular
    briefings on the stage of the program. But it became clear
    several months ago that although the system is working very
    well, the 30 deployments that we have have shown that it
    actually does pull together all the information and gives us
    the information needs. And the users love it, and the other
    weather station offices are calling for it. The fact is we did
    not have an independent cost review of whether we were going to
    make our target.
        And so Bill Mehuron, our Acting Deputy Under Secretary,
    commissioned an independent cost study, and they came in and
    said to us, yes, the system is working great, but it is going
    to cost you more than $550 million to do everything that you
    plan to do.
        And so we went back to the Weather Service and we said you
    guys have got to reconcile this, and we need to know what we
    can do for $550 million. And if there are some crucial things
    that we can't, we want to know what they are, and what it is
    going to cost. They are now busily working night and day to
    give us an answer on this, and we expect to brief the Secretary
    on Monday of next week about those questions you have just
    asked. What is it going to cost, and what is going to be in or
    not in the system. And we will have an independent cost review
    of that so we can have some credibility there.
        Senator Gregg. So when will you be briefing us?
        Dr. Baker. I would expect within a few days.

                        NOAA-wide requirement for Space

        Senator Gregg. Now, last year there was an item, at least
    on the Senate side, for a new building at Goddard, which did
    not make it through the process. This year that is not in the
    request.
        What is your plan relative to space?
        Dr. Baker. We have about $735,000 in our budget to look at
    NOAA-wide requirements for space, including the question of
    what we do with our current activities that are currently in
    Suitland and in Camp Springs.
        The last time we looked at that, moving into the federally
    owned facility at Goddard, it looked like it was the cheapest
    way to go. With the message from Congress, we have gone back,
    and we are relooking at what that would be.
        We have done an environmental assessment. There are a lot
    of advantages to our going onto a Federal facility with NASA,
    but we understand the message from Congress. We are going back
    and looking broadly at our space needs, and we will come back
    to you with what those recommendations are.
        Senator Gregg. The sooner the better, to make this budget
    cycle.

                            Environmental assessment

        Now, I think it was last year that the Atlantic States
    fisheries group came up with a program for the lobster take,
    and you are proceeding with a program, at the National Marine
    Fisheries, and it doesn't appear that National Marine Fisheries
    is giving a whole lot of credibility to what the Atlantic
    States people did. My question is, do we expect when the
    National Marine Fisheries finally comes out with something on
    lobsters that they are going to listen to the people who
    actually do the fishing?
        Mr. Garcia. We had asked the Fisheries Service to go back
    and do just that, and make sure that the environmental
    assessment that they were going to issue included specifically
    the Atlantic States proposal.
        What we would like to see for a public review is a range of
    options. We are not going to indicate in our document a
    preferred option. Rather we are going to say that there is a
    continuum, and here the options are on that continuum, and then
    solicit public comment on those various options, and make a
    decision at that point.
        We have talked to the industry. We have been in discussions
    with the Governor of Maine. We are talking to the Atlantic
    States Marine Fisheries Council, and we are working very hard
    to make sure that this is not prejudged, but rather that this
    is truly a proposal for comment so that we could then--as we
    did with the right whale issue--listen to the industry, and,
    hopefully, craft a rule that is going to balance the interests
    of the industry as well as the need of the resource. We were
    very concerned, though, about the status of that resource.
        Senator Gregg. I think that is a reasonable approach. Up to
    now that has not been my sense of the direction it was going.
    But as you outlined it, that seems to be a reasonable approach.
        Do you have any questions?
        Senator Hollings. No; I hope the briefers are still in
    office after the briefing on Monday. [Laughter.]
        Dr. Baker. So do we.

                         Additional committee questions

        Senator Gregg. Well, thank you. Do you have anything
    further?
        Dr. Baker. We appreciate all your support. We are making
    progress on the oceans, thanks to your leadership here.
        Senator Gregg. Thank you.
        We will be in recess for a few minutes.
        [The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
    were submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the
    hearing:]
                Questions Submitted by Senator Pete V. Domenici
                 noaa weather service modernization--new mexico
        Question. Dr. Baker, NOAA continues a significant modernization
    effort of the National Weather Service (NWS). New Mexico is slated for
    two of the 119 state-of-the-art Weather Forecast Offices (WFO)--one in
    Albuquerque and one in Santa Teresa (called the El Paso WFO). This
    modernization effort will provide each of these 119 Weather Forecast
    Offices with at least one associated Doppler radar.
        On my last trip to New Mexico, one of our meteorologists expressed
    his concern that there are gaps in radar coverage in New Mexico,
    especially in the northwestern, or Four Corners Area. This area
    includes the City of Farmington, which has been experiencing robust
    growth in population, air traffic, etc. A map, which I am glad to share
    with you shows where this most pronounced gap in radar coverage occurs.
        Would you please look into this situation for me and describe in
    detail the gaps in radar coverage that New Mexico is experiencing,
    especially in the Four Corners area of the State?
        Answer. Under the National Weather Service (NWS) modernization,
    radar coverage for New Mexico has been substantially improved over what
    existed prior to modernization. Prior to modernization, there was very
    limited radar coverage in New Mexico from three NWS radars in western
    Texas, and through use of FAA Air Traffic Control radars which provided
    very little precipitation information.
        Now with the modernized Next Generation Weather Radar (WSR-88D)
    network in place, Doppler radar coverage in New Mexico is provided by
    ten radars. Four of these are located in New Mexico and the other six
    in surrounding states. The vast majority of New Mexico is covered by
    Doppler radar; however, there are a few areas that do not have complete
    radar coverage. (See attachment Figure 2-1b). The areas without
    complete radar coverage are mostly mountainous terrain which blocks
    radar signals. (See attachment Figure 2-1a). This shows the almost
    complete lack of radar coverage that existed prior to modernization
    within the Four Corners area of the state. Doppler radar is only one
    part of the composite suite of new observational systems that
    modernization has brought into operation. New geostationary satellites
    and automated surface observing systems, combined with Doppler radar
    enable NWS to provide equal or better weather services under the
    modernization.
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T11MA05.000

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T11MA05.001

        Question. Are there currently any plans to increase radar coverage
    in this area that would address the gap in the Four Corners area?
        Answer. There are no current plans to increase radar coverage in
    the Four Corners area. NWS believes that the much improved radar
    coverage, combined with the other components of modernization is
    sufficient to provide equal or better weather services.
        Question. Does the Weather Service have the flexibility to address
    such gaps in coverage within the modernization plan? What options does
    the Weather Service have to make adjustments in the modernization plan
    to cover such areas?
        Answer. The NWS modernization plan was predicated on the ``no
    degradation of service'' requirement of the Weather Service
    Modernization Act, Public Law 102-567, October 1992. Consequently, NWS
    has had only the flexibility to address areas with degraded radar
    coverage under modernization that would have led to a degradation in
    weather services. For example, in 1995 the Secretary of Commerce
    determined that degraded radar coverage in northern Indiana, northern
    Alabama, and western Arkansas would cause a degradation of service and
    added three new WSR-88D's.
        Question. Dr. Baker, as you may recall, in July 1996, an unusual
    event occurred in northeastern New Mexico in the City of Cimarron,
    which experienced a small tornado. Fortunately, no one was killed, but
    six were injured and several buildings were damaged. The DOD radar at
    Cannon Air Force Base did not see any sign of this tornado on its
    radar, which I believe is a NEXRAD system, and the Albuquerque radar
    cannot see this area because of surrounding mountains.
        Has the Weather Service instituted any changes in its program to
    increase coverage in this area since the July 1996 tornado?
        Answer. On July 25, 1996, a storm formed northwest of Cimarron
    which is located in northeastern New Mexico. The Weather Service
    Forecast Office in Albuquerque saw the storm on the Cannon Air Force
    Base WSR-88D and issued a small stream and canyon advisory statement
    for the potential flooding associated with the storm. Twenty minutes
    later, officials in the Cimarron area reported watching a small tornado
    move across the area which resulted in six injuries. The tornado, rated
    an F2, was short lived. Since this tornado, the Albuquerque office has
    increased its spotter training activities in northeastern New Mexico.
    We believe this will assist in future coordination of severe or
    significant weather in the area.
        Question. Overall, how would you assess the Weather Service
    coverage of New Mexico?
        Answer. The overall coverage of New Mexico is excellent. New Mexico
    receives radar coverage from ten radars. Four of these are located in
    New Mexico and the other six in surrounding states.
        In addition, New Mexico receives weather services from three newly
    constructed Weather Forecast Offices. (Albuquerque, NM, El Paso, TX,
    and Midland/Odessa, TX.) These new radars combined with other newly
    installed observing technologies, such as Automated Surface Observing
    System, are providing forecasters with unprecedented data, resulting in
    significant improvements in weather warning and forecasts services.
    Attached is a map showing the weather service radar coverage in New
    Mexico.
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T11MA05.002

                                     ______

               Questions Submitted by Senator Ernest F. Hollings
                                     awips
        Question. Speaking of AWIPS, could you review for us again what you
    believe the real total costs will be, and why you think it will exceed
    $550 million?
        Answer. The program plan we are proposing results in the most cost-
    effective outcome for achieving required capabilities, while complying
    with legislation. The National Weather Service will deliver Advanced
    Weather Interactive Processing System (AWIPS) to all planned locations
    with sufficient capability to replace primary existing systems within
    the $550 million cap (Build 4.2). Build 4.2 includes initial
    Interactive Forecast Preparation to support public and aviation
    forecasts and to automate NOAA Weather Radio broadcasts, hydrologic
    prediction system for river basins, some service backup and site system
    monitoring, partial Next General Weather Radar (NEXRAD) workstation
    functionality, and initial integration of local data acquisition and
    dissemination systems. Significant field staffing reductions (106
    positions) are achievable with these capabilities. Under this plan,
    deployment would be accelerated so that all planned sites would be
    installed by June 1999 with complete Build 4.2 capability.
        We will have an independent assessment conducted of proposed
    requirements beyond software Build 4.2, to ensure that any further
    development is cost effective and to determine how they support further
    staff reductions. This development will be accomplished under planned
    product improvement/systems evolution. This independent assessment will
    be completed by August 31, 1998.
        Question. How long will it take to deploy the system?
        Answer. The planned completion date for full deployment of AWIPS is
    June 1999.
        Question. In the case of NEXRAD radars, NOAA put South Carolina at
    the end of the deployment schedule even though historically we have one
    of the highest incidences of large, killer tornadoes. So where are we
    in your deployment schedule for AWIPS?
        Answer. Of the 135 deployment phase systems to be deployed, 21
    systems have been completed. The limited deployment of the next group
    of 19 systems will begin in June 1998. With a March 1998 authorization
    of Key Decision Point IV and an acceleration of installation from seven
    to ten systems per month, deployment will be completed in June 1999.
    According to the current schedule, three cities in South Carolina
    (Columbia, Charleston, and Greenville-Spartanburg) are scheduled for
    deployment in March 1999.
                                   oceans act
        Question. On November 13, 1997, the Senate approved S. 1213, the
    Oceans Act, my bill calling for a plan to explore, protect, and make
    better use of our oceans and coasts. Last year, I included $1 million
    in NOAA budget to get the Commission up and running. However, we
    estimate that it will require an additional $5 million to fully fund
    the Commission's staff and activities. Despite Secretary Daley's letter
    supporting the legislation, the NOAA budget request proposes a decrease
    of $1 million to terminate support for the Commission which it terms
    ``a one-year project''.
        Is NOAA suggesting that the Commission can complete its work in one
    year and for $1 million? Please explain.
        Answer. The Administration has not made any independent analysis or
    estimates on the costs of the Commission and has not concluded that the
    Commission could complete its work in one year. Last fall, Secretary
    Daley went on record in support of the duration and funding levels
    established in S. 1213. However, in preparing its fiscal year 1999
    budget request the Administration concluded it would be premature to
    propose funding to carry out legislation that has yet to be sent to the
    President. The Administration concluded it would be inappropriate to
    request specific funding levels before an Act, along with its
    congressionally established level for the authorization of
    appropriations, is approved by the Congress.
        Question. Can I count on your support for adequate funding for the
    Commission?
        Answer. NOAA supports a Commission that is adequately funded and
    will support efforts to ensure that the Commission has the resources
    necessary to fulfill its mission.
        Pending legislation grants the President discretion to utilize
    agency staff as necessary to fulfill responsibilities under the Act.
    There is a concern that agencies will be required to invest
    considerable time and resources to successfully implement and fulfill
    these duties. The creation of new mandates on agencies without
    commensurate funding could put them in a position where they may
    violate the Economy Act. The Administration believes the costs
    associated with the Commission should be readily ascertained and
    transparent. Therefore, if agencies supply staff or other support, it
    would be preferable to require the commission to reimburse the agencies
    in order to simplify accounting of all costs.
        Question. What are the Administration's current plans for a
    national conference on the oceans and other activities related to the
    Year of the Ocean?
        Answer. This week the Administration began providing briefings to
    members of Congress on the national conference and other Year of the
    Ocean Activities. The range of Year of the Ocean activities is broad
    and involves the efforts of more than 15 agencies and programs.
    Activities are being spearheaded by the Ocean Principals Group within
    the administration. NOAA has established a web page in which education
    and outreach are the primary functions. NOAA will contact your office
    and schedule a briefing for you or your staff to provide full details
    of the conference and other Year of the Ocean activities.
                             clean water initiative
        Question. Your budget includes an increase of $22 million for the
    ``Clean Water Initiative.'' $12 million of this amount goes to the
    Coastal Zone Management Program.
        Could you explain this part of your initiative in more detail? What
    is NOAA's role versus EPA's role--are you talking about NOAA funding
    planning or actual brick and mortal projects to curtail non-point
    source pollution?
        Answer. The Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments of 1990
    direct both NOAA and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and their
    respective state partners, with administration of the Coastal Nonpoint
    Pollution Control Program. The purpose of these funds is to provide
    NOAA with the resources to support the participation of its state and
    territorial partners, the 32 Federally-approved state Coastal Zone
    Management (CZM) programs, in this cooperative effort to reduce
    pollution to coastal waters. These funds complement the resources EPA
    is providing to its partners, the state water quality agencies. Without
    these resources, state CZM programs will be unable to participate in
    this effort.
        The $12 million will be used as follows:
      --$6 million will be provided to state CZM programs for continued
            development of coastal runoff control programs. These funds
            will be used for two specific planning purposes. First, by
            fiscal year 1999 twenty-nine CZM states will have Coastal
            Nonpoint Control Programs approved with conditions. Funds will
            be used by these states to take the further development actions
            necessary to address these deficiencies. Second, these funds
            will be used by the three states with newly approved CZM
            programs (Georgia, Ohio, Texas) to begin development of their
            state coastal nonpoint programs.
      --$6 million will be provided to the 29 state CZM programs with
            approved coastal nonpoint programs to begin the implementation
            phase of these programs. These grants will allow coastal states
            to implement on-the-ground management measures, and leverage
            other Federal, state, and local resources, to control the flow
            of polluted runoff into coastal waters. Since these funds are
            requested under Sec. 309 of the Coastal Zone Management Act
            (CZMA), they will be available only for planning purposes and
            not the ``low cost construction'' authorities of CZMA's
            Sec. 306A.
                  natural disaster reduction initiative [ndri]
        Question. On Tuesday, Secretary Daley announced a five-year, $240
    million project to help communities better prepare for and recover from
    damage due to weather-related events like hurricanes, El Nino storms
    and tornadoes.
        What is NOAA's budget for and role in the Natural Disaster
    Reduction Initiative in fiscal year 1999?
        Answer. NOAA's fiscal year 1999 budget request is $55 million for
    important new activities that will reduce the costs of natural hazards
    as part of the Natural Disaster Reduction Initiative (NDRI). Developed
    through the National Science and Technology Council's Committee on
    Environment and Natural Resources (CENR), this initiative is part of
    the Administration's effort to apply the tools of Federal agencies
    (including NOAA, EDA and National Institute of Standards and Technology
    within the Department of Commerce) to save lives, reduce costs and
    lower the risks of natural disasters.
        NOAA's request includes funds to provide: (1) the best possible
    warnings and information to prevent damage and permit escape during
    hazard events; and (2) information and techniques to lower the
    vulnerability and increase the resiliency of people and property before
    and after hazard events. NOAA's request for each of the major fiscal
    year 1999 NDRI objectives follows:

    Fiscal Year 1999 Natural Disaster Reduction Initiative

                            [In millions of dollars]

    Natural Hazard Identification and Risks and Costs Assessments.....   5.8
    Sustain and Improve Predictions and Understanding of Natural
        Hazards.......................................................  37.7
    Application of New Technologies for Warnings and Forecasts........   7.3
    Transfer Natural Reduction Technology to Public and Private Sector   4.2
                            -----------------------------------------------------------------
                            ________________________________________________
          Total NDRI..................................................  55.0

        NOAA's role in the NDRI is critical to overall success. NOAA will
    provide more accurate and timely warnings and forecasts for weather-
    related and other natural disasters and provide information on the
    risks and costs of natural disasters in the Nation's valuable coastal
    communities, some of the areas hardest hit by natural hazards. The
    requested increase will also provide techniques to mitigate the impacts
    of natural hazards, measures to reduce the introduction and spread of
    nonindigenuous species that threaten coastal fisheries, and research
    for dealing with other coastal hazards such as harmful algal blooms and
    hypoxia.
        Question. What is NOAA doing to improve the understanding of
    coastal hazards like hurricanes and to reduce the public costs such as
    warnings, evacuations, clean up, risk evaluations, and minimizing
    exposure?
        Answer. The Nation's ability to prepare for natural hazards,
    including severe weather events, depends on the quality and timeliness
    of observations, assessments and information delivery. NOAA has made
    considerable progress in recent years in the understanding and
    forecasting of coastal hazards, including hurricanes, tornadoes and
    flooding. New observing systems such as Doppler radar, advanced weather
    satellites and high-altitude aircraft, and enhanced computing and high-
    resolution modeling capabilities are central to improvements in
    performance. NOAA is measuring how accurately it can predict the range
    where hurricanes will reach land, given a 24-hour lead time. From
    fiscal year 1994 to the performance estimate for fiscal year 1999, NOAA
    expects to improve its accuracy from 185 kilometers to 135 kilometers.
    The significance of earlier and more accurate hurricane warnings is
    enormous. Most importantly, they help prevent deaths and injuries. But
    they also reduce the costs to the public for unnecessary warnings and
    evacuations, because earlier and more accurate predictions of hurricane
    tracks and intensities can reduce the size of the warning areas in
    which people are advised to prepare for the event. NOAA has calculated
    that for each hurricane, the public's preparation and evacuation costs
    exceed $50 million, but improved predictions can cut that cost by $5
    million. In addition, clear and verifiable improvements in performance
    lead to improvements in credibility. As the public takes more accurate
    forecasts more seriously, this helps lessen loss of life and property.
        NOAA is working to better characterize the risks, true costs and
    vulnerability due to coastal hazards. The fiscal year 1999 request
    specifically includes funds to support activities under the NDRI to
    expand work with coastal states to develop coastal risk atlases and
    provide new remote sensing data in a more effective manner so that
    coastal communities can better prepare for and recover from natural
    disasters, and assess the economic impacts of natural disasters on
    coastal habitats. NOAA currently is helping to organize and sponsor
    expert panels to develop a framework and methodology for community-
    based risk, vulnerability, and economic cost assessment, and is
    developing a community-based approach to training for state, county and
    local officials in how to plan for, mitigate and support community
    expansion when faced with various levels of risk and uncertainty
    associated with coastal natural hazards.
        NOAA is also preparing, as directed by the Congress in fiscal year
    1998 appropriations report language, a collaborative research effort
    with the U.S. Geological Survey dealing with the risks and economic
    costs associated with coastal natural hazards. As proposed in the draft
    study, three research areas are expected to be emphasized: (1) defining
    the characteristics and probabilities associated with the hazards that
    impact coastal areas; (2) understanding the specific impacts of hazard
    events on the various natural environments that characterize the
    coastline; and (3) identifying the societal impacts and related costs
    of coastal hazards on the human and developed environment.
                 sea turtles and spending on protected species
        Question. The fiscal year 1999 NOAA budget proposes to spend almost
    $82 million in fiscal year 1999 on the recovery of protected species.
    This is a sizable amount of money--and most of it seems to be going to
    the West Coast to expand Pacific salmon recovery efforts and address
    the decline of endangered monk seals and Stellar sea lions. I'd like to
    remind you that we also have endangered species problems, like sea
    turtles, in the Southeast. NOAA was quick to ban the use of soft turtle
    excluder devices (TED's) when they suspected them of contributing to
    increased turtle strandings. However, we have yet to see a Federal rule
    allowing the use of a new modified soft TED developed by South Carolina
    fishermen--even though field testing was completed almost nine months
    ago. Shrimpers who wanted to use the new TED got a special permit under
    the Endangered Species Act and were promised that the rule would be out
    by January 1998. It is now March and nothing has been issued. Now the
    shrimping season is rapidly approaching and the special ESA permits
    expire in April.
        What is the problem here? What do we need to do to get the agency
    to spend just a little of its time and money to address a major problem
    for the largest fishery in the United States?
        Answer. Since last fall, the National Marine Fisheries Service
    (NMFS) has been working on an interim final rule that would approve the
    use of the Parker soft Turtle Excluder Device (TED) by the shrimp
    industry in the Southeast. Because this rule is important to both our
    environmental and shrimp industry constituents, extensive documentation
    of the effectiveness of the new soft TED was prepared including
    provisions for an enforcement and monitoring program. The interim final
    rule to allow the use of the Parker soft TED is expected to be
    published in April.
        In developing a soft TED that is effective at excluding sea turtles
    under commercial fishing conditions, a cooperative gear research
    program with industry representatives was implemented in 1997 to try to
    find a way to correct documented soft TED problems. These studies were
    completed in September 1997 and resulted in one soft TED design being
    identified as effective at excluding sea turtles (the Parker soft TED).
    The cooperative research program, testing, training and outreach
    program cost over $700,000 during fiscal year 1997. During this time,
    NMFS established a liberal permitting policy to allow shrimpers
    interested in testing the Parker soft TED to use it commercially. These
    permits require the shrimpers to report on the soft TED's performance.
    Valuable information has been gathered on the soft TED's performance
    and has been used to support the interim final rule.
        NOAA will spend over $750,000 this fiscal year to ensure that TED
    manufacturers and shrimpers are instructed in the proper installation
    and use of the Parker soft TED, to support enforcement operations, to
    verify correct use, and lastly to place observers in the fishery to
    document soft TED performance. This investment will provide the
    information necessary to produce a final rule for the Parker soft TED
    in fiscal year 1999.
        Question. Near shore testing indicates that the new soft TED also
    may be effective in addressing another major problem in the shrimp
    fishery and that is bycatch. Why can't our shrimpers get permits under
    the Magnuson-Stevens Act to test these new TED's in Federal waters as
    bycatch reduction devices?
        Answer. The final rule implementing Amendment 2 to the Fishery
    Management Plan for the Shrimp Fishery of the South Atlantic Region (62
    FR 18536; April 16, 1997): Required the use of certified bycatch
    reduction devices (BRD's) in all penaeid shrimp trawls used in the
    exclusive economic zone (EEZ) in the South Atlantic; announced NMFS'
    certification of three BRD's for use in the South Atlantic EEZ (i.e.,
    extended funnel, expanded mesh, and fisheye BRD's); and established a
    framework procedure for certifying new or modified BRD's and for
    establishing and modifying the BRD certification criteria and testing
    protocol. To be eligible for NMFS certification, a BRD must be shown to
    reduce the bycatch component of fishing mortality for Spanish mackerel
    and weakfish by 50 percent, or demonstrate a 40 percent reduction in
    the number of these fish. The BRD testing protocol for the
    certification of BRD's for use in the South Atlantic EEZ was published
    in the final rule and potential testers of BRD's were advised to obtain
    the ``Bycatch Reduction Device Testing Protocol Manual,'' which
    contains the testing protocol (the manual is available from the South
    Atlantic Fishery Management Council).
        NMFS expects to publish a proposed rule shortly prescribing
    additional procedures for the testing and certification of BRD's for
    use in penaeid shrimp trawls in the South Atlantic EEZ. These
    additional procedures are intended to foster the development of
    alternative BRD's that meet the bycatch reduction criteria for Spanish
    mackerel and weakfish, while minimizing inconvenience to fishermen and/
    or loss of shrimp. Also, this proposed rule would implement collection-
    of-information requirements associated with BRD testing and
    certification that were not discussed in the proposed and final rules
    for Amendment 2.
        It is expected that implementation of these additional testing and
    certification procedures will allow shrimpers to test the Parker TED in
    the EEZ. Because the shrimp fishery in the Southeast operates primarily
    in state waters where the Spanish mackerel and weakfish bycatch in
    shrimp trawls is the greatest, NMFS has encouraged the testing of
    Parker TED's and other BRD's in those waters. Preliminary testing
    results indicate that the Parker TED has shown excellent bycatch
    reduction capability for Spanish mackerel and other finish; however,
    thus far it has not met the bycatch reduction criterion for weakfish.
        NMFS is preparing the testing and certification protocol for BRD's
    used in the Gulf of Mexico EEZ and expects to publish a proposed rule
    for this protocol soon. NMFS also intends to test the Parker TED in the
    Gulf of Mexico this year for its ability to reduce the bycatch of red
    snapper and to determine if it would meet the BRD certification
    requirements of Amendment 9 to the Fishery Management for the Shrimp
    Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico.
        Question. Finally, the State of South Carolina and our shrimpers
    have proposed a ban on night-time shrimping to protect turtles because
    they sleep at night. Why has the National Marine Fisheries Service
    ignored this proposal?
        Answer. NMFS is preparing an advance notice of proposed rulemaking
    that considers regulations that would close all or some portion of
    Federal and state waters off the South Atlantic states (North Carolina,
    South Carolina, Georgia, and Florida) to shrimp trawling at night. The
    intent of any such nighttime closure would be to reduce shrimp trawling
    effort and shrimping-related sea turtle mortality. Any such nighttime
    closure would also attempt to complement the existing nighttime
    closures in state territorial waters, to maximize the effectiveness and
    enforceability of the state and Federal closures.
        Given the existing nighttime closures affecting some state waters,
    an option for implementing extended closures to provide additional
    protection to sea turtles would be simply to close the waters of the
    Exclusive Economic Zone seaward of the currently closed state waters.
    Alternatively, any nighttime closure through Endangered Species Act
    rulemaking could overlap into state territorial waters, allowing
    Federal law enforcement officers to provide more assistance in the
    enforcement of closure violations in state waters. Again, consistency
    along the coast would be desirable in any nighttime closure implemented
    through Endangered Species Act rulemaking.
        NMFS will conduct four public hearings on the advance notice of
    proposed rulemaking, one each in North Carolina, South Carolina,
    Georgia, and Florida. NMFS expects the notice to be published in April.
                             south carolina permit
        Question. On December 30, Secretary Daley issued a decision over-
    riding the state of South Carolina's objection to an application by
    Jessie W. Taylor to fill a wetland in Surfside Beach in order to build
    a mini-warehouse. The decision differentiates between ``low'' and
    ``high'' value wetlands and provides for mitigation that cannot be
    considered under South Carolina's Federally-approved coastal management
    program.
        What is the current status of this case and what are your plans for
    dealing with it?
        Answer. The current status of the case is that the State of South
    Carolina has filed a motion for reconsideration. A decision on that
    motion is awaiting a possible resolution of the issues by the parties.
    However, should the parties not reach a resolution, the petitioner
    would be afforded an opportunity to address the motion before a
    decision on the motion will be issued.
        Question. What was the factual and legal basis that allowed the
    Secretary to characterize the subject wetlands as ``low value''?
        Answer. In the consistency appeal process, as is the case with any
    administrative appeal, the Secretary may look only at the information
    contained in the administrative record. While the term ``low quality''
    is not a current term of art in describing wetlands, the Secretary's
    characterization was based on the information contained in the
    administrative record and is detailed in the decision. As the matter is
    currently before the Secretary for reconsideration, discussion of the
    record is premature. However, current negotiations with the parties may
    address this concern.
        Question. How can the Secretary consider mitigation measures that
    are explicitly prohibited from consideration in the applicable
    Federally-approved coastal management program?
        Answer. The consistency appeal process is a remedy provided by
    Congress for those who have been stymied by state objections to their
    consistency certifications. The Secretary may override a state's
    objection if an appellant's project meets certain statutory criteria.
    It is important to note what the consistency appeal process is not. It
    is not a review of the validity of the state's objection. That is, the
    Secretary, in overriding a state's objection, is not concluding that
    the objection was improper under state law. The consistency appeal
    process allows the Secretary to override when, notwithstanding the
    validity of the state's objection, the Appellant's project meets the
    objectives and purposes of the CZMA or is otherwise necessary in the
    interest of national security. Because the Secretary is not reviewing
    the state's decision but is instead looking at independent Federal
    requirements under the CZMA, the Secretary is not limited to or bound
    by factors that are relevant to state agencies in making their
    determinations under state law.
                                   noaa corps
        Question. I raised the issue of the NOAA Corps with Secretary Daley
    yesterday. Congress clearly is not going to approve the proposal to
    abolish the NOAA Corps. Through attrition, you have already succeeded
    in cutting over 100 positions.
        Can't the Clinton Administration claim victory and allow the Corps
    to start bringing in new blood? You are killing the Corps by stopping
    new accessions. Pretty soon we won't be able to find pilots to fly into
    hurricanes or El Nino.
        Answer. NOAA management decided not to recruit new officers
    initially because of the streamlining plan and continued the hiring
    freeze because it was consistent with the proposed disestablishment of
    the Corps.
        While Congress considers the future of NOAA's uniformed service, I
    have asked NOAA management to evaluate further its personnel
    requirements and priorities for functions currently performed by the
    NOAA Corps. The purpose of this analysis is to identify the minimum
    number of staff required to operate the current fleet of NOAA's ships
    and aircraft and perform related functions essential to NOAA's mission
    such as hydrographic field surveys.
        The evaluation will allow NOAA to better determine its total
    personnel requirements for these functions and deploy the current
    complement of Corps officers to the highest priority positions. If this
    evaluation indicates a need for additional personnel in order to meet
    NOAA requirements, we will take steps to recruit the number of people
    required. We will be happy to brief you and other Members once we have
    finished this analysis.
                           climate and global change
        Question. NOAA was right on the money in predicting the El Nino
    rains that have hit the West Coast this year. It has made your Climate
    and Global Change program come into its own and gain public attention.
    I even noticed you on Larry King discussing NOAA's program.
        What are the next steps for NOAA's climate and global change
    program? Where do you see the research going next?
        Answer. NOAA's focused process research efforts have provided the
    foundation upon which the current El Nino Southern Oscillation (ENSO)
    predictive capability is based. The challenge to improve predictions of
    ENSO and its teleconnections will require a continued investment in
    research to understand the mechanisms which give rise to and maintain
    ENSO, how and the degree to which ENSO influences climate variability
    in specific regions around the globe, and how to best exploit and
    present predictive information so that it will be of optimal use in
    resource planning. But in attempting to improve climate predictions, we
    have come to realize that several ``modes'' of variability in addition
    to ENSO are interacting to influence our climate. Just as the
    investment in ENSO research over the past decade led to our current,
    somewhat limited, predictive capability, an accelerated research agenda
    focusing on other key modes of climate variability, including the North
    Atlantic Oscillation, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, and the regional
    Asian-Australian and American monsoon systems, holds promise for
    improving climate predictions. NOAA has the experience and proven track
    record for conducting focused research to unearth and exploit
    predictive signals in the climate system.
        Recent events around the world, including the current El Nino and
    the recent international convention on climate change in Kyoto, have
    increased public awareness of global climate variability and the demand
    for regionally-specific climate information. In the fiscal year 1999
    budget, the President requests $2 million to expand NOAA's United
    States regional assessments program. This program is designed to
    translate research results on U.S. climate variability by phenomena
    such as the El Nino-Southern Oscillation, the North Atlantic
    Oscillation, and increasing atmospheric greenhouse gases into
    regionally-relevant information meaningful to decision makers and the
    general public. This research is an integral component of the U.S
    Global Change Research Program's regional assessment activities.
        With the requested increase, NOAA will expand its regional
    assessment program to include a broader geographic coverage of the
    U.S., and will augment activities to strengthen the existing regional
    projects and NOAA's contribution to the interagency assessment efforts.
    Specifically, we will initiate programs designed to turn climate
    forecast information into a form people can use in two additional
    regions: the Midwest/Great Plains and the Northeast U.S. Each research
    project will be designed with significant interaction with local and
    regional stakeholders to: (1) analyze regional climate variability and
    our ability to predict it, and create increasingly localized climatic
    and hydrologic information; (2) analyze vulnerability to and
    opportunities associated with climate variability, including
    perceptions on the part of decision-makers in climate service sectors
    about the role of climate; (3) investigate human response to climate
    variability of new information, and (4) research devoted to improving
    climate information by understanding how decision makers use it.
                        polar-orbiting weather satellite
        Question. Dr. Baker, your budget proposes $65 million, an increase
    of $31 million, for the next generation polar-orbit weather satellite,
    which is to be a joint NOAA/Air Force spacecraft. Over the next five
    years your budget includes approximately $600 million for this program.
    Where do we stand on this program? Have the Air Force and NOAA reached
    agreement on what sensors and capabilities the satellite would have?
    What will it do that the current NOAA polar-orbiting satellite does not
    do? What is the estimated unit cost for one of these satellites?
        Answer. NOAA has come to agreement, not only with the Air Force,
    but also with NASA, the Department, and the Office of Management and
    Budget on the technical and programmatic content of the National Polar-
    Orbiting Operational Environmental Satellite System (NPOESS) and its
    projected budgets through fiscal year 2003. NOAA and the Air Force have
    agreed on the sensor types and the needed capabilities for the NPOESS
    satellites. Definition of these capabilities can be found in the
    ``Report on Polar Convergence Operational Benefits and Cost Savings''
    prepared for the House Appropriations Committee for Commerce, Justice,
    State, the Judiciary, and Related Agencies by the NPOESS Integrated
    Program Office.
        Beyond the current NOAA polar-orbiting satellite capabilities, the
    NPOESS satellites will meet the DOD's requirements derived from the
    Defense Meteorological Satellite Program which is also being
    ``converged'' into NPOESS. Thus, the NPOESS satellites represent the
    combination of both the civil and national security requirements of the
    two programs. Additional civil requirements which will be met include
    increased sensitivity in moisture and temperature profiles and ozone
    mapping and profiling. Additional DOD requirements, which will be met
    by NPOESS, include increased imagery requirements, data availability,
    and data access. In addition, the NPOESS satellites will be designed to
    last nearly twice as long on-orbit as the current satellites. The
    NPOESS satellite average unit cost will be approximately $400 million
    to $450 million in base year 1996 dollars. The breakout of NPOESS
    estimated costs is below:

    Breakout of NPOESS Estimated Costs

                [Base Year Fiscal Year 1996, Dollars in Millions]

    Space Segment:
        NPOESS.....................................................\1\ 2,192
        Sensors for METOP/Mods/Spares.................................   298
                            -----------------------------------------------------------------
                            ________________________________________________
          Total....................................................... 2,490
                            =================================================================
                            ________________________________________________
    O&S Segment....................................................... 1,032
    System Level......................................................   423
    Infrastructure/Technology Studies Phase 0.........................   379
    IDP Segment.......................................................   291
    Launch Segment....................................................   235
    Modifications.....................................................   196
    C3 Segment........................................................   164
                            -----------------------------------------------------------------
                            ________________________________________________
          Grand Total................................................. 5,210

    \1\ Line used to generate Unit Costs.

        Question. The overall polar-orbiting satellite plan has called for
    integration with the Europeans, and for once they are suppose to secure
    and fly a polar weather satellite instead of having the U.S. taxpayers
    pay for 100 percent of the service. I understand that our State
    Department has been holding up an agreement that NOAA and the
    Department of Defense support.
        Is that correct? What is the State Department's objection?
        Answer. Earlier this year the Europeans, through EUMETSAT, approved
    the construction of a polar weather satellite series called METOP.
    Under a proposed agreement, the METOP satellites will carry key NOAA
    sensors. This will save NOAA and DOD on the order of a billion dollars
    over the life of the METOP program. In accordance with the Case-
    Zablocki Act, the Department of State coordinated interagency review of
    the Agreement in June 1996. The USG agencies, asked by State to review
    the Agreement, provided their clearance by September 1996. However,
    approval of the Agreement has been held up for over a year due to an
    issue between the Departments of State and Defense. DOD and NOAA
    negotiated with Europe an agreement to selectively deny data to an
    enemy during crisis or war while providing the data to the United
    States and its allies. The State Department questions the specifics of
    this agreement. The Europeans have asked that we confirm that NOAA is
    authorized to sign the Agreement by April 30, 1998. We are hopeful that
    the State Department clearance will be received in time to honor the
    European request.
                         SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

    STATEMENT OF HON. AIDA ALVAREZ, ADMINISTRATOR
    ACCOMPANIED BY:
            GREGORY A. WALTER, DEPUTY CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
            JOHN GRAY, ASSOCIATE DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR FOR CAPITAL ACCESS
            BERNARD KULIK, ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR FOR DISASTER ASSISTANCE

                                 Budget request

        Senator Gregg. We will reconvene the hearing to hear from
    Administrator Alvarez as to the budget submission relative to
    the SBA.
        There are questions which have been submitted by members,
    including Senator Domenici. But any other questions which come
    along we will also submit in writing.
        Ms. Alvarez. Mr. Chairman, and Senator Hollings, members of
    the subcommittee, first of all let me say that I think that
    this proposed budget is perhaps one of the strongest budgets
    that we have had for the small business community. We are
    requesting a total of $724.4 million, but asking for only a
    modest growth of 1.16 percent in the overall resources for the
    agency.
        This budget will provide unprecedented levels of credit
    with the request being for $11 billion program level for the
    7(a) loan program, $3 billion program level for the section
    504, $1.1 billion program level for the Small Business
    Investment Co.
        The SBA is also requesting $901 million program level for
    disaster loans in 1999, which is the amount equal to the 10-
    year historical average of disaster assistance. The request
    also includes a $15 million initiative to support mitigation
    activities, to help small businesses prepare in advance of a
    disaster, which would reduce the cost should disaster strike.
        As we move forward we are very focused on creating a SBA
    that is prepared to help small business be successful in the
    21st century, which means we are focused on the diversity of
    that community, the fact that it is technologically driven and
    global in scope.
        In accommodating the diversity of the community, we have
    focused on assisting women. We are proposing a $9 million
    request for the women's business centers, which would allow us
    to establish an additional 30 centers, reaching our goal of
    having one Women's Business Center in every single State, which
    we do not presently have.
        We also feel that there is still a considerable need for
    Government-sponsored business development and training.
    Senator, you have been a supporter of the 7(j) program. We are
    requesting $9.5 million for the business training program,
    which not only assists the 8(a) companies, but we would be
    expanding the 8(a) program participation to include more women
    who will need assistance. We also have now newly designated
    HUBZone firms, and we will need to assist them. We also feel
    that these 7(j) funds should be used to support business
    development on Indian reservations, and in Alaskan Native
    villages, and that is really where that request comes from.
        The microloan program is now permanent, and we propose to
    double microloan levels from 1998 to 1999. We recognize that
    there is an imbalance between the microloan dollars for loans
    and the technical assistance available, and we will work with
    you to find ways to bolster the technical assistance funding.
        Finally, let me just say that we have given you
    reprogramming letters, which we believe will help us to upgrade
    our lender oversight capacity, our systems infrastructure,
    which will help us maintain a lower subsidy rate, which is
    where the lion's share of those reprogrammed dollars will go,
    to the 7(a) program.
        And I have to say that we are very proud that SBA has one
    of the best financial management infrastructures in Government.
    We were the only credit agency to receive an unqualified
    opinion for our 1996 audit, and last week I learned that we
    again received an unqualified opinion on our 1997 financial
    statements.
        We are looking to take the SBA to a higher level, from the
    standpoint of internal controls. So we have asked for $3
    million for an initiative that will make us COSO auditable,
    which is a standard that the private sector aspires to. And we
    think Government should, as well.
        We have also asked for $1 million to implement a system for
    criminal background checks for SBA borrowers. We think that
    this will reduce losses in our loan program.
        Basically I think this is a budget that asks for modest
    increases, but with a great payoff, and will help us to prepare
    small businesses for the 21st century.

                               prepared statement

        I also want to put in a word for our nominee to be Deputy
    Administrator, Fred Hochberg, who is a very successful
    businessman, and would bring a wealth of experience to the SBA.
    I am hopeful that Fred will get a confirmation hearing soon,
    and that members will be able to support his nomination.
        Thank you very much for inviting me here today.
        [The statement follows:]
                       Prepared Statement of Aida Alvarez
        Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for this
    opportunity to appear before you today to present the fiscal year 1999
    budget for the Small Business Administration. I am very proud to
    present this budget. It represents one of the strongest budgets ever
    for America's small businesses with record levels proposed in all of
    our major capital and credit programs and our entrepreneurial
    development programs. At the same time, we are able to achieve these
    record levels with only modest growth in the overall resources for the
    agency. SBA is requesting a 1.16 percent increase from $716 million in
    fiscal year 1998 to $724 million in fiscal year 1999.
        I am particularly pleased to present the SBA budget in the context
    of the President's proposal to balance the budget in fiscal year 1999.
    The President's budget presents the first balanced budget in 30 years.
    The last three White House Conferences on small business made balancing
    the budget one of their key recommendations. The President's budget
    delivers for America's small businesses.
        With my remarks today, Mr. Chairman, I would like to outline my
    overall objectives for the Small Business Administration, review our
    accomplishments over my first year in office, and then conclude by
    showing how the SBA's 1999 budget builds on these accomplishments to
    prepare SBA and the small business community for the future.
             preparing sba and small business for the 21st century
        At the SBA, we are preparing ourselves and our small business
    customers for the 21st Century. The rapid changes in our economy today
    show us what the economy of tomorrow will look like. The economy in the
    21st Century will be more diverse, technologically-driven, and global
    in scope.
        SBA is already well prepared for the 21st Century: we are serving
    an increasingly diverse business population and we have set in motion a
    series of initiatives to increase our service to rapidly growing
    markets of women-owned and minority owned businesses.
        We are at the forefront of technology, serving small businesses in
    a smart sophisticated way. We are well on our way to becoming a
    paperless organization. And, we are expanding our own understanding of
    the global marketplace and increasing our ability to help small
    businesses find opportunities in the international arena.
        We must prepare for a more diverse America. By the year 2050, there
    will be no racial or ethnic majorities in America. The face of small
    business is already changing rapidly. Minority- and women-owned firms
    are growing faster than all other firms. The census bureau found that
    minority-owned firms grew at a rate of 62 percent over the 1987 to 1992
    period. Women-owned firms grew at a 43 percent rate. All firms only
    grew at a 26 percent rate.
        I strongly believe that SBA must be at the forefront of serving
    these growing yet traditionally underserved business communities.
    Simply put, it makes good business sense.
        SBA has already done a very good job of increasing its lending to
    the more diverse American business community. Since 1992, SBA has more
    than doubled its loans to African Americans from 741 loans in 1992 to
    1,903 loans in 1997. Since 1992, SBA has more than doubled its loans to
    Hispanic-owned firms from 1,356 loans in 1992 to 3,371 loans in 1997.
    And, the SBA has increased its loans to women-owned businesses to
    10,787 loans in 1997--up from 3,591 in 1992--nearly tripling our annual
    volume.
        It is important to note, Mr. Chairman, that we have achieved these
    levels of growth and, at the same time, improved our credit quality.
    Even while increasing our lending to these underserved communities, we
    have brought down our program's cost to the government. In 1992, we
    estimated that the cost the government was $4.85 for every 100 dollars
    we guaranteed under the 7(a) program. Today, that cost has been reduced
    to $1.39. Our record shows that we can increase minority-owned
    businesses and women-owned businesses participation in our programs
    without hurting program performance.
        We still have much further to go in serving these underserved
    communities. African Americans make up 12.6 percent of the population
    and yet own only 3.6 percent of all businesses. Hispanic Americans make
    up 10.3 percent of the population yet own only 5.6 percent of all
    businesses. SBA wants to close the gap and increase minority and women
    business ownership. We want to increase our loans to fast growing
    women-owned businesses and the Asian-American business sectors. And, we
    see huge needs for coordinated economic and business development
    strategies on Indian reservations and in Alaskan Native villages.
        SBA has launched a series of initiatives to do a better job of
    serving the increasingly diverse small business community. These
    initiatives include: aggressive three-year goals for the organization,
    tied to performance appraisals; new partnerships with national and
    local civic groups to help link good borrowers with our SBA lending
    community; conversations with our lenders on best practices and the
    development of new ideas that we can disseminate; and doing a better
    job of linking our capital and credit programs with our vast
    entrepreneurial development services.
        In addition to preparing for the increasing diversity of the
    American small business community, SBA is also on the forefront of
    technology. We are constantly developing new on-line services to small
    businesses.
        Early last year, SBA announced a new Women's On-Line Business
    Center. The On-Line Center is free and interactive, providing
    information on business development strategies and SBA's services.
    Women's On-Line is a smashing success: in just over a month of
    existence, we had 60,000 visits to the site from 50 different countries
    around the world. SBA has also developed a new on-line product called
    Pro-Net linking 171,000 small businesses thus far with federal
    contracting officers; and, an on-line network called ACE-Net that links
    small firms with equity investors. Technology not only links us to
    small businesses, it is essential if U.S. small businesses are to
    remain competitive.
        Finally, it is clear to me that in order to prepare for the 21st
    Century we must help small business get ready for increasing
    globalization. Already small businesses are 96 percent of all exporters
    and they do 30 percent of all export sales. We are working actively
    with our lenders to expand the use of our Export Working Capital
    Program, with a 90 percent guarantee--and we are working to introduce a
    new on-line risk management support system. We already have 19 U.S.
    Export Assistance Centers.
                        fiscal year 1997 accomplishments
        Mr. Chairman, I have just passed the one-year anniversary of my
    tenure as SBA Administrator. With the help and support of this
    Committee, we have accomplished much on behalf of America's small
    businesses. In fact, we have had a remarkable year. We are increasing
    small business access to capital and credit. In 1997, SBA provided
    record levels of loan guarantees under our 7(a) general business loan
    and our Section 504 economic development loan programs--$10.9 billion
    in new loan approvals to more than 50,000 small business owners. Our
    Small Business Investment Companies also provided record levels of
    assistance to America's small businesses, with more than $2.4 billion
    in venture capital financings. More than 90 percent of the investments
    made by the SBIC's were in the form of equity. We are on track to
    establish new records this year.
        Our government contracting programs and our entrepreneurial
    development programs also continue to create opportunities for small
    business success. Our Office of Government Contracting supported nearly
    $40 billion in federal contracts for small businesses, including more
    than $10 billion for small disadvantaged businesses and $3.2 billion
    for women owned businesses. I am particularly pleased that the
    Administration was able to work with the Congress to increase the
    overall procurement goal for small businesses from 20 percent to 23
    percent. Our entrepreneurial development programs--Small Business
    Development Centers, Women's Business Centers, Business Information
    Centers, and our 13,000-member strong Service Corps of Retired
    Executives or SCORE program--more than 1,000,000 entrepreneurs
    participated in our valuable counseling, education, and training.
        SBA continues its excellent work helping families and businesses
    recover from disasters. In fiscal year 1997, SBA provided more than
    $1.1 billion in new loan approvals to more than 50,000 borrowers. SBA
    employees sacrificed their Christmas vacations to help the people of
    Guam when a massive typhoon hit there. As we speak, SBA employees are
    providing first-class service to displaced homeowners and business
    people who have been flooded by El Nino in California, frozen in the
    ice storms of New England, or had their homes torn asunder in Central
    Florida. SBA disaster loans are providing a downpayment on these
    families' futures.
                        fiscal year 1999 budget overview
        The SBA 1999 budget is very good news for America's small business.
    It is arguable the best SBA budget ever proposed. The budget recommends
    $724.4 million for SBA programs--a modest 1.16 percent increase over
    the 1998 appropriations. Yet, this budget offers small businesses
    unprecedented levels of SBA-supported capital and credit and an
    expansion of our education, training and counseling programs.
        We are able to achieve this program growth within a modest budget
    request because our loan subsidy rates are coming down partly as a
    result of the excellent work done by my Chief Financial Officer, his
    Deputy, and a terrific team of new analysts who have tackled the
    subsidy rate challenge and enhanced our analytical capability. Improved
    management of all our credit programs, coupled with a strong economy,
    has allowed SBA to reduce the cost to the government of all of its
    major loan programs from 1998 to 1999. The budget proposes a reduction
    in the 7(a) business loan program subsidy rate from 2.14 percent in
    1998 to 1.39 percent in 1999, a reduction in the SBIC Debenture program
    subsidy rate from 1.94 percent in 1998 to 1.38 percent in 1999, and a
    reduction in the microloan direct program subsidy rate from 10.31
    percent in 1998 to 9.54 percent in 1999.
        With the lower subsidy rates, we are able to increase our lending
    at a lower cost to the government. We are able to do more for small
    business with fewer federal resources.
             increasing small business access to capital and credit
        The budget proposes an appropriation of $153 million for a program
    level of $11 billion for the 7(a) general business loan guarantee
    program--$1.8 billion higher than this year's projected program level
    and an increase of about 20 percent.
        The budget also includes good news for the economic development
    loan program know as Section 504. Under the SBA's proposed budget, our
    certified development company partners can anticipate $3 billion in
    program authority to support local community development efforts. SBA
    is especially proud that we will be able to propose reductions in
    program fees for the second straight year, reducing borrowing costs for
    small businesses.
        SBA's budget reflects a growing commitment to the now-permanent
    microloan program. The microloan program supports very small loans of
    less than $25,000. SBA wants to double microloan direct loan levels to
    $60 million in 1999. The budget reduces the loan subsidy rate for the
    microloan program from 10.31 percent in 1998 to 9.54 percent in 1999,
    due to continued improved portfolio performance. In addition, $16.5
    million would be available for technical assistance for microloan
    borrowers.
        The $1.1 billion program level requested in support for the Small
    Business Investment Company program also represents a record level. The
    SBIC program provides venture capital to start and grow small
    businesses. The estimated 1999 program level for the SBIC program is
    nearly three times the 1997 level. SBA requests $3.7 million for the
    debenture program and $6.2 million for the participating security
    program. This request along with carry over funds will achieve the
    program level.
        SBA requests $3.3 million which along with carry over funds is
    projected to create a $1.7 billion level for our surety bond guaranty
    program. This continues the 1998 level of support for the program.
                 enhancing entrepreneurial development services
        SBA will continue to enhance its portfolio of service for new and
    existing entrepreneurs. The fiscal year 1999 budget proposes that total
    funding for SBA's counseling, training, education, and outreach
    programs would increase $12 million to $121 million--an increase of 11
    percent over 1998 funding levels.
        The SBA has requested a significant expansion of the Women's
    Business Center program. The 1999 budget proposes to more than double
    funding for the program to $9 million. This funding increase will allow
    the SBA to establish up to 30 new centers.
        SBA's budget more than triples support for the specialized
    technical and managerial assistance programs aimed at small businesses
    to $9.5 million. This amount is up from $2.6 million in 1998. Through
    the 7(j) program, SBA provides a variety of assistance to eligible
    firms including: specialized training, professional consultant
    assistance, and high-level executive development. The 7(j) resources
    help SBA support the business development of firms participating in the
    8(a) business development program and small businesses in areas with a
    high proportion of low-income individuals and high unemployment. The
    1999 budget request would support business development on Native
    American reservations and in remote Alaskan Native villages, and
    special assistance to disabled veterans.
        The SBA budget seeks to reaffirm our critical partnerships
    providing training on behalf of America's 22 million small businesses.
    SBA requests $3.5 million to support our Service Corps of Retired
    Executives or SCORE program with more than 13,000 volunteers
    nationwide. SBA seeks $75.8 million for our Small Business Development
    Center program's approximately 1,000 locations around the country. This
    amount is the highest level ever requested by the Administration for
    this popular program. SBA also will continue to expand the number of
    Business Information Centers (BIC's) with the $500,000 requested in
    1999. SBA currently supports 41 BIC's, with 20 more planned in 1998 and
    6 more planned in 1999.
          expanding small business access to procurement opportunities
        Under the budget proposal, the SBA would take a leadership role in
    meeting the federal government's goals of providing 23 percent of all
    federal contracting dollars to small businesses, 7 percent of federal
    contracting dollars to small disadvantaged businesses, and 5 percent of
    federal contracting dollars to women-owned businesses.
        SBA is especially committed to improving the federal government's
    performance vis-a-vis the women's business goal of 5 percent.
    Currently, federal procurement for women-owned businesses stands at
    less than 2 percent. The expansion of the Women's Business Centers is
    part of our strategy for meeting the women's procurement goal.
        The budget includes support for expansion of Pro-Net--the on-line
    service that links procurement officers with small businesses. Small
    businesses can use Pro-Net to market their products and services, and
    to identify procurement opportunities. Pro-Net represents a significant
    new tool in the effort to meet procurement goals and to expand
    procurement opportunities for small businesses with state and local
    governments and the private sector. Already, 171,000 small businesses
    are listed on the Pro-Net system. SBA is requesting $500,000 to expand
    Pro-Net to serve even more small businesses.
        SBA will continue to strengthen and improve our core small
    disadvantaged business development program known as 8(a). New rules
    expected shortly will create a mentor-protege program and make it
    easier for small firms to affiliate and compete for larger contracts.
    Our planning also includes a better linkage of 8(a) firms to the broad
    spectrum of business development services and capital access
    opportunities provided by SBA.
          helping small businesses and families recover from disasters
        SBA is committed to assisting small businesses that have been hit
    by the crippling effects of disasters. The budget requests $901 million
    for disaster loans in 1999--an amount equal to the 10-year historical
    average level of disaster assistance. This level can be achieved with
    no new appropriations, due to projected availability of carryover funds
    and a reduced subsidy rate of 5.93 percent. The Administration proposes
    to increase the disaster loan borrower's interest rate to the
    Treasury's cost of money, capped at 6 percent. This proposal accounts
    for the decrease in the disaster loan program subsidy rate from 23.46
    percent in fiscal year 1998 to 5.93 percent for fiscal year 1999. Since
    the program's inception, SBA has provided more than $25 billion in low-
    interest loans to families and businesses.
        This year's budget also proposes an important $15 million loan
    initiative to support disaster mitigation activities--helping small
    businesses prepare in advance for disaster events and hopefully
    reducing the levels of losses and costs to the taxpayer should
    disasters strike. This pre-disaster program would work in concert with
    FEMA's ``Project Impact'' pre-disaster program, but target small
    businesses likely to benefit from a mitigation strategy.
                 bringing enterprise to distressed communities
        Under the budget proposal, SBA will continue to expand our One Stop
    Capital Shop programs. The Agency expects to increase the number of One
    Stop Capital Shops in 1998 and 1999. SBA currently operates 14 One Stop
    Capital Shops. The budget requests $3.1 million for support of this
    program that provides coordinated services for small business
    development in distressed communities.
        The budget also includes a request for $4 million for
    implementation of the new procurement program for Historically
    Underutilized Business Zones or HUBZones. New laws target 3 percent of
    federal procurement dollars by the year 2003 to firms located in
    distressed areas--both urban and rural.
            leading small business participation in welfare-to-work
        As the main source of most new jobs in the economy, small
    businesses represent the ``work'' side of the welfare-to-work equation.
    As a result of the strong economy, labor shortages are an increasing
    concern for small firms. Welfare-to-work initiatives represent a
    opportunity for small businesses to access work-ready employees. It is
    important to emphasize that our role in the welfare-to-work initiative
    is consistent with our traditional mission. We want to serve our small
    business customers by providing them with good information on federal
    tax credits and local services that are available if they wish to hire
    people off welfare. SBA can also play an important linkage role by
    giving our small business customers referrals to intermediaries who are
    preparing welfare recipients for work.
        transforming the sba into a 21st century leading edge financial
                                  institution
        The 1999 budget supports SBA's transformation into a 21st Century
    Leading Edge Financial Institution. SBA has improved its program
    management by relying more on our private sector lending partners. For
    example, we have improved our processing through our preferred lender
    program or PLP. Under the Preferred Lending Program, lenders make the
    credit decisions and undertake all of the liquidation and servicing of
    loans. SBA approves loans for guarantee in under 24 hours. PLP has been
    very successful and has made a fundamental change in our business. In
    1994, 16 percent of our 7(a) loans were approved through the PLP
    program. Last year, more than 52 percent of our loans went through the
    PLP center. We are growing our programs while the cost to the
    government is going down. Approximately 400 lenders have qualified as
    PLP's.
        SBA will continue to devolve responsibilities to the private
    sector. Beginning this year, all of our lenders will be required to
    service and liquidate our 7(a) loans. And, we will, this year, begin a
    program of asset sales--starting with a minimum $150 million sale in
    the fall and contract-out 30 percent of our disaster home loans to a
    private-sector service.
        The budget includes a $12 million initiative to improve the
    management and oversight of our loan portfolios and other programs
    through new systems, increased analytical capacity, new risk management
    approaches, and increased lender and resource partner oversight.
        The budget includes a $3 million initiative to allow the SBA to
    reach a standard of internal control comparable to one sought by major
    private financial institutions. Accordingly, SBA is implementing an
    internal controls program consistent with the Committee of Sponsoring
    Organizations (COSO) of the Treadway Commission. SBA already has one of
    the best financial management infrastructures in government. We were
    the only credit agency to receive an unqualified opinion on our 1996
    audit. We recently have learned that SBA will achieve an unqualified
    opinion on the audit of our financial statements the second straight
    year. Now, SBA has embarked on a 5-year effort to reach the so-called
    COSO standards. COSO represents a cutting-edge approach to internal
    controls that goes beyond the accuracy of financial reporting to the
    measuring of efficiency and effectiveness of internal controls. Few, if
    any, private sector financial institutions now meet the high COSO
    standards.
        The SBA budget proposal requests $1 million to implement a system
    for criminal background checks on SBA borrowers. SBA's objective is to
    reduce losses in our loan programs through better detection of
    applicants with disqualifying histories. At the same time, the Agency
    seeks a system that will not delay the provision of credit to the vast
    majority of our small business borrowers.
        The budget also would provide $11.3 million for the Office of the
    Inspector General (OIG). The OIG is a valuable, independent
    organization within the SBA that provides outstanding assistance to the
    Administrator and the organization's Senior Management in preventing
    waste, fraud, and abuse and in furthering the efficient delivery of
    SBA's programs and services.
        In mentioning the OIG budget, I would like to take a moment for a
    personal note. SBA lost a valuable member of our community when our
    Inspector General, James F. Hoobler, passed away in December. He served
    as our IG since being sworn in April of 1991. Dr. Hoobler was
    extraordinarily gifted and conscientious, and his loss has been felt
    throughout the SBA community.
               serving as a voice for america's small businesses
        SBA will continue our leadership role on behalf of America's 22
    million small businesses. Within the resources proposed in this budget,
    SBA will help small businesses succeed in the next century with better
    information on the use of technology and with better access to
    international business opportunities.
        The budget requests $1.4 million for SBA's Office of Advocacy. The
    Advocate provides outstanding assistance to America's small businesses
    in his role promoting regulatory fairness and reducing the costs of
    federal regulations, raising small business concerns in the context of
    major public policy issues, and contributing to basic research on small
    business issues. I want to emphasize the importance of providing a
    specific funding level for the Office of Advocacy which was established
    by Congress as a statutorily independent office. Separate funding is
    critical to maintaining the independence of this office.
        The budget includes $500,000 to support the Office of the Ombudsman
    and the Regulatory Fairness Boards. Now in our second year, this
    program is providing small businesses a place to raise issues and seek
    redress related to the enforcement federal regulations.
         other initiatives in the president's budget for small business
        The President's budget includes a $1.5 billion initiative to expand
    the small business provision of pension plans. The initiative will
    provide a 50 percent tax credit on up to $2,000 of the first year costs
    of setting up a pension plan and a 50 percent tax credit on up to
    $1,000 on the cost of administering the plan. The initiative also
    includes a second component known as the SMART pension plan. SMART will
    provide simpler rules that will allow more small businesses to begin
    defined benefit plans.
        Most importantly, the President's budget addresses small business
    needs for good, high quality workers. The budget includes major
    workforce investments--education, job training, child care, health
    care, welfare-to-work, and pensions--that will provide America's small
    business community with employees who are better prepared for the job
    and more focused on their work.
                                   conclusion
        The SBA's budget proposal is modest in its request for increased
    resources, but far reaching in its vision for improving our services to
    America's small businesses. With this budget, SBA will continue to
    prepare itself and America's small businesses for the future. With
    outreach to an increasingly diverse small business community, expansion
    of the use of technology to deliver our services, and improved
    understanding of the opportunities in the international marketplace,
    SBA will show small business the way to success in the 21st Century.
        Thank you for inviting me to appear here today. I will be happy to
    answer any further questions that you have.

                             African-American loans

        Senator Gregg. Thank you for that quick and concise
    statement. Senator Hollings.
        Senator Hollings. You have done an outstanding job. And I
    know that you have doubled the African-American loans. You have
    doubled the Hispanic loans. You have tripled the loans for
    women.
        Now, how about even a little more. What about quadrupling
    loans for the African-Americans? You know, the political polls
    lie--I think back to my mother-in-law when she saw Robert
    Redford. I was having a little fundraiser, and she looked at
    him--noting he was shorter than she expected. She says moving
    pictures lie. [Laughter.]
        These political polls lie. Affirmative action is not the
    cure for racism. It's the cause. Now, the solution is in your
    hands. Give our African-American friends a piece of the
    economic pie. Quadruple those African-American loans. That's
    the way to get rid of racism.
        And you can do it.
        Ms. Alvarez. Well, sir, we have----
        Senator Hollings. That's what you can do, really--and I
    have talked to the President about it. Call up the Nation's
    banks. Quadruple the loans.
        You see, Lyndon Johnson, he knew. And when he took over as
    Vice President under Kennedy, he organized the EEOC and had
    them call up all these Defense contractors and say you've got
    to give some promotions, you've got to give some contracts to
    minorities.
        Rather than talk about it and having meetings and crying
    and whining to each other all over the countryside, just do it.
    And you can. You're good. Let's start it at least in small
    business. Because it's busting out all over.
        And if African-Americans get a chance, small business is
    where they are going to start. And then you will find that it
    will all blend in and they will do fine. But right now, they
    are just not having that opportunity.
        And the banks, getting right to another point here, let's
    talk about 7(a) loans. We are going from where we started, just
    with $3 billion in 1990 when we were down, to now when we are
    up, the economy is booming, and we are up to $11 billion.
        You know, with 7(a) loans we might be stalling those
    bankers. They might be using us rather than their own moneys. I
    noticed you reduced the subsidy rate.
        Ms. Alvarez. Yes.
        Senator Hollings. Which is good. Don't get them too
    spoiled, because if the economy goes down, we are going to need
    that $11 billion, and we are going to have a hard time
    providing the money here at the committee level.
        Well I want to commend you. And Lenny is doing good down
    there at the university for our Small Business Development
    Center there.
        Ms. Alvarez. Yes.
        Senator Hollings. You are doing an outstanding job. But
    there is one improvement I would ask for, and that is to
    continue doing what you are doing, but doing a little more on
    those African-American loans, in our section, at least. That
    will give them a chance.
        Ms. Alvarez. If I may, for a second, I agree with you, and,
    in fact, very recently we announced an African-American
    initiative that would actually quadruple by the year 2000 the
    loans to African-Americans.
        We have doubled, since 1992, and from 1997 to the year 2000
    we are proposing to double that again. We think we can do it
    because, frankly, right now less than 4 percent of our
    portfolio is for African-Americans. We have been entering----
        Senator Hollings. Less than what percent?
        Ms. Alvarez. Four percent. And that's not good enough.
        Senator Hollings. That's not good.
        Ms. Alvarez. We have been working with the lending
    community on this. We have been developing relationships with
    organizations, the National Urban League, the Black Chamber,
    because we think we need to use them to help us get more of
    those loans through the door. So I totally agree with you.
        Senator Hollings. I appreciate it. Thank you very much, Mr.
    Chairman.

                       Native American and Alaskan issues

        Senator Gregg. On that point, I don't want to see the 7(j)
    program diluted into a mish mash of 20 different programs. I
    think it is focused now, and it's on track. So I am concerned
    about this expansion of it.
        I would presume that the native American and Alaskan issue
    could be addressed out of the 8(a) program. Why do we have to
    use the 7(j)?
        Ms. Alvarez. 7(j) does help the 8(a) firms. In many cases
    we are talking about Alaskan Natives. There hasn't really been
    a particular focus on Alaskan Natives and native Americans even
    though we have an Office of Native American Affairs.
        In fact, there are actually no funds in 8(a) to provide
    business development assistance. It all comes out of 7(j). We
    are going to be releasing some new regulations shortly for 8(a)
    which will make the interpretation of who gets into the program
    much broader.
        We expect, for example, many more women who apply to get
    into the 8(a) program. We have the HUBZone program, for which
    we are preparing the regulations. And that will introduce all
    sorts of new participants--some of whom may be 8(a) firms, but
    who need this development help.
        And we just feel that the native Americans and Alaskan
    Natives have been overlooked, and we can use some funding to
    help them.
        Senator Gregg. I am sure you can. I just want to keep the
    7(j) program a focused program.
        Ms. Alvarez. I agree.
        Senator Gregg. In the microlending area, what is the
    average size of the loan in microlending?
        Ms. Alvarez. About $10,000. The upper limit is $25,000, but
    on average it is about $10,000.
        Senator Gregg. And you are spending about $16 million on
    technical assistance?
        Ms. Alvarez. That is correct.
        Senator Gregg. What does that involve, the technical
    assistance?
        Ms. Alvarez. John Gray, might want to speak to this, but
    when a person receives a microloan, we would like to see about
    20 percent of that loan be designated as a grant that helps
    with the technical assistance.
        John, do you want to address this for a second?
        Mr. Gray. I am John Gray, the Associate Deputy
    Administrator for Capital Access.
        The way the microloan program is set up, the technical
    assistance component is paid directly to the microlender, which
    then provides the technical assistance to the ultimate
    borrower.
        Senator Gregg. By technical assistance, you mean they go
    out and they help the person set up books and do things like
    that?
        Mr. Gray. Yes; and what is unique about this program is the
    technical assistance dollars apply over the life of the loan.
    So if there is a monthly problem or an annual problem, they are
    right there.
        Senator Gregg. What is the default rate that you are
    finding? Of course you have not had this program long enough
    probably to have one. But what do you see?
        Mr. Gray. There is no default rate to the SBA yet. We loan
    to microlenders and they have not defaulted. We do have one
    problem in New Hampshire that we anticipate--but it is not
    based on the microborrowers. It is a management problem of the
    microlender.
        The default rate is minimal from the actual microborrower.
        Senator Gregg. Is that because it is so early in the
    program?
        Mr. Gray. No; it is actually because the microlenders
    themselves have the credit responsibility, and they really
    focus, because they do not want to lose their loan loss reserve
    which they are required to hold. They are actually on the
    ground, and very disciplined. I think that is the strength of
    the program.
        Senator Gregg. So your request expands it to $60 million.
    You don't expect any carry over this year?
        Ms. Alvarez. Yes.
        Mr. Gray. We do expect some. And because it just became a
    permanent program, we expect the 103 intermediaries we have
    today to increase to 200. It is going to take a period of time
    to properly judge and analyze the new microlenders. So we
    probably will not hit the full dollar amount this year, and,
    therefore, we would have carry over into 1999.
        Senator Gregg. What are you seeing as a percentage of carry
    over?
        Mr. Gray. We actually haven't projected that just yet. I
    believe that in the budget figure----
        Mr. Walter. We are not projecting any carryover for the
    technical assistance or direct loan program. It is in the
    guarantee program that we do project a carry over.
        Mr. Gray. In the guarantee, we do.
        Senator Gregg. What percentage of microborrowers are
    minority?
        Mr. Gray. It is a higher percentage than the overall.
        Senator Gregg. Of that percentage, what percentage are
    women?
        Mr. Gray. One hundred percent women owned, 45 percent.
    Fifty-one percent women owned, 10 percent. So we always use the
    100 percent owned figure, and 45 percent of our borrowers are
    women.
        Senator Gregg. Now, you are reducing as has been pointed
    out the subsidy rate. Do you expect to get that?
        Ms. Alvarez. First of all, part of the reduction will be
    based on whether we can reprogram an additional $10 million,
    which is in the letters that we sent to you.
        When we realized last fall that we were going to have these
    recoveries, we started working with the subcommittees, and at
    that time $10 million was allocated to the 7(a) program. That
    brought the subsidy rate down.
        We then requested $18 million, and we were appropriated $8
    million for this year. That further reduces the subsidy rate.
    With the reprogramming for an additional $10 million we should
    bring down the subsidy rate.
        Greg, do you want to talk about the specifics of that?
        Mr. Walter. I am Greg Walter, by the way. Deputy CFO.
        The subsidy rate for this year started out at 2.19 percent
    for the 7(a) program. With the $8 million appropriation for the
    monitoring and oversight, and including loan performance, that
    will lower the subsidy rate to 2.13 percent once the funding is
    released. And then with the additional reprogramming of $10
    million, that would further reduce the subsidy rate down to
    2.06 percent which would, in fact, then leverage a $9.5 billion
    7(a) program this year.
        And the subsidy rate for next year is 1.39 percent.
        Senator Gregg. How do you get to 1.39 percent?
        Mr. Walter. It is a reflection of a couple of things that
    have happened. One, the loans continue to perform very well. We
    have seen that the purchase rate or the level of defaults
    continues to decline in the program over time, and the
    recoveries continue to increase. These are a result of several
    factors. One, our underwriting has gotten stronger, through
    stronger relationships with our lenders, and, second, on the
    back end, once there is a default, we have been emphasizing the
    servicing and collection of loans very much in the agency over
    the last couple of years, and thus our recovery rates are going
    up. So it is a combination of improved defaults, improved
    recoveries, and the general management of the program that has
    caused the rates to come down.

                                  Subsidy rate

        Senator Gregg. Well, in the past it has been almost a
    downward event, it seems to me, the subsidy rate.
        Ms. Alvarez. We have really worked hard to get that under
    control. We have worked with OMB. We brought on board about 30
    new people to work as financial analysts. A lot had to do, I
    think, with a lack of people and expertise at our own agency.
    We have also brought in outside consultants to work with us on
    it. There has been a lot of investment in this.
        Senator Gregg. Well, what happens if you do not reach 1.39
    percent?
        Mr. Walter. That rate has already been decided. That is the
    administration's rate, and unless there is either a
    programmatic or legislative change that would cause it to
    change it will be 1.39 percent.
        Senator Gregg. Do you have any more questions?
        Senator Hollings. No.

                                Disaster program

        Senator Gregg. The disaster program, you are adding 117
    people to this program. Why is that?
        Mr. Kulik. We add to the disaster loanmaking side as we
    need people for disasters, and then we terminate them when that
    need has disappeared.
        Mr. Walter. The request for 117 positions is a net increase
    based primarily on the level of loanmaking. The personnel level
    is assumed to be higher in 1999. The 1998 level is assumed to
    be $785 million, which is the 10-year average, and the 10-year
    average for 1999 would be $901 million. So the assumed increase
    in the program level would cause a need to hire some additional
    temporary people to take care of the additional volume of
    loans.
        Senator Gregg. Are these permanent people, or do you get
    rid of them as the loan----
        Mr. Kulik. On the loan making side----
        Senator Gregg. But you said they were on the servicing
    side.
        Mr. Kulik. They are on the loan----
        Mr. Walter. On the loanmaking side.
        Senator Gregg. Yes.
        Mr. Walter. These are just temporary employees, and as the
    demand goes up, we increase. As the demand goes down we
    decrease.
        Senator Gregg. When would you expect that these people
    would be decreased.
        Mr. Kulik. We wouldn't even put them on unless the demand
    was there.
        Ms. Alvarez. It is only the projection. This 10-year
    historical average. Obviously there is no way to predict
    exactly what is going to happen with disasters. You just base
    it on a 10-year rolling average and make those projections. If
    it doesn't happen, they never come on board.
        Mr. Kulik. For example, we had a high of about 3,500 people
    in the middle of the Northridge earthquake. Since then the
    numbers, even though we have had disasters every year, sizable
    ones, our number has come down to about 900.
        Senator Gregg. I would like to get the last 2 years
    estimates, what the projection is, and then a report every 4
    months or 6 months as to how many you are retaining and how
    this number is affected.
        Mr. Kulik. We will do that.
        Senator Gregg. Great.
        [The information follows:]

        Attached are three documents which outline the staff
    variations, since the inception of the current organizational
    structure in 1981. The compilation in Attachment A shows the
    number of employees at the end of each month, broken down by
    types. The cadre (cad) are permanent civil service employees,
    but are guaranteed only 6 months work each year. The
    temporaries (temp) are hired as and when needed and terminated
    when the work demand lessens. Attachment B shows the highs and
    lows of total employment during each year since 1981 and
    Attachment C shows the numbers of employees at the end of each
    month for 1997. Please note that these are disaster loan making
    field office employees. In addition, there are 18 employees in
    the central office and approximately 14 in our Denver fiscal
    office that are charged to the disaster loan making function.
    These employees also can be permanent, cadre or temporary
    employees. The numbers for these latter offices remain fairly
    constant.

                                                                            ATTACHMENT A.--DISASTER FIELD PERSONNEL, 1982-98
                                                                                        [As of February 28, 1998]
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               1982                    1983                    1984                    1985                    1986                    1987
                                                     -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        Cad    Temp    Total    Cad    Temp    Total    Cad    Temp    Total    Cad    Temp    Total    Cad    Temp    Total    Cad    Temp    Total
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    January.........................................      60      64     124     106     155     261      98     159     257     107     257     364     119     662     781     118     455     573
    February........................................      61      62     123     106     154     260      97     156     253     112     252     364     119     561     680     115     453     568
    March...........................................      62     179     241     103     141     244      96     153     249     113     260     373     118     593     711     113     375     488
    April...........................................      81     153     234     103     153     256      93     185     278     120     247     367     123     546     669     142     376     518
    May.............................................      94     118     212     104     180     284      96     257     353     120     241     361     106     547     653     161     327     488
    June............................................     101     119     220     102     193     295      97     336     433     120     270     390     121     542     663     160     291     451
    July............................................      99     111     210      93     185     283     102     374     476     120     262     382     119     469     588     155     286     441
    August..........................................     103     113     216     102     174     276     107     337     444     119     246     365     113     456     569     158     244     402
    September.......................................     104     104     208     100     225     325     107     308     415     117     277     394     124     478     602     160     243     403
    October.........................................     102     100     202     112     191     303     107     304     411     123     362     485     118     554     672     159     256     415
    November........................................     103      94     197      97     198     295     108     313     421     122     557     679     116     523     639     159     388     547
    December........................................     105     133     238      99     173     272     108     291     399     120     664     784     115     491     606     161     371     532
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               1988                    1989                    1990                    1991                    1992                    1993
                                                     -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        Cad    Temp    Total    Cad    Temp    Total    Cad    Temp    Total    Cad    Temp    Total    Cad    Temp    Total    Cad    Temp    Total
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    January.........................................     158     391     549     143     133     276      99   1,411   1,510     113     533     646     155     406     561     185   1,217   1,402
    February........................................     158     388     546     139     131     270     112   1,295   1,407     126     515     641     154     403     557     186   1,160   1,346
    March...........................................     156     339     495     140     127     267     114   1,050   1,164     141     479     620     153     380     533     186   1,041   1,227
    April...........................................     152     282     434     134     113     247     111     854     965     137     482     619     159     365     524     182     946   1,128
    May.............................................     151     154     305     131     139     270     105     854     959     136     497     633     163     436     599     181     897   1,078
    June............................................     147     127     274     128     149     277     108     802     910     143     420     563     172     541     713     182     783     965
    July............................................     138     105     243     126     174     300     110     723     833     146     394     540     172     587     759     179     968   1,147
    August..........................................     135     160     295     125     185     310     111     642     753     147     322     469     179     768     947     181   1,095   1,276
    September.......................................     135     198     333     122     270     392     110     593     703     155     300     455     187   1,597     178     179     972   1,151
    October.........................................     134     204     338     122     721     843     109     578     687     157     269     426     186   1,753   1,939     179     855   1,034
    November........................................     131     190     321     118   1,076   1,194     109     517     626     157     280     437     185   1,476   1,661     186     817   1,001
    December........................................     132     183     315     117   1,279   1,396     110     488     598     158     325     483     186   1,323   1,509     190     709     899
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               1994                    1995                    1996                    1997                    1998
                                     -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        Cad    Temp    Total    Cad    Temp    Total    Cad    Temp    Total    Cad    Temp    Total    Cad    Temp    Total
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    January.........................     180   1,224   1,404     221   1,969   2,190     229   1,128   1,357     244     867   1,111     245     702     947
    February........................     175   2,277   2,452     224   1,695   1,919     226   1,194   1,420     248     831   1,079     254     701     955
    March...........................     184   3,094   3,278     222   1,639   1,861     219   1,065   1,284     245   1,085   1,330
    April...........................     200   3,199   3,399     220   1,459   1,679     231     899   1,130     246   1,156   1,402
    May.............................     195   3,333   3,528     218   1,467   1,685     234     857   1,091     247   1,025   1,272
    June............................     197   3,059   3,256     220   1,367   1,587     231     767     998     247     901   1,148
    July............................     198   3,070   3,268     232   1,257   1,489     224     802   1,026     250     808   1,058
    August..........................     208   2,711   2,919     231   1,138   1,369     239     809   1,048     250     744     995
    September.......................     210   2,278   2,488     230   1,033   1,263     234   1,155   1,389     247     664     911
    October.........................     211   2,309   2,520     227   1,337   1,564     245   1,161   1,406     249     617     866
    November........................     218   2,167   2,385     229   1,228   1,457     244   1,031   1,275     249     533     782
    December........................     221   2,020   2,241     230   1,030   1,260     245     764   1,009     247     569     816
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                                                                                              [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T11MA05.003

                                  Attachment B
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T11MA05.004

                                  Attachment C

                                    El Nino

        Senator Hollings. Is El Nino bringing in a lot more
    requests? These mud slides and floods and everything else of
    that kind?
        Ms. Alvarez. Yes.
        Mr. Kulik. It is now in California, and in Florida, and
    mostly because those disasters are very widespread. It is
    almost the entire State of California, and I believe three-
    quarters of the State of Florida that have been declared as
    disaster areas. So with the geographic spread, we have had to
    have more people than in a more contained disaster.
        Senator Gregg. Does the fact that the economy is doing so
    well create less of a demand for SBA activity? I mean, with the
    strong economy should not banks be able to make these loans
    without having to have a guarantee?
        Ms. Alvarez. Well, that is one theory. Actually I think
    that banks have become so familiar and knowledgeable about SBA
    programs, and our infrastructure has improved, and our redtape
    has been decreased to the point where if banks stayed away from
    SBA in the past, and didn't make loans that were legitimately
    SBA loans, it is a lot easier for them now to make those loans.
    I think we are talking about legitimate SBA loans that are much
    easier to make, because we are operating in a more efficient
    way.
        Senator Gregg. Well, that has the other side of the coin
    effect, which is that banks which should be taking risks on
    their own are now transferring that risk to the taxpayer.
        Ms. Alvarez. I have had one major bank, for example,
    apologize because they said they hoped we wouldn't mind that
    with some of their SBA borrowers they had discovered that they
    were really pretty good risks, and so they could do this on
    their own and make a profit.
        Senator Gregg. I think you should encourage them to do
    that.
        Ms. Alvarez. That's exactly what we are encouraging.
    Hopefully, we should be in the business to get out of the
    business.

                         Additional committee questions

        Senator Gregg. OK. Well, the economy will go up and will go
    down, and SBA will always be needed, I'm sure.
        Anything else?
        Ms. Alvarez. No, sir.
        [The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
    were submitted to the Administration for response subsequent to
    the hearing:]
                         Additional Committee Questions
                 government performance and results act [gpra]
        Question. How are the agency's annual performance goals linked to
    the agency's mission, strategic goals, and program activities in its
    budget request?
        Answer. Each of the Agency's annual performance goals links to one
    of the five general strategic goals from the strategic plan which forms
    the blueprint for achieving the Agency's mission. The specificity of
    the performance indicator and strategy for achievement were crafted by
    each SBA organizational entity, which in turn has budget narratives,
    justifications, and program and financing schedules in the Agency's
    fiscal year 1999 Budget submission. Finally, included in the annual
    plan is a crosswalk that matches resource estimates by budget activity
    and by strategic goal.
        Question. Could you describe the process used to link your
    performance goals to your budget activities?
        Answer. The budget portrays resources and requests by
    organizational activity and budget function. Some of these, but not
    all, are the same as the program activities in the GPRA annual
    performance plan. The GPRA moves agencies toward true program budgeting
    and the annual plan describes goals, indicators, and strategies by
    program. In preparing the performance plan, each SBA organizational
    entity was asked to list discrete goals, objectives, and strategies for
    fiscal year 1999 linked to the five Agency goals. Additionally, summary
    descriptions of activities included in the fiscal year 1999 SBA budget
    submission were also included in the annual performance plan to justify
    program budgets and to create a stand-alone document. Ultimately, true
    linkage of performance goals to budget activities requires a change in
    the budget account structure and a cost accounting system. The Agency's
    accounting structure is not activity-based and therefore does not
    provide accurate resource use by specific program. SBA has requested
    appropriations to update its accounting structure and will be moving to
    this environment in the future.
        Question. Does the agency's Performance Plan link performance
    measures to its budget? (Does each account have performance measures?)
        Answer. Nearly every program and financing (P&F) schedule in the
    budget has performance measures, except for the administrative
    management and executive direction categories. With the assistance of
    the crosswalk in the performance plan, the reader can link the budget
    estimates at the general goal level.
        Question. To what extent does your performance planning structure
    differ from the account and activity structure in your budget
    justification? (Do you plan to propose any changes to your account
    structure for fiscal year 2000? Will you propose any changes to the
    program activities described under that account structure?)
        Answer. The account and activity structure used in the budget
    matches SBA's formal organizational structure. Future plans include
    closer linkage of performance planning to this structure, with
    associated allocation of budgetary resources to performance measures.
        Question. How were performance measures chosen? (Balance cost of
    data collection and verification with the need for reliable and valid
    data; inclusion of measures for which reliable data are not likely to
    be available in time for your first performance report in March 2000.)
        Answer. Performance data were in most cases based on existing
    program data and information systems, and performance measures are
    those used by line management to manage the programs. The Agency
    expects that its development of Management Information Systems (MIS)
    will provide a critically-needed review of data existence, quality,
    relevance and reliability. Clearly, resources and training are required
    to collect, analyze and disseminate valid and reliable data, such as
    envisioned by our goal 2.
        Question. What are the key performance goals from your fiscal year
    1999 annual performance plan that you recommend this subcommittee use
    to track program results? For each key annual goal, indicate whether
    you consider it to be an output measure or an outcome measure. State
    the long-term general goal and objective from the agency Strategic Plan
    to which the annual goal is linked.
        Answer. There are 96 performance indicators or measures to track
    program results against the five major strategic goals in fiscal year
    1999. The vast majority of these are output measures and relate to one
    of the five general Agency strategic goals. Under each of the general
    goals in the strategic plan are 15 sub-goals or objectives, that
    include (1) increasing access to capital and credit, enhancing
    entrepreneurial development assistance, assisting small businesses to
    sell to the federal government and create networks that improve
    prospects of marketing their products; (2) becoming a leading edge,
    reinvented institution that offers cost-effective, customer driven
    products and services; (3) offering capital to victims of disasters;
    (4) leading the work portion of the welfare-to-work initiative; and (5)
    serving as a voice for small businesses to compete in the 21st century.
        SBA's plan describes ways that SBA will ``create opportunities for
    small businesses to succeed.'' This success can be measured in terms of
    the number of new start-ups helped by SBA assistance, as well as the
    number of companies expanded and maintained. This success can also be
    measured in jobs created, revenues generated, and taxes paid as proxy
    measures for economically successful and viable businesses. The reason
    for SBA programs and products is to help small businesses succeed. As
    intermediate measures, the following will be tracked: the aggregate
    amount of credit and capital made available to small businesses; the
    number of loans approved by underserved category of small business; the
    number of businesses receiving entrepreneurial development assistance
    from SBA resource partners; the percentage of Federal procurement that
    goes to small businesses; the existence of an effective internal
    control environment in SBA; improved delivery systems for disaster
    lending; the number of commitments made by businesses to hire employees
    from the welfare rolls; and improved data capacity and positive results
    from regulatory agency involvement in advocacy review panels.
        Question. In developing your Annual Performance Plan, what efforts
    did your agency undertake to ensure that the goals in the plan include
    a significant number of outcome measures?
        Answer. Where practicable, the Agency ensured that at least one
    outcome measure was included in each of the major goals, e.g., jobs
    created, businesses started, success rates of 8(a) firms, percent of
    procurement going to small businesses, sales from Small Business
    Development Companies (SBDC's) counseling, Committee of Sponsoring
    Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO)-based audit criteria
    used to create a leading edge internal control environment, business
    commitments to hire from welfare rolls, and improved data capacity to
    act as a ``voice'' for small businesses. The vast majority of the
    measures selected reflect actual measures used by managers to run their
    programs and measures over which they have substantial control.
        Question. Do you have the technological capability of measuring and
    reporting program performance through the year on a regular basis, so
    that the agency can be properly managed to achieve the desired results?
        Answer. While the SBA has the technological capability to measure
    all of its output measures, the appropriate data collection and
    reporting systems have not been developed. With funds requested in
    fiscal years 1998-1999 for systems modernization efforts, we hope to
    address these issues by the end of fiscal year 1999.
        Question. The GPRA requires that your agency's Annual Performance
    Plan establish performance goals to define the level of performance to
    be achieved by each program activity set forth in your budget. Many
    have indicated that the present budget account structure makes it
    difficult to link dollars to results in a clear and meaningful way.
        Have you faced such a difficulty?
        Answer. Yes. Many program performance standards and measures being
    discussed within the Agency involve the capture of information not
    currently maintained by the Agency. Therefore, they will add a
    significant degree of complexity to assigning costs to these measures.
    Additionally, the current account structure maintained by the Agency
    was developed around the organizational structure of the Agency, not
    its individual programs, projects and activities (PPA's). As such, some
    form of crosswalk will need to be developed and maintained to bridge
    between these two distinct accounting structures.
        Question. Would the linkages be clear if your budget account
    structure were modified?
        Answer. This problem cannot be corrected by merely changing the
    budget account structure. It involves the actual manner in which an
    Agency manages, operates, and obligates funds. Multiple PPA's are
    managed by individual offices, and the Agency has significant
    administrative and overhead costs that support all PPA's. It is not
    normal for a single office to administer a single PPA. As a result,
    there will be a need to not only allocate direct costs to multiple
    PPA's, but to also allocate administrative and overhead costs to these
    PPA's in some structured and logical manner. This becomes very complex
    and subjective. We have not found that this type of allocation process
    exists widely in the Federal Government.
        Question. If so, how would you propose to modify it and why do you
    believe such modifications would be useful both to your agency and to
    this committee than the present structure?
        Answer. We do support the development and maintenance of a system
    to allocate Agency costs to the PPA level. However, those who review
    such a system and its results need to fully understand its limitations
    and its underlying assumptions. We also support the development of an
    annual crosswalk to stratify Agency costs to the PPA's, based on a cost
    allocation system. We do not, however, support the reclassification of
    the Agency's budget structure to match PPA's, because this does not
    reflect the manner in which the Agency manages, operates, or obligates
    funds. Therefore, this would present a substantial ``disconnect''
    between the external budget for Congress and the internal budget for
    execution purposes.
        Question. How would such modification strengthen accountability for
    program performance in the use of budgeted dollars?
        Answer. The development and maintenance of a cost allocation system
    to allocate Agency costs to individual PPA's, coupled with performance
    standards and measures, would provide managers additional information
    that should be helpful in assessing the cost/benefit of providing goods
    and services to its customers. This can result in efforts to make PPA's
    more efficient and effective, and be used as a tool to prioritize
    spending in the event of funding deviations from year to year.
        Question. Under one of the new accounting standards recommended by
    the FASAB and issued by OMB, this year for the first time all federal
    agencies are required to have a system of Managerial Cost Accounting.
    The clearly preferred methodology for such a system, as stated in that
    standard, is the one known as ``Activity-Based Costing,'' whereby the
    full cost is calculated for each of the activities of an agency.
        What is the status of your agency's implementation of the
    Managerial Cost Accounting requirement, and are you using Activity-
    Based Costing?
        Answer. The SBA has just completed a preliminary cost allocation
    study to allocate its fiscal year 1997 actual administrative
    obligations to the major PPA's. An additional product of this effort
    will be the development of detailed requirements to allow SBA to
    incorporate activity-based accounting into its planned modernization of
    its accounting systems. However, this modernization effort is not
    currently funded within the Agency's appropriation base, and therefore,
    funding for this effort is contingent on Congressional approval of
    current reprogramming actions, and future budget requests for systems
    funding.
        Question. Will you be able in the future to show to this committee
    the full and accurate cost of each activity of each program, including
    in those calculations such items as administration, employee benefits,
    and depreciation?
        Answer. Yes. Our future plans include the integration of activity-
    based accounting into our accounting and budgeting systems and
    processes.
        Question. By doing so, would we then be able to see more precisely
    the relationship between the dollars spent on a program, the true costs
    of the activities conducted by the program, and the results of these
    activities?
        Answer. Yes.
        Question. Future funding decisions will take into consideration
    actual performance compared to expected or target performance. Given
    that, to what extent are your performance measures sufficiently mature
    to allow for these kinds of uses?
        Answer. Most programs have mature output measures and systems to
    collect and validate the information. For outcome measures, derived
    statistics were used and work is required before March 2000 to validate
    the extrapolation and the logic. For other performance indicators, we
    must establish benchmarks and baselines in the current fiscal year and
    set goals for fiscal year 1999 to be measured in fiscal year 2000. The
    reliability problem will be addressed through the Administrator's
    monitoring of agency performance against the annual plan and through
    actual use of the data in different evaluation efforts.
        Most of the performance measures are output measures (e.g., number
    of loans, hours counseled, courses given) which have been collected
    over the years and largely under the control of the managers--therefore
    they are mature. SBA is engaged in efforts to improve the relevancy of
    these measures and validity of the data on which they are based. In the
    annual plan, SBA has spread its overhead to the five strategic goals in
    its crosswalk but has not fully allocated overhead to sub-program or
    activity level. Where appropriate some performance measures were
    included for administrative management (i.e., CIO and some CFO
    activities were included in goal 2).
        Question. Are there any factors, such as inexperience in making
    estimates for certain activities or lack of data, that might affect the
    accuracy of resource estimates?
        Answer. Current cost allocation efforts at SBA will be helpful in
    assigning base costs to major program activities and establishing the
    requirements necessary for systems modernization plans to provide this
    type of information to managers and the Congress on a regular basis.
        Question. Based on your fiscal year 1999 performance plan, do you
    see any need for any substantive revisions in your strategic plan
    issued on September 30, 1997?
        Answer. The strategic plan was the first such effort at SBA and
    will be revised later this year, in draft form for additional
    discussions among SBA's managers, the Congress, and other stakeholders.
    External comments on the strategic plan and the process of developing
    the annual performance plan have highlighted several areas for
    revision, such as: a better integration of Office of Advocacy and the
    OIG activities in the agency's plan; more outcome measures and efforts
    at attribution of causality; description of budgetary resources from
    current fiscal year; expansion on mitigating external factors; more
    discussion of cross-cutting efforts; and expanded discussion of
    evaluation plans.
                                     ______

                   Questions Submitted by Senator Ted Stevens
        Question. Rural communities in Alaska face high unemployment and a
    remoteness unequaled anywhere else in the United States.
        How effective are SBA's current programs in assisting small
    businesses in rural Alaska?
        Answer. With limited resources, SBA now assists small businesses in
    rural Alaska in the following ways:
      --Approximately twenty times per year, SBA staff from its office in
            Anchorage travel to rural Alaska villages to make presentations
            on SBA programs and service SBA loans. Recently, for example,
            SBA staff made a four-day trip for these purposes to Galena,
            Nulato and Kaltag.
      --Currently, 18 of Alaska's 71 8(a) firms are located in rural areas.
            Other 8(a) firms employ people in or from Alaska villages. SBA
            hopes to increase the number of Alaska 8(a) firms to 100 in
            fiscal year 1998.
      --In April, SBA inaugurated a 7(j)-funded management education
            program for disadvantaged small business executives at the
            University of Alaska--Anchorage (UAA). The first class will
            consist of 30 or more executives.
        To spur rural economic development in Alaska, SBA is integrating
    its service delivery more with private resource partners and Alaska's
    Small Business Development Center (SBDC). For fiscal year 1999, SBA
    seeks increased funding in the 7(j) program to help expand its delivery
    of economic development services to rural communities in Alaska.
        Question. What recommendations do you have on improving the ability
    of the SBA to deliver services into the rural areas of Alaska?
        Answer. To be more effective in this area, SBA needs to do what it
    does best, emphasizing federal procurement opportunities, business
    counseling and training, and improved access to capital. It must work
    closely with resource partners (like Alaska's SBDC) and with rural
    communities themselves. Importantly, as part of SBA's $9.5 million
    request for its 7(j) program in fiscal year 1999, SBA seeks $3 million
    to launch a three-year pilot aimed at helping Alaska Native, Native
    American and other rural small business owners in areas with compelling
    economic needs. With this funding in fiscal year 1999, SBA would do the
    following:
      --Provide increased executive education and federal procurement
            training to rural and Alaska Native small business owners, all
            in close cooperation with Alaska's SBDC, SCORE volunteers, the
            University of Alaska and other resources in rural communities.
            SBA recently met with Jan Fredericks, the SBDC State Director,
            to discuss plans for closer cooperation with Alaska's SBDC in
            reaching out to more Alaska villages and rural communities.
      --Work with its private sector partners to enhance management skills
            of eligible Alaska Native small business managers in business
            planning, cost accounting, cash management, human resources and
            other areas. For greater effectiveness, this training will be
            specifically tailored to Alaska Natives. Improving the business
            skills of Alaska Native small business owners will benefit
            their entire communities either directly or through economic
            spin-off.
      --Emphasize electronic long distance learning techniques to reach
            remote rural communities. With the requested funding for 7(j),
            SBA would be able to award 7(j) grants to SBDC's in rural pilot
            areas without a matching requirement. SBA could expand Business
            Information Center (BIC) capability in areas such as Bethel,
            Fairbanks, Kenai, Juneau and Mat-Su Borough with improved
            computer links. This would help SBA and the SBDC to counsel
            rural small business owners who cannot afford extensive travel
            to Anchorage.
      --Explore methods to provide enhanced technical assistance to
            microborrowers in rural areas, working closely with public and
            private sector partners committed to the operation of
            successful microlending in such communities.
        SBA believes that these coordinated efforts could measurably
    increase economic activity in rural Alaskan communities. With 7(j)
    funding, SBA could support existing small businesses and encourage
    entrepreneurs to start new ones, leading to an increase in employment
    opportunities in Native villages and other rural communities. With
    SBA's help, rural Alaskan small business owners would compete more
    successfully for federal government contracts and would create more
    jobs in their communities. This increase in jobs would have a powerful
    impact on rural communities which seek to become less reliant on
    welfare and more developed economically.
                                     ______

                Questions Submitted by Senator Pete V. Domenici
               women's business ownership fiscal year 1999 budget
        Question. The proposed budget for fiscal year 1999 for the SBA
    includes $600,000 for the National Women's Business Council. Has a
    Chairperson been named by the President and when will you announce the
    14 members of the Council?
        Answer. The person that the President is considering for the
    Chairperson of the National Women's Business Council is presently
    undergoing the background check process for nominees. When this process
    is concluded, I will inform you of the appointment.
        As you know, I have notified you and other Senators and Members of
    Congress that the decisions on the appointments of the members to the
    NWBC have been completed. When the Chair appointment is completed, a
    formal announcement will be made.
        I'm pleased to inform you that we believe that the NWBC reflects
    the support of Congress, and represents the spectrum of the small
    business community, including rural, urban, geographic and ethnic
    diversities of women small business owners in our country.
        Question. Last year, Congress increased the annual authorization
    for appropriations for the Women's Business Centers program to $8
    million and, at that time, the Administration requested maintaining the
    funding at $4 million. Now, one year after the authorization bill is
    completed, you are recommending increasing the authorization to $9
    million. Why the change of heart and what SBA program are you proposing
    to cut to offset this increase?
        Answer. Last year, I presented and supported the budget drawn up by
    SBA's former Administrator, Phil Lader. The budget for fiscal year 1998
    was the first opportunity I had as Administrator to develop my own
    priorities for the Agency. Advancing the cause of the ``underserved''
    is a major focus for me, and reaching out to women and assisting them
    in building businesses contributes to that important goal. I hope to
    soon have at least one women's business center in every state, and with
    the added appropriation, build sub-centers in states with large
    populations and large territory.
        We do not plan to cut any program at the SBA to fund the Women's
    Business Centers (WBC's).
        Question. As a strong advocate of the Women's Business Centers, I
    would like your views on what can be done to improve cooperation and
    coordination between these centers and the nearest SBA District Office
    or the Small Business Development Center?
        Answer. The Office of Women's Business Ownership (OWBO) has
    actually taken dramatic measures to ensure that close cooperation
    exists between all our currently-funded centers, the District Offices,
    SCORE and the nearest Small Business Development Centers (SBDC). The
    Taskforce of Cooperation was formed last fall that explored ways to
    make this happen. The Taskforce was made up of district directors,
    regional administrators, WBC directors, and a representative from SBA's
    Office of Field Operations. A specific list of actions and obligations
    was compiled by the group that included what OWBO would do to increase
    cooperation, what the WBC's would do, and what district offices would
    do. That list has been made a permanent part of the funding agreements
    for all new WBC's, and will be part of the contract for older WBC's
    when their renewal options come up this summer. We are very pleased
    that the WBC's are drawing ever closer into the SBA family of resource
    partners, and expect this action will greatly help district directors
    meet their women's goals.
        Question. The budget request for SBA proposes awarding 30 grants
    for new Women's Business Centers in fiscal year 1999. While I strongly
    support expanding this program to all 50 states over time.
        How would SBA manage a 3-fold increase in this program from the
    level of awards in 1997?
        Answer. OWBO recently hired a full time employee to replace the
    contractor responsible for data collection. The duties of this position
    will not only cover data collection functions but will also include
    technical and programmatic responsibilities. In addition, SBA has moved
    the monitoring function of the WBC's to the district offices. District
    directors will henceforth appoint District Office Technical
    Representatives (DOTR's) to oversee all project activities of local
    WBC's. The DOTR's will be responsible for coordinating activities and
    initiatives between the district offices and the WBC's. These actions
    will enable the OWBO to effectively and efficiently manage a 3-fold
    increase in the WBC Program.
        Question. How would 30 grant awards in one year affect SBA's
    ability to establish new Centers in subsequent years?
        Answer. The approximately 30 new awards will be funded for 4
    succeeding years. In each of those years, the oldest set of award
    recipients will graduate, which will allow the following cycle of
    funding: In fiscal year 2000, 15 recipients will graduate; in fiscal
    year 2001, only 2 recipients will graduate; in fiscal year 2002, 10
    recipients will graduate; in fiscal year 2003, 3 recipients will
    graduate; in fiscal year 2004, approximately 30 recipients will
    graduate--these graduates will be those first funded in fiscal year
    1999. In each of those years, the number of new awards will
    approximately equal the number of graduates from the preceding year.
        Question. What budget would be needed to support the program in
    fiscal year 2000?
        Answer. If we are funded at $9 million in fiscal year 2000, the
    OWBO will be able to provide ongoing funding to approximately 46 WBC's
    and launch up to 12 new WBC's and sub-centers. Funding above the $9
    million level would enable OWBO to provide assistance to greater
    numbers of women throughout the country who want to start and expand
    businesses, bringing to even higher levels the ongoing contributions of
    women entrepreneurs to the economy.
        Question. Does this increase ensure that adequate funds remain for
    centers receiving expanded support for five years rather than the three
    years first approved?
        Answer. Yes, a $9 million budget is adequate to fund all the
    centers for five years. If funds become available above the $9 million
    level, OWBO can further expand the program to include additional WBC's
    in under-served areas.
        Question. In the Request for Proposals issued by the SBA to solicit
    grant applications for WBC grant awards in fiscal year 1998, eligible
    applicants are required to provide assistance on government
    procurement/certification. The statute requires Centers to provide
    assistance and training related to management, marketing and finance.
    On what legal basis is the SBA now requiring new Centers to provide
    ``government procurement/certification assistance'' and might that
    requirement be inappropriate for all applicants in remote or rural
    areas?
        Answer. Government contract assistance has been required since the
    first Program Announcement (RFP) in 1988 which stated: ``Recipients
    shall assist clients in securing Federal, state, and local government
    contracts, grants, and cooperative agreements. Such services will
    include, but not be limited to: orientation of clients in the
    fundamentals of government procurement; assistance in preparation of
    documents necessary for securing government contracts; advice and
    guidance in preparation of routine and special reports to procuring
    agencies; and assistance in implementation of appropriate compliance
    procedures.''
        Over the years, the request for this assistance has been refined;
    the RFP in 1997 now states: ``Projects must provide training and
    counseling in state or city certification of women business owners,
    where applicable, and on selling to governments at the local, state and
    federal level. Projects must have a plan on how to increase the number
    of public and private sector contracts to women business owners. Plans
    can include mentoring, training, bid and proposal preparation,
    matchmaking and networking. Sites may consider having Commerce Business
    Daily (the official publication announcing federal procurement
    opportunities, available at many libraries) and Federal Acquisition
    Regulations online for their clients. Projects must work with SBA
    district offices on procurement training opportunities and
    assistance.''
        The OWBO expects the WBC's to be resource partners for the Agency.
    Therefore, the decision to include procurement assistance in the RFP's
    exists to assist women in an arena where they have historically been at
    a disadvantage. Of the total federal procurement dollars, less than 2
    percent goes to women-owned businesses. The Federal Acquisition
    Streamlining Act of 1994 established a 5 percent government-wide goal
    for contract awards to small women-owned businesses. One of
    Administrator Aida Alvarez's major goals is to reach the 5 percent goal
    by the year 2000.
        Question. The Small Business Reauthorization Act of 1997 requires
    that the person heading the Office of Women's Business Ownership at SBA
    have the stature and qualifications attributed to the Senior Executive
    service. In light of your proposal to increase the size of the primary
    program overseen by this position, have you complied with the law to
    ensure the head of OWBO is a member of the Senior Executive Service?
    (Note: We have been advised that SBA has reached its ceiling on SES
    positions, such that this requirement has not been met.)
        Answer. The SBA is currently at our SES ceiling and cannot upgrade
    the position without an increase in its SES ceiling from POM and in its
    on-career allocation from the White House. The SBA is processing a
    request for these allocations.
        Question. Please explain how the $1 million requested in your
    fiscal year 1999 budget for the Survey on Women Business Enterprises
    relates to the $500,000 applied to this survey in fiscal year 1997, and
    the $1 million you are authorized to reprogram in fiscal year 1998.
        Has the cost of this survey increased from $1.5 million to $2.5
    million? If so, why the increase? (Note: Last year, we were told that
    the survey would cost $1.5 million.)
        Answer. Collecting the women's business figures is a four year
    operation undertaken by the U.S. Census Bureau. The operation began
    last year, when SBA contributed the first $500,000 to the Commerce
    Department in order to begin the process. The total cost spread over
    four years will be approximately $3 million, according to the Census
    Bureau. In fiscal year 1998, SBA will transfer $1 million to Commerce.
        Costs over four years for the 1997 Survey of Women Owned
    Businesses, according to the Commerce Department are:

    Fiscal year 1997..............................................  $527,814
    Fiscal year 1998..............................................   991,000
    Fiscal year 1999..............................................   750,000
    Fiscal year 2000..............................................   500,000

        Question. Couldn't the collection of the women business enterprise
    data be combined with the information needed by the Office of
    Advocacy--reducing the cost of both efforts by concurrently gathering
    the information or extrapolating the women business information from
    the data collected by the Census for the Office of Advocacy?
        Answer. No, because the two data bases are unrelated and are used
    for different purposes.
        The Office of Advocacy's data base is only of firms that have
    employees and has no gender identification. The data base, compiled by
    the Bureau of Census, is used primarily to analyze the cost of
    regulation on firms of different sizes. It is also used to study growth
    year by year at the state and local level.
        The SWOBE will cover all businesses headed by women, including
    part-time firms with only $500 in receipts and no employees. (Eighty-
    five percent of women-owned firms have no employees). The SWOBE is a
    count of all activity by women, by county. It will be used to design
    many of the programs for women around the country bases upon simple
    counts.
                                     ______

               Questions Submitted by Senator Ernest F. Hollings
        Question. Administrator Alvarez, in 1992 we allowed the SBA 7(a)
    loan program to grow to $3 billion because SBA argued that during the
    recession banks were unwilling to loan money and there were no other
    sources of capital. In this budget before us, you have proposed an
    increase to the 7(a) program to $11 billion. Since the economy is so
    hot, shouldn't these banks be using their own funds instead of relying
    on taxpayer subsidies? I mean, if it's a recession you tell us there
    are no other sources and now in this period of prosperity, it appears
    there are still no other sources. Isn't the reality that as long as
    government guarantees are around, banks aren't going to risk their own
    money?
        Answer. Banks are, in fact, risking their own money in lending to
    small businesses. Recent studies by the Small Business Administration's
    (SBA) Office of Advocacy indicate that small business lending has
    increased substantially over the last few years. However, banks
    continue to rely on the SBA loan guaranty in order to make funding
    available to those who cannot get credit elsewhere. The guaranty helps
    to ensure that small business and entrepreneurs have access to credit
    and capital in situations where the banks perceive that there is a
    greater risk than they want to take or there is a need for a greater
    term than they are willing to provide.
        The Agency has as one of its primary goals the improved management
    of its loan portfolio in order to protect the taxpayer investment in
    this important program.
        Question. Administrator Alvarez, SBA runs the 7(a) program
    something like an entitlement program. People come into banks and banks
    keep issuing loans. As you know, last spring this resulted in a
    proposal to shut down the program. Basically, we have a situation where
    the program is increasing to meet demand. The good news is that to
    date, the subsidy rate has been reducing due to lower interest rates
    and the healthy economy, meaning fewer defaults. So now that the
    program has grown from $3 billion to $11 billion, aren't you concerned
    about how much will need to be appropriated if interest rates go up or
    the economy stops booming?
        Answer. The President's fiscal year 1999 budget proposes an
    increase in the program level for the 7(a) program. This request for
    the budget authority is based on the anticipated level of demand, and
    its cost is based on program subsidy rate. If interest rates increase
    and if there is a resulting increase in defaults, then the subsidy rate
    would also increase. This would mean that we would require a higher
    level of budget authority to support the same program level. Because
    there are so many unknown variables, it is impossible to precisely
    predict what future requests might involve. Our goal is to help insure
    that small businesses and entrepreneurs who will need the SBA loan
    guarantees have the program available if and when the economy changes
    direction. SBA carefully monitors demand level, subsidy rates and
    lender performance, to ensure that the 7(a) program meets the needs of
    America's small businesses and entrepreneurs.
        Question. Administrator Alvarez, it seems like there's a game going
    on with the SBA Disaster program. And it's the Congress that's getting
    ``gamed.'' Your submitted budget assumes that Congress will increase
    interest charges to home and business owners that have been hit by
    natural disasters like tornadoes and floods. However, the Small
    Business Committees have refused for years to pass such legislation.
    Last year, you also said that you didn't need any appropriations for
    Disaster Loans, but this Subcommittee provided an appropriation of $23
    million to guarantee an additional $115 million in loans. We obviously
    had to cut this from other programs.
        Do you have any reason to believe that the Small Business
    Committees will be more supportive of changing subsidy rates and, might
    I ask, did the President point out his proposal during his visits to
    Florida and California to survey storm damage last week?
        Answer. We hope the Committees will be supportive. If it were
    practical to restore all victims to their predisaster condition at no
    cost to the individual, we would favor it. But the cost to the Federal
    government would be overwhelming. This proposal resulted from the need
    to make hard fiscal choices. The proposal will still provide victims
    with financing at rates that are not available in the commercial market
    and help give them a down payment on their future.
        The President did not go into detail of available Federal
    assistance in his trips. Because this proposal is for disasters
    commencing on or after October 1, 1998, it would have no effect on the
    current disasters in Florida or California.
        Question. Could you tell us what the current balances are in the
    Disaster Loan fund and what you expect the shortfalls will be for the
    next year if the Small Business Committees don't pass the legislation
    and we provide you with your appropriation request of zero?
        Answer. At the beginning of fiscal year 1998 we had $1.0228 billion
    available in program funds. As of April 30, 1998 we had obligated
    $419.1 million, leaving a balance of $603.7 million in program funds.
    It is impossible to determine the exact need for disaster funds for the
    balance of the year, however the 10 year average indicates that the
    total demand for the year will be about $785 million. This would leave
    carryover budget authority at the end of fiscal year 1998 of $55.8
    million, In addition, it was estimated that $20 million of budget
    authority would be recovered during fiscal year 1999 from loans
    approved in earlier years. This would result in budget authority of
    $75.8 million. The ten year average for fiscal year 1999 is estimated
    at $901 million which would require budget authority of only $53.4
    million, leaving a carry forward of $22.3 million for fiscal year 2000.
    If the Committees do not pass the legislation, the budget authority of
    $75.8 million would only support a program of $338 million. Based on
    the 10 year average of $901 million, this would leave a shortfall of
    approximately $125 million in budget authority.
        Question. Administrator Alvarez, 8(a) has been providing business
    development opportunities through federal contracts to small
    disadvantaged businesses. Without access to federal contracts, many of
    these small firms might not have the opportunity to grow and expand.
    There are some who would end 8(a) because they are opposed to
    affirmative action. What, if anything, is the SBA doing to defend this
    program?
        Answer. One of the most important steps that the SBA has taken to
    ensure that the 8(a) program is Constitutionally defensible is
    developing the SBA's proposed regulations governing 8(a) participation,
    8(a) program serving and administration and entrance into the 8(a)
    program by non-minority entrepreneurs.
        The new rules will ease reporting burdens for participants, limit
    contract concentrations, step up enforcement of competitive business
    mix requirements, limit sole source contracts and encourage
    partnerships between development 8(a) firms and successful business
    mentors. The new rule was also written to ensure that the program is
    constitutional and can stand up under legal scrutiny associated with
    the narrow tailoring prong of strict scrutiny. The new regulations
    broaden the participation in the program by lowering the evidentiary
    standard from ``clear and convincing'' to ``preponderance of the
    evidence.'' This change will enable more applicants to meet the test
    and provide evidence of social disadvantage. The Agency is also
    actively engaged with the Department of Justice on matters relating to
    8(a) litigation. In addition, outreach efforts to explain the proposed
    regulations include meeting with 8(a) constituencies, briefing Hill
    staff, providing testimony and speaking to other interested parties.
        Question. How do you respond to criticism that 8(a) isn't working
    due to the statistic pointing to the failure of many 8(a) firms to
    remain viable after their nine years in the program?
        Answer. A survey of former 8(a) program participants, conducted
    annually by the Office of Minority Enterprise Development indicated the
    following: of those firms completing their program term over the last
    three years (1994, 1995 and 1996) and responding to the survey with
    business data, 42 percent remain operational; of all the firms surveyed
    40 percent did not respond.
        The SBA publication ``State of Small Business'' indicates that 79
    percent of all new businesses cease operations within 10 years. The
    former 8(a) participants at the time of the survey were in business
    from approximately 11 to 14 years. The 8(a) success rate of 42 percent
    for businesses with an average age of 12.5 years is 21 percent higher
    than the 21 percent success rate that all businesses achieve in their
    first ten years.
        Question. Administrator Alvarez, I see that your request for
    Women's Business Centers is up to $9 million from the $4 million
    appropriated last year. The intent, I take it, is to increase the
    number of centers such that every state has one.
        How many states currently have Women's Business Centers?
        Answer. Thirty-six plus the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico.
        Question. How many Centers did the $4 million buy us last year?
        Answer. In fiscal year 1997, Office of Women's Business Ownership
    opened 10 new Centers and continued to fund 18 Centers and the Online
    Women's Business Center. Approximately 8 percent of the line item went
    for administrative costs. In fiscal year 1998, OWBO will open a minimum
    of 3 new Centers as required in the legislation and will continue
    funding the 28 Centers and the Online Women's Business Center. No funds
    will be used for administrative purposes.
        Question. And how many more will the additional $5 million buy us
    this year?
        Answer. The additional $5 million for fiscal year 1999 will allow
    OWBO to open approximately 30 new Centers and sub-centers.
        Question. Are you finding that the increase in resources we're
    giving these Women's Business Centers correlates with the dramatic
    increase we're seeing in women-owned firms?
        Answer. The Women's Business Centers are performing an outstanding
    service. According to SBA's second report to Congress on the Women's
    Centers dated February 1998 entitled Evaluation of the Women's Business
    Centers of the Office of Women's Business Ownership of the U.S. Small
    Business Administration, ``The Centers' achievement in establishing
    effective new programs * * * in reaching out to great numbers of women
    wanting help to realize entrepreneurial dreams, in actually helping a
    tremendous variety of women and businesses to succeed * * * is a proud
    record.'' The report also noted the following increases in service over
    the previous year's report: number of clients served increased 40
    percent over Year One; hours of services to clients increased 36
    percent over Year One; number of small loans received by clients more
    than doubled, and the total amount of dollars loaned increased by
    approximately $800,000.

                              subcommittee recess

        Senator Gregg. Thank you. The subcommittee will stand in
    recess until Tuesday at 10 a.m. when we will hear testimony
    from the FBI Director.
        [Whereupon, at 10:47 a.m., Thursday, March 5, the
    subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene at 10 a.m., Tuesday,
    March 10.]

    DEPARTMENTS OF COMMERCE, JUSTICE, AND STATE, THE JUDICIARY, AND RELATED
                  AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 1999

                                  ----------

                            THURSDAY, MARCH 12, 1998

                                           U.S. Senate,
               Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The subcommittee met at 9:59 a.m., in room S-146, the
    Capitol, Hon. Judd Gregg (chairman) presiding.
        Present: Senators Gregg, Domenici, and McConnell.

                                 THE JUDICIARY

                       Supreme Court of the United States

    STATEMENT OF HON. ANTHONY M. KENNEDY, ASSOCIATE JUSTICE
    ACCOMPANIED BY:
            HON. DAVID HACKETT SOUTER, ASSOCIATE JUSTICE
            JAMES C. DUFF, ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT TO THE CHIEF JUSTICE
            DALE BOSLEY, MARSHAL
            FRANK WAGNER, REPORTER OF DECISIONS
            FRANK LORSON, CHIEF DEPUTY CLERK
            TONY DONNELLY, DIRECTOR OF BUDGET AND PERSONNEL

                                opening remarks

        Senator Gregg. I will convene the hearing of the
    Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, State, and Judiciary of the
    Appropriations Committee. We very much appreciate the Supreme
    Court's attendance today to give us its thoughts on the budget.
    I will open it up to your comments, Justices.
        Justice Kennedy. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
        Our budget is for just under $37 million, which is less
    than 1 percent of the budget for article III courts as a whole.
        Judge Heyburn, from the U.S. District Court for the
    District of Kentucky and the Administrative Office have that
    presentation to make, so I think ours is simple by comparison.
        We have our own budget and personnel officer. We find that
    salutary, because not only does he prepare the budget, but he
    presents to us ideas for shifting staff positions and making
    economies at the Supreme Court. And it is as a result of that
    that we have had very few increases in staff over the year.
        This year our budget has a 6-percent increase for our
    operating and salaries expenses, a larger increase if you count
    the buildings and grounds, which the Architect of the Capitol
    presents. He has a request for a $2 million study to improve
    and upgrade our building, ultimately envisaging a $20 million
    project over a number of years. That study is also in this
    budget.
        We do ask for four new positions, all of them really
    technology related. We should have gone into the computer
    business, I think, Senator. Those positions are detailed in our
    request. One of those positions is for an Assistant Reporter of
    Decisions. As you know, we are very proud of our U.S. reports.
    They set a standard of quality for the whole legal world. We
    have a 4-year time lag between the time we issued the opinion
    and the time these came out. And our reporter, Frank Wagner,
    has cut that one-half, and proposes to cut it to a commercially
    reasonable 1 year by the end of our 1998 term.
        We do need an Assistant Reporter of Decisions to enable him
    to do that, and to enable him to do almost all the editing
    before the decision is released. Now, and for all past years,
    when the opinion is released, the final edit has not been done;
    and we relied on attorneys and law professors to comment on
    improving statutory citations, et cetera.
        Now it goes on the electronic media, and it really becomes
    a part of the corpus of the law right away, and so we want to
    have the ability to do that editing, this is the reason for the
    additional position.
        We have here with us, and I would just like to introduce
    the members of our court staff who are accompanying Justice
    Souter and me: Jim Duff, the Administrative Assistant to the
    Chief Justice; Tony Donnelly, our Budget and Personnel Officer;
    Frank Lorson, our Chief Deputy Clerk; Dale Bosley, our Marshal;
    and Frank Wagner, the Reporter of Decisions.
        They have helped us prepare this budget. We rely much on
    them and their judgment and we have very skillful professionals
    with us in the court.

                              prepared statements

        And if you have any questions, I'm sure Justice Souter and
    I will be pleased to answer them.
        [The statements follow:]
                    Prepared Statement of Anthony M. Kennedy
        Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, Justice Souter and I
    appreciate this opportunity to appear before your Committee to address
    the budget requirements and requests of the Supreme Court for the
    fiscal year 1999.
        We have with us today James Duff, Administrative Assistant to the
    Chief Justice; Dale Bosley, Marshal of the Court; Frank Lorson, Chief
    Deputy Clerk of the Court; and Tony Donnelly, Director of Budget and
    Personnel.
        As is customary, the Supreme Court's budget request is divided
    between the ``Salaries and Expenses of the Court'' and ``Care of the
    Building and Grounds''. For the ``Care of the Building and Grounds''
    the total fiscal year 1999 budget request is $5,871,000. Mr. Alan M.
    Hantman, Architect of the Capitol, will submit a separate statement to
    the Subcommittee regarding that portion of the total budget.
        With regard to the ``Salaries and Expenses'' portion of the Court's
    budget, our total fiscal year 1999 budget estimate is $31,095,000. This
    is an increase of $1,817,000, or 6 percent, over the budget authority
    for 1998. Most of the increase represents base adjustments--that is,
    required increases in salary and benefits costs and inflationary
    increases in fixed costs. Specifically, $1,347,000 of the adjustment
    represents required increases in salary and benefit costs. And $266,000
    is the amount requested for inflationary increases in fixed costs,
    allowing us to keep up with rising costs in all of our necessary
    operations. These increases to the base are offset by a reduction of
    $400,000 in this year's request, which was a non-recurring increase in
    last year's budget for enhancement of the police radio system, thus
    resulting in a $1.2 million increase to our budget base.
        In sum, we are requesting $604,000 over base adjustments this year
    to fund four additional positions and two projects that are important
    to assure that the Court keeps pace with technological improvements in
    automation and telecommunications.
        Two of the requested positions are in the Office of Data Systems,
    which is experiencing increased demands to provide the necessary
    support to users of the Court's automated systems. A Senior Programmer/
    Analyst is required to assist in developing new software applications.
    Trouble-shooting and maintenance of existing software consume the time
    of the current programming staff, leaving little time for essential
    software development activities such as the redesign of the Court's
    docket and financial systems. An additional Help Desk Technician is
    also required to assist Court employees as they encounter difficulties
    using the software and hardware already installed.
        We request an additional Telecommunications Specialist to assist in
    managing increasingly complex and automated telecommunications
    services, including secure voice and data capability.
        The addition of an Assistant Reporter of Decisions will enable the
    Reporter to prepare fully the Court's bench opinions prior to the
    initial release of the opinions by the Court. Currently, this extensive
    preparation occurs subsequent to initial release when the cases are
    made ready for publication in the United States Reports. Electronic
    distribution of the Court's opinions as they are announced from the
    bench has increased the likelihood that the opinions will be quoted by
    both the bench and the bar before thorough, postrelease work by the
    Reporter takes place.
        The amount of $215,000 of the $604,000 request is to fund software
    upgrades to the Court's telecommunications systems. The software, which
    was installed in 1992, saves work by providing voice mail and
    interactive voice applications as well as control of all telephone
    traffic and features throughout the Court's fully automated
    telecommunications system. Approximately 5,000-7,000 calls are handled
    each month by these automated features installed in the Clerk's Office,
    the Marshal's Office and the Public Information Office. The systems
    need upgrading especially in view of the problems for software programs
    that are anticipated with the coming of the year 2000.
        The amount of $200,000 of the request is to provide funding for a
    contract to remove old surplus building wire. This complex task will
    require the identification and removal of old surplus phone and
    computer wire in electrical closets and building conduits and the
    rewiring of phone cables that are inadvertently disconnected. This work
    is essential for the success of future wire installation projects.
        As we mentioned in last year's request, we anticipated seeking
    additional funds in the 1999 budget to enable the replacement of aging
    computer hardware and technology infrastructure such as the local area
    network, cabling and telecommunications. Also, we anticipated the need
    for modifications to software and hardware to accommodate changes to
    computer systems that must take place by the year 2000. Our predictions
    have proven to be accurate. The program increases we propose this year
    are directly related to the challenges of keeping up with the demands
    of technology.
        I emphasize again this year that we continue our efforts to make
    the most efficient use of the Court's existing resources and to
    minimize the need to request additional funding or personnel. Last
    year, working within the existing budget base, we completely
    redeveloped the Court's opinion writing system and all other personal
    computer applications to take advantage of the most up-to-date computer
    software technology. Also, at no additional cost to the Court's budget,
    we utilized the services of specialists within the Department of
    Defense and the U.S. Secret Service to study and report on an emergency
    preparedness plan and overall security operations for the Court.
        Despite the success of our efforts to work within the budget base,
    we anticipate the need to increase the Court's budget over the next few
    years to assure proper technological support for the Court's work. The
    more we depend on automation to accomplish our work, it becomes
    increasingly important to assure that our installed technology is
    adequately maintained and updated when needed. It is also important
    that the Court's employees receive the support of experts whose work in
    developing software applications and training computer users will
    continue to increase efficiency in the Court.
        This concludes a brief summary of our request. We will be pleased
    to respond to any questions that the members of the Committee may have.
                                     ______

      Prepared Statement of Alan M. Hantman, AIA, Architect of the Capitol
        Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, I am pleased to once
    again submit my statement on the budget for the Care of the Building
    and Grounds of the Supreme Court. As you may recall, I officially
    assumed my duties as Architect of the Capitol on February 3, 1997.
    During the past year, I have been immersed in learning and evaluating
    the complexities of this agency and the responsibilities of this
    position.
        I would like to take a brief moment to describe the present role of
    the agency. For the Legislative Branch, the Office of the Architect of
    the Capitol (AOC) is the agency responsible for the structural and
    mechanical care, maintenance, cleaning, and operation of the buildings
    and facilities supporting the Congress, including the Capitol Power
    Plant. This responsibility extends to the Botanic Garden, the
    structural and mechanical care and maintenance of the Library of
    Congress Buildings and Grounds. This office also undertakes the design
    and construction of new facilities and alterations of existing
    facilities.
        As you know, for the Judiciary Branch, the Architect of the
    Capitol, by authority of the Act of May 7, 1934, is responsible for the
    structural and mechanical care of the United States Supreme Court
    Building and Grounds, and this is the reason for my statement in
    support of the funding requests. We are not charged with responsibility
    for custodial care, which is under the jurisdiction of the Marshal of
    the Supreme Court and is provided for in the Court's salaries and
    expenses appropriation.
        The budget request for the care of the building and grounds for
    fiscal year 1999 that I present begins on page 1.19 of the Supreme
    Court justification and amounts to $5,871,000. The request represents
    an increase of $2,471,000 over the fiscal year 1998 appropriation of
    $3,400,000. Included in this amount is a decrease of $381,000 to the
    budget base and an increase of $2,852,000 in program and capital budget
    items.
        The adjustments to the base are costs that support ongoing
    operations and maintenance, including compensation. The net decrease of
    $381,000 in base adjustments is comprised of an increase of $100,000
    for mandated pay and benefits costs, increases totaling $44,000 in
    costs of utilities, services, supplies, and equipment; and decreases
    from the fiscal year 1998 level totaling $525,000 for nonrecurring
    projects.
        Once again the budget includes a five-year capital budget plan.
    Increases totaling $2,852,000 are requested for six capital budget
    items in fiscal year 1999. The capital budget is a relatively new
    concept for the Office of the Architect having been presented for the
    first time with the fiscal year 1998 budget.
        The fiscal year 1999 capital budget request that I submit is
    grounded in a comprehensive and systematic agency-wide planning effort
    with in-depth involvement by the Supreme Court. A total of 13 capital
    projects are identified for the Supreme Court building and grounds for
    the five-year period beginning in fiscal year 1999, requiring an
    estimated total funding level of $30.9 million over five years.
        The bulk of that amount, $22.2 million, is attributed to a project
    to provide an overall building improvements and systems upgrade, the
    first such comprehensive project planned for the building since its
    construction in 1934. The estimates and planning for this project are
    in the very early stages. The current fiscal year appropriation
    includes $225,000 for a study on this project for the preparation of a
    schematic design package to determine the scope and preliminary cost
    estimates for this project. The fiscal year 1999 budget request
    contains a request in the amount of $2 million to provide for the
    design phase which will take approximately two years.
        Other very important factors that enter into projects of this
    magnitude are detailed decisions relating to overall scope of the
    project, construction schedules and milestones, and the potential need
    and cost for phased relocation of the Justices and staffs during
    construction.
        Another important project for the Court that will be advancing to
    the design stage is the perimeter security enhancement project, which
    is currently estimated at $5.3 million. A preliminary study provided by
    funds in fiscal year 1997 is being completed to provide the preliminary
    design and cost estimates for this project. In fiscal year 1999, an
    amount of $500,000 is requested for detailed design development and
    preparation of construction drawings. The design will be developed in a
    manner consistent with design schemes being implemented throughout the
    complex of the U.S. Capitol.
        The projects included in this capital budget reflect the needs that
    have been identified to date for the Court's building and grounds. I
    intend to continually evaluate and update the needs to ensure that the
    capital budget is responsive to programmatic changes, the condition of
    the building and systems, and any other needs that may arise.
        The five-year capital budget that is presented establishes a multi-
    year funding plan that describes the magnitude of cost to upgrade and
    maintain the Court building infrastructure in proper operating
    condition. The capital budget also identifies improvements that respond
    to accessibility standards and guidelines for the disabled. Balancing
    the needs of maintaining the existing infrastructure while keeping pace
    with technological enhancements and program needs is costly. We are all
    also aware of the effect that technological pressures can have on aging
    building systems, especially from the perspective of being capable of
    delivering new telecommunications technologies.
        It is important to note that these requirements do not simply
    disappear if deferred. If projects requested for fiscal year 1999 are
    deferred, the costs to accomplish them will rise due to added
    deterioration, increased maintenance costs to sustain the systems in
    the interim, inflation, and fluctuations in market conditions. The
    deferred projects also will then add to the fiscal year 2000 funding
    need, which has already been estimated at $5.1 million.
        In last year's statement, I detailed many of the reasons that there
    was such a large increase in the funding level required for the
    maintenance of the building infrastructure. Rather than repeat those
    reasons, I will highlight them here:
      --Replacement of Aging Building Systems.--The Supreme Court building
            is reaching an age and condition that requires major renovation
            and replacement of building systems.
      --Technological Advances.--Technology, especially in
            telecommunications, is changing far more rapidly than the
            existing building infrastructures can support and adapt to.
      --Regulatory Compliance Requirements.--Programs essential for the
            Architect of the Capitol to comply with environmental and
            hazardous material protection have received very high priority
            in terms of advancing the timetables for completion.
      --Security.--Terrorist activity throughout the world has increased,
            and as a result there is a heightened sensitivity toward
            threats to security at the Capitol complex.
        I assure the Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee that I will
    work closely with you and the Subcommittee staff, as well as the Court,
    between now and the time the Subcommittee marks up this portion of the
    appropriations bill to achieve a rational and adequate funding level to
    support the needs of the Court.
        I would like to conclude with an observation related to the capital
    budget request. I readily acknowledge that the amount requested appears
    to be large, and given the current pressures to maintain a balanced
    Federal budget it will be extremely difficult to meet these needs. It
    is important that this Subcommittee and the Congress realize, however,
    that these projects are clearly necessary to properly conserve the
    Supreme Court building for future generations. The need for funding
    these projects will continue.
        Mr. Chairman, that concludes my statement and I shall be pleased to
    respond to any questions that you and the Subcommittee may have.

                            Domestic spending freeze

        Senator Gregg. Thank you, Justice Kennedy. Senator
    Domenici.
        Senator Domenici. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In light of the
    appropriated accounts for domestic spending being so tight this
    year, frankly we are going to be almost at a freeze for the
    composite of domestic discretionary programs. As a consequence,
    I ask wherever I appear if the people submitting requests would
    give us an ancillary document which would indicate their
    highest budget priorities.
        I think yours is a small enough budget that it is easy to
    discern. There is not much more than what you just testified.
    Perhaps on the bigger issue, my question will be what are your
    highest priorities. I do not mean that for today, but to be
    submitted at a later day.
        Justice Kennedy. These are the real experts, of course,
    behind us, on the budget of the courts overall. The
    Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts runs a very tight
    ship.
        It is interesting: we have foreign visitors who come to the
    Supreme Court, chief justices from other countries, and they
    are very pleased to meet with us as a courtesy. But what they
    really want to do is go to the Administrative Office of the
    U.S. Courts, and Ralph Mecham, our excellent director, always
    gives them a good reception when they come. And they are always
    very impressed with the skill and the sophistication of our
    judicial administration. And over the years, when we have had
    what, about a 14-percent increase in the last 10 years in
    district court filings, but we have basically lived within
    budget. We have effected some very substantial cost savings in
    bankruptcy proceedings and so forth. Our court tries to mirror
    their good example.

                                 Security needs

        Senator Gregg. Well, you always seem to run a very tight
    ship, and I want to make sure we support you adequately,
    especially on the security needs, where you are upgrading your
    security. We are a little concerned that that seems to be going
    slowly rather than quickly. I would think you would want to
    move it along a little faster, but we will be there with funds
    to support you.
        Justice Kennedy. We will talk to our staff about that.
        Senator Gregg. I did notice that Justice Souter said in
    response to putting TV in the court that it would be over his
    dead body.
        Justice Souter. If you would like me to say that again--
    [laughter.]
        Senator Gregg. I was just going to say, I had already
    received some calls from some prisoners in New Hampshire who
    remember Justice Souter, and were hoping we would put the TV
    money in our bill.
        I do not have any other questions. We do appreciate your
    time. We thank you for coming, and if you have any further
    comments you wish to make, we would welcome them.
        Justice Kennedy. Thank you. We appreciate the fact that you
    and your staff look at our budget separately. It is a good
    exercise for us, and we also appreciate over the years the fact
    that the Congress as a whole, including this honorable body,
    have funded the staff and personnel and resources of the court
    at such adequate levels. We continue to do our work, and we
    think we are doing it the way we ought to.
        Senator Gregg. Great. Thank you very much. Nice to see you.
        Senator Domenici. Mr. Chairman, might I just add my
    accolades?
        Senator Gregg. Certainly.

                         Additional committee questions

        Senator Domenici. I believe the Supreme Court manages its
    affairs in an admirable manner, and I'm here to support them,
    as you are, and certainly to make sure you are adequately
    protected. Thank you for the way you presented this piece of
    the budget. It is very understandable, very simple, and very
    forthright. Thank you.
        Justice Kennedy. Thank you very much, sir.
        [The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
    were submitted to the Supreme Court for response subsequent to
    the hearing:]
               Questions Submitted by Senator Ernest F. Hollings
                        police radio system enhancements
        Question. Last year this subcommittee gave you $400,000 to apply
    towards police radio system enhancements identified by a study to be
    conducted by March 1, 1998. It's my understanding that this study has
    been completed by Motorola and you are prepared to go forward with
    Phase I of your enhancements. How confident are you that Phase I will
    only cost you $400,000?
        Answer. Since the Court submitted a copy of the study to the
    Subcommittee Chairmen and staff on February 27, 1998, Motorola
    submitted an itemized proposal for $397,000 to enhance the Court's
    existing Supreme Court Police radio system to the standards requested.
    We are confident that this proposal is thorough and accurate.
        Question. What will this $400,000 buy you?
        Answer. As stated in the cover letter to Chairman Gregg and
    detailed in Motorola's Rough Order of Magnitude Proposal, this
    enhancement will provide: improved communications coverage in the
    greater Washington Metropolitan area, to include Justices' residences
    and major airports; compatibility and interoperability with federal,
    state and local law enforcement authorities (``PMARS''); increased
    reliability; automated roaming; improved Console operations for
    managing communications; superior encryption; and application of
    standards-based technology to broaden the choice of sources for
    emerging digital communications technologies.
        Question. Do you anticipate needing additional funds after
    completing Phase I? Will Phase I bring you up to speed with the narrow
    band width requirements?
        Answer. The Court asked Motorola to develop its proposal not only
    to meet the Court's currently stated requirements but also in
    anticipation that further geographic expansion will be required. It is
    difficult to predict how much further expansion will be required and
    whether additional funds will be needed, but much will depend on the
    scope of geographic coverage then considered desirable and what kind of
    protective security requirements will then be in place. Phase I
    satisfies requirements for the conversion of all Federal law
    enforcement radio communications systems to narrow band width by 2005.
    Motorola's existing proposal will enable the Supreme Court Police to
    communicate with all federal, state and local counterparts during the
    narrow band transition period. The equipment identified is capable of
    operating in both pre- and post-2005 system configurations.
                                technology needs
        Question. I've been told that your total program increase of
    $604,000 is primarily in response to the rapid advancements in
    technology and the effect that trend has had on the Court and its
    operations. I imagine you're now faced with the task of putting
    decisions on-line as soon as they're handed down, for example. Could
    you identify for the committee what needs the Court has identified with
    respect to technological developments and how that is reflected in your
    budget?
        Answer. The Supreme Court's Office of Data Systems provides the
    development, operation, maintenance, and support of automated
    information systems for the Court. The Data Systems staff operate and
    administer a Hewlett Packard minicomputer, install and maintain
    approximately 250 personal computers (PC's) throughout the Court, and
    administer a complex local area network which connects PC's throughout
    the building. The Court's technology infrastructure is a complex
    mixture of Court-wide computer software applications, individual office
    systems, and off-the-shelf software products. Computer applications
    track the docketing of cases, assist in the production of Court
    Opinions, and support research of legal issues and questions related to
    matters before the Court. Automated networks facilitate the flow of
    information within the Court and allow electronic dissemination of
    information to outside entities as well as access by the Court staff to
    external databases. Automated systems are an essential part of the
    operation of the Court.
        The specific needs identified as increases to the Court's budget
    relate to properly maintaining and updating the Court's existing
    software systems and hardware infrastructure as well as providing Court
    employees the highest level of training and support in developing
    software applications. Two additions to staff in the Office of Data
    Systems, a Senior Programmer/Analyst and a Help Desk Technician, will
    enhance improved software development activities and provide more
    assistance to Court employees who encounter difficulties using
    installed software and hardware. An additional Telecommunications
    Specialist will improve management of complex automated
    telecommunications services, including secure voice and data
    capability.
        The Court's opinions are now distributed electronically as they are
    announced from the bench. Full and extensive preparation of the
    opinions for publication occurs subsequent to the initial release when
    the cases are made ready for publication in the United States Reports.
    The addition of an Assistant Reporter of Decisions will enable the
    Reporter to prepare fully the Court's bench opinions prior to the
    initial release of the opinions by the Court.
        The Court has requested funding for two projects that will enable
    the Court to remain current with technological improvements in
    automation and telecommunications. Software upgrades projected to cost
    $215,000 are required for the Court's telecommunications systems. These
    improvements are necessary especially in view of the year 2000 problem
    for software programs. The fully automated telecommunications system
    includes software installed in 1992 that saves work by providing voice
    mail and interactive voice applications as well as control of all
    telephone traffic and features. Approximately 5,000-7,000 calls are
    handled each month by automated features installed in the Clerk's
    Office, the Marshal's Office and the Public Information Office.
    $200,000 has been requested for a contract to identify and remove old
    surplus phone and computer wire in electrical closets and building
    conduits, and to rewire phone and data cables that are inadvertently
    disconnected during the project.
                                  U.S. Courts

    STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN G. HEYBURN II, CHAIRMAN,
                COMMITTEE ON THE BUDGET OF THE JUDICIAL
                CONFERENCE OF THE UNITED STATES

                                  introduction

        Senator Gregg. Well, we are now joined by Judge Heyburn,
    and also Senator McConnell, and so I will yield to Senator
    McConnell.
        Senator McConnell. Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to stop by
    and welcome my old friend, John Heyburn, to town. He is, as the
    members of the subcommittee know, the Chairman of the Budget
    Committee for the Judiciary, and a fine lawyer. We have labored
    in the vineyards together in various ways over the years.
        I am personally aware of his legal skills, because in my
    previous incarnation as the county executive in my home county,
    John was one of our lawyers, and did a fine job, and has been
    on the Federal bench since 1992.
        So I just wanted to come by and welcome him to the
    committee and insert his impressive resume in the record, if I
    could, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Gregg. We would be happy to do that. It is an
    impressive resume.
        [The information follows:]

                 Biographical Sketch of John Gilpin Heyburn II

        John Gilpin Heyburn II was born November 12, 1948, the son
    of Henry R. Heyburn and Frances Starks Heyburn. Both his
    grandfather and father were attorneys and civil leaders in
    Louisville, Kentucky.
        Judge Heyburn received his early education in the
    Louisville Public schools and graduated from Milton Academy,
    Milton, Massachusetts. In 1970 he received his A.B. degree from
    Harvard College, Cambridge, Massachusetts, where he majored in
    history, received seven varsity letters for participation in
    cross country and track and was named to the All-Ivy League
    cross country team.
        Shortly after graduating from Harvard, Judge Heyburn worked
    for the Republican gubernatorial candidate, Tom Emberton, as a
    scheduler and advance man. Prior to entering law school, Judge
    Heyburn worked for a number of public service institutions,
    including the Park Duvalle Neighborhood Health Center, the
    Louisville and Jefferson County Youth Commission and the
    University of Louisville Urban Study Center, all of which
    focused upon the problems of urban areas. During that time
    Judge Heyburn conceived and organized a summer tutorial program
    serving hundreds of disadvantaged Louisville youth.
        In 1976, Judge Heyburn received his J.D. degree from the
    University of Kentucky College of Law, where he was a member of
    the school's National Moot Court Team. While in law school,
    Judge Heyburn served as a director of Kentucky Citizens for
    Judicial Improvement, which promoted reform of Kentucky's
    judicial system by a constitutional amendment in 1976. He also
    served as an officer in the United States Army Reserves.
        From 1976 until his appointment to the bench, Judge Heyburn
    was associated with the law firm of Brown, Todd & Heyburn,
    which at the time of his departure numbered approximately 120
    attorneys. He was a partner at the firm from 1982 through 1992.
    Judge Heyburn's practice focused on commercial litigation, with
    a particular interest in construction contract litigation, a
    subject upon which he has written and spoken extensively.
    Between 1977 and 1981 Judge Heyburn also served as special
    counsel to then Jefferson County Judge Executive Mitch
    McConnell. In 1981 and again in 1982, he served as legal
    counsel for two successive citizen commissions established to
    draft a new governmental charter for Louisville and Jefferson
    County. Judge Heyburn was active in each charter campaign as a
    spokesperson and strategist.
        Judge Heyburn served as a director of the Louisville Bar
    Foundation and as chairman of the continuing legal education
    programs for the 1991 Kentucky Bar Association Annual
    Convention. He also served as President of the University of
    Kentucky College of Law Alumni Association and as a member of
    its Visiting Committee.
        Judge Heyburn was active in civic and political affairs in
    Kentucky. Among other things, he served as a delegate to the
    1984 and 1988 Republican National Conventions. In civil
    affairs, Judge Heyburn served as director of numerous
    charitable and public service institutions. From 1983 through
    1986, he served by joint appointment of the Mayor and County
    Judge Executive as Chair of the Louisville and Jefferson County
    Crime Commission. Judge Heyburn was a member of the Leadership
    Louisville Class of 1991.
        On March 20, 1992, President Bush nominated Judge Heyburn
    to the United States District Court for the Western District of
    Kentucky to succeed the Honorable Thomas A. Ballantine, Jr. His
    nomination was confirmed by the United States Senate on August
    14, 1992, and he took the oath of office on August 28, 1992.
        In 1994, the Chief Justice appointed Judge Heyburn to serve
    on the Budget Committee of the Judicial Conference of the
    United States. In January 1997, the Chief Justice appointed
    Judge Heyburn as Chairman of the Budget Committee. He also
    serves on the Standing Committee for the Sixth Circuit Judicial
    Conference.
        Judge Heyburn is married to the former Martha Blackledge
    Keeney, who is an ophthalmologist and eye surgeon. They have
    two sons ages 6 and 9.

                               opening statement

        Senator Gregg. We are happy to have you with us. You know,
    Senator McConnell is one of our leaders.
        Senator McConnell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Gregg. Thank you, Senator McConnell.
        We yield to your thoughts and ideas, Judge Heyburn, on what
    we should do relative to the budget of the court system.
        Judge Heyburn. Thank you very much.
        It is a distinct pleasure and privilege for me to represent
    the judiciary, and maybe appropriately enough as we have a son
    of New Hampshire staring down on you and one from Kentucky
    staring down upon me, here in this historic room. [Referring to
    pictures of Henry Clay and Daniel Webster on the hearing room
    walls.]
        It is a great honor for me to appear before you today. And
    it never ceases to remind me of the majesty and delicacy of our
    Constitution, and the way it operates day to day as the two of
    us from different branches meet.
        Madison said that justice was the purpose of civil society,
    and, indeed, the purpose of Government. The Congress plays a
    part in creating justice, and the Founders created the judicial
    branch for the very purpose of doing that.
        I come representing that branch, one that in our system
    actually depends for the resources to do that job upon another
    branch. I know that you, Mr. Chairman, do understand these
    relationships, and we from the judicial branch see that in the
    day-to-day operations and dealings with you and your staff. And
    I want to say at the outset that we very much appreciate the
    cooperative attitude that they bring to the budget process, and
    we certainly think it has helped us in giving you the kind of
    information that you need.
        First of all, I want to thank the committee for the
    appropriation that we received last year, and as a more
    tangible expression of that appreciate, on behalf of the third
    branch I want to promise our continued careful stewardship of
    those funds.
        I am pleased to say that our budget request for this year
    envisions a 6.7-percent increase in obligations. This is the
    lowest increase, essentially, that anyone can remember. So I
    think we are making progress.
        Our job is, in essence, law enforcement. The work that we
    have to do is continuing to increase by and large. The purpose
    of our budget is to ask for the limited funds that are
    necessary to do that job, and nothing more.
        We are trying to be more efficient. We have an Economy
    Subcommittee that is pursuing many avenues to make sure that
    the funds that you give us are used carefully and efficiently.
        I do want to thank the committee for your efforts to help
    us be more efficient. I think you deserve much of the credit,
    or we can share the credit for some of the things that we have
    done. Several years ago, for instance, Congress passed the
    Prisoner Litigation Reform Act, and we can see quite
    dramatically that that has had an effect in reducing the number
    of frivolous prisoner lawsuits, and partly as a result of that,
    in the fiscal year 1999 budget we are asking actually for fewer
    clerks at the district court level.
        And it is traceable to a decline in the caseload in the
    district courts, a small decline, and we think that much of
    that is related to the prisoner litigation. So it shows that
    the things that you do can affect our work, and affect our
    ability to do it more efficiently.
        Last year, as you probably recall, we had an extended
    conversation about defender costs, and how the program was
    being run. I want to compliment you and your staff for bringing
    up that issue. It helped us focus our attention on some things
    that need to be looked into.
        As a direct result of our discussions and as a direct
    result of your legislation, we contracted with Coopers &
    Lybrand to do an independent study. They came up with some
    interesting findings, which I think are, on the whole, highly
    positive to the way we have been running the program, but we
    did learn a lot of things about why the costs are increasing
    where they are.
        The study did highlight a few areas--well, one area, I
    should say, that we are continuing to work in, and I would be
    glad to discuss that study with you during the questions, if
    you like.
        Another area we discussed briefly last year was courthouse
    security. The costs had, I think as you may well have pointed
    out last year, increased dramatically in fiscal year 1997 and
    1998--about 20 percent each year. This year I am happy to say
    we are only requesting a 6.9-percent increase, and all of that
    is due to new or renovated facilities--or the great percentage
    of that is new and renovated facilities. In response to your
    questions, and the questions of Congressmen over in the House,
    we are continuing to look at security. We all wrestle with the
    question of how much security is enough security.
        We want our courthouses to be safe places for people to
    feel safe, for jurors to feel comfortable going there, for
    citizens to feel comfortable going there, and we are continuing
    to try to strike the proper balance. We do not want to scrimp
    on security. On the other hand, we do not want to overdo it,
    and we are continuing to look at that.
        I also want to thank the committee and the Senate and in
    particular you for your actions on the COLA for judges last
    year. We believe that both Members of Congress and judges
    should be treated like other Federal employees, and receive a
    small appropriate COLA every year. And we think it ought to be
    in the fiscal year 1999 budget.
        I think in reflecting upon last year, and upon the
    experience of most working Americans, they are used to
    receiving a COLA every year in their own every day lives. And I
    think my reflection as an amateur politician at this point is
    that the reaction, or rather lack of reaction, to what Congress
    did last year proves that they understand that these things are
    appropriate.
        As Congress intended a number of years ago when the
    legislation was passed that put in motion this process, we
    ought to keep that process in motion every year, and then we
    will not be faced with larger increases to catch up.
        I would like to make a couple of quick points about two
    smaller accounts within the judiciary that are important to us.
    One is the Administrative Office, which is the heart of the
    judiciary's policy and administrative support. We are going to
    be implementing a number of new automation programs over the
    next couple of years. The support we get from the
    Administrative Office is absolutely critical. The work Ralph
    Mecham and his staff do is critical to our efforts to be more
    efficient.
        The Federal Judicial Center is also asking for only a 3.1-
    percent increase this year. They have been basically flatlined
    the last 5 years, and I would encourage you to give them the
    funding they need to continue to provide education to the
    judiciary.
        I will mention one other brief matter, and that is we are
    requesting some language in the legislation which would
    authorize the judiciary to establish certifying officers as
    sort of a technical financial point. We hope you will include
    that in the legislation somewhere. It will enable us to better
    deal with our financial management at a local court level.

                              prepared statements

        I will be submitting my written testimony along with that
    of Judge Zobel, and Director Mecham, and representatives of the
    Federal circuit and the U.S. Court of International Trade for
    the record.
        Again, it is a great pleasure to be here. I will be glad to
    answer any questions or discuss any subject that you would
    like.
        [The statements follow:]
                 Prepared Statement of Hon. John G. Heyburn II
                                  introduction
        Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, I appreciate the
    opportunity to testify before you on the Judiciary's 1999 budget
    request. It is indeed a pleasure to return for my second appearance
    before the Subcommittee.
        On behalf of the entire Judiciary, I want to thank you Mr.
    Chairman, Senator Hollings, and all the Members of the Subcommittee for
    your extraordinary efforts in providing the Third Branch with our
    fiscal year 1998 appropriation. In this time of fiscal constraint, we
    greatly appreciate your support for the judiciary. The funds you
    provided, together with other available sources of funding has
    permitted us to handle our known workload increases and will ensure the
    effective functioning of the court system. I also want to express my
    appreciation, on behalf of all the judges in the judiciary, for your
    role in providing a pay adjustment for judges in 1998, and especially
    to you Mr. Chairman, for your leadership efforts, which have been
    recognized throughout the judiciary. We hope this process will repeat
    itself in 1999.
        Finally, I want to express my deep personal gratitude to you, Mr.
    Chairman, the Subcommittee, and your dedicated, hardworking staff for
    your support and willingness to work with me during my first year as
    Chairman of the Judicial Conference Committee on the Budget. The
    Subcommittee has been extremely responsive to our needs, and the staff
    demonstrates a high level of professionalism and always listens with an
    open mind.
                           restrained budget request
        We are pleased to be able to report to you today that the $4.1
    billion in obligational authority requested by the judiciary for fiscal
    year 1999 continues the trend in restrained budgets begun by my
    predecessor, Judge Richard Arnold. For the third year in a row we have
    succeeded in reducing the level of growth in both appropriated funds
    and total obligations. In fact, the 6.7 percent requested increase in
    total obligations represents the lowest such increase in 20 years.
        If I were sitting in your position, I might ask how can the
    judiciary talk about reducing costs when its budget is increasing by
    6.7 percent? My response would be that you have to look at this with a
    historical perspective, and you must take into consideration the nature
    of, and just as importantly, the continued growth in the work required
    of the courts. Reducing costs does not mean reducing our overall
    budget. What it does mean is that our economy and efficiency efforts
    allow us to provide the level of service expected by the bench, the bar
    and the public, and I might add by the Congress, but at a curtailed
    cost.
        This restrained request comes in spite of a growing workload being
    placed on the courts. With the exception of civil filings which decline
    slightly, the workload estimates used to develop the fiscal year 1999
    budget continue to grow.
        The requested growth for fiscal year 1999 includes only those funds
    necessary to continue our current workload (offset by efficiency and
    other savings), and to handle workload created by the additional
    responsibilities Congress has given us. The 6.7 percent increase in
    overall spending in fiscal year 1999 breaks down to 5 percent for
    current services (maintaining staffing, and funding for inflation, pay
    adjustments, and other costs related to existing workload) and 1.7
    percent to maintain a current level of service for the aforementioned
    workload increases which are not controlled by the judiciary.
        We believe this is a very restrained request considering the
    resources that have recently been provided to the Justice Department by
    Congress, and our continued growth in workload. A good indicator of the
    increased workload we can expect from DOJ is the level of resources
    provided to the Department. In fiscal year 1998 the number of attorneys
    in the litigating divisions and U.S. attorneys offices grows by six
    percent. The number of FBI, DEA and INS agents and investigators grows
    by seven percent in fiscal year 1998. We can expect additional workload
    in fiscal year 1999 as a result of the efforts of these new
    investigators and litigators hired in fiscal year 1998.
        A detailed explanation of our fiscal year 1999 request is included
    as an Appendix.
                judiciary's contribution to balancing the budget
        My colleagues here and out in the courts are grateful to the
    Congress and especially to this subcommittee for providing the
    resources needed to meet our constitutional and statutory requirements.
    At the same time we recognize a requirement you have to balance the
    budget. In the past this subcommittee has encouraged us to do more with
    less and your admonishments were heard loud and clear throughout the
    courts.
        To illustrate this, just four years ago we submitted a fiscal year
    1996 budget request that amounted to an 8.5 percent increase in
    obligations over the previous year. That budget was based upon
    additional workload such as a 3.7 percent increase in offenders under
    supervision, a 6 percent increase in bankruptcy filings, and a 4.3
    percent increase in criminal and civil filings. As I discussed earlier,
    for fiscal year 1999 we continue to experience a growing workload, and
    yet we have succeeded in paring down our budget. The requested 6.7
    percent increase in fiscal year 1999 amounts to a reduction of 21
    percent from the 8.5 percent increase requested in fiscal year 1996. In
    short, we have succeeded in lowering significantly our rate of growth
    in funds at a time when there is no lessening in our rate of growth in
    workload.
        The Congress has done an incredible job in achieving what was once
    considered an impossible goal--the balancing of the federal budget. I
    like to think that we in the judiciary, through our cost cutting
    efforts, have assisted you in attaining this goal. We have come a long
    way and, as I discuss below, we will continue to seek ways to enhance
    our productivity and reduce our cost of doing business, as long as it
    does not compromise the quality of justice. Providing a forum for our
    citizens to address their grievances is not an inexpensive proposition,
    but I believe the judiciary is on the right track.
        Following are examples in three areas of our budget where we have
    been able to achieve savings.
    Staffing
        The number of judges and court employees needed is directly linked
    to the judiciary's workload. With workload that is not controlled by
    the judiciary, but is placed upon the courts year after year, the
    demand for additional judges and staff continues to increase. Cognizant
    of continuing budget constraints, we sought ways to ensure the wise and
    more cost-effective use of our human resources.
        The judiciary has implemented cost-conscious policies to address
    the need to establish or eliminate Article III, bankruptcy, and
    magistrate judgeships, and to appoint or transfer judges in those
    positions. Some of these initiatives include determining whether a
    judgeship should remain unfilled or should be recommended for
    elimination if the workload warrants it and considering the use of
    visiting judges before requesting additional judgeships.
        To hold down the number of court personnel needed, a multi-year
    effort is underway to identify business practices that have the
    potential to result in more efficient and effective operations and to
    foster their implementation in the courts. This effort has the
    potential to enhance the courts' ability to function at curtailed
    staffing levels.
    Space and Facilities
        Containing the costs of court facilities remains a high priority
    for the judiciary. Areas that the judiciary continues to pursue include
    the sharing of courtrooms by senior judges, the possible closing of
    additional facilities without a resident judge, implementation of a
    space reduction incentive program, revisions to the U.S. Courts Design
    Guide to reduce building construction costs, and the possible sharing
    of facilities with state and local governments or other entities to
    reduce costs.
    Public Safety
        The judiciary takes very seriously its law enforcement
    responsibilities as administered through the probation and pretrial
    services programs. Public safety should not be jeopardized in the
    interest of saving money. The judiciary, however, has been able to
    manage this program in a way that produces savings while still ensuring
    public safety. Through its home confinement program, the judiciary
    saves the government considerable resources when compared with the
    alternative of incarceration. Further, offenders in the electronic
    monitoring component pay for nearly half the cost of that program.
        Another public safety component for which the judiciary receives
    funding is the court security program. The funds are appropriated to
    the judiciary, and then transferred to the U.S. Marshals Service, which
    has statutory responsibility for the provision of security to the
    judiciary. Funds pay for court security officers and security systems
    and equipment. Under the policy guidance of the Judicial Conference,
    the U.S. Marshals Service has developed standards on the appropriate
    number of court security officers and pieces of screening equipment
    needed in each facility. The fiscal year 1999 request for additional
    court security officers provides for the safety of all individuals in
    court facilities in the most cost-effective manner.
                       containing defender services costs
        The judiciary not only is attempting to contain costs in the
    courts, but also in other areas of the budget such as the Defender
    Services Program. I need not remind Congress that providing an
    individual a fair trial and an adequate defense is a critical component
    of this nation's criminal justice system. Congress has recognized this
    and has provided adequate resources to allow the judiciary to meet its
    obligations. Congress has, over the past several years, raised concerns
    about increases in the overall average annual cost per representation
    that exceeded the rate of inflation.
        In February, we transmitted to Congress the results of a
    comprehensive analysis of the cost of the Defender Services Program by
    an independent consultant, Coopers and Lybrand, L.L.P. This report was
    developed in consultation with the General Accounting Office. The main
    finding in the report is that overall average costs in this program are
    being skewed by a relatively new phenomenon in the federal system,
    federal death penalty prosecutions. Coopers and Lybrand found that when
    the cost of death penalty representations, especially a handful of very
    expensive high profile capital cases, are excluded, the average annual
    cost of the remaining cases grows by a rate roughly equivalent to
    inflation. In fact, Coopers and Lybrand went one step further and
    stated that the cost increases for these non-capital cases ``have been
    reasonable''. The reasonableness of non-capital prosecution costs can
    best be illustrated by the attached chart which displays the average
    annual panel attorney cost per representation by case type from fiscal
    year 1995 through fiscal year 1999. The flat line at the bottom of the
    chart indicates how little the average annual cost per representation
    has grown in non-capital cases. Since non-capital cases make up
    approximately 99 percent of the total number of defender
    representations, I believe it is safe to assume that the costs of the
    Defender Services Program are ``under control''.
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T11MA12.000

        The aforementioned chart also illustrates the differential between
    the average annual cost of capital and non-capital cases, and shows the
    impact high profile death penalty prosecutions have on average annual
    costs. In fiscal year 1997, at the height of several of these high
    profile cases, the average annual cost per representation for all
    capital prosecutions was $154,000. These high profile cases have
    concluded the trial phase and we are unaware that any similar cases are
    being considered by the Justice Department. Consequently, we predict
    that the average annual cost per representation in a capital
    prosecution in fiscal year 1999 will decline by over 50 percent from
    fiscal year 1998 levels to $75,000.
        For fiscal year 1999, we request what I believe to be a reasonable
    budget of $391,831,000, an 8 percent increase over fiscal year 1998
    funding. The growth above fiscal year 1998 results primarily from: (1)
    a projected 4.2 percent increase in the overall number of
    representations, (2) standard pay and inflationary increases, and (3) a
    $5 increase in hourly panel attorney rates for non-capital cases.
        Panel attorney hourly rates have become somewhat problematic for
    us. As you know, we rely to a great extent upon private panel attorneys
    to provide representation for federal defendants. Since 1986, the
    hourly rates used to reimburse these attorneys for their services have
    been increased once, in 1996, by $5. In 1986, the In-Court hourly rate
    was $60. If this rate had been adjusted annually for inflation (CPI),
    the rate in 1997 would have been $88. The rate today is only $65, or 26
    percent below the inflationary adjusted rate. Concerns have been raised
    about the quality of the services being provided by panel attorneys who
    are being paid at an hourly rate which in most areas may not even cover
    overhead. Rate increases are needed to provide the financial incentive
    to develop and maintain panels with the federal criminal practice
    experience needed to provide quality representation.
                        a fair and independent judiciary
        Although managing the judiciary's resources efficiently is a
    primary concern, ensuring that this nation has a fair and independent
    system of justice is of the utmost importance. This country is one of
    the few that has an independent judiciary. It is part of what makes
    this country great, and it touches all of our lives, but it does come
    with a price.
        The judiciary provides a variety of services for this country and
    its citizens. It protects the public by providing a forum for those
    accused of crimes to be removed from society if found guilty. It has a
    law enforcement function by monitoring the activities of individuals
    accused of crimes and awaiting trial, or convicted of crimes and
    sentenced to terms of probation or supervised release. Through the
    bankruptcy system, the judiciary contributes to a stable economy by
    providing a mechanism for debtors and creditors to resolve financial
    problems in a way that they can continue with their businesses and
    their lives. Through the civil litigation system, businesses or
    individuals who have disputes with each other can seek resolution in
    the federal courts. Finally, the Judiciary permits those accused of
    crimes to have access to a fair trial by providing counsel to those
    unable to afford it.
        The judiciary cannot prevent anyone from seeking its services. It
    cannot deny justice and it cannot control its workload. What the
    judiciary must do is identify the necessary resources to remain
    independent and dispense justice fairly, and to utilize those resources
    efficiently and responsibly.
                         preparing for the next century
        The judiciary is not only ensuring that our founding fathers' goals
    of a fair and independent justice system are met, but it is also
    looking to how it can best meet those goals in the new century.
        Foremost in our effort is to ensure that we have the most modern
    and efficient information systems in place to dispense justice fairly.
    These automation and technology initiatives are being explored as
    potential ways to improving justice at reduced costs while still
    handling a growing workload.
        The electronic courtroom is a vision of the not-too-distant future.
    The judiciary is currently studying the use of emerging technologies in
    appellate, district, and bankruptcy proceedings. These technologies
    include video conferencing (beyond its use in prisoner proceedings),
    video evidence presentation systems, electronic court-reporting methods
    (e.g., real-time stenography), and courtroom access to a variety of
    office automation applications and databases. A report assessing the
    advantages and disadvantages of using these technologies is scheduled
    to be completed this summer.
        Expansion of videoconferencing for judicial proceedings and
    administrative purposes is also expected to continue. More districts
    will be using videoconferencing for prisoner related proceedings and it
    is anticipated to become a widely used medium for meetings,
    conferences, and training seminars. Videoconferencing produces a number
    of benefits--more efficient scheduling for judges and court staff,
    enhanced access to the court for the bar and public, reduced security
    risks when prisoners do not have to travel to appear for proceedings,
    and in some cases lower travel costs. A satellite broadcasting
    capability for the Judiciary is to be deployed in the next few months
    which will provide more economical training programs to broader
    audiences.
        The judiciary now makes available a variety of publications and
    other information to the public through the Internet. In addition to
    enabling faster response times, this reduces postage, printing and
    staff costs involved with responding to inquiries by mail or telephone.
    Significant efficiencies have also been realized through the
    establishment of an intranet site and its use is expected to expand.
        The judiciary continues to explore the benefits that may be
    associated with receiving case filings using electronic methods. These
    efforts are seeking more efficient case management systems to support
    judicial officers. A number of side benefits such as electronic filing,
    retrieval, and information sharing between courts, the bar, and the
    public will result from this work. The judiciary is working to resolve
    a host of technical, management, legal, procedural, and security issues
    involved with moving towards an electronic case management system.
                   contributions of the administrative office
        All of the judiciary's achievements and efforts that I have
    mentioned so far and all of the other work of the judiciary would not
    happen were it not for the support of the Administrative Office (AO)
    staff.
        The projects underway to utilize resources more effectively in the
    area of staffing and facilities, to manage the cost-saving home
    confinement and electronic monitoring contracts, to manage drug testing
    contracts, to analyze the use of defender services and court security
    resources, and to prepare the judiciary for the next century through
    initiatives such as facilitating the installation of satellite
    downlinks needed for video technology are all spearheaded by
    Administrative Office staff in support of the courts.
        All of the above efforts and many more are in addition to the daily
    support the Administrative Office provides to the courts and the
    Judicial Conference. Some of these include:
      --Researching and preparing analysis on hundreds of issues considered
            by Judicial Conference committees each year.
      --Providing core administrative services such as accounting,
            personnel, payroll, budget, and facilities planning.
      --Developing better ways to handle court business and training and
            assisting judges and court personnel in implementing programs,
            improving operations, and managing the courts.
      --Supporting the Judicial Conference's planning efforts by conducting
            strategic studies and providing technical assistance, research,
            and analysis related to planning issues and topics.
      --Preparing manuals and publications containing essential information
            about judicial business.
      --Providing management and organizational training to court staff on
            how to operate most efficiently.
        I urge that the Congress fully fund the $5 million (5.6 percent)
    increase requested for the AO in 1999. This level of growth funds pay
    adjustments and inflationary increases and allows staffing to be
    restored to the 1995 authorized level. Over the past four years total
    judiciary FTE have increased by 15 percent. Not only has AO staffing
    not kept pace with the population they serve, it actually declined from
    fiscal year 1995 to 1997 by 4 percent. This has prevented the AO from
    providing both the support needed by the courts in core functions, but
    also to implement new systems. Automated systems that support
    financial, personnel, defender services, and court security activities,
    among others, will greatly improve the efficiency of the judiciary and
    bring it into the twenty-first century. Some of these systems are being
    implemented now and others will be in fiscal year 1999. Automating
    critical tasks and implementing the system to do so will require
    extensive AO support to the courts. The fiscal year 1999 request for
    the AO will provide the resources to support these new systems and
    still allow the AO to maintain an adequate level of support for its
    other core activities.
                        federal judicial center support
        Please let me also comment briefly on the Federal Judicial Center,
    which is seeking a 5.6 percent increase over its current appropriation.
    I know that the Chief Justice and the Board of the Center reviewed this
    proposed request carefully in light of the demands on the Center and
    the real and effective reductions in its funding in the last few years.
    The Board believes, and I believe, that it is a very reasonable
    submission and I urge full funding at the requested level.
        This subcommittee has made clear that it wants the judiciary to
    spend less for travel for education and has called for the use of video
    technology to provide more education to the judges and staff of the
    Federal judiciary at increasingly lower costs. The Center has
    responded, as explained in Judge Zobel's statement, and has already
    broadcast nine programs, reaching over 7,000 people.
        As noted in Judge Zobel's statement, the Center has long used
    alternatives to traditional travel-based education. The great majority
    of the people it trains receive education in the courthouses using
    Center materials. As a working judge, I can tell you as well that the
    services the Center provides are vital in enabling us and our staffs to
    work efficiently. The Center orients new judges to their jobs, and all
    of us turn to it for updates on legislative and case law, for help in
    managing difficult criminal and civil cases, and more efficient juror
    selection. The Center teaches our probation and pretrial services
    officers how to supervise defendants effectively and to help judges
    determine the appropriate sentences. Its management training programs
    teach court staff the tools used in the private sector to reduce costs,
    streamline operations, and better serve the public.
                                   conclusion
        In closing, let me emphasize the critical and unique services the
    judiciary provides to our society and our efforts to provide these
    services in the most cost-effective way possible.
        We recognize the importance of achieving a balanced budget and want
    to continue to work with you to achieve and maintain that goal. The
    judiciary takes seriously its responsibility to use resources
    prudently, as it does its responsibility to provide a fair and
    independent justice system. We believe we are achieving both of these
    goals.
        I want to thank you for this opportunity to testify before you
    today, and we are available to provide any additional information you
    may need.
                                     ______

                                    Appendix
                                    summary
        The fiscal year 1999 appropriation request for the Courts of
    Appeals, District Courts and Other Judicial Services totals
    $3,616,903,000, an increase of $328,426,000 over our fiscal year 1998
    appropriation level. In addition to appropriated funds, the judiciary
    requires the use of other funding sources to supplement our
    appropriations. Included in these sources of funding are fee
    collections, carry forward of fee balances from a prior year, and the
    use of no-year funds. When all sources of funds are considered, the
    increase in obligations for fiscal year 1999 is only $242,856,000 or
    6.7 percent.
        Of the $243 million increase in obligations 75 percent ($181
    million) is necessary to maintain current services by providing for
    inflation and other uncontrollable adjustments such as existing judges
    and staff. The remaining 25 percent ($61 million) is primarily needed
    to respond to increasing workload. The request for the principal
    programs are summarized below.
                             salaries and expenses
        The salaries and expenses of circuit, district, and bankruptcy
    courts and probation and pretrial services offices account for most of
    our request. A total of $3,247,895,000 is required for this activity,
    $200 million over fiscal year 1998 estimated obligations. Funding
    totaling $299 million is expected to be available from other sources to
    offset the S&E requirements, leaving an appropriation need of
    $2,948,723,000. Included in these other sources of funding are $135
    million in funds expected to carry forward from fiscal year 1998; $134
    million in fee collections; $27 million from the Violent Crime
    Reduction Trust Fund; and $2.5 million from the Vaccine Injury Trust
    Fund.
        Over 78 percent of the $200 million increase ($157 million) is
    needed to fund uncontrollable adjustments such as inflation, the
    filling of vacant judgeships and additional space rental costs. The
    increase in space rental costs reflects inflation, the annualization of
    new space delivered in fiscal year 1998, the delivery of new space in
    fiscal year 1999 and a security surcharge the General Services
    Administration (GSA) is applying to its customers. Rental payments to
    GSA are estimated to increase over 13 percent from $574 million in
    fiscal year 1998 to $650 million in fiscal year 1999 and make up almost
    half of the requested adjustments to base.
        The remaining increase ($43.4 million) will primarily fund the
    personnel needed to address increases in our uncontrollable workload.
    The increases fund the following:
        Judges.--An increase of $3.2 million is requested for 7 new
    magistrate judges and related support staff. This increase is needed to
    provide an effective, yet less costly, way of providing help to Article
    III judges to handle the large volume of civil and criminal cases
    facing the courts. An increase of $1.2 million is also requested for 4
    additional recalled bankruptcy judges and their related staff. Recalled
    bankruptcy judges provide an effective way for districts to deal with
    mushrooming bankruptcy workload until it is determined whether
    additional bankruptcy judgeships should be approved.
        Additional Court Support Personnel.--Funding is requested for
    additional FTE for appellate and bankruptcy courts and for probation
    and pretrial offices while FTE in district courts will decrease.
    Bankruptcy and appellate filings have continued to grow over the past
    several years, while workload is anticipated to decrease in district
    courts because of a reduction in civil filings and the sunset of the
    Civil Justice Reform Act. In the probation area, the number of
    offenders received for supervision will continue to increase, but more
    significant is the shift from relatively low-risk probation cases to
    high-risk violent offenders on supervised release. Consequently, an
    increase of $23.6 million will fund 427 additional clerk's office FTE
    and related expenses and $15.4 million will fund 195 additional FTE in
    probation and pretrial offices.
                               defender services
        A total of $391,831,000 is requested for the Defender Services
    program to provide representation for indigent criminal defendants in
    fiscal year 1999. Of this amount, $360,952,000 is requested in direct
    appropriations and $30,879,000 is requested as a reimbursement from the
    Violent Crime Reduction Trust Fund. The total requirements for fiscal
    year 1999 are $28,964,000 over the fiscal year 1998 projected
    obligations of $362,867,000.
        Most of the increase ($27,764,000) is needed for uncontrollable
    adjustments, such as pay and benefit adjustments, inflation, increased
    space rental costs and a projected increase in caseload. Included in
    these adjustments are funds for 71 additional FTE for Federal Defender
    Organizations to provide representation to 2,300 additional defendants
    as well as a net reduction of $2.5 million in panel attorney costs.
    While there is a projected overall increase of 1,600 panel attorney
    representations for fiscal year 1999, costs of this activity are offset
    by a significant decrease in projected Federal death penalty
    requirements due to the disposition of several expensive cases. Also
    included in the requested adjustments is a $5 per in-court and out-of-
    court hour rate adjustment for private panel attorneys in those
    districts which do not receive the $75 per hour compensation rate.
    Panel attorney rates in 77 of the 94 districts, while raised in 1996
    for the first time since 1984, are still an impediment to our ability
    to attract qualified attorneys to serve as court-appointed counsel.
        The remaining increase ($1.2 million) would fund the start up costs
    of four new federal defender organizations. The Congress and the
    Judicial Conference have urged us to establish more federal defender
    organizations as an alternative to using panel attorneys in districts
    where this would be appropriate.
                        fees of jurors and commissioners
        For the Fees of Jurors program, a total of $70,087,000 is required,
    of which $68,173,000 is requested in direct appropriations, $1,426,000
    is requested as a reimbursement from the Violent Crime Reduction Trust
    Fund and $488,000 is expected to be available in carry forward balances
    from fiscal year 1998. The total requirements for fiscal year 1999 are
    $2.2 million higher than estimated fiscal year 1998 obligations ($67.9
    million). This increase funds inflationary adjustments and an increase
    in juror days.
                                 court security
        For the Court Security program, a total of $179,524,000 is
    required, of which $179,055,000 is requested in direct appropriations
    and $469,000 is requested as a reimbursement from the Violent Crime
    Reduction Trust Fund. This is an $11.6 million increase over estimated
    fiscal year 1998 obligations ($167.9 million). This request reflects an
    overall net reduction in funding required for adjustments to base
    (-$4.7 million) including: inflation; costs associated with a wage
    labor rate increase for court security officers (CSO); funding to
    annualize the costs for 387 new court security officers brought on in
    fiscal year 1998; and a reduction for non-recurring equipment and CSO
    start-up costs acquired in fiscal year 1998.
        The remaining increase of $16.4 million funds 168 additional court
    security officers which will provide for the basic security necessary
    in existing (78), new and renovated (90) facilities housing full-time
    judicial officers. In addition, funds are provided for cyclical
    replacement of weapons and explosives screening and systems equipment.
                       violent crime reduction trust fund
        The Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (Crime
    Bill) established the Violent Crime Reduction Trust Fund. The Crime
    Bill and the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996
    authorize funds to be appropriated from the fund to the judiciary to
    finance the expenses associated with implementing these acts. Of the
    $60 million authorized for the judiciary in fiscal year 1999: (1) $27.1
    million would reimburse Salaries and Expenses costs; (2) $30.9 million
    would reimburse the Defender Services account; (3) $1.4 million would
    reimburse the Fees of Jurors account; (4) $469,000 would reimburse the
    Court Security account; and (5) $100,000 would reimburse the activities
    of the Federal Judicial Center.
                                     ______

      Prepared Statement of Hon. Rya W. Zobel, Director, Federal Judicial
                                     Center
        Mr. Chairman and Subcommittee members. My name is Rya Zobel. I am a
    United States District Judge and have been the Director of the Federal
    Judicial Center since 1995.
        The Center is the federal courts' agency for education of judges
    and supporting staff and for analysis and evaluation of judicial
    procedures and case management. This appropriations request has been
    endorsed by the Center's Board, which the Chief Justice chairs. It has
    been coordinated with the Administrative Office and with the Judicial
    Conference's Budget Committee, whose chairman, Judge Heyburn, will
    speak for the Center today. I am available to answer any questions you
    may have of me. I am pleased that Judge Heyburn joins me in seeking
    full funding for the Center.
        The Center's fiscal 1999 appropriations request of $18,470,000
    represents an increase of 5.6 percent, or $945,000, over our fiscal
    1998 appropriation, which is the same as our fiscal 1997 appropriation.
    The request for fiscal 1999 is about the same as our 1994 appropriation
    and a half-million dollars less than was available to us in 1992.
        Of the requested increase, over two-thirds is for standard base
    adjustments--$642,000.
        We are requesting program growth of only $333,000, for 4 video and
    media positions and small recurring funds for distance education
    equipment. With these four additional positions, the Center's staffing
    strength will be 144 FTE's, more than 10 percent below what it was
    before I became director in 1995.
        Congress has emphasized that judicial branch education should rely
    less on travel and use satellite video broadcasts as an inexpensive
    alternative. Permit me three points:
        First, Congress' interest in non-travel based education has long
    been the Center's interest, well before satellite broadcasts were
    feasible. As long as ten years ago, over half of the 10,000
    participants in our training participated in their courthouses. That
    percentage last fiscal year was 85 percent even as the number of
    participants in our training had grown to 34,000. Corresponding figures
    for the calendar year are higher.
        Second, the amount the Center spends on travel has declined
    dramatically--the Center's estimated fiscal 1998 travel expenditures
    will be about one-third or $1.5 million less than we spent in 1995.
        Third, the Center has led the judicial branch's distance education
    efforts. The Chief Justice, in his year end report, noted that the
    Center Board had approved a strategic plan for the Center and that the
    plan responds to Congress's interest in reducing government spending on
    travel by directing the FJC to continue its emphasis on satellite
    broadcasting and other forms of ``distance learning.'' More
    specifically:
      --In 1996, we used over a half-million dollars of our travel funds to
            construct a second video studio specifically for instructional
            broadcasts; additional funds came from the Sentencing
            Commission and the courts' budget. We inaugurated that studio
            last month with a program for probation officers on supervising
            violent offenders.
      --To save taxpayers' dollars, we have cooperated with Executive
            Branch agencies to learn the best methods for use of
            instructional studios such as the one we built, and we have
            been active in government-wide efforts to promote distance
            learning. A member of the Center staff was recently elected
            government sector vice-president of the Federal Government
            Distance Learning Association.
      --In 1996 we assessed the federal courts' receptivity to having
            satellite downlinks on the courthouse. We are grateful to the
            Judicial Conference and the Administrative Office for
            allocating both the funds and the management resources to
            establish a network of downlinks that will be operating in
            federal courts later this year.
      --We have already provided court personnel instruction on how to use
            these downlinks once installed, and are prepared with a regular
            schedule of educational programs for this cost-effective medium
            to commence as soon as the courts' downlinks are in place.
      --Using other downlinks, we have already broadcast 9 satellite
            education programs to over 7,000 court personnel, on topics
            from how probation officers should deal with street gangs to
            the decisions of the Supreme Court in its 1996-97 term.
      --In addition to satellite broadcasts, we have introduced the
            judicial branch to educational audio conferences and on-line
            computer conferences, and presented 32 since 1996.
        These methods join other distance education techniques we also use.
    For example, within four months after the Judicial Conference's March
    1997 approval of a ``Risk Prediction Index'', the Center produced an
    interactive, multi-media, non-travel based educational program to teach
    probation officers how to use this new tool. Center researchers had
    developed the Index to help officers determine the amount of
    supervision that individual federal offenders require.
        The Center Board endorsed the request before you today, not because
    it will provide all the resources that the Board believes the Center
    needs. Rather, the Board believes this request will provide the minimum
    resources necessary to allow the Center to continue to provide federal
    judges and court staff the practical training they need in order to do
    their jobs recognizing the continued need to control spending,
    including spending for travel.
        I thank the subcommittee again for its support. I will be glad to
    answer any questions you might have about our fiscal 1999 request or
    about the Center and its missions.
                                     ______

     Prepared Statement of Leonidas Ralph Mecham, Director, Administrative
                           Office of the U.S. Courts
        Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, it is my pleasure to
    appear before you today in support of the fiscal year 1999 budget
    request for the Administrative Office of the United States Courts (AO).
    To start with, I wish to thank Chairman Gregg, Mr. Hollings, the other
    Members of the Subcommittee, and your staff for your continued support
    of the AO. In fiscal year 1998, Congress provided the AO with the funds
    necessary to partially restore our staffing levels, which had declined
    by 4.3 percent between fiscal years 1995 and 1997. We were very pleased
    that you recognized the need to strengthen AO support of the courts,
    and I am eager to tell you how we have used these resources to improve
    the administration of the judiciary. Our modest request for fiscal year
    1999 will allow us to restore AO staffing back to fiscal year 1995
    levels.
        The AO's policy and support responsibilities touch on all aspects
    of operations in the Third Branch. No other federal agency has the far-
    reaching responsibilities for the workings of an entire branch of
    government as does the AO for the judiciary. Its many responsibilities
    put the AO in a unique position to effect change throughout an entire
    branch of government. The AO met this challenge by identifying and
    implementing improvements that help the courts work better, at less
    cost. Through our efforts, the judiciary is better able to contribute
    to the national goals of winning the war against crime, enforcing the
    rights of all citizens, and eliminating the budget deficit.
                 responsibilities of the administrative office
        Chief Justice Rehnquist addressed the responsibilities of the AO in
    his fiscal year 1997 annual report on the courts. In that report he
    stated that the AO ``serves the Judicial Conference of the United
    States and the federal courts in many ways.'' For example, ``it
    collects data and analyzes statistics, consults with the courts about
    their needs and priorities, makes improvements in judicial
    administration, and implements and promotes Judicial Conference
    policies and programs.'' To provide an idea of the magnitude and scope
    of the effort required, consider that the AO is involved in supporting
    the following:
      --The Judicial Conference and its 24 committees, which establish
            policy for the federal judiciary.
      --Over 2,000 judicial officers--including active and senior appellate
            and district court judges, bankruptcy judges, and magistrate
            judges--an increase of 11 percent over the past four years.
      --26,326 court staff FTE, an increase of 15 percent over the past
            four years.
      --About 128,300 individuals under the supervision of probation and
            pretrial services officers, an increase of 12 percent over the
            last four years.
      --3,274 court security officer positions, an increase of 45 percent
            over the past four years.
      --27 million square feet of space, a 14 percent increase in square
            footage over the past four years.
        Chief Justice Rehnquist relies upon me, as the Chief Administrative
    Officer of the federal courts, to ensure that the AO provides support
    for these and other aspects of the judiciary. On a daily basis, AO
    activities include:
      --Implementing the policies of the Judicial Conference and supporting
            its network of committees by providing staff to plan meetings;
            develop agendas; prepare reports; and provide substantive
            analytical support to the development of issues, projects, and
            recommendations.
      --Providing centralized core administrative services for the courts
            such as payroll, personnel, and accounting services.
      --Developing and executing the budget and providing funds to the
            courts for local budget execution.
      --Defining resource requirements through forecasts of caseloads,
            work-measurement analyses, assessment of program changes, and
            reviews of individual court requirements.
      --Conducting education and training programs on court administrative
            functions.
      --Auditing the courts' financial operations.
      --Managing national contracts for drug-testing of those under
            supervision by probation and pretrial services officers.
      --Developing and supporting automated systems and technologies used
            throughout the courts.
      --Coordinating with the General Services Administration and the
            courts on the construction and management of the judiciary's
            space and facilities.
      --Monitoring the U.S. Marshals Service's implementation of the
            Judicial Facilities Security Program, which provides court
            security officers and security equipment for courthouses.
      --Managing appointed counsel programs funded through the judiciary's
            Defender Services appropriation.
      --Responding to numerous inquiries from Congress, the media, and the
            public.
      --Providing a variety of services to the courts designed to increase
            their overall effectiveness, including the delivery of
            operation manuals and the conduct of court reviews.
                         administrative office funding
        The AO is requesting total funding of $94,082,000, a 5.6 percent
    increase over expected fiscal year 1998 obligations. This modest level
    of growth is less than the increase requested for the rest of the
    judiciary (6.7 percent), which is supported by the AO. The budget
    request includes only inflationary increases and the funds necessary to
    restore staffing and services to 1995 levels. The total funding needed
    is comprised of appropriations, reimbursements from the courts
    primarily for automation support, fiscal year 1999 fee collections,
    prior year carryover, and independent counsel reimbursements.
        Over three-fourths of the requested increase for fiscal year 1999
    is for salary and benefit inflationary cost adjustments. Personnel
    costs account for about 90 percent of the AO budget, so this is not
    surprising. The remainder of the requested increase is for an
    additional 11 FTE to restore staffing and related services back to the
    fiscal year 1995 authorized level. As described below, restoration to
    the fiscal year 1995 staffing level is critical to the ability of the
    AO to continue providing necessary support to the entire judiciary.
        The AO was fortunate, due to your leadership, to receive a 5.2
    percent increase in appropriations for fiscal year 1998. This will
    allow us to increase staffing levels by 12 FTE. In the following
    section, I discuss how these additional staff will be used to enhance
    ongoing efforts to improve financial and program management both within
    the AO and throughout the judiciary.
                         administrative office staffing
        Over the past four years the judges and staff of the Judicial
    Branch who are supported by the AO have grown by approximately 15
    percent. The AO workload is directly related to the overall increase in
    the number of judges and staff in the judicial branch. Not only has AO
    staffing not kept up with this growth in the courts, it actually
    declined from fiscal years 1995 to 1997. Thus, our workload has
    increased but our staff has decreased. The following chart compares
    recent FTE growth in judges and court staff to the comparable changes
    in the AO staffing:

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                      1995-97               1995-99
                                                                  1995       1997      change      1999      change
                                                                                     (percent)             (percent)
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Judges and Staff.........................................     26,919     28,253         +5     30,932        +15
    AO Direct FTE............................................        668        639         -4        668  .........
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Although the population we serve continues to grow, the AO request
    provides for staff at only the level funded in fiscal year 1995.
    Without the requested resources, the AO cannot continue to provide the
    needed level of support to the courts in the core areas of personnel,
    payroll, accounting, training, procurement, and security, while
    continuing to assist the courts in developing and implementing new
    automated systems and procedures to improve the operation and
    productivity of court programs.
        Between fiscal years 1995 and 1997, we attempted with a lower level
    of staff, to both maintain a high level of core services and develop
    new systems and procedures. This necessitated a limited hiring freeze,
    which allowed for the hiring of personnel for only our highest priority
    needs. This attempt did not succeed and resulted in unacceptable
    delays/cutbacks in efforts such as: the development of a replacement
    Criminal Justice Act payment system; performance of annual audits;
    field assessments of court unit operations; improvements to internal
    controls; and court training and education projects. These and other
    initiatives are important to AO efforts to ensure that funds provided
    to the judiciary are spent properly and in the most effective manner
    possible.
        With the additional resources provided by Congress in fiscal year
    1998, we will be able to hire an additional auditor; an internal
    controls officer; a distance learning specialist; a budget and a
    program management position to support defender services; and a number
    of specialists to assist in developing and implementing a new court
    accounting system; a new personnel/payroll system; a new jury
    management system; and new criminal debt collection procedures for the
    courts.
        The additional resources we request for fiscal year 1999 will
    further enhance our ability to support the courts, especially in the
    area of new technologies. Resources will be applied to continue
    implementation of the new payment system for panel attorneys and
    experts, the personnel/payroll system, and the jury management system.
    All of these new systems will reach a critical phase in fiscal year
    1999, requiring specialized staffing to integrate the new systems into
    our central accounting system and to provide on-site technical and
    training support. Additional resources are also required to expand
    distance learning efforts, to better assist courts in procuring high
    technology equipment and services, and to provide ongoing support to
    efforts to improve the civil justice component of our courts. I would
    be pleased to provide additional explanation of any of these areas of
    enhanced support. The bottom line is that the benefactor of this
    support is not the AO, it is the courts and ultimately the taxpayers. A
    few extra staff at the AO allows us to improve procedures, the justice
    system, streamline operations, and reduce costs within the courts. To
    illustrate the impact of AO staff, the following section provides
    examples of how the AO works with the courts to improve productivity.
       administrative office promotes efficiency throughout the judiciary
        Of the myriad services that the AO provides to the courts, perhaps
    the most important are our efforts to increase the efficiency of court
    operations. It is certainly an activity of which I am very proud. It is
    not only desirable, but necessary for the courts to operate with
    increased efficiency because they are not provided 100 percent of the
    staffing justified by our workload formulae. In the past, I have spoken
    separately of the AO's achievements and of the efficiency measures
    implemented by the courts, but they are becoming more and more
    indistinguishable. Some of our most noteworthy achievements are those
    that promote the efficiency and effectiveness of the courts.
        Chief Justice Rehnquist highlighted an important example in his
    1997 report on the judiciary. He stated that, ``Led by the
    Administrative Offices' efforts, the federal Judiciary has achieved an
    impressive devolution of management authority and control away from
    Washington to the individual federal courts.'' The Chief Justice refers
    to our effort to decentralize financial, personnel, procurement, and
    other administrative activities to the local federal courts, who best
    know their own needs. He continued by stating, ``This kind of
    decentralization has benefitted both the Judiciary and the taxpayer
    because it encourages every court to find innovative ways to increase
    efficiency and save money.'' To facilitate this new decision-making
    process, the AO has simplified the way it allots operating funds to the
    courts. Funds previously allocated in 40 separate expense categories
    were combined in one aggregate amount using objectively developed
    formulas. The Chief Justice remarked that ``the paperwork burden for
    preparing each court's budget request was substantially reduced or
    eliminated, and the courts were assured an equitable distribution of
    these operating funds.''
        You have recently received the second Report to Congress on the
    Optimal Utilization of Judicial Resources. This report showcases the
    efficiency efforts of the judiciary. It is the result of a combined
    effort between the program committees of the Judicial Conference and
    the Economy Subcommittee of the Budget Committee. While every program
    committee is dedicated to efficiency, it is the sole purpose of the
    Economy Subcommittee. As you know, the Economy Subcommittee and its
    support staff from the AO operate as the judiciary's Office of
    Management and Budget. Their work on assessing diverse requests,
    limiting increases, and improving program operations is indispensable.
        We take the efforts discussed in the Report very seriously. Some of
    the efforts are completed and are resulting in savings for the
    judiciary, others are underway, and still others are in the planning
    stages. But I can assure you that they are all real commitments that AO
    staff are working toward. Let me summarize some of our efforts for you.
    Automation and Technology
        The AO has spearheaded the use of videoconferencing for court
    proceedings and administrative purposes in the judiciary. Currently, 18
    district courts use videoconferencing to support prisoner-related
    proceedings, such as pretrial hearings, witness testimony, and
    evidentiary hearings. An additional 16 districts will be added by the
    end of this fiscal year and another 16 sites are to be added by fiscal
    year 2001. Videoconferencing also is expected to become more widely
    used for meetings, conferences, and training seminars. The use of
    videoconferencing helps the judges and court staff to schedule more
    efficiently, reduces the security risks involved in transporting
    prisoners, and reduces travel costs.
        The AO also is pursuing the use of satellite broadcasting for its
    training programs. The judiciary plans about 50 broadcasts for fiscal
    year 1998 with an estimated viewing population of 800 to 1,000 people
    each. To overcome the problems with scheduling leased facilities, a
    broadcast studio located at the Thurgood Marshall Federal Judiciary
    Building here in Washington, DC will be used by the AO, the Sentencing
    Commission and the Federal Judicial Center for future broadcasts.
        Two other on-going projects that offer great promise are electronic
    case files and electronic courtrooms. A limited number of courts have
    begun testing these technologies and they are currently being assessed
    for benefits, costs, and feasibility. Implementation of electronic case
    files would allow the courts and attorneys to file, retrieve, and share
    pleadings, motions, briefs, and orders electronically without leaving
    their office. Potential benefits include reducing the time spent on
    manual tasks such as data entry, photocopying, and document filing,
    retrieval, and dissemination. It has the potential for reducing the
    space needed for paper records and providing more accurate, up-to-date
    records. Electronic courtrooms would make use of videoconferencing,
    video evidence presentation systems, electronic court-reporting
    methods, and courtroom access to various databases. Electronic
    courtrooms are likely to reduce trial times while improving juror
    understanding.
        The electronic public access program to case information has proven
    to be a success, receiving over 9 million calls in fiscal year 1997,
    allowing the bar and public to access court information directly from
    their office. The program is self-funded with user fees and is being
    enhanced to provide more services. Another success is telephone
    interpreting, which provides interpreter services by telephone for
    short judicial proceedings, allowing courts to utilize the services of
    certified interpreters without incurring travel and per diem costs.
    About 800 hearings were conducted with telephone interpreting in fiscal
    year 1997. The AO continues to administer the Bankruptcy Noticing
    Center. The Center is operated by a private vendor and is responsible
    for mailing bankruptcy notices, of which there are about 72 million a
    year. The AO is also working on improvements to the process, including
    electronic noticing and automatic docketing of the notice to the
    originating bankruptcy court.
        The AO also continues to work on upgrading or replacing the
    automated systems that provide basic administrative services to the
    judiciary. These include the court accounting system, the personnel and
    payroll systems, the jury management system, the library system, and
    the system that makes payments to panel attorneys and experts for those
    unable to pay for their own defense.
    Space and Facilities
        The AO developed criteria and an analysis process for the courts to
    use when determining whether to establish or maintain facilities
    without resident judges. The AO also administers an incentive program
    to reduce space. Together, these efforts have resulted in the judiciary
    releasing 62,773 square feet of existing space with an associated rent
    savings of about $1 million in fiscal year 1997.
        The AO also participated in a major update of the U.S. Courts
    Design Guide, which identifies the requirements to make federal
    courthouses functional and secure. The revisions to the Guide are
    expected to reduce future building construction costs by about five
    percent, or $2 million, for an average project.
    Defender Services
        The AO is as concerned as you are about containing the cost of
    providing legal representation for defendants unable to retain counsel
    on their own. The study of the rising costs conducted by Coopers and
    Lybrand, L.L.P., in cooperation with the AO, confirmed some of our
    previous thoughts about the program and provided some new insights. The
    main finding was that costs are in line with what one would expect of
    the increase in the number of representations, the increasing
    proportion of capital and capital habeas representations, and the cost
    incurred in a handful of extraordinarily expensive capital
    representations each year. As you know, the judiciary has no control
    over the number of individuals for whom it must provide defense
    services, but it has taken significant steps to curtail costs.
        The AO has provided staff and support for several improvements that
    should help control defense costs. The Judicial Conference adopted a
    policy last year urging each circuit to establish a special process for
    the review of capital habeas corpus cases for which attorney
    compensation exceeds $100,000. Courts are being encouraged to require
    counsel in federal capital habeas corpus cases to submit proposed
    litigation budgets for court approval before representation starts and
    employ case management techniques commonly used in complex civil
    litigation. Finally, the judiciary is conducting two-year pilot
    projects to explore using a supervising attorney to assist with
    administering the panel attorney program and with reviewing claims
    submitted by panel attorneys and other service providers.
        Another important effort that the AO provides staff support for is
    the new Subcommittee on Federal Death Penalty Cases. This Subcommittee
    is exploring issues related to the cost and quality of defense
    representation in federal death penalty cases. The Subcommittee will be
    reporting to the full Committee on Defender Services this May.
    Other
        The AO provides oversight and management support to the probation
    and pretrial services program. Probation and pretrial services officers
    supervise offenders serving sentences in the community, individuals
    released from prison on supervised release, and persons released to the
    community pending adjudication. In fiscal year 1997, an average of
    4,700 individuals were in home confinement on a daily basis. This
    resulted in a net cost savings to the government ranging from $32
    million to $69 million in corrections facilities, depending on the type
    and level of confinement assumed. Furthermore, offenders paid $1.8
    million toward the costs of electronic monitoring in fiscal year 1997.
    The AO also is testing mobile computing for officers to provide
    immediate access to information and allow them to record their field
    activities without returning to the office.
        The AO conducts the Methods Analysis Program to help courts
    identify and develop more efficient practices. The Program uses teams
    of functional experts and analysts to conduct in-depth reviews of
    specific court operations to identify innovative approaches or better
    practices for accomplishing work. Examples of practices identified
    include writing an abbreviated pretrial services report in cases where
    bond is not an issue and eliminating the filing of discovery documents
    in the case opening process.
        To help the courts implement the decentralized budgeting system in
    place throughout the judiciary the AO recently completed an assessment
    of financial training needs throughout the courts for judges, court
    unit executives, and financial operating personnel. The AO now is
    developing plans for implementing recommendations for training
    programs.
    efficiency within the administrative office compares favorably to other
                            justice system agencies
        In addition to supporting judiciary-wide cost cutting efforts, the
    AO itself is an excellent example of efficiency, particularly when our
    budget and responsibilities are compared to similar organizations. The
    AO's responsibilities are somewhat comparable to the general
    administration functions at the Department of Justice (DOJ). Both are
    responsible for providing administrative services to large
    organizations that help enforce the nation's laws. Appropriated fund
    staffing levels in the Justice Department management and administration
    accounts that most closely resemble the AO in function grew by almost
    18 percent from fiscal year 1995 to 1998. Over that same period, AO
    appropriated fund staffing declined by almost two percent. Also, as the
    chart below shows, AO appropriated fund staffing levels amount to two
    percent of total judiciary FTE in fiscal year 1998, while the FTE
    funded by appropriations for the aforementioned DOJ management and
    administration accounts amount to almost five percent of total DOJ FTE.

                  COMPARISON OF ADMINISTRATIVE STAFFING LEVELS
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          Fiscal
                                                        year 1998   Percent
                                                           FTE      of total
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Judiciary:
        Total, Judiciary..............................     30,637  .........
            Administrative Office.....................        657          2
    Department of Justice:
        Total, DOJ....................................    119,811  .........
        Management and Administration by Account:
            General Administration....................        656  .........
            Antitrust Division........................         59  .........
            U.S. Attorneys............................        223  .........
            U.S. Marshals Service.....................         74  .........
            Trustees..................................         52  .........
            FBI.......................................      1,896  .........
            DEA.......................................        698  .........
            INS.......................................      1,192  .........
            Bureau of Prisons.........................      1,276  .........
                                                       ---------------------
              Subtotal, M&A...........................      6,126          5
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

        I point this out, not to complain about the level of resources
    provided to DOJ, but to point out that we are a lean organization. When
    changes occur in the population we serve or in the type of support we
    are asked to provide, we require additional resources. The modest
    increase we request in fiscal year 1999 is necessary if we are to
    continue to provide the high level of support required by the courts.
                                   conclusion
        Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, thank you for your
    time and attention. As you know, few government missions are as
    essential as the administration of justice. The AO is the judiciary's
    administrative core, serving the courts so that they can focus on
    serving the public. I know you will be considering many worthy requests
    for funding and just ask that you give the AO the same thoughtful
    consideration that you have in the past.
        This concludes my prepared statement. I would be pleased to answer
    any questions you may have.
                                     ______

    Prepared Statement of Haldane Robert Mayer, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of
                        Appeals for the Federal Circuit
        Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to submit my statement to the Committee
    for this court's fiscal year 1999 budget request.
        Our 1999 budget request totals $16,828,000. This is an increase of
    $1,211,000 over the 1998 approved appropriation of $15,617,000.
    $693,000 of the increase is for mandatory, uncontrollable increases in
    costs. The remaining increase of $518,000 is for funding for additional
    positions.
        Partial funding for third in-chambers law clerk.--The court is
    requesting the additional positions to begin providing third law clerks
    to the judges on a permanent basis. The judges of this court now have
    two permanent in-chambers law clerks (compared to three or four for
    other circuit judges). The third law clerk is needed because of the
    complexity of the court's caseload and because all merits decisions are
    handled in chambers without assistance from a central legal staff. This
    funding request is for seven law clerk positions. I ask the Committee
    to meet this court's long-standing need by authorizing the funding
    requested. We are currently funding the additional law clerks with
    funds made available by leaving some staff positions vacant. The court
    has a vacant settlement attorney and several staff attorney positions
    vacant at this time. Authority to fund the third law clerks on a
    permanent basis would allow the court the funding needed to hire a
    settlement attorney as well as additional staff attorneys.
        Funding for additional positions in the Clerk's Office.--The court
    is also requesting funds to hire four full-time positions in the
    Clerk's Office. These positions are needed to keep pace with the
    court's growing jurisdiction.
    Mandatory Increases
        As stated above, our fiscal year 1999 increases in mandatory items,
    over which the court has no control, total $693,000. As described in
    our budget materials, these mandatory increases result primarily from
    inflation and pay increases.
    Program Changes and Requests
        Personnel Requests--Additional Law Clerks.--The sum of $375,000 is
    requested for the third law clerk positions. This would cover an
    increase of seven full-time law clerk positions. This does not provide
    a third law clerk for each of the twelve active judges. However, it
    would allow the court to hire seven additional law clerks on a
    permanent basis. The base budget of this circuit currently provides for
    two law clerks and one secretary in each chambers. This number is one
    law clerk and one secretary (or additional law clerk) less than the
    Judicial Conference of the United States has authorized for active
    circuit judges. One of the seven law clerk positions would be used to
    hire a law clerk to serve in part as an administrative assistant to the
    chief judge. This position is authorized for all other circuit chief
    judges.
        The third law clerk positions for all twelve judges of this court
    have been included previously in our request for a 1993 supplemental
    appropriation, and in our appropriation requests in 1994, 1995, 1996,
    1997 and 1998. This long-standing need, however, remains unmet.
        One additional in-chambers law clerk for each active judge of this
    court has become a necessity because of the increased complexity of our
    cases, such as patent infringement cases which often have a large
    number of difficult issues, and because of the additional subject
    matter jurisdiction which Congress has given the court, such as review
    of veterans' cases, and appellate jurisdiction under the recently
    enacted Congressional Accountability Act of 1995 and the Presidential
    and Executive Office Accountability Act of 1996. During the past few
    years, the court has hired temporary third law clerks for judges by
    using lapsed funds from a vacant judgeship and from vacant staff
    positions which we decided were not as urgently needed as the
    additional in-chambers law clerks. We have, for example, delayed
    implementing our settlement program and deferred hiring three staff
    attorneys and support staff. The additional, though temporary, help of
    the in-chambers law clerks has enabled the court to moderate the rise
    in median disposition time for merits cases, which is now about nine
    and one-half months, and to prevent a serious backlog of undecided
    cases.
        The court has a great need to have the temporary third law clerk
    positions made permanent and funded. Once the court has a full
    complement of judges, the lapsed funds from a judicial vacancy will no
    longer be available to hire such clerks on a temporary basis. Further,
    with only temporary positions we are unable to guarantee employment
    beyond the end of a fiscal year, which can be an obstacle to securing
    the services of the best qualified law clerks.
        This court did not begin requesting funding for the third law
    clerks until it became apparent that it was necessary to do so. The
    request is based on need.
        Personnel Requests--Administrative Staff Positions in Clerk's
    Office.--The court requests funding for four additional clerical
    positions for the Clerk's Office at a cost of $143,000. There is now
    only one secretary in the Clerk's Office. Another secretary position is
    needed to assist the chief deputy clerks and to insure that the
    secretarial functions for the entire office, now exclusively provided
    by the secretary to the Clerk, are available whenever required. A
    systems manager position is needed because the complexity of the
    Clerk's database management system has grown beyond the competence of
    the non-technical staff to maintain as extra duties. Two deputy clerk
    positions are needed, one position for a calendar/deputy clerk to
    alleviate the calendar functions now performed by the chief deputy
    clerk as an extra duty, and one position for a records manager to
    develop a records management system now required to keep pace with the
    large increase in the permanent records which the court has accumulated
    since its creation in 1982, and which must be maintained and preserved.
        I will be glad, Mr. Chairman, to answer any questions the Committee
    may have or to meet with Committee members or staff about our budget
    requests.
                                     ______

      Prepared Statement of Gregory W. Carman, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of
                              International Trade
        Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee: The Court's budget request
    for fiscal year 1999 is $11,822,000, which is $344,000 or approximately
    three percent more than the $11,478,000 provided for in fiscal year
    1998.
        The overall increase of $344,000 consists of ``Mandatory
    Adjustments to Base and Built-in Changes'' as follows:
      --$269,000 is requested for pay and benefit cost adjustments for
            judicial officers and court personnel.
      --$10,000 is requested for other mandatory changes, including
            increases in postage and printing.
      --$20,000 is requested for inflationary adjustments for lawbooks.
      --$45,000 is requested for GSA space rental increases.
        The Court's fiscal year 1999 request includes funds for the
    continuation and support of such fiscal year 1998 projects as video
    conferencing and real-time court reporting and for the implementation
    of such additional projects as the development of a web-site in order
    to provide the general public and the bar with information, expanding
    in-house training in the utilization of automation and technology, and
    implementing the Financial Accounting System for Tomorrow. The
    continuation and expansion of these information technology projects
    will continue to prepare the Court to enter the 21st Century.
        I would like to emphasize that the Court will continue, as it has
    in the past, to conserve its financial resources through sound and
    prudent personnel and fiscal management practices.
        The Court's ``General Statement and Information'' and
    ``Justification of Changes'', which provide more detailed descriptions
    of each line item adjustment, have been submitted previously. If the
    Committee requires any additional information, we will be pleased to
    submit it.

                             Private attorney costs

        Senator Gregg. Thank you, Judge.
        I will yield to Senator Domenici first.
        Senator Domenici. Well, Mr. Chairman, first, I want to
    thank you for your help last year in getting the 2-year
    legislation which will be effective for 2 years unless we
    extend it with reference to more disclosure in the public
    defender system and the costs that are being incurred.
        Senator Gregg. Yes.
        Senator Domenici. I have not had a chance to review
    thoroughly how it is being implemented, but I have looked at it
    in a cursory manner----
        Judge Heyburn. It just started in January.
        Senator Domenici. You have set forth some rules, and Mr.
    Mecham has shown them to us, and we are looking at them.
    Clearly it is moving in the right direction, and I am very
    pleased that from what I can tell every effort is being made to
    comply with them. I think it is very important that we find out
    as much as possible about this. None of my intentions, Judge,
    were to deny adequate defense.
        Judge Heyburn. No; we viewed your questions as entirely
    helpful. To a certain extent it began with our discussions in
    your office last year, and continued with our discussions here
    at this meeting. And I believe that it is a totally positive
    situation. It has helped us understand the program more, and I
    think the results will be positive for everybody.
        Senator Domenici. I still continue to have a concern. In my
    mind's eye, and I don't know how it works, and it may be
    totally theoretical, but for very, very serious offenses, like
    capital offenses or first degree murder offenses, the costs
    that we are paying to the public defenders are frequently so
    large that one wonders how somebody worth $200,000 or $300,000
    could defend themselves.
        I can see a person with little or no resources getting a
    $300,000 or $400,000 or $500,000 defense, and I can see
    somebody who has assets of a couple of hundred thousand
    dollars, 45 years old, and they don't get any. They have to
    spend $150,000 of it on less of a defense, and that concerns
    me.
        I do not expect you to be Solomon. I do not know how to
    solve that, but that continues to be on my mind. I do not want
    to expand for whom we pay expenses. I am not suggesting that,
    but you understand what I am discussing right now.
        Judge Heyburn. Exactly.

                               Funding priorities

        Senator Domenici. I guess I would ask whether you or the
    Administrative Officer could, and I hope it is not too much
    work, but I understand that many of your budgets do not go up
    very much, many of the internal pieces, but the overall is
    still a 9.9-percent increase on the judiciary and everything
    related to it.
        Judge Heyburn. Appropriations. 6.7 percent on the actual
    obligations.
        Senator Domenici. Correct. I am just wondering if you might
    ask the administrative officer to tell us what would be the
    highest priority among those. That is hard to do, I know.
        Judge Heyburn. Well, we certainly will, and I would like to
    respond to that.
        Senator Domenici. Sure.
        Judge Heyburn. Our philosophy is that we ask you for what--
    maybe you hear this from other people--we ask you for what we
    really need, and you can look at our budget. We are asking for,
    in the accounts that I am here representing, about $260 million
    of increase.
        About $190 million of that is increases to the actual base,
    which includes a 2.3-percent increase for employees, and GSA
    rent increases. Seventy million dollars of it is rent increases
    that GSA imposes upon us, including a security surcharge that
    they are attempting to impose on us.
        We are asking for additional money based on our increased
    workload. And they are high priorities. One is $15 million
    approximately in the probation area. We have a record number of
    convicted felons and others who are out there on supervised
    release.
        And not only do we have a record number on supervised
    release, but they are of a different category. About 5 years
    ago more of them were on pretrial release. Now that the
    sentencing guidelines have been going for a number of years,
    and a greater percentage of these people are felons who have
    served their sentence and they are now out. They are more
    dangerous by history and typically take more effort to
    supervise. But it is $15 million there.
        Over the last 4 years we probably had a 60-percent increase
    in bankruptcy filings. We are asking for a $30 million increase
    to fund bankruptcy clerks. If we do not fund that, that means
    creditors do not get paid, debtors do not get dismissed from
    bankruptcy. It causes tremendous commercial delay and
    confusion.
        And actually, in an attempt to hold down our budget
    request, we have delayed requesting the full amount. I know the
    staff knows this, but based on the staffing formulas, we could
    have requested the entire $60 million last year in our budget.
        But we thought that the increase was so dramatic that maybe
    it would go down. Also, we are not sure that the staff of the
    bankruptcy courts could adequately hire that many people that
    fast. So we only asked for one-half of it last year and one-
    half of it this year.
        Another $16 million is for security, which we can discuss
    if you would like to. We are actually asking for $7 million
    less for the district courts and appellate courts combined.
        So, we think it is a tight budget, and as the staff know,
    and the chairman knows, and you know, I am sure, we do not
    attempt each year to spend all the money you give us just to
    prove that the amount you gave us was the right amount.
        If we can save it, we do, and last year we carried over a
    substantial amount, most of it due to either good management on
    our part or circumstances which were completely beyond our
    control, which resulted in less expenditure. We hope that the
    same thing will happen this year if circumstances warrant it.
        Senator Domenici. Thank you. You don't have to submit
    anything in writing. We will just review what you said. Thank
    you very much.
        Senator Gregg. Thank you, Senator Domenici.

                                 Court security

        One question I have is the explosion in costs relative to
    the U.S. marshals, and especially the overhead costs. It is all
    tied into security to some degree. On the other hand, it is
    also tied into this moving of prisoners. I am wondering if you
    have any thoughts on where this is going.
        Judge Heyburn. Well, we are hoping that it is ending. This
    year's request is only a 6.9-percent increase. I think that we
    are reaching a plateau. Almost all the additional resources for
    CSO's--and this is in our budget--this year comes because of
    new facilities.
        We are looking at the numbers that the U.S. Marshals
    Service has given us, and going over those again. We have
    talked with staff about this. And at some time in the future,
    in the next month or so, we hope to give you a detailed listing
    of exactly where the new CSO's are going to go, and exactly
    what the rationale was for them. We just want to confirm that
    ourselves. I am not certain, as we have told the staff, whether
    there is going to be any difference.
        But we want to look at it very, very carefully, because
    there is a question as to how the Marshals Service is
    allocating new CSO's, particularly when we have new buildings
    going on line. Sometimes there is a transition there. The old
    building is still in existence, and you are transitioning to a
    new building. So we are looking at that.
        I know that whenever we open a new building, of course
    there are some expenses that we incur in our budget, and then
    there are some expenses that are in the marshals' budget. And I
    cannot really comment on those.
        Again, it is a subject that we are struggling with. We are
    trying to find the right balance. Nobody wants the courthouses
    to be fortresses. We do want the public to be safe and to feel
    safe, and I would hope we are getting to the point where we
    have standards that are consistent and the increases that we
    will see in future years relate to new facilities or a new
    perceived threat, if such a situation exists.
        I hope that is responsive.
        Senator Gregg. Yes; I think that was responsive.

                            Defender services costs

        Now, the Coopers & Lybrand study, which I have looked at in
    a cursory way, seems to essentially say that the expenditures
    on the defender program are what would be expected from the
    growth of the demands.
        But there still remains the capital crimes issue. Have you
    got any new ideas on how we get control over the costs of
    capital defenses?
        Judge Heyburn. Well, the capital crimes issue is, as I am
    sure you are aware, is really into two categories. One is the
    capital prosecutions, and then the other part of it is the
    capital habeas cases.
        The capital prosecution side is driven by factors that are
    to a great extent, not totally, beyond our control--that is,
    the number of capital cases that the U.S. attorneys and the
    Justice Department determines to bring.
        The resources they bring to those prosecutions drive the
    costs. Now, we are attempting to sensitize the judges and
    attorneys to better budgeting, so we think that is going to
    have some impact there.
        But as the Coopers & Lybrand study suggested, if there are
    more capital cases brought, and there are more prosecutorial
    resources brought to bear in those cases, the defense costs are
    going to be higher. There is just no way around that.
        The other area is the capital habeas cases. And overall,
    the study showed that the cost of defending capital habeas
    cases has declined slightly. Overall, the number of those cases
    is increasing, and that is causing an increase.
        There is a particular problem in a couple of districts in
    California. The cost per case is twice as high as the rest of
    the country; and, a greater number of death row inmates in
    California, a greater percentage of them, have habeas cases
    going.
        Twenty-five percent of those on death row in California
    have habeas cases going and only about 10 percent in the rest
    of the country. So there is a discrepancy, and the average cost
    in California is something like $85,000 and in the rest of the
    country it is $28,000 to $31,000.
        So we have already done some things which we think will
    affect the situation. The ninth circuit already has imposed a
    case budgeting requirement on habeas cases. They have already
    reduced the presumed rate that will be allowed for attorneys
    representing habeas cases from what was an average of about
    $150 an hour. Now the maximum is $125, and it will be lower for
    associates and others.
        So that will start to have an immediate effect, and there
    are some other things that the ninth circuit is looking into.
    We have our own committee that is looking into ways to, No. 1,
    further analyze the situation in California, to see what
    exactly is behind the numbers, and to see what specific actions
    we can take to reduce it.
        The total defender budget we are requesting is $392
    million. The capital habeas portion of that is about $28
    million. The California portion is about $12 million. So we are
    talking about a small segment, but if California were in line
    with the rest of the country, we are talking about a number of
    millions of dollars of savings. But irrespective, even if it
    were just $100,000, we are concerned about the discrepancy, and
    want to deal with it. And we will.
        Senator Gregg. Well, I do think it is an issue that you
    want to continue to focus on, because it just seems
    incomprehensible, the costs.

                                new Technologies

        Now, to what extent does videoconferencing and the use of
    electronics give courts an option to save dollars, because of
    not having to move people around the country and using
    communications of the 21st century.
        Judge Heyburn. I think increasingly it does. I cannot stand
    here and tell you it is widespread, because the judiciary, just
    like everybody else, is learning how to use these new
    technologies.
        But we have an electronic courtroom project, and we have
    some model courts that are using electronic presentation of
    evidence, and the U.S. attorneys are heavily into this. This
    saves a substantial amount of time, not only for judges, but
    apropos of our just now concluded conversation, it saves trial
    time which affects defender budgets.
        We have a bankruptcy noticing system that is saving money,
    electronic noticing. We have a number of videoconferencing
    pilot projects to allow conferences between prison inmates and
    judges and attorneys.
        We are beginning an electronic case filing system, which
    again could in the future save on clerks and time. There is
    electronic public access to the court dockets, which again has
    a number of benefits--easing the public access, but also less
    work for the clerks.
        So there are a number of projects that are going on. I
    would say it is fair to say that most of them are in their
    infancy. And some of them will prove, I think, highly
    beneficial. Others may prove to have different kinds of
    benefits.
        But we are trying all of them.
        Senator Gregg. So you have a formal structure for taking a
    look at all of this?
        Judge Heyburn. Absolutely. Yes.

                           Cost-of-living adjustment

        Senator Gregg. OK. On the pay raise issue, I certainly
    intend to put in the COLA again, so you will have it.
        Judge Heyburn. We appreciate that.

                                closing remarks

        Senator Gregg. Do you have anything else you wish to
    comment on?
        Judge Heyburn. I do not think so, except to say again that
    we very much appreciate your attitude and that of the staff, in
    dealing with us in what we feel is a very, very fair way, and
    if you have concerns, bringing them to our attention.
        We hope you appreciate the fact that we are trying to be
    responsive in every way that we can to your concerns. From my
    limited point of view now, over 1\1/2\ years of doing this
    particular job, I think the results have been positive for both
    of us.

                         Additional committee questions

        Senator Gregg. I agree. I think we have made good progress
    in a lot of areas that we both have an interest in.
        Judge Heyburn. Yes.
        Senator Gregg. Thank you for your assistance.
        Judge Heyburn. Thank you.
        [The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
    were submitted to the courts for response subsequent to the
    hearing:]
                         Additional Committee Questions
                               defender services
        Question. Last year our Conference Report clearly expressed concern
    over the rapidly rising costs in the Defender Services program,
    including the average cost of capital representations. I notice that
    your request for this year is $360 million, up $31 million from last
    year's enacted level. Will you comment on this $31 million increase,
    and what it says, if anything, about the increasing costs of capital
    punishment trials?
        Can you explain how the Judiciary measures and determines expected
    caseload increases in general? How is this reflected in your budget
    request?
        Will you comment on this $31 million increase?
        Answer. The fiscal year 1998 Defender Services financial plan will
    support at least 92,000 Criminal Justice Act (CJA) representations \1\
    and totals $362,867,000. It is funded from the following sources:
    $329,529,000 in direct appropriations, $24,953,000 from the Violent
    Crime Reduction Trust Fund and the balance through the transfer of fees
    from the judiciary Salaries and Expenses account as needed in
    accordance with the language from the House and Senate conference
    report.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ The Statistics Division of the Administrative Office of the
    U.S. Courts is in the process of reviewing the fiscal year 1998 and
    fiscal year 1999 caseload projections. Re-estimates will be provided to
    Congress throughout the appropriations process as more current data is
    available.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        For fiscal year 1999, the judiciary has requested funding in the
    amount of $391,831,000 ($360,952,000 in direct appropriations and
    $30,879,000 from the Violent Crime Reduction Trust Fund) to support
    95,900 CJA representations. The increase between the fiscal year 1998
    financial plan of $362,867,000 and the fiscal year 1999 budget request
    of $391,831,000 is $28,964,000 (7.9 percent over fiscal year 1998
    projected obligations) and consists of the following items.

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       Amount      Percent
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Government-wide OMB-mandated pay and benefit
     adjustments..................................   $8,863,000          2.4
    Panel attorney rate adjustment................    5,096,000          1.4
    Other mandatory changes (e.g. standard
     inflationary increases)......................    9,016,000          2.5
    Additional 3,900 representations and changes
     in caseload mix..............................    4,789,000          1.3
    Establishment of new defender organizations...    1,200,000           .3
                                                   -------------------------
          Total...................................   28,964,000          7.9
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Question. What does the $31 million increase say, if anything about
    the increasing costs of capital punishment trials?
        Answer. The panel attorney average annual cost per federal death
    penalty representation increased in fiscal year 1996 and fiscal year
    1997. It is anticipated that, on a per representation basis, this cost
    will decrease in fiscal year 1998 and fiscal year 1999 due to the
    resolution of several unusually large and costly cases. However, while
    the cost per representation is falling, the number of federal death
    penalty representations is rising. This may result in significant costs
    to the judiciary in the future. Since the Department of Justice does
    not predict how many federal capital prosecutions it will bring in a
    given year, it is difficult for the judiciary to estimate the number of
    cases and the associated funding that will be necessary in order to
    provide defendants with constitutionally mandated representation
    services.
        Question. Can you explain how the Judiciary measures and determines
    expected caseload increases in general?
        Answer. The Statistics Division of the Administrative Office of the
    U.S. Courts projects the annual number of federal criminal defendants
    that will require counsel under the CJA. This is generally based on the
    number of Assistant U.S. Attorneys the Department of Justice predicts
    it will employ. The Statistics Division then divides the projection of
    federal criminal defendants into those for whom panel attorneys and
    those for whom federal defenders will provide representation. It is
    generally assumed that panel attorneys will provide representation for
    approximately 40 percent of the criminal defendants. In addition, panel
    attorneys usually represent approximately 10,000 defendants in other
    CJA cases (e.g., trial disposition appeals, capital and non-capital
    habeas corpus cases, probation revocations, bail presentment hearings,
    representation of witnesses). Federal defender organizations are
    expected to be appointed in the balance of the representations,
    depending on the number of attorneys they anticipate hiring.
        Question. How is this reflected in your budget request?
        Answer. The Defender Services budget request is based upon the
    projected number of representations as described above. For panel
    attorneys, the number of representations and the cost per
    representation is estimated and the product of these two numbers is the
    funding requested for the panel. For federal defender organizations,
    obligations are determined by projecting the attorney and support staff
    that must be on board in order to provide representation in the cases
    anticipated and determining the cost of that staff (i.e., salaries and
    benefits, rent, expert services, travel, and other overhead expenses).
        Question. Your fiscal year 1999 budget request includes $16 million
    for security surcharges assessed by GSA. Why are these charges assessed
    and what are they for?
        Answer. Following the April 1995 bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah
    Building in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, an Interagency Security Committee
    led by the Department of Justice was established to assess the
    vulnerability of federal facilities to bombings and other security
    threats and to recommend enhanced security measures for federal
    buildings. Beginning with fiscal year 1999, the costs incurred by GSA
    for these security measures are to be paid through space rental rates
    assessed each agency. These charges are building-specific costs and are
    based on the judiciary's percentage of a building's occupancy. The
    costs include the maintenance of GSA building-wide capital security
    enhancements, outdoor security cameras and recording devices, intrusion
    alarm systems, garage access control systems and other physical
    security measures such as concrete planters and vehicle barriers and
    costs of contract guards assigned to perimeter patrols and some
    screening duties in large multi-tenant federal buildings. GSA has
    provided the judiciary with a building-by-building listing of the
    charges. We are currently analyzing the charges presented and will
    advise the Subcommittee as to whether the GSA-provided detail listing
    is accurate prior to mark-up of the appropriations bill.
        Question. What has the judiciary done to reduce courthouse space
    needs and construction costs since last year?
        Answer. The Judicial Conference approved a number of initiatives,
    proposed by its Committee on Security and Facilities, related to space
    and facilities management in 1997. All of these initiatives are either
    complete or in the advanced stages of implementation.
    Changes to Space Standards and Design Guidelines
        The federal judiciary has consistently emphasized the need to
    contain the costs of court facilities. One of the judiciary's major
    initiatives in this regard is its recent comprehensive review of the
    U.S. Courts Design Guide. The Guide contains the information needed by
    GSA, private sector designers and builders, and members of the
    judiciary about the special requirements for federal courthouses that
    make them functional, secure, quality public buildings.
        While the comments received from users during this recent review
    indicated the Guide was accomplishing its purpose, the judiciary also
    received a number of excellent suggestions for improvements. These
    specific recommendations for changes to the Guide were approved by the
    Judicial Conference at its March 1997 meeting and have been
    incorporated into the Guide which is now available. Approved changes to
    the Guide include:
      --Narrative has been added to emphasize the important role the
            project budget, long term durability, and maintenance costs
            play in determining the level and type of interior finishes in
            new courthouses and in renovation projects;
      --Use of exotic hardwoods is prohibited;
      --The sizes of chambers suites when chambers library collections are
            shared between or among judicial officers is reduced. Designs
            that reduce chambers lawbook costs and do not increase rental
            costs are now included in the Guide as optional design
            configurations for new construction and remodeled space;
      --The amount of space needed to move from one space to another, i.e.,
            circulation space, is defined in more detail in order to limit
            this space;
      --Design architects and court staff are prohibited from adding spaces
            not originally contemplated in design programs, including
            spaces that increase floor size or building volume;
      --Staff office sizes are delineated in more specific terms;
      --Narrative has been added to encourage the use of and reaffirm the
            need for shared use of space common to all court offices, such
            as conference and training rooms and staff lavatories, and
            specific standards on the size and number of these facilities
            is now included;
      --The Conference took no position on locating courtrooms and chambers
            on separate floors, but this design configuration will be
            included in the Guide as an option available to courts wishing
            to incorporate it into construction projects;
      --The Conference agreed to prohibit any action taken by a court or
            circuit judicial council that would lead to extravagance in
            courthouse construction or renovation; at the same time the
            Conference recognized the need to make design decisions that
            ensure courthouses constructed or renovated represent long-term
            value.
      --The Conference also agreed to include in the Guide a number of
            changes and clarifications that will likely result in some cost
            avoidances, whose exact savings cannot yet be estimated (e.g.,
            incorporating language emphasizing cost control and budgetary
            constraint both in a separate prominent chapter and in
            budgetary and programming ``notes'' throughout the document).
        The anticipated cost savings resulting from these Conference-
    approved changes to the Design Guide are significant. A private cost
    estimating firm has analyzed these changes through the comparison of a
    ``typical'' courthouse project that might have been designed without
    the approved changes to the same courthouse if it were designed with
    the approved changes. The consultant's conclusion is that the changes
    would result in an overall difference of some five percent, or over $2
    million in a $40 million project. This five percent is in addition to
    the $1.5 million in cost savings effected by any previous changes to
    the Guide since its original publication.
        The Judicial Conference anticipates that the Guide changes it has
    approved will reduce construction cost and will continue to result in
    high value federal courthouses that are functional, durable, safe and
    economical.
    Sharing Space with State and Local Governments
        The Conference has also adopted a policy encouraging courts to
    explore shared court facility arrangements with state and local
    governments, or other entities, to reduce space rental costs.
    Administrative Office staff is developing instructions and procedures
    for use by courts wishing to enter into such arrangements. Ultimately,
    however, the authority to approve entering into these arrangements lies
    with the General Services Administration.
    Space Management
        As part of a comprehensive space management initiative the
    Conference also agreed that, circuit judicial councils should submit an
    evaluation of current space (i.e., a space inventory) in each
    judiciary-occupied building every two years. The purpose of this
    analysis is to assist courts and councils with determining whether
    space can be used in a more efficient manner or released to the General
    Services Administration.
    Courtroom Planning Assumptions
        Likewise, in recognition of congressional interest in the number of
    courtrooms constructed in new courthouses and in major alteration
    projects the Conference approved specific planning assumptions that can
    be used to determine the courtroom capacity in new buildings. These
    assumptions, which have been incorporated into an automated model that
    can be used by courts and circuit judicial councils as a complement to
    other available planning tools, address several factors that can affect
    the number of courtrooms needed in the short and long term. Some of
    these factors include the average age of a district judge upon
    appointment, the average number of years it takes for a replacement
    judge to begin work, and the number of years that a senior judge would
    require a courtroom dedicated specifically to his or her use. Prior to
    taking this action, there were no specific assumptions for use by the
    courts. The Conference agreed that courts and circuit judicial councils
    should have the opportunity to modify any of these planning assumptions
    (listed below) to ensure that an individual court's needs are taken
    into account when making projections of space requirements.
                Courtroom Planning Assumptions as Approved by The Judicial
                        Conference of the United States
        The average age of a district judge upon appointment is 48 years
    old;
        A replacement judge will begin working 2 years after the judge
    being replaced takes senior status;
        A senior judge will require a courtroom dedicated specifically to
    his or her use for 10 years after taking senior status;
        A judge will elect to take senior status upon the date of
    eligibility;
        Once a court's caseload warrants a new judgeship, it will take
    three years for the new judge to begin work.
                            courtroom sharing policy
        Question. What is the judiciary's policy on sharing courtrooms? Why
    should each active judge have their own courtroom when clearly space is
    such a problem?
        Answer. The Conference adopted a policy on courtroom sharing in
    March 1997. This policy has been published in the United States Courts
    Design Guide. The policy supports the position of providing a courtroom
    for each active district judge and also encourages courts and circuit
    judicial councils to consider the number of courtrooms to be
    constructed in new and existing facilities for senior judges not
    drawing a caseload requiring substantial use of a courtroom, and for
    visiting judges. The Conference asked the judicial councils, which have
    the statutory authority to determine the need for court accommodations
    (28 U.S.C. sec. 462(b)), to develop a policy on sharing courtrooms by
    senior judges when a senior judge does not draw a caseload requiring
    substantial use of a courtroom, and for visiting judges. Administrative
    Office staff is in the process of reviewing the circuit judicial
    council policies that have been received to date. The policies from all
    councils should be available in mid-1998.
        Upon review of the issue of courtroom usage, the Conference
    determined that providing a courtroom for each active district judge
    allows judges to dispose of cases expeditiously and to set firm trial
    dates because courtroom availability is guaranteed. Firm trial dates
    promote settlement in civil cases and pleas in criminal cases, thereby
    avoiding the need for and cost of trials. This practice also permits
    timely handling of emergency matters, such as requests for injunctions,
    grand jury problems, contempt hearings, and detention and bail appeals.
    Moreover, providing each active district judge a courtroom accommodates
    unscheduled opportunities to settle large multi-party cases,
    opportunities that may be lost without the immediate access to a
    courtroom. This practice also ensures that cases that go to trial are
    handled expeditiously, as encouraged by the Speedy Trial Act of 1974
    and the Civil Justice Reform Act of 1990.
        Question. It's my understanding that you all are expecting to hear
    from GSA on approximately 1.5 million square feet of space to be
    delivered to the Judiciary sometime during 1998. What is the status of
    delivery of this space?
        Answer. As is the case each year, the judiciary updates the space
    rental data provided in its budget justifications to reflect the most
    up-to-date information available about scheduled occupancy dates prior
    to mark-up. The Administrative Office is now in the process of
    verifying both projected amounts of square footage and their associated
    costs as part of this cyclical updating process. It is anticipated that
    these data will be available in mid-May 1998. The data are made
    available so that the Appropriations Subcommittee can make any
    necessary adjustments to the information initially submitted.
        Question. I'm sure the question of the day is what to do with this
    problem of judicial appointments. What I want to know from you is, how
    do you budget for judges when you don't know how many will be appointed
    this year by Senator Hatch's committee?
        Answer. The projections for the number of average judges' vacancies
    in fiscal year 1999 are based on the following assumptions:
      --The projection assumes that 47 judges will be confirmed and 36
            judges will take senior status or retire during fiscal year
            1999. These estimates are based on historical experience. For
            confirmations, the historical data used is based on a four year
            cycle following a presidential election; for fiscal year 1999
            the average confirmations for fiscal year 1983, 1987, 1991, and
            1995 were used. For new vacancies resulting from senior status
            and retirements, annual historical averages are used.
      --The base for the fiscal year 1999 projection is the fiscal year
            1998 financial plan which funds 740 average FTE for Article III
            judges, with 758 judges on board at the end of the fiscal year.
        The projections are within reason based on historical experience,
    but may change as more current data is available on actual
    confirmations and new vacancies which occur during fiscal year 1998.
    Re-estimates will be provided to Congress throughout the appropriation
    process as more current data is available.
                 government performance and results act [gpra]
        Question. The judicial branch, like the legislative branch, does
    not come under the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993
    (Results Act). However, in a variety of instances, the tenets of the
    Results Act have been incorporated into the operation of the judiciary
    simply because they are good business practices. Furthermore, in the
    spirit of GPRA, we are continually exploring new and innovative
    management, planning, and resource allocation practices to ensure that
    the judiciary operates effectively and efficiently in delivering
    services in accordance with its mission, goals, and objectives.
    Although the GPRA questions for the record were clearly addressed to
    executive branch agencies, we have provided answers, where applicable,
    to highlight the judiciary's results-oriented activities.
        How are the agency's annual performance goals linked to the
    agency's mission, strategic goals, and program activities in its budget
    request?
        Answer. Judiciary planning efforts set forth a mission, goals, and
    objectives, and describe intended strategies for accomplishing them,
    thereby establishing a judiciary-wide context for setting annual
    priorities and providing direction to decision makers in making budget
    requests. The judiciary is beginning to include narrative in its annual
    budget request defining the link between program mission and goals. For
    example, the fiscal year 1999 Defender Services budget request linked
    the program's mission to three goals.
        Question. Could you describe the process used to link your
    performance goals to your budget activities?
        Answer. Each judiciary program area, in contemplating annual
    resource requirements, describes the anticipated results to be achieved
    in that fiscal year. Each quarter, the judiciary conducts formal
    programmatic and financial reviews to examine progress in reaching
    goals, program results and outcomes, and program effectiveness and
    efficiency. A formal training program on performance measurement helps
    judiciary staff develop missions, goals, and measures that are linked
    to resource requirements.
        Question. Does the agency's performance plan link performance
    measures to its budget?
        Answer. The judiciary is not required to complete an annual
    performance plan but it does use performance measures that link to
    resource use. For many years we have been measuring and reporting the
    results of court operations in such documents as Federal Court
    Management Statistics and the Annual Report of the Director. More
    recently, in 1995, the Administrative Office (AO) incorporated program
    results reporting in its quarterly financial review process--the
    process by which managers report on the execution of their programs.
    The purpose of this effort is to focus on the link between resource
    investment and program results. Moreover, we have begun building on
    this effort to determine ways in which we can expand on and enhance the
    measurement system already in place.
        Question. To what extent does your performance planning structure
    differ from the account and activity structure in your budget
    justification?
        Answer. At this point, there is no difference between the planning
    structure and the activity structure.
        Question. How were performance measures chosen?
        Answer. The judiciary reports, in such documents as Federal Court
    Management Statistics and the Annual Report of the Director, a broad
    range of performance indicators that show the effectiveness and
    efficiency with which the judiciary conducts business. The judiciary is
    currently examining these indicators to determine if they could be
    improved to establish even stranger links between resource use and
    program outcomes.
        Question. What are the key performance goals from your fiscal year
    1999 Annual Performance Plan that you recommend this subcommittee use
    to track program results?
        Answer. Although the judiciary was not required to produce a fiscal
    year 1999 Annual Performance Plan, planing is a priority. Following
    Judicial Conference approval, the first Long Range Plan for the Federal
    Courts was published in 1995. This document articulates the mission and
    core values of the federal courts and contains close to a hundred
    specific goals and strategies to implement them. We recommend the
    subcommittee look to the specific goals contained in the document. The
    Plan is designed to evolve over time with changes in the judiciary.
        Question. In developing your Annual Performance Plan, what efforts
    did your agency undertake to ensure that the goals in the plan include
    a significant number of outcome measures?
        Answer. As mentioned earlier, the judiciary is not required to
    issue an Annual Performance Plan. However, the judiciary is making
    progress in defining outcome based results-oriented performance
    measures. As all organizations involved in the effort are realizing,
    this is not an easy process. It requires changing mind-sets,
    determining whether things previously viewed as not measurable can in
    fact be measured, and refocusing budgeting practices. The challenges
    the judiciary faces are comparable to those of the executive branch. We
    continue to meet with executive agencies to share our experiences and
    learn from others.
        Question. Do you have the technological capability of measuring and
    reporting program performance throughout the year on a regular basis,
    so that the agency can be properly managed to achieve the desired
    results?
        Answer. Numerous systems and processes that focus on results,
    efficiency, performance, and accountability drive daily operations in
    the judiciary. Several examples include our decentralized budgeting and
    personnel systems that provide the overall framework and resource
    constraints within which local managers must achieve their goals and
    results, the routine reporting of numerous performance-type indicators
    that help encourage managers to improve operations by facilitating
    comparison between courts on a variety of critical measures, and the
    Methods Analysis Program which serves to improve performance by
    identifying better business practices. Furthermore, as mentioned
    earlier, the judiciary conducts quarterly programmatic and financial
    reviews to examine spending practices, program results and outcomes,
    and program effectiveness and efficiency. In addition to holding
    managers accountable for their programs, these reviews are an important
    component of the judiciary's overall efforts to maximize the use of
    scarce resources; an element of these quarterly reviews is an
    assessment of whether resources need to be realigned among programs to
    ensure the judiciary's highest priority needs are met.
        Question. The Government Performance and Results Act requires that
    your agency's Annual Performance Plan establish performance goals to
    define the level of performance to be achieved by each program activity
    set forth in your budget. Many agencies have indicated that their
    present budget account structure makes it difficult to link dollars to
    results in a clear and meaningful way. Have you faced such difficulty?
        Answer. At this point in our efforts, the judiciary has not
    experienced such difficulty.
        Question. Under one of the new accounting standards recommended by
    the Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board (FASAB) and issued by
    OMB, this year for the first time all federal agencies are required to
    have a system of Managerial Cost Accounting. The clearly preferred
    methodology for such a system, as stated in that standard, is the one
    known as ``Activity-Based Costing,'' whereby the full cost is
    calculated for each of the activities of an agency. What is the status
    of your agency's implementation of the Managerial Cost Accounting
    requirement, and are you using Activity-Based Costing?
        Answer. Over the past two years, the judiciary has explored and
    begun implementing an activity-based resource system. We have adapted
    our financial review structure to hold managers accountable for the way
    resources are used to achieve results along program lines and are
    exploring changing the way resources are requested. Like performance
    measurement, an activity-based cost system requires a cultural change
    as well as training, not to mention changes in data collection systems.
    As part of our performance measurement training, managers were
    instructed on the basic principles of activity-based costing.
        Question. Future funding decisions will take into consideration
    actual performance compared to expected or target performance. Given
    that, to what extent are your performance measures sufficiently mature
    to allow for these kinds of uses?
        Answer. As mentioned previously, the judiciary uses a variety of
    performance measures that demonstrate the effectiveness and efficiency
    with which the judiciary conducts business. The judiciary is examining
    these measures to determine if they could be improved to allow for the
    kinds of uses in which Congress is interested.
        Question. Based on your fiscal year 1999 performance plan, do you
    see any need for any substantive revisions in your strategic plan
    issued September 30, 1997?
        Answer. As mentioned earlier, the Judicial Conference approved the
    Long Range Plan for the Federal Courts in 1995. This document
    articulates the mission and core values of the federal courts, and
    contains close to a hundred specific goals and strategies to implement
    them. Revisions in the Plan may occur periodically as the Plan was
    designed to evolve over time with changes in the judiciary.
        The judiciary realizes that, for results-oriented management to be
    successful, coordination with all three branches of government is
    required. It is particularly important to have discussions with
    Congress and the Department of Justice (DOJ) as much of our workload is
    directly generated by legislation and DOJ policy. Realizing this, in
    1994, a historic meeting was held of representatives of all three
    branches of the federal government, along with state and local
    government representatives and academics. This conference was
    instrumental in its contributions to the long-range planning process in
    discussing how Congress' federalization of state civil and criminal law
    will affect the judicial system. The second of these three-branch
    conferences was held in 1996. The 1996 conference continued the
    discussion begun during the first. The judiciary will host the third
    conference in 1997, as the first was hosted by the executive branch and
    the second by the legislative branch.
        In addition, the Executive Committee of the Judicial Conference
    continues to meet quarterly with the Attorney General and other
    Department of Justice senior staff to discuss issues of mutual
    interest. Also, working groups comprised of judges and officials from
    the Justice Department have met periodically to share information and
    opinions on current legislative issues. These discussions lead to
    planning more accurately for workload increases associated with pending
    legislation.
        Strategic planning is an integral part of the judiciary's internal
    governance and management processes. The judiciary has strategic and
    long range plans. Formal, comprehensive strategic planning efforts
    began in the judiciary in 1990, three years before GPRA, when the
    Federal Courts Study Committee recommended the judiciary establish a
    permanent capacity to determine long-term goals and develop strategic
    plans by which they can reach them. The Chief Justice responded by
    creating a Judicial Conference Committee on Long Range Planning and by
    enhancing strategic planning capabilities in the Administrative Office.
    The committee's established charter was to identify broad issues and
    challenges confronting the judiciary and develop strategies for
    addressing them.
        Complementing the Long Range Plan, in 1996 the judiciary completed
    The Administration of Justice: A Strategic Business Plan for the
    Federal Judiciary in accordance with the Judicial Amendments Act of
    1994. It identified the following six strategic business areas and
    establishes objectives for each: adjudication, administration of the
    courts, supervision of defendants and offenders, defender services for
    eligible criminal defendants, policy-making and national
    administration, and rule-making.
        The Strategic Business Plan provides a foundation for more specific
    plans and planning processes. In particular, the Judicial Conference's
    Committee on Automation and Technology, which oversees the judiciary
    automation program, produces the Long Range Plan for Automation in the
    Federal Judiciary. This document sets forth the mission, vision, and
    goals, of the judiciary's information technology program and summarizes
    the program's major initiatives.
        Realizing the importance of input from all of the stakeholders who
    have a part in the federal judiciary, the judiciary's strategic
    planning process has included, from its inception, consultation with
    state and federal judges, lawyers from all segments of the nation's
    bar, officials of the executive and legislative branches, experienced
    planners from public and private sectors, and members of the public. In
    parallel with this outreach, internal stakeholders are regularly
    contacted through surveys on current topics and through extensive
    advisory and user groups on specific subject matters, such as courtroom
    technology or training.
        Over the past several years, the judiciary has made numerous
    changes in program policy, organization structure, program content, and
    work processes to become more results-oriented. The most notable
    examples are the following:
        Decentralization of critical functions to the courts.--A number of
    critical administrative and management functions have been
    decentralized to the courts. These functions are performed better
    locally than centrally and decentralizing them greatly enhances local
    managers' ability to focus on results. Two major decentralized
    functions are budgeting and personnel:
      --Budget decentralization.--As described further in the answer to the
            next question, the judiciary switched several years ago to a
            decentralized budgeting system in order to improve local
            management flexibility, accountability, and decision-making and
            to produce a more results-oriented environment.
      --Decentralized personnel system.--Complementing the decentralized
            budgeting environment, a decentralized personnel system was
            recently implemented which improves local management of
            personnel resources. The enhanced flexibility and decision-
            making capabilities offered by this system allow managers to
            optimally apply personnel resources and to achieve more
            efficiently organizational goals and results.
        Methods Analysis Program.--To help improve the results achieved by
    court personnel on a day-to-day basis, the judiciary initiated the
    Methods Analysis Program in 1994. This program identifies better
    business practices that have the potential to result in more efficient
    and effective operations. To date, several hundred practices have been
    identified. This program contributes significantly to the judiciary's
    ability to maintain high levels of service with reduced staffing
    levels.
        Information technology efforts.--The judiciary has undertaken a
    comprehensive and forward-looking information technology program to
    improve results. These efforts allow the judiciary to handle a
    continuously growing caseload while, at the same time, minimizing
    overall spending increases and maintaining services to the public.
        Economy Subcommittee.--In 1993, the Judicial Conference established
    an Economy Subcommittee of its Budget Committee. With a charter to
    improve fiscal responsibility, accountability, and efficiency in the
    judiciary, the subcommittee's efforts are a critical component of the
    judiciary's overall effort to remain focused on end results.
        Comprehensive strategic planning.--In 1996, the Judicial Conference
    made additional changes in the Conference structure to enhance the
    judiciary's planning apparatus. The Conference determined that
    strategic planning should be an intrinsic part of each committee's
    policy-making function rather than exclusively under a separate long
    range planning committee. Thus, individual conference committees have
    been given strategic planning responsibilities and have designated
    committee members to serve as planning liaisons. In addition to
    facilitating strategic planning within their committees, the liaisons
    serve as an advisory group to the Judicial Conference's Executive
    Committee.
        Quarterly program and management-by-objective reviews.--As also
    described further in the answer to next question, this recently
    established program provides a quarterly forum to review the financial
    and programmatic results of major judiciary programs.
        Innovative local efforts.--Courts throughout the country develop
    and implement productivity improvement programs and processes tailored
    to their local cultures to improve results, save resources, provide
    better public service and cope with staffing shortages.
        The structure of the federal courts is decentralized. Unlike
    business organizations that can enforce policies from the top down, the
    federal court's work is carried out by judges whose independence is
    guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. In an effort to hold local court
    managers accountable and employ more efficient business practices, a
    decentralized budgeting program was adopted for the courts in 1991.
    Under this program, most budget execution functions are decentralized
    to the local court level rather than conducted centrally at the
    Administrative Office. This system gives local court managers an
    incentive to identify and employ more efficient business practices, a
    greater ability to prioritize scarce resources, and the flexibility to
    distribute resources according to unique local needs. The system holds
    managers accountable for their performance since they must accomplish
    their mission within defined budgetary limits.
        Several initiatives and aspects of our planning and budgeting
    processes demonstrate how the judiciary bases planning and decision-
    making on realistic assessments of projected resources. First, the Long
    Range Plan recognizes that the near future will continue to be an era
    of austerity as far as federal budgets are concerned, and that the
    long-term future will require far more resource management by a federal
    court system with an increasing workload and limited personnel and
    other resources. The Plan also states, however, that the federal courts
    must continue to seek the resources necessary to carry out its
    constitutionally and congressionally-mandated responsibilities.
        Second, in 1993, the Judicial Conference established an Economy
    Subcommittee under its Committee on the Budget, providing the judiciary
    with a mechanism akin to that provided by the Office of Management and
    Budget in the executive branch. This action demonstrated the importance
    of a permanent, analytical and systematic means of developing final
    budget estimates that are consistent with both overall strategic plans
    and projected resource levels. In addition to reviewing the judiciary's
    budget submission, this group initiates and pursues studies concerning
    ways to economize and to stimulate further change to a more results-
    oriented way of conducting business. In the years ahead, the Judicial
    Conference and its committees will continue to thoroughly scrutinize
    funding requests from the various components of the judicial family
    before they are submitted to Congress.
        Third, each year the chairman of the Judicial Conference Committee
    on the Budget issues a guidance letter to the chairmen of the program
    committees of the Judicial Conference. This letter describes the
    expected budget climate and sets forth the assumptions to be made in
    constructing budget submissions. Furthermore, based upon these
    assumptions, the chairman sets a target for the overall judiciary
    budget increase that balances judiciary spending needs with the reality
    of the fiscal environment.

                              subcommittee recess

        Senator Gregg. The hearing is recessed.
        [Whereupon, at 11:28 a.m., Thursday, March 12, the
    subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene subject to the call of
    the Chair.]

    DEPARTMENTS OF COMMERCE, JUSTICE, AND STATE, THE JUDICIARY, AND RELATED
                  AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 1999

                                  ----------

                            THURSDAY, MARCH 19, 1998

                                           U.S. Senate,
               Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The subcommittee met at 10 a.m., in room S-146, the
    Capitol, Hon. Judd Gregg (chairman) presiding.
        Present: Senators Gregg, Stevens, Campbell, and Hollings.

                       FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

    STATEMENT OF HON. WILLIAM E. KENNARD, CHAIRMAN
    ACCOMPANIED BY ANDREW FISHEL, MANAGING DIRECTOR

                                opening remarks

        Senator Gregg. I will convene the Subcommittee on Commerce,
    Justice, and State, which is hearing this morning from the
    Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission [FCC], and
    then we will hear from the Chairman of the Securities and
    Exchange Commission [SEC], two agencies which come under this
    committee's jurisdiction. I do not have an opening statement.
    Do you?
        Senator Hollings. No; thank you, sir.
        Senator Gregg. So we will go right to you, Mr. Chairman.

                        opening statement of mr. kennard

        Mr. Kennard. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Ranking Member.
        Thank you for the opportunity to review with you the fiscal
    year 1999 budget estimates for the Federal Communications
    Commission. I am especially pleased to be here in my first
    appearance as Chairman of the FCC since I took office 4 months
    ago. With me is the FCC's Managing Director, Andrew Fishel.
        I would like to summarize a few major points this morning
    from my written testimony, and then, of course, take your
    questions. And I would ask that my full statement be included
    in the hearing record.
        First, let me say that I think I speak for all of us at the
    FCC in saying that we feel exceptionally privileged to be at
    the agency at this time; working at an agency in an era of such
    importance to the history of communications.
        I believe that when people look back on this period of time
    some years hence, they will remember it in the history of
    communications as being about two fundamental transforming
    events. One, the conversion from analog to digital technology;
    and, two, the paradigm shift from monopoly regulation to
    competition.
        Both of these transforming forces--the transition to
    competition and the conversion to digital--really challenge the
    FCC to accommodate unprecedented and momentous change, and I am
    confident that we can meet that challenge with your guidance
    and support.
        As I look ahead to the work of the agency over the next
    several months, I think it is important that the Commission
    resolve but three major issues I would like to talk about. All
    are central to this transition from monopoly to competition,
    and the conversion to digital technology.
        One is implementing the universal service mandates of the
    1996 act. Another is fostering competition in all
    communications markets, but particularly in local telephone
    markets. And third is resolving the unresolved issues in the
    transition from analog to digital television.
        As I set forth in my full statement, our chief policy goal
    this year is to implement the procompetitive, deregulatory
    national policy framework set forth in the 1996 act, and a
    central focus of that will be reforming universal service.
        Now, there are some people who believe that reforming
    universal service, or the concept of universal service is
    fundamentally inconsistent with the move to competitive
    markets. I do not share that belief. I believe that the premise
    of the 1996 act is that universal service and competitive
    markets can coexist, but it is going to take a lot of work for
    us to get there, work at both the Federal and State levels.
        And I am committed to putting in the work, and making sure
    that we work with our State partners, and you, in the Congress,
    to make this very important transition.
        It is also important that we finish implementing the
    universal service provisions for the high-cost fund, and also
    for schools and libraries and rural health care facilities.
        I have heard your concerns about the implementation of the
    schools and libraries mechanism. I have met with many Members
    of Congress about that. Our staffs have met, and I want you to
    know that you have my commitment to work with you, to resolve
    your concerns, and make sure that this mechanism for funding
    schools, libraries, and health care facilities is consistent
    with your intent, and also works for the country.
        Competition: as you can see from the chart that is attached
    to my written submission, we are seeing some competition
    develop in local phone markets. But I think it is important to
    emphasize that competition is not going to develop in one surge
    across all markets. It is going to develop faster in some
    places than others. It is going to take more time than in
    others.
        We saw this in the long distance marketplace, which took
    some time to develop competition, but it came. We saw this in
    the cellular and wireless markets, and it took some time, but
    it came.
        And I believe that ultimately the forces of competition are
    so powerful that they are really bigger than any law or any
    agency or any court, and they will come. Our role is really to
    foster them wherever and whenever we can.
        It is not in my view a question of whether competition will
    come, but really a question of when it will come.
        As the FCC enters its third fiscal year since the enactment
    of the 1996 act, fostering local competition in telephony will
    be among our highest priorities. So we will be implementing the
    section 271 process to permit Bell Operating Co. entry into in
    region long distance.
        And my vision here is for the FCC to make sure that this
    process is one that is open and transparent, one that all of
    the stakeholders understand how it works, and are involved in
    the dialog with the agency, so we demystify the process so that
    everyone understands what we are trying to accomplish.
        But ultimately it is my belief that we must remain
    consistent to congressional intent to insure that local
    telephone markets are truly open before we allow BOC entry into
    long distance.
        Another important matter that I touched on earlier is
    digital television. This transition from analog to digital
    television is the most significant change in television history
    in my view--much more significant than the transition from
    black and white to color.
        I believe the role of the FCC is to make sure that we take
    the regulatory uncertainty out of the process. That means the
    regulatory environment to govern this transition must clarify
    what the public interest obligations are of television
    broadcasters in the digital age.
        And as we move toward more competitive markets across the
    board, it is my vision for the agency that we redeploy our
    resources. We should take resources away from application
    processing functions and move them more to consumer protection
    areas, because we have seen as competition develops, we have
    more problems like slamming and cramming in telephone markets.
        I would also like to see the agency continue its efforts to
    move toward electronic filing. I believe this is a very, very
    significant change for the agency. We have seen it already as
    we have implemented electronic filing of applications for our
    wireless services.
        We have seen the way the public interacts with the agency
    change dramatically. People around the country can get
    information from the agency, and interact with the agency in
    ways that makes it much easier for them to do business with us.
        We get 227,000 hits on our website per day. So many more
    people are communicating with the agency electronically than
    ever before.
        Let me just say in conclusion that the Telecommunications
    Act of 1996 has already produced some important, tangible
    results. There is much work left to be done, but if we work
    together I am sure that we can accomplish much more, in
    bringing more competition to consumers, reforming universal
    service, and ultimately continuing to have a telecommunications
    infrastructure that is the very best in the world, and of which
    we can all be very proud of.

                               prepared statement

        Your support of the Commission's fiscal year 1999 budget
    request will help this vision become a reality, and I thank you
    for your support, and I would be happy to answer any questions
    that you have.
        [The statement follows:]
                    Prepared Statement of William E. Kennard
        Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, and Members of the Subcommittee,
    thank you for the opportunity to review with you today the fiscal year
    1999 Budget Estimates of the Federal Communications Commission. I am
    especially pleased to be here, as this is my first appearance before
    the Subcommittee since I became Chairman on November 3, 1997.
        This morning I would like to: summarize the highlights of our
    fiscal year 1999 Budget Estimates; discuss what the Telecommunications
    Act of 1996 has accomplished so far to achieve competition and what
    remains to be done; note some examples of our other ongoing work
    responsibilities; highlight our plans to streamline and deregulate the
    FCC through the first ``biennial review'' of all of our regulations;
    describe our ``Year 2000'' computer upgrade plans; and, finally, share
    with you my hopes and plans for the rest of this year to implement the
    Communications Act and the other statutes entrusted to the FCC.
    Competition and Conversion
        Before I discuss these matters, however, I think I speak for all of
    us at the FCC in saying that we feel privileged to be working at the
    Commission at this important time in the history of communications law
    and policy. When the history of communications policy in this decade is
    written, I believe it will largely be about two transforming events:
    the move to embrace competition as an organizing principle in the law
    and the conversion from analog to digital technology.
        First and foremost, there is competition. Competition has been a
    goal of communications policymakers for many years. With the 1996 Act,
    it has become our national policy and the organizing force of much of
    our work. The 1996 Act gives us the tools to accelerate the pace of
    competition and, with your support and sufficient resources, I am
    confident we will.
        Second, there is digital conversion. Virtually every sector is
    undergoing this transition: analog to digital radio; analog to digital
    cellular networks; analog to digital telephone networks; and analog to
    digital broadcast and cable television. The almost infinite versatility
    and capacity of digital technology is giving consumers awe-inspiring
    products and providing communications companies new ways to deliver
    those products.
        Together, these two transforming forces--competition and digital
    conversion--challenge the FCC to accommodate unprecedented change. With
    your support for the resources we are requesting today, I am confident
    we can meet the challenge.
    Recent Accomplishments
        In fact, I am very proud of what we have already accomplished in my
    first four and one-half months as Chairman of the FCC. Here are some
    highlights of our recent accomplishments:
      --In November 1997, at my first meeting as FCC Chairman, the
            Commission revised its rules for foreign entry in light of the
            World Trade Organization Agreement on Basic Telecommunications
            Services, which took effect last month. We did so by adopting
            companion telecommunications and satellite entry orders
            liberalizing entry into the U.S. market for foreign-licensed
            service providers while retaining competitive safeguards.
            Implementation of the WTO Agreement will fundamentally alter
            the competitive landscape of the global market in
            telecommunications services, providing vast opportunities for
            American industry. Increased competition in the international
            market will also hasten the decline in international calling
            rates. In November, we also proposed rules to implement the
            Commission's new authority to auction certain mutually
            exclusive broadcast licenses; streamlined the process for
            reviewing and resolving formal complaints against
            telecommunications carriers; and adopted policies that permit
            non-U.S. licensed satellites to provide services in the United
            States.
      --In December 1997, we adopted a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM)
            to strengthen our program access rules in order to boost
            competition with cable in the multichannel video marketplace;
            we approved an order to ensure that 911 emergency calls will
            work nationwide on all cellular telephones; we conducted the
            first in a series of special en banc presentations, this one on
            the status of competition in the multichannel video
            marketplace; we launched a proceeding to determine the
            appropriate methodology for assessing fees for ancillary and
            supplemental services provided by digital broadcasters in
            implementation of the Communications Act; and we announced our
            first ever ``biennial review'' of the FCC's rules and
            regulations in a common sense, comprehensive fashion.
      --In January 1998, we released our fourth ``Annual Assessment of the
            Status of Competition in Markets for the Delivery of Video
            Programming,'' as required by Section 628(g) of the
            Communications Act. A major finding of the report was that
            cable still controls approximately 87 percent of the
            multichannel video marketplace. I directed our Cable Services
            Bureau to undertake a review of our cable rate regulations and
            an investigation of the nature and causes of rising cable rates
            and programming costs. We released our annual survey report on
            cable industry prices pursuant to Section 623(k) of the
            Communications Act. We also adopted price disclosure
            requirements for away-from-home public telephone calls to help
            end telephone price gouging by operator service providers.
      --In February 1998, we adopted an NPRM to help us implement our new
            Universal Licensing System for wireless radio services. This
            initiative will automate our licensing and application
            functions for these services with state of the art technology.
            We are consolidating and streamlining our current 11 wireless
            databases into one unified, integrated system, and reducing or
            eliminating many of our existing rules. We also adopted final
            rules, policies and channel assignments for the new video age
            of digital television (DTV); adopted an order to further the
            privacy rights of telecommunications customers; and proposed to
            simplify and consolidate our service rules governing the Direct
            Broadcast Satellite (DBS) service as well as sought comment on
            whether we should impose alien ownership restrictions on the
            DBS service, and possible DBS-cable cross-ownership
            restrictions.
      --In March 1998, so far, we have approved the revised voluntary
            industry system for rating TV video programming and adopted
            technical rules to implement the accompanying ``V-chip''
            program blocking technology. These actions will help put these
            important tools in the hands of American parents. We also
            adopted a Notice of Inquiry to examine all of our major
            broadcast ownership rules as part of our ``biennial review.''
        I would like to turn now to our fiscal year 1999 budget request and
    our future plans and policies.
    Overview of fiscal year 1999 Budget Estimates
        The Federal Communications Commission proposes a fiscal year 1999
    budget of $212,977,000, and a staffing level of 2,105 full-time
    equivalents (FTE's). This represents an increase of $26,463,000 over
    the FCC's fiscal year 1998 funding level, but with no increase in
    staffing. Approximately 51 percent of the increase, or $13,615,000,
    would cover mandatory, uncontrollable cost increases for salaries and
    benefits ($4,153,000), rent payments to the General Services
    Administration (GSA) for the FCC's new headquarters in the Portals
    Building ($8,412,000), Federal Protective Service increases ($527,000),
    and inflationary increases to other contract services ($523,000).
        The FCC's request also includes a request of $5,756,000 (22 percent
    of the increase) for critical upgrades to the Commission's FCC's
    information technology infrastructure. These resources are vital to
    ensure that all of the Commission's information technology
    infrastructure and licensing systems operate smoothly through the
    transition to the Year 2000. Failure to make these upgrades would
    seriously jeopardize Commission operations on January 1, 2000 with some
    disruption occurring earlier.
        We have also requested $975,000, or 4 percent of the fund increase,
    to complete the implementation and maximize the effectiveness of the
    FCC's National Call Center (``NCC'') in Gettysburg, Pennsylvania, and
    to establish a satellite Call Center facility in Washington, D.C. These
    resources will provide substantial cost savings by centralizing much of
    the FCC's call handling into a central Call Center, as well as provide
    improved FCC customer service through one centralized information
    service.
        An additional $6,117,000, or 23 percent of the requested increase,
    represents the first installment repayment to reimburse GSA for its
    costs in relocating FCC headquarters employees to a consolidated
    building. In July 1997, the GSA agreed to provide funds to the FCC so
    we could relocate to the Portals. This agreement stated the FCC should
    seek reimbursement for GSA of all funds provided to the FCC under the
    agreement during fiscal years 1997 through 2007. If appropriated, the
    repayment of these funds to GSA would take place over a 10-year period
    beginning in fiscal year 1999 and continuing through fiscal year 2008.
    This 10-year plan for reimbursement covers expenditures by GSA for
    building design and buildout, design and installation of information
    systems architecture, and purchase of systems furniture.
        The amount to be collected from regulatory fees would increase from
    $162,523,000 in fiscal year 1998 to $172,523,000 in fiscal year 1999.
    The President's fiscal year 1999 Budget, however, proposes a change to
    our current appropriations language. This change would prevent the FCC,
    as it would other regulatory agencies funded largely from regulatory
    fees, from offsetting its total fiscal year 1999 appropriation through
    regulatory fees. Instead, the Administration proposes in fiscal year
    1999 that the FCC appropriation would be fully funded on a one-time
    basis from the General Fund of the Treasury. The regulatory fees,
    although collected in fiscal year 1999, would be unavailable for use by
    the FCC until October 1, 1999 (fiscal year 2000).
        With these requested resources, here are some examples of what we
    hope to accomplish during the coming fiscal year in each of the FCC's
    four primary activity areas: (1) authorization of service; (2) policy
    implementation and rulemaking; (3) enforcement; and (4) public
    information services.
        Authorization of Service.--We will continue to promote efficient
    and innovative licensing and authorization of services by meeting
    established Speed of Disposal goals and by using auctions whenever
    feasible to license or authorize telecommunications services quickly
    and efficiently, including the auctioning of mutually exclusive
    broadcast licenses pursuant to the Balanced Budget Act of 1997. In
    fiscal year 1999, we will complete the deployment of electronic filing
    capabilities for five of our largest licensing and registration systems
    in the Cable Services, International, Mass Media, and Wireless
    Telecommunications Bureaus, and in the Office of Engineering and
    Technology. The FCC's experience to date with the new Universal
    Licensing System for its wireless radio services demonstrates the
    benefits to both the Commission and industry from automation and
    electronic filing. We also intend to process applications to construct
    digital TV stations which conform to their original allotment sites
    within five days of receipt. In addition, we anticipate a significant
    number of applications under Section 271 of the Communications Act from
    Bell Operating Companies seeking authority to provide in-region long
    distance service, each of which must be resolved within 90 days.
    Finally, we will simplify and streamline the entire broadcast licensing
    process by reducing filing burdens, simplifying application forms, and
    re-engineering and integrating 13 Mass Media Bureau licensing and
    authorization of service databases.
        Policy Implementation and Rulemaking.--We will encourage
    competition in the telecommunications industry through pro-competitive,
    deregulatory rulemakings, that reduce consumer costs and increase the
    telecommunications choices available to consumers. For example, we must
    also continue to implement the local competition provisions of the
    Communications Act, review, revise, and eliminate rules to reflect
    changing marketplace conditions, including forebearing from rules that
    competition makes unnecessary to protect the public interest, and
    review requests for preemption of state and local laws or actions that
    create barriers to offering any telecommunications service. We will
    also continue working to implement the universal service provisions of
    the Communications Act by working to improve the connections between
    the Internet and this country's classrooms, libraries, and rural health
    care facilities, by maintaining affordable telecommunications services
    to rural America, by making telecommunications services and equipment
    accessible to all persons with disabilities, and by making emergency
    information carried on cable systems available to all persons with
    hearing disabilities.
        We will continue to implement the World Trade Organization Basic
    Services Agreement. This Agreement will allow carriers from WTO-member
    nations to apply for authorization to provide competitive
    telecommunications services to United States customers and will open
    doors to United States carriers seeking to offer telecommunications in
    overseas markets. We will also seek to ensure that public safety groups
    have adequate spectrum and advanced telecommunications equipment by
    completing the development of operational, technical and spectrum
    requirements for meeting Federal, State and local public safety agency
    communications requirements through the year 2010. We will continue to
    explore all means of promoting competition in the marketplace for
    multichannel video programming.
        Enforcement.--The importance of the enforcement of the Commission's
    rules has increased in an era of deregulation and increased
    competition. Common carrier oversight, for example, is required to
    ensure that consumer abuses such as the unauthorized transfer of long
    distance carriers, also known as ``slamming'', are curtailed. We are
    also examining ways to strengthen enforcement of our cable program
    access rules so that new market entrants can more readily and fairly
    obtain access to the programming they need to become viable competitors
    to incumbent multichannel video programming distributors. Moreover,
    increased use of the radio spectrum and the marketing of new electronic
    equipment have greatly increased potential interference problems. There
    has also been an increase in unauthorized ``pirate'' radio stations.
        Overall, it is important for the Commission to adopt a new paradigm
    for enforcement that relies more on companies to certify that they are
    in compliance with our regulations, but with increased enforcement for
    non-compliance. Swift, predictable, and sufficient enforcement is
    critical as we move toward competition.
        We also intend to strengthen our enforcement program by using the
    latest technical and engineering techniques to improve interference and
    consumer complaint resolution, by partnering with the private sector
    and with other governmental units to resolve shared telecommunications
    issues, and by using industry and customer feedback to determine
    effective levels of enforcement and appropriate enforcement policies
    and procedures.
        Public Information Services.--Our goal in this area will be to
    provide information services to our customers in the most useful
    formats available and in the most timely, accurate and courteous manner
    possible. We will accomplish this goal by providing ``one stop''
    information shopping to our customers through the consolidation of our
    nine public reference rooms into one, when we move to the Portals, and
    through attaining true nationwide coverage at our National Call Center.
        In fiscal year 1999, we hope to complete the final phase of this
    ambitious project which provides information on every aspect of the FCC
    through a toll-free number that can be accessed by anyone within the
    United States, 1-888-CALL FCC (225-5322). Since the FCC began limited
    operation of the NCC in June, 1996, it has responded to more than
    485,000 telephone inquiries. Establishment of the NCC has already saved
    the FCC approximately $3 million per fiscal year in salary and benefits
    costs and allowed for the reallocation of 40 FTE's to other critical
    work assignments. The NCC, along with the FCC's Internet Website,
    www.fcc.gov, forms the backbone of the FCC's educational and
    information outreach programs. (During January and February 1998, the
    FCC's Home Page received an average of 227,000 hits per day, up from an
    average of 135,000 hits per day during the same period in 1997.) It is
    therefore essential for the FCC to complete the final phase of its
    implementation of the NCC in fiscal year 1999. To do so, we request
    your approval of our $975,000 fiscal year 1999 budget request item.
    Telecommunications Act of 1996
        I turn now to what the Telecommunications Act of 1996 has
    accomplished in its first two years to achieve telecommunications
    competition and what work remains to be done to achieve still more
    competition. Some critics have already declared the 1996
    Telecommunications Act a failure. I think they are wrong. For in my
    judgment, Congress got it right in 1996: competition beats monopoly
    every time as the best way to deliver the best telecommunications
    services to the American public. And the evidence is growing that
    competition is indeed on its way. As was amply demonstrated during the
    Commission's January 29, 1997, en banc hearing on the status of local
    telephone competition, the Telecommunications Act of 1996 has
    successfully moved us in the right direction--toward greater
    competition.
        Competition will happen, eventually. The debate about competitive
    issues is really a debate about when it will happen, and for whom. It
    will come faster, of course, if we have rules that favor competition.
    Such rules would allow competition as fast as technology and financing
    allow.
        As you can see from the chart attached to my testimony entitled
    ``Market Shares of New Entrants to an Industry'', it has taken time for
    competition to develop in other markets we today regard as competitive.
    For example, in the long distance and residential cellular service
    markets, it took years between the introduction of competition into the
    market, and the time that new entrants had gained appreciable market
    share.
        For the reality is that moving a monopoly market to competition is
    hard work: for the incumbent, the new competitors, and the policy
    makers. Those within companies charged with creating and meeting
    competition need to resolve complex operational issues. They need to
    design system interfaces and write software. They need to negotiate
    contracts, arbitrate differences, sign agreements and implement them.
    For policy makers, we must insist that this hard work be done and that
    the parties create or have available swift, meaningful ways to enforce
    obligations under these agreements.
        All this takes time. And while some call it ``regulatory,'' it is
    actually deregulatory. That's because competition and choice won't
    exist unless local telephone companies create this competitive
    infrastructure and unless they are forced to keep this infrastructure
    well-maintained and running smoothly.
    Development of Competition: Slow But Steady
        To get a true picture of the development of local competition, we
    should not be looking for dramatic, sudden upsurges in local
    competition, but instead for the type of steadily increasing momentum
    that we saw with the introduction of competition into the long distance
    market. As illustrated by the chart, we are still in the very early
    stages of the development of local exchange competition. I have no
    reason to expect, however, we will not see the same type of
    acceleration of competition in this area that we have seen in other
    markets, especially long distance and cellular.
        In fact, that's exactly what we are seeing. Illustrative examples
    are many and varied. We see growing competition in the hundreds of
    state-approved interconnection agreements between incumbents and
    competitive local exchange carriers (``CLECS'') entering the local
    telephone market. The top 10 CLECS have switches in 132 cities spanning
    33 states and the District of Columbia. Approximately 2,400
    interconnection agreements have been created under the 1996 Act's
    framework. And over the past two years, $14 billion has been invested
    in CLECS, and their combined market capitalization has risen to over
    $20 billion.
        We also see competition in New York City where over 20 percent of
    the local business market is being served by carriers other than the
    incumbent Bell Company. We see competition in the investment going into
    cable modems and the restructuring of the high speed data segment of
    the cable industry. We see growing competition in the increasing
    interest on the part of the wireline industry in Digital Subscriber
    Line technologies, which allow you to get expanded capacity similar to
    fiber from a copper loop. We see it in the fixed wireless service
    providers, like Winstar and Teligent which have begun to offer service
    that competes with traditional wireline. And we see it in the hundreds
    of satellites being put up for narrowband access and also for
    nationwide, even worldwide broadband wireless data access.
        The country is seeing many other benefits of the 1996 Act. For
    example, wireless telephone prices are dropping rapidly and the number
    of subscribers now tops 50 million nationwide. In the nine months from
    April to December 1997, prices for cellular and PCS services dropped
    over 12 percent for low volume customers and over 31 percent for high
    volume customers. In fact, the Wall Street Journal reported on March 3,
    1998 that Bell Atlantic's recent decision to reduce by 15 percent its
    rates for digital wireless phone service may well spark a ``price war''
    among cell phone service providers. Long distance rates, meanwhile,
    fell 5.3 percent between January 1996 and November 1997.
        The 1996 Act is beginning to deliver other benefits as well. On
    January 30, 1998, schools and libraries began to submit applications to
    the Schools and Libraries Corporation for universal service support to
    connect our nation's classrooms and libraries to the Internet. As of
    March 5, 1998, 25,600 applications for universal service discounts had
    been received from schools and libraries. Nearly 70 percent of these
    applications are for new services. As of February 24, 50 percent of
    applications received have been from school districts, 28 percent from
    schools, 19 percent from libraries and library consortiums, and 3
    percent from multiple entity consortiums. The Schools and Libraries
    Corporation will be processing and granting these applications later
    this spring, well before the start of the next school year in the fall.
        This is measurable progress. Of course, we have much further to go
    to reap the full benefits of the 1996 Act. In particular, too few
    residential consumers yet have the opportunity to choose among
    competing providers of local exchange services. There are some
    promising prospects as cable companies and companies affiliated with
    utility companies begin to provide residential, local telephone
    service, but competition has yet to blossom in the residential market.
        Moreover, the courts have clearly slowed the pace of development of
    competition. We have seen the careful statutory design of Congress
    disrupted by judicial rulings that have added uncertainty, slowed
    investment and planning, and frustrated promising market entry
    strategies. Without these judicial setbacks, we would be further along
    the road to full competition in telecommunications. These court
    decisions threaten to continue to hobble the development of competition
    and to deny our country the growth that broad telecommunications
    competition would create.
        Nonetheless, as the FCC enters its third fiscal year since
    enactment of the 1996 Act, implementation of the Act's remaining
    provisions in a pro-competitive and timely fashion will remain the
    principal FCC task. Most significantly, the FCC will continue to
    examine how to streamline the process of evaluating Bell Operating
    Company petitions for entry into in-region inter-LATA toll service. As
    directed by our fiscal year 1998 appropriations legislation, we have
    also begun a review of the statutory, definitional and universal
    service provisions of the 1996 Act, and will submit a report to
    Congress no later than the statutory deadline of April 10, 1998.
        We will also work closely with the States to continue to implement
    the universal service provisions of the Act, commence a proceeding to
    delineate further operating support systems to propose performance
    assessment and reporting mechanisms, establish rules for the recovery
    of costs for long-term number portability, outline pricing flexibility
    for local exchange carriers as they face new competition, and address
    the appropriate regulatory treatment of commercial mobile radio service
    carriers who provide fixed or combined fixed-mobile services.
        We also expect later this year to issue a Notice of Inquiry
    pursuant to Section 706 of the 1996 Act concerning the availability of
    advanced telecommunications capabilities, to commence a proceeding to
    identify and reduce or eliminate market entry barriers, and to conclude
    a proceeding on broadcast spectrum flexibility.
    Other, Ongoing Workload
        Our continuing, heavy workload to implement the Telecommunications
    Act of 1996 is a major justification for our fiscal year 1999 budget
    request. But so are the Commission's other enormous and growing work
    responsibilities. Here are just a few illustrative examples from five
    of the FCC's operating bureaus:
        Cable Services Bureau.--As of March 1998, the Consumer Protection
    and Competition Division of the Cable Services Bureau had 583 matters
    pending before the division, including petitions, complaints, and
    rulemakings. These matters are overwhelmingly filed by private parties
    or local governments. Among these petitions and complaints, for
    example, are approximately 80 mandatory signal carriage or ``must-
    carry'' cases, 73 requests to modify ``areas of dominant influence'' to
    receive different television programming, and over 260 rate regulation
    appeals. The Financial Analysis and Compliance Division of the Bureau,
    meanwhile, had approximately 750 rate complaints pending. (Between
    September 1993 and February 1996, the division issued 4,553 rate case
    decisions.)
        Common Carrier Bureau.--The Common Carrier Bureau expects to make
    policy recommendations to the Commission on over 60 major, Commission-
    level proceedings in the second quarter of 1998 alone. This figure does
    not include any number of Bureau-level proceedings that the Bureau will
    complete during the same three month period. One telecommunications
    area in particular that has exploded as a result of both more
    competition and deregulation has been informal complaints and
    inquiries. In 1995, for example, the Enforcement Division of the Common
    Carrier received 25,482 complaints and inquiries about various
    telephone consumer abuses and concerns such as ``slamming'' and
    disputed billing charges. In 1997, the number of such complaints nearly
    doubled to over 44,000.
        International Bureau.--The International Bureau plans to present to
    the Commission 27 items between April and September 1998. Two major
    growth areas for the Bureau include satellite space station
    applications and Section 214 applications. The number of applications
    received for satellite space stations increased from 164 in fiscal year
    1996 to 195 in fiscal year 1997 (a 19 percent increase). The number of
    Section 214 applications received for satellite space stations
    increased from 564 in fiscal year 1995 to 637 in fiscal year 1996 (a 13
    percent increase). In fiscal year 1997, the number of Section 214
    applications received increased 17 percent to 745.
        In addition to the increase in the number of applications over the
    years, there is more complexity involved in processing International
    Bureau applications. Service providers are developing innovative
    services, requiring significantly more bandwidth, and at the same time
    seeking to co-exist with established services while sometimes also
    requiring global coordination.
        These new services additionally require the Bureau to initiate
    licensing rounds, develop service rules and, in most instances,
    coordinate with other domestic users of the spectrum. Just getting one
    new service off the ground is extremely time and labor intensive as it
    invariably raises new legal issues and poses technical challenges. The
    Bureau currently has four new services--2 GHz, 28 GHz, 40 GHz and the
    Skybridge FSS LEO system--for which proceedings must be initiated and
    completed prior to commercial satellite use of the spectrum. Finally,
    the International Bureau also must develop methods for implementing the
    recent commitments made to open the United States market to foreign
    satellite systems.
        Mass Media Bureau.--In the Mass Media Bureau, the elimination of
    radio ownership limits by the Telecommunications Act dramatically
    increased the volume of radio sales applications. For example, in 1995,
    we received 2,300 such applications. In 1996 the number increased to
    3,700. In 1997, it was more than 4,100. During the first three months
    of 1998, radio sales applications have continued to come to the FCC at
    a higher rate than even in 1997. In another mass media area, political
    programming regulation, because this is a mid-term election year,
    during the next six months we expect to receive approximately 1,000
    phone calls a month from broadcasters, political candidates and their
    media buyers.
        Wireless Telecommunications Bureau.--Finally, the Wireless
    Telecommunications Bureau intends to bring to the Commission for its
    decision approximately 56 items over the next six months. The Bureau
    also plans to conduct six auctions during the rest of 1998, assuming
    the Commission completes the pending policy and rulemaking items. As of
    February 28, 1998, the Wireless Bureau has pending 448 informal
    complaints and 13 formal ones. The enormity of the ``Universal
    Licensing System'' noted above is also worth noting in more detail. The
    ``ULS'' is simply a complete change and redesign of the Wireless
    Bureau's entire licensing theory and process. It will directly affect
    the literally millions of wireless licensees, applicants, and the
    public who need access to our wireless data. Under the ULS: 41 forms
    will be collapsed into 5; 800,000 person hours annually will be saved
    by licensees due to electronic filing of applications; 11 databases
    will be reduced into one, affecting over 2 million licensees; on line
    data access and computer mapping of service areas will be available to
    the public from anywhere in the world; and perhaps most significantly,
    the FCC will be able to delete over 200 wireless regulations from the
    Code of Federal Regulations.
    Streamlining and Deregulating: The ``Biennial Review''
        In fact, the FCC has begun a comprehensive ``biennial review'' of
    all of its existing regulations, including telecommunications and
    broadcast ownership regulations, as directed by the 1996 Act. Section
    11 of the Communications Act, as amended by the Telecommunications Act,
    requires the FCC, in every even-numbered year, to review all of its
    regulations applicable to providers of telecommunications services to
    determine whether they have become unnecessary to advance the public
    interest as the result of meaningful economic competition between
    providers of the services and whether such regulations should therefore
    be repealed or modified. Section 204(h) of the Telecommunications Act
    also requires the Commission to review its broadcast ownership rules
    biennially as part of the review conducted pursuant to Section 11. The
    Commission, however, determined that this first biennial regulatory
    review presented an excellent opportunity for a serious top-to-bottom
    examination of all the Commission's regulations, not just those
    required to be reviewed under the statute.
        Thus, on February 5, 1998, Commission staff released a list of 31
    proposed proceedings to be initiated as part of the 1998 biennial
    regulatory review aimed at eliminating or modifying regulations that
    are overly burdensome or no longer in the public interest. The list,
    which is attached to my testimony, was compiled following a broad,
    comprehensive internal review of all existing FCC regulations and
    informal input from the industry and the public through various public
    forums such as brown bag lunches with the practice groups of the
    Federal Communications Bar Association. The Commission will continue to
    solicit public input as the process continues.
        The list includes a review of all broadcast ownership rules that
    are not already the subject of a pending Commission proceeding and a
    wide array of common carrier rules, such as the Part 32 uniform system
    of accounts rules, Part 41 telegraph and telephone franks (or free
    service) rules, Part 43 reporting rules, Part 61 price cap rules, Part
    62 interlocking directorate rules, Part 63 international certificate
    rules, Part 64 customer premises equipment bundling rules, and Part 68
    equipment rules.
        We have outlined here a very ambitious agenda for the Commission
    that should result in a substantial amount of further deregulation and
    streamlining. The Commission is in a position to ensure that its first
    biennial regulatory review will, consistent with congressional mandate,
    produce concrete results in many areas of the Commission's operations.
        I would also note that, in addition to those proceedings to be
    initiated as part of the 1998 biennial regulatory review, the
    Commission has numerous ongoing proceedings that are consistent with
    the deregulatory and streamlining policy embodied in Section 11 of the
    Communications Act. For example, the Commission has ongoing proceedings
    to review and possibly reconsider its rules governing jurisdictional
    separations procedures under Part 36, extensions of lines under Part
    63, cost allocations under Part 64, and access charges under Part 69.
    The streamlining and simplification of the broadcast licensing process
    noted above is another example of the extensive deregulatory
    ``housecleaning'' now underway at the Commission.
    ``Year 2000'' Plans
        It is well known that computer systems throughout the world may
    well have difficulties transitioning from the year 1999 to the year
    2000. The FCC has completed a thorough analysis of our institutional
    systems, end-user applications and database infrastructure. We have
    concluded that we must complete a major upgrade and replacement of many
    of our computer systems, including both hardware and supporting
    software, if the agency is to be Year 2000-compliant.
        The FCC systems which have been identified as having significant
    Year 2000 compliance issues include our applications processing, fees
    collection, tariff tracking and public comment filing systems. For each
    of these systems, we have completed requirements studies to replace
    them with restructured and, in many cases, integrated, state-of-the-art
    electronic filing and relational database systems. The restructured
    Year 2000-compliant systems will offer the added benefit of allowing
    the FCC's customers to view electronically and transmit data over the
    Internet. The fiscal year 1999 funding request of $5,765,000 is
    required to ensure that all of our computer systems are fully tested
    and operational before December, 1999. In addition, we will need to use
    $3.4 million in excess fiscal year 1997 regulatory fees carried over to
    fiscal year 1998 for this purpose.
        While we replace our non-compliant systems, we must also replace
    our aging and obsolete desktop hardware and software systems. In fiscal
    year 1999, many of our personal computers will be over six years old,
    twice the age of their expected usage lives. Our current desktop
    configurations can neither accommodate the larger, faster computer
    applications available, nor are they, in many cases, Year 2000-
    compliant. Moreover, it is currently either impossible or exorbitantly
    expensive to maintain them and it is imperative, operationally and
    fiscally, to replace them.
        With the requested resources, the FCC will be able to develop and
    implement Year 2000-compliant electronic filing systems and associated
    support technologies that will result in several benefits: continued
    system functionality beyond December 31, 1999; accurate calculations of
    date-dependent algorithms; enabling the public to transmit and view
    application, licensing and other needed data electronically over the
    Internet; and increased public availability and ease of obtaining and
    receiving docket, rulemaking, and tariff information.
    1998 Agenda
        For the rest of this year, our agenda will be dominated by our
    efforts to implement the 1996 Act's ``pro-competitive, deregulatory
    national policy framework,'' to bring greater competition to all
    communications markets, and to ensure that universal service and other
    public interest provisions of the Act are fully implemented in a manner
    that, consistent with congressional intent, yield the best results for
    the American people. At the head of my priorities will be the effort to
    deliver choice in telecommunications, especially local
    telecommunications, to the American people. We must especially strive
    to see that choice among local telephone providers becomes a reality
    for more residential subscribers.
        Giving consumers the opportunity to enjoy the lower prices and
    expanded choice that flow from competition requires that we continue to
    review carefully the applications by the Bell Operating Companies under
    Section 271 of the Communications Act requesting authorization to
    provide in-region long distance service. Our on-going dialogue with the
    BOC's and other interested parties is intended to expedite the opening
    of local markets, thus leading to competition not only for local phone
    service, but also BOC entry into the long distance market under Section
    271. But it is crucial that a BOC satisfy the statutory checklist
    contained in Section 271 before it is permitted to enter the long
    distance market. For if a BOC is permitted to offer long distance
    service before it has opened its local market to competition, then
    merger and consolidation will be the only avenues into the local market
    available to the long distance carriers and other potential
    competitors. Giving the BOC's a free pass into long distance would thus
    produce fewer, not more, competitors, and be contrary to Congress'
    legislative intent in enacting Section 271, one of the most significant
    provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996.
        We must continue to find ways to ensure that rates remain
    affordable, and to ensure that telecommunications services remain
    comparable in all areas of the country. This is a critical issue.
    Universal service has been a hallmark of our telecommunications system
    since the invention of the telephone. We must continue to preserve and
    enhance universal service as competition increases. We cannot allow
    rural America to become a ``have not'' zone in the telecommunications
    age. To help ensure this does not happen, and to help ensure universal
    service for all, in early January, 1998, I appointed an ``ombudsman''
    for the Commission on rural issues. She will help us make sure that
    rural issues receive the focus and attention they deserve from the
    Commission. In addition, we will address universal service high cost
    issues for non-rural telcos in two steps, with an order on a mechanism
    for estimating forward looking costs in the very near term, and with an
    order on input for that mechanism and other implementation issues by
    the end of the third quarter.
        We will also continue to work to deliver universal service to our
    nation's classrooms and libraries, and to connect these centers of
    learning to the Internet. We must also finish implementing ways to
    provide rural health care providers access to modern telecommunications
    facilities to allow better, faster diagnoses and treatments.
        We will continue to seek ways to increase competition with cable
    television, and to assess the nature and causes of cable programming
    cost increases and whether they indicate a need to revise our cable
    rate regulation. As I noted on January 13, 1998, when we released our
    fourth annual cable competition report, I remain concerned that
    competition will not arrive in time to provide a true marketplace
    restraint on cable price increases by March 1999, when all cable rate
    regulation is scheduled to end pursuant to the Telecommunications Act
    of 1996.
        We must also finish the implementation of digital television. This
    includes the establishment of not just the service rules and allotment
    plans, but also must-carry rules, public interest obligations, and fees
    for ancillary and supplemental services.
        We will also continue to work closely with our Local and State
    Government Advisory Committee to address Federal-state-local issues
    such as preemption, placement of transmission towers for wireless and
    DTV services, public rights-of-way, and removal of state and local
    governmental barriers to telecommunications market entry.
        We must also continue to streamline our licensing procedures and to
    act as expeditiously as possible to ensure that innovative new
    technologies using satellites can enter the marketplace quickly. For
    example, the first wave of new global satellite systems capable of
    providing high speed voice, video and data on-demand are scheduled to
    start providing service this fall.
        Along with its appetite for ever-increasing computing power, our
    nation will have an ever more voracious appetite for data transmission
    capacity or ``bandwidth.'' The key to satisfying this appetite will be
    to create real opportunities for companies to compete to deliver high
    bandwidth services over the ``last mile'' to consumers. Competition in
    our backbone networks today is driving backbone providers to keep
    increasing the capacity and speed of the backbones. We need to bring
    that competitive drive to expand capacity and improve service to the
    final links to consumers.
        Finally, throughout all of our proceedings, we must seek to ensure
    that our booming communications markets are creating opportunities for
    participation by all Americans. We must move forward to ensure that we
    are providing opportunities for employment, access and ownership,
    especially for those who remain underrepresented in the ownership and
    employment ranks of communications businesses--minorities, women and
    the disabled. The communications and information industries represent
    the fastest growing sectors of our economy--over $800 billion last
    year. We should seek to create and expand opportunities in every sector
    of the communications marketplace and do all we can to make sure that
    no one is left behind.
        With regard to the disability community, for example, last August,
    the Commission adopted rules to increase the amount of closed captioned
    video programming available to the 22 million Americans with hearing
    disabilities, regardless of whether they receive their television
    signals from cable, DBS, wireless cable or through over-the-air
    broadcasting. This is a vitally important step in making sure that
    disabled Americans get access. I also intend to initiate soon a major
    rulemaking proceeding under Section 255 of the Communications Act to
    facilitate access to telecommunications equipment by disabled persons.
    Conclusion
        I'd like to conclude my testimony with these thoughts. It has been
    only two years since President Clinton went to the magnificent Reading
    Room of the Library of Congress and signed his name to the
    Telecommunications Act of 1996. It was a very appropriate location for
    such a signing ceremony. For here was a bill Congress had just passed
    that could eventually help make every book in the Library of Congress
    available to every American with a few clicks of a computer ``mouse.''
        Not everyone was confident that the President was doing the right
    thing. Not everyone was confident that Congress had done the right
    thing. Not everyone was confident that the FCC could handle the job of
    implementing such ambitious legislation.
        But now, after 25 months, I think it's clear that we should have
    been confident on all counts. For after these 25 months, the
    Telecommunications Act of 1996 has produced important, tangible
    results. Yes, there is much left to be done. But if we work together,
    we will accomplish it. We will succeed in fulfilling the promise of the
    Telecommunications Act to bring competition and choice to American
    consumers, to bring advanced services at affordable rates to all
    Americans, to bring new economic opportunity that can unite our Nation
    and narrow the gaps that divide us, and to improve our country in
    fundamental ways unimagined just two years ago. Your support of the
    Commission's fiscal year 1999 budget request will help this vision
    become a solid reality.
        This concludes my testimony. I will be happy to answer your
    questions.
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T11MA19.000

                   Biographical Sketch of William E. Kennard
        William Kennard was nominated to be Chairman of the FCC by
    President Clinton in August 1997. He was confirmed by the Senate on
    October 29, and sworn in by Vice President Gore on November 7, 1997.
    His term expires on June 30, 2001.
        As Chairman, Kennard is committed to ensuring that competition will
    bring consumers in every sector of the communications marketplace more
    choice, better services, and faster innovation at the lowest prices.
        A native of Los Angeles, Kennard graduated Phi Beta Kappa from
    Stanford University in 1978 and received his law degree from Yale Law
    School in 1981.
        Kennard came to the Chairmanship after three-and-one-half years as
    the agency's General Counsel and a career as a practicing attorney
    involved in a broad range of communications issues.
        As FCC General Counsel, Kennard served as the Commission's
    principal legal advisor and represented the Commission in court. He
    served as General Counsel during a particularly challenging time, as
    the FCC began its implementation of the Telecommunications Act of 1996.
        Before joining the FCC, Kennard was a partner and member of the
    board of directors of the Washington, DC, law firm of Verner, Liipfert,
    Bernhard, McPherson and Hand. At Verner, Liipfert, he specialized in
    communications law, with an emphasis on regulatory and transactional
    matters for communications companies.
        Before entering private law practice, Kennard served as Assistant
    General Counsel and as Legal Fellow for the National Association of
    Broadcasters. He has written several articles on communications law
    topics.
        Throughout his career, Kennard has advocated creating and expanding
    opportunities for small businesses and minority-owned businesses to
    participate in the communications marketplace. In the 1980's he served
    on the FCC's Advisory Committee on Minority Ownership in Broadcasting.
    He is the first African-American to chair the FCC.
        Kennard is a member of the District of Columbia and California Bars
    and has served as Treasurer, Secretary, and Assistant Secretary of the
    Federal Communications Bar Association.
        He is married to Deborah Diane Kennedy of Greenville, South
    Carolina. She is Managing Counsel at Mobile Corporation. They live in
    the District of Columbia.

        Senator Gregg. Thank you. Senator Hollings.
        Senator Hollings. 227,000 hits?
        Mr. Kennard. Yes; per day.

                     free air time for Political candidates

        Senator Hollings. You are doing a good job, but let me ask
    you about this free time issue so we can clear the air.
        With respect to us in the Congress, we set down the policy,
    and you administer it, isn't that right?
        Mr. Kennard. Yes, Senator.
        Senator Hollings. And until we give you that policy you do
    not administer it, you do not pick one out of the air like free
    time. Where did you get it? We have not passed anything. I have
    been up here 31, going on 32 years. I have heard about free
    time back in the early 1970's. But, the Congress has not set
    any policy relative to free time, and I understand you made a
    statement that if the Congress would not create such a policy,
    you would. Can you respond to that? I want to make it clear
    that we have to get back to ground rules here and fundamentals.
        You have a big enough headache with digital. You have a big
    enough headache with the 1996 act without wandering afar and
    picking out desirables, but not policies, of the Congress.
        Mr. Kennard. Well, let me say this, Senator. The FCC was
    delegated responsibilities in this area----
        Senator Hollings. When? What? How?
        Mr. Kennard. Well, in the----
        Senator Hollings. For free time?
        Mr. Kennard. The FCC was given responsibility 25 years ago
    to administer the lowest unit charge provisions of the act.
        Senator Hollings. Yes; but that had to do with individuals.
    That did not have anything to do with candidates. That had to
    do with the charges made. And that has not been amended.
        If you are going to give free time on every particular
    charge, say Senator Gregg and I run against each other, we
    charge each other, you will be giving us free time when there
    is not enough free time left with a particular station. You
    know that. It's a stretch, and you know it.
        Mr. Kennard. Well, Senator, the public interest mandate of
    the----
        Senator Hollings. No; the public interest is expressed by
    the Congress. And they have not expressed free time as a public
    interest. You might think so. I might think so, but the
    Congress has not said that is a matter of public interest.
        Mr. Kennard. Senator, there are some 80 Members of Congress
    who----
        Senator Hollings. Eighty Members can put in a bill and get
    it passed. Eighty Members are a minority. Eighty Members are
    not a majority. They know how to put in a bill. They know how
    to get three readings in the House and three readings in the
    Senate, as a policy. After they do that, you can administer it.
        You are wandering afar, picking out policies you would like
    to see--you are not a popularity contest. You are not in the
    legislature. I'm in the Congress. I can put in a bill. But you
    are not in the position of putting in bills. You have enough
    laws to administer.
        Where do you get the authority?
        Mr. Kennard. Well, Senator, it is my view that there is
    authority.
        Senator Hollings. Where?
        Mr. Kennard. Well, let me give you an example.
        Senator Hollings. Give me a law. Give me the policy that we
    set.
        Mr. Kennard. For example, there are rules on the FCC's
    books that have been upheld by the courts that have changed
    policies, adopted new policies in this area. The political
    editorializing, rule, for example. Personal attack rule.
        Senator Hollings. Yes; we have not set that as a policy. It
    has been debated, like you say. Eighty Members are vitally
    interested in it. The administration is. But they have not put
    in a bill.
        Mr. Kennard. That is true.
        Senator Hollings. In fact, the bills that have been put in
    have been defeated. You are stretching way afar, I can tell you
    that, and that is exactly where you get into trouble. You get
    into appeals, and lawyers, and costs and everything else like
    that.
        So let's restrict yourself to trying to do the job we give
    you to do, not what you think.
        Mr. Kennard. Well, it is not just what I think, Senator.
    Many people----
        Senator Hollings. It is what the Congress thinks. It is not
    what I think, either. In fact, I actually refrain from calling
    you, because I was incidental to the 1996 act. Have I ever
    called you about the 1996 act?
        Mr. Kennard. No, Senator, but I have called you.
    [Laughter.]
        Senator Hollings. Yes; that is exactly right. I never have
    called you, because I get lawyers downtown thinking all they
    have to do is call a Member to call the Commission. Call a
    Member to call the Commission. And we would be driving you nuts
    down there, and I try my best to let you administer the law.
        But then I see you wandering afar with a nonpolicy that you
    might think or I might think is good, so let us get that fixed
    right now.

                           Portals relocation funding

        Now, to another point, you do not have enough money to move
    to the Portals, is that right?
        Mr. Kennard. That is right. We have requested money in our
    appropriations to resolve that issue, so that we have some
    clarity as to whether we should move or not.
        Senator Hollings. That is right. You are ready to move, if
    they give you the money.
        Mr. Kennard. If it is the wish of Congress that we move, as
    expressed through the appropriations process, we will move.
        Senator Hollings. And if you do not get the money, how are
    you going to move? You are going to have to eat into your
    regular administrative budget.
        Mr. Kennard. It would be imprudent for the FCC to move
    without having funds appropriated for the move.

                             Universal service fund

        Senator Hollings. I agree with you. All right, with respect
    to the implementation of the universal service fund, and
    education, I think it is good for the committee and everyone to
    know that fundamental to universal service is serving the rural
    areas and the less settled areas.
        You have the Senator from Alaska, who depends on the
    universal service entirely, for example, up there. The Midwest
    and some of the Western States also heavily rely on this. There
    was a grave misgiving in the debates, relative to universal
    service, when it came to education, the schools, and hospitals,
    that they do not eat into the funds used to keep rates low for
    rural areas.
        I refereed that with what we called the farm team, over and
    over again we got it in. Now, right to the point, many think
    you went way too far, with too much money, to wire the
    Internet. And what we have to do is reconcile that to schools
    and hospitals, because the fundamental, of course, is a
    universal service fund to begin with.
        Mr. Kennard. Well, as I said in my opening statement,
    Senator, I have had many conversations with you and other
    Members here about that, about the implementation of that fund.
        I think I understand your concerns. I have seen the
    amendment that was proffered with the supplemental
    appropriations bill the other day, and I think you asked some
    very good questions about trying to get a handle on the basic
    facts, of how much this is going to cost, and how this is going
    to be administered.
        And I look forward to working with you and your staffs to
    make sure that we have a program that is consistent with
    congressional intent and works for the country.
        Senator Hollings. Very good. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

                     free air time for Political candidates

        Senator Gregg. Thank you, Senator Hollings. I am going to
    ask my questions after Senator Campbell, but I do want to
    follow up on one point you made, and this is the free time
    issue, since you have raised this issue.
        Senator Campbell. Senator Hollings did not leave any room
    for the rest of us.
        Senator Gregg. Yes, well, let me just say, though, that
    Senator Hollings in his very cordial southern ways has
    graciously told you to stay out of this issue until Congress
    acts. I will, in my understated New England way, deliver to you
    the same message.
        This committee and this Congress has not acted on the issue
    of free time. You do not have the authority to pursue the issue
    of free time. If you pursue the issue of free time, you will be
    stepping on the prerogative of the Congress. And to do that
    would be, in my opinion, an extreme error for the Commission.
        You have a lot of big issues. We want to support you. I
    think you are off to a good start in a lot of areas. But to
    pursue this activity will regrettably create great tension,
    undermine your capacity to do your job well, and undermine the
    Commission.
        Senator Campbell.

                                    Slamming

        Senator Campbell. Mr. Chairman, I will not even address
    that, because westerners are not that subtle. Let me maybe just
    say something about slamming, since you did, Commissioner.
        Senator Burns has moved some language forward, as you
    probably know, dealing with slamming. We did a couple of
    hearings--did one in Colorado. I was, frankly, amazed at the
    huge growth of this unethical practice of transferring your
    telephone service without your knowledge or permission between
    companies.
        I just wanted to ask you a couple of questions. One is,
    where does that process stand now? Because that hearing we did
    in Colorado, I understand from people who testified on your
    behalf, that they were making some major rule changes.
        Senator Hollings. Would the Senator yield?
        Senator Campbell. Yes, sir.
        Senator Hollings. We unanimously reported out of the
    Commerce Committee a bill--are you familiar with that bill?
        Senator Campbell. Yes, I am. The bill I introduced was
    incorporated into that bill.
        Senator Hollings. Right.
        Senator Campbell. And Senator Burns' too. But I wanted to
    know, where is the regulatory process now, what specific
    initiatives has the Commission taken to try to curtail that
    practice?
        Mr. Kennard. Certainly. Well, Senator, first of all, let me
    say I share your concern about the slamming problem.
        Senator Campbell. And also, when are the rules going to be
    released?
        Mr. Kennard. Certainly. I share your concern about
    slamming. It has developed into a serious problem. There was a
    time in this country, as you know, when you only had a choice
    of one long distance carrier. Now that we have many more
    choices, some unscrupulous operators are trying to get business
    in inappropriate ways through slamming.
        The FCC has taken some action in this area, and plans to
    take more action. In 1995, we issued rules that eliminated the
    practice of telephone companies sending out sweepstakes
    announcements or other inducements, and people inadvertently
    changing their long distance carrier through that way.
        And that has helped, but we still get too many complaints.
    We get more complaints on slamming than any other consumer
    protection issue. So we are working on another set of rules
    which I am encouraged by, because if we can adopt these rules,
    I think it will take the financial incentive out of slamming.
        What I would like to see is a rule that provides if a
    carrier slams a customer, that customer is not obligated to pay
    the long distance carrier for a period of time. I believe a
    rule like that would take the financial incentive out of
    slamming, and go a long way to solving the problem.
        I will also say that we have been working with many State
    commissions who also have problems with slamming, and we are
    trying to share information and identify who the real bad
    actors are out there.
        To answer your question about timing, we have put out a
    notice of proposed rulemaking on more stringent antislamming
    rules, and we hope to issue those in a report and order within
    the next 30 to 60 days.
        Senator Campbell. Does the bill that Senator Burns and
    Senator Hollings that passed by the committee, is that going to
    broaden your authority.
        Mr. Kennard. Yes; I am encouraged by that. It will give us
    more enforcement authority, a treble damages provision, pretty
    hefty fines. So I think that would be a help as well.
        Senator Campbell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Gregg. Senator Stevens.
        Senator Stevens. Yes, sir. Good morning, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Gregg. Good morning.

                             Universal service fund

        Senator Stevens. I would like to get a little philosophical
    with you, if I can. What is more important to the
    communications program of the FCC: Universal service, or the
    schools, libraries, and health care hook ups?
        Mr. Kennard. Well, Senator, I think I go back to the
    statute, because my job is to implement the law. Both
    provisions, both universal service for funding high cost in
    insular areas, and schools and libraries are in the statute.
        And so we have a statutory obligation to implement both.
    Both are important.
        Senator Stevens. The universal service fund preceded the
    schools and libraries amendment, and was in being. Did the FCC
    do any studies to indicate what would be required to maintain
    the universal service concept, particularly for the high cost,
    low income universal service fund, before starting to take
    money out of it for schools, libraries, and health facilities
    hook ups?
        Mr. Kennard. Well, the----
        Senator Stevens. I want to know did you make a study.
        Mr. Kennard. Did we make a study of----
        Senator Stevens. The impact on the fund by the withdrawals
    that you proposed to make.
        Mr. Kennard. I cannot say that we did, no. I am hesitating,
    though, because the high cost funding mechanism, as you know,
    sir, has been in place for many years.
        Senator Stevens. Right.
        Mr. Kennard. And will continue in place without taking any
    money out of it.
        Senator Stevens. Well, sir, how do you know that if you do
    not know how much it needs to continue? This is an entirely new
    drawdown on the fund at an alarming rate. Do you know when the
    lines cross as to the availability of funds to meet the
    universal service fund obligations and the withdrawals for this
    new purpose?
        Mr. Kennard. Well, I do not think they are mutually
    exclusive. I think they are all part of universal service. And
    Congress directed that we have a mechanism to fund both high
    cost and schools and libraries.
        Senator Stevens. That is right.
        Mr. Kennard. Now, the obvious question that we have to
    grapple with is to ensure that we can do both without putting
    too much stress on the system, if you will.
        Senator Stevens. Congress did not put a time limit on it,
    and you did. Congress did not put a goal of the year 2000 and
    you did. That is an interesting year that you picked, but
    beyond that, without regard to political concepts, it does seem
    that there is enormous drawdown, and the impact of what is
    happening now is that the fund itself could well reach the
    point where it could not meet the basic purposes for which it
    was founded.
        Congress did not tell you to destroy the universal service
    concept in order to hook up schools and libraries immediately.
    It just said put together a program to hook them up. We all
    supported that. But now we see real confusion in the system.
    Are you going to raise rates again in the next quarter in order
    to keep the fund solvent?
        Mr. Kennard. Well, let me be clear, Senator. The Commission
    has not raised rates to pay for universal service. The
    Commission has very carefully ensured that the universal
    service funding obligation for schools, libraries, and rural
    health care is not in excess of reductions in access charges.
        So we can be confident that overall rates should continue
    to decline in the long distance marketplace. And I think that
    that is a really important concept, and I think, in fact, that
    that concept is a part of the amendment to the supplemental
    appropriations bill that you offered this week.
        Senator Stevens. We are going to have to see whether that
    gets through--and I hope it does--when we get the answers from
    the FCC.
        But I would think that any concern that is initiating a new
    program that would take money from an existing fund that had
    existing obligations, and an ongoing drawdown from the fund
    along with ongoing income coming into the fund, would make an
    analysis of what this new program would require, and how the
    funds could be taken from that existing fund to meet that new
    obligation without destroying the old one. Apparently you made
    no such study. Right?
        Mr. Kennard. Well, let me be clear, Senator. The premise of
    your question seems to be that we are taking money from the
    high cost fund to fund the schools and libraries mechanism, and
    that is not the case.
        We are not robbing from Peter to pay Paul here. It is a
    separate mechanism. The only question that could be asked is
    are we putting too much stress on the system overall? But
    overall, we are trying to ensure that rates continue to decline
    overall, and we are not taking money out of high-cost funding
    to pay for schools and libraries.
        Senator Stevens. Not at all?
        Mr. Kennard. No; that has never been the----
        Senator Stevens. I will be interested in the answers to the
    questions then, because unless you have some new, mythical pool
    that I do not understand, you have to be taking some money from
    that fund in order to meet the obligations that you have
    incurred. Are you going to wire the inside of these schools
    with money from the fund?
        Mr. Kennard. Well, the current FCC rules do permit funding
    for wiring of the schools, yes.
        Senator Stevens. That is part of universal service? To put
    the facilities inside a school to plug in a computer and to
    plug in the outside fiber optic to serve that computer?
        Mr. Kennard. Well, I think that a fair reading of the
    conference report for the 1996 act is that Congress intended
    that there be wiring of the classrooms, not just one Internet
    access point to the schools. I think that is a fair reading of
    the statute, so the Commission adopted rules that would make
    that----
        Senator Stevens. I think your fair reading of the
    conference report would be that it was not assumed we would
    just have one computer per classroom. But it did not
    contemplate we would be wiring schools.
        If I were in the electrical business right now, I think I
    would head for the schools, but it's just an open season. What
    is the guideline for wiring them? How many rooms can you wire
    in a school? How much can you spend to replace existing wiring
    that may be defective and needs it, but certainly not an
    obligation to the universal service fund.
        I am just appalled, really, at the way the program has been
    accelerated for political purposes, frankly. And I think you
    are going to end up by destroying the universal service fund if
    you are not careful. I hope the Congress will agree that we can
    ask you those questions and get them on the record.
        I hope you are very serious about it, because I am very
    serious about it. I think if the FCC cannot learn to follow the
    law, and not try to see how far it can stretch the law, we
    ought to get a new mechanism for telecommunications in this
    country. The problems we are having with regard to the issues--
    I know Senator Hollings raised before I was here--with the FCC
    legislating on issues that we have debated at least 20 times
    since Senator Hollings and I have been in the Congress. The FCC
    apparently seems to think it can take a direction, an edict
    from a vice president, and start to legislate.
        Now, once before we had trouble with the FCC, and two of us
    reduced it from five to three. If it continues, we will reduce
    it to zero, as far as this Senator is concerned, because I
    think you are going much beyond the concepts that are in
    existing laws.
        I hope that the FCC will wake up. There are other
    mechanisms for carrying out our obligations to the
    telecommunications system, and many of my colleagues argued at
    the time we were handling the telecommunications bill for
    complete deregulation.
        Some of us argued against that--that it was not timely--but
    your FCC is making the case for the people who wanted to just
    destroy it 2 years ago. I think the Senator from South Carolina
    and I may join them, and build a new system which will be
    responsive to the public need, not to the political will of
    whatever administration is in power.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Gregg. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to
    associate myself with your comments.
        Following up on the universal service issue, GAO has issued
    a legal opinion that the FCC exceeded its authority in
    implementing this language. What is your response to the GAO
    position?
        Mr. Kennard. Senator, this issue is being litigated in the
    court, so I have to be somewhat careful about what I say here.
    I think that the Commission made a reasonable argument that the
    funding mechanisms that were set up are lawful under two key
    provisions of the act, section 254 and section 4(i).
        That being said, though, we are obviously concerned about
    the GAO report, and I am committed to working with Members of
    the Congress to make sure that on a going forward basis we are
    not haunted by this issue, and that we come up with some way to
    resolve it. Because we do not want to set up a funding
    mechanism that has a legal cloud over it. And there are ways
    that we can fix that, and I am looking forward to working with
    you all to figure that out.
        Senator Gregg. Well, if you get a report from your
    accounting office, if you were in the private sector, that said
    you had acted illegally--we could ask our next witness this
    question--if you were to file a report on your 10-K that said
    you acted illegally, and you were still acting illegally, I
    think you might have some serious problems, if your accounting
    agency said you were acting illegally and you were not
    responding to it.
        Mr. Kennard. Senator, I am not trying to minimize the
    problem, but I am saying we need to work this out. There are
    provisions in the supplemental appropriations amendment that
    addressed this. I do not think it would be prudent to act
    precipitously and just put the brakes on a program that is up
    and running and is underway. But obviously we have got to find
    ways to address these concerns and problems. And you have my
    commitment that we are going to work with you to try to do
    that.

                   selection of Corporation and Board members

        Senator Gregg. How are the heads of these corporations
    chosen? How is the leadership for the Schools and Libraries
    Corp. chosen?
        Mr. Kennard. I believe they are chosen by the Board of
    Directors, with the approval of the Chairman of the FCC.
        Senator Gregg. And who chooses the Board of Directors?
        Mr. Kennard. The Board of Directors are basically nominated
    by various stakeholders in this debate. So the Commission tried
    to come up with a balanced approach.
        Senator Gregg. Who chooses them? These corporations were
    formed by the FCC.
        Mr. Kennard. Right.
        Senator Gregg. And the Board of Directors were essentially
    created and appointed by the FCC.
        Mr. Kennard. Yes; they are nominated by the various
    stakeholders, and the authority----
        Senator Gregg. It is determined by the FCC.
        Mr. Kennard. Yes; ultimately the Chairman of the FCC makes
    the appointments.
        Senator Gregg. Can you tell me what sort of background the
    present president of the Schools and Libraries Corp. has that
    would qualify him for this position?
        Mr. Kennard. Yes; Mr. Fishman is an attorney who has
    practiced law for many years, and has been very involved in
    education issues. I believe he worked--I am not sure if I have
    his whole curriculum vitae correct, but I believe he worked at
    a law firm in Washington, and then worked in the White House
    for a period of time, and then came to the FCC. He then went
    back to law practice and was appointed head of the Schools and
    Libraries Corp.
        Senator Gregg. He is really a political person.
        Mr. Kennard. I do not think it is fair to say he is a
    political person, Senator. Let me say this about this
    corporation. It was established in September, and they have
    worked very, very hard and done a tremendous job, in my view,
    to get this corporation up and running to the point where it is
    now.
        They set up a website. They have accepted almost 40,000
    applications. They have done outreach around the country. I
    cannot imagine this effort being done better by Government or
    by another enterprise. I think they have done a fantastic job.
        Senator Gregg. Well, I hope they do, because obviously this
    corporation is going to have potentially $2.3 billion or so
    under the terms of the documentation. That is a lot of money,
    and it has to be managed effectively. The management team that
    is over there cannot be lawyers and politicians; they should be
    business people and people who have some experience with
    technology especially.
        Senator Hollings. I wish you had considered me for that
    job. [Laughter.]
        I am just reading here, he gets $200,000 plus $50,000;
    $250,000. I am only getting $136,000. I have to keep up two
    homes, run back home, organize a $5 million corporation. We
    worked until 9:30 last night on the Budget Committee. And I
    have been in education a long time. [Laughter.]
        $250,000?
        Senator Gregg. Sounds good to me, too. I do not think I
    qualify, but you do.

                                    Portals

        The Portals issue appears to be a building that you do not
    want to move into. I understand it now has problems with its
    wiring. Maybe we should have the Schools and Libraries Corp. go
    over and wire it. But I understand it has serious wiring
    problems. That it is potentially going to cost more than what
    your present landlord may offer to you. You did not create this
    problem. I do not lay it at your doorstep at all. All I want to
    know is what do you folks really want to do here? Tell us, one
    way or the other. Do you want to move over there or don't you
    want to move over there?
        Mr. Kennard. I have reviewed the chronology of this effort
    to consolidate the Commission in new headquarters, and it has
    been a 10-year-old effort. It is a long chronology. And at this
    point, I think that we have to resolve this situation. The
    Government is paying rent on a building that no one is in right
    now. I could spend hours talking about the problems in getting
    us to this point, and the difficulties we have had with GSA
    over time.
        But at this point I think it is appropriate for us to just
    look forward. The FCC needs to consolidate its operations in
    one headquarters. This has been a need for over 10 years now. I
    think the Portals building, although not perfect, does offer us
    the opportunity to move somewhere sooner rather than later.
        That is why I sent you a letter, Mr. Chairman, asking that
    we get clarity from the Congress as to whether we are going to
    have funding to make this move. Because if the money is
    available, I think we should go ahead and move. I think it is
    frankly an embarrassment for the Government to be paying $1.7
    million in rent on an empty building. But if we decide we are
    not going to go, then the GSA is going to either have to break
    that lease, which is going to cost the Government lots of
    money, or they are going to have to find some other agency to
    move in there. And it will take years to get another agency in
    that building. So I think we are at a point where we have got
    to cut our losses, and just move ahead.
        But that being said, I do not think it is appropriate for
    the FCC to move into a building unless it meets our minimal
    needs. That is, we must have funding to pay the rent, because
    it would not be appropriate for us to be laying off 100 people
    in order to pay our rent.
        And, second, I think that we have to make sure that our
    security concerns are met in that building. I have not received
    assurances from GSA or the current landlord that our security
    needs will be met. This is a very, very important issue to me.
    Because the FCC is a fairly high profile agency, we get bomb
    threats. We had an employee who was murdered some years ago by
    a crazy person, and I do not want to leave this agency some
    years hence and lose sleep at night not knowing that I did
    everything I could to make sure that our employees are
    protected.
        Senator Gregg. I think that is a pretty good answer, and we
    will try to give you our view.
        Mr. Kennard. I understand the issues.

                       Public safety spectrum application

        Senator Gregg. About 3 or 4 years ago, I think--I have lost
    track now, because I have asked it so many times--New Hampshire
    had a public safety spectrum application, and it is still
    somewhere in your agency. Are you familiar at all with this?
    Did your staff mention this to you?
        Mr. Kennard. I am familiar with it. Yes; I have been
    briefed on it. I cannot address the substance, because it is a
    restricted, contested proceeding, and under our rules I cannot
    talk about that publicly. But I will commit that we will
    resolve it. It has been pending too long. I have been told that
    it has been pending for 4 years or so. And we will bring it to
    a resolution.
        Senator Gregg. What would be the date that we could expect
    a decision? Within 1 month?
        Mr. Kennard. I do not know what the pleading cycles are,
    but assuming the pleading cycles are all over, I will commit
    within 30 days we will get that resolved for you.
        Senator Gregg. Any more questions?

                             Universal service fund

        Senator Hollings. No; Mr. Chairman, I would emphasize the
    concern of all of us. We have the best communications system in
    the world, and with that as a starter, let us not mess it up by
    messing up universal service.
        You are right. We can do both, but you cannot invade that
    universal service fund, and you cannot just overnight put in
    all of these charges and kill the gun crew, namely the
    Congressmen and Senators, with these charges appearing on these
    particular invoices.
        What happens is we go from a monopoly situation, in the
    public interest, whereby the companies did not mind putting on
    these charges. Right to the point, my schools are all wired,
    already. Voluntarily. Because I take it they can take it out of
    the rates and go, because they can always apply for it.
        But now you are moving over into the competitive
    environment, and in that environment they will try to pick
    every little advantage or disadvantage or listing or whatever
    it is, as you can well see. And that takes some time, too.
        You just cannot get every school wired and every classroom
    wired by the year 2000. It would be my hope, of course, to get
    those classrooms wired. That is what this Senator had in mind,
    because the communications companies such as Bell South and
    other independent ones have all voluntarily joined together and
    all my schools are wired right now, but not every classroom.
        So let us always keep our eye on the ball, namely
    maintaining the universal service, the wonderful
    telecommunications system that we have, and in our effort to
    try to extend Internet to all the users in the schools and
    hospitals and libraries in America, we should ensure we don't
    turn around and mess up the good system we have, or the gun
    crew.
        They say in the artillery, no matter how well a gun is
    aimed, if the recoil is going to kill the gun crew, you do not
    fire it. Remember that.
        Mr. Kennard. I will, Senator.
        Senator Hollings. Yes, siree.

                               Cable regulations

        Senator Gregg. I have been asked by a Senator to ask you a
    question. It is clear that the Congress is not going to remove
    the March 1999 sunset on cable regulations. Rather than
    debating that point, what is the FCC doing to support
    competitive alternatives to cable?
        Mr. Kennard. We are doing a number of things, Senator. One
    key is to review program access. Programming is really the
    engine that drives the cable and multichannel and video
    business. So it is very important in my view that we make sure
    that competitors to cable get access to programming.
        In the 1992 Cable Act, there were provisions on program
    access that literally spawned the competitive DBS industry. So
    one of the first things that I did as chairman, was to present
    a set of proposed rules to strengthen the program access
    requirements, and we will be bringing those to conclusion in
    the next few months.
        But I do think that there is a role for Congress here to
    play, too. I think that in order to strengthen DBS as a
    potential competitor to cable, it would be really wonderful in
    my view if DBS could get legislation that would allow them to
    carry the local signals of broadcast stations. Because then
    they would be a stronger competitor to cable. And DBS is really
    the best hope we have right now of quickly bringing new
    multichannel competition to the cable business.
        Senator Hollings. Thank you, sir.
        Senator Gregg. We thank you for your time, and I do think
    there have been some fairly definitive statements made relative
    to where we hope the Commission would be proceeding, and
    certainly by the chairman of the committee and the ranking
    member, and my joining in those statements.
        We have a big job. We want to support you.
        Mr. Kennard. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

                         Additional committee questions

        Senator Gregg. We look forward to working with you.
        Mr. Kennard. Me, too. Thank you very much.
        Senator Hollings. Thank you, sir.
        Senator Gregg. We will be briefly in recess.
        [The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
    were submitted to the Commission for response subsequent to the
    hearing:]
                         Additional Committee Questions
                 government performance and results act [gpra]
        Question. How are the agency's annual performance goals linked to
    the agency's mission, strategic goals and program activities in its
    budget request?
        Answer. From their inception, both the FCC Strategic Plan and the
    Annual Performance Plan for fiscal year 1999 were based on our four
    budget activities--policy and rulemaking, authorization of service,
    enforcement and public information services. Linking strategic and
    annual performance to the program activity structure required some
    reformatting of our annual budget submission but did not require any
    modification to the activity structure itself.
        Question. Could you describe the process used to link your
    performance goals to your budget activities?
        Answer. We have viewed the performance goals and measurements
    required for the Annual Performance Plan as specific subsets of the
    generic Strategic Objectives and measurements contained in our
    Strategic Plan. These, in turn, are based on our four budget
    activities. To test the validity of this approach, we have modeled
    several performance goals for each strategic objective listed under
    each of our four budget activities. For example:
        Budget Activity.--Enforcement.
        Strategic Objective.--The FCC will privatize all technical
    enforcement functions that the private sector can perform more
    effectively.
        Performance Measurement.--The number of enforcement functions
    successfully privatized (output).
        Annual Performance Goal.--The Compliance and Information Bureau
    will complete a rulemaking on further privatization of interference
    complaint processing.
        Annual Performance Measurement.--Whether the privatization of
    interference complaint handling rulemaking was completed and
    implemented (output) and the initial impact completion of the
    rulemaking had on targeted customer(s) (outcome).
        Question. Does the agency's Performance Plan link performance
    measures to its budget?
        Does each account have performance measures?
        Answer. For the past few fiscal years, the FCC's budget has been
    reduced or straightlined by Congress (excluding funding for
    implementation of the Telecommunications Act). Our performance plan
    links measures to our budget and our goals are based on the assumption
    that we will not receive significant additional resources in fiscal
    year 1999. Every goal, except for the completion of expansion of the
    National Call Center and work on Year 2000 compliance initiatives--can
    be completed within the budgetary levels allocated by Congress. We are
    able to accomplish this through streamlining our organizational
    structure and processes and through a careful review and ranking of our
    major technology and policy initiatives.
        Question. To what extent does your performance planning structure
    differ from the account and activity structure in your budget
    justification?
        Do you propose any changes to your account structure for fiscal
    year 2000?
        Will you propose any changes to the program activities described
    under that account structure?
        Answer. As mentioned in our response to the first question, we have
    used our four budget activities as the framework for our Strategic and
    Annual Performance Plans. Using this approach as the basis of our
    strategic planning will enable us to adequately predict future workload
    and the resources required to meet this workload. We do not anticipate
    any changes in our account structure in fiscal year 2000.
        Question. How were performance measures chosen?
        How did the agency balance the cost of data collection and
    verification with the need for reliable and valid performance data?
        Does your plan include performance measures for which reliable data
    are not likely to be available in time for your first performance
    report in March 2000?
        Answer. In planning the means to measure performance, the FCC
    sought to build on existing reporting systems rather than construct new
    ones. Our quarterly Workload Reports and Planning Commitment Charts
    have been expanded to capture all GPRA-related goals. Reports required
    by the Telecommunications Act or other Congressional requests for
    information such as the Biennial Review of FCC Rules and Regulations
    and the ``State of Competition'' reports will be used both to report on
    our major deregulatory, streamlining initiatives and to assess the
    growth in competitive telecommunications services. Our Annual Report
    and periodic customer service surveys will evaluate our coordination
    efforts with state and local governments, private organizations and
    with telecommunications consumers. Finally, our automated systems, such
    as the Common Carrier Bureau's informal complaints processing system
    and the Compliance and Information Bureau's National Call Center are
    capable of complex reporting on enforcement and public information
    service initiatives on a monthly, quarterly and annual basis.
        As we have stated elsewhere in this reply, several of our major
    policy and rulemaking performance goals--mainly those concerning
    competition in the local telephone markets and our efforts to provide
    advanced telecommunications services to schools, libraries and to rural
    areas--have either just been implemented or are still in litigation.
    Any attempt to assess the impacts or outcomes of these policy decisions
    in fiscal year 1999 would be rudimentary at best. We believe that it
    will be several years following the end of litigation and
    implementation of our final rules before any accurate determination can
    be made concerning the effects of our actions to either stimulate
    competition or ensure that communications capabilities are provided to
    all those who need access to them.
        Question. What are the key performance goals from your fiscal year
    1999 Annual Performance Plan which you recommend this subcommittee use
    to track program results?
        For each key annual goal, indicate whether you consider it to be an
    output measure (``how much'') or an outcome measure (``how well'').
        State the long-term (fiscal year 2003) general goal and objective
    from the agency Strategic Plan to which the annual plan is linked.
        Answer. In our fiscal year 1999 Annual Performance Plan, the FCC
    has committed to 69 performance goals, spread over 13 strategic
    objectives which are divided equally over our four budget activities.
    Twenty-nine, or 42 percent of total number of goals, are in the policy
    and rulemaking activity and are required rulemakings mandated by the
    Telecommunications Act or other legislation. However, we believe that
    Congress could capture the ``state of the FCC'' by tracking the
    following key performance goals listed here by budget activity:

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                   Activity                         Strategic goals              Fiscal year 1999 performance goals
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Authorization of Service...........  We will meet our established customer  We will review our authorization of
                                          Speed of Service processing goals.     service rules and will simplify and
                                         We will encourage competition in the    streamline those authorization
                                          telecommunications industry through    requirements where appropriate.
                                          efficient licensing and                (output and outcome)
                                          authorization of service to           We will meet 90 percent of our
                                          competitive services.                  customer Speed of Disposal
                                                                                 processing goals. (output and
                                                                                 outcome)
                                                                                We will provide electronic filing
                                                                                 capabilities for Common Carrier
                                                                                 Bureau, Mass Media Bureau,
                                                                                 International Bureau, Wireless
                                                                                 Telecommunications Bureau and
                                                                                 Office of Engineering and
                                                                                 Technology licensing systems.
                                                                                 (output and outcome)
    Policy and Rulemaking..............  We will restructure and streamline     We will review the FCC's functions
                                          the FCC, eliminating outdated or       and structure and eliminate
                                          redundant organizations and            obsolete or overlapping ones.
                                          overlapping regulation.                (outcome)
                                                                                We will continue to hold public
                                                                                 fora, meet with our state
                                                                                 regulatory partners, and consumer
                                                                                 groups to solicit input and
                                                                                 feedback to ensure our rules are in
                                                                                 the public interest and are the
                                                                                 least burdensome to achieve our
                                                                                 stated goals. (outcome)
                                         We will encourage competition in the   We will continue to implement the
                                          telecommunications industry through    local competition provisions of the
                                          procompetitive, deregulatory           Telecommunications Act of 1996.
                                          rulemakings, reducing consumer costs   (output)
                                          and increasing the                    We will work to improve the
                                          telecommunications choices available   connections of classrooms,
                                          to consumers.                          libraries and rural health care
                                                                                 facilities to the Internet by the
                                                                                 end of fiscal year 1999 and to
                                                                                 maintain affordable
                                                                                 telecommunications services to
                                                                                 rural America. (outcome)
                                                                                We will apply, and continue to
                                                                                 refine, pricing rules which allow
                                                                                 incumbent Local Exchange Carriers
                                                                                 additional flexibility in pricing
                                                                                 interstate access consistent with
                                                                                 the development of competition.
                                                                                 (outcome)
                                                                                We will ensure that public safety
                                                                                 groups have adequate spectrum and
                                                                                 advanced telecommunications
                                                                                 equipment by completing ``The
                                                                                 Development of Operational,
                                                                                 Technical and Spectrum Requirements
                                                                                 for Meeting Federal, State and
                                                                                 Local Public Safety Agency
                                                                                 Communication Requirements through
                                                                                 the Year 2010''. (outcome)
                                                                                We will continue to participate in
                                                                                 global standard setting for
                                                                                 telecommunications services.
                                                                                 (outcome)
                                         We will reduce reporting requirements  We will conduct a review of our
                                          and eliminate unnecessary and          rules and regulations in fiscal
                                          burdensome rules.                      year 1998 to determine which can be
                                                                                 eliminated or revised. In fiscal
                                                                                 year 1999, we will initiate
                                                                                 rulemakings to eliminate obsolete
                                                                                 or overlapping regulatory and/or
                                                                                 reporting requirements. (output/
                                                                                 outcome)
                                                                                We will continue implementation of
                                                                                 the World Trade Organization Basic
                                                                                 Services Agreement which will allow
                                                                                 WTO-member nations to apply for
                                                                                 authorization to provide
                                                                                 competitive telecommunications
                                                                                 services to U.S. customers.
                                                                                 (output)
    Enforcement........................  We will streamline our complaints      We will improve the Speed of
                                          process and procedures to ensure       Disposal for routine informal
                                          timely and satisfactory resolution     common carrier complaints by 20
                                          of consumer complaints.                percent. (outcome)
                                                                                We will review broadcast and cable
                                                                                 enforcement processes and eliminate
                                                                                 inefficient procedures and
                                                                                 practices. (output/outcome)
                                         We will work as a partner with the     We will continue to work closely
                                          private sector and with federal,       with other federal agencies, state
                                          state and local governments in the     commissions and the public to
                                          investigation and resolution of        ensure the expeditious processing
                                          shared telecommunications problems     of Bell Operating Company Section
                                          focusing particularly on issues        271 applications. (output)
                                          affecting the safety of life and      We will continue to work with other
                                          property. This will ensure that        federal agencies, state
                                          problem resolution is achieved         commissions, and state attorneys
                                          quickly at the least possible cost     general to protect the public
                                          and with state and local interests     interest, especially in the area of
                                          duly considered.                       consumer related complaints,
                                                                                 including when it involves unlawful
                                                                                 activity by foreign entities that
                                                                                 affect American telecommunications
                                                                                 users. (outcome)
                                         We will identify industry and          We will continue to monitor
                                          consumer issues through customer       potential anti-competitive behavior
                                          feedback on the impact of our rules,   by carriers in providing
                                          the levels of enforcement, the         information services. (outcome)
                                          effects of nonenforcement and the     We will meet with industry and the
                                          need for revisions to our              public to discuss current
                                          enforcement policies and procedures.   telecommunications concerns and
                                                                                 complaints. We will identify the
                                                                                 main consumer complaints concerning
                                                                                 telecommunications services and
                                                                                 coordinate agency-wide actions to
                                                                                 resolve them. (outcome)
    Public Information Services........  We will provide ``one stop''           We will complete the implementation
                                          information shopping through           of the National Call Center in
                                          consolidation of our public            Gettysburg, Pa. to provide ``one
                                          reference rooms and other              stop shopping'' for telephone
                                          information services.                  inquiries. (output/outcome)
                                         We will design our information         We will design and implement
                                          systems for Internet applications as   Internet-compatible licensing
                                          well as other media to ensure rapid    applications. (output/outcome)
                                          and efficient dissemination of        We will routinely host public fora
                                          information to our customers.          to discuss a broad range of legal,
                                         We will encourage public                policy, and technical issues raised
                                          participation in all FCC proceedings   in various FCC rulemaking
                                          to ensure all parties' views are       proceedings. (outcome)
                                          heard and that there is speedy
                                          resolution of issues.
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Question. In developing your Annual Performance Plan, what efforts
    did your agency undertake to ensure that the goals in the plan include
    a significant number of outcome measures?
        Answer. Whenever possible, we have formulated outcome performance
    measures that assess the impact of our actions on our customers and our
    stakeholders. However, we should emphasize that many of our fiscal year
    1999 performance goals, particularly our policy initiatives, are
    related to the FCC's traditional rulemaking procedures which are
    governed by the statutory requirements of the Administrative Procedure
    Act and result from requirements of the Telecommunications Act of 1996
    or agency-initiated proceedings to effectively continue implementation
    of the Act. Because these initiatives are prescribed by legal
    requirements, they are more output in nature--whether a rulemaking was
    completed or rules reviewed--although the long-term impact of these
    goals will ultimately be measurable outcomes. However, any attempt to
    assess impacts or outcomes of these activities at this time would be
    premature, since many of our deregulatory initiatives are currently in
    litigation. In addition, although we continue to monitor competition in
    the telecommunications industry, it will be several years following the
    end of litigation and implementation of final agency rules before any
    determination can be made of the effect of our actions on the industry.
    Finally, as both OMB and GAO have noted in their published guidelines,
    determining the effect of a regulatory agency's actions on a
    marketplace in an expanding industry where there are many factors
    contributing to its overall economic state can be challenging.
        Question. Do you have the technological capability of measuring and
    reporting program performance throughout the year on a regular basis,
    so that the agency can be properly managed to achieve the desired
    results?
        If so, who has access to the information--senior management only,
    or mid- and lower-level program managers, too?
        Are you able to gain access easily to various performance-related
    data located throughout your various information systems?
        Answer. The FCC has several monthly, quarterly, and annual
    reporting systems in place which will track and provide data on whether
    we are meeting our performance goals. Chief among these are our
    Quarterly Workload Reports and Quarterly Commitment Charts which track
    and measure many of our authorization of service, policy and rulemaking
    and enforcement initiatives.
        Our Bureaus and Offices also conduct periodic consumer surveys to
    obtain feedback from their customers on how well they are doing in
    their efforts to improve performance in all four budget activities.
    Survey results are routinely published on each of the Bureaus'/Offices'
    Home Pages on the Internet.
        These and other management reports are prepared in the
    administrative offices of each of our Bureaus and Offices by mid-level
    management staff. They are reviewed and analyzed by senior management
    staff throughout the agency. There are no access restrictions to these
    reports within the FCC.
        Question. The Government Performance and Results Act requires that
    your agency's Annual Performance Plan establish performance goals to
    define the level of performance achieved by each program activity set
    forth in your budget.
        Many agencies have indicated that their present budget account
    structure makes it difficult to link dollars to results in a clear and
    meaningful way.
        Have you faced such difficulty?
        Would the linkages be clearer if your budget account structure were
    modified?
        If so, how would you propose to modify it and why do you believe
    such modification would be more useful both to your agency and to this
    committee than the present structure?
        How would such modification strengthen accountability for program
    performance in the use of budgeted dollars?
        Answer. From the inception of GPRA implementation at the FCC, it
    was our intent to ``marry'' our Annual Performance Plan and our annual
    budget submission. We believe that this approach will facilitate not
    only the formulation and tracking of our goals and accomplishments but
    also the identification of any future resource requirements. We do not
    require any modification to our budget account structure at this time.
        We should also add that the FCC is fully funded each year through
    the collection of regulatory fees. Every year we collect data on the
    number of licensees or subscriber units in each of our services and
    compare these to the costs of our doing business in each of the fee
    categories. The cost of regulation is adjusted each year as the
    workload increases or decreases for a specific service. This allows us
    not only to capture our regulatory costs but project future workload.
        Question. Under one of the new accounting standards recommended by
    the Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board (FASAB) and issued by
    OMB, this year for the first time all federal agencies are required to
    have a system of Managerial Cost Accounting.
        The clearly preferred methodology for such a system, as stated in
    that standard, is the one known as ``activity-based costing,'' whereby
    the full cost is calculated for each of the activities of an agency.
        What is the status of your agency's implementation of the
    Managerial Cost Accounting requirement, and are you using activity-
    based costing?
        Answer. The Commission implemented a comprehensive cost accounting
    system on October 1, 1995. The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of
    1993, Public Law 103-66, authorized a new user fee program for certain
    FCC regulatory programs. This law also required the Commission to
    develop a cost accounting system that would provide data to be used in
    annual modifications to the regulatory fee rate structure. The cost
    accounting system, which has been operational for about two years and
    six months, meets all of the recommended accounting standards developed
    by the Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board (FASAB), except for
    the accumulation of outputs and performance measures. Some workload
    data is available elsewhere in the Commission but is not linked to the
    cost accounting system at this time.
        Activity-based costing is being used by the Commission. The cost
    accounting system provides full cost reporting (direct and indirect) on
    all FCC costs. This data is further broken out by budget activity,
    project and cost organization by appropriation and/or account by fiscal
    year.
        Question. Will you be able in the future to show to this committee
    the full and accurate cost of each activity of each program, including
    in those calculations such items as administration, employee benefits,
    and depreciation?
        Answer. Yes, in fact that information is currently available. We
    accumulate costs monthly for both direct and indirect items. The
    indirect costs which include such items as administration, employee
    benefits, leave, rental of space, telecommunications, etc. are
    mechanically allocated monthly. The distribution is based on allocation
    models developed for each type of expense. We do not cost out
    depreciation but expense the actual cost of purchases. However, we do
    record depreciation at fiscal year end for balance sheet purposes.
        Question. By doing so, would we then be able to see more precisely
    the relationship between the dollars spent on a program, the true costs
    of the activities conducted by the program, and the results of these
    activities?
        Answer. Currently, full costs (direct and indirect) are available
    for all FCC programs. However, as stated previously, the cost data is
    not linked to ``results'' or performance measures at this time.
        Question. Future funding decisions will take into consideration
    actual performance compared to expected or target performance. Given
    that:
        To what extent are your performance measures sufficiently mature to
    allow for these kinds of uses?
        Are there any factors, such as inexperience in making activities or
    lack of data, that might affect the accuracy of resource estimates?
        Answer. The FCC is a small regulatory agency with a clearly defined
    mission and specific activities. It would not be difficult for us to
    adopt a results-based budget in the near future--with one caveat. Even
    our agency, with a defined mission and limited activities, experiences
    unpredictable workload fluctuations and changes. Some accommodation
    must be made in the GPRA-planning process to allow for these changes.
    For example, the FCC cannot predict the nature, scope and number of
    consumer complaints and inquiries that our deregulatory initiatives may
    engender in fiscal year 1999. Nor can we predict the number and types
    of new telecommunications services which will be introduced or which
    will experience unpredicted growth in the near-term. Long distance
    telephone service via the Internet, and set top boxes providing
    consumers with a wide range of telecommunications services are just two
    possibilities that appear on the current horizon. Finally, Congress
    frequently passes new legislation or imposes additional reporting
    requirements on us, expanding our regulatory responsibilities and
    workload. Often, these additional responsibilities are not accompanied
    with the requisite resources; instead, we are asked to assume the
    workload ``within existing resources.'' Congress must provide agencies
    with the ability and flexibility to redirect resources, eliminate or
    amend specific performance goals, and refocus their activities if GPRA
    is to be a complete success.
        Question. Based on your fiscal year 1999 performance plan, do you
    see any need for any substantive revisions to your strategic plan
    issued on September 30, 1997?
        Answer. Although we believe that our current Strategic Plan
    reflects our fundamental mission and activities, we intend to review
    and, if necessary, revise and reformat the Strategic Plan within the
    next two years.
                                     ______

                Questions Submitted by Senator Pete V. Domenici
        Question. Chairman Kennard, your testimony mentions the final rules
    and channel assignments the Commission made last month for the
    transition to digital TV. I understand that in that final decision, the
    Commission gave broadcasters an additional 30 megahertz of spectrum
    that had not been contemplated when the two sets of channel assignments
    were under consideration for most of the past year.
        Could you please explain to me the rationale for expanding the
    amount for digital TV by 30 MHz beyond the FCC's or the industry's
    original plan?
        Answer. The decision to expand the DTV core spectrum to include
    channels 2-51 was based on a number of considerations. The Commission's
    original plan to specify the core as either channels 2-46 or 7-51
    (depending on which channels are better for DTV), was based on studies
    showing that after the transition is complete the DTV operations of all
    existing stations could be accommodated within 45 channels. Subsequent
    to that decision, new testing by the Advanced Television Technology
    Center (ATTC) indicated that the adjacent channel interference
    performance of the DTV system, particularly with respect to DTV-to-DTV
    interference, will be 100 times worse than originally planned for. This
    new data means that, except where adjacent channel DTV operations are
    co-located, DTV stations must be located farther apart to avoid
    interference than we originally planned. This reduces our ability to
    use some channels in the same or nearby markets, with the result that
    it will not be possible to locate the DTV operations of all the
    existing TV stations in only 45 channels as originally planned. Thus,
    in our recent Memorandum Opinion and Order on DTV allotments, we had to
    increase the size of the core spectrum in order to ensure that all
    existing DTV stations would be able to continue to operate after the
    transition. This change will also mean less interference to existing
    broadcasters in major markets during the transition.
        The Commission also found that providing an additional five
    channels for DTV will promote additional competition and diversity in
    the provision of DTV services by increasing the availability of
    channels for new stations and networks. With the additional channels
    there will be opportunities for new stations in many markets after the
    transition. This change will also eliminate mandatory second moves into
    the core for about 120 broadcasters at the end of the transition.
        Increasing the DTV core spectrum will also reduce the impact on low
    power television stations. In this regard, the Commission noted that
    channels 2-6 and 47-51 now support a significant number of low power
    and TV translators. The low VHF channels, for example, have some of the
    highest concentration of low power stations and translators. Expanding
    the core to include channels 2-6 will eliminate the eventual
    displacement of most of these stations. In addition, expanding the core
    will provide low power stations with more channels and opportunities
    for new stations and relocation of existing stations. This change,
    therefore, will provide for continued operation of some 500 additional
    low power TV and TV translator stations that provide service to many
    suburban and rural areas and that otherwise might have been required to
    cease operation.
        Finally the Commission noted that expanding the DTV core spectrum
    will still permit recovery of 108 MHz of spectrum at the end of the
    transition period, which is more than one-fourth of the total spectrum
    used for broadcast television today. This amount of spectrum is
    significantly more than the Commission's original plan in 1992 to
    recover 72 MHz of spectrum. I also believe that from a budget stand
    point our decision regarding the core spectrum is comparable to our
    prior decision regarding core spectrum because the new DTV channels
    created by this action will be assigned through competitive bidding
    pursuant to the Budget Act of 1997. The Commission's analysis indicates
    that expanding the core will add approximately 175 additional channels
    for new stations, and that many of these new channels will be in top
    markets. For example, there potentially may be one or more new channels
    available in New York, Los Angeles, San Francisco, and Washington, D.C.
    Most of the new channels will be awarded through competitive bidding
    procedures as required under new Section 309(j)(14)(C) of the
    Communications Act.
                                c block licenses
        Question. Chairman Kennard, your staff advised me last week that
    the Commission would be issuing a decision this week that revises the
    options made available last fall to bidders who have not made payments
    on their bid for the Block C spectrum licenses.
        Can you tell me whether that decision has been made and, if so,
    what the differences are from the options offered by the Commission
    last fall and what will be the response from the bidders?
        Answer. On March 24, 1998, the Commission released an Order on
    Reconsideration (``Reconsideration Order'') addressing installment
    payment financing issues for broadband Personal Communications Services
    (``PCS'') C block licensees. Although, the Reconsideration Order
    generally affirms the framework of our September 1997 Second Report and
    Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making (``Second Report and
    Order''), which provided limited debt relief as an alternative to
    continuing under the existing installment payment plan, it improves
    upon the previous Order by permitting elections of restructuring
    options on a Major Trading Area (``MTA'') basis rather than requiring
    licensees to make one all-inclusive election, and increasing the amount
    of credit available for disaggregated spectrum.
        The principal modification of the Reconsideration Order eliminates
    the requirement that a licensee elect the same restructuring option for
    all its licenses, providing instead that it must elect the same option
    for all the licenses it holds within a given MTA cancelled. This
    modification will permit licensees to develop regional business plans
    and investment strategies while ensuring that entire MTA markets are
    returned to the Commission for the reauction of C block licenses.
        C block licensees not resuming original installment payments may
    elect amnesty, prepayment, or disaggregation. However, as part of the
    modifications adopted in the Reconsideration Order, the Commission will
    also permit licensees to disaggregate and prepay the remaining
    outstanding balance due on the disaggregated license. The terms for
    resumption of payments or the prepayment option remain unchanged from
    the Second Report and Order:
        Prepayment.--A licensee may purchase any of its licenses, at the
    face value of the outstanding debt on those licenses. Subject to the
    affordability exception, a licensee must purchase all of the licenses
    it now owns within any single MTA. A licensee may use 70 percent of its
    down payment on licenses from other MTA's that it does not wish to
    retain as a credit towards prepaying those licenses that it wishes to
    keep. Licenses that are relinquished in accordance with this option
    must be surrendered to the Commission for reauction. A licensee
    electing this option (and its affiliates) may not bid at the reauction
    for any of the licenses that the licensee relinquishes, and may not
    otherwise acquire any such license in the secondary market for a period
    of two years.
        However, the Commission has modified the amnesty and disaggregation
    options as follows:
        Amnesty.--The licensee may return to the Commission any of its
    licenses so long as all licenses within an MTA are returned. The entire
    outstanding debt on returned licenses will be forgiven. For licenses
    that are returned, the licensee will have two choices: (1) the licensee
    may opt to re-bid on those licenses in the reauction; or (2) the
    licensee may opt to forgo the opportunity to re-acquire its returned
    licenses in exchange for a credit of 70 percent of the down payment
    already made on the returned licenses. The same choice must be made for
    all licenses within an MTA. The 70 percent credit must be used to
    prepay either a 30 MHz or 15 MHz disaggregated licenses retained by the
    licensee.
        Disaggregation.--A licensee may disaggregate all of its 30 MHz
    licenses within an MTA and return 15 MHz to the Commission in exchange
    for forgiveness of 50 percent of the outstanding debt. For licensees
    who elect to disaggregate, there are two options, resume payments on
    the disaggregated license under the terms of the installment payment
    plan or prepay the outstanding loan balance on the disaggregated
    license. For a licensee who elects to continue installment payments for
    the disaggregated license, the licensee will receive a total credit
    equal to 70 percent of the original down payment made on the 30 MHz
    disaggregated license. 50 percent of the credit will be applied as a
    down payment on the outstanding debt and 40 percent of the downpayment
    associated with the disaggregated spectrum that is returned to the
    Commission may be used to prepay Suspension Interest or reduce
    principal at the licensee's option. For licensees who elect to prepay
    outstanding debt on the disaggregated license, the licensee will
    receive a credit equal to 85 percent of the original down payment made
    on the 30 MHz disaggregated license. Consistent with the prepayment
    option for 30 MHz licenses, this credit represents 70 percent of the
    down payment associated with the 15 MHz returned spectrum.
        In addition, the Commission: (1) extended to 90 days, the 60-day
    non-delinquency period for payments not made by the payment resumption
    date, and imposed a 5 percent late payment fee for payments made within
    this 90-day non-delinquency period; (2) eliminated the build-out
    exception to the amnesty option because it is rendered moot by this
    modified approach; (3) clarified that a licensee can ``afford'' as many
    licenses within an MTA that it can prepay using only the amount of
    credit available to the licensee for prepayment, for purposes of the
    rule that a licensee electing prepayment that does not have sufficient
    funds to prepay all its licenses within an MTA may prepay only the
    licenses within the MTA that it can afford; and (4) modified the
    payment schedules of all C block licensees so that all payments by all
    licensees will be due on the same date.
        As stated in a February 24, 1998, Commission Order, C block
    licensees have until 60 days after publication of the Reconsideration
    Order in the Federal Register to select their payment options. The
    Reconsideration Order was published in the Federal Register on April 8,
    1998.
        By making these adjustments, the Commission will better enable C
    block licensees to remain participants in the wireless market and will
    provide for an orderly and efficient reauction of returned spectrum,
    which will promote competition and the delivery of services to the
    public. Our action places the future of the C-Block where it belongs:
    in the hands of the licensees and the markets. C-Block licensees will
    now have more flexibility in choosing among the options first
    established back in September 1997, and they should have greater access
    to capital as a result. The American public will benefit from the
    increased competition that will develop. The changes we make in this
    Order will allow licensees to scale back when they think it is
    appropriate, and pursue regional or local business strategies instead
    of being forced to make all-or-nothing choices.
        Those who choose to stay in the C-Block will pay what they owe but
    will operate from more secure financial foundations. Those who decide
    to leave the market will do so under reasonable conditions, and will
    return valuable spectrum for reauction. I believe we have struck an
    equitable balance between providing limited relief to C-Block licensees
    experiencing financial distress and ensuring the integrity of our rules
    and auctions process. The wireless telephone industry, which is already
    the exemplar of fierce competition, will become even more vibrant as a
    result.
        high-speed internet access for rural communities--706 petitions
        Question. One of my biggest telecommunications concerns is how to
    accelerate the process of providing access to high-speed Internet and
    other advanced data communications services to rural areas. I
    understand that the Regional Bell Operating Company (RBOC) which serves
    my home state of New Mexico has filed a petition with the Commission
    seeking the removal of certain regulatory barriers that make it
    impractical to provide high-speed Internet access in rural communities.
    As I am sure you are aware, the petition asks the Commission to use its
    authority under two sections of the Telecommunications Act: Section
    706, which allows the FCC to refrain from applying rules which hinder
    the deployment of advanced telecommunications capacity, and section 11,
    which directs the FCC to cease regulating services which are
    competitive.
        What steps is the Commission taking to remove the regulatory
    barriers to providing high-speed data transmission to rural areas?
        Answer. I fully agree that a high priority for this Commission is
    to help promote the deployment of high bandwidth services, by incumbent
    LEC's and by other providers, including cable companies, wireless
    companies and CLEC's. I plan this year to undertake a thorough
    examination of the rapidly expanding marketplace of advanced
    technologies. We are committed to ensuring that our rules do not stand
    unreasonably as obstacles to the development of important new
    technologies. We are currently in the process of seeking comment on the
    US West petition, and we are committed to giving the petition our full
    consideration. As you may know, the Commission will also have the
    opportunity to examine related issues in a broader context, in
    connection with a Notice of Inquiry we intend to issue, within 30
    months of passage of the Act, in satisfaction of our obligations under
    section 706(b).
        The Commission has undertaken several other initiatives to ensure
    that the widest possible array of innovative new data technologies are
    available to customers in New Mexico and across the nation. For
    example, in the Computer III proceeding, the Commission is currently
    reevaluating our regulations that apply to provision of information
    services by Bell Operating Companies, like US West. We are examining
    our rules to ensure that they are appropriate in light of the rapid
    growth and development of the Internet and other technologies.
        The Commission also intends to investigate possible revisions to
    its network protection regulations to facilitate the rapid development
    of high speed digital information transmission services that utilize
    the public switched telecommunications network. The Commission plans to
    examine the feasibility of increasing power limitations on devices that
    operate on the public switched network to allow products like 56 kbps
    modems to operate at the maximum speed that the network can safely
    accommodate.
        In the context of universal service, the Commission has adopted
    discount mechanisms that will promote advanced telecommunications in
    rural areas. The section 254 universal service provisions were a
    bipartisan Congressional initiative to make sure all of our nation's
    elementary and secondary schools, classrooms, and libraries, and rural
    health care providers have access to advanced telecommunications. The
    discount mechanism facilitates deployment of advanced technologies to
    schools, libraries and rural health care centers--and in so doing,
    brings those advanced technologies further into the communities and
    closer to the home. In addition, several parties to the universal
    service proceeding have requested that the Commission reconsider the
    definition of one supported service, voice grade access, in order to
    allow rural subscribers to receive the same level of service, such as
    Internet access, as urban subscribers. The Commission has these
    requests under consideration.
        Question. If nothing is done to remove the barriers to allow the
    RBOC's to provide these services, how can you ensure the Committee that
    rural communities in New Mexico and other states will get high-speed
    Internet access as soon as possible?
        Answer. The availability of high-speed Internet access to all
    Americans is of vital importance to the Commission. Towards that end,
    as outlined above, we have undertaken a number of initiatives to ensure
    that we are doing all we can to encourage the availability of such
    access in rural areas of the country. Both in connection with the 706
    petitions filed by US West and several other RBOC's, and within the
    broader context of our notice of inquiry on advanced telecommunications
    capability, we will specifically examine ways to ensure that rural
    communities obtain access to high-speed data services as quickly as
    possible, and will take all necessary reasonable steps to make this
    objective a reality.
        Question. Are there other Internet Service Providers who can
    deliver similar services in rural areas? If not, what are the potential
    benefits and pitfalls to providing the RBOC's with an exemption for
    purely interLATA data transmission?
        Answer. In many areas, cable and wireless service providers have
    begun offering high-speed access to the Internet to subscribers.
    Although the Commission does not maintain statistics on the services
    offered by Internet Service Providers (ISP's), it is possible that
    cable and wireless providers may be delivering, or will deliver in the
    future, high-speed data services similar to those proposed by US West
    and the other RBOC's that have filed Section 706 forbearance petitions.
        We are mindful of the importance of ensuring that rural communities
    have access to the Internet, and we are aware that it may be more
    difficult to obtain access to high-speed data services in rural
    communities than in urban areas. As described above, in several
    proceedings, the Commission will be examining how best to promote
    access to high-speed data services in rural communities.
        Importantly, we will examine these issues in connection with our
    consideration of the section 706 petitions filed by US West and several
    other RBOC's. While we are encouraged that these petitions demonstrate
    the RBOC's' interest in providing new data services to rural markets,
    it would be premature to comment on the benefits and pitfalls of
    providing the RBOC's with an exemption to provide interLATA data
    transmission before the record on the petitions has been completed. We
    are currently in the process of soliciting comments from interested
    parties on these petitions, and the record will close on May 6, 1998.
    We look forward to having a complete record with which to commence a
    thorough examination of the issues.
                                     ______

             Questions Submitted by Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell
                                 706 petitions
        Question. I understand that US West is seeking permission to offer
    broadband data services in smaller communities within Colorado and
    other western states. The basis of the petition is Section 706 of the
    Telecommunications Act of 1996, which requires the FCC to forbear from
    regulation in order to promote investment in advanced
    telecommunications services. US West claims that existing regulations
    make it impractical for the company to build digital data facilities in
    less urban areas. For example, several universities in Colorado, Utah,
    and New Mexico have asked US West to build a high-speed data network
    connecting them, and US West could not meet their requirements because
    of these regulations. I want all communities in Colorado to have access
    to high-speed data services as soon as possible, and I would appreciate
    your thoughts on US West's position.
        Has the Commission undertaken any other initiatives to date to
    bring advanced telecommunications services to rural services? I want to
    make sure that the Commission will give serious consideration to US
    West's request.
        Answer. A high priority for this Commission is to help promote the
    deployment of high bandwidth services, by incumbent LEC's and by other
    providers, including cable companies, wireless companies and CLEC's. I
    plan this year to undertake a thorough examination of the rapidly
    expanding marketplace of advanced technologies. We are committed to
    ensuring that our rules do not stand unreasonably as obstacles to the
    development of important new technologies. We are currently in the
    process of seeking comment on the US West petition, and we are
    committed to giving the petition our full consideration. As you may
    know, the Commission will also have the opportunity to examine related
    issues in a broader context, in connection with a Notice of Inquiry we
    intend to issue, within 30 months of passage of the Act, in
    satisfaction of our obligations under section 706(b).
        The Commission has undertaken several other initiatives to ensure
    that the widest possible array of innovative new data technologies are
    available to customers in New Mexico and across the nation. For
    example, in the Computer III proceeding, the Commission is currently
    reevaluating our regulations that apply to provision of information
    services by Bell Operating Companies, like US West. We are examining
    our rules to ensure that they are appropriate in light of the rapid
    growth and development of the Internet and other technologies.
        The Commission also intends to investigate possible revisions to
    its network protection regulations to facilitate the rapid development
    of high speed digital information transmission services that utilize
    the public switched telecommunications network. The Commission plans to
    examine the feasibility of increasing power limitations on devices that
    operate on the public switched network to allow products like 56 kbps
    modems to operate at the maximum speed that the network can safely
    accommodate.
        In the context of universal service, the Commission has adopted
    discount mechanisms that will promote advanced telecommunications in
    rural areas. The Section 254 universal service provisions were a
    bipartisan Congressional initiative to make sure all of our nation's
    elementary and secondary schools, classrooms, and libraries, and rural
    health care providers have access to advanced telecommunications. The
    discount mechanism facilitates deployment of advanced technologies to
    schools, libraries and rural health care centers--and in so doing,
    brings those advanced technologies further into the communities and
    closer to the home. In addition, several parties to the universal
    service proceeding have requested that the Commission reconsider the
    definition of one supported service, voice grade access, in order to
    allow rural subscribers to receive the same level of service, such as
    Internet access, as urban subscribers. The Commission has these
    requests under consideration.
        Question. Will you keep us fully informed of your progress on this
    matter? When do you expect to make a final decision on the petition?
        Answer. We have sought comments from interested parties on the
    issues raised by the US West petition, and the record closes on May 6,
    1998. As soon as we have received all of the comments, Commission staff
    will begin evaluating the important issues raised by the petition. We
    are committed to keeping Members of Congress fully informed of our
    progress on this matter.
                                    slamming
        Question. Long-distance slamming is a growing consumer problem in
    my home state of Colorado and across the country. Slamming is a serious
    problem, especially for the elderly and small business. And it's
    getting worse. I also understand that the FCC has identified slamming
    as the leading, and fastest growing, category of phone-related
    complaints received by its Customer Bureau.
        I had the pleasure of participating at a field hearing on the
    slamming issue in Denver last October. At that hearing, your colleague,
    Commissioner Ness, said that new and improved anti-slamming rules would
    be introduced by the end of 1997.
        Consumers are looking to the FCC's leadership to develop strong,
    enforceable rules that target the unethical and criminal behavior of
    the long-distance companies responsible for this problem--without
    creating more regulatory hassles for consumers and honest companies. We
    hope the FCC will move quickly and forcefully on this issue.
        Where does that process stand, and when can we expect these long-
    awaited rules to be released?
        Answer. The Commission has proposed rules to modify and strengthen
    our existing slamming rules which predated the 1996 Act, and to
    implement Section 258 of the Communications Act. Section 258 of the Act
    makes it unlawful for any telecommunications carrier to ``submit or
    execute a change in a subscriber's selection of a provider of telephone
    exchange service or telephone toll service except in accordance with
    such verification procedures as the Commission shall prescribe.'' The
    section further provides that a telecommunications carrier that
    violates the Commission's verification procedures and that collects
    charges for telephone exchange service or telephone toll service from a
    subscriber ``shall be liable to the carrier previously selected by the
    subscriber in an amount equal to all charges paid by such subscriber
    after such violation.''
        I anticipate that the Commission will adopt these rules within the
    next two months.
        Question. What specific new initiatives does the Commission plan to
    adopt to curb slamming?
        Answer. Because the rulemaking is pending, the Commission is not in
    a position to state with certainty what specific initiatives will be
    adopted. The Commission is considering several proposals to enhance our
    ability to protect consumers from slamming. Among other things, the
    Commission has proposed restricting the methods by which carriers must
    verify changes to their presubscribed carriers, because some currently
    authorized methods appear to be ineffective against slamming.
    Furthermore, the Commission is considering whether to absolve consumers
    of liability for charges incurred after being slammed, as well as other
    measures designed to eliminate carriers' economic incentive to slam.
    The Commission is also considering expanding the scope of its rules to
    apply to changes to a consumer's local service, as well as long
    distance service.
                               universal service
        Question. As I have written to the Commission and the Joint Board,
    the current 75 percent state/25 percent federal funding formula for
    universal service is very troubling to me and my constituents in
    Colorado.
        As former general counsel at the FCC, do you feel obligated to
    continue the policies of the past Commission?
        Answer. As Chairman of the FCC, I approach issues facing the
    Commission, including the issue of federal and state responsibility for
    universal service, with an open mind. As set out in greater detail in
    the Commissioner's Report to Congress on Universal Service, we are
    committed to ensuring ``specific, sufficient'' and predictable
    universal service support. We will be revisiting the issue of the
    amount of federal funding before the full implementation of the new
    universal service mechanism, which is set for January 1, 1999. I also
    should note that the funding formula does not apply to rural local
    telephone companies, only the major telephone companies. Rural local
    telephone companies will continue to receive the same levels of support
    as they have received historically.
        In the May, 1997 Order, the Commission observed that, through the
    process of separations, approximately 25 percent of universal service
    support historically had been funded through federal support
    mechanisms. What the Commission did not state expressly, however, was
    that some areas of our country currently receive more than 25 percent
    federal universal service support. In these areas, it makes little
    sense to limit federal support to 25 percent. Even beyond these
    baseline levels, I believe we all recognize that in some instances the
    proportion of federal support will have to increase. It is my intention
    to see to it that such additional support is forthcoming.
        During the time I have been Chairman, we have been engaged in an
    on-going dialogue with the states and others on these issues. I remain
    committed to working with the states and the affected industries,
    including proponents of every viewpoint, to determine along with my
    colleagues the appropriate amount of federal support needed to maintain
    the goals of universal service at reasonable and affordable rates in a
    competitive environment.
        Question. Do you believe the federal portion of universal service
    support should be increased to ensure customers in rural, high-cost
    areas continue to have access to affordable phone service?
        Answer. A paramount objective of the Commission's implementation of
    universal service reform is to continue to ensure that rates remain
    affordable in rural areas. This objective, however, must now be
    achieved in a manner that can be sustained as telephone service
    competition begins, especially in urban areas. The Commission's May 8,
    1997 Universal Service Order was the first action in an ongoing effort
    to continue to ensure universal service, including adequate support for
    telephone service in rural America.
        Universal service policy currently is advanced through intrastate
    and interstate support mechanisms. The intrastate mechanisms are built
    into state-regulated intrastate rates--such as through statewide rate
    averaging and the above-cost pricing of business rates, toll rates,
    intrastate access rates, and vertical features (e.g., call forwarding).
    The interstate mechanisms are built into rates for interstate services
    over which the FCC has jurisdiction, which are also averaged and have
    been structured to collect some of the cost of providing service to
    rural and low-volume customers through charges to urban and higher-
    volume customers. Although these policies of implicit universal service
    support worked well in a monopoly environment, they are not sustainable
    in the competitive telecommunications market that the Act envisions.
    Thus, it is imperative for both the Commission and the state
    commissions carefully to examine the rates for services within their
    respective jurisdictions and to identify and quantify the amount of
    universal service subsidy currently being contributed implicitly
    through existing interstate and intrastate rates to support universal
    service.
        With respect to large telephone companies, such as the Bell
    Operating Companies, the Commission has begun this process through its
    access charge reform and universal service decisions. These actions
    should enable us to quantify the implicit universal service support
    currently contained in the interstate access rates that are assessed by
    these companies. Pursuant to the requirements of the Communications
    Act, that support will then be made explicit, will be funded through
    contributions by all carriers and other providers of interstate
    telecommunications service, and will be removed from access charges so
    that large telephone companies do not recover their costs twice. As we
    move from implicit to explicit support, we see no reason to reduce
    interstate support for areas that currently receive interstate support.
    No state should receive less federal high cost assistance than it
    currently receives.
        Some state commissions have undertaken, and I expect that many more
    states will undertake, the same process with respect to intrastate
    rates so that the existing levels of universal service support
    currently provided through intrastate rates can continue to be
    sustained in a competitive market. The Commission is currently
    consulting with the states and other parties about this issue, and will
    carefully consider input from the state members of the Joint Board and
    other state regulators in any decision. We also recognize that Congress
    assigned to this Commission, after consultation with the Joint Board,
    the ultimate responsibility for establishing policies that ensure that:
    (1) quality services are available at just, reasonable and affordable
    rates; (2) all consumers have ``access to telecommunications and
    information services'' at rates that are reasonably comparable to the
    rates charged for similar services in urban areas; and (3) there are
    ``specific, predictable, and sufficient'' federal and state mechanisms
    to preserve and advance universal service. We are committed to
    implementing section 254 consistent with these objectives.
        Small, rural telephone companies will not be affected by these
    changes in universal service support mechanisms. The Commission, in its
    May 8, 1997 Order, maintained existing support levels for rural
    telephone companies.
        Question. Will the FCC be able to meet its January 1, 1999 deadline
    for creating the high-cost fund for non-rural phone companies?
        Answer. The Commission stated in the May 8, 1997 Order that non-
    rural carriers would begin receiving high cost support based on a
    forward-looking economic cost mechanism on January 1, 1999. To reach
    this goal, the Commission released a Further Notice of Proposed
    Rulemaking in July 1997, and has met extensively with the state Joint
    Board staff, members of industry, and other interested parties. Many
    actions need to be taken to complete the new mechanism that will take
    effect on January 1, 1999. The Commission intends to release an order
    in the near term that will select the fixed assumptions and algorithms
    for a mechanism to determine non-rural carriers' forward-looking costs.
    The Commission also stated in the May 8, 1997 Order that it would adopt
    a complete mechanism, including the prices of all components of the
    network and other inputs, by August 1998. The Commission is working
    actively to meet the timetable established in the May 8, 1997 Order,
    which calls for non-rural carriers to begin receiving support based on
    a forward-looking economic cost mechanism on January 1, 1999.
                                     ______

               Questions Submitted by Senator Ernest F. Hollings
        Question. INTELSAT and its Signatories have been working to
    privatize a portion of its operations in the form of a new company,
    ``INC''. Will INC's structure allow INC to be independent of INTELSAT
    and a pro-competitive participant in the marketplace?
        Answer. The INTELSAT Assembly of Parties decided on March 31, 1998
    to create a spin-off, temporarily called New Skies, N.V., to be
    incorporated in The Netherlands. The United States associated
    provisionally with the Assembly decision and in doing so expressed the
    hope that the decision would result in a structuring of New Skies that
    is consistent with the Commission's pro-competitive policy.
    Nonetheless, in the written statement of the United States appended to
    the decision of the Assembly of Parties, the United States noted
    continuing uncertainty as to whether true separation and independence
    between INTELSAT and New Skies would be achieved in a timely way so as
    to ensure that New Skies is not accorded preferential market access and
    does not unfairly benefit from its unique INTELSAT heritage. The
    Commission will have to evaluate how New Skies' entry into the U.S.
    market will impact competition in the provision of satellite services.
    That evaluation will be based on statutory requirements, the public
    record, and Commission rules implementing the 1997 World Trade
    Organization Agreement on Basic Telecommunications Services as it
    applies to satellite services. As is stated in the written statement of
    the United States cited above, this review will involve consideration
    of competition policy criteria.
                                 payphone calls
        Question. What impact will the increased cost of making 800/888
    access code and 0+ calls from payphones have on 800 subscribers and
    consumers and how can the FCC ensure that these rates remain
    affordable?
        Answer. In the payphone order, the Commission sought to implement
    Section 276 of the Communications Act of 1934, which specifically
    directs the Commission to ``establish a per call compensation plan to
    ensure that all payphone service providers are fairly compensated for
    each and every completed intrastate and interstate call using their
    payphone * * *.'' The Commission also sought to abide by the provisions
    of Section 228(c)(7)(A) which provides that common carriers shall
    prohibit ``the use of any 800 telephone number, or other telephone
    number advertised or widely understood to be toll free, in a manner
    that would result in the calling party being assessed, by virtue of
    completing the call, a charge for the call.'' In its proceeding to
    implement Section 276, the Commission concluded, after seeking comment
    from the public, that subscriber 800 and access code calls must be
    compensated and that the best way to ensure that the payphone providers
    received fair compensation was to allow the marketplace to determine
    compensation for such calls. The Commission, however, established a
    default rate of $0.284 per call, absent a negotiated rate, for two
    years to enable carriers and payphone providers to transition to the
    deregulated marketplace. The $0.284 default compensation rate for toll-
    free payphone calls is designed to give payphone owners fair
    compensation for the use of their payphones, as required by law. Before
    establishing the payphone compensation rate, the Commission asked for
    and received payphone cost data from several companies, and took this
    data into account when establishing the $0.284 rate as fair
    compensation. This charge is not owed for 0+ calls, however, except in
    limited circumstances where the payphone provider does not have a
    contract which otherwise compensates the payphone provider for such
    calls.
        The Commission's rules require this compensation to be paid by the
    interexchange carrier that receives the 800 or access code call because
    that carrier is the primary beneficiary of such calls on its network.
    Prior to the 1996 Act, carriers and their customers received the
    benefits of these calls without the payphone provider--which makes the
    call possible--receiving any compensation. Although IXC's may pass on
    these charges to their 800 and access code customers, the Act correctly
    requires that payphone providers receive fair compensation for the
    service they provide in order ``to promote the widespread deployment of
    payphones.''
        Subscribers of 800 services have several options if they do not
    want to pay payphone providers for the use of their payphones. Once
    technology is fully in place to allow carriers to identify calls from
    payphones, 800 subscribers will have the option of blocking such calls.
    They are also able to negotiate contracts with long distance carriers,
    and change long distance carriers to obtain more favorable terms. Long
    distance companies also may negotiate with payphone owners to lower the
    payphone compensation price. The long distance company could then use
    that advantage to attract more customers.
        While the Commission relied on market forces in establishing the
    compensation scheme mandated by the Act, our orders also focused on
    consumers by establishing safeguards to ensure their protection. The
    orders recognize that payphones serve an important role in allowing
    people to place calls when they are away from the home or office. The
    new rules require that all payphones must provide free access to dial
    tone, whereas many parties to the proceeding urged the Commission to
    require consumers to use coins to make toll-free and access code calls.
    They also establish guidelines by which states can provide public
    interest payphones in areas that may not be sufficiently profitable to
    support the placement of a payphone. Such public interest payphones
    will help to ensure the viability of payphones in areas where they
    serve important public interests in public health, safety and welfare.
        Further, the rules require that payphone providers must prominently
    display the local coin rate they choose to charge at each payphone, so
    that consumers will have full information about the charges and can
    make an informed choice to use the payphones. The orders also require
    that every payphone provide free access to both emergency services and
    to telecommunications relay service (TRS) calls for the hearing
    disabled. Ultimately, the compensation provisions are designed to
    achieve Congress' stated objective: ``to promote the widespread
    deployment of payphones to the benefit of the general public.''
    Finally, the orders specifically provide that the Commission retains
    discretion to review our deregulatory actions and evaluate whether
    marketplace dysfunctions in certain locational monopolies exist and
    should be addressed. Indeed, our orders ask the states to report to us
    any instances of such market failure and allow the states to request
    Commission action to prevent payphone abuses.
        Question. An 800/888 call is free to the calling party. This may
    provide an incentive for individuals to make such calls in an attempt
    to obtain greater revenues from their payphones. What is the potential
    for this type of fraud to occur and what can be done to minimize that
    potential?
        Answer. In the Commission's payphone orders, the Commission
    recognized the potential for such fraud. The Commission stated that,
    pursuant to authority under the Act and its rules, it would
    aggressively take civil enforcement action against a payphone provider
    who deliberately violates the Commission's compensation rules by
    placing toll free calls simply to obtain compensation from carriers.
    Moreover, such an act may be fraud by wire and subject to criminal
    penalties under 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1343. The Commission stated that if it
    received information that a payphone provider was using its payphone
    for this purpose, or allowing someone else to use its payphone for this
    purpose, the Commission will refer the matter to the appropriate law
    enforcement agencies for criminal prosecution. The Commission also
    stated that it would continue to monitor developments in this area and
    respond to specific requests from carriers and payphone service
    providers.
                                     ______

                Questions Submitted by Senator Daniel K. Inouye
        Question. In light of the reality that Hawaii currently does not
    have DBS service, what is the FCC doing to ensure that DBS service
    becomes a permanent reality for the State of Hawaii?
        Answer. The FCC believes it is of great importance that DBS service
    be provided to Hawaii so that residents of Hawaii can enjoy the unique
    digital services offered by DBS and benefit from the competitive
    pressure DBS puts on cable. In order to promote DBS service to Hawaii
    and Alaska, the Commission issued an order in December 1995 that
    requires all DBS licensees to provide service to those states from
    orbital locations where it is technically feasible to do so. Revision
    of the Rules and Policies for the Direct Broadcast Satellite Service,
    11 FCC Rcd 9712 (1995).
        In response to the rules we established in this Order, three of our
    DBS licensees (EchoStar, MCI, and Tempo, who all have orbital locations
    from which it is technically feasible to provide service to Hawaii)
    have indicated to us recently that they intend to provide service to
    Hawaii as soon as they initiate their DBS service. EchoStar has
    recently stated that it intends to provide service to Hawaii in the
    summer of 1998. In our recently issued Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on
    our service rules for DBS, Policies and Rules for the Direct Broadcast
    Satellite Service, FCC 98-26 (released February 26, 1998), we asked
    whether there was anything further the Commission should do to promote
    service to Hawaii and we will closely examine any comments made in that
    proceeding.
                 rate integration and geographic rate averaging
        Question. What is the status of pending FCC proceedings with
    respect to the issues of rate integration and geographic rate
    averaging?
        Answer. The following proceedings are pending concerning rate
    integration and geographic rate averaging:
        American Samoa Rate Integration Plan.--In the July, 1997 Rate
    Integration Implementation Order, the Common Carrier Bureau deferred
    implementation of rate integration for services provided to American
    Samoa pending consideration of a rate integration plan to be filed by
    the American Samoa government (ASG). ASG subsequently filed a rate
    integration plan. The formal comment period on the plan closed on
    November 26, 1997. The Common Carrier Bureau is currently evaluating
    the plan.
        Rate Integration for Commercial Mobile Radio Service (CMRS)
    Providers Reconsideration.--CMRS providers filed petitions for
    reconsideration of the July 1997 Rate Integration Reconsideration Order
    in which the Commission determined, inter alia, that rate integration
    requirements are applicable to CMRS providers. In October, 1997 the
    Commission stayed application of some aspects of rate integration
    requirements to CMRS providers pending review of the petitions for
    reconsideration. The Common Carrier Bureau, in consultation with the
    Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, is evaluating issues concerning
    rate integration of services provided by CMRS providers.
        Application of Rate Integration to American Mobile Satellite
    Corporation (AMSC).--AMSC has requested an extension of time to comply
    with rate integration requirements. In August 1996, the Common Carrier
    Bureau granted AMSC a waiver of rate integration requirements pending
    further consideration of its request. This matter remains pending.
        Petitions for Reconsideration of Geographic Rate Averaging Rules.--
    Several parties requested reconsideration of the August 1996 Rate
    Averaging and Rate Integration Order to permit regional deaveraging of
    long distance rates in response to provision of long distance service
    by regional carriers. The record closed on these petitions in October,
    1996.
        Question. INTELSAT and its Signatories have been working to
    privatize a portion of its operations in the form of a new company,
    ``INC''. Will INC's structure allow INC to be independent of INTELSAT
    and a pro-competitive participant in the marketplace?
        Answer. The INTELSAT Assembly of Parties decided on March 31, 1998
    to create a spin-off, temporarily called New Skies, N.V., to be
    incorporated in The Netherlands. The United States associated
    provisionally with the Assembly decision and in doing so expressed the
    hope that the decision would result in a structuring of New Skies that
    is consistent with the Commission's pro-competitive policy.
    Nonetheless, in the written statement of the United States appended to
    the decision of the Assembly of Parties, the United States noted
    continuing uncertainty as to whether true separation and independence
    between INTELSAT and New Skies would be achieved in a timely way so as
    to ensure that New Skies is not accorded preferential market access and
    does not unfairly benefit from its unique INTELSAT heritage. The
    Commission will have to evaluate how New Skies' entry into the U.S.
    market will impact competition in the provision of satellite services.
    That evaluation will be based on statutory requirements, the public
    record, and Commission rules implementing the 1997 World Trade
    Organization Agreement on Basic Telecommunications Services as it
    applies to satellite services.\1\ As is stated in the written statement
    of the United States cited above, this review will involve
    consideration of competition policy criteria.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ See Amendment of the Commission's Regulatory Policies to Allow
    Non-U.S. Licensed Space Stations to provide Domestic and International
    Service in the United States (DISCO II Order)--FCC 97-399, 62 Rcd. Reg.
    64.167 (released December 4, 1997).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Question. In light of the release of its digital plan, what is the
    FCC doing to ensure that low power television (``LPTV'') stations such
    as Honolulu LPTV channel 60 are able to provide service?
        Answer. The Commission has long recognized the importance of low
    power TV stations (``LPTV''). These stations provide valued service in
    hundreds of urban and rural communities throughout the country.
    Significantly, in many communities, they offer the only source of local
    TV programming. Since the service began in 1982, more than 2,000 LPTV
    stations have been authorized, all on a secondary, noninterfering basis
    with respect to full service TV stations. Due to an insufficient supply
    of TV spectrum, it was not possible to include LPTV stations in the
    FCC's digital TV (``DTV'') allotment plan, or protect LPTV stations
    against interference from DTV stations.
        In the DTV proceeding, the Commission adopted several
    administrative and technical measures to intended to minimize
    disruption to LPTV service by DTV stations and by the reallocation of
    channels 60 to 69 to other services. First and foremost, LPTV stations
    may continue to operate on their current channels, provided they do not
    interfere with DTV stations. With respect to the channel 60 LPTV
    station in Honolulu, I am advised that there are no DTV channel
    allotments anywhere in Hawaii that would conflict with channel 60.
    Thus, as long as the station does not interfere with any future primary
    services on channel 60 to 69, it may operate on channel 60 until the
    end of the DTV transition period in the year 2006. Note that the
    Balanced Budget Act of 1997 requires all broadcast stations, including
    LPTV stations, to vacate use of channels 60 to 69 by that time.
        The Commission has provided that LPTV stations authorized on
    channels 60 to 69 or those stations having an interference conflict
    with a DTV station or an allotment in the DTV allotment table may: (1)
    on a first-come first-served basis, request authorization for a
    replacement channel without being subject to competing applications,
    (2) take into account the signal blocking effects of mountainous
    terrain in considering the potential of their stations to cause
    interference, (3) negotiate interference agreements with each other,
    and (4) operate with substantially increased power, if necessary to
    overcome interference to the reception of their stations. Finally,
    wherever possible, the Commission eliminated or relaxed several
    interference standards to help displaced LPTV stations to secure
    replacement channels.
        Question. What is the FCC doing to ensure that consolidation in the
    radio broadcast marketplace does not result in a loss of diverse and
    local programming?
        Answer. I am very concerned that consolidation in the radio
    broadcasting marketplace is leading to a loss of diverse local
    programming. There has been a good deal of consolidation in the radio
    industry as a result of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which
    eliminated the national radio ownership limits and significantly
    relaxed the local radio ownership rules. The Commission has monitored
    the impact of these legislatively mandated changes, and, as provided by
    the 1996 Act, has recently issued a Notice of Inquiry that, among other
    things, seeks to review these changes. The Notice of Inquiry seeks
    comment from the public on the impact of these changes on diversity and
    local programming and on whether the FCC should modify the local radio
    ownership rules in any respect. The consolidation in the radio industry
    will also be a factor in the FCC's pending review of the radio-
    television cross-ownership rule. In reviewing this rule, as well as the
    local radio ownership limits, the Commission will be guided by its
    longstanding goal of promoting competition and diversity in
    broadcasting.
                                     ______

               Questions Submitted by Senator Barbara A. Mikulski
                                  section 271
        Question. There have been four separate applications filed with the
    FCC by Regional Bell Operating Companies (RBOC) to get into the long
    distance business, none of which have been approved. Have you provided
    any RBOC, formally or informally, a complete and final list of all the
    things they must do to gain approval to enter the long distance
    business?
        If so, could you share the specifics with us?
        If not, why not?
        Answer. Last December, I decided to initiate a dialogue between the
    Commission and the BOC's, competitive local exchange providers,
    interexchange carriers, and other interested participants. This effort
    reflects my desire to provide additional guidance to all participants
    in the 271 application process on issues that have not yet been
    addressed in the Commission's decisions on previous applications. It is
    also intended to increase the predictability of the section 271 process
    for all involved.
        I have directed the Bureau staff to be as open and responsive as
    possible to all the participants when discussing the factors the staff
    considers important in evaluating whether a BOC has fully implemented
    the competitive checklist. In order to respond to your request for
    views on each checklist item, I have attached summaries, prepared by
    Common Carrier Bureau staff, addressing each item of the competitive
    checklist in further detail. The information included in these
    summaries reflects the discussions that Bureau staff have had since the
    dialogue began in January. Because the dialogue is an on-going process,
    additional issues may arise as discussions progress. These Bureau staff
    views are not binding on the Commissioners. Commission action on
    individual section 271 applications will be decided on the basis of the
    record filed in each proceeding.
                                  attachment a
               overview of common carrier bureau staff summaries
        The following paragraphs present a brief outline of the fourteen
    checklist items. An important aspect of section 271 is that local
    markets remain open after BOC entry into long distance. Ongoing
    performance monitoring once a BOC receives section 271 authorization is
    critical. Under the statute, the Commission can exercise its
    enforcement powers under section 271(d)(6) if a BOC has ceased to meet
    the conditions required for approval.
        Interconnection.--This checklist item requires a BOC to allow
    requesting carriers to link their networks to the BOC's network for the
    mutual exchange of traffic. To fulfill the nondiscrimination obligation
    under checklist item (i), a BOC must show that it provides
    interconnection at a level of quality that is indistinguishable from
    that which the BOC provides itself, a subsidiary, or any other party.
    Interconnection is necessary so that local exchange customers served by
    one company are able to call customers served by a different company.
    47 U.S.C. Sec. 271(c)(2)(B)(i).
        Unbundled Network Elements.--Network elements are the specific
    segments of the telephone network. ``Access'' to an unbundled network
    element means that the BOC must provide a connection to the network
    element at any technically feasible point under rates, terms, and
    conditions that are just, reasonable, and nondiscriminatory. To fulfill
    the nondiscrimination obligation under checklist item (ii), the BOC
    must provide access to the BOC's OSS, meaning the information, systems,
    and personnel necessary to support the elements and services. This is
    important because access to the BOC's OSS provides new entrants with
    the ability to order service for their new customers and allows new
    entrants to communicate effectively with the BOC regarding such basic
    activities as placing orders and providing repair and maintenance
    service for customers. 47 U.S.C. Sec. 271(c)(2)(B)(ii).
        In addition, a BOC must provide nondiscriminatory access to network
    elements in a manner that allows requesting carriers to combine such
    elements. The use of network elements in conjunction with a competing
    carrier's network is an important entry strategy for new entrants as
    new entrants will most likely not have deployed fully redundant
    networks when they initially enter the local market. 47 U.S.C.
    Sec. 271(c)(2)(B)(ii).
        Poles, Ducts, Conduits, and Rights-of-Way.--Telephone company wires
    must be attached to, or pass through, poles, ducts, conduits, and
    rights-of-way. In order to fulfill the nondiscrimination obligation
    under checklist item (iii), a BOC must show that competing providers
    can obtain access to its poles, ducts, conduits, and rights-of-way
    within reasonable time frames and on reasonable terms and conditions,
    with a minimum of administrative costs, and consistent with fair and
    efficient practices. Failure by the BOC to provide such access may
    prevent competing carriers from serving certain customers. 47 U.S.C.
    Sec. 271(c)(2)(B)(iii).
        Loops.--Local loops are the wires, poles, and conduit that connect
    the telephone company end office to the customer's home or business. To
    satisfy the nondiscrimination requirement under checklist item (iv), a
    BOC must demonstrate that it can efficiently furnish unbundled loops to
    competing carriers within a reasonable timeframe, with a minimum level
    of service disruption, and at the same level of service quality.
    Nondiscriminatory access to unbundled local loops ensures that new
    entrants can provide quality telephone service promptly to new
    customers without constructing new loops to each customer's home or
    business. 47 U.S.C. Sec. 271(c)(2)(B)(iv).
        Transport.--Transport facilities are the trunks that connect
    different switches within the BOC's network or those switches with long
    distance carriers' facilities. This checklist item requires a BOC to
    provide requesting carriers with transmission links that are dedicated
    to the use of the requesting carrier as well as links that are shared
    with other carriers, including the BOC. Nondiscriminatory access to
    transport ensures that consumer calls travelling over competing carrier
    lines are completed properly. 47 U.S.C. Sec. 271(c)(2)(B)(v).
        Switching.--A switch connects end user lines to other end user
    lines, and connects end user lines to trunks used for transporting a
    call to another central office or to a long-distance carrier. Switches
    can also provide end users with ``vertical features'' such as call
    waiting, call forwarding, and caller ID, and can direct a call to a
    specific trunk, such as to a competing carrier's operator services. To
    meet this checklist item, the BOC must demonstrate that it provides
    nondiscriminatory access to all of the features, functions, and
    capabilities of the unbundled local switch. This checklist item is
    important because it allows the new entrant to make use of the BOC's
    switch, and it enables customers of the new entrant to have access to
    the same features a BOC provides, such as call waiting. 47 U.S.C.
    Sec. 271(c)(2)(B)(vi).
        911 and E911, Directory Assistance, and Operator Services.--911 and
    E911 services transmit calls from end users to emergency personnel.
    Customers use directory assistance and operator services to obtain
    listing information and other call completion services. Checklist item
    (vii) requires the BOC to provide competing providers with
    nondiscriminatory access to 911/E911, operator services, and directory
    assistance, i.e., access that is the same as the access the BOC
    provides to itself. It is critical that BOC's provide new entrants with
    accurate and nondiscriminatory access to 911/E911 services so that
    customers subscribing to services provided by new entrants are able to
    reach emergency assistance. 47 U.S.C. Sec. 271(c)(2)(B)(vii).
        White Pages.--White pages are the directory listings of telephone
    numbers of residences and businesses in a particular area. This
    checklist item ensures that white pages listings for customers of
    different carriers are comparable, in terms of accuracy and
    reliability, notwithstanding the identity of the customer's telephone
    service provider. 47 U.S.C. Sec. 271(c)(2)(B)(viii).
        Numbering Administration.--Telephone numbers are presently assigned
    to telecommunications carriers based on the first three digits of the
    local number known as ``NXX'' codes. To fulfill the nondiscrimination
    obligation in checklist item (ix), a BOC must provide competing
    carriers with the same access to new NXX codes within an area code that
    the BOC enjoys. This checklist item ensures that competing providers
    have the same access to new telephone numbers as the BOC does. 47
    U.S.C. Sec. 271(c)(2)(B)(ix).
        Databases and Signaling.--Databases and associated signaling refer
    to the call-related databases and signaling systems that are used for
    billing and collection or the transmission, routing, or other provision
    of a telecommunications service. To fulfill the nondiscrimination
    obligation in checklist item (x), a BOC must demonstrate that it
    provides new entrants with the same access to these call-related
    databases and associated signaling that it provides itself. This
    checklist item ensures that competing providers have the same ability
    to transmit, route, complete and bill for telephone calls as the BOC.
    47 U.S.C. Sec. 271(c)(2)(B)(x).
        Number Portability.--Number portability enables consumers to take
    their phone number with them when they change local telephone
    companies. To fulfill checklist item (xi), the BOC must provide number
    portability in a nondiscriminatory manner as soon as reasonably
    possible following a request from a competitor. This checklist item is
    important because it permits consumers to change service providers
    without having to change their telephone number. 47 U.S.C.
    Sec. 271(c)(2)(B)(xi).
        Dialing Parity.--Local dialing parity permits customers to make
    local calls in the same manner regardless of who their service provider
    is. To fulfill the nondiscrimination obligation in checklist item
    (xii), a BOC must establish that customers of a competing provider are
    able to dial the same number of digits to make a local telephone call,
    notwithstanding the identity of the customer's, or the called party's,
    local telephone service provider. In addition, the dialing delay
    experienced by the customers of a competing provider should not be
    greater than that experienced by customers of the BOC. This checklist
    item ensures that consumers are not inconvenienced in how they make
    calls simply because they subscribe to a competing provider for local
    telephone service. 47 U.S.C. Sec. 271(c)(2)(B)(xii).
        Reciprocal Compensation.--Reciprocal compensation requires the
    BOC's to compensate new entrants and wireless carriers for the cost of
    transporting and terminating a local call from the BOC, and requires
    the new entrants and wireless carriers to compensate the BOC for the
    cost of transporting and terminating a local call from the new entrant
    or wireless carrier. Alternatively, the BOC and the new entrant or
    wireless carrier may enter into an arrangement whereby neither of the
    two carriers charges the other for terminating local traffic that
    originates on the other carrier's network. This checklist item is
    important to ensuring that all carriers that originate calls bear the
    cost of terminating such calls. 47 U.S.C. Sec. 271(c)(2)(B)(xiii).
        Resale.--This checklist item requires the BOC to offer to
    telecommunications carriers at wholesale rates all of the retail
    telecommunications services it provides to subscribers that are not
    telecommunications carriers. The BOC is required to make its
    telecommunications services available for resale without unreasonable
    or discriminatory conditions or limitations. This checklist item is
    important because it establishes a mode of entry into the local market
    for carriers that have not deployed their own facilities. 47 U.S.C.
    Sec. 271(c)(2)(B)(xiv).
        Another important aspect of section 271 is the pricing of unbundled
    network elements. The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth
    Circuit recently held that the FCC should ``confine its pricing role
    under section 271(d)(3)(A) to determining whether applicant BOC's have
    complied with the pricing methodology and rules adopted by the state
    commissions and in effect in the respective states in which such BOC's
    seek to provide in-region, interLATA services.'' Iowa Utilities Board
    v. FCC, Order on Motions for Enforcement of the Mandate, No. 96-3321
    (Jan. 22, 1998), petition for cert. filed. Accordingly, these staff
    summaries do not focus on pricing issues.
                      checklist item (i): interconnection
    Background
        Section 271(c)(2)(B)(i) of the Act requires a section 271 applicant
    to provide or offer to provide ``[i]nterconnection in accordance with
    the requirements of sections 251(c)(2) and 252(d)(1).''
        Section 251(c)(2) imposes upon incumbent LEC's ``the duty to
    provide, for the facilities and equipment of any requesting
    telecommunications carrier, interconnection with the local exchange
    carrier's network * * * for the transmission and routing of telephone
    exchange service and exchange access.''
        Pursuant to section 251(c)(2), such interconnection must be: (1)
    provided ``at any technically feasible point within the carrier's
    network;'' (2) ``at least equal in quality to that provided by the
    local exchange carrier to itself or * * * [to] any other party to which
    the carrier provides interconnection;'' and (3) provided on rates,
    terms, and conditions that are ``just, reasonable, and
    nondiscriminatory, in accordance with the terms and conditions of the
    agreement and the requirements of [section 251] * * * and section
    252.''
        Section 251(c)(6) requires incumbent LEC's to provide physical
    collocation of equipment necessary for interconnection unless the LEC
    can demonstrate that physical collocation is not practical for
    technical reasons or because of space limitations. In that event, the
    incumbent LEC is still obligated to provide virtual collocation of
    interconnection equipment.
        Section 252(d)(1) of the Act states that ``[d]eterminations by a
    State commission of the just and reasonable rate for the
    interconnection of facilities and equipment for purposes of [section
    251(c)(2)] * * * (A) shall be (i) based on the cost * * * of providing
    the interconnection * * * and (ii) nondiscriminatory, and (B) may
    include a reasonable profit.''
    Checklist Discussion
                Any Technically Feasible Point
        Competing carriers have the right to deliver traffic terminating on
    an incumbent LEC's network at any technically feasible point on that
    network. 47 U.S.C. Sec. 251(c)(2); 47 C.F.R. Sec. 51.305(a)(2); Local
    Competition First Report and Order at para. 209.
                Methods of Interconnection
        Competing carriers may choose any technically feasible method of
    interconnection at a particular point. Local Competition First Report
    and Order at para. 549. Technically feasible methods of interconnection
    include, but are not limited to: physical collocation and virtual
    collocation at the premises of an incumbent LEC and meet point
    interconnection arrangements. 47 C.F.R. Sec. 51.321; Local Competition
    First Report and Order at para. 553.
        The incumbent LEC must submit to the state commission detailed
    floor plans or diagrams of any premises where the incumbent LEC claims
    that physical collocation is not practical because of space
    limitations. 47 C.F.R. Sec. 51.321(f); Local Competition First Report
    and Order at para. 602.
        Bureau staff believes that a BOC must have processes and procedures
    in place to ensure that physical and virtual collocation arrangements
    are available on terms and conditions that are ``just, reasonable, and
    nondiscriminatory'' in accordance with section 251(c)(6). Useful
    information to determine compliance with this checklist item is the
    length of time required for an applicant to process and implement
    requests for both physical and virtual collocation. See BellSouth South
    Carolina Section 271 Order at para.para. 200-02.
                Interconnection that is Equal in Quality
        ``[T]he equal in quality standard of section 251(c)(2)(C) requires
    an incumbent LEC to provide interconnection between its network and
    that of a requesting carrier at a level of quality that is at least
    indistinguishable from that which the incumbent provides itself, a
    subsidiary, an affiliate or any other party.'' Local Competition First
    Report and Order at para. 224.
        An incumbent LEC must design its ``interconnection facilities to
    meet the same technical criteria and service standards, such as
    probability of blocking in peak hours and transmission standards, that
    are used [for the interoffice trunks] within [its] * * * own
    network[].'' 47 C.F.R. Sec. 51.305(a)(3); Local Competition First
    Report and Order at para. 224; see also Ameritech Michigan Section 271
    Order at para. 255.
        The equal in quality obligation is not limited to service quality
    perceived by end users, and includes, but is not limited to, service
    quality as perceived by the requesting telecommunications carrier. 47
    C.F.R. Sec. 51.305(a)(3); Local Competition First Report and Order at
    para. 224.
        Useful information to determine compliance with this checklist item
    is the call completion rate for calls originating on the BOC's network
    that terminate with BOC customers and the completion rate for calls
    originating on the BOC's network that terminate with competing LEC's'
    customers. See Ameritech Michigan Section 271 Order at para. 235.
                Just and Reasonable Rates, Terms, and Conditions of
                        Interconnection
        By providing interconnection to a competitor in a manner less
    efficient than the incumbent LEC provides itself, the incumbent LEC
    violates the duty to be ``just'' and ``reasonable'' under section
    251(c)(2)(D). Local Competition First Report and Order at para. 218.
                Nondiscriminatory Rates, Terms, and Conditions of
                        Interconnection
        An incumbent LEC must accommodate a competitor's request for two-
    way trunking where technically feasible. 47 C.F.R. Sec. 51.305(f);
    Local Competition First Report and Order at para. 219.
        Bureau staff believes that a BOC must engineer, repair, and
    maintain its interconnection trunks to the competing carrier in the
    same manner that the BOC performs these functions on its own
    interoffice transmission facilities.
          Useful information to determine compliance with this checklist
            item is the time required for a BOC to identify and repair
            outages on interconnection trunks connecting BOC and competing
            carrier facilities and the time required for a BOC to identify
            and repair outages that disrupt service on its own interoffice
            transmission trunks; and a BOC's establishment of standardized
            procedures for the ordering and provision of interconnection
            trunks.
        The BOC must ensure that a competing carrier has sufficient
    information about its network to remedy network blockage that occurs
    within the BOC's network, but affects both the BOC's customers and the
    competing carrier's customers. Ameritech Michigan Section 271 Order at
    para. 246.
          Useful information to determine compliance with this requirement
            includes BOC traffic forecasts and data indicating the
            percentage of calls originating on the BOC network and
            terminating on the BOC's and CLEC's network, respectively.
        Establishing appropriate trunking architecture and proper
    interconnection arrangements is the responsibility of both the BOC and
    competing carriers. Ameritech Michigan Section 271 Order at para. 246.
          Bureau staff believes that possible measures that the BOC and
            competing carriers can take to remedy trunk blockage problems
            include: installing two-way trunking arrangements where
            appropriate, allowing direct end office trunking, augmenting
            capacity on existing trunk groups, ordering reciprocal inbound
            trunk groups in tandem with competing carriers' ordering of
            outbound trunk groups, having the necessary equipment and
            facilities available to handle trunk augmentation, and
            establishing alternate routing for traffic designated for a
            competing carrier switch.
        Bureau staff believes that a BOC can demonstrate that it is meeting
    its statutory obligations with respect to interconnection by submitting
    performance measurements regarding its provision of interconnection
    trunks (installation of new trunks and augmentations to existing trunk
    groups) and collocation arrangements (physical and virtual). Such
    performance measurements will enable the Commission to determine
    whether this checklist item is being provided in accordance with the
    applicable statutory standard in terms of timeliness, quality, and
    accuracy. Ongoing performance monitoring will assist in ensuring that
    the BOC continues to meet its statutory obligations after receiving
    section 271 authorization.
           checklist item (ii): access to unbundled network elements
        Because specific network elements are also addressed in other
    checklist items, this discussion only addresses the requirements for
    access to all network elements. In particular, this section addresses
    (1) the operations support systems (``OSS'') that are necessary to
    provide access to other network elements as well as resold services;
    and (2) the provision of network elements in a manner that allows
    competing carriers to combine such elements.
                    1. access to operations support systems
    Background
        Section 271(c)(2)(B)(ii) of the Act requires a section 271
    applicant to offer ``nondiscriminatory access to network elements in
    accordance with the requirements of sections 251(c)(3) and 252(d)(1).''
        Section 251(c)(3) of the Act requires BOC's to provide access to
    network elements pursuant to ``conditions that are just, reasonable,
    and nondiscriminatory * * * .''
        Section 252(d)(1) of the Act states that ``[d]eterminations by a
    State commission of the just and reasonable rate for * * * network
    elements for purposes of [section 251(c)(3)] * * * (A) shall be (i)
    based on the cost * * * of providing the * * * network element * * *
    and (ii) nondiscriminatory, and (B) may include a reasonable profit.''
    Checklist Discussion
        The Commission identified the following network elements, which
    must be provided on a nondiscriminatory basis pursuant to section
    251(c)(3): local loops; network interface devices; local switching;
    interoffice transmission facilities; signaling networks and call-
    related databases; operations support systems; and operator services
    and directory assistance. See 47 C.F.R. Sec. 51.319; Local Competition
    First Report and Order at para. 516. The Eighth Circuit Court of
    Appeals upheld this finding. Iowa Utils. Bd., 120 F.3d at 808-09.
        The Commission has set forth specific requirements for access to
    network elements, including, among other things, that timeliness,
    quality, and accuracy be substantially the same as the BOC provides to
    itself. See generally 47 C.F.R. Sec. 51.311 and 51.313.
          The term ``operations support systems,'' or OSS, refers to the
            computer systems, databases, and personnel that incumbent
            carriers rely upon to discharge many internal functions
            necessary to provide service to their customers. A competing
            carrier must obtain access to the same OSS functions (that is,
            functions provided by the relevant databases, computer systems,
            and personnel) in order to sign up customers, place an order
            for services or facilities with the incumbent, track the
            progress of that order to completion, receive relevant billing
            information from the incumbent, and obtain prompt repair and
            maintenance services for its customers.
        As outlined in the Ameritech Michigan Section 271 Order and the
    BellSouth South Carolina Section 271 Order, the Commission undertakes a
    two part inquiry in evaluating whether a BOC is meeting its statutory
    obligation to provide competing carriers with nondiscriminatory access
    to OSS functions.
          First, the BOC must demonstrate that it has deployed the
            necessary systems and personnel to provide competing carriers
            with access to each of the necessary OSS functions, and that
            the BOC has adequately assisted competing carriers in
            understanding how to implement and use all of the OSS functions
            available to them. Ameritech Michigan Section 271 Order at
            para. 136; BellSouth South Carolina Section 271 Order at para.
            96.
                      A BOC must demonstrate that it has developed
                    electronic and manual interfaces that allow competing
                    carriers to access all of the OSS functions identified
                    in the Local Competition First Report and Order.
                    Ameritech Michigan Section 271 Order at para.para. 137-
                    138; BellSouth South Carolina Section 271 Order at
                    para. 96.
                      A BOC must also demonstrate that the interfaces used
                    to access its OSS functions allow competing carriers to
                    transfer the information received from the BOC to their
                    own back office systems (e.g., a competing carrier's
                    billing system) and among the various interfaces
                    provided by the BOC (e.g., pre-ordering and ordering
                    interfaces). BellSouth South Carolina Section 271 Order
                    at para. 158-161.
                      The Commission has not specified particular systems
                    or interfaces a BOC must use to demonstrate compliance
                    with the statutory nondiscrimination requirements.
          Second, the BOC must demonstrate that the OSS functions and
            interfaces are operationally ready. Ameritech Michigan Section
            271 Order at para. 136; BellSouth South Carolina Section 271
            Order at para. 96. In addition, the BOC's deployment of OSS
            functions to competing carriers must be able to handle current
            demand as well as reasonably foreseeable demand. Ameritech
            Michigan Section 271 Order at para. 138; BellSouth South
            Carolina Section 271 Order at para. 97.
                      For those OSS functions a BOC provides to a competing
                    carrier that are analogous to OSS functions that the
                    BOC provides to itself, the BOC must provide access to
                    competing carriers that is equivalent to the level of
                    access that the BOC provides to itself in terms of
                    quality, accuracy and timeliness (i.e., it provides OSS
                    functions in substantially the same time and manner as
                    it provides to itself). Local Competition First Report
                    and Order, 11 FCC Rcd at para. 517; Ameritech Michigan
                    Section 271 Order at para. 139, BellSouth South
                    Carolina Section 271 Order at para. 98.
                      For OSS functions without a retail analog, the BOC
                    must demonstrate that the access it provides competing
                    carriers offers an efficient competitor a meaningful
                    opportunity to compete. Ameritech Michigan Section 271
                    Order at para. 139; BellSouth South Carolina Section
                    271 Order at para. 98. The Commission's orders
                    emphasize results, not the process used to achieve
                    those results.
                      While actual commercial usage is the most probative
                    evidence that the BOC's OSS functions are operationally
                    ready, the Commission will also consider, carrier-to-
                    carrier testing, independent third-party testing, and
                    internal testing. Ameritech Michigan Section 271 Order
                    at para. 138.
                      Information that compares how the BOC provides access
                    to OSS functions to itself and to competing carriers is
                    critical in assessing whether the BOC is providing
                    nondiscriminatory access to such functions as required
                    by the statute. Ameritech Michigan Section 271 Order at
                    para.para. 204-213. Bureau staff, therefore, believes
                    that a BOC can demonstrate compliance with the
                    statutory requirements in checklist item (ii) by
                    submitting comparative performance data, such as the
                    period required to install a network element, how often
                    the promised installation dates are met, how well the
                    competing carrier is informed of the status of its
                    order, and how responsive the BOC is in providing
                    access to needed support functions. Ongoing reporting
                    of these measurements will assist in ensuring that the
                    BOC continues to meet its statutory obligations after
                    receiving section 271 authorization.
                 2. access to combinations of network elements
    Background
        Section 271(c)(2)(B)(ii) of the Act requires a section 271
    applicant to show that it offers ``[n]ondiscriminatory access to
    network elements in accordance with the requirements of sections
    251(c)(3) and 252(d)(1).''
        Section 251(c)(3) provides that an incumbent LEC ``shall provide
    such unbundled elements in a manner that allows requesting carriers to
    combine such elements in order to provide such telecommunications
    service.''
        Section 251(c)(6) provides that an incumbent LEC has the ``duty to
    provide, on rates, terms, and conditions that are just, reasonable, and
    nondiscriminatory, for physical collocation of equipment necessary for
    interconnection or access to unbundled network elements at the premises
    of the local exchange carrier.'' Section 251(c)(6) further provides
    that an incumbent LEC ``may provide virtual collocation if the local
    exchange carrier demonstrates to the State commission that physical
    collocation is not practical for technical reasons or because of space
    limitations.''
    Checklist Discussion
        New entrants may provide telecommunications service wholly through
    the use of unbundled network elements purchased from incumbent LEC's.
    47 C.F.R. Sec. 51.315(a); Local Competition First Report and Order at
    para. 328-341; see also Iowa Utils. Bd. v. FCC, 120 F.3d 753, 814 (8th
    Cir. 1997).
        A ``requesting carrier may choose any particular method of
    technically feasible * * * access to unbundled network elements,''
    including physical or virtual collocation. Local Competition First
    Report and Order at para. 549. Incumbent LEC's must provide technically
    feasible methods of obtaining interconnection or access to unbundled
    network elements that include, but are not limited to, physical and
    virtual collocation at the premises of an incumbent LEC. 47 C.F.R.
    Sec. 51.321.
        A requesting carrier ``may achieve the capability to provide
    telecommunications services completely through access to the unbundled
    elements of an incumbent LEC's network.'' Iowa Utils. Bd., 120 F.3d at
    814. Incumbent LEC's must offer network elements in a manner that
    allows new entrants to combine them to provide a finished
    telecommunications service. Iowa Utils. Bd., 120 F.3d at 814.
        A BOC must offer nondiscriminatory access to network elements in a
    manner that allows competing carriers to combine such elements in order
    to satisfy section 271(c)(2)(B)(ii). 47 U.S.C. Sec. 251(c)(3).
        While it is unclear from Iowa Utils. Bd. whether the Act requires
    unbundled elements to be provided on a physically separated basis, or
    whether the Act allows competing carriers to have physical access to
    the BOC's' networks in order to combine network elements without the
    use of physical collocation, at a minimum, Bureau staff believes that
    the BOC must demonstrate that at least one of the methods it offers
    satisfies the statutory nondiscrimination requirement. Bureau staff
    believes that a BOC may satisfy this requirement by, for example,
    providing physical or virtual collocation, direct access, mediated
    access, logical or electronic methods for combining network elements,
    or combining the elements on behalf of competing carriers for a
    separate charge.
        The following information would be useful in determining whether
    the BOC's method for allowing competing carriers to combine network
    elements meets the statutory nondiscrimination requirement:
          Length of time for new entrants to obtain and combine network
            elements, e.g., time required to build collocation cages; loop
            cutover times, etc.
          Practical availability of the BOC's selected method for providing
            access to network elements, including whether the BOC can meet
            current and reasonably foreseeable demand and has identified
            the specific terms and conditions for obtaining such access.
        checklist item (iii): nondiscriminatory access to poles, ducts,
                          conduits, and rights-of-way
    Background
        Section 271(c)(2)(B)(iii) of the Act requires a section 271
    applicant to provide or offer to provide ``[n]ondiscriminatory access
    to the poles, ducts, conduits, and rights-of-way owned or controlled by
    the [BOC] at just and reasonable rates in accordance with the
    requirements of section 224.''
        Section 224(b) grants the Commission its general authority to carry
    out the provisions of section 224. Notwithstanding this general grant
    of authority, section 224(c)(1) states that the Commission shall not
    regulate rates, terms, and conditions for, or access to, pole
    attachments where such matters are regulated by the state.
    Checklist Discussion
        Bureau staff believes that, if a state has exercised its preemptive
    authority under section 224(c)(1), a BOC satisfies its duty under
    checklist item (iii) if it complies with the state's, rather than the
    Commission's, regulations. See Local Competition First Report and Order
    at para. 1239.
        There is a preference for negotiations in the pole attachment
    context. See Pole Attachment Telecommunications Rate Order at
    para.para. 10-21. Nonetheless, where the parties do not arrive at
    mutually satisfactory pole attachment arrangements, and if the state
    has not exercised its preemptive authority under section 224(c), Bureau
    staff believes that the BOC must comply with the statutory requirements
    of section 224 and the Commission's implementing regulations to satisfy
    the requirement in checklist item (iii) that the BOC provide
    nondiscriminatory access to poles, ducts, conduits, and rights-of-way
    at just and reasonable rates. See Local Competition First Report and
    Order at para. 1239.
                Nondiscriminatory Access:
        Bureau staff believes that, in determining whether a BOC provides
    ``nondiscriminatory access'' in accordance with the requirements of
    section 224, the Commission should consider whether the BOC complies
    with the regulations established by the Commission in the Local
    Competition First Report and Order, implementing the nondiscriminatory
    access provisions of section 224(f) for purposes of section 251(b)(4).
          The reasonableness of particular conditions of access imposed by
            a utility should be resolved on a case-specific basis. Local
            Competition First Report and Order at para. 1143.
          The Commission also adopted five specific rules regarding the
            circumstances under which utilities, including LEC's, may be
            permitted to impose conditions on access to their poles, ducts,
            and conduits, and rights-of-way. Local Competition First Report
            and Order at para.para. 1151-58.
                      In evaluating a request for access, a utility should
                    continue to rely on widely-accepted codes, such as the
                    National Electric Safety Code (NESC), to prescribe
                    standards with respect to capacity, safety,
                    reliability, and general engineering principles. Local
                    Competition First Report and Order at para. 1151.
                      Federal requirements, such as those imposed by the
                    Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) and the
                    Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA),
                    should continue to apply to utilities to the extent
                    such requirements affect requests for access pursuant
                    to section 224(f). Local Competition First Report and
                    Order at para. 1152.
                      State and local requirements affecting pole
                    attachments are presumed to be reasonable, even if the
                    state has not sought to preempt federal regulations
                    under section 224(c). Local Competition First Report
                    and Order at para. 1153.
                      Where access is mandated, the rates, terms, and
                    conditions of access should be uniformly applied to all
                    telecommunications carriers and cable operators that
                    have or seek access pursuant to section 2224(f). Local
                    Competition First Report and Order at para. 1156.
                      A utility should not favor itself over other parties
                    with respect to the provision of telecommunications or
                    video programming services. Local Competition First
                    Report and Order at para. 1151.
        The Commission also adopted certain guidelines, pursuant to section
    224, to facilitate negotiation of pole attachment arrangements. Because
    checklist item (iii) expressly cross-references section 224, Bureau
    staff believes that the Commission should consider whether the BOC has
    complied with these guidelines pertaining to reservation of space by
    the telecommunications carrier, qualifications for workers installing
    lines, procedures for modifying facilities, and procedures for denying
    requests for access. Local Competition First Report and Order at
    para.para. 1164, 1165-70, 1182, 1209, 1211, 1224.
                Just and Reasonable Rates:
        Bureau staff believes that, in order to satisfy the requirement in
    checklist item (iii) that access be provided at ``just and reasonable''
    rates, a BOC must comply with the statutory requirements of section 224
    and the Commission's implementing regulations.
        Currently, a BOC satisfies its duty to provide access to its poles,
    ducts, conduits, and rights-of-way at ``just and reasonable'' rates if
    the rate for such pole attachments complies with the rate methodology
    set forth in section 224(d)(1) of the Act. 47 U.S.C. Sec. 224(d).
        After February 8, 2001, the rate for pole attachments used to
    provide telecommunications service is ``just and reasonable'' if the
    rate for such attachments complies with the Commission's regulations
    implementing the requirements of section 224(e). 47 U.S.C.
    Sec. Sec. 224(e); Pole Attachment Telecommunications Rate Order
    para.para. 20-21, 125.
                   checklist item (iv): unbundled local loops
    Background
        Section 271(c)(2)(B)(iv) of the Act requires a section 271
    applicant to provide or offer to provide access to ``[l]ocal loop
    transmission from the central office to the customer's premises,
    unbundled from local switching or other services.''
        Section 271(c)(2)(B)(ii) of the Act requires a section 271
    applicant to show that it offers ``[n]ondiscriminatory access to
    network elements in accordance with the requirements of sections
    251(c)(3) and 252(d)(1).''
        Section 251(c)(3) establishes an incumbent LEC's ``duty to provide,
    to any requesting telecommunications carrier for the provision of a
    telecommunications service, nondiscriminatory access to network
    elements on an unbundled basis at any technically feasible point on
    rates, terms, and conditions that are just, reasonable, and
    nondiscriminatory in accordance with the terms and conditions of the
    agreement and the requirements of [section 251] * * * and section
    252.''
    Checklist Discussion
        The local loop is an unbundled network element that must be
    provided on a nondiscriminatory basis pursuant to section 251(c)(3).
    See 47 U.S.C. Sec. 271(c)(2)(B)(ii) and (iv).
        Bureau staff believes that a BOC seeking to satisfy checklist item
    (iv) must provide nondiscriminatory access to the various types of
    unbundled loops identified by the Commission in the Local Competition
    First Report and Order, e.g., 2-wire voice-grade analog loops, 4-wire
    voice-grade analog loops, and 2-wire and 4-wire loops conditioned to
    allow the competing carrier to attach requisite equipment to transmit
    the digital signals needed to provide services such as ISDN, ADSL,
    HDSL, and DS1-level signals. Local Competition First Report and Order
    at para. 380.
        The BOC must deliver the unbundled loop to the competing carrier
    within a reasonable timeframe, with a minimum of service disruption,
    and of the same quality as the loop that the BOC used to provide
    service to its own customer. 47 C.F.R. Sec. 51.313(b); 47 C.F.R.
    Sec. 51.311(b); Local Competition First Report and Order at para.para.
    312-316.
        A BOC must provide access to any functionality of the loop
    requested by a competing carrier unless it is not technically feasible
    to condition the loop facility to support the particular functionality
    requested. Local Competition First Report and Order at para. 382. For
    example, if it is technically feasible to unbundle a loop to allow the
    CLEC to provide greater bandwidth than that previously provided by the
    BOC over that loop, the BOC must show that it provides such
    functionality.
        A BOC must provide cross-connect facilities, for example, between
    an unbundled loop and a requesting carrier's collocated equipment.
    Local Competition First Report and Order at para. 386.
        At the request of participants in the 271 dialogue, Bureau staff is
    currently discussing how a BOC can meet the statutory nondiscrimination
    requirement when a requested loop is integrated with other loops
    through Integrated Digital Loop Carrier (IDLC) technology or similar
    remote concentration devices. IDLC allows a carrier to aggregate and
    multiplex loop traffic at a remote concentration point and to deliver
    that multiplexed traffic directly into the switch without first
    demultiplexing the individual loops.
        As described in the discussion of checklist item (ii), competing
    carriers must have nondiscriminatory access to the various functions of
    the BOC's' operations support systems in order to obtain unbundled
    loops in a timely and efficient manner. Bureau staff believes that a
    BOC can demonstrate compliance with this checklist item by submitting
    comparative performance data. Useful information includes how long it
    takes to install a loop, how often the promised installation dates are
    met, how well the competing carrier is informed of the status of its
    order, and how responsive the BOC is in providing access to needed
    support functions.
                 checklist item (v): unbundled local transport
    Background
        Section 271(c)(2)(B)(v) of the Act requires a section 271 applicant
    to provide or offer to provide ``[l]ocal transport from the trunk side
    of a wireline local exchange carrier switch unbundled from switching or
    other services.''
        Section 271(c)(2)(B)(ii) requires a section 271 applicant to
    provide [n]ondiscriminatory access to network elements in accordance
    with the requirements of sections 251(c)(3) and 252(d)(1).''
        Section 251(c)(3) establishes an incumbent LEC's ``duty to provide,
    to any requesting telecommunications carrier for the provision of a
    telecommunications service, nondiscriminatory access to network
    elements on an unbundled basis at any technically feasible point on
    rates, terms, and conditions that are just, reasonable, and
    nondiscriminatory in accordance with the terms and conditions of the
    agreement and the requirements of [section 251] * * * and section
    252.''
    Checklist Discussion
        Transport is an unbundled network element that must be provided on
    a nondiscriminatory basis pursuant to section 251(c)(3). See 47 U.S.C.
    Sec. 271(c)(2)(B)(ii) and (v). Transport can either be dedicated to a
    particular carrier or shared by multiple carriers including the
    incumbent LEC.
        The BOC must provide transport to a competing carrier under terms
    and conditions that are equal to the terms and conditions under which
    the incumbent LEC provisions such elements to itself. Local Competition
    First Report and Order at para. 315; see also 47 C.F.R. Sec. 51.313(b).
        As described in the discussion of checklist item (ii), competing
    carriers must have nondiscriminatory access to the various functions of
    the BOC's' operations support systems in order to obtain unbundled
    local transport. Bureau staff believes that a BOC can demonstrate
    compliance with this checklist item by submitting comparative
    performance data. Useful information include data indicating how long
    it takes to provision transport, how often the promised installation
    dates are met, how well the competing carrier is informed of the status
    of its order, and how responsive the BOC is in providing access to
    needed support functions.
        At the request of participants in the 271 dialogue, Bureau staff is
    discussing whether the transport link between a BOC's switch and a
    third party's switch must be shared, dedicated, or subject to a
    transiting arrangement when a new entrant purchases shared transport.
                Dedicated Transport:
        To comply with the statutory requirement of section 251(c)(3), an
    incumbent LEC must: provide unbundled access to dedicated transmission
    facilities between LEC central offices or between such offices and
    those of competing carriers, including at a minimum, interoffice
    facilities between end offices and service wire centers (SWC's), SWC's
    and interexchange carriers' (IXC's') points of presence (POP), tandem
    switches and SWC's, end offices or tandems of the incumbent LEC, and
    the wire centers of incumbent LEC's and requesting carriers. Local
    Competition First Report and Order at para. 440.
      --provide all technically feasible transmission capabilities, such as
            DS1, DS3, and Optical Carrier levels (e.g., OC-3/12/48/96) that
            the competing provider could use to provide telecommunications
            services. Local Competition First Report and Order at para.
            440.
      --not limit the facilities to which dedicated interoffice transport
            facilities are connected, provided such interconnection is
            technically feasible, or restrict the use of unbundled
            transport facilities. Local Competition First Report and Order
            at para. 440; see also 47 C.F.R. Sec. 51.309.
      --to the extent technically feasible, provide requesting carriers
            with access to digital cross-connect system (DCS) functionality
            in the same manner that incumbent LEC's offer such capabilities
            to IXC's that purchase transport services. A DCS aggregates and
            disaggregates high-speed traffic carried between competing LEC
            switches and incumbent LEC switches, thereby facilitating the
            use of cost-efficient, high-speed interoffice facilities. 47
            C.F.R. Sec. 51.319(d)(2)(iv); Local Competition First Report
            and Order at para. 444.
                Shared Transport
        To comply with the statutory requirement of section 251(c)(3), an
    incumbent LEC must:
      --provide shared transport in a way that enables the traffic of
            requesting carriers to be carried on the same transport
            facilities that an incumbent LEC uses for its own traffic.
            Local Competition Third Reconsideration Order at para. 22.
      --provide shared transmission facilities between end offices
            switches, between end office and tandem switches, and between
            tandem switches, in its network. Local Competition Third
            Reconsideration Order at para. 25.
      --permit requesting carriers that purchase unbundled shared transport
            and unbundled switching to use the same routing table that is
            resident in the incumbent LEC's switch. Local Competition Third
            Reconsideration Order at para. 45.
      --permit requesting carriers to use shared transport as an unbundled
            element to carry originating access traffic from, and
            terminating access traffic to, customers to whom the requesting
            carrier is also providing local exchange service. Local
            Competition Third Reconsideration Order at para.para. 38-39.
                 checklist item (vi): unbundled local switching
    Background
        Section 271(c)(2)(B)(vi) of the Act requires a section 271
    applicant to provide or offer to provide ``[l]ocal switching unbundled
    from transport, local loop transmission, or other services.''
        Section 271(c)(2)(B)(ii) of the Act requires a section 271
    applicant to show that it offers ``[n]ondiscriminatory access to
    network elements in accordance with the requirements of sections
    251(c)(3) and 252(d)(1).''
        Section 251(c)(3) establishes an incumbent LEC's ``duty to provide,
    to any requesting telecommunications carrier for the provision of a
    telecommunications service, nondiscriminatory access to network
    elements on an unbundled basis at any technically feasible point on
    rates, terms, and conditions that are just, reasonable, and
    nondiscriminatory in accordance with the terms and conditions of the
    agreement and the requirements of [section 251] * * * and section
    252.''
    Checklist Discussion
        Local switching is an unbundled network element that must be
    provided on a nondiscriminatory basis pursuant to section 251(c)(3).
    See 47 U.S.C. Sec. 271(c)(2)(B)(ii) and (iv).
        This requires the BOC to show that it provides nondiscriminatory
    access to:
      --line-side and trunk-side facilities plus the features, functions,
            and capabilities of the switch. 47 C.F.R. Sec. 51.319(c)(1)(i);
            Local Competition First Report and Order at para. 412.
        --line-side facilities include the connection between a loop
                termination at, for example, a main distribution frame, and
                a switch line card. 47 C.F.R. Sec. 51.319(c)(1)(i)(A);
                Local Competition First Report and Order at para. 412.
        --trunk-side facilities include the connection between, for
                example, trunk termination at a trunk-side cross-connect
                panel and a trunk card. 47 C.F.R. Sec. 51.319(c)(1)(i)(B);
                Local Competition First Report and Order at para. 412.
        --features, functions, and capabilities of the switch. 47 C.F.R.
                Sec. 51.319(c)(1)(i)(C); Local Competition First Report and
                Order at para. 412. These include:
        --basic switching function of connecting lines to lines, lines to
                trunks, trunks to lines, trunks to trunks, as well as the
                same basic capabilities that are available to the BOC's
                customers, such as a telephone number, directory listing,
                dial tone, signaling, and access to 911, operator services,
                and directory assistance. 47 C.F.R.
                Sec. 51.319(c)(1)(i)(C)(1); Local Competition First Report
                and Order at para. 412.
          --Lbasic switching function of connecting lines to lines, lines
                to trunks, trunks to lines, trunks to trunks, as well as
                the same basic capabilities that are available to the BOC's
                customers, such as a telephone number, directory listing,
                dial tone, signaling, and access to 911, operator services,
                and directory assistance. 47 C.F.R.
                Sec. 51.319(c)(1)(i)(C)(1); Local Competition First Report
                and Order at para. 412.
          --Lvertical features that the switch is capable of providing,
                including custom calling, CLASS features, and Centrex. 47
                C.F.R. Sec. 51.319(c)(1)(i)(C)(2); Local Competition First
                Report and Order at para. 412.
          --Ltechnically feasible customized routing functions. 47 C.F.R.
                Sec. 51.319(c)(1)(i)(C)(2); Local Competition First Report
                and Order at para. 412.
      --trunk ports on a shared basis, and routing tables resident in the
            BOC's switch, as necessary to provide nondiscriminatory access
            to shared transport facilities. Local Competition Third
            Reconsideration Order at para.para. 25-29; Ameritech Michigan
            Section 271 Order at para.para. 327-328; and
      --unbundled tandem switching, which includes the facilities
            connecting trunk distribution frames to the tandem switch and
            all functions of switch itself, including those that establish
            temporary transmission path between two other switches. 47
            C.F.R. Sec. 51.319(c)(2); Local Competition First Report and
            Order at para.para. 425, 426.
        Section 251(c)(3) permits competing carriers to purchase unbundled
    network elements for the purpose of offering exchange access services.
    Local Competition First Report and Order at para. 356.
        As described in the discussion of checklist item (ii), competing
    carriers must have nondiscriminatory access to the various functions of
    the BOC's' operations support systems in order to obtain unbundled
    local switching in a timely and efficient manner. At the request of
    participants in the 271 dialogue, Bureau staff is discussing various
    methods a BOC may employ to offer nondiscriminatory access to its
    operations support systems with respect to switching.
        Bureau staff believes that a BOC can demonstrate compliance with
    this checklist item by submitting comparative performance data. Useful
    information include how long it takes to provision switching, how often
    the promised installation dates are met, how well the competing carrier
    is informed of the status of its order, and how responsive the BOC is
    in providing access to needed support functions.
        The BOC must be able to transfer a customer's local service to a
    competing carrier using unbundled local switching--where such a
    transfer requires only a change in the BOC's software--within a time
    period no greater than the interval within which the BOC transfers end
    users between interexchange carriers. 47 C.F.R. Sec. 51.319(c)(1)(ii);
    Local Competition First Report and Order at para. 421). Where, however,
    provisioning of unbundled local switching will require the incumbent
    LEC to make physical modifications to its network, the BOC must
    demonstrate that it provisions this element under terms and conditions
    that are no less favorable to the requesting carrier than the terms and
    conditions under which the incumbent LEC provides such elements to
    itself. 47 C.F.R. Sec. 51.313(b); Local Competition First Report and
    Order at para.para. 315, 421.
      checklist item (vii): 911/e911, directory assistance, and operator
                                    services
    Background
        Section 271(c)(2)(B)(vii) of the Act requires a section 271
    applicant to provide or offer to provide: ``[n]ondiscriminatory access
    to--(I) 911 and E911 services; (II) directory assistance services to
    allow the other carrier's customers to obtain telephone numbers; and
    (III) operator call completion services.''
    Checklist Discussion for 911/E911 Services
        To comply with the statutory nondiscrimination requirement, the BOC
    must:
      --provide competitors access to its 911 and E911 services in the same
            manner that a BOC obtains such access, i.e., at parity.
            Ameritech Michigan Section 271 Order at para. 256.
      --maintain the E911 database entries for competing LEC's with the
            same accuracy and reliability that it maintains the database
            entries for its own customers. This duty includes, among other
            things, populating the E911 database with competitors' end user
            data and perform error correction for competitors on a
            nondiscriminatory basis. Ameritech Michigan Section 271 Order
            at para. 256.
        --A BOC can demonstrate that it is providing nondiscriminatory
                access to 911/E911 services by submitting data
                demonstrating that the 911 database is populated as
                accurately, and that errors are detected and remedied as
                quickly, for entries submitted by competing carriers as it
                is for its own entries. Ameritech Michigan Order at para.
                278. Useful information include the percentage of errors
                found in competing LEC end user information and BOC end
                user information, respectively, the percentage of accurate
                updates, the timeliness of updates for the E911 database,
                and the mean time to update the E911 database.
      --provide facilities-based competitors with interconnection through
            the use of dedicated trunks from the requesting carrier's
            switching facilities to the applicable 911 control office, at
            parity with what the BOC provides to itself. Ameritech Michigan
            Section 271 Order at para. 256.
      --provide facilities-based competitors unbundled access to its 911
            database at parity with what the BOC provides to itself.
            Ameritech Michigan Section 271 Order at para.para. 256, 270.
    Checklist Discussion for OS/DA
        Operator services and directory assistance (OS/DA) are network
    elements that must be unbundled on a nondiscriminatory basis at any
    technically feasible point. 47 C.F.R. Sec. 51.319(g); Local Competition
    First Report and Order at para.para. 534; see 47 U.S.C.
    Sec. 271(c)(2)(B)(ii) and (vii).
        To comply with the statutory nondiscrimination requirement, the BOC
    must:
      --permit competing providers to have access to operator services and
            directory assistance that is equal in quality to the access
            that the BOC provides to itself. See Local Competition Second
            Report and Order at para. 101.
      --allow competing carriers to download all the information in the
            BOC's directory assistance database and to access specific
            listings on a ``per dip'' inquiry basis. Local Competition
            Second Report and Order at para.para. 141, 143; Local
            Competition First Report and Order at para. 538.
        Where technically feasible, a BOC must make available unbranded or
    rebranded OS/DA services to competing carriers through its OS/DA
    platform. See Local Competition First Report and Order at para.para.
    537, 971.
          At the request of participants in the 271 dialogue, Bureau staff
            is discussing whether a BOC requirement that competitors
            establish separate trunk groups to obtain unbranded/rebranded
            OS/DA services from the BOC is consistent with the statutory
            obligation to provide nondiscriminatory access to OS/DA.
          An additional issue under discussion is whether the BOC must
            provide unbranded or rebranded OS/DA through its own OS/DA
            platform in those states where the state commission has
            determined it is not ``technically feasible'' for a BOC to
            provide unbranded/rebranded OS/DA to competing carriers using
            the BOC's OS/DA platform.
        As described in the discussion of checklist item (ii), a BOC must
    provide competing carriers the necessary OSS functions to obtain access
    to OS/DA in a timely and efficient manner. Bureau staff believes that a
    BOC can demonstrate compliance with this checklist item by submitting
    comparative performance data. An example of such data would be a
    measurement of the speed of answer provided by the BOC.
                  checklist item (viii): white pages listings
    Background
        Section 271(c)(2)(B)(viii) states that access or interconnection
    provided or generally offered by a BOC must include ``White [P]ages
    directory listings for customers of the other carrier's telephone
    exchange service.''
    Checklist Discussion
        Bureau staff believes that the term ``directory listing,'' as used
    in checklist item (viii), should include, at a minimum, the
    subscriber's name, address, telephone number, or any combination
    thereof. See 47 U.S.C. Sec. 222(f)(3)(A). Bureau staff believes that
    the term ``White Pages'' refers to the local alphabetical directory
    that includes the residential and business listings of the customers of
    the local exchange providers.
        Bureau staff believes that checklist item (viii) requires the BOC
    to include the names, addresses, and telephone numbers, or combinations
    thereof, of the customers of a competing carrier in the local White
    Pages directory.
        To compete effectively in the local exchange market, new entrants
    must be able to provide service to their customers at a level that is
    comparable to the service provided by the BOC. Bureau staff believes
    that checklist item (viii) requires the BOC to provide a White Pages
    listing for the customers of a competing carrier in a nondiscriminatory
    manner.
        Bureau staff believes that, in determining whether a BOC satisfies
    the requirements of checklist item (viii), the Commission should
    consider the following:
      --whether the listing the BOC provides to a competitor's customers is
            identical to, and fully integrated with, the BOC's customers'
            listings.
      --whether the BOC provides a White Pages listing for a competitor's
            customers with the same accuracy and reliability that it
            provides to its own customers.
      --whether the BOC has procedures in place that are intended to ensure
            that the listings provided to a competing carrier are
            comparable, in terms of accuracy and reliability, to the
            listings provided to the BOC's customers.
                 checklist item (ix): numbering administration
    Background
        Section 271(c)(2)(B)(ix) of the Act requires a section 271
    applicant to provide nondiscriminatory access to telephone numbers for
    assignment to competing carriers' telephone exchange service customers,
    ``[u]ntil the date by which telecommunications numbering administration
    guidelines, plan, or rules are established.'' After that date, the BOC
    is required to comply with such guidelines, plan, or rules.
    Checklist Discussion
        When ``consider[ing] each BOC's application to enter in-region
    interLATA services pursuant to section 271(c)(2)(B) on a case by case
    basis,'' the Commission ``will look specifically at the circumstances
    and business practices governing CO [Central Office] code
    administration in each applicant's state to determine whether the BOC
    has complied with section 271(c)(2)(B)(ix).'' Local Competition Second
    Report and Order at para. 345.
        BOC functions as numbering administrator will be transferred over
    the next 18 months to the neutral North American Numbering Plan
    Administrator (NANPA), which will be governed both by industry
    guidelines and by rules the Commission codified in its October 9, 1997
    order naming the new NANPA, Lockheed Martin IMS. Once that transition
    is complete, the guidelines, plan, and rules will have been established
    (subject to further revision by the industry and/or the Commission),
    and the BOC's will no longer serve as CO code administrators.
        Bureau staff believes that the Commission, in determining whether a
    BOC has complied with section 271(c)(2)(B)(ix), should consider whether
    the BOC has provided nondiscriminatory access to numbers that the BOC
    assigns in its role as CO administrator. Examples of the kind of
    information that would be instructive include adherence to industry
    guidelines, such as the Central Office Code Administration Guidelines
    (Central Office Code (NXX) Assignment Guidelines (INC 95-0407-008)
    (April 1997)) and the NPA Code Relief Planning and Notification
    Guidelines (NPA Code Relief Planning and Notification Guidelines (INC
    97-0404-016) (April 1997)), where applicable.
        Checklist item (ix) is similar to the requirement in section
    251(b)(3) that LEC's provide nondiscriminatory access to telephone
    numbers to competing providers by permitting competing providers access
    to telephone numbers that is identical to the access that the LEC
    provides itself. 47 C.F.R. Sec. 51.217(c)(1); Local Competition Second
    Report and Order at para. 106. Bureau staff believes that providing
    nondiscriminatory access to telephone numbers, for purposes of section
    271(c)(2)(b)(ix), necessitates compliance with the rules implementing
    section 251(b)(3). Specifically:
      --incumbent LEC's providing telephone numbers may only charge other
            telecommunications carriers fees for the assignment of CO codes
            if they charge one uniform fee for all carriers, including
            themselves and their affiliates. Local Competition Second
            Report and Order at para.para. 328, 332-33;
      --incumbent LEC's are not allowed to ``assess[] unjust,
            discriminatory, or unreasonable charges for activating CO codes
            on any carrier or group of carriers.'' Local Competition Second
            Report and Order at para. 333;
      --any attempt by an incumbent LEC ``to delay or deny CO code
            assignments for competing providers of telephone exchange
            service would violate section 251(b)(3), where applicable,
            section 202(a), and the Commission's numbering administration
            guidelines.'' Id. para. 334. Incumbent LEC's must ``apply
            identical standards and procedures for processing all numbering
            requests, regardless of the identity of the party making the
            request.'' Local Competition Second Report and Order at para.
            333.
             checklist item (x): databases and associated signaling
    Background
        Section 271(c)(2)(B)(x) of the Act requires a section 271 applicant
    to provide or offer to provide ``[n]ondiscriminatory access to
    databases and associated signaling necessary for call routing and
    completion.''
        Section 271(c)(2)(B)(ii) of the Act requires a section 271
    applicant to demonstrate that it offers ``[n]ondiscriminatory access to
    network elements in accordance with the requirements of sections
    251(c)(3) and 252(d)(1).''
        Section 251(c)(3) in turn establishes an incumbent LEC's ``duty to
    provide, to any requesting telecommunications carrier for the provision
    of a telecommunications service, nondiscriminatory access to network
    elements on an unbundled basis at any technically feasible point on
    rates, terms, and conditions that are just, reasonable, and
    nondiscriminatory in accordance with the terms and conditions of the
    agreement and the requirements of [section 251] * * * and section
    252.''
    Checklist Discussion
        Databases and signaling are unbundled network elements that must be
    provided on a nondiscriminatory basis pursuant to section 251(c)(3).
    See 47 U.S.C. Sec. 271(c)(2)(B)(ii) and (x).
        The BOC must demonstrate that it provides or offers to provide
    competitors access to databases and associated signaling necessary for
    call routing and completion in the same manner as it provides such
    access to itself. Specifically, the BOC must demonstrate that it
    provides or offers to provide nondiscriminatory access to the following
    components:
      --signaling networks, including signaling links and signaling
            transfer points, which give the requesting carrier the ability
            to send signals between its switches (including unbundled
            switching elements), between its switches and the BOC's
            switches, and between its switches and those third party
            networks with which the BOC's signaling network is connected.
            47 C.F.R. Sec. 51.319(e)(1); Local Competition First Report and
            Order at para.para. 479-483.
      --call-related databases that are necessary for call routing and
            completion, including the following: (1) line-information
            databases (e.g., for calling cards); (2) toll-free databases
            (i.e., 800, 888); (3) downstream number portability databases
            (i.e., the BOC's own database containing number portability
            routing information); (4) Advanced Intelligent Network (AIN)
            databases. 47 C.F.R. Sec. 51.319(e)(2); Local Competition First
            Report and Order at para.para. 484-492.
      --Service Management Systems, which are used to create, modify, or
            update information in call-related databases that are necessary
            for call routing and completion. 47 C.F.R. Sec. 51.319(e)(3);
            Local Competition First Report and Order at para.para. 493-500.
        The BOC should provide a requesting telecommunications carrier with
    access to call-related databases and service management systems in a
    manner that complies with section 222 of the Act. 47 C.F.R.
    Sec. 51.319(e)(2)(vi) and (3)(v).
        Useful information to determine compliance with this checklist item
    includes:
      --a comparison of the manner in which a BOC obtains access to its
            databases and signaling network and the manner it which it
            provides, or would provide, if requested, such access to
            competing providers;
      --an explanation of any differences in the manner in which a BOC
            obtains access to a database or signaling system, and the
            manner in which such access is provided to a competing
            provider, the need for such differences, and the basis for the
            Commission to find that such access satisfies the
            nondiscrimination requirement;
        As described in the discussion of checklist item (ii), competing
    carriers must have nondiscriminatory access to the various functions of
    the BOC's' operations support systems in order to obtain access to
    databases and signaling in a timely and efficient manner.
                    checklist item (xi): number portability
    Background
        Section 271(c)(2)(B)(xi) of the Act states that ``[u]ntil the date
    by which the Commission issues regulations pursuant to section 251 to
    require number portability,'' a section 271 applicant must provide
    ``interim telecommunications number portability through remote call
    forwarding, direct inward dialing trunks, or other comparable
    arrangements, with as little impairment of functioning, quality,
    reliability, and convenience as possible.''
        Section 271(c)(2)(B)(xi) further provides that, after the
    Commission issues such number portability regulations, a section 271
    applicant must be in ``full compliance with such regulations.''
    Checklist Discussion
        In determining whether a BOC has satisfied the number portability
    requirement of the competitive checklist, the Commission must determine
    whether the BOC provides number portability in accordance with section
    251 and the Commission's number portability rules implementing section
    251. Consistent with existing rules and orders, the Commission shall
    consider the following:
          With respect to interim number portability:
                      Whether the BOC is providing number portability
                    through remote call forwarding, direct inward dialing,
                    or other comparable and technically feasible interim
                    number portability methods as soon as reasonably
                    possible following a specific request from a competitor
                    in those areas where it has received a request from a
                    competitor and where the BOC is not yet obligated to
                    deploy long-term number portability. 47 C.F.R.
                    Sec. 52.27; Telephone Number Portability First Report
                    and Order at para.para. 110-116.
                              Bureau staff believes that a BOC should be
                            required to furnish the specific method of
                            interim number portability that a competing
                            carrier requests, if such method is technically
                            feasible and not unduly burdensome. Bureau
                            staff further believes that in deciding whether
                            a particular method is unduly burdensome,
                            relevant factors are the extent of network
                            upgrades needed to provide that particular
                            method, the cost of such upgrades, the business
                            needs of the requesting carrier, and the
                            timetable for deployment of a long-term number
                            portability method in that particular
                            geographic location.
                      Whether the BOC's rates for interim number
                    portability comply with the Commission's criteria for
                    competitive neutrality. 47 C.F.R.Sec. 52.29.
          With respect to long-term number portability:
                      Whether long-term number portability will be, or has
                    been, deployed in the state in accordance with the
                    implementation schedule established by the Commission.
                    47 C.F.R. Sec. 52.23; Telephone Number Portability
                    First Reconsideration Order at para.para. 48-126 and
                    App. B; Ameritech Michigan Section 271 Order at para.
                    342. For those Metropolitan Statistical Areas in the
                    BOC's state that are part of the Commission's phased
                    implementation schedule, relevant information would
                    include:
                        --Lthe BOC's schedule for intra- and inter-company
                    testing of a long-term number portability method;
                        --the current status of the switch request process,
                    including identification of the particular switches for
                    which the BOC is obligated to deploy number portability
                    and the status of deployment in requested switches; and
                        --the schedule under which the BOC plans to provide
                    commercial roll-out of a long-term number portability
                    method in specified central offices in the relevant
                    state. Ameritech Michigan Section 271 Order at para.
                    342.
                      Bureau staff believes that a timely filed request for
                    extension of the Commission's implementation schedule
                    tolls the obligation to comply with the Commission's
                    rules for purposes of checklist compliance. If,
                    however, the Commission denies such a request for an
                    extension of the implementation schedule, Bureau staff
                    believes such denial would be grounds for concluding
                    checklist item (xi) has not been met.
          With respect to both long-term and interim number portability:
                      Whether the BOC is providing number portability in a
                    nondiscriminatory manner consistent with the definition
                    of number portability set forth in 47 U.S.C.
                    Sec. 153(30). 47 C.F.R Sec. 52.23; Telephone Number
                    Portability First Report and Order at para.para. 46-63,
                    110-116; Telephone Number Portability First
                    Reconsideration Order at para.para. 11-47.
                              As described in the discussion of checklist
                            item (ii), competing carriers must have
                            nondiscriminatory access to the various
                            functions of the BOC's' operations support
                            systems in order to request and obtain number
                            portability in a timely and efficient manner.
                            Ameritech Michigan Section 271 Order at para.
                            342.
                              Bureau staff believes that, to provide
                            nondiscriminatory access to loops, the
                            Commission should consider whether provision of
                            number portability is coordinated with loop
                            cutovers so that the competitive LEC's
                            customers do not experience prolonged service
                            disruptions between transfer of service from
                            the BOC to the competitive LEC.
                   checklist item (xii): local dialing parity
    Background
        Section 271(c)(2)(B)(xii) of the Act requires a section 271
    applicant to provide ``[n]ondiscriminatory access to such services or
    information as are necessary to allow the requesting carrier to
    implement local dialing parity in accordance with the requirements of
    section 251(b)(3).''
        Section 251(b)(3) imposes upon all LEC's the duty to provide
    dialing parity to providers of telephone exchange service and telephone
    toll service with ``nondiscriminatory access to telephone numbers,
    operator services, directory assistance, and directory listing, with no
    unreasonable dialing delays.''
        The Act defines ``dialing parity'' to mean that: a person that is
    not an affiliate of a local exchange carrier is able to provide
    telecommunications services in such a manner that customers have the
    ability to route automatically, without the use of any access code,
    their telecommunications to the telecommunications service provider of
    the customer's designation from among 2 or more telecommunications
    service providers (including such local exchange carrier). 47 U.S.C.
    Sec. 153(15).
    Checklist Discussion
        The Eighth Circuit vacated the Commission's dialing parity rules,
    ``but only to the extent that they apply to intraLATA
    telecommunications.'' See People of the State of Cal. v. FCC, 124 F.3d
    934, 943 (8th Cir. 1997).
        Consistent with the statutory definition of dialing parity and
    section 251(b)(3), Bureau staff believes that a BOC, to comply with
    checklist item (xii), must establish that customers of competing
    carriers are able to dial the same number of digits that the BOC's
    customer dials to complete a telephone call and that they do not
    experience unreasonable dialing delays.
                 checklist item (xiii): reciprocal compensation
    Background
        Section 271(c)(2)(B)(xiii) of the Act requires that a section 271
    applicant's access and interconnection include ``[r]eciprocal
    compensation arrangements in accordance with the requirements of
    section 252(d)(2).'' ``Reciprocal compensation arrangements'' refer to
    agreements between interconnecting carriers about charges for the
    transport and termination of local telecommunications traffic over
    their respective networks.
        Section 252(d)(2) states that ``[f]or purposes of compliance by an
    [incumbnet ILEC] with section 251(b)(5)['s requirement that LEC's
    `establish reciprocal compensation arrangements for the transport and
    termination of telecommunications,'] a State commission shall not
    consider the terms and conditions for reciprocal compensation to be
    just and reasonable unless (i) such terms and conditions provide for
    the mutual and reciprocal recovery by each carrier of costs associated
    with the transport and termination on each carrier's network facilities
    of calls that originate on the network facilities of the other carrier;
    and (ii) such terms and conditions determine such costs on the basis of
    a reasonable approximation of the additional costs of terminating such
    calls.'' Section 252(d)(2)(B) further states that ``[t]his paragraph
    shall not be construed (i) to preclude arrangements that afford the
    mutual recovery of costs through the offsetting of reciprocal
    obligations, including arrangements that waive mutual recovery (such as
    bill-and-keep arrangements) or (ii) to authorize the Commission or any
    State commission to engage in any rate regulation proceeding to
    establish with particularity the additional costs of transporting or
    terminating calls, or to require carriers to maintain records with
    respect to the additional costs of such calls.''
    Checklist Discussion
        Bureau staff believes that in analyzing compliance with checklist
    item (xiii), the Commission should consider whether reciprocal
    compensation arrangements in accordance with section 252(d)(2) are in
    place.
        Bureau staff believes that if the BOC offers in its SGAT or
    provides in its interconnection agreement reciprocal compensation
    arrangements, it must demonstrate compliance with the SGAT or
    interconnection agreement by making all required payments in a timely
    fashion. At the request of participants in the 271 dialogue, Bureau
    staff is discussing whether a BOC meets this checklist item when there
    are disputes between the BOC and competing carriers over whether the
    BOC is obligated to pay reciprocal compensation for certain types of
    traffic, or over measurement of traffic eligible for reciprocal
    compensation.
                          checklist item (xiv): resale
    Background
        Section 271(c)(2)(B)(xiv) of the Act requires a section 271
    applicant to make ``telecommunications services * * * available for
    resale in accordance with the requirements of sections 251(c)(4) and
    252(d)(3).''
        Section 251(c)(4)(A) requires incumbent LEC's ``to offer for resale
    at wholesale rates any telecommunications service that the carrier
    provides at retail to subscribers who are not telecommunications
    carriers.''
        Section 251(c)(4)(B) prohibits ``unreasonable or discriminatory
    conditions or limitations'' on resale, with the exception that ``a
    State may, consistent with FCC regulations under this section, prohibit
    a reseller that obtains at wholesale rates a telecommunications service
    that is available at retail only to a category of subscribers from
    offering such service to a different category of subscribers.''
        Section 252(d)(3) sets forth the basis for determining ``wholesale
    rates'' as the ``retail rates charged to subscribers for the
    telecommunications service requested, excluding the portion thereof
    attributable to any marketing, billing, collection, and other costs
    that will be avoided by the local exchange carrier.''
    Checklist Discussion
        The Commission has issued several non-pricing regulations relevant
    to resale that were affirmed by the Eighth Circuit. A BOC must
    establish that it complies with these regulations to satisfy checklist
    item (xiv). These regulations provide:
          Resale restrictions, with limited specified exceptions, are
            presumptively unreasonable. Local Competition First Report and
            Order at para. 939.
          The limited exceptions are: (1) a state commission may permit an
            incumbent LEC to prohibit a competing carrier that purchases at
            wholesale rates for resale, telecommunications services that
            the incumbent LEC makes available only to residential customers
            or to a limited class of residential customers, from offering
            such services to classes of customers that are not eligible to
            subscribe to such services from the incumbent LEC, see 47
            C.F.R. Sec. 51.613(a)(1); and (2) short-term (90 days or less)
            promotional prices do not constitute retail rates for the
            underlying services, and, therefore, are not subject to the
            wholesale obligation. 47 C.F.R. Sec. 51.613(a)(1) and (2).
          Offerings under section 251(c)(4) apply to volume-based
            discounts; however, the avoidable costs for a service with
            volume-based discounts may be different than without volume
            contracts. Local Competition First Report and Order at para.
            951.
          With respect to volume discount offerings, it is presumptively
            unreasonable for incumbent LEC's to require individual
            customers of a reseller to comply with incumbent LEC high-
            volume discount minimum usage requirements, so long as the
            reseller, in aggregate, under the relevant tariff, meets the
            minimal level of demand. Local Competition First Report and
            Order at para. 953.
          Other than the two exceptions from the resale requirement in 47
            C.F.R. Sec. 51.613(a), an incumbent LEC may impose a resale
            restriction only if it proves to the state commission that the
            restriction is reasonable and nondiscriminatory. 47 C.F.R.
            Sec. 51.613(b).
        A BOC's refusal to offer Contract Service Arrangements (CSA's) at a
    wholesale discount constitutes non-compliance with checklist item
    (xiv), as it is not a ``reasonable and nondiscriminatory'' resale
    restriction. BellSouth South Carolina Section 271 Order at para. 215.
    There is no statutory basis for creating a general exemption from the
    wholesale requirement for CSA's. BellSouth South Carolina Section 271
    Order at para.para. 216-18. 47 C.F.R.Sec. 51.613(b) was intended only
    to grant state commissions the authority to approve ``narrowly-
    tailored'' resale restrictions that an incumbent LEC proves to a state
    commission are reasonable and nondiscriminatory. BellSouth South
    Carolina Section 271 Order at para. 218.
        The Commission has not addressed whether cancellation penalties
    when a new entrant seeks to resell a CSA contract are an unreasonable
    condition or limitation on resale. It has recognized, however, that
    these fees, depending upon their nature, may create additional costs
    for a CSA customer that seeks service from a reseller, which could
    insulate portions of the market from competition through resale.
    BellSouth South Carolina Section 271 Order at para. 222.
        A BOC may not refuse to offer for resale at a wholesale discount
    CSA's that the BOC entered into after the effective date of a state
    commission's arbitration order rendered its section 271 application
    deficient. BellSouth Louisiana Section 271 Order at para. 63. The
    Commission has not addressed the issue whether CSA's entered into
    before the effective date of a state commission's arbitration order
    should be offered for resale at a wholesale discount.
          Bureau staff believes that the Commission should also require a
            BOC to offer pre-arbitration CSA's for resale at the wholesale
            discount rate, consistent with the position the Commission's
            General Counsel has asserted in certain amicus curiae briefs
            filed in federal district court.
        In addition, a BOC must provide nondiscriminatory access to its OSS
    functions to competing carriers that resell BOC services. (For a
    discussion of OSS, see checklist item (ii).) Bureau staff believes that
    a BOC can demonstrate that it is providing non-discriminatory access to
    its OSS functions for resale by submitting performance data. Useful
    information include whether there is nondiscriminatory access to OSS
    for resale are information on the status of resale orders, the time it
    takes to fulfill a service request for a resale order, and the number
    of resale orders completed on time. Ongoing performance and monitoring
    will assist in ensuring that the BOC continues to meet its statutory
    obligations after receiving section 271 authorization.
                       SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

    STATEMENT OF HON. ARTHUR LEVITT, CHAIRMAN

                               Summary statement

        Senator Gregg. We will reconvene the hearing on Commerce,
    Justice, and State, and we are honored to have the Chairman of
    the SEC with us. Senator Hollings, do you have an opening
    statement?
        Senator Hollings. No, sir. Thank you very much.
        Senator Gregg. Proceed.
        Mr. Levitt. Chairman Gregg, and members of the
    subcommittee, I appreciate the opportunity of testifying here
    today in support of the Securities and Exchange Commission's
    budget proposal for 1999.
        We are grateful for the strong commitment the subcommittee
    has always given to the Commission and its work. The
    Commission's mission of protecting investors and promoting the
    integrity of our markets has never been more crucial. Consider
    the growth in our markets since 1980. Then, 1 out of every 17
    American households was invested in our markets. Today it is
    one household out of three.
        With that growth in mind, the Commission is seeking
    appropriations of $341.1 million for 1999. This figure
    represents an increase of $26.1 million and 30 staff years over
    last year's level.
        I have always tried to run the Commission like a business.
    We have exercised strong fiscal restraint for the past 4 years,
    keeping our staffing essentially flat. We have fulfilled our
    broad legal mandate to protect investors without overburdening
    the taxpayers.
        When I testified before this subcommittee last year, we
    talked about the likelihood that the Commission might need to
    seek a modest budget increase this year. I am here to ask for
    your support as I make that request today.
        Our capital markets are experiencing phenomenal growth in
    just about every area. The number of investors in our markets
    has grown to the highest level in history, largely through
    record investment in mutual funds. The value of mutual fund
    assets is now greater than the total value of deposits in all
    of America's commercial banks. The value of securities
    registrations is higher than ever before, and the volume of
    initial public offerings is at a near record level.
        The additional resources we are requesting today will help
    the Commission keep up with these trends. They will help our
    Enforcement Division to step up its campaign to prosecute
    securities fraud--stopping abuses in the microcap sector;
    cracking down on Internet fraud; pursuing complex litigation;
    and investigating a record number of insider trading cases.
        They will help our Division of Market Regulation assert
    effective oversight over the exchanges, and over new
    technologies for trading. They will help our Division of
    Corporation Finance review companies' financial information,
    IPO's, and merger and acquisition filings. And they will help
    our Division of Investment Management and our Office of
    Investor Education and Assistance keep Americans better
    informed and protected--able to protect themselves as they
    invest, many of them for the first time.
        The year ahead presents the Commission with many market
    challenges. Our major management challenge is retaining
    experienced staff members to carry out our mission. The staff
    turnover at the SEC has increased dramatically, especially
    among attorneys, accountants, and securities compliance
    examiners. With such competitive markets, Government salaries
    simply cannot compete with private sector offerings. So we have
    requested $7 million for retention allowances to help us keep
    highly skilled employees who would otherwise leave the
    Commission for private sector jobs. This is a pivotal step in
    ensuring consistency and experience in staff who bring
    important cases and oversee complex regulatory policies.
        Our markets are the strongest and deepest and most liquid
    in the world. They are fair to investors. They are efficient
    for business, and they are vital to our Nation's economy.

                               prepared statement

        I know that you share our commitment to ensuring that they
    remain so, and I look forward to continuing to work with you.
        Thank you.
        [The statement follows:]
                      Prepared Statement of Arthur Levitt
        Chairman Gregg and Members of the Subcommittee: I appreciate this
    opportunity to testify in support of the Securities and Exchange
    Commission's (SEC or Commission) fiscal 1999 budget. During the past
    year, we have seen phenomenal growth in our markets. The Dow reached an
    all-time high, more investors are investing in our markets than ever,
    and technological advances have made our markets more accessible to
    more people.
        In this time of record-breaking growth and technological
    innovation, we also see an increase in innovative schemes to defraud
    American investors. The Commission has been creative and diligent in
    trying to protect investors and promote the integrity and efficiency of
    our markets. It is abundantly clear that if we are to keep pace with
    market changes, the Commission needs additional staff and funding.
        Accordingly, the President's appropriation request for the SEC
    includes $341.1 million and 2,827 staff years in fiscal 1999, an
    increase of $26.1 million and 30 staff years from the Commission's
    fiscal 1998 appropriation. If approved, this will be the first increase
    in appropriated staffing and funding (except primarily for mandatory
    expenses) that the agency will have had since 1995.
                                role of the sec
        The SEC performs an essential function: overseeing one of the
    largest sectors of our national economy--the U.S. capital markets. The
    trillions of dollars invested in our markets fuel the U.S. economy.
    Since its creation in 1934, the Commission has been charged with
    protecting investors and maintaining fair and orderly markets.
        Since 1991, our markets have enjoyed the longest and most vigorous
    bull market in history. Accordingly, to put the SEC's requested
    appropriation in perspective, it has to be viewed against the backdrop
    of exponential growth and rapid changes in our markets.
                       current challenges facing the sec
        Extraordinary Market Growth.--Many Americans now invest their
    retirement savings in the securities markets, often through mutual
    funds. Americans now have an unprecedented stake in our markets. Our
    children's futures, our retirement money, and our future financial
    well-being are increasingly dependent on the success of our markets.
    More than ever before, Americans are investing in America. Consider the
    following statistics.
      --As recently as 1980, only one in 17 households invested in mutual
            funds; today that number has risen to more than one in three.
      --Assets in mutual funds have reached record levels of $4.5
            trillion--a figure that greatly surpasses the more than $2.7
            trillion Americans have on deposit at commercial banks--and
            continue to grow monthly.
      --The number of first-time small investors participating in the U.S.
            securities markets continues to grow.
      --A recent survey (conducted by a private concern) indicated that 24
            percent of those responding were very much dependent on the
            market for their retirement and 46 percent were somewhat
            dependent.
        The U.S. markets are widely regarded as the deepest, most liquid,
    and fairest markets in the world. We have seen tremendous expansion in
    our capital markets, and this exponential growth continues.
      --Within the past two years, the Dow broke 6,000, then 7,000, and
            then 8,000.
      --Within the past six months, the New York Stock Exchange and the
            Nasdaq Stock Market each have seen stock trading volume hit
            record highs.
      --In 1997, total dollar volume traded on the exchanges and the Nasdaq
            Stock Market exceeded 1996 dollar volume by 41 percent.
      --After three years of rapidly rising stock prices, American
            households have more of their assets invested in the stock
            market than at any time in history.
      --In 1997, the number of investment company portfolios increased 8
            percent from 24,265 in 1996 to 26,231.
      --A record $1.44 trillion in securities were registered with the
            Commission during 1997, a 20 percent increase over the $1.2
            trillion registered in 1996.
      --Over $100 billion in securities was registered in 1997 by foreign
            companies, setting a record for foreign company offerings in a
            single year.
        Market participation is at an all-time high. The influx of less
    sophisticated investors into our markets, however, has emboldened some
    to prey upon the unwary. In addition, new securities products and new
    technology have created new opportunities for fraud and abuse.
        Combatting Fraud.--Commission staff investigate and prosecute
    violations of the federal securities laws. These violations include
    fraudulent offerings of securities, market manipulation, insider
    trading, and violative conduct by regulated entities. The Commission
    has been vigilant in pursuing its law enforcement responsibilities,
    while trying to adapt its programs to changing market conditions.
        Internet Fraud.--Much of the remarkable expansion and momentum of
    the markets is a reflection of the current, ongoing technological
    revolution. The Internet now allows securities to be marketed directly
    to, and traded directly by, individuals around the world. We have seen
    fraudulent offerings of securities, manipulations, and other violative
    action conducted over the Internet.
        These developments, in combination, present extraordinary
    challenges to the SEC's law enforcement program. The Commission has
    been active in addressing these challenges.
      --The Commission stepped up its efforts to combat fraud committed
            over the Internet, forming a ``cyberforce'' to monitor Internet
            activity through surveillance.
      --The Commission focused its efforts on investor education. The
            Commission's website provides information to investors about
            fraudulent schemes.
      --The Commission is actively investigating fraud on the Internet and
            brought approximately 20 enforcement actions to curb the use of
            the Internet to perpetrate securities fraud.
        Microcap Fraud.--The market shows signs of an increase in abuses in
    the market for low-priced stocks or ``microcap'' stocks. Microcap
    stocks are issued by companies with lower capitalizations and are
    usually quoted on the National Association of Securities Dealers Over-
    the-Counter Bulletin Board, the pink sheets operated by the National
    Quotation Bureau, and the Nasdaq SmallCap Market. This part of the
    market provides legitimate opportunities for small and new businesses
    to raise capital, but also provides opportunity for criminals to prey
    on innocent investors. Microcap fraud often is accomplished through the
    use of sales practices such as abusive high-pressure cold calling,
    unauthorized trading in a customer's account, and stock manipulation
    schemes that enable the manipulator to reap profits while investors
    suffer losses after the manipulation stops.
        Addressing microcap stock fraud presents the difficult challenge of
    controlling the fraud without damaging the market for securities issued
    by legitimate small businesses. The Commission has begun a far-reaching
    campaign against microcap fraud. The Commission's initiatives include
    examinations and inspections, investor education, enforcement, and
    regulatory oversight.
      --Through Investor Alerts, the Commission's website, and town
            meetings, the Commission educated investors about practical
            tips on how to spot securities fraud.
      --Our examination staff intensified its examinations of broker-
            dealers and performed a ``sweep'' of brokers trading in
            microcap securities.
      --We increased our coordination of enforcement efforts with criminal
            authorities, the states, and self-regulatory organizations.
      --The Commission implemented a number of ten-day trading suspensions
            in stocks for which there was suspicious activity.
      --The Commission recently proposed amendments to strengthen its
            disclosure and broker-dealer regulations to reduce
            opportunities for microcap fraud.
        Municipal Securities Markets.--The Commission continues to work to
    eliminate pay-to-play practices, improve transparency, and improve
    disclosures made to investors. We brought a number of significant
    enforcement cases in the municipal securities area. In 1997, we brought
    14 cases, as compared to 8 cases in 1996.
        Inspections and Examinations.--The Commission's inspections and
    examinations provide compliance oversight of self-regulatory
    organizations, broker-dealers, transfer agents, and investment
    companies and advisers. In recent years, a number of developments in
    the securities industry have required significant staff attention and
    resources. These include: development of highly sophisticated products,
    increasing dependence on complex technology, a dramatic increase in
    assets under management by investment advisers, and growing popularity
    of microcap securities. Despite the demands placed on its resources,
    the Commission has remained vigilant in overseeing regulated entities.
    Recent initiatives include: a heightened emphasis on coordinating
    examinations with other regulators; using sweep examinations to obtain
    a more systematic view of industry problems and practices; and
    developing risk-based examination techniques that allow the more
    effective use of resources. Of course, our examination program
    continues to emphasize fundamental investor protection issues such as
    broker-dealer sales practices.
        International Agreements.--We now live in a global marketplace. The
    growing internationalization of the securities markets increasingly
    affects U.S. markets. While this trend provides new opportunities for
    investment and capital formation, it also creates new challenges for
    securities regulators. The Commission negotiates information-sharing
    agreements with foreign regulators to minimize the extent to which
    borders are used to escape detection and prosecution of fraudulent
    securities activities. During the past year, the Commission entered
    into formal information sharing agreements with the Bank of England,
    with Germany's securities regulator, and, just last week, with India's
    securities regulator, among others.
        Improving Disclosure and Educating Investors.--The Commission
    recognizes that the increase in less sophisticated investors presents
    new challenges for the Commission in carrying out its responsibility to
    protect investors.
        The Commission has tried to develop programs to promote more
    informed investment decisions. The Commission implemented a number of
    initiatives to improve disclosure and educate investors about investing
    and their investments. For example, the SEC:
      --began a series of national and community initiatives that will
            culminate at the end of this month in an unprecedented national
            public awareness campaign, ``The Facts on Saving and Investing
            Campaign,'' and will include a town meeting broadcast
            nationwide and to 21 countries participating in a hemispheric
            conference;
      --held town meetings in local communities to educate investors about
            investing;
      --required issuers to use plain English principles in drafting
            prospectuses and developed a plain English writing guide for
            issuers;
      --adopted rules to improve the disclosure of information about mutual
            funds to investors, including rules to improve fund
            prospectuses and a rule permitting funds to use a summary
            ``profile'' document;
      --issued staff guidance to the public and industry on disclosure
            obligations arising from year 2000 conversion;
      --transmitted its billionth page of text and data on the SEC's World
            Wide Web site, which now has an average of 3 million ``hits''
            per week and downloads an average of approximately 35 million
            pages of financial information per week--making it, we believe,
            consistently to be the most active federal website in
            operation; and
      --created a Task Force on Investment Adviser Regulation to implement
            the National Securities Markets Improvement Act of 1996
            (NSMIA), to review and modernize Commission regulations, and to
            develop a means by which investors can easily obtain
            information about investment advisers.
        Promoting Fair and Successful Markets.--During the past year, we
    also have seen increasingly complex financial instruments in our
    markets that have presented new and demanding challenges to the SEC.
    The SEC seeks to be flexible in adapting its regulations to encourage
    innovative products and services, consistent with investor protection.
    The Commission has undertaken several initiatives designed to promote
    improvements in market structures and operations and to encourage
    innovation in capital-raising activities.
      --The Commission issued a concept release that reexamines the
            regulation of the U.S. securities markets in light of
            technological developments, particularly with respect to
            alternatives to traditional exchange trading and electronic
            links to foreign markets.
      --The Commission implemented the new order handling rules to assure
            that markets are fair and open to investors and are based on
            competition.
      --The Commission published for comment rules for a class of
            registered dealers active in OTC derivatives markets. The
            proposal is designed to allow U.S. securities firms to
            establish dealer affiliates--called OTC derivatives dealers--
            that would be able to compete more effectively in global OTC
            derivatives markets by tailoring capital and other regulatory
            requirements for the OTC derivatives business.
      --The Commission held a series of town meetings with small businesses
            to educate them on capital raising strategies.
        To date, we believe that the Commission has been successful in
    carrying out its mandate, and investor confidence in our markets is
    high. Investor confidence must remain high if our markets are to
    continue to grow. Limited resources, however, may pose a threat to
    investor protection and market integrity. In recent years, the
    Commission has targeted its existing resources carefully to maintain
    effective performance levels. The Commission's request for additional
    funds is necessary for it to continue to fulfill its mandate to protect
    investors and support its efforts to promote market integrity and
    fairness.
               priorities and allocation of additional resources
        The SEC currently carries out its broad mandate with 2,797 staff
    years. The agency is able to accomplish its objectives by regulating,
    to a large extent, through a public-private partnership. This system of
    shared regulation between the SEC, self-regulatory organizations, and
    the industry is markedly different from the approach taken by other
    federal regulators. It enables us to leverage our resources with the
    efforts of the private sector. Even so, additional resources are
    urgently needed.
        Between 1980 and 1994, the number of SEC authorized positions
    increased 35 percent. To put that in perspective, for the same period
    assets under management of investment companies and investment advisers
    increased 964 percent and 2,082 percent, respectively.
        However, since 1995, authorized positions have been flat. We have
    been able to maintain a vigorous program at the SEC with flat staffing
    through fiscal restraint, conservative management, and the reallocation
    of existing resources. Of course, the Commission is mindful of the need
    to be fiscally responsible. However, if we fail to increase our
    staffing levels to keep pace with market expansion, we may risk failing
    to fulfill our mandated responsibilities. Expanding our human resources
    will allow us to further existing priorities and pursue new
    initiatives.
    Law Enforcement
        Combatting Fraud.--As discussed above, changing markets present new
    challenges for the Commission. The recent resurgence of microcap fraud
    and the use of the Internet to accomplish securities fraud are but two
    examples of the challenges. Thus, the Commission intends to allocate 15
    additional staff years for the Prevention and Suppression of Fraud
    program. Staff in the program will monitor potential fraudulent
    securities activity on the Internet and other on-line information
    services and will respond to continued growth and change in electronic
    forms of communication.
        While existing resources were devoted in 1998 to combatting
    microcap fraud, with the new staff, the SEC will be better able to
    coordinate its nationwide effort to address microcap issues, including:
    intervening in microcap frauds at the earliest point possible to
    minimize investor harm; enhancing surveillance; and coordinating with
    other federal, state, and industry regulators.
        Inspections and Examinations.--Although Commission staffing levels
    have remained constant since 1995, we reallocated resources to enhance
    inspection and examination activities. As a result of those additional
    examiners and new legislation that divided the regulatory
    responsibility over investment advisers between the Commission and the
    states, the SEC expects to meet its inspection goals in 1999. These
    goals include inspecting each of the large investment advisers
    qualified for federal registration and investment company complex at
    least once every five years. In addition, throughout the inspection
    program, the staff will continue development of risk-based examination
    techniques and maximize opportunities to coordinate with other
    regulators.
        While no additional inspection staff is being requested for 1999,
    additional funding is being requested to initiate a multi-year effort
    to develop and implement important new automated tools, including
    applications to track and monitor the examinations of self-regulatory
    organizations, broker-dealers, and investment companies and advisers,
    and applications to target examinations for broker-dealers and
    investment advisers.
    Disclosure and Promoting Honest and Efficient Markets
        The review of financial statements and registrations filed with the
    SEC is a fundamental element of the Commission's full disclosure
    program, which is designed to provide investors with material
    information, foster investor confidence, and facilitate capital
    formation. Our goal is to encourage and enhance compliance with federal
    securities disclosure and accounting requirements.
        We intend to allocate six additional staff years to corporate
    disclosure review. These additional staff members will enable the
    agency to increase review of issuer reports 7 percent from 1998 levels.
    This review will focus particular attention on compliance with plain
    English requirements and will monitor how companies are addressing the
    consequences of year 2000 conversion. The review levels achieved with
    the additional staff will help provide investors with access to
    important information on emerging and novel issues and provide
    deterrents to fraud in public securities transactions. Simplification
    of disclosure initiatives, including projects designed to assist small
    businesses, also will remain a priority for 1999.
        With respect to accounting policy, as more foreign registrants
    access U.S. markets, two additional staff years are needed to keep pace
    with major developments in international accounting and auditing. The
    International Accounting Standards Committee is working to complete a
    comprehensive core set of international accounting standards. After
    this is completed, the staff will assess the standards and make a
    recommendation to the Commission regarding the acceptability of those
    standards for use by foreign registrants in cross-border offerings and
    listings.
        Additionally, eight additional staff years are requested in 1999
    for the Supervision and Regulation of Securities Markets program to
    continue the re-evaluation of our approach to regulating markets,
    particularly the oversight of alternative trading systems, registered
    exchanges, and foreign market activities in the United States.
    Investment Company Disclosure
        Eight additional staff years are requested for investment company
    disclosure activity. The Commission recently adopted sweeping reforms
    to investment company prospectus disclosure requirements. In 1999, the
    staff will work with mutual funds as they revise their prospectus
    disclosures to comply with the new form requirements; review the new
    ``profiles'' filed by mutual funds; and monitor compliance with the new
    rules, increasing the number of investment company filings reviewed by
    the staff. The review process enhances investor protection by seeking
    to ensure that an entity's policies, procedures, and risks are
    disclosed fully and fairly and that proposed activities are consistent
    with the new rules.
        The staff will continue to respond to the rapid changes in the
    investment management industry, addressing issues such as investment
    company advertising rules, periodic reporting requirements, financial
    statements, and the electronic delivery of information to investors.
    Improved Technology
        The fast pace of technology and the pressure to deliver quickly
    computer products and services has resulted in an increased reliance on
    contractors with technical expertise. Outsourcing allows the Commission
    to leverage private sector expertise and shift the technology staff's
    focus from day-to-day operations to contract and project management and
    oversight and strategic planning. In 1997, the Commission hired an
    outside consultant to study how the operational efficiency of our
    information technology services could be improved. The study
    recommended the use of contractors for operations, maintenance, and
    application development.
        The shift in focus of the information technology staff from
    operations to strategic planning will result in a decrease of 15 staff
    years and also in the need for different skill sets with an emphasis on
    project management, contract administration, technology engineering,
    customer service, and network security skills.
        Additional funding ($5.7 million) also is requested to support the
    SEC's automation efforts to improve efficiency and productivity through
    the use of automated PC-based computer applications. The funding will
    enable the SEC to: complete the necessary conversion and testing for
    year 2000; initiate the multi-year effort to develop and implement
    important new tools for the inspections and examinations activity;
    establish an infrastructure replacement program; improve data delivery
    to the regions; further enhance document and correspondence management
    systems; develop software to access on-line trading information;
    implement user-friendly text search tools; and improve imaging,
    storage, and retrieval capabilities. Additionally, the staff will
    continue to work with various industry components to address year 2000
    conversion and testing.
        We appreciate the work and support of your staff on the
    reprogramming of funds for the modernization of EDGAR--the SEC's
    Electronic Data Gathering, Analysis, and Retrieval system. While EDGAR
    is one of the government's most successful large information system
    initiatives, the dramatic changes in technology over the past few years
    necessitate its modernization. This modernization, to be done over a
    three-year period, will greatly benefit issuers, investors, SEC staff,
    and other data users.
    Economic Analysis
        Three additional staff years are requested to provide conceptual
    and quantitative economic analysis focusing on issues such as investor
    protection, trading practices, market structure, and costs and benefits
    of rule changes.
    Administrative Law Judges
        Three additional staff years are requested to enable the
    administrative law judges to file initial decisions within ten months
    of issuance of the order for proceedings, as stipulated in the SEC's
    ``Guidelines for the Timely Completion of Proceedings.'' As a result,
    the number of proceedings pending disposition will start to decrease
    rather than continue on an upward trend.
                   additional funding for retention of staff
        Our ability to retain our existing staff members is critically
    important to our ability to get our job done. In fiscal 1997, turnover
    at the SEC increased dramatically, especially in our three major
    program occupations (attorneys, accountants, and securities compliance
    examiners). For example, the SEC's overall turnover rate in fiscal 1997
    was 11.9 percent compared to 9.5 percent in fiscal 1996. The 1997
    turnover rate for attorneys was 16 percent compared to 11.3 percent in
    1996. The 1997 turnover rate for accountants the rate was 12.1 percent
    compared to 9 percent, and for examiners the rate was 10.8 percent
    compared to 10.3 percent. By comparison, government-wide white collar
    turnover has been in the range of 7-8 percent a year for the last
    couple of fiscal years.
        The SEC's ability to retain experienced professional staff is
    critical to our ability to respond quickly to changing market events
    and enforcement activities. The securities industry is constantly
    seeking to hire lawyers, accountants, and securities compliance
    examiners with highly-valued SEC experience. Market growth will
    continue to increase demand for our seasoned securities professionals.
        To combat this growing high attrition rate, we have requested $7
    million for retention allowances. This retention initiative will
    utilize more fully the existing authorities available to federal
    agencies by expanding the use of retention allowances to retain, for
    one or more additional years, critically needed employees who might
    otherwise leave the Commission for higher-paying private sector jobs.
    While realizing that the agency cannot compete directly with private
    sector salary rates, we anticipate that this initiative will extend the
    tenure of key professional employees. The Office of Personnel
    Management and the Office of Management and Budget have reviewed the
    proposal and support the strategy as a reasonable way to use limited
    payroll dollars efficiently in order to try to retain key employees.
                               funding structure
        The President has proposed in his 1999 budget total funding for the
    SEC of $341.1 million, using several funding sources: $118.1 million in
    new budget authority, $205 million in current year offsetting
    collections, and $18 million in carryover from 1998 fees. The funding
    mix reflects the Administration's government-wide fee initiative that
    would, among other things, discontinue the practice of providing
    agencies whose budgets are primarily financed by fees with an upfront
    guarantee of budget authority which is later reduced as actual
    collections are received.
        The $84.6 million increase in budget authority over 1998 would
    permit us to carry into fiscal 2000 fees that are collected late in
    1999, allowing the SEC to be funded almost exclusively from fees. The
    proposed budget is consistent with the declining fee rates established
    in NSMIA. However, this approach continues the SEC's reliance on a
    combination of excess fee collections from prior years and new
    collections, thereby postponing the shift to a full appropriation.
                                   conclusion
        The Commission plays a vital role in protecting U.S. securities
    markets from fraud, manipulation, and other practices that continually
    threaten to undermine the integrity of our markets. In presenting
    today's budget request, the Commission has been mindful that government
    resources are limited. The Commission has requested a modest increase
    of staffing and retention authority that will enable us to continue
    targeting areas of market growth where our money can have the greatest
    impact. It also reflects the market realities--the loss of trained
    staff. Finally, our request recognizes that important work lies ahead
    of us. Among the challenges we will face over the coming year are:
    issues posed by the increasing number of small investors who invest
    their retirement savings in mutual funds through retirement plans;
    aggressively combatting fraud and maintaining public confidence in the
    markets; and maintaining vigilant oversight of markets as those markets
    grow increasingly complex and volatile.
        As the year 2000 approaches, the U.S. must be ready to meet the
    challenges presented by a changing marketplace in order to maintain the
    leadership of its markets. To take on new challenges, to continue the
    Commission's excellent record of effective investor protection, law
    enforcement, and market oversight, and to continue to fulfill its
    mission of protecting the millions of U.S. investors who have invested
    nearly $13 trillion in the U.S. securities markets, the Commission
    needs the increased resources requested today.
        The Commission looks forward to working with the Subcommittee in
    its continuing efforts to ensure the effectiveness of the SEC and the
    viability of our markets.

                              Retention allowance

        Senator Gregg. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First let me say
    how much we respect your agency and the work you do as
    Chairman. The fact is that we are the premiere market in the
    world, and we are there because of the SEC's discipline of that
    market as a place that has high integrity and financial
    statements.
        The public can have confidence in statements put out by our
    corporations, who are seeking public support through offerings,
    as a result of SEC oversight. And so your agency is critical.
    It does not take a lot of money compared to what we do around
    here, but it is sort of the point that holds everything else up
    from the standpoint of integrity of the markets.
        This committee strongly supports your efforts, and from my
    viewpoint, your request for this $7 million for retention
    allowances is very reasonable, and something we will certainly
    support.
        I wonder if you need any legal authority to assist you in
    this area. Are you all set as far as compensation legal
    authority?
        Mr. Levitt. I do not believe that we do need any special
    legal authority. We have set up a program that provides the
    maximum leverage for this, and maximum protections. We have set
    up a committee of senior executive staff personnel to screen
    each of the suggestions for any of this compensation.
        I cannot say to you in candor that this program or any
    program will guarantee that we will be able to stem the tide. I
    know of six people who are working for around $100,000 a year
    and who have offers of over $1 million in the private sector. I
    hope that a retention allowance will be a gesture to show
    people that we are able to fight for them and get them some
    recognition. But is that a guarantee? No; it is not. But I
    think we would be derelict if we did not try to keep them.
        They are patriots, as far as I am concerned. That is the
    only motivation for their being at the Commission. But there
    comes a point when the spread is just too wide.
        Senator Gregg. I understand that. We understand it as a
    committee. We are willing to support you. We have other
    agencies, probably not as dramatic as yours, that have this
    same type of problem. But your agency is unique.
        We all know that the people who work for you can go out and
    make a lot more in many instances, and maintaining
    professionalism in your agency is critical.
        So we will support you in whatever way we can in that area.

                                 Internet fraud

        You mentioned that you are looking at the Internet fraud
    issues. Maybe you could bring us up to speed as to what is
    happening.
        Mr. Levitt. Well, the Internet is a blessing and it is a
    danger. It is a danger in that it is a vast new opportunity for
    fraudsters to prey on the American public. And if either of you
    surf through the web, you will see all kinds of offerings--
    guaranteed 300 percent, buy an olive grove in Alaska and make
    your fortune.
        We brought a case not too long ago against a scamster who
    raised millions of dollars from 1,000 investors for the
    purchase of a nonexistent eel farm. No eels and no farm.
        On the other hand, because it is so open, we are able to
    see a lot of this stuff, and get at it, and we are bringing
    cases. We are developing a technology that makes it easier for
    us to interdict some of this stuff, as it happens.
        We have a program of investor education, which I think is
    an unusual one for Government, where we have town meetings all
    over America. We have had 24 of them so far, to teach investors
    how to protect themselves. We started in Camden, NJ, about 4
    years ago, where we had about 30 people come out. In Los
    Angeles 1 month ago we had nearly 6,000 people come out to ask
    us questions about how to protect themselves. And we are going
    to have a hemispheric town meeting, part of it in Spanish, in
    about 2 weeks. So education is part of it.
        Litigation is part of it. We bring cases against scamsters,
    wherever it is appropriate, so they know they cannot get away
    with fraud scot-free.
        These are our efforts. I think you know that no Government
    agency can protect people against their own bad judgment.
        Senator Gregg. And it should not.
        Mr. Levitt. It should not. But this is the general thrust
    of what we are doing, and how we are approaching it.
        Senator Gregg. Are you working with the FTC at all, which
    also is into this issue rather aggressively. Do you have any
    overlap there?
        Mr. Levitt. We are working with the FTC on this issue.
        Senator Gregg. Senator Hollings.
        Senator Hollings. I join in Chairman Gregg's comments about
    the outstanding nature in which you are performing. We are
    lucky to have you.
        Mr. Levitt. Thank you.

                       registration and transaction Fees

        Senator Hollings. And I am glad to see Mr. McConnell,
    because his father Guy McConnell, started with this
    Appropriations Committee when I first got up here.
        What happens now is a rhubarb relative to the fees. We are
    doing well, not with you, but with the discipline down town
    here. Because I well remember the fact that before the 1996
    agreement there was an appeal by the Securities and Exchange
    Commission that they had to do away and try to phase out this
    6(b) registration fees, which we are doing.
        But to supplant it, we got together with the Banking
    Committee on the Senate side, and the Commerce Committee on the
    House side, and the White House and worked out an arrangement
    whereby we would have the transaction fee of Nasdaq, New York
    Stock Exchange, and the American Stock Exchange that you
    headed. So we put them into Nasdaq. And that is working well
    now, is it not?
        Mr. Levitt. Yes; the specifics of the agreement were that
    we were going to reduce the 6(b) fees from one thirty-third of
    1 percent in 1997 to their previous rate of one fiftieth of 1
    percent in 2006, and to one one hundred fiftieth of 1 percent
    in 2007. At that time the total amount of fees collected was
    expected to equal what our requirement was. We also phased in
    Nasdaq, to keep them on the same level as the exchange
    transaction fees.
        There is some question as to whether Nasdaq double counts
    fees, which they do, and I think that the NASD may work out
    some adjustment in that, which will reduce the fees. But that
    is the process that is in place at this time.

                                closing remarks

        Senator Hollings. Well, OMB is giving us a problem by
    saying that the appropriations should come from discretionary
    appropriations, and not fees, which would automatically make us
    have to increase the SEC appropriations some $85 million.
        But I just wanted to have those observations on the record
    here, because I agree with Chairman Gregg also on the retaining
    of personnel. We have that. Now the Government is underpaid. I
    remember being up in New Hampshire with an executive of
    Wheelabrator-Frye, Mr. Murray Dingman.
        Senator Gregg. Mike Dingman.
        Senator Hollings. Mike Dingman. He was appointed by the
    Federal Government to try to reorganize it, and find out its
    worthiness. And I will never forget him saying at the end of
    the study that the top Government grade would be doubled and
    tripled in private industry and that they were lucky to have
    them in Government.
        We have that with the FBI. If you want to try to get rid of
    an FBI man, old Hoover used to say send them to Alaska. But you
    have to send them to New York now. And many want to get out.
    Because the wife, the family, the schools and everything else,
    they are going to lose their family and everything else unless
    they make a higher salary.
        They are just not paid enough. They cannot find a place to
    live. So the committee has a real problem there, and your
    request is minimal, and you are paying for it. I support it and
    support you in anyway we can. We are lucky to have you.
        Mr. Levitt. Thank you so much, Senator.
        Senator Hollings. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Gregg. I cannot think of what it was I was going to
    ask. Well, in any event it must not have been important,
    obviously.
        We thank you for taking the time to come by. We appreciate
    it. We will be funding your agency at your requested levels,
    and we will try to help you out in anything else that comes
    along that you need.
        Mr. Levitt. Thank you.

                             conclusion of hearings

        Senator Gregg. This subcommittee stands in recess until
    March 31, 1998, when it will hear testimony from the Attorney
    General on counterterrorism.
        [Whereupon, at 11:02 a.m., Thursday, March 19, the hearings
    were concluded, and the subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene
    subject to the call of the Chair.]

    DEPARTMENTS OF COMMERCE, JUSTICE, AND STATE, THE JUDICIARY, AND RELATED
                  AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 1999

                                  ----------

                                           U.S. Senate,
               Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
                                                        Washington, DC.

                           NONDEPARTMENTAL WITNESSES

        The following testimonies were received by the Subcommittee
    on Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and Related
    Agencies for inclusion in the record. The submitted materials
    relate to the fiscal year 1999 budget request for programs
    within the subcommittee's jurisdiction.
                             DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
     Prepared Statement of the American Federation of Government Employees
        Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: Thank you for the
    opportunity to present our views in writing.
    Bureau of Prisons Concerns
        The AFGE Council of Prison Locals represents 26,000 federal prison
    workers nationwide. Our main concerns are issues that have faced
    Congress and correctional officers for the past three fiscal years.
        The first concern is the continued emphasis on privatizing federal
    prisons. An August 1996 GAO report found no conclusive evidence that
    prison privatization leads to significant cost savings or improvements
    in quality. The Bureau of Prisons is an agency that has operated
    effectively for more than 60 years. The employees of the prison system
    take pride in their work and operate correctional facilities in a safe,
    humane, secure environment under the supervision of the Attorney
    General.
        In 1996 Congress took steps to privatize one federal prison in
    Taft, California. This was supposed to be a five-year pilot project to
    give Congress data on the potential savings from contracting out the
    operation of additional federal prisons.
        The problem is that BOP is skewing the data by allowing the
    contractor at Taft--Wackenhut Corrections--to operate a Federal Prison
    Industries program at the facility. This amounts to a subsidy to
    Wackenhut because it relieves the contractor of paying for alternative
    inmate activities.
        The AFGE Council of Prison Locals believes that attempts such as
    this to assist Wackenhut could result in misleading cost comparisons
    that might be used as invalid justifications for further privatization
    of BOP operations.
        The need for a valid analysis of the true cost of contractor
    operations is especially important in light of plans to privatize
    operations of the District of Columbia correctional system (including
    the Lorton Prison Complex) now under federal supervision.
        Congress has annually funded the Bureau of Prisons at a higher rate
    than requested by the President. That is because the federal prison
    system and its loyal employees operate the prisons in a manner that is
    professional and responsible. If this high level of performance is to
    continue, we need targeted funds to help pay for overtime costs. Given
    the staffing shortage at many facilities, overtime is the only way to
    be sure that the proper level of supervision exists in our prisons.
    Insufficient funds for overtime pay means that facilities often do not
    have a sufficient number of correctional officers on duty to ensure
    safety and security.
        Our last point on BOP is the problem of excessive managerial
    positions in the agency. Currently, there is a ratio of 1 supervisor to
    5 line employees. This is a far cry from the 1:15 target in the
    National Performance Review. This heavy layer of management increases
    the BOP's cost per inmate. Elimination of this situation would make it
    even clearer that BOP personnel can do the job more economically than
    contractors.
    Immigration and Naturalization Service Concerns
        The AFGE National Border Patrol Council has a number of concerns
    with regard to the Administration's authorization and budget request.
    First, we believe the concept of contracting the enforcement of
    immigration laws to state and local law enforcement agencies is ill-
    advised, as employees of such agencies do not receive adequate training
    in such laws, nor are they required to speak Spanish. This latter
    factor alone could result in any number of situations in which persons
    could be falsely arrested, medical emergencies of detainees could be
    neglected, or officers could be injured.
        The provision directing the Attorney General to subject INS
    employees to the disciplinary policies applicable to the Federal Bureau
    of Investigation cannot be applied to bargaining unit employees, as
    they are already covered under the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978.
        As noted in a recent GAO report, there is no evidence that the INS
    ``prevention through deterrence'' border control strategy is working.
    In fact, it appears that aliens are flooding across our borders in
    record numbers. The growth of the Border Patrol has been more than
    offset by the problems caused by the foolish tactic of stationing
    agents in fixed positions instead of allowing them to patrol the
    border. With fewer than 7,000 agents to monitor 6,000 miles of land
    border on a 24-hour basis, it is obvious that this strategy is not
    feasible. Since the Administration appears unwilling to voluntarily
    abandon this senseless plan, Congress should direct INS to do so.
        The $34.3 million proposed for construction, repair, and renovation
    of Border Patrol facilities is inadequate, as many of the existing
    facilities were designed to accommodate only a fraction of the
    employees currently assigned to them. The language concerning the San
    Clemente and Temecula traffic checkpoints should be deleted. The
    continued operation of these vital facilities should not be held
    hostage to unreasonable directives.
        Although the Federal Law Enforcement Pay Reform Act of 1990
    authorized agencies to offer a foreign language differential of up to 5
    percent of basic pay to any law enforcement officer who possesses and
    makes substantial use of one or more foreign languages in the
    performance of official duties, INS refuses to do so. It should
    therefore be compelled to include such payments in its budget. Such
    payments should be directed to be included with regular salary payments
    on a bi-weekly basis in order to ensure that the money is not diverted
    to other programs.
        INS continues to ignore the recommendation of the National
    Performance Review to reduce by half the percentage of its employees
    who are supervisors, and now INS wants even more supervisors. Congress
    should reject this proposal and direct INS to comply with the NPR
    recommendation.
        Language needs to be included specifically earmarking funds for the
    Border Patrol program. Otherwise, the Immigration and Naturalization
    Service will once again take funding away from the Border Patrol for
    other programs, frustrating the intent of Congress.
        The AFGE National Border Control Council and the Council of Prison
    Locals appreciate the opportunity to offer these comments.
                                     ______

                             DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
       Prepared Statement of Hon. Bruce L. Delaney, Mayor-Commissioner,
                                Gainesville, FL
        Mr. Chairman: On behalf of the City of Gainesville, Florida, I
    appreciate the opportunity to present this written testimony to you
    today. The City of Gainesville is seeking federal funds in the fiscal
    year 1999 Commerce, Justice, State and Judiciary Appropriations bill
    for the following innovative projects the City is undertaking: (1) a
    Communications Enhancement Initiative to improve public safety; and (2)
    a Business Incubator Project to promote economic development in East
    Gainesville.
    Communications Enhancement Initiative
        The City of Gainesville is seeking $10,000,000 for a computer-
    assisted dispatch and radio communications project to enhance public
    safety. The City and Alachua County are planning the creation of a
    joint communications system for the future. The impact for the entire
    region is considerable, since this county serves as the regional center
    for much of rural north Florida's medical care, disaster management,
    and criminal justice services.
        The need for this system is partially driven by the Federal
    Government's ``re-farming'' of radio frequencies through the Federal
    Communications Commission. The requirement to replace more than 20
    different radio systems presents an opportunity to create a single
    telecommunications infrastructure to serve all the emergency,
    transportation, utility, support and administrative agencies in the
    area.
        The project consists of: Building and equipping a dispatch and
    communications facility ($4 million); Providing a trunked
    telecommunications system ($2 million); Purchasing and installing
    advanced software to manage multiple agency operations and records ($2
    million); and Purchasing the individual user devices for connecting to
    the system ($2 million).
        The agencies involved in this project are: Alachua County
    Government (14 internal user agencies), Alachua County Sheriff
    (includes Corrections Facility and Civil Division); Cities of
    Gainesville (8 internal user agencies), Archer, Newberry, High Springs,
    Alachua, LaCrosse, Waldo, Melrose, Hawthorne, and Micanopy; School
    Board of Alachua County, Santa Fe Community College, University of
    Florida, Gainesville-Alachua County Airport Authority, Gainesville
    Regional Transit and Gainesville Regional Utilities (electric, gas,
    water, wastewater, telecommunications).
        Currently, the City of Gainesville operates its own emergency
    dispatch facilities for police and fire rescue. Alachua County provides
    similar service for urban and rural areas, along with smaller cities,
    in a site operated by the Alachua County Sheriff. Current technologies
    in the two centers are incompatible. In addition, numerous other
    agencies of both governments are operating separate small dispatch
    operations on other radio systems. The total number of governmental
    users of radio systems, including utility workers, is over 1,500. The
    emergency control centers record, control, and track events with
    computer-aided dispatching systems (CAD) which are incompatible with
    each other and which are becoming obsolete.
        There is an opportunity to consolidate all of these communications
    functions into one telecommunications infrastructure, which will
    provide cheaper operating costs, better services, with significant
    improvement to emergency and non-emergency governmental and utility
    services. The area is over 900 square miles with a population of more
    than 200,000. Providing advanced technologies (voice, data, telephone
    interconnect, resource management, records, billing, etc.) requires
    extraordinary coordination with the numbers of agencies involved.
    Funding such an effort is beyond the current capability of the
    entities, either individually or together. Yet, under the standards for
    radio frequency allocation by the Federal government, this
    reorganization into a combined system provides the most rational
    response to the changing telecommunications environment.
        The expected result of this project will be the ability for all
    agencies to communicate internally and across all agencies when the
    need arises to coordinate joint operations. The addition of a digital
    data system allows for field entry and research of records along with
    text communication. This use of wireless networking will permit person-
    to-person as well as computer-to-computer communication, thus providing
    access to all forms of information at mobile and fixed sites on the
    network. Geographic Information Systems, Dispatching Systems, Work-
    Order Systems and Work-Management Systems will all be linked to a
    common communications backbone. There are 5 law enforcement agencies,
    11 fire rescue services, an ambulance service, 3 hospitals, 31 schools
    and colleges, a transit system, 9 municipalities and multiple county
    government agencies which will join the system as ``subscribers''--
    paying annual usage fees based upon the number of devices they have on
    the system.
        The infrastructure is proposed to be operated by the municipal
    utility as a part of a communications subsidiary. Fees to the system
    will cover the cost of operation and maintenance along with future
    upgrades. The system will also be linked to an existing and expanding
    fiber-optic network which links many government and health care
    institutions.
        The Federal government's reallocation of radio spectrum is the
    triggering event causing the need for a new telecommunications system.
    The advantages of combining all of the systems into a single
    infrastructure are beneficial to law enforcement, fire rescue, public
    works, and the entire spectrum of other municipal and rural services.
    Funding the program will reduce future operating costs, but the high
    initial cost is the obstacle to its inception. Most of the technology
    is existing and well-proven in other applications, although it is not
    yet in use in such a widespread and cross-dimensional form. The
    challenge in this application is the ability to use a single
    architecture to provide a non-duplicative information infrastructure
    which significantly reduces future costs. The financial need is the
    same that all governments face when presented a new technology--that
    the existing systems consume the resources needed to migrate to the
    more efficient systems. The FCC mandates regarding frequency
    reallocation will result in high investment costs in new
    telecommunications infrastructure, but local governments will be hard-
    pressed to meet the mandate without additional assistance.
        This project, because it provides the linkage between all entities
    in the region to meet the future information infrastructure needs, is
    appropriate for one-time Federal funding. It is an opportunity to
    demonstrate the feasibility of a joint, multi-agency, multi-
    jurisdiction, and multiple technology telecommunications system.
    Business Incubator Project
        Finally, the City of Gainesville is seeking federal funds for a
    business incubator project to promote economic development in East
    Gainesville. Key components of the Gainesville Enterprise Assistance
    Center are:
      --Real Estate Acquisition: The City of Gainesville expects to receive
            the donation of a 75,000 square foot office warehouse facility
            with a market value of about $1.2 million.
      --The City requires $1,000,000 to renovate the facility as a business
            incubator.
        The City of Gainesville's Economic Development Department is
    working in collaboration with the University of Florida, the North
    Florida Technology Innovation Corporation, Santa Fe Community College,
    the Small Business Development Center, the Gainesville Area Chamber of
    Commerce, the Council for Economic Outreach, the Southern Technology
    Application Center and other local organizations on this project.
    Together, these organizations possess the staff and expertise to
    provide services and administer, implement and market the project. If
    the property and funding are obtained, project implementation will
    begin on or before October 1, 1998. Gainesville needs to create greater
    opportunities to support small business startups that can fuel job
    creation and expand the tax base in our local area.
      --It has been documented that the majority of new jobs in America are
            generated by small companies.
      --A survey has been done of local start up companies which indicates
            that 60 percent of the respondents would have used and
            benefited from a business incubator had one been available.
      --Gainesville is a community rich in intellectual capital due to the
            diversity of colleges and programs at the University of
            Florida. Research at UF has resulted in an abundance of
            technology that can be licensed by private entrepreneurs. In
            addition, new business startups unrelated to the university are
            emerging continuously in the north central Florida region.
      --Much of UF's available technology leaves the community and is
            developed in cities where programs exist to help new business
            owners succeed. Many of the non-UF business ventures that start
            in the area fail due to a lack of business assistance.
        There will be direct and indirect economic development impacts from
    this project.
      --The incubator will be located in the City of Gainesville Enterprise
            Zone. The area's residents live in some of the census tracts
            with the City's highest unemployment and poverty rates.
            According to the 1990 Census, census tract four where the
            project is located has a 20.4 percent poverty rate and a 10
            percent unemployment rate. Surrounding tracts (five, six and
            seven) range from 36.6 percent to 46.82 percent poverty rate
            and 4.1 percent to 15.8 percent unemployment rate. The building
            targeted for use as the incubator is a former hardware and
            lumber store which once employed 100 workers but closed two
            years ago and is still vacant.
      --One of the main goals of the City is the creation of jobs for the
            unemployed and the welfare recipients that will be forced off
            welfare as part of the President's welfare reform initiative.
      --The proposed incubator will function to help grow companies that
            can create needed jobs in the enterprise zone, add to the
            city's tax revenue stream, and help diversify the employment
            base. The incubator will provide valuable business development
            services to client companies so as to maximize their chance for
            survival. In addition, the City, in collaboration with other
            organizations, will seek to identify entrepreneurs and small
            business start-ups within the target area to create more
            business and employment opportunities for residents.
      --A recent study published in August 1997 entitled ``Business
            Incubation Works'', funded by a grant from the U.S. Economic
            Development Administration, gave the following findings on the
            impacts of business incubators: (1) In 1996 incubator firms
            created 468 direct and 702 total jobs, (2) Estimated public
            subsidy: $1,109 per job, (3) 97 percent of graduating firms are
            still in business, (4) 84 percent of graduating firms stay in
            their community, (5) Incubation programs contribute to their
            client companies' success, and (6) EDA funded incubators
            performed better than or equal to non EDA funded incubators.
        In closing, federal support is critical for the success of both of
    these initiatives. It is our hope that the Subcommittee will give our
    requests every consideration throughout the fiscal year 1999
    appropriations process.
                                     ______

                             DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
       Prepared Statement of Hon. Bruce L. Delaney, Mayor-Commissioner,
                                Gainesville, FL
        Mr. Chairman: On behalf of the City of Gainesville, Florida, I
    appreciate the opportunity to present this written testimony to you
    today. The City of Gainesville is seeking federal funds in the fiscal
    year 1999 Commerce, Justice, State and Judiciary Appropriations bill
    for the following innovative projects the City is undertaking: (1) a
    Communications Enhancement Initiative to improve public safety; and (2)
    a Comprehensive Juvenile Justice Crime Prevention/Intervention
    Initiative and Regional Juvenile Assessment Center to assist our
    efforts in providing an all-encompassing community-based approach to
    juvenile crime and prevention.
    Communications Enhancement Initiative
        The City of Gainesville is seeking $10,000,000 for a computer-
    assisted dispatch and radio communications project to enhance public
    safety. The City and Alachua County are planning the creation of a
    joint communications system for the future. The impact for the entire
    region is considerable, since this county serves as the regional center
    for much of rural north Florida's medical care, disaster management,
    and criminal justice services.
        The need for this system is partially driven by the Federal
    Government's ``re-farming'' of radio frequencies through the Federal
    Communications Commission. The requirement to replace more than 20
    different radio systems presents an opportunity to create a single
    telecommunications infrastructure to serve all the emergency,
    transportation, utility, support and administrative agencies in the
    area.
        The project consists of: Building and equipping a dispatch and
    communications facility ($4 million); Providing a trunked
    telecommunications system ($2 million); Purchasing and installing
    advanced software to manage multiple agency operations and records ($2
    million); and Purchasing the individual user devices for connecting to
    the system ($2 million).
        The agencies involved in this project are: Alachua County
    Government (14 internal user agencies), Alachua County Sheriff
    (includes Corrections Facility and Civil Division); Cities of
    Gainesville (8 internal user agencies), Archer, Newberry, High Springs,
    Alachua, LaCrosse, Waldo, Melrose, Hawthorne, and Micanopy; School
    Board of Alachua County, Santa Fe Community College, University of
    Florida, Gainesville-Alachua County Airport Authority, Gainesville
    Regional Transit and Gainesville Regional Utilities (electric, gas,
    water, wastewater, telecommunications).
        Currently, the City of Gainesville operates its own emergency
    dispatch facilities for police and fire rescue. Alachua County provides
    similar service for urban and rural areas, along with smaller cities,
    in a site operated by the Alachua County Sheriff. Current technologies
    in the two centers are incompatible. In addition, numerous other
    agencies of both governments are operating separate small dispatch
    operations on other radio systems. The total number of governmental
    users of radio systems, including utility workers, is over 1,500. The
    emergency control centers record, control, and track events with
    computer-aided dispatching systems (CAD) which are incompatible with
    each other and which are becoming obsolete.
        There is an opportunity to consolidate all of these communications
    functions into one telecommunications infrastructure, which will
    provide cheaper operating costs, better services, with significant
    improvement to emergency and non-emergency governmental and utility
    services. The area is over 900 square miles with a population of more
    than 200,000. Providing advanced technologies (voice, data, telephone
    interconnect, resource management, records, billing, etc.) requires
    extraordinary coordination with the numbers of agencies involved.
    Funding such an effort is beyond the current capability of the
    entities, either individually or together. Yet, under the standards for
    radio frequency allocation by the Federal government, this
    reorganization into a combined system provides the most rational
    response to the changing telecommunications environment.
        The expected result of this project will be the ability for all
    agencies to communicate internally and across all agencies when the
    need arises to coordinate joint operations. The addition of a digital
    data system allows for field entry and research of records along with
    text communication. This use of wireless networking will permit person-
    to-person as well as computer-to-computer communication, thus providing
    access to all forms of information at mobile and fixed sites on the
    network. Geographic Information Systems, Dispatching Systems, Work-
    Order Systems and Work-Management Systems will all be linked to a
    common communications backbone. There are 5 law enforcement agencies,
    11 fire rescue services, an ambulance service, 3 hospitals, 31 schools
    and colleges, a transit system, 9 municipalities and multiple county
    government agencies which will join the system as ``subscribers''--
    paying annual usage fees based upon the number of devices they have on
    the system.
        The infrastructure is proposed to be operated by the municipal
    utility as a part of a communications subsidiary. Fees to the system
    will cover the cost of operation and maintenance along with future
    upgrades. The system will also be linked to an existing and expanding
    fiber-optic network which links many government and health care
    institutions.
        The Federal government's reallocation of radio spectrum is the
    triggering event causing the need for a new telecommunications system.
    The advantages of combining all of the systems into a single
    infrastructure are beneficial to law enforcement, fire rescue, public
    works, and the entire spectrum of other municipal and rural services.
    Funding the program will reduce future operating costs, but the high
    initial cost is the obstacle to its inception. Most of the technology
    is existing and well-proven in other applications, although it is not
    yet in use in such a widespread and cross-dimensional form. The
    challenge in this application is the ability to use a single
    architecture to provide a non-duplicative information infrastructure
    which significantly reduces future costs. The financial need is the
    same that all governments face when presented a new technology--that
    the existing systems consume the resources needed to migrate to the
    more efficient systems. The FCC mandates regarding frequency
    reallocation will result in high investment costs in new
    telecommunications infrastructure, but local governments will be hard-
    pressed to meet the mandate without additional assistance.
        This project, because it provides the linkage between all entities
    in the region to meet the future information infrastructure needs, is
    appropriate for one-time Federal funding. It is an opportunity to
    demonstrate the feasibility of a joint, multi-agency, multi-
    jurisdiction, and multiple technology telecommunications system.
    Comprehensive Juvenile Justice Crime Prevention/Intervention Initiative
            and Regional Juvenile Assessment Center
        The City of Gainesville is also seeking federal funds to assist our
    efforts in providing an all-encompassing community-based approach to
    juvenile crime and juvenile crime prevention via our Comprehensive
    Regional Juvenile Justice Crime Prevention/Intervention Initiative and
    Regional Juvenile Assessment Center Project. In particular, we are
    hopeful that the Subcommittee will provide the City with $1.5 million
    as a direct federal appropriation for this project. The Initiative has
    two main components, which are interrelated:
        A demonstration model Regional Juvenile Assessment Center (JAC).--
    The Regional JAC is planned to serve an eleven-county area of north
    central Florida. The JAC will be the keystone of this project, and will
    be co-located on a single campus with other agencies serving juveniles
    to provide a coordinated Juvenile Justice Crime Prevention/Intervention
    Continuum of Services.
        A demonstration model Continuum of Outreach Facilities.--In
    addition, the Initiative has a critical need for funding a Continuum of
    Outreach Facilities, located throughout the community and surrounding
    area, so that all the community's at-risk youth can be provided with
    coordinated and appropriate intervention and prevention services in or
    close to their own neighborhoods. The focus of the Continuum is to
    enable the community to assist in the development of youth prepared to
    meet the challenges of being contributing citizens of the 21st Century.
    This Continuum will emphasize the community's role in the raising of
    its own juveniles, and will foster volunteerism and involvement of the
    parents and interested adults. We will encourage the youth to excel in
    school so as to have the educational background to be gainfully and
    productively employed. The Continuum's components will encourage the
    child to remain active in positive activities, given the well-
    documented connection between a lack of structured activities and
    crime. Through programming, youth will be encouraged to develop
    positive problem solving life skills which are intended to strengthen
    youth to resist engaging in violent criminal activities, as well as
    illegal activities in general. In preparing for the 21st Century, these
    youth need to be assisted in identifying career opportunities, and then
    guided and placed on the path leading to success in their career
    objectives. These programs in turn will strengthen the effectiveness of
    the intervention/prevention services delivered to the juveniles, and
    will facilitate the often missing aftercare component.
        The Comprehensive Juvenile Justice Crime Prevention/Intervention
    Initiative recognizes that a well designed and implemented Continuum of
    Services is required to focus on the broad range of services required
    to assure that all juveniles receive the intervention and prevention
    services they require to become productive and contributing adult
    citizens. We further recognize that a partnership is required. The
    School Board of Alachua County, law enforcement, the business
    community, local governments, the judiciary, other agencies providing
    intervention and prevention services to juveniles, parents and
    guardians, as well as the juveniles themselves are partners in the
    juvenile cycle. All must be involved in the coordinated efforts
    required to effectively address solutions.
        With this in mind, the City of Gainesville and its partners seek
    support for developing and implementing a strong well coordinated
    partnership-based Juvenile Justice Crime Prevention Initiative focusing
    on all aspects of the juvenile continuum. The City of Gainesville
    recognizes the need for enhanced communications and coordination among
    the partnership of juvenile providers while at the same time we
    recognize the need for developing and implementing a comprehensive
    strategy to attack this problem. Though this Initiative is in its
    infancy, we already have some outstandingly successful innovative
    programs which meet some of the needs of some of our juveniles. We
    traditionally have used our local resources in creative and innovative
    ways in order to provide the piecemeal service delivery we have at
    present.
        We are convinced that our community has what it takes to create and
    sustain this Comprehensive Juvenile Justice Crime Prevention
    Initiative. The City of Gainesville is playing a leadership role in a
    number of interrelated initiatives within the juvenile justice/
    delinquency prevention area. To be effective, we must augment our local
    resources.
        The City of Gainesville and other business partners stand firmly
    behind the goals and objectives of the Juvenile Continuum. As an
    example, the Gainesville Police Department has just donated $100,000 to
    a scholarship fund for minority and disadvantaged youth, with the
    purpose of enabling them to have a chance at obtaining a degree in
    college or in obtaining a technical degree (trade) to assist them in
    obtaining meaningful and fulfilling employment.
        It is our philosophy that scarce funds are much more effectively
    spent at the front end of the juvenile justice continuum, in comparison
    to the much larger price incurred when a society must deal with
    juvenile (and adult) criminals. We already have several local projects
    that have demonstrated marked success in delivering juvenile
    intervention/prevention programs. Each of these success stories is the
    result of the underlying strong partnerships which characterize the way
    our community historically has sought solutions to its problems. Some
    of our more creative and successful local initiatives include:
      --The Department of Juvenile Justice (DJJ) now has the ability to
            immediately deal with counseling and referral issues, rather
            than waiting three to four weeks as has occurred in prior
            cases. There is an ongoing dialogue between DJJ and the
            Gainesville Police Department as to the disposition of juvenile
            cases and referrals. Communication is knowledge, and this
            information has allowed both entities to provide better service
            to the community and its juveniles.
      --The OUTLET Teen Program is a unique community-wide partnership,
            addressing the crime prevention needs of the community's teens
            who are not yet in trouble, but who are at risk because the
            community lacks wholesome leisure-time alternatives for them.
            The OUTLET Teen program focuses on a three prong concept of (1)
            teen leadership, (2) teen volunteerism, and (3) teen social
            activities as an effective crime prevention tool. This highly
            successful program has resulted in an OUTLET Teen Council in
            all 7 of the high schools in Alachua County and is now moving
            into the middle schools. With participation growing, OUTLET has
            had a major effect on deterring juvenile crime and funneling
            the energy of Alachua County's teens towards productive
            endeavors. Currently, there is no program nationally that
            focuses on all three aspects of leadership development,
            community service, and wholesome entertainment for all teens.
            Even those cities that have instituted only one prong of the
            three prong concept have recognized a substantial reduction in
            teen crime. There is a well documented connection between teen
            crime and a lack of structured activities for teens. In our
            community, since OUTLET was formed, there has not been a
            congregation of teens in the business district; teens have
            volunteered to paint houses for the elderly and for those in
            poverty areas; teens have assisted the Gainesville Police
            Department in the annual bicycle give away to underprivileged
            children; teens have walked in the annual March of Dimes
            benefit; and teens have planned, implemented, and attended
            drug/alcohol free social activities.
      --The Reichert House is another example of recognizing specific
            needs/gaps in the Continuum underlying the Juvenile Justice
            Crime Prevention Initiative. Aimed specifically at young
            African-American males, the program provides services these
            young men would not normally have. By providing this service,
            the affected juveniles can channel their activity into
            productive areas. We have plans underway to replicate this
            program for young African-American females.
        The concept of the Juvenile Justice Crime Prevention Initiative is
    a simple one. The School Board, the Police Department and other law
    enforcement agencies, the Juvenile Detention Center, Courts, parents/
    guardians, States Attorney, the juveniles themselves, as well as many
    others are partners in the juvenile cycle. However, each entity has
    specific goals and objectives and often operates independently of the
    others. The concept, though simple, is to have each entity work in
    conjunction with the others to devise an overall strategy to combat
    juvenile crime while providing efficient services. The main components
    of the Juvenile Justice Crime Prevention Initiative and Juvenile
    Assessment Center are:
      --The Juvenile Justice Crime Prevention Initiative will be headed and
            administered by an Advisory Board, consisting of representation
            from all agencies providing services to juveniles. This
            Advisory Board will meet regularly to oversee and coordinate
            the development and delivery of a seamless continuum of
            Juvenile Justice services.
      --As communication and coordination are critical elements, we will
            need a centralized information sharing and resource
            clearinghouse which all could tap into on behalf of any
            juvenile. Information sharing and coordination would need to be
            designed to meet the confidentiality requirements of the
            juveniles, so the focus would be on the sharing and efficient
            use of all resources available to the juvenile. The
            communication and information sharing network could serve as a
            resource and reference source for the juveniles, the
            participating agencies, and the community as a whole.
      --The Juvenile Assessment Center (JAC) will be a centralized facility
            for providing delinquent juveniles with a comprehensive needs
            assessment followed by a coordinated delivery of appropriate
            services. All participating agencies would have a presence at
            the facility. The JAC would track how these needs are met, and
            how the juvenile is progressing.
      --We as a community of juvenile service providers must identify all
            resources now available to us along with the needs of all our
            juveniles. We need to use our best and most knowledgeable
            professionals to strategize on what it takes to turn around an
            at-risk youth (and there are many types of at-risk youths)
            while at the same time not losing sight of the needs of our
            youths who are not yet in trouble, but who need wholesome
            alternatives. We also need to critically examine all resources
            we now have or can obtain so that increasingly scarce resources
            are combined and utilized in the most efficient and cost-
            effective manner. This requires the partner agencies to look
            beyond their own individual missions and to focus on the
            mission of the community as a whole and its desire for all
            youth to have every opportunity to become productive and
            contributing members of society.
      --The process of resource identification and juvenile needs
            assessment will enable us as a community of providers to
            identify the gaps or overlaps in our juvenile service delivery
            system, and to work together in supporting our partner agencies
            as they carry out their own unique missions. From our
            experience, it is very enlightening for agencies to sit
            together and identify to one another what it is that they do,
            and to gain a greater understanding of what others do. Such
            efforts inevitably lead to the discovery of overlapping/missing
            pieces of the puzzle. An even greater benefit which we have
            observed is the lowering of the barriers between agencies, and
            an increased degree of collaboration and communication which
            spreads beyond the immediate arena.
      --We then as a community will identify and prioritize the gaps to be
            filled, and will together develop and implement a strategy to
            fill such gaps. Each agency will contribute and share its own
            contacts and expertise to assist the others for the common
            good. Since this is a learning process that is dynamic in
            nature, it is essential that the Advisory Board be supported,
            and be dynamic and active in carrying out and coordinating the
            activities of the Juvenile Justice Crime Prevention Initiative.
            We will need to support and strengthen one another's efforts to
            tap all available resources. We will need to form task-specific
            partnerships in order to carry out initiatives beyond the
            capacity of an individual partner.
        This is a critical and much needed initiative for which the City of
    Gainesville and its Police Department seek your support. If funding is
    provided, we will be able to augment our local resources to develop and
    implement the centralized and coordinated delivery of a seamless
    Juvenile Justice Crime Prevention Initiative for the youth of our
    community. What we are already doing and doing well here, although in
    piecemeal fashion, in our community can be formalized in our community
    and coordinated through the creation of a seamless Juvenile Justice
    Initiative. This then can serve as a highly efficient model which could
    be replicated in other communities nationally.
        In closing, federal support is critical for the success of each of
    these initiatives. It is our hope that the Subcommittee will give our
    requests every consideration throughout the fiscal year 1999
    appropriations process.
                                     ______

         Prepared Statement of Kenneth E. Bischoff, Chairman, National
               Consortium for Justice Information and Statistics
        SEARCH is a nonprofit criminal justice organization dedicated to
    assisting state and local criminal justice agencies combat crime and
    administer justice through the effective and responsible use of
    information and identification technologies. SEARCH is governed by a
    Membership Group comprised of one gubernatorial appointee from each of
    the 50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico and the Virgin
    Islands.
        We submit this testimony seeking appropriation support for SEARCH's
    National Technical Assistance and Training Program in the fiscal year
    1999 Byrne discretionary program appropriation for the Bureau of
    Justice Assistance (BJA). The National Technical Assistance and
    Training Program has received an appropriations earmark in each of
    fiscal years 1996, 1997 and 1998, in the amount of $1 million.
        SEARCH's National Technical Assistance and Training Program is
    unique--it provides no-cost assistance to all components of the state
    and local criminal justice system with respect to the development,
    operation, improvement and/or integration of all types of criminal
    justice information systems. The National Technical Assistance and
    Training Program not only helps state and local agencies work more
    efficiently and effectively through the use of advanced information
    technology, but it creates the foundation for a national information
    infrastructure for justice systems.
        SEARCH is experiencing rapidly increasing demand for the program.
    There are a number of reasons, including the success of grant programs
    such as COPS More, the Edward Byrne Memorial State and Local Law
    Enforcement Assistance Grant Program and the Local Law Enforcement
    Block Grant, which have provided seed money for justice information
    systems automation and integration. In addition, the nation's criminal
    justice agencies' critical need to quickly share complete and accurate
    information, and, therefore, their efforts to integrate and connect
    justice information systems has also impacted the demand for SEARCH
    technical assistance and training services. We anticipate this growth
    to not only continue, but to accelerate. Indeed, the need is so acute,
    that in the past year, BJA augmented the SEARCH earmark with an
    additional $1 million to expand its existing training and technical
    assistance activities with those that specifically emphasize court
    automation and the integration of court information systems with the
    other disciplines within the criminal justice system.
        We want to commend BJA and its fine, professional staff. Working in
    partnership with SEARCH, BJA has provided strong, national leadership
    to create opportunities for information systems training and technical
    assistance for state and local criminal justice officials.
        Because SEARCH's Technical Assistance and Training Program is
    national, SEARCH is able to replicate successful computer
    implementation strategies in one state or locality and disseminate and
    transfer those strategies to other states and localities. SEARCH is
    also able to provide its assistance in a manner that promotes the
    interstate compatibility of criminal justice information systems. The
    beneficiaries are state and local criminal justice agencies throughout
    the nation; the federal government, which is the largest single
    consumer of arrest and conviction and other criminal justice
    information; and the public.
        This year the National Technical Assistance and Training Program
    will accomplish the following: Provide in-depth technical assistance at
    SEARCH's National Criminal Justice Computer Laboratory and Training
    Center to representatives from state and local criminal justice
    agencies; Provide on-site, technical assistance to state and local
    criminal justice agencies; Provide technical assistance by telephone
    and via the Internet to officials from literally hundreds of criminal
    justice agencies in virtually every state in the union; Provide
    training to nearly two thousand criminal justice officials nationally;
    and Continue to develop and publish practical criminal justice
    information system technical bulletins and reference guides.
        SEARCH's information support program for state and local criminal
    justice agencies makes a unique and vital contribution. Through a
    comprehensive program of technical assistance and training, SEARCH
    facilitates the operation of the criminal justice system in a cost-
    effective, efficient and fair manner.
    Benefits of the National Program
        SEARCH's National Technical Assistance and Training Program:
      --Facilitates the development and implementation of state-of-the-art
            computer and networking capabilities among state and local
            criminal justice agencies with an emphasis on compatibility
            throughout the nation;
      --Improves the accuracy, completeness and reliability of arrest,
            conviction and other criminal justice information;
      --Increases the information capabilities of criminal justice
            agencies, particularly small- and medium-sized criminal justice
            agencies which often lack financial resources and specialized
            computer personnel to operate computer systems in a cost-
            efficient and effective manner;
      --Improves the information system proficiency of criminal justice
            officials, resulting in a nationwide cadre of law enforcement
            officials trained in microcomputer technology and its
            application to law enforcement;
      --Provides assistance and training based upon a national perspective
            and national strategy that promotes a consistent nationwide
            approach to managing criminal justice information and
            integrating information systems. A nationwide approach is
            essential because the processing of individuals and cases
            through the justice system depends on the sharing of
            information between state, local and federal agencies
            nationwide;
      --Facilitates the effective and targeted expenditures of other
            federal justice assistance monies;
      --Services provided by the National Program act as ``seed'' monies,
            leveraging state and local monies that then build upon the
            foundation established by the National Program;
      --Identifies state and local criminal justice information management
            problems nationwide, and develops solutions that not only
            benefit individual agencies, but that promote compatibility and
            consistency with other state, local and federal systems; and,
      --Replicates and disseminates successful information management
            strategies on a national basis, emphasizing the efficient and
            timely sharing of high-quality information, and, thus,
            improving the effectiveness of the administration of justice.
        SEARCH's National Technical Assistance and Training Program assists
    agencies in developing the information resources which are critical in
    the reliable and timely identification of suspects and offenders; the
    effective prosecution and adjudication of offenders, including drug-
    related offenders; the efficient use of criminal justice resources; and
    the production of comprehensive and compatible criminal justice
    statistics and research information.
        Furthermore, the National Technical Assistance and Training Program
    provides essential infrastructure support to targeted block and
    discretionary grant anti-crime and anti-drug initiatives. Without
    information technology support, these initiatives are handicapped.
        As an example of such technology support, SEARCH will gather
    together hundreds of criminal justice practitioners from across the
    country for a national training event that focuses on the integration
    of justice information systems. The event will train criminal justice
    practitioners on technology and its application to the justice system,
    and will generate scores of requests for SEARCH technical assistance
    from the attending agencies.
                          technical assistance program
        SEARCH provides technical assistance via written correspondence,
    telephone consultations, electronic mail, and/or through an Internet
    web site, and when the needs of agencies require, SEARCH provides on-
    site technical assistance.
    In-house Technical Assistance
        SEARCH's program of in-house technical assistance provides access
    to a unique, centralized source of data about information management
    systems and related technologies that would otherwise be beyond the
    reach of most criminal justice agencies and, particularly, small- and
    medium-sized agencies. Simply by placing a telephone call or sending
    electronic mail, state and local criminal justice agencies have
    immediate access to the specialized knowledge of SEARCH's professional
    staff. Under fiscal year 1998 funding, SEARCH will respond to several
    hundred telephone calls requesting technical assistance, which, on
    average, require two hours of staff time to effectively respond.
        The nature and scope of in-house technical assistance varies
    considerably, but can involve the following: providing technical
    consultations on the planning, implementation or operation of automated
    systems, such as network configurations, software installations and
    technical innovations; conducting in-depth research; making referrals
    to other appropriate resource providers; and providing answers to
    questions on a wide range of topics related to justice automation.
        SEARCH has also taken advantage of the Internet to expand the reach
    of its technical assistance program to justice agencies. The Technical
    Assistance Exchange Forum Web Site was specifically designed so that
    justice agencies of any size, in rural or urban locations, can
    immediately access information on a variety of technical issues related
    to justice information management via the World Wide Web. The web site
    offers a virtual library of information to justice practitioners,
    including published articles, documents and white papers; references to
    other justice agencies using particular technologies; interactive
    discussion forums where practitioners can share information with peers
    and experts on particular technologies; requests for proposals and
    requests for information databases; and links to other justice
    technology resources and information.
    On-site Technical Assistance
        The Technical Assistance Program also provides on-site assistance
    to agencies throughout the nation that are predominantly nonautomated
    or lagging in automation, and which have special needs in automating
    their information systems. Priority for technical assistance is given
    to block grant recipients, and among them, to grantees planning for
    and/or implementing multijurisdictional or statewide information
    systems. Since 1986, SEARCH has provided technical assistance to scores
    of agencies in every state, representing all components of the criminal
    justice system.
        The majority of technical assistance is completed within one month,
    consists of a single site visit by two staff for approximately 2-3 days
    duration, and includes staff preparation, follow-up and production of a
    formal report. The following illustrates just a few examples of SEARCH
    on-site technical assistance in the past year.
        SEARCH conducted a technical assistance project with the Baltimore
    (Maryland) Police Department to provide guidance on the development of
    a records management system and automation planning in general. SEARCH
    worked with Department staff and the Police Commissioner to define the
    scope of the effort, staffing, organization, and strategies for
    overcoming information technology implementation obstacles.
        SEARCH completed a technical assistance project for the South
    Carolina Department of Public Safety to evaluate a grant-funded effort
    to provide the state's local law enforcement agencies with a hardware
    and software package to meet local, state and federal information
    reporting requirements. The software, developed by the University of
    South Carolina, would enable local police departments to provide
    incident-based data compliant with the National Incident-Based
    Reporting System (NIBRS) and South Carolina's Incident-Based Reporting
    System (SCIBRS). In connection with the project, SEARCH worked with the
    South Carolina Law Enforcement Division and visited seven police
    departments beta testing the software to observe the testing and to
    conduct interviews.
        SEARCH provided technical assistance to a number of agencies in
    Colorado during the past year. Network security issues were identified
    and defined for the Canyon City Police Department. SEARCH also worked
    with the First Judicial District Probation Department in Golden,
    Colorado, to review the department's current operations, provide input
    and assist with recommendations on development of a strategic plan for
    its automated information systems and integration with state justice
    information systems. On-site technical assistance has been scheduled
    for Lakewood Police Department in early April 1998. This assistance
    will focus on the Department's mobile computing project and development
    of a new records information management system.
        In New Jersey, SEARCH is working closely with the Camden Police
    Department to assist this agency in an upgrade of records management,
    digital mugshot imaging and automated fingerprint imaging systems.
        During 1997-98, requests for technical assistance from SEARCH grew
    at an enormous pace. In order to handle the volume of requests, in some
    instances, where requests from numerous agencies were very similar in
    scope and content, SEARCH has held training workshops for the
    requesting agencies. In October 1997, SEARCH provided technical
    assistance to 25 justice agency practitioners representing 16 agencies
    in four states: Arizona, California, Hawaii and Texas. Each agency had
    requested technical assistance from SEARCH on implementing computer-
    aided dispatch, mobile computing hardware, records management systems
    and wireless telecommunications systems. During a three-day workshop,
    SEARCH staff and other operational experts provided assistance to the
    participant agencies on planning for and implementing these systems. By
    providing the assistance in a workshop manner, SEARCH was able to
    convene operational and technology experts, as well as SEARCH staff to
    provide assistance in a coordinated fashion. The workshop format
    allowed SEARCH to assist more agencies and provide collectively more
    resources.
        Beyond these efforts to provide short-term assistance, there exists
    a pressing need to provide more extensive, long-term technical
    assistance to states and/or agencies within states to address the
    technically complex and sophisticated planning, design and
    implementation issues associated with developing integrated or
    consolidated information systems within and between justice agencies;
    and to assist these jurisdictions in developing state-, county- or
    citywide plans for justice information systems and technology and
    improvements in criminal records.
        In response, SEARCH provides a limited number of agencies with
    technical support for extended periods of time, including multiple on-
    site visits, research and, often times, complementary training
    sessions. During such a project, SEARCH will often work with a variety
    of justice agencies, including police departments, courts, and
    prosecutorial, probation, parole, corrections and case management
    offices. In our experience, this type of project often produces
    knowledge and products suitable for transfer to other jurisdictions.
    Indeed, the vast majority of SEARCH's technical assistance is
    multijurisdictional. When SEARCH provides technical assistance in one
    state, SEARCH often involves practitioners from surrounding
    jurisdictions.
        This type of on-site assistance typically involves helping a state
    or agency establish an automated justice information system, evaluate
    and plan for statewide integration of existing automated justice
    information systems, or assistance in enhancing, expanding or
    implementing a computerized criminal history repository program.
        SEARCH is providing long-term technical assistance to agencies in
    Minnesota, New York, Wisconsin, Oklahoma, Oregon and Kansas,
    specifically focusing on integrating county-level justice information
    systems.
        In fiscal year 1999, SEARCH would expect to provide on-site
    technical assistance to several dozen criminal justice agencies.
                           national training program
        Since its inception in 1986, SEARCH's National Technical Assistance
    and Training Program has trained over 19,500 criminal justice officials
    from every state in the use of computers and other information
    technologies. In fiscal year 1998 alone, SEARCH will provide training
    to approximately ,1700 state and local criminal justice officials
    across the nation by presenting 25-30 in-house and outreach training
    courses, as well as making presentations at training conferences
    nationwide.
        SEARCH's National Criminal Justice Computer Laboratory and Training
    center in Sacramento serves as a hands-on resource for criminal justice
    practitioners to learn about and evaluate computer technology. The
    National Computer Laboratory and Training Center is presently
    configured with 20 microcomputers using various operating systems and
    is equipped with state-of-the-art training technology. It is critical
    that this technology be maintained and updated on a regular basis.
        Training sessions are customarily three to five days in length and
    are normally limited to 25 students, thus affording a high instructor
    to student ratio. Courses focus on the development, use and
    implementation of information technology in justice agencies, including
    introductory courses on microcomputer technology for criminal justice
    agencies, data processing for law enforcement managers, as well as
    advanced coursework in topics such as planning for automated systems,
    crime analysis, the investigation of computer crime, and new courses
    focusing on the investigation of crime perpetuated over the Internet.
        SEARCH training in a particular state attracts participants from
    various state, federal and local agencies and, often, from agencies in
    neighboring states. For example, SEARCH training at the National
    Criminal Justice Computer Laboratory and Training Center, during the
    past year involved students representing justice agencies from
    throughout Colorado, Illinois and Kansas.
        In other training activities, SEARCH presented the ``Investigation
    of Computer Crime'' training course in Columbia, South Carolina. The
    class was sponsored by the South Carolina Law Enforcement Division.
    Officers from the Division and other local officers attended the class.
        During June 1997, SEARCH presented the ``Introduction to Internet
    Crime Investigation'' in Somerset, Kentucky. The class was cosponsored
    by the Pulaski County Sheriff's Office and was held at the Center for
    Rural Development, University of Kentucky. Representatives of justice
    agencies from throughout the state attended the course, which provides
    instruction techniques to investigate cases online.
        ``The Investigation of Computer Crime'' training course will be
    held in Anchorage, Alaska in March 1998. SEARCH is currently working
    with the Alaska Department of Public Safety and the Anchorage Police
    Department to sponsor this five-day training course, which teaches
    investigators and support staff how to investigate high-technology
    theft and computer-related crime. Participants learn computer
    technology, its criminal applications and issues associated with
    investigating these types of crimes.
        The first offering of the new ``Advanced Internet Investigations''
    training course was offered in Sacramento during December 1997. This is
    an advanced course designed to improve law enforcement's ability to
    successfully investigate and prosecute sophisticated Internet crimes.
        During fiscal year 1998, SEARCH has also provided numerous training
    seminars at the National Criminal Justice Computer Laboratory and
    Training Center located at SEARCH headquarters in California. Criminal
    justice practitioners from throughout the nation are eligible to
    attend.
    Info-Tech Training Project
        During the past two years, the Computer Crime Unit of the U.S.
    Department of Justice, in conjunction with the National White Collar
    Crime Center, has conducted a federal level project to define how to
    best train and equip the nation's criminal justice investigators and
    prosecutors to deal with computer crime in the information age. The
    organizing agencies invited SEARCH and other key justice agency
    training organizations to participate in a series of meetings to
    discuss the mission and functional objectives of computer crime
    training for state and local justice practitioners.
        The Infotech Training group continues to identify needs, gaps and
    overlaps in current training, coordination of future training courses,
    and setting standards for national justice training courses in the area
    of curbing computer crime. Other organizations participating in the
    group include: the Defense Department, Drug Enforcement Administration,
    Federal Bureau of Investigation, Federal Law Enforcement Training
    Center, National Security Agency, U.S. Postal Service, U.S. Secret
    Service, Canadian Police College, Forensic Association of Computer
    Technologists, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, National
    Association of Attorneys General, National College of District
    Attorneys, International Association of Chiefs of Police, and the
    International Association of Computer Investigative Specialists.
    Technical Assistance and Training Program Materials
        SEARCH's National Technical Assistance and Training Program also
    includes the preparation, publication and national dissemination of
    materials and reports that assist criminal justice agencies in
    acquiring and using computers and other information technology. SEARCH
    publishes quarterly Technical Bulletins that identify and evaluate
    information systems and technologies that have existing or potential
    application in criminal justice management. The Bulletins are a vital
    resource for criminal justice practitioners who receive them and help
    to identify and encourage potential markets for private sector
    development. The Bulletins are mailed to over 1,600 criminal justice
    practitioners, and are also made available electronically via the
    Internet.
        Other types of SEARCH technical publications have included reports
    on such topical issues as: countywide justice integration, the
    implementation of the FBI's Integrated Automated Fingerprint
    Identification System (IAFIS); biometric technologies; directories
    which identify existing information systems for potential transfer;
    program briefs, which guide agencies in implementing automated systems;
    and comprehensive documentation for SEARCH-authored public domain
    software.
        SEARCH also professionally produced an instructional video on
    planning for and implementing integrated justice information systems
    that has been distributed free of charge to hundreds of local, state
    and federal justice agencies throughout the country.
                                   conclusion
        Federal support for SEARCH's National Technical Assistance and
    Training Program does not promise a quick victory or big headlines in
    the war against crime and drugs. But, without question, federal support
    for the National Technical Assistance and Training Program makes a
    vital contribution to the war on crime and drugs. For a modest federal
    investment, leveraged many times over by state and local funds, a
    critical contribution is made to the ability of state and local
    criminal justice agencies to provide timely, accurate and compatible
    information for use in apprehending, prosecuting and sentencing
    offenders.
        Accordingly, we respectfully request that the Subcommittee act to
    ensure fiscal year 1999 funding of SEARCH's National Technical
    Assistance and Training Program.
        We thank you, Mr. Chairman, the members of your Subcommittee and
    the Subcommittee staff for your continued support.
                                     ______

     Prepared Statement of Lee Arbetman, Coordinator, National Law-Related
                               Education Program
        I am Lee Arbetman, Coordinator of the National Coordinated Law-
    Related Education Program. I am submitting this testimony on behalf of
    Youth for Justice, the National Coordinated Law-Related Education
    Program. We respectfully request the Subcommittee's appropriations
    support for fiscal year 1999.
        LRE/Youth for Justice is committed to involving young people in
    each state directly in identifying and implementing solutions to this
    nation's epidemic of juvenile violence. The program's approach is to
    teach young people about the law so that they can lead their lives
    within the law. In the last decade, the National Program has reached
    millions of at-risk children and trained hundreds of thousands of
    teachers, juvenile justice counselors and law enforcement officials.
        Law-Related Education, despite its name, has nothing whatsoever to
    do with legal or pre-legal training. The National Coordinated Law-
    Related Education Program has a proven record of success in juvenile
    delinquency and violence prevention. Law-related lessons reach at-risk
    children and juvenile offenders in school and juvenile justice settings
    in both urban and rural environments. Youth for Justice meets its goals
    by developing and maintaining strong, viable LRE centers in each state.
    The National Program leverages a tiny federal investment, $1 million in
    fiscal year 1998, many times over in private sector and state and local
    money and in in-kind support from the criminal justice and juvenile
    justice communities.
        The program has two components. The first, and in 1998 the largest,
    component of the program is intervention. This part of the program
    operates primarily in various kinds of juvenile justice facilities. In
    settings ranging from detention centers to training schools and after-
    care, Law-Related Education Programs help youth develop problem-
    solving, conflict resolution, and communication skills in the context
    of engaging lessons that focus on personal responsibility.
        The second component, prevention, operates primarily in elementary
    and secondary schools. When you visit a school involved in this
    program, you are very likely to see a teacher, a judge, a lawyer, the
    town's police chief, a law student, or a probation officer working with
    a class of students. In some of the best Youth for Justice classrooms,
    police officers co-teach with classroom teachers on a daily basis.
        Your home state of New Hampshire is a national leader in adopting
    law-related education for use as both a prevention and intervention
    program. In 1996, 365 lawyers visited 31,000 students in 205 schools
    throughout the state as part of the Lawyer in Every School program. The
    Mock Trial Competition and We the People high school competition will
    attract participants from all over the state this year. A Peer
    Mediation video for high school students is currently being added to
    strengthen what is already a model program.
        The State of Kentucky is another national leader in the adoption of
    LRE programs. Every judicial district in Kentucky has a fully
    operational court diversion program. Evaluation research conducted by
    faculty at the Eastern Kentucky University Department of Corrections
    has found that the recidivism rate for youth in the law-related
    education intervention program is only about 7 percent compared to
    about 20 percent for other youth who receive more traditional probation
    services.
        Another of the many success stories comes from Betty Ackman's mock
    trial program at the Lorenzo Benn Campus, a Youth Development Center,
    in Atlanta. Before she began her program, this campus had not sent any
    of its youngsters to college. But of the 76 students who have been
    through her mock trial program, 16 have gone on to college, together
    receiving scholarships totaling more than $50,000. The recidivism rate
    among her students is approximately 11 percent, compared to the normal
    Youth Development Center rate of 75-80 percent.
        Mr. Chairman, thanks to the continued commitment of this
    Subcommittee, Youth for Justice, the National Coordinated Law-Related
    Education Program has built a vital, cost-effective program serving the
    needs of youth throughout our nation. This program:
      --Involves young people in every state in identifying and
            implementing solutions to the nation's epidemic of juvenile
            violence;
      --Promotes research-based educational programs that strive for safe,
            disciplined and drug free schools and communities;
      --Teaches young people acceptable ways to resolve conflict;
      --Fosters constructive attitudes towards authority figures, such as
            parents, teachers and police officers;
      --Provides young people with meaningful opportunities to serve their
            communities;
      --Promotes understanding of and reasoned commitment to the rule of
            law along with tolerance for varied points of view in a free
            and diverse society; and
      --Helps young people understand the democratic process and develop
            the critical thinking, decision-making, and problem solving
            skills to enable their full participation in that process.
        Youth for Justice is committed to providing leadership in the
    national effort to stop the outrage of violence committed by and
    perpetrated against this nation's youth. We have the capacity to
    involve young people directly in helping to identify and implement
    solutions. With the support of Congress, Youth for Justice is
    refocusing all programs to reflect the nation's growing concerns about
    violence committed by and against young people in our schools and
    communities.
      --Law-Related Education is one of the few juvenile delinquency
            prevention programs with a proven record of reducing delinquent
            and antisocial behavior, increasing belief in the rule of law
            and developing responsible citizenship.
      --Law-Related Education focuses on violence prevention. This Spring,
            thousands of young people from both the school and juvenile
            justice settings are again gathering with public officials in
            nearly every state, participating in Youth Summits designed to
            help develop public policy to help prevent violence by and
            against youth. During this fourth season of summits, thousands
            of young people are taking a close look at the problem of
            violence by and against youth. Recently, youngsters in
            Wyoming's Youth Summit actually wrote a violence prevention
            bill, lobbied the governor and the state legislature and were
            successful in having the bill passed this session and signed by
            the governor. As a result of this bill, teen courts are being
            established throughout the state.
      --Law-Related Education is an extraordinarily effective prevention
            program, but it is also an extraordinarily effective
            intervention program--Law-Related Education reaches juvenile
            offenders in school settings as well as halfway houses,
            detention centers, and other non-school settings.
      --While Law-Related Education targets at-risk children, it does so
            not just in urban settings but also in suburban and rural
            environments.
      --Law-Related Education is one of the most effective programs in
            mobilizing volunteer support from the criminal justice
            community, including law enforcement officers, prosecutors and
            judges.
                   the national law-related education program
        The National Coordinated Law-Related Education Program is comprised
    of five not-for-profit corporations, each of which is recognized
    nationally and internationally as a leader in the field of law and
    civic education: The American Bar Association's Special Committee on
    Youth Education for Citizenship; the Center for Civic Education; the
    Constitutional Rights Foundation; the National Institute for Citizen
    Education in the Law; and the Phi Alpha Delta Public Service Center. By
    combining their expertise and experience as teachers, school
    administrators, juvenile justice professionals, attorneys and
    professors, these five organizations have successfully administered a
    nationwide program in which they have:
      --Established and maintained an effective network of delinquency
            prevention law and citizenship projects in all fifty states,
            the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico, so that accurate
            information and effective materials can be efficiently
            distributed and widely used without costly replication of
            research and development efforts;
      --Provided training and technical assistance to the state projects in
            this network so that federal funding effectively leverages
            public and private funding appropriate to each state;
      --Established innovative law and citizenship programs for at-risk
            youth in urban, rural and suburban communities, and Indian
            reservations;
      --Provided several hundred thousand hours of training for teachers,
            law enforcement personnel and other professionals who work with
            young people;
      --Developed and field-tested quality, research-based curricular
            materials for children--kindergarten through grade twelve--in
            public and private schools, juvenile detention centers, after-
            school programs and court-related diversion programs;
      --Organized special initiatives on violence prevention, drug
            prevention, juvenile justice and urban education, publishing
            materials and sponsoring several thousand training events
            nationwide;
      --Mobilized thousands of volunteers with expertise in law, public
            policy, drug and alcohol abuse prevention, juvenile justice and
            other areas; and
      --Provided leadership and organization for another season of Youth
            Summits in the spring of 1998, involving youth and public
            policy makers on a state-wide basis in developing plans to
            solve the widespread problem of conflict and violence among our
            nation's youth.
        We at the National Coordinated Law-Related Education Program
    acknowledge with pride the participation of dozens of organizations and
    thousands of individuals from the education, legal, law enforcement,
    judicial and juvenile justice communities. The Program has had
    assistance from the executive branch and strong bipartisan support in
    Congress for the outstanding delinquency prevention programs and
    materials it has developed and implemented.
        In addition, it is a particular source of satisfaction to note that
    similar partnerships have been developed in most of the states
    participating in this network. A small amount of federal support has
    provided the impetus to attract funding from local organizations,
    agencies and foundations as well as large numbers of volunteer hours.
    One important goal of this Program is to continue to provide the
    support and technical assistance necessary to enable all of the states
    to build their own public/private partnership networks, effectively
    leveraging a small amount of federal assistance to build strong, well-
    funded local and state programs.
                      evaluations of law-related education
        For the past two decades, researchers have consistently reported
    that law-related curricula and instruction make a positive impact on
    youth, when compared with traditional approaches to teaching and
    learning law, civics and government. A review of the research in law-
    related education and related fields (including scholarly papers,
    dissertations, journal articles, and book chapters) conducted by Dr.
    Jeffrey W. Cornett and published on April 1, 1997 in monograph form
    concludes that LRE programs have a positive effect on student knowledge
    about law and legal processes, and about individual rights and
    responsibilities. In addition, the report concludes that there is
    evidence that LRE programs have a positive influence on student
    attitudes and behavior. Research studies indicate that effective LRE
    programs have improved juveniles' attitudes toward the justice system
    and toward authorities. Research findings also indicate a link between
    particular LRE programs and youth who, as a result of law-related
    education, exhibit more law-abiding behavior and commit fewer
    delinquent acts.
        Within the next ninety days, the National Coordinated Law-Related
    Education Program will be releasing impact data from demonstration
    programs in Los Angeles, Chicago, and Washington, D.C. showing the
    positive effect that Law-Related Education can have on the highest at-
    risk youth. This data is the culmination of a three-year effort to test
    the impact of Law-Related Education on at-risk youth in the most
    challenging environments.
        A four-year national quantitative evaluation of Law-Related
    Education was carried out in 32 schools in six different states from
    1980-1984. Conducted by the Center for Action Research and the Social
    Science Education Consortium of Boulder, Colorado, the evaluation found
    that:
      --Law-Related Education, when implemented properly, reduces those
            factors associated with delinquent behavior;
      --Law-Related Education, more than any other subject, fostered a
            belief in students that laws are legitimate and should be
            obeyed; and
      --Some of the positive effects of Law-Related Education included
            reduction of school infractions, decrease in the use of alcohol
            and other drugs, and a decrease in other delinquent behaviors.
        The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention has noted
    that evaluations of Law-Related Education Program have been
    ``encouraging * * * confirming the previous findings that such
    education serves as a significant deterrent to delinquent behavior.''
    Eighth Analysis and Evaluation of Federal Juvenile Delinquency
    Programs, U.S. Department of Justice, OJJDP, p. 60 (1985).
        The Twelfth Analysis and Evaluation of Federal Juvenile Delinquency
    Programs published in 1988 similarly states, ``[A] national study
    suggests that Law-Related Education, when properly implemented, can
    reduce the tendency to engage in delinquent behavior.''
        Dr. Timothy Buzzell of Drake University in Des Moines, Iowa, in
    1992 published a study of one of the first Law-Related Education
    Programs in a juvenile justice setting. He found over the six year
    period of the study that a Law-Related Education Program implemented at
    the state training school for boys positively influenced risk factors
    commonly correlated with delinquent behavior.
        A 1993 study of a Law-Related Education diversion alternative in
    Kentucky's Designated Court Worker Program showed both improved
    perceptions of the police and a low recidivism rate (10\1/2\ percent
    after one year).
        Of course, even if these conclusions are accepted, and even if it
    is recognized that the National Program has a unique and remarkable
    record of achievement, Law-Related Education must still justify
    appropriations support. In other words, why should this subcommittee
    support an appropriation for the National Coordinated Law-Related
    Education Program?
      --First, without congressional support it is now clear that the
            National Coordinated Law-Related Education Program will die. In
            fiscal year 1996, without earmark support, OJJDP slashed LRE
            funding by almost 35 percent, from $2.8 million to $1.9
            million. In fiscal year 1997, with a soft earmark calling for
            ``continued support for law related education,'' OJJDP again
            slashed LRE's funding (even though OJJDP's own funding was
            increased) almost 33 percent, from $1.9 million to $1 million.
            For fiscal year 1998, LRE's funding remains at $1 million
            thanks to an earmark in the fiscal year 1998 Conference Report
            calling for continued funding at the fiscal year 1997 level.
            While OJJDP has stated publicly that it recognizes Law-Related
            Education's important value, we believe that, absent a specific
            dollar amount for earmark support for LRE, OJJDP will again
            deeply slash funding for the National Coordinated LRE Program.
      --Second, it is also clear that LRE works and that it is one of the
            few programs proven to do so.
      --Third, the federal government and, in particular, the Congress, has
            made a substantial investment over more than a decade in the
            creation of a National Coordinated Law-Related Education
            network and infrastructure including coordinating organizations
            in every state.
      --Fourth, only a national program will undertake national initiatives
            that benefit the entire country, such as national training;
            national technical assistance; state financial assistance; new
            program and curriculum development such as Law-Related
            Education's highly successful and acclaimed Youth Summits; and
            the replication of successful state programs and the avoidance
            of unsuccessful pilot programs.
      --Fifth, federal money is seed money used to sustain a national
            program which raises more than seven times the federal support
            through state legislative support, private donations, and in-
            kind support.
        For all of these reasons, the National Coordinated Law-Related
    Education Program is seeking earmark support at the $1.9 million level.
    This Subcommittee approved funding at $1.9 million for fiscal year
    1998. (The House earmark called for one million and, as noted, the
    Conference Report adopted the House number.) Mr. Chairman, this is a
    difficult time. There are enormous challenges facing the juvenile
    justice community and the Congress as all of us continue to wrestle
    with frequent, persistent and increasingly violent juvenile crime. It
    is a time to reassess and reevaluate. We would submit, however, that it
    is not a time to allow a multi-million dollar investment--which has
    been proven to work to reduce juvenile delinquency and which in recent
    years has developed new and effective intervention initiatives for
    youth violence, drugs and delinquency--to perish.
        We thank you, Mr. Chairman and the members of this subcommittee,
    for your support over all these many years and we ask for your
    continued support.
                                     ______

      Prepared Statement of the University of Medicine & Dentistry of New
                                     Jersey
        The University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey (UMDNJ) is
    the largest health sciences university in the nation and the only one
    designated as a statewide system for health care. UMDNJ comprises seven
    schools on five academic campuses in Camden, New Brunswick/Piscataway,
    Newark, Scotch Plains and Stratford. We own and operate UMDNJ-
    University Hospital in Newark, the primary teaching hospital of the
    UMDNJ-New Jersey Medical School and home to New Jersey's Level One
    Trauma Center. UMDNJ also comprises three core primary teaching
    hospitals, five health care facilities, an integrated behavioral health
    delivery system, and has affiliations with more than 100 health care
    and educational institutions statewide.
        It is with great pleasure and pride that UMDNJ submits testimony to
    the Senate Commerce, Justice, State Subcommittee on Appropriations to
    respectfully request your support for an initiative of national
    importance and significance: the Violence Institute of New Jersey at
    UMDNJ.
        The Violence Institute of New Jersey (VINJ) at UMDNJ is a site-
    specific project recommended by Congress as a candidate for the Justice
    Department's Byrne Discretionary Grant program. Our goal is to
    coordinate a comprehensive approach to understanding and preventing
    various aspects of violence, including child abuse, youth violence,
    violence against women, elder abuse, substance abuse, the development
    of aggression, the biological mechanisms of violence and the treatment
    of traumatic injury as a result of violence.
        The establishment of the Violence Institute of New Jersey at UMDNJ
    constitutes a major commitment by the University's President, its Board
    of Trustees and the collaborative efforts of the 40-plus statewide
    programs that address various approaches to violence--research,
    education, prevention and treatment. The VINJ has made considerable
    progress over the past year in developing a unique, coordinated
    approach to all aspects of violence, providing ample evidence of the
    extraordinary promise this Institute can and will make on behalf of the
    citizens of New Jersey.
        The mission of the Violence Institute is to facilitate the
    understanding, prevention and treatment of violence across the life
    span. The Institute seeks to build strong programs for the prevention
    and treatment of violence through collaborations within the University
    and with community-based partners. VINJ's mission is to support,
    coordinate and conduct violence-related research; to educate students,
    health care and law enforcement professionals and the public on
    violence-related issues and solutions; to serve as a clearinghouse for
    information and data on violence; and to seek a leadership role in the
    development of public policy on violence-related issues.
        Last year, a colloquy was included in the Congressional Record as
    part of the Senate consideration of the fiscal year 1998 Commerce/
    Justice/State Appropriations bill. The colloquy recognized VINJ's
    efforts to curb violent behavior in all aspects of society and
    concluded that the Violence Institute of New Jersey at UMDNJ is worthy
    of support from the Department of Justice.
        Also, last year, VINJ was cited as a violence prevention/research
    resource in the House Report on the Juvenile Crime Control and
    Delinquency Prevention Act of 1997. As a result, the Attorney General
    of the State of New Jersey wrote to the President of UMDNJ and offered
    his support for the VINJ and encouraged collaboration between his
    office and the Violence Institute. As a result, the VINJ is working
    closely with our State Department of Law and Public Safety. The
    Institute is expanding its training and consultation in support of law
    enforcement activities in New Jersey. We also met with the Association
    of County Prosecutors to engage in similar initiatives at the county
    level.
        The VINJ was asked by the New Jersey Department of Education to
    submit a proposal to the U.S. Secretary of Education for programs to
    prevent youth violence. Funding is also being sought to disseminate the
    SANKOFA Violence Prevention Training Program to high schools throughout
    New Jersey. The SANKOFA program has been submitted to the State
    Juvenile Justice Commission and a demonstration project is being
    launched this year. There is interest in expanding this program
    statewide, targeting juvenile justice populations in New Jersey and in
    Alabama.
        Another important initiative of the VINJ, the Social Problem
    Solving Program, is regarded as one of the nation's leading programs of
    social and emotional learning and conflict resolution. The program
    provides training and technical assistance to 20 new school districts
    in New Jersey each year and is being used in 22 other states across the
    country.
        VINJ organized several major conferences on violence including a
    joint conference with the State Department of Health and Senior
    Services on Youth Violence, and a Violence Against Women conference co-
    sponsored by UMDNJ, The Foundation of UMDNJ, Wakefern Food Corporation
    and the Warner-Lambert Company.
        In recognition of the efforts of the VINJ, the State of New Jersey
    committed $750,000 in its fiscal year 1998 appropriation to UMDNJ to
    support the mission of the Violence Institute. These funds are used
    primarily for infrastructure needs, while federal funds are needed to
    expand VINJ's education, research, training and program support. An
    additional state appropriation of $750,000 has been included as part of
    the Governor's proposed budget for fiscal year 1999.
        Some of the state appropriation will be used to provide seed grants
    to address emerging issues on violence. Federal funds will enable the
    VINJ to expand grant opportunities and increase our ability to attract
    future funding from state, federal and private funding sources.
        The Violence Institute of New Jersey at UMDNJ has achieved
    remarkable success in a short period of time and with little resources.
    Our programs have achieved national and local recognition and have
    garnered about $24 million in funding over the past six years, half of
    which came from federal sources. A modest federal investment in the
    VINJ will allow the Institute to develop its administrative, data
    management and technical assistance core, and to expand its education,
    research and training programs to the community.
        We, therefore, respectfully request your support by providing UMDNJ
    with funding of $3 million through the Department of Justice that will
    enhance the development of the Violence Institute of New Jersey at
    UMDNJ as a state and national resource for the prevention and treatment
    of violence in our society.
                                     ______

                              DEPARTMENT OF STATE
     Prepared Statement of Daniel F. Geisler, President, American Foreign
                              Service Association
        Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: I am Daniel F.
    Geisler, President of the American Foreign Service Association (AFSA).
    On behalf of the Association, I wish to express our appreciation for
    the opportunity to again submit testimony to the Subcommittee regarding
    the fiscal year 1999 funding for the Department of State, the United
    States Information Agency, and the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency.
        As you know, AFSA is the professional organization representing the
    23,000 active duty and retired Foreign Service Officers and
    Specialists. We also serve a labor function as the recognized
    bargaining agent for the active duty Foreign Service personnel in five
    government agencies: the State Department, the Agency for International
    Development, the U.S. Information Agency, the Foreign Commercial
    Service of the Commerce Department and the Department of Agriculture's
    Foreign Agricultural Service. From either perspective, professional or
    labor, the Foreign Service is our constituency. For that reason, this
    bill is of vital interest to us because it directly affects us both in
    the workplace and in our quality of life.
        The Secretary of State, in previous testimony before this
    Subcommittee and before other Congressional committees, spoke clearly
    and effectively of the complex world in which we live. She explained
    why the United States of America must remain engaged. AFSA agrees.
    There is no alternative to American leadership. Our domestic interests,
    especially our national security, are conditioned by world events. Our
    economic prosperity, the safety of our young men and women in uniform,
    the quality of our environment, the fight against drugs, and the
    security of our borders are tied to our ability to shape those world
    events.
        Recent events in Iraq demonstrate how diplomacy can prevent
    bloodshed. They also demonstrated how many Americans believe diplomacy
    should be our first option for shaping the world to ensure our security
    and our prosperity. That is the heart of diplomacy: shaping world
    events to further our national interests. That is the mission of the
    Foreign Service, a mission we accomplish together with our colleagues
    from the Civil Service, and our Foreign Service National employees.
        To accomplish our mission, we need the right tools. We need the
    right people, and they need the right skills. We need modern
    technology, especially information and communications technology. And
    we need things that people sometimes assume we have, such as safe
    buildings to work and live in. AFSA strongly believes that the State
    Department and the other foreign affairs agencies must use the public's
    tax money wisely. We believe just as strongly that America cannot get
    the world class diplomatic corps it needs and deserves if we try to do
    it on the cheap.
        Thanks to the leadership of this Subcommittee, and that of your
    counterpart on the House side, we saw in fiscal year 1998 a reversal of
    the continued decrease in funding for the international affairs
    account, a decline that had been a constant feature of federal spending
    for more than a decade. This year for the first time we will hire to
    attrition so that our workforce will not shrink further. Given the
    tight budget considerations then and now, we appreciate the political
    courage and the hard work that went into making this possible. Thanks
    to the Senate appropriations level, there was a marked increase in
    funding for the technology account--in fact greater than the
    Administration requested for fiscal year 1998. That is important to the
    Foreign Service. We share the Subcommittee's concern about the need to
    modernize our information systems.
        This turn-around in funding for the international affairs account
    came none too soon. But the modest increase in fiscal year 1998 funding
    has not eliminated the shortfalls in our diplomatic readiness that have
    accumulated. Thus the American Foreign Service Association supports,
    and urges the Subcommittee to support, at minimum, the Administration's
    foreign affairs increased funding request for fiscal year 1999.
        We still face critical but costly infrastructure needs in capitals
    like Berlin and Beijing. Beyond these, there are countless repair jobs
    to our facilities around the world that continue to be put off--costing
    more in the long run. State Department managers have estimated that our
    infrastructure needs, especially overseas, outstrip our resources by a
    factor of two.
        Over the last three years, we have lowered the flag in 32 American
    posts abroad. In East Asia and the Pacific, for example, 7 missions
    were closed, as well as 12 USIA missions and branch posts. These posts
    were America's forward deployment. Our posts abroad are the bases of
    operation for shaping world events to further our national interests.
    Closing all of our USIS branch posts in South Korea, for example,
    hampers our ability to explain to the Korean public our efforts to
    foster financial stability in East Asia at a time when they and their
    government have some tough financial decisions to make. The absence of
    an American presence abroad robs us of opportunities to tell America's
    story, to serve American travelers, and to promote American business.
        But funds by themselves are not sufficient--funding must be used
    smartly. That means planning for an uncertain future, being ready to
    meet unforeseen challenges, and developing a flexible diplomatic corps
    today to serve America's needs tomorrow. It is difficult, but we
    believe it can be done.
        AFSA has long advocated, and we hope the Subcommittee will do so
    also, that the Department of State establish a true needs-based system
    of strategic personnel planning. Work force management has been static
    and backward looking. We need, instead, a dynamic and forward looking
    system, reflecting new functions as well as needs. We must begin now by
    projecting our needs in five years to ten years, setting our priorities
    of implementation, and devising a system for allocating scarce
    personnel resources to reach our objectives. Large companies are able
    to do this, and so should the Department of State. Few people from the
    open job market come pre-equipped with both the diplomatic skills and
    the substantive knowledge required of an effective Foreign Service
    Officer or Specialist. We recruit some of the most talented people this
    country has to offer, and we give them the combination of formal
    training and on-the-job experience they need to achieve our mission. It
    takes time. It takes planning. We need to plan systematically today if
    we are to still have a top-ranking diplomatic corps tomorrow.
        Mr. Chairman, there is one area of concern that I wish to raise
    with this Subcommittee--the increasing burden of service abroad.
    Foreign Service Officers and Specialists make themselves worldwide
    available to carry out the mission of American diplomacy. That often
    means service in parts of the world that are unpleasant, unhealthy or
    dangerous. A disciplined Service such as ours calls on its members, and
    on its members' families, to make sacrifices. Ms. Patricia Ryan, then
    President of the American Association of Foreign Service Women, said
    about family life in the Foreign Service, that:
        ``Foreign Service professionals and their families face hardships
    on a daily basis. In many places there is the risk of endemic disease
    and the lack of modern medical facilities. Water is often undrinkable,
    and food must be scrubbed and cooked in order to be safely eaten. While
    serving at distant posts, they are separated from friends and family.
    Due to security measures, living conditions are increasingly isolated.
    Children have limited opportunities to participate in activities and
    often have difficulties adjusting to new environments.''
        We do not think Congress intended to make service abroad a
    financial burden. In fact, Congress enacted 5 USC Secs. 5925 and 5928
    to lighten the burden of hardship and danger. However, AFSA is
    concerned that we are moving to a situation where this kind of
    adjustment may no longer have any meaning. This is because since 1994
    the State Department has been reducing hardship allowances in 68
    percent of the hardship-designated posts, and Foreign Service
    personnel, when serving abroad, lose the D.C. area locality pay
    adjustment forcing them, in essence, to take a cut in salary. This
    combination may sharply reduce hardship or danger compensation when
    compared to service in Washington.
        Mr. Chairman, it is important that the Congress and especially this
    Subcommittee understand this serious concern of the Foreign Service.
        We Foreign Service men and women serve today in countries marred by
    violence and civil unrest, and severe economic and political
    instability. We serve because we believe in our country and we believe
    in our mission. We serve at increasing personal cost, including
    financial cost. Reductions in benefits, as well as lack of an equalizer
    for locality pay, have meant that our people may actually take a cut in
    salary to serve America abroad. Many of us serve with outdated
    equipment, while living in substandard housing, and in the face of an
    expanding workload without equally expanding resources.
        Mr. Chairman, AFSA asks that we be given the tools we need to shape
    world events to advance America's national interests. We firmly support
    full funding of the international affairs account for fiscal year 1999,
    and we ask that the Subcommittee move quickly on this legislation.
        I thank the Chairman and the members of the Subcommittee for the
    opportunity to testify on this important matter.
                                     ______

     Prepared Statement of the Alliance for International Educational and
                               Cultural Exchange
        The Alliance for International Educational and Cultural Exchange
    (Alliance) appreciates the opportunity to submit testimony to the
    subcommittee in support of the United States Information Agency and the
    educational and cultural exchange programs which it administers. We
    urge an appropriation of $210 million for USIA exchange programs--$11
    million above the Administration's request.
        The Alliance is a broad coalition of sixty non-profit organizations
    which conduct exchange programs. The Alliance's members are extremely
    diverse and include academic, citizen, and youth exchange
    organizations. Some of these organizations receive part of their
    funding through USIA grants. Others do not. All, however, share the
    conviction that international exchange programs such as those
    administered by the USIA are an extremely effective and cost-efficient
    means of serving our national interests both at home and abroad.
        We enthusiastically applaud the Administration's proposed increase
    in Fulbright educational exchanges. We are seriously concerned,
    however, that the cultural, professional, and citizen exchange programs
    slated for a significant $7.5 million reduction will indisputably lead
    to atrophy and deterioration of the vast network of committed citizen
    volunteers throughout the United States which provide both visitor
    programming and hospitality in most communities. A $210 million
    appropriation would prevent the destructive funding reductions in the
    exchange account, and allow professional and cultural exchange programs
    to be funded proportionately with the flagship Fulbright program.
        In order to understand the role that exchange programs play in the
    present, it is perhaps useful to put them into a historical
    perspective. The International Visitor Program and its precursors go
    back more than five decades. Beginning in 1940, the federal government
    initiated a program to bring grantees--``the molders of thought and
    opinion''--to the United States for short-term visits. By the mid-
    1940's, the world was struggling with the devastating effects of World
    War II and the aftermath of nuclear warfare. In 1946, Senator J.
    William Fulbright saw a crucial opening to break new ground in the
    field of international relations and set the foundations of educational
    and cultural exchange. He created what is now known worldwide as the
    Fulbright program. The range of U.S. exchange programs undoubtedly
    helped to shape the stable Europe that emerged after World War II.
        While today's global challenges are quite different from the late
    1940's paradigm, the need for people-to-people exchange is greater than
    ever. As former Secretary of State Lawrence Eagleburger stated, ``If we
    are to succeed in the next century as we did during the Cold War, we
    must make the same commitment to the [exchange] programs that equip
    American foreign policy to project our values and ideas.'' This
    statement provides a private sector perspective on how the
    Administration's exchange budget simultaneously addresses and fails to
    address a commitment to exchange programs as we approach the new
    millennium.
                fulbright educational exchange program increase
        An independent study of the Fulbright Educational Exchange Program
    released in 1997 concluded that Fulbright exchanges for students,
    teachers, and scholars are critical to American interests, especially
    given the rate of global change and the dynamics of a global economy.
    The study report ``Fulbright at Fifty'' calls for restoration of
    Fulbright Program funding to the fiscal year 1995 level of $125
    million. In recognition of the Fulbright Program's value, the fiscal
    year 1999 budget calls for a modest increase of $5 million for
    Fulbright exchanges from the current level of $94 million. The Alliance
    firmly supports the proposed increase. Coming after a decline of
    approximately 25 percent in the program's funding over the last three
    years, the additional funding is urgently needed.
        The Fulbright Program engages a wide network of U.S. institutions
    of higher education; private, non-profit international exchange
    organizations; and Fulbright alumni and community volunteers. In
    addition, the Fulbright program is extensively and consistently cost-
    shared by foreign governments and participants. Significant funding
    cuts over the last three years have threatened to erode the Fulbright
    Program's ability to leverage foreign government support. Several key
    allies of the United States reduced their spending on Fulbright
    exchanges after the U.S. cut funds for Fulbright exchanges with their
    countries. The U.S. budget for Fulbright exchanges must signal to
    foreign partners that the Fulbright program is a U.S. priority and will
    be funded accordingly.
        U.S. citizens who have received Fulbright grants return to their
    country with enhanced skills, deeper understandings of other cultures
    and of their own, and international connections which prove beneficial
    to their communities. For example, one returned Fulbrighter noted that
    `` a Fulbright grant enabled me to get the research experience to
    return to the U.S. and set up a biomedical research laboratory
    specializing in homeostatis and thrombosis that over the years has
    become one of the most prominent such laboratories in the United
    States''. The Fulbright Program has proven its capacity to develop both
    local and international leaders in business, government, education,
    public administration, the arts, and the professions; to increase
    understanding of the United States among foreign leaders and publics;
    and to promote our country's interests in prosperity and security
    through peaceful relationships with other nations.
        The restoration of $5 million to the Fulbright program would be a
    positive step in this process and would help insure that the modest
    investment the U.S. government makes in Fulbright exchanges will
    continue to provide excellent returns to the communities throughout the
    country which send and receive Fulbright students, teachers, and
    scholars.
       attrition in the international visitors/citizen exchange program
                                    networks
        Despite the farsighted Fulbright increase in the Administration's
    budget, the proposed reduction of $7.6 million in cultural and
    professional exchange activities will erode even further the
    infrastructure of community organizations across the country that
    support them. While leveraging significant private contributions,
    citizen and cultural exchange programs engage tens of thousands of
    volunteers--``citizen diplomats''--in communities throughout the U.S.
        Citizen diplomats volunteer their time because they recognize the
    tremendous value which globalization has both for themselves and their
    communities--it creates new trading partners, builds understanding and
    cooperation between Americans and future foreign leaders, advances
    democracy and economic growth, and creates opportunities for Americans
    to learn, to prosper, and to work with others to solve shared problems
    and make our future more secure. USIA has carefully developed diverse
    tools to reach each of the above goals.
        For example, many USIA International Visitors (IV) programs are
    geared towards democracy building. A recent IV program focused on
    democratic institution-building in Zimbabwe. After returning home, the
    Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and the Minister of Justice, both IV
    participants, are making a noticeable difference. The Chief Justice
    ruled that an election law favoring public funding for the ruling party
    was unconstitutional. When the Parliament protested, the Minister of
    Justice publicly chastised the parliamentarians, declaring that the
    independence of the judiciary is the sine qua non of democracy. Nearly
    150 present and past foreign heads of state made their first visits to
    the United States on an exchange program. Citizen exchange programs
    advance important U.S. national interests by building understanding and
    cooperation between Americans and future foreign leaders.
        The Alliance supports a budget which has equity and proportionality
    in funding increases for Fulbright and cultural/professional
    exchanges--roughly five percent. While these programs help our country
    to reach its foreign policy goals outlined in the strategic plan,
    professional and cultural exchange programs are renowned for their
    ability to leverage involvement and engagement domestically. For every
    federal dollar invested in exchange programs, the General Accounting
    Office estimates that twelve dollars are raised through private sector
    contributions.
        Slashing these grassroots programs which democratize foreign
    affairs by involving thousands of Americans will erode an ability to
    meet the continuing public diplomacy challenges our country faces as
    the world's only superpower. A modest, proportional increase in the
    cultural/professional account will allow USIA to maintain the full
    diversity of its time-tested program tools to support U.S. foreign
    policy.
                   33 percent reduction for overseas advising
        Included in the Administration's budget is a paralyzing reduction
    for one of our country's most cost-effective foreign affairs program--
    overseas student advising. This activity, funded through USIA's
    exchange programs budget, makes a truly remarkable contribution to our
    long-term foreign policy interests and to our balance of trade. The
    Administration has requested reducing the overseas advising budget
    $1.02 million, a 33 percent reduction.
        With an fiscal year 1998 budget around $3 million, USIA provided
    partial support to over 500 advising centers worldwide. Centers provide
    authoritative, unbiased information and advice on American higher
    education to prospective foreign students, and frequently serve as test
    sites for standardized tests required for university admission. Last
    year, nearly 458,000 foreign students contributed $7.3 billion to the
    U.S. economy, generating 150,000 jobs. These numbers make higher
    education our country's fifth largest service export. The modest U.S.
    investment in advising clearly pays for itself many times over.
        The benefits we gain from foreign students go well beyond our trade
    balance. Future leaders from around the world who study here learn our
    values, and they take those values home with them. The recent explosion
    of prosperity and democracy throughout Latin America, for example,
    corresponds precisely with the rise to power of a generation of leaders
    educated in the United States. These developments have a profound
    positive impact on our own security and prosperity. Our competitors--
    Australia, the United Kingdom, Canada, and Japan--certainly recognize
    these impacts and have themselves adopted assertive policies for
    attracting foreign students. As U.S. funding for overseas advising
    drops, we are already losing market share to our competitors.
    Increasing the exchange budget appropriation will allow us to maintain
    our position in the global higher education market and perhaps even
    allow for modest ``comeback'' in this highly successful, textbook
    example of a cost-effective program.
                                   conclusion
        We in the exchange community recognize the difficult task before
    this subcommittee in attempting to meet the needs of a diverse array of
    national interests. With the potential $1.5 billion increase in foreign
    affairs spending (function 150) over fiscal year 1998 levels, we urge
    the subcommittee to fund a modest increase for educational and cultural
    exchange programs. The federal role in fostering people to people
    connections is crucial, without it, the enormous private sector
    leveraging benefits will cease.
        The proposed budget makes the crucial first step by providing a
    modest funding increase for the Fulbright program; we hope it will
    begin to restore the substantial 20 percent drop in the number of
    Fulbright participants. We urge your support for the Fulbright program.
        To allow USIA the full diversity of tools to reach its foreign
    policy goals, we urge the subcommittee to take the next step and adopt
    a modest increase for the range of cultural and professional exchange
    programs which democratize foreign affairs for tens of thousands of
    Americans across the United States. They boast enormous benefits to
    American communities while exposing foreign leaders to our political
    values and aims. To prevent atrophy in the time-tested volunteer
    networks which make the these program possible, and to allow for a
    modest increase in the Fulbright program, we strongly recommend a
    fiscal year 1999 exchange program budget funded at $210 million.
                                     ______

                             DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
     Prepared Statement of Barry K. Rogstad, President, American Business
    Conference and Chairman, Board of Overseers, Malcolm Baldrige National
                                 Quality Award
        Mr. Chairman: I am Barry Rogstad, President of the American
    Business Conference and Chairman of the Board of Overseers for the
    Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award. The Board of Overseers is the
    legislatively mandated oversight body for the Malcolm Baldrige National
    Quality Award. I am pleased to have the opportunity to present my
    views--and those of the Board--on the Baldrige Award, the unique and
    important role this Award plays in strengthening America's
    competitiveness, and the compelling arguments for expanding the Award
    to include education and health care categories.
        I would like to summarize the key points which we believe the
    Congress should factor into the deliberations on funding the Baldrige
    Award to include education and health care categories.
    Baldrige Has Been a Primary Driver of Restoring America's Competitive
            Edge
        In 1987, Congress initiated what proved to be the major milestone
    in the quality movement in the United States and a major source of
    inspiration for improving U.S. business competitiveness: The Malcolm
    Baldrige National Quality Award. For the first time, quality was
    recognized at the national level as a key factor in the competitiveness
    of U.S. firms. The Baldrige Award has served as an important
    dissemination point for best performance practices, and tens of
    thousands of U.S. companies have used the Baldrige criteria to
    strengthen their competitiveness.
        Over 1\1/2\ million copies of the Award criteria have been
    distributed. Over 40 states now have Award programs. Over 1,000
    organizations applied for awards throughout the national system in
    1997. Over 30,000 sharing sessions have been held by Baldrige Award
    winners. Companies representing two-thirds of the GDP have participated
    in the Baldrige process. More than 25 nations have emulated the
    Baldrige process. The Baldrige public/private partnership has
    accomplished more than any other program in revitalizing the American
    economy.
    The Business Community Wants Baldrige Categories in Education and
            Health Care
        Starting in 1990, representatives of the business community
    requested creation of Baldrige award categories in education and health
    care. They believed then, and continue to believe now, that creation of
    these categories would improve education and health care quality, would
    control costs to business associated with worker health care and lost
    work time for remedial education, and would allow transfer of knowledge
    from business process improvements and management systems to the
    education and health care sectors.
        Businesses have achieved 15-40 percent reductions in cost through
    process improvements and prevention-based systems. Costs of U.S. goods
    and services are greatly impacted by the costs of employee health care
    benefits. While business health care costs have been restrained over
    the last couple of years, annual health premium increases for American
    business remain a significant concern. U.S. workers are not educated
    for today's jobs. Businesses state that remedial education costs
    industry significant time and money. Many in the business community
    believe the education system doesn't understand its customers. The
    business community believes that extending the Baldrige performance
    management system to education and health care will begin the learning
    process that could attack some of these problems. Addressing these
    issues is critical to survival in an internationally competitive
    marketplace.
    The Education and Health Care Communities Need and Want Baldrige Award
            Categories
        Education and health care are today where American businesses were
    12-15 years ago. They are being challenged to meet more demanding
    performance standards and higher customer expectations, and deliver
    quality services all at lower costs--and are increasingly being held
    accountable for their performance. Therefore, education and health care
    leaders are searching for improvement strategies that work. American
    businesses have proven that Baldrige does work. Therefore, education
    and health care leaders can and are eager to accelerate their own
    improvement efforts by using Baldrige, with community input and
    support, to redesign the way they do business.
        Starting in 1992, K-12 and higher education and health care
    organizations asked for creation of Baldrige Award categories in
    education and health care. In 1995, successful pilot programs were
    conducted in education and health care. Applicants in the pilot
    program, who participated strictly for the learning with no awards
    being presented, represented a broad array of education and health care
    organizations. Between five and ten times the number of expected
    applicants participated in this pilot program. These organizations
    included: individual K-12 schools, small rural and major urban K-12
    school districts, colleges, universities, technical schools, hospitals,
    managed care health systems, HMO's, individual physicians practices,
    nursing homes, and ambulance services.
        Over 30,000 organizations have used the pilot education and health
    care criteria developed in 1995. The 30,000 number is based on copies
    of the criteria distributed by NIST. Beyond that, education and health
    care criteria have been distributed by many of the state and local
    award programs that use the NIST criteria.
        In the survey that followed the 1995 Pilot Program for education
    and health care, 93 percent of the participants rated the relevance of
    the Baldrige Pilot Criteria to improving organizational performance as
    very good or excellent. 78 percent of the applicants rated the
    relevance and importance of the Feedback Report they received in
    helping their organizations improve as very good or excellent. 89
    percent of the evaluators who participated said they benefited from the
    synergism created by having business, education and health care
    evaluators work together during evaluations so that lessons could be
    shared across the sectors.
        The organizations that are charged with stimulating performance
    improvement are gravitating toward Baldrige. Accrediting agencies are
    working with NIST to establish award categories for education and
    health care. Continuous quality improvement is being embedded in their
    accreditation criteria. Regional accrediting organizations (K-12 and
    high education) are allowing schools to use the Baldrige Criteria as an
    alternative tool for accreditation. The state of New Jersey has just
    passed legislation allowing the use of Baldrige Criteria as an
    alternative assessment tool on a statewide basis. The Joint Commission
    on Accreditation of Health Care Organizations (JCAHO) has published a
    criteria crosswalk between their accreditation criteria and Baldrige
    criteria to encourage performance excellence. Two federal advisory
    commissions have recently issued statements in support of creation of
    Baldrige Award categories. The National Commission on the Cost of
    Higher Education has endorsed establishment of a Baldrige category for
    education and the Advisory Commission on Consumer Protection and
    Quality in the Health Care Industry, in its draft report, endorses
    establishment of a Baldrige Award category for health care.
        Both Secretaries Shalala and Riley of the Departments of Health and
    Human Services and Education, support creation of Baldrige Award
    categories for health and education, respectively.
    The Baldrige Office Should Administer All of the Programs
        NIST as an organization embodies and conveys an image of high
    standards--vigorous standards that are applied to high performance and
    built-in continuous improvement cycles. Also under NIST leadership, the
    Baldrige Award is being used not just as an end point, but to encourage
    the winners and others to achieve even greater results.
        The original national award process has prompted a network of state
    and local award programs that now covers over 40 states. These programs
    are responsible for creating a true national system committed to
    performance improvement and performance excellence. These programs, in
    essence, have formed a nationwide network committed to supporting
    performance excellence of all types of institutions--business,
    government, education, and health care--within their respective states
    and communities. Therefore they rely heavily on Baldrige materials
    which include: annually-updated Baldrige Criteria, Baldrige case
    studies, and Baldrige examiner training materials.
        State and local programs need up-to-date Baldrige educational
    materials for health care and education if they are to continue having
    viable programs, and if they are to continue fostering a national
    network committed to education and health care quality improvement.
    The Rollout Under NIST Will Leverage Extensive Private Sector and
            Community Engagement
        The national focus and Presidential award ceremony make it possible
    for the Baldrige Program to attract thousands of volunteers through its
    federal/state award program network. The volunteers regard their
    participation as service to their country. An estimated 4,000-5,000
    volunteers operate in the federal/state network. The overall network
    has an activity level of more than $100 million per year. This means
    that for every appropriated dollar to NIST, other sources contributed
    about $35.
        Another important type of contribution to the national effort is
    the work of Baldrige Award recipients--at no cost to the Federal
    Government. These award recipients have held many thousands of sharing
    sessions. If we add to this the contribution of state and local award
    recipients, the total contribution would amount to several million
    dollars per year.
        The Foundation for the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award is
    raising a new endowment to support education and health care categories
    in anticipation of a partnership with the federal government. We are
    going to leaders in education and health care to insure their active
    participation in all phases of this Baldrige expansion. The Baldrige
    Foundation has elected four new Directors to join the six industry
    Directors and help with the establishment of Baldrige Award Categories
    for education and health care. The four new Directors are Dr. G. Wayne
    Clough, President of the Georgia Institute of Technology; Dr. H.
    Richard Nesson, President of Partners HealthCare System, Inc. (the
    organization that is responsible for Massachusetts General Hospital);
    Dr. Robert R. Waller, President and CEO of the Mayo Foundation; and Dr.
    Arnold R. Weber, Chancellor of Northwestern University.
        The Foundation is actively raising a $15 million endowment to
    support these new categories, contingent upon a partnership with the
    Federal Government. The Foundation considers the partnership critical
    to the success of the existing Baldrige Program for business and
    equally critical to new Baldrige Programs for education and health
    care. Volunteers who participate in the program consider their
    participation as service to their country and the tie to the Federal
    government is vital for that partnership.
        Over the past decade, many of us in the business community have
    been involved with trying to make a meaningful contribution to improve
    K-12 education. These efforts, focusing on interactions between local
    school systems and companies, have shown considerable results, but
    there remains much to be done. Baldrige represents a comprehensive
    approach to systemic management improvement that can yield significant
    productivity gains to local education (and health care) institutions.
    We have proven it works for business; we believe it can be a catalyst
    for similar improvements in the education and health care sectors.
        In conclusion, as business leaders we want to see the Baldrige
    framework introduced into health care and education. We view it as an
    external change agent and catalyst that can provide a proven yet fresh
    perspective to our colleagues who run school systems and health care
    facilities. We in the business community are taking active steps to
    achieve this end.
        Congress created this opportunity in 1987 when Baldrige was signed
    into law. With relatively little investment, it can stimulate the same
    response in our two largest and most important sectors--education and
    health care--which will enable school districts, higher educational
    institutions, and health care organizations in all states and
    communities to achieve performance excellence and to improve
    continuously.
        For all of these reasons, we strongly support the proposed
    expansion to enable education and health care to take advantage of the
    proven Baldrige infrastructure and act on the reality that improved
    performance is not limited to business, but is important to all
    organizations.
                                     ______

         Prepared Statement of the American Society of Civil Engineers
                               executive summary
        The American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) is a strong
    supporter of the Clinton Administration's overall emphasis on U.S.
    infrastructure investment and civilian research and technology
    development.
        The Administration's fiscal year 1999 request of $715 million for
    the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)--an increase
    of $42 million, or 6.3 percent, over fiscal year 1998 appropriations of
    $673 million--is strong evidence of the President's commitment to this
    issue. The proposed budget will fund the operation of NIST's civilian
    technology support programs that focus on the U.S.'s technology
    infrastructure. ASCE has long believed that the federal government
    needs to take a more active role in civilian research and technology
    development as a way to ultimately enhance the quality of the nation's
    public works infrastructure, and to strengthen the international
    competitiveness of the U.S. construction industry.
                      american society of civil engineers
        ASCE, founded in 1852, is the oldest national engineering society
    in the United States. Membership is held by more than 123,000
    individual professional engineers, and is equally divided among
    engineers in private practice; engineers working for Federal, state or
    local governments; and those employed in research and academia. The
    Society's major goals are to develop engineers who will improve
    technology and apply it to further the objectives of society as a
    whole, to promote the dedication and technical capability of its
    members, and to advance the profession of civil engineering.
             national institutes of standards and technology (nist)
        ASCE strongly supports the Administration's fiscal year 1999 budget
    request of $715 million for NIST, including the $13.7 million for the
    Building and Fire Research Laboratory (BFRL), $2.1 million for the
    National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP), $260 million for
    the Advanced Technology Program (ATP), and $107 million for the
    Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP).
        ASCE supports coordinated and integrated basic and applied civil
    engineering research which leverages federal R&D funds through
    government-industry-university partnerships. These goals are currently
    being addressed through programs at NIST.
        ASCE recognizes that as the Administration and Congress struggle to
    balance the budget, increased pressures will be placed on R&D budgets.
    However, unless those cuts are carefully targeted, the flow of talent
    and new technology in civil engineering and other technical disciplines
    will be reduced.
                the building and fire research laboratory (bfrl)
        ASCE is a strong supporter of NIST's Building and Fire Research
    Laboratory (BFRL) which is funded under the Measurement and Standards
    Laboratories Program. The fiscal year 1999 budget request for the
    Measurement and Standards Laboratories is $286.3 million. Of this
    total, $13.7 million would fund the building research program.
        ASCE believes that the services provided by the BFRL are invaluable
    to the U.S. building industry. The major goals of the BFRL are to
    improve the productivity of U.S. construction industries, and to reduce
    human and economic losses resulting from fires, earthquakes, winds and
    other hazards.
        The BFRL also serves as the premier fire research laboratory in the
    United States. It develops technologies to predict, measure and test
    the performance of construction materials, components and practices.
    NIST works closely with U.S. industries to integrate these new
    technologies into new materials that are less flammable and new
    products that reduce the consequences of unwanted fires.
        Laboratory research activities include: fire science and fire
    safety engineering; building materials; computer-integrated
    construction practices; structural, mechanical, and environmental
    engineering; and building economics. The laboratory conducts
    investigations at the scene of major fires and structural failures due
    to earthquakes, hurricanes or other causes. The knowledge gained from
    these investigations guides research and is applied to recommendations
    for design and construction practices to reduce future hazards.
        Construction is one of the nation's largest industries, comparable
    in size to the health care and agriculture industries. It serves as a
    critical asset for enhancing the international competitiveness of U.S.
    industry. Annually, more than $600 billion is spent in the U.S. on the
    design, construction, maintenance, repair, and renovation of
    constructed facilities, according to statistics from the U.S.
    Department of Commerce. In 1996 alone, new construction totaled $569
    billion, about 8 percent of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and
    provided employment for 8 million people.
        ASCE believes that there is a critical need for continued and
    expanded U.S. construction and fire research. The construction industry
    is in a process of technological change in materials, construction
    methods and utilization of advanced computer-based technologies.
        The need for expanded construction-related research is critical if
    the United States is to reestablish a leadership position in the
    construction industry. The private sector does not have the resources
    to provide technological support, because of the fragmentation and
    expense of the necessary testing facilities. The BFRL is superbly
    qualified to provide research for the prediction, measurement and
    testing of the performance of building materials, components, systems
    and practices. These technical contributions are used in setting
    standards and codes for design and construction. This research also
    assists in removing barriers to beneficial innovations and maintains
    essential levels of safety.
        With the increasing age of our nation's facilities and the need to
    rebuild our infrastructure systems, the role of the BFRL is--and will
    continue to be--of paramount importance. Research efforts currently
    underway will help highway engineers design reinforced concrete bridges
    that will have longer lives. This could be of great economic importance
    since hundreds of thousands of U.S. bridges are in need of repair,
    rehabilitation or replacement.
        The BFRL research activities continue to impact a variety of
    infrastructure-related issues including: Structural Reliability;
    Nondestructive Testing of Concrete; Structural Failure Investigations;
    Seismic Design and Construction Standards; Rehabilitation Codes and
    Standards; Corrosion Protection for Reinforcing Steel; Prediction of
    the Service Lives of Building Materials; Quality of Construction
    Materials Laboratory Testing; Roofing Standards; In-Place Testing of
    Concrete; and, Computer Simulation of the Properties of Concrete and
    Other Porous Materials.
        ASCE strongly believes that the services provided by NIST's BFRL
    are invaluable to the building industry, and should be adequately
    funded. Only by working with the BFRL is the construction industry able
    to leverage the funding and leadership necessary to remain competitive
    in the global marketplace.
                            nist earthquake research
        ASCE strongly supports the President's $2.1 million request in
    fiscal year 1999 for NIST's activities under National Earthquake
    Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP) (Public Law 103-25). Under this
    program, NIST is responsible for ``research and development to improve
    standards and practices for structures and lifelines.'' Lifelines are
    critical public works and utilities, such as facilities for water
    supply and sewage treatment, liquid fuel and gas pipelines, electrical
    power and communications, and transportation.
        The importance of developing technologies for industry and
    government to reduce the Nation's vulnerability to severe losses of
    life, property and economic activity from earthquakes, cannot be
    overstated.
        Earthquakes pose the greatest single-event natural hazard faced by
    the Nation. A single earthquake and subsequent fires can affect
    hundreds of thousands of square miles, kill tens of thousands of
    people, cause property losses in the tens of billions of dollars, and
    disrupt the social and economic functions of the affected areas and the
    Nation. An earthquake the magnitude of the Loma Prieta earthquake of
    1989--situated near a major urban center--would cause estimated losses
    of $60 to $100 billion.
        Unless actions are taken to reduce hazards nationwide, the
    insurance industry estimates that property damage and loss from a
    single large earthquake would be sufficient to seriously impact the
    U.S. economy and national defense.
        Earthquakes also inflict substantial economic damage that reduce
    the Nation's ability to compete. The destruction of plant and equipment
    has an enormous negative effect on U.S. competitiveness both for the
    affected industries and the economy as a whole.
        State and local governments and industry depend on NIST to provide
    new technology for increased earthquake safety. Assurance of safety of
    constructed facilities traditionally has been a state and local
    government responsibility in the U.S. Government authorities and
    industry depend on national voluntary consensus codes and standards as
    a basis for safety standards and codes.
        The central and predominant source of results underlying these
    national codes and standards is NIST. Even private sector research
    depends on the fundamental understanding, measurement technology, and
    predictive methods developed by NIST. Therefore, advances in public
    safety in the face of the threat of damaging earthquakes depends on
    enhancement of the research efforts at NIST.
        NIST has extraordinary laboratory and computational facilities for
    structural performance investigations, modeling and testing. It also
    has close working relationships with design professions, industry,
    standards and model code organizations, and building regulatory
    officials. NIST is uniquely suited to carry out an effective program of
    research and delivery of new technologies to practice.
        Nationally applicable practices for seismic safety of new and
    existing buildings are being developed with funding from FEMA,
    technical support from NIST and participation by the private sector.
    One major project already underway is the ``NEHRP Guidelines for the
    Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings.'' This project is a multi-year
    effort to develop comprehensive guidelines for the seismic
    rehabilitation of existing buildings. Because such guidelines do not
    currently exist, the document will prove to be an extremely useful tool
    to promote cost-effective rehabilitation of seismically vulnerable
    structures. The research and development effort funded by NIST is
    needed to formulate and apply effective practices for the seismic
    safety of new and existing lifelines.
        While earthquakes in the U.S. occur most frequently in states west
    of the Rocky Mountains, 46 out of 50 states are known to have the
    potential to experience moderate and severe earthquakes. One or more
    such earthquakes have an even chance of occurring in the next decade.
    Design studies of standards recommended for new buildings show that
    preventing such damage adds less than two percent to new construction
    cost; comparable benefits are expected for lifelines standards. The
    proposed program will develop and implement design and construction
    practices to reduce losses in new and existing lifelines. Experiences
    in recent earthquakes show that losses can be reduced tenfold when new
    facilities are properly constructed and hazardous existing facilities
    are strengthened or replaced.
        Lifelines are extremely vulnerable to damages in earthquakes.
    However, nationally accepted standards for seismic safety are lacking
    for most types of lifelines. Experts from private organizations with an
    interest in lifelines have recommended to NIST a Plan for the
    Developing and Adopting of Seismic Design and Construction Standards
    for Lifelines. The American Society of Civil Engineers has proposed to
    NIST the establishment of a Lifeline Seismic Safety Council to provide
    a focal point for coordination of private and public sector efforts in
    the development and adoption of seismic design and construction
    standards for lifelines.
        The development of advanced earthquake technologies will also be
    transferred to international standards to increase U.S. competitiveness
    in the growing international markets for earthquake hazard reduction
    products and services. NIST will enter into cooperative research and
    development agreements with individual companies and consortia to
    enable industrial partners to gain experience with new earthquake
    safety technologies, integrate these techniques into their new
    commercial products and services development, and accelerate market
    introduction for early advances in seismic safety and for leadership in
    international competition.
               measurements and standards for disaster mitigation
        NIST also plays an important role in disaster mitigation.
    Traditionally, federal disaster mitigation policies have focused on
    minimizing loss of life and injuries. Today, with disaster costs
    skyrocketing due to increasing population densities in high-risk
    regions, disaster mitigation efforts are increasingly also
    concentrating on minimizing the costs of natural disasters to U.S.
    industry. Nationwide economic losses from recent natural disasters
    alone average $1 billion per week, not including the indirect but
    equally severe losses due to disruption of businesses and services
    following such disasters.
        ASCE strongly supports NIST's disaster mitigation program. In
    fiscal year 1999, NIST is requesting an increase of $3 million to help
    carry out the programs' goals. These resources will allow NIST to
    develop measurements and standards that support next-generation
    mitigation technologies.
        An underlying priority of the program is to ``ensure that all new
    infrastructure systems are designed and constructed using up-to-date
    materials, equipment, processes; and system technologies for disaster
    mitigation; and that existing infrastructure systems are retrofitted to
    incorporate features that will mitigate natural disaster risks.''
        The potential trade-off of developing these measurements and
    standards for disaster mitigation are enormous. Ultimately, they will
    minimize the costs of natural disasters to the U.S. economy. If NIST-
    developed measurements and standards could reduce the costs of disaster
    by just one percent, it would be feasible to save about $0.5 billion
    per year in direct economic losses--losses that are absorbed largely by
    U.S. commerce.
               measurements and standards for international trade
        International competition is an increasing threat to American
    companies and projects. American firms have suffered not only a major
    loss of international work to foreign firms, but also are experiencing
    serious competition from foreign firms in domestic markets.
    Construction research funding in competing countries is significantly
    higher than that in the U.S.
        The fact that over the past several decades the U.S. share of the
    international construction market has declined precipitously, from
    roughly 50 percent to 25 percent today, further underscores the
    importance of coordinated and focused R&D in this key sector. Moreover,
    because the U.S. construction industry is so fragmented, and many firms
    are so small that they're unable to absorb the inherent risks and costs
    of developing new technologies, the federal government and NIST must
    assume a leadership role in developing technologies to advance the
    industry.
        In order to address these problems, NIST is requesting an
    additional $4 million in fiscal year 1999 to ``create a comprehensive
    approach to technical measurements and standards needed for
    international trade and to promote the global use of U.S. standards and
    measurements.''
        This initiative will help U.S. industry overcome or avoid technical
    barriers to trade in major developing markets by promoting the use of
    U.S. technology and practices in international standards and designing
    and implementing mutually recognized conformance assessment programs.
        In addition, U.S. export growth currently lags behind that of many
    other countries. Statistics show that world trade has been increasing
    15 percent annually while U.S. exports are rising at only about nine
    percent per year. Removing such technical barriers will open export
    opportunities for U.S. industry that are worth tens of billions of
    dollars and are the source of thousands of potential jobs.
                       advanced technology program (atp)
        Under the President's proposal, the Advanced Technology Program
    (ATP) would receive $260 million in fiscal year 1999, a $68 million, or
    35 percent, increase over its current level of $192 million. ASCE
    supports the $260 million request for the ATP. The ATP provides cost-
    shared funding to industry for high-risk research and development
    projects that have the potential to produce broad-based economic
    benefits for the U.S. To date, ATP has funded 352 projects with 842
    participants, for a combined investment of $2.3 billion shared almost
    equally between industry and government.
        Companies in every manufacturing industry face the challenge of
    responding rapidly to changing markets and evolving business
    opportunities. Today, the speed at which new products are developed and
    delivered to market often is the underlying determinant of competitive
    success. High quality products, more reliable and more flexible
    processes, fewer rejected parts, speedier product development, more
    efficient market transactions, higher levels of interoperability among
    machines and factories are but a few of the practical advantages that
    U.S. companies realize from the NIST laboratories' research, services
    and standards-related activities.
        The ATP program in Manufacturing Composite Structures was
    established to assist U.S. companies develop the technical ability for
    producing vast amounts of affordable, high-performance composites for
    large-scale commercial applications. Advances in composite technology
    have allowed industry to produce materials that outperform traditional
    materials such as steel while reducing weight, maintenance expenses,
    and operating costs of cars, bridges and other structures.
        The ability to produce commercial quantities of high performance
    composites at competitive prices will open new markets in the range of
    tens of billions of dollars to U.S. companies, according to industry
    projections. Auto manufacturers alone project that composites orders
    for building lighter weight vehicles that consume less fuel could go as
    high as $20 billion.
        Contrary to claims made by critics that the ATP benefits only large
    multinational corporations, ATP works to help companies of all sizes.
    For smaller, start-up companies, early support from the ATP can mean
    the difference between success and failure. To date, nearly half (46
    percent) of the ATP awards have gone to individual small businesses or
    to joint ventures led by a small business.
        According to a December 1997 survey released by the Commerce
    Department, ATP has enabled significant technological breakthroughs,
    rather than incremental advances, and that industry is actively
    pursuing commercialization of ATP-sponsored technologies. The study
    also found that 39 percent of the organizations believe they would not
    have started the ATP-assisted technology project without ATP funding.
                   manufacturing extension partnership (mep)
        ASCE supports the $107 million request for the Manufacturing
    Extension Partnership (MEP). These funds support the network of locally
    operated and NIST co-funded extension centers which provide hands-on
    technology assistance to the nation's 381,000 small and medium-sized
    businesses. This program has worked to strengthen the competitiveness
    of U.S. manufacturing firms by helping them adopt new technologies.
    Typical MEP services include: assisting small manufacturers access
    information on new equipment, reducing costs by lowering waste,
    improving quality, expanding markets for products, and locating
    financing for modernization efforts.
                                   conclusion
        To reiterate, ASCE strongly supports the Administration's proposed
    $715 million budget for NIST in fiscal year 1999. This vital research
    and technology development, coupled with the indispensable standards
    work, can be applied to the nation's infrastructure where it will
    enhance public health and safety and improve U.S. global
    competitiveness.
        Federal leadership is essential to targeting civil engineering
    research. Without adequate federal funding, the ability to maximize the
    leveraging of R&D funds through government-industry-university
    partnerships would not be possible.
                                     ______

     Prepared Statement of the Association of America's Public Television
                                    Stations
        This testimony is submitted to the Senate Appropriations
    Subcommittee for Commerce, Justice, State and the Judiciary on behalf
    of The Association of America's Public Television Stations (APTS),
    which represents the 179 local public television licensees that reach
    99 percent of American television households, over the air, through a
    public broadcasting system that is in place and working now.
        APTS is requesting that the subcommittee fund the Public
    Telecommunications Facilities Program (PTFP) at $56.25 million for
    fiscal year 1999. APTS recognizes that this is a significant increase
    over the fiscal year 1998 funding level and the President's fiscal year
    1999 budget request. This request is year one of a four-year package to
    assist public broadcasting stations in the conversion to digital.
        Public television is facing a daunting challenge: the transition to
    digital broadcast. This transition is mandatory for all television
    broadcasters and the Federal Communications Commission has laid out an
    aggressive timetable that requires the conversion to be completed by
    2003.
        Public broadcasters estimate that the costs associated with the
    conversion will total $1.7 billion for the system. Unlike commercial
    broadcasters, public broadcasters are nonprofit or state or local
    government entities that rely on a grassroots funding structure. Public
    broadcasting's support comes from a combination of federal and non-
    federal sources including individual viewers and listeners, foundations
    and businesses, colleges and universities and state and local
    governments.
        Because of their nonprofit status and grassroots funding structure,
    stations are constrained in their ability to finance such a major
    capital expenditure. Unlike their commercial counterparts, public
    stations are unable to pass along their costs to their customers. Most
    public broadcast stations cannot take out capital loans, and many, by
    law, must have balanced budgets on an annual basis and may not maintain
    cash reserves. Given these constraints, stations cannot utilize the
    typical mechanisms available to commercial entities to fund a major
    capital expenditure.
        Congress has a long and significant history in helping public
    broadcasting fund capital investments. The Public Telecommunications
    Facilities Program (PTFP) housed at the National Telecommunications and
    Information Administration (NTIA), has helped fund the equipment needs
    of public radio and television stations for over 36 years. In addition,
    between 1991 and 1993 Congress appropriated funds for the Public
    Broadcasting Satellite Interconnection Fund that funded the cost of the
    satellite and the necessary equipment at the local stations to receive
    the satellite signal.
        An additional federal investment is critical to ensure that all
    citizens of the United States have access to public telecommunications
    services through digital technology. The clarity of high definition and
    the multicasting capability of digital technology will allow public
    television to enhance the educational value of its programming and to
    multiply educational services. With digital, public television can
    serve more diverse, unserved and underserved audiences on a single
    channel.
        This federal support will enable public broadcasting to continue to
    serve the nation and maintain its core principles. They are:
    noncommercial character and educational mission; creation and delivery
    of programming of unequaled quality and excellence; editorial integrity
    and independence; PTV's adaptation of new technologies to educational
    and public service purposes; universal access to our services; and
    local ownership, control and focus of public television stations.
        The goal of each local station is to serve its community. Stations
    are governed by boards composed of people who live and have a personal
    investment in their community; decisions are made at the local level to
    determine the special needs of that community. Public broadcasting is
    the only broadcasting entity that is totally committed to ensuring that
    all Americans have access to free, locally based, enriching programs
    and education services in the digital age.
        Public broadcasters have always been leaders in making use of new
    technologies for public service. We invented closed captioning and
    descriptive video services and pioneered satellite delivery of
    broadcast television. Public broadcasters once again have a vision of
    what new technology can deliver. We look forward to developing further
    applications of new technology to educate and enlighten all Americans.
        We will provide these services through these new digital
    technologies:
      --High Definition Television (HDTV) will significantly enhance the
            beauty and detail of public broadcasting's signature
            programming in science and nature, performing arts, science,
            drama and travel.
      --Multicasting will enable public broadcasting to extend the reach of
            its educational services by enabling stations to broadcast four
            or more separate but simultaneous program streams. Potential
            channels might include: a preschool Ready to Learn service; K-
            12 instructional programming; GED and college credit
            telecourse; workforce training; local public affairs; or the
            popular how-to shows.
      --The DTV signal will give public television the ability to transmit
            computer information and data over-the-air, providing another
            powerful tool for public television stations to expand their
            educational missions. Stations will have the capacity to
            deliver course-related materials to teachers and students,
            program guide information, and selected portions of the World
            Wide Web over-the-air to homes and schools. End users will be
            able to download this information instantaneously, using a set
            top converter, computer or a digital television receiver.
        Highlighted below are some of our current services that can be
    enhanced in the digital age. Public television will be able to
    multicast more quality programs simultaneously with information and
    data available to download immediately. Quality science and technical
    programs will have the advantages of film quality through high
    definition television.
        Public television stations work directly with local schools. They
    broadcast an average of five and a half hours per day of instructional
    programming for classroom use, enabling 2 million teachers to use
    quality instructional programming to reach 30 million students in
    63,000 K-12 schools. Local stations broadcast overnight so that
    teachers can record and build a library of programs. Stations encourage
    this and many publish special guides for teachers as well as
    supplementary materials to facilitate the use of public television
    programs in the classroom. Public television stations work with
    teachers to enable them to use video most effectively; we also offer
    access to program information on the World Wide Web.
        Our children's educational programming remains the first choice of
    children, parents and teachers. Research does prove that children
    raised on ``Sesame Street'' and other public television programs
    perform better in school. The Ready to Learn project undertaken by
    public television is centered around a daytime block of children's
    programming but local stations have expanded the value of these
    programs by providing outreach services to children and their parents
    and caregivers to help them use public television as an effective
    learning tool. Over 450 workshops for parents and caregivers and
    benefiting over 70,000 children have been sponsored by local stations.
        GED ON TV is an excellent example of what public television does
    best. Produced by the Kentucky Network and currently offered by 54
    percent of public television stations, GED ON TV has enabled nearly 2
    million adults to acquire a high school equivalency certificate. Recent
    figures from the Bureau of Labor Statistics indicate that citizens with
    high school diploma or equivalency contribute an additional $4,980 per
    year to their state's economy than do high school dropouts. That's
    almost $10 billion added to our nation's economy annually. Multiply
    that by the 30 or more years American's spend in the workforce.
        The Rhode Island network has launched RInet36, that will provide a
    high speed Internet connection to all teachers and classrooms in the
    state at no cost to them. The project teams the station, the state
    department of education, a private university, and the U.S. Department
    of Commerce and a private donor in funding the program. RInet36 can
    save the schools up to $1.4 million over the first two years.
        Electronic field trips, produced by Kentucky Education Television
    have enabled an average of 550 classrooms across the state to visit
    Mammoth Cave, a working horse farm, a newspaper and an underground
    Kentucky coal mine. Other electronic field trips produced by public
    television have taken students to such diverse sites as the South Pole
    and Colonial Williamsburg.
        Two thousand colleges and universities are using public
    television's Adult Learning Service (ALS). Local public television
    stations enable 400,000 tuition-paying students a chance to earn a
    college degree through television. In the last 15 years, over 3.5
    million adults have participated in public television's ALS. These
    generally older students often live off campus, are employed and have
    adult responsibilities. Public television helps them move ahead by
    making a college degree accessible.
        In Texas, by working in close alliance with the Texas A&M
    administration, KAMU has carved out a prominent role as the
    university's resource for extending distance learning. KAMU operates
    the TRANS-TEXAS Video Conference Network, which provides two-way video,
    data and Internet services to 100 locations in 40 cities across the
    state. Last year, KAMU provided 180 university courses and 5,200 video
    conferences. Public broadcasting has many more hours of educational
    programming and services than it has air time. Today, if we're
    broadcasting a children's program, then we're not airing workforce
    training or a college telecourse. The digital age will enable local
    public television stations to share more of our wealth of educational
    and cultural resources--with every American--than ever before.
        Congress has mandated the conversion to digital and the Federal
    Communications Commission has set a deadline of 2003 for public
    television stations to broadcast in the digital format. Digital
    technology is not a frill; it's a technological imperative. Since the
    FCC is requiring all television stations to convert to digital
    programming by 2003, public broadcasters are obliged to make
    unprecedented investments in new transmission and production equipment.
        Public broadcasters simply will not be able to make the transition
    without federal support. Almost half of all public television licensees
    (86 out of 177) will incur transition costs that alone exceed their
    projected annual revenues. Federal funds provide the critical seed
    money that stimulates private contributions.
        We are pleased that the administration has established a Public
    Broadcasting Digital Transition Fund in the fiscal year 1999 budget
    request to Congress. That request is for $450 million over five years.
    Seventy-five million of this amount would be administered through the
    Public Telecommunications Facilities Program (PTFP.)
        Public broadcasting, however, estimates the cost associated with
    the digital transition will exceed $1.7 billion. We are asking the
    federal government for $600 million of that amount. The majority of the
    funding would come through the Corporation for Public Broadcasting
    (CPB). The PTFP program should supplement the CPB and provide
    additional funding to meet the needs of rural or hardship sole-service
    stations and to meet the continuing analog equipment needs of public
    television and radio stations.
        Public broadcasting will raise the rest of the necessary funds,
    roughly one billion dollars, from other sources: individual
    contributions, corporate underwriting, state funding, foundation
    grants, and through new efficiencies and cost savings. The
    noncommercial nature of public broadcasting makes raising these funds
    from private sources even more challenging than for the commercial
    networks, and thus requires a public investment to meet the new
    technological standard.
        For a one-time charge of $2.24 per American--about the cost of a
    video rental--every viewer will gain a lifetime of unlimited access to
    public broadcasting's enriched and expanded programs and education
    services in the digital era. That's a high value for a relatively low
    cost. The alternative--a future of 500 digital channels with no safe
    harbor of noncommercial educational channels--puts this investment into
    perspective. At a time when the education needs of this nation are so
    great, it should be one of the government's highest priorities.
        Public television stations are already exploring the challenges and
    opportunities of digital transition to achieve efficiencies and cost
    savings. Many stations are participating in CPB's Future Fund projects
    to experiment, on a micro basis, with the activities that all of public
    broadcasting may have to undertake in the digital future. The
    transition to digital gives public broadcasting an opportunity to
    undertake collaborative activities that will yield a more efficient
    broadcasting operation while reducing costs. Some Future Fund projects
    are listed below. The results of these projects are applicable across
    public broadcasting and bear watching.
        Five Star Network.--Five southern state networks--Arkansas,
    Mississippi, Louisiana, Georgia and Alabama--are developing working
    teams to examine possible collaborations and to develop closer
    communication links. Areas examined include production, underwriting,
    technical operations and DTV conversion among others.
        Northern Indiana Collaborative.--Three stations, WYIN, WNIT, and
    WFWA examine areas of collaboration, including an engineering service
    bureau, regional underwriting and joint planned giving initiative.
        National Underwriting Cooperative.--Feasibility study is funded to
    examine cooperative underwriting sales among major producing stations
    and PBS. KCET, WGBH, WETA, WNET join with PBS to develop a uniform
    approach to corporations and agencies for production underwriting. In
    its second phase, the project calls for an implementation of a business
    plan calling for single approach to major sponsors of public television
    programming. A new organization was created--the PBS Sponsorship Sales
    Group--to provide a unified approach to potential national
    underwriters, provide marketing materials and appropriate sales
    training for staff.
        Centralized Programming and Traffic Consolidation Service Florida
    Public Broadcasting Service.--The Florida public television licensees
    have implemented a multi-phase effort to consolidate services and
    functions for 12-14 stations. Through these efforts the stations expect
    to significantly reduce operating expenses, increase the utilization of
    their technical and production resources, enhance revenue opportunities
    from existing production capacity, and deploy staff resources to
    increase operating productivity. They have created a centralized
    programming office and staffed it with a chief program executive. They
    are also developing a statewide program guide and a plan to optimize
    studio and post-production resources to further reduce the operating
    costs.
        New England Public Television Development Cooperative WGBH/Boston,
    WGBY/Springfield, Vermont Public Television & New Hampshire Public
    Television.--The state networks in Vermont and New Hampshire, along
    with WGBH and WGBY in Massachusetts, will form a regional development
    cooperative to increase membership and fundraising income
    opportunities, while reducing their collective costs in this area.
        Statewide Development and Fundraising Cooperative Illinois Public
    Broadcasting Commission.--Nine public television and thirteen public
    radio stations in Illinois plan to form a statewide underwriting
    agency, and to explore various areas of shared service and fundraising
    opportunities.
                                   conclusion
        You have made a very wise investment in public broadcasting. You
    have helped us improve millions of Americans lives every day. We hope
    that you will continue this support in assisting the industry into the
    digital age.
        Thank you. On behalf of the nation's public television stations, we
    look forward to working with you to ensure that we have the financial
    resources to continue to provide the American people free access to
    quality, noncommercial educational television.
                                     ______

                  Prepared Statement of National Public Radio
        On behalf of National Public Radio (NPR) and the more than 590
    public radio stations it represents, I respectfully submit this
    statement for the hearing record on the fiscal year 1999 appropriation
    for the Public Telecommunications Facilities Program (PTFP). The public
    broadcasting community urges you to support a $56.25 million PTFP
    funding level to fulfill the program's traditional role as well as to
    help us meet the challenges the transition and conversion to digital
    broadcasting funding will create.
        NPR is a private, non-profit corporation. It is a producer and
    distributor of award-winning programming such as ``Morning Edition,''
    ``All Things Considered,'' ``Performance Today,'' ``Car Talk,'' ``Jazz
    Profiles,'' and ``Talk of the Nation.'' NPR is also a membership
    organization comprised of noncommercial, educational radio stations.
    Each member station is locally controlled and designs its own format--
    combining local programming with offerings from NPR and other
    programming sources. Each station's local format is crafted to provide
    the best service for the local community. Forty-eight percent of the
    programming that airs on NPR stations is locally produced.
        NPR stations are independent and autonomous, licensed to a variety
    of non-profit organizations, communities, colleges, universities and
    other institutions. The majority of NPR member stations are licensed to
    educational institutions.
        The PTFP program is a matching grants program for public radio and
    television stations throughout America. These grants help public
    broadcasters purchase equipment to extend their signals to unserved
    areas as well as to replace or upgrade outdated hardware such as
    transmitters, master control rooms, or towers. The program is a model
    of a successful and efficient public and private partnership since each
    grant requires a local match of up to 50 percent leveraged from a
    station's community. PTFP grants act as an incentive that allows
    stations to generate the required match from listeners and other donors
    who might otherwise be reluctant to cover the costs of an entire
    project. The National Telecommunications and Information Administration
    (NTIA), which is a part of the Commerce Department, administers PTFP.
        ptfp's significant role in public broadcasting's digital future
        The PTFP program will play a significant and expanded role in
    public broadcasting's future. In a recent NPR survey \1\, 76 percent of
    public radio stations plan to utilize the program in the next five
    years for equipment upgrades or extending its programming service.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ NPR equipment needs survey conducted in December 1997. A total
    of 58 stations responded to the equipment needs survey. 50 NPR member
    stations responded (representing 18 percent of NPR stations), while 8
    associate stations responded (representing 3 percent of NPR associate
    stations).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The program will continue to carry out its traditional objectives
    of replacing obsolete and malfunctioning equipment and extending public
    radio's signal into underserved areas. In addition, public broadcasting
    stations will soon look to PTFP to help absorb the costs associated
    with digital broadcasting.
        President Clinton's fiscal year 1999 budget recognizes the
    importance of funding public broadcasting's digital future. Although
    NPR is appreciative of the Administration's support, the budget does
    not contain enough money to meet the needs of the program's expanded
    role. The budget proposal provides PTFP--titled the ``Public
    Telecommunications Facilities and Digital Broadcasting Applications
    Program''--with $15 million per year for five years for the digital
    transition, totaling $75 million. A $15 million funding level is
    insufficient for public radio and television's current analog needs and
    the transition to digital technology.
        There is currently no digital radio transmission standard in the
    United States. Stations are anxious to convert their studio equipment
    to digital in anticipation of the impending digital conversion. The
    delay for digital radio transmission in this country is due to the lack
    of vacant spectrum to allocate for new digital radio services. U.S.
    broadcasters are busy developing a transmission technology that works
    in the existing AM and FM radio bands, hence, the name in-band on
    channel or ``IBOC''. In Canada and Europe, broadcasters are moving
    forward with a different digital radio transmission technology. Digital
    broadcasting will allow public radio to do more and better programming.
    Cost estimates, using an IBOC solution, are $150,000 per station.
        In addition, public radio stations are currently converting their
    production facilities to digital because analog equipment and parts are
    being phased out in the radio industry. Digitizing stations increases
    operational efficiency and decreases operating costs. In fact, 58
    percent of stations that responded to equipment needs survey conducted
    by NPR have implemented some form of digital technology. For instance,
    KUT-FM in Austin, Texas has several digital equipment pieces. In 1995,
    the station was awarded a $70,550 PTFP grant to replace its worn-out
    transmitter system and its associated studio-to-transmitter link. This
    equipment delivers a program audio signal to a transmitter site. Since
    much of the station's programming was digitally produced, it made sense
    to replace the aging studio-to-transmitter equipment with a digital
    link. This digital equipment produces a clean, quality sound not
    possible with analog equipment.
        New Hampshire Public Radio is also converting its production
    facilities to digital as well. The station currently has a digital
    control board for master control, digital editing equipment and digital
    studio-to-transmitter link. For instance, the digital control board is
    a mixing console that allows the station to electronically combine a
    number of different programming sources to create one seamless,
    programming stream. Public broadcasting will continue to rely upon this
    successful public and private partnership to keep pace with today's
    latest technology which will become tomorrow's standard operating
    equipment.
        PTFP grants are particularly important to public radio during
    public television's transition to digital television (DTV). Congress'
    mandate to convert television stations to DTV may result in many radio
    stations currently co-located on a television tower to have to move
    from these leased towers. DTV technology requires that more
    transmission equipment be placed on towers, creating a weight and load
    problem. Thus, these public radio stations would have to build new
    towers, an expensive prospect. Or, if space is available, a dislocated
    public radio station would have to move to another tower and may incur
    interference problems. There are also other significant costs
    associated with the transition to DTV. For instance, there is a
    possibility of greater interference involving adjacent television and
    reserved FM band stations. PTFP matching grants can help ease the
    severity of these expensive disruptions.
        Beginning next year, PTFP will take on this expanded role. A $56.25
    million PTFP appropriation, therefore, is necessary to help public
    broadcasters in both an analog and digital capacity.
                ptfp is a vital component of public broadcasting
        PTFP is the only capital improvements program available to public
    broadcasting. The program is particularly important because public
    broadcasters lack access to capital. Public radio stations operate on
    ``shoe-string'' budgets funded primarily through charitable
    contributions and government funding. Whatever extra money is available
    is reinvested in the production or acquisition of additional high-
    quality programming or, sometimes, small capital budgets. As non-profit
    entities, stations cannot rely upon later profits to recoup capital
    expenditures. Thus, they would have serious difficulties finding a
    lending institution that would provide financing for equipment
    replacement. This is particularly true in many rural areas where other
    small businesses experience great difficulty obtaining financing.
    Stations' relatively small budgets do not afford them the luxury of
    paying for big ticket items such as a transmission system, which is
    likely to cost $380,000 according to the PTFP guidelines. The average
    public radio operating budget, before federal funding, is $905,667.
    Thus, without the federal matching grant, public radio stations could
    never afford a piece of equipment that is a third of their operating
    budgets.
        In addition, matching federal money is crucial since there are
    fewer non-federal resources available to public broadcasting stations
    for capital improvement projects. Public broadcasters are under more
    pressure to finance the production and the acquisition of quality
    local, regional and national programming because the Corporation for
    Public Broadcasting (CPB) appropriation is at its lowest level in
    several years (the fiscal years 1998 and 1999 levels are $250 million).
    Thus, stations must seek additional money from local communities just
    to maintain the level of service provided in the past. These
    programming costs leave little money for crucial capital improvement
    efforts. Sustaining the public broadcasting system is a primary goal of
    PTFP and the replacement of aging, obsolete equipment is a critical
    concern for stations, but not at the expense of programming. Without
    proper maintenance and upgrades, eventually the infrastructure falls
    into disrepair. Public broadcasters continue to rely on the NTIA
    program for the replacement of equipment.
        It should be noted that public radio stations generally replace
    their existing equipment several years after the normal life-span of a
    particular equipment piece. For example, the average life span of a
    main transmitter is 12-15 years. According to NPR's survey results,
    stations, on average, are not replacing transmitters until 4-7 years
    after this average life span. This observation is also true for
    production studios. Public radio stations are replacing their
    production studios on average, every 13 years. Yet, the average life
    span of a studio is usually 7 years. For example, in 1996 KSUT-FM in
    Ignacio, Colorado was awarded $73,626 to replace a 20-year-old master
    control and studio equipment. PTFP, due to the nature of its local and
    national partnership, discourages frivolous grant applications because
    each station must leverage half the cost of a project from its
    community.
        Stations also may use PTFP grants for emergency purposes. For
    instance, KBRW-AM in Barrow, Alaska was awarded $78,262 to be used
    towards the replacement of the station's transmission system which was
    completely destroyed by fire on October 16, 1996. The money also will
    help purchase an automated fire suppression system. The station
    provides the only radio service on the North Slope which covers 88,000
    square miles, or an area the size Minnesota.
        Other examples include KHSU-FM in Arcata, California which was
    damaged by a severe winter storm in 1994. The station was awarded a
    $14,975 emergency grant to replace its aging transmission antenna and
    to reconstruct a translator in Willow. The translator was destroyed,
    leaving the community of Willow without service. If not for this PTFP
    grant, both communities would have experienced significant periods
    without the station's service. Since replacing the antenna and
    translator, KHSU-FM's service has been reliable, even during the winter
    months. In 1993, WDNA-FM in Miami, Florida received a grant to replace
    an antenna, studio-to-transmitter link and a transmission line
    destroyed by Hurricane Andrew. These emergency PTFP grants are vital to
    maintain public broadcasting service to these local communities,
    particularly in areas that have limited, or in some places, no other
    source of informational and cultural programming.
        Public radio signals currently reach about 91 percent of the U.S.
    population. The PTFP program helps public radio continue its expansion
    into unserved or underserved areas. PTFP benefits both rural and urban
    states where topography, sheer size of the state or other interference
    problems such as buildings and other broadcast signals make it
    difficult for communities to receive public radio programming. In
    fiscal year 1997, 17 PTFP grants were provided to public broadcasting
    stations to help them reach unserved and underserved areas. For
    example, a fiscal year 1997 PTFP grant was awarded to activate a new
    public radio station on 88.7 MHz in Mountain Home, Arkansas. The
    station will repeat the signal of KASU-FM, but will also have some
    local programming production capability. This new station will provide
    first service to 107,422 people and additional service to about 23,965
    people. For fiscal year 1997, the Southern New Mexico Radio Foundation
    in Almogordo, New Mexico was awarded $130,877 to activate a new
    noncommercial educational FM station in Alamogordo which will provide
    the first local programming to about 54,700 people. Also, WKMS in
    Murray, Kentucky received a $25,335 PTFP grant that will extend the
    station's signal by activating translators in Paducah, Kentucky and in
    Paris, Tennessee. The new translators will deliver the first public
    radio signal to about 43,213 persons. WKMS currently serves an
    estimated 278,000 persons from its existing facilities.
        In fiscal year 1996, 22 grants were awarded to provide the first
    public broadcasting service to local communities. For example, WZRU-FM
    in Roanoke Rapids, North Carolina was awarded $87,075 to provide the
    first public radio service and the first radio reading service for the
    blind to approximately 46,000 residents of northeast North Carolina and
    southeast Virginia. Also, WVPN-FM in Charleston, West Virginia received
    $7,560 to provide the first public radio service to about 17,000 people
    in the rural communities of Logan and Bluefield, West Virginia. WVPN-FM
    installed a translator in Logan, operating on 91.9 MHz., and all the
    necessary satellite equipment.
        Radio is portable and affordable. This equipment replacement is
    important because it maintains the existing infrastructure that allows
    public radio to produce and broadcast programming. This programming is
    a valuable source of information and entertainment for millions of
    Americans. Radio listening in cars and trucks is where many people
    receive a substantial amount of their news and information. This is
    especially true in rural areas because the automobile is the most
    common mode of transportation. Often, there is a lack of public
    transportation and people must drive to work, to buy groceries and to
    see a movie.
        Radio is also inexpensive. A radio may cost $50 or less, far less
    than the cost of a computer, making public radio programming easily
    accessible and affordable to almost every American. It simply does not
    make good business sense to allow the public broadcasting
    infrastructure, which represents a 25 year federal investment, to
    crumble. Without PTFP, listeners would experience frequent disruptions
    due to equipment failure.
        If you measure the popularity and utility of the PTFP program by
    the number of stations requesting funding, then PTFP is crucial. In a
    preliminary count, over 239 applications have been received by NTIA for
    fiscal year 1998 PTFP funding, totaling an estimated $117 million, more
    than five times the amount of money available ($21 million is slated
    for 1998 grants). In fiscal year 1997, public broadcasting stations and
    other telecommunications entities submitted 220 applications totaling
    nearly $50 million. Meanwhile, 97 grants were awarded totaling $14.2
    million (the PTFP appropriation was $15.25 million). In fiscal year
    1996, 251 applications were received. The total amount of funds
    requested by the applications was $54.9 million. PTFP awarded 96 grants
    totaling approximately $13.4 million.
               public broadcasting's accomplishments through ptfp
        Public broadcasting has accomplished much through PTFP. This
    matching grants program helped build the infrastructure necessary to
    deliver unique, quality educational, informational and cultural
    programming that many Americans rely upon. In fact, the program has
    financed over $500 million in public telecommunications facilities.
    This represents a significant investment in communities as diverse as
    Kilauea, Hawaii; Berlin, New Hampshire; and Charleston, South Carolina.
    PTFP has helped stations put in place the necessary infrastructure to
    provide signals to more listeners. In turn, this has enabled stations
    to reach a greater audience and to increase the opportunity for more of
    a financial stake in the station by private individuals and
    corporations.
        The investment in the public broadcasting infrastructure should not
    be allowed to deteriorate. As America moves into the digital age, PTFP
    should help maintain this solid public broadcasting foundation as well
    as build upon it.
        Thank you for your past support for PTFP. I appreciate your
    consideration of a $56.25 million appropriation request for PTFP in
    fiscal year 1999.
                                     ______

      Prepared Statement of Glenn A. Grant, Esq., Business Administrator,
                               City of Newark, NJ
        Thank you for the opportunity to present information to you about
    economic development opportunities in Newark, New Jersey. Newark is at
    the heart of the vast metropolis that extends from Boston to the
    Washington, D.C. metropolitan area. Fully one-quarter of the population
    of the country either lives within, or is easily accessible to, this
    area. We are only eight miles west of New York City, within 100 miles
    of Philadelphia, and only a four hour drive or one hour flight away
    from Boston and Washington. Our location is enhanced by ready access to
    transportation connections via rail, sea, air, and nine major
    interstates and state highways. Port Newark/Port Elizabeth has become
    the largest container port on the east coat because of the ability to
    move goods quickly and economically to and from the area. Newark
    Airport is the ninth-largest airport in the U.S., and is one of the
    fastest growing in the country.
        Despite our active port and airport facilities, fully-occupied new
    office buildings, successful New Jersey Performing Arts Center, and
    complex of institutions of higher education and hospitals, our
    unemployment rate continues to hover around a staggering 15 percent. We
    are the fifth-most densely populated city in the nation, where the mean
    family income is only barely above the poverty line. Our population is
    poor: the 1990 Census showed an aggregate poverty rate of 26 percent,
    and an incredible 37 percent of our children live below the poverty
    line. A full 50 percent of the children in our public schools are from
    families receiving AFDC. Jobs for the parents of those children will
    positively affect this population more than any other factor.
        We have lost may of the jobs that match the skills and work
    experience of a large segment of our population. We know, however, that
    the jobs created through the transportation industry cross the whole
    spectrum of employment opportunities. With the decline of our
    manufacturing base, shipping, warehousing, and related blue-collar
    employment are essentially the only good paying jobs left in the area
    which do not require higher education. Further, the thousands of white-
    collar jobs in such varied industries fuel the economy of the City,
    both directly and through the second support industries they, in turn,
    sustain. The growth of the hotel and hospitality industry is another
    key segment in the production of job opportunities for Newark
    residents.
        It is a goal of the administration of Mayor Sharpe James to create
    jobs to meet the range of needs of Newark's residents, and we ask for
    the Federal government's partnership in continuing to expand the number
    of these vital employment and investment opportunities. Newark has been
    designated a Federal Enterprise Community, and the projects which
    Newark is presenting to you for funding consideration all lie within
    this zone, and are designated to provide employment for its residents.
        The City of Newark is proposing projects at two important sites in
    close proximity to Newark International Airport. Directly across U.S.
    Route 1 from the airport, is an underutilized abandoned rail yard of
    slightly over 100 acres known as Waverly Roads. The Port Authority of
    New York and New Jersey operates the first phase of an airport
    monorail, and has begun construction of the second phase, which will
    cross U.S. Route 1 and connect to a new stop on the Northeast Corridor
    rail line within Waverly Yards. The completion of this monorail will
    provide a direct, fast rail linkage with downtown Newark, and all of
    its rail and bus connections. The City of Newark now owns much of this
    property, and wishes to promote development of it to its full
    potential. To do so, several infrastructure improvements must be
    accomplished.
        First, there is currently only one road leading into the site.
    Right-of-way acquisition through property owned by existing businesses
    and roadway construction are necessary for appropriate accessibility.
    Secondly, some of the area will require environmental remediation
    before facility construction can take place. In addition, basic site
    services, such as power, water and communication lines, need to be
    brought into the location. Site clearance and acquisition of several
    parcels from private owners will complete a building site of
    unparalleled attractiveness.
        The City proposes to make the site available for the development of
    facilities which would make the best use of the proximity to the
    airport and the direct rail link, such as a hotel, conference center,
    and office park. Private developers will have the opportunity to
    purchase or lease a portion of the property for construction of primary
    or complementary facilities. It has been estimated that activity on
    this site will ultimately generate hundreds of jobs in the trade,
    hospitality, convention and transportation industries. Further, the
    City of Newark is pursuing the establishment of an International Trade
    Center, which is currently in a study and preliminary design phase. The
    site for this facility has not yet been determined, but it is projected
    to be in a location which will also take advantage of the
    transportation links described. We are requesting that this
    Subcommittee make an appropriation of $6,000,000 to help us reach our
    long-range goals for the Waverly Yards; to enable the generation of job
    and economic development opportunities for Newark's residents, and
    create needed enhancements to a regional transportation center.
        Only a mile away from Waverly Yards lies an area in need of
    redevelopment which could have a tremendous impact on the economic
    well-being of our City. There is an inventory of dozens of factory and
    warehouse buildings which have become underutilized, even abandoned.
    Some of them are city-owned as a result of tax foreclosures, many
    others have simply been closed by their owners. Thousands of
    manufacturing and shipping jobs have been lost in the Frelinghuysen
    Avenue industrial corridor. Yet Port Newark and the airport generate
    millions of dollars in the businesses of processing, packing, and
    distribution. Conversely, Newark is home to a large exporting
    community, which makes use of our key position on the transportation
    network.
        The City is proposing a project which would provide supplemental
    funds to retrofit underutilized buildings to enable them to be reused
    by these industries. An appropriation of $3,000,000 to launch a pilot
    program would allow us to begin a process of returning these facilities
    to the tax rolls, and returning our populations to work. The additional
    jobs that would be generated in the distribution industry will serve to
    create family incomes, which will in turn create retain detail, in
    Newark. The plentiful and competitively priced labor force within the
    City in general, and our Enterprise Community in particular, will
    provide a ready supply of employees for operations in the types of
    industries we need to keep and expand.
        Newark is also home to five institutions of higher learning,
    ranging from a fine community college to two law schools and a medical
    school. This complex also is a part of our Enterprise Community. Along
    with a public/private partnership of government and business, they have
    begun to develop University Heights Science Park, with a high-tech
    business incubator, day care center, and lab space already operational.
    A federal allocation of $9,000,000 would be utilized to leverage
    approximately $130 million in private and non-federal public sector
    funds to begin and complete the next project phase; an International
    Center for Public Health. This Center would be a world-class infectious
    disease research and treatment complex comprised of the Public Health
    Research Institute and the University of Medicine and Dentistry of New
    Jersey's National Tuberculosis Center. EDA funding would be applied
    toward construction-related costs, which will create approximately 300
    direct and indirect construction and technology jobs.
        We are asking for your help in changing the situation in Newark.
    Through the allocation of funding for the projects I have described,
    you will create long-term economic opportunity for people who currently
    have none. Through these economic development initiatives, you will
    help some of Newark's currently unemployed population to earn a decent
    salary and support their families.
                                     ______

     Prepared Statement of the University of Medicine and Dentistry of New
                                     Jersey
        The University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey (UMDNJ) is
    the largest health sciences university in the nation and the only one
    designated as a statewide system for health care. UMDNJ comprises seven
    schools on five academic campuses in Camden, New Brunswick/Piscataway,
    Newark, Scotch Plains and Stratford. We own and operate UMDNJ-
    University Hospital in Newark, the primary teaching hospital of the
    UMDNJ-New Jersey Medical School and home to New Jersey's Level One
    Trauma Center. UMDNJ also comprises three core primary teaching
    hospitals, five health care facilities, an integrated behavioral health
    delivery system, and has affiliations with more than 100 health care
    and educational institutions statewide.
        It is with great pleasure and pride that UMDNJ submits testimony to
    the Senate Commerce, Justice, State Subcommittee on Appropriations to
    respectfully request your support for an initiative of national
    importance and significance: the International Center for Public Health
    at University Heights Science Park, Newark.
        The International Center for Public Health (ICPH) is a strategic
    development initiative that will create a world-class public health
    complex at University Heights Science Park (UHSP) in Newark. UHSP is a
    joint venture between Newark's four institutions of higher education,
    the City of Newark and private industry to harness science and
    technology research as a force for urban and regional economic
    development. The Public Health Research Institute (PHRI), a nationally
    prestigious biomedical research institute, will re-locate from New York
    City to become the core tenant at the ICPH with UMDNJ as the primary
    medical center linkage and academic affiliation.
        The International Center for Public Health is a strategic
    initiative that will create a world class, infectious disease research
    and treatment complex in University Heights Science Park, Newark, a
    Federal Enterprise Community neighborhood. The ICPH will have
    substantial local, regional, national and international impact as it
    addresses many critical social, economic, political and health-related
    issues. The Center is a $78 million anchor project that will launch the
    second phase of the fifty-acre, $350 million mixed-use urban
    redevelopment Science Park. The construction of ICPH will generate
    1,500 direct and indirect construction and permanent jobs. The project
    scope also includes the consolidation and preparation of three adjacent
    building pads that will be simultaneously marketed to private
    biotechnology corporations. These pads will leverage an additional $60
    million of construction (for a total of $138 million), and another
    1,500 direct and indirect construction and permanent jobs (for a total
    of 3,000). The ICPH anchor facility will total 161,600 square feet and
    house three tenants: the Public Health Research Institute (PHRI), the
    University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey's (UMDNJ) National
    Tuberculosis Center, one of three Federally funded TB centers, and the
    UMDNJ-New Jersey Medical School's Department of Microbiology and
    Molecular Genetics. Development of the ICPH is a priority project for
    UMDNJ, Rutgers-The State University, New Jersey Institute of
    Technology, Essex County College and the City of Newark.
        The core private tenant for the International Center is the Public
    Health Research Institute, which will relocate from New York City. PHRI
    is an internationally prestigious, 56-year-old biomedical research
    institute that conducts a broad range of infectious disease and public
    health research. A major PHRI research focus is the study of antibiotic
    resistance to life threatening bacterial organisms, and the development
    of new antibiotics. Among its many accomplishments over the years, PHRI
    has contributed to the development of smallpox vaccine, developed a new
    diagnostic assay for influenza, conducted early experiments on
    oncogenes, cloned the gene responsible for toxic shock syndrome, and
    identified the multi-drug resistant TB strain ``W''. PHRI's current
    research focuses on molecular pathogenicity, drug discovery, drug
    resistance, diagnostic and vaccine development, and gene expression.
    Scientific disciplines include virology, immunology, biochemistry,
    genetics, cell and structural biology, and regulation of cell
    development. Presently, PHRI supports a staff of 110, including 20
    Principal Investigators. These numbers are expected to double with the
    move to the International Center.
        UMDNJ will be the primary medical center linkage and academic
    affiliation for the PHRI. The National Tuberculosis Center at UMDNJ,
    one of only three model TB Prevention and Control Centers in the United
    States funded by the CDC, will add an important clinical component to
    the International Center. The TB Center was founded in 1993 as a
    response to the national resurgence of antibiotic resistant
    tuberculosis strains. At that time, Newark had the nation's second
    highest rate of TB cases for a major city.
        The relocation of the UMDNJ-NJMS Department of Microbiology will
    add a staff of approximately 100 to the Center's critical mass of
    microbiology research. Currently the 17-member faculty conducts
    research in control of cell proliferation; cellular aging;
    transcriptional, post-transcriptional, and transcriptional regulation;
    mutagenis; DNA replication and recombination; chromosome structure and
    segregation; human molecular genetics; and molecular pathogenesis of
    viruses, bacteria and parasites.
    The Anchor Project for University Heights Science Park
        University Heights Science Park (UHSP) is a collaborative venture
    of Newark's four higher education institutions, the City and Community
    of Newark, and private industry, designed to harness university science
    and technology research as a force for urban and regional economic and
    community development. The university sponsors--New Jersey Institute of
    Technology (NJIT), The University of Medicine & Dentistry of New Jersey
    (UMDNJ), Rutgers University and Essex County College--annually conduct
    nearly $100 million of research in Newark.
        UHSP is unique among science parks nationally in that it is
    designed as a mixed-use, community-based redevelopment program. At
    buildout, Science Park will include one million square feet of
    technology commercial space, 75,000 square feet of technology business
    incubator space, 20,000 square feet of retail business opportunities,
    an 800-student technology high school, two blocks of new and
    rehabilitated housing, and a 100-child community day care center. The
    $10 million first phase of Science Park is complete and includes a
    technology business incubator, the 100-child day care center and
    industrial prototype laboratories for biomaterials and medical devices.
    The construction of the International Center will anchor the second
    phase of Science Park and serve as a magnet to attract pharmaceutical,
    diagnostic and biomedical companies to Science Park. The Center will
    have the same impact on the Park as an anchor store does in a retail
    shopping mall.
    What this Project Means to Newark
        The International Center means urban technology job opportunities,
    improved health care, and creative educational opportunities for
    Newark's youth. For minority and urban residents it is one challenge to
    acquire necessary job skills, but it is another to have the means to
    travel to where the jobs are. In the last 20 years Newark has lost
    35,000 private sector jobs, many having moved to the western suburbs.
    Science Park is a development strategy to bring well-paying jobs back
    to Newark's urban center, providing City residents with access to the
    technology jobs of the 21st century. The International Center project,
    together with the three adjacent leveraged facilities, will generate
    3,000 direct and indirect construction and permanent jobs. Located in
    an urban, federal Enterprise Community neighborhood, these permanent
    job opportunities are well paying with a wide range of qualifications
    and educational requirements.
        The City of Newark is New Jersey's largest municipality with
    275,000 residents, 84 percent of whom are minorities, plus a
    significant number of undocumented and uncounted residents. It is also
    the State's most at-risk municipality when considering the health of
    its residents. With unemployment hovering around 14 percent, Newark
    carries a heavy burden of poverty reflected not only in low per capita
    wages, but also in the highest rate of infectious diseases in the State
    (tuberculosis, AIDS and sexually transmitted diseases). Being located
    on the front line of infectious diseases, the new International Center
    will provide cutting edge diagnostic and treatment support to the
    City's health care providers, thereby ensuring that Newark residents
    will benefit from the latest discoveries in the battle against
    infectious diseases.
        Today's youth are tomorrow's scientists. As a commitment to the
    education of Newark's youth, Science Park projects include school
    linkages and programs with technology tenants. PHRI, the proposed core
    tenant in The International Center for Public Health, will establish
    two educational programs to nurture and develop the interest of urban
    and minority students in science and science-related careers.
    ScienceLab will be a collaboration with the Newark Public Schools to
    provide a year-round science education program for Newark high school
    students and science teachers in a ``real-time'' private research
    institute environment. The International Center will also sponsor a
    BioMentors program and be part of the Westinghouse Science Talent
    Search program. The goal of these educational programs is to influence
    and encourage Newark high school students to pursue careers in
    biomedical sciences and one day employ their skills in Science Park
    companies.
    How the International Center for Public Health Enhances and Implements
            Department of Commerce (EDA) Objectives
        The International Center for Public Health (ICPH) is a creative and
    unique public/private partnership located in University Heights Science
    Park, Newark, New Jersey that will combine infectious disease research
    and public health programs; pharmaceutical industry participation;
    international, state and regional public health collaborations; high
    school urban and minority science education initiatives; urban economic
    and community redevelopment, and high-technology job creation in a
    federally designated Enterprise Community.
        The Economic Development Agency (EDA) has historically supported
    urban efforts to create and retain jobs. A new impetus results from the
    need to effectively implement welfare reform as required by the
    Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of
    1996. The role of universities in the revitalization of distressed
    urban neighborhoods continues to expand, and has been an underutilized
    resource for economic and community redevelopment. The International
    Center will contribute to the achievement of these objectives in the
    following ways:
        Newark is a federally designated Enterprise Community (EC), and as
    such is already part of a Federal strategy to attract and support
    economic development activity that will create jobs in the urban core.
    The 50-acre Science Park is located within the boundaries of one of the
    EC neighborhoods. Approximately $14 million of the total $78 million
    development cost for the International Center is for acquiring 14
    acres, demolition, remediation and site infrastructure. This prepares
    four building pads, one of which will be occupied by the International
    Center as the anchor, magnet tenant to attract additional tenants. The
    other three pads will be simultaneously marketed to private
    pharmaceutical, diagnostic and biomedical companies who desire to be
    adjacent to a world class biomedical research institute. The four pads
    will generate a total of $138 million of development (including the
    International Center for Public Health), 2,000 direct and indirect
    construction jobs, and 1,000 direct and indirect permanent jobs.
        The permanent jobs include custodial and clerical positions, lab
    technicians, medical personnel, researchers, and administrators.
    Science Park will work directly with the Essex County College (one of
    its sponsoring educational institutions) and their Technology Training
    Project (TTP) to train Newark residents as lab technicians for the
    International Center. TTP is privately sponsored by New Jersey's
    biomedical industry and has been in existence for nearly 30 years. TTP
    currently trains and places 50 lab technicians annually, all of whom
    are high school graduates or adults looking for a new career.
        This project redevelops urban land, preserves open green space, and
    utilizes existing public transportation (bus and subway) to the
    doorstep of the Park. The International Center for Public Health will
    serve as the cornerstone to launch Phase II of University Heights
    Science Park's 50-acre urban redevelopment initiative. The $10 million
    completion of Phase I in the Fall of 1996 includes the NJIT Enterprise
    Development Center 2, a 100-child day care center and the CHEN Building
    (housing the industrial liaison laboratories for the Center for
    Biomaterials and Medical Devices). The technology business incubator is
    100 percent leased with 17 new technology start-up companies. Forty
    percent of the incubator companies are minority and/or women-owned
    technology business enterprises. In addition, over half of the children
    in the Science Park day care center are from the surrounding community,
    and 90 percent of the day care center staff live in Newark. At buildout
    the Science Park will generate over $350 million of construction, 5,000
    direct and indirect construction jobs, and 6,600 direct and indirect
    permanent jobs with an annual payroll of $275 million.
        The development of the ICPH at UHSP accomplishes a sister agency's
    objective to expand the role of universities in urban redevelopment.
    The Department of Housing and Urban Development maintains the Office of
    University Partnerships, a division which recognizes that universities
    are anchor institutions in many distressed urban neighborhoods and have
    a vital stake and role to play in economic and community
    revitalization. NJIT, UMDNJ, Rutgers and ECC are adjacent to each other
    in Newark's Central Ward and form the Council for Higher Education
    (CHEN) in Newark. For almost two decades CHEN has jointly sponsored
    housing, retail/commercial development and educational programs (in
    collaboration with Newark's public schools) in Newark's neighborhoods.
    The four CHEN institutions are the founders of University Heights
    Science Park and are solidly behind the development of the
    International Center for Public Health.
    Current Status of the International Center for Public Health Project
        In recognition of the enormous economic and scientific value of the
    International Center for Public Health, and through the leadership and
    direction of Governor Christine Todd Whitman, a Memorandum of
    Understanding (MOU) was executed between the State of New Jersey, UHSP,
    UMDNJ and PHRI in October, 1997. The MOU commits $60 million of State
    loan and grant funds toward development of the $78 million
    International Center for Public Health. Science Park is working closely
    with the New Jersey Economic Development Authority, through whom
    project bonds will be issued and 14-acres of land acquired. Presently
    the Science Park partners and International Center for Public Health
    tenants are seeking the remaining $16 million from Federal and private
    sources during 1998. Groundbreaking is scheduled for March 1999.
    Request For Assistance
        University Heights Science Park is requesting $9 million from the
    Department of Commerce Economic Development Agency in fiscal year 1999
    to support the Phase II development of Science Park: the construction
    of the International Center for Public Health. Such support will
    leverage Phase II development that totals $138 million, and creates
    nearly 3,000 direct and indirect construction and permanent technology
    jobs. These funds will be used specifically for construction related
    project costs. This project is a top priority for UMDNJ, Rutgers, New
    Jersey Institute of Technology, Essex County College and the City of
    Newark.
        On behalf of UMDNJ, we thank the Committee for the opportunity to
    present this request. We appreciate your consideration of our
    proposals, and hope to receive your support for the development of the
    creation of the International Center for Public Health at University
    Heights Science Park, Newark, NJ.
                                     ______

                National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
               Prepared Statement of the American Oceans Campaign
        On behalf of American Oceans Campaign, a national environmental
    organization dedicated to protecting the oceans and its living
    resources, we submit this statement in support of fully funding the
    Administration's requests for critical programs and initiatives of the
    National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). We request that
    this statement be included in the Senate Appropriations Committee's
    hearing record for the Departments of Commerce, Justice, State, and the
    Judiciary Appropriations Bill for fiscal year 1999. Today, we would
    like to focus our comments on NOAA's budget requests for fishery
    management programs and its Clean Water Initiative.
        implementation of the magnuson-stevens fishery conservation and
                             management act of 1996
        American Oceans Campaign urges the Committee to, at a minimum,
    match the Administration's request for the base activities and programs
    of the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) in order to ensure the
    complete and expedient implementation of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
    Conservation and Management Act of 1996. Programs and activities
    identified in the NMFS budget request that require funding to meet the
    objectives and requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens Act include
    resource information, fishery management programs, regional Fishery
    Management Councils, and enforcement/surveillance.
        In recent years, the general public has been deluged with
    information detailing the steep declines in our nation's marine
    fisheries. According to NMFS, of the fish stocks under its jurisdiction
    whose status is known, 36 percent are either overfished or approaching
    an overfished condition. The list of overfished stocks includes many of
    the nation's most prized fish species from around the country,
    including: Atlantic salmon and many species of Pacific salmon, Atlantic
    swordfish, Gulf of Mexico red snapper, New England cod, many species of
    grouper, and American lobster. NMFS expects the list of overfished
    species to grow significantly when overfishing definitions are revised
    to comply with the Magnuson-Stevens Act in October 1998.
        The ecological and economic impacts of these declines are
    significant not only to coastal communities, but also to the nation as
    a whole. NMFS estimates that restoring fisheries will have a potential
    $25 billion impact on the national economy. In addition, restoring
    fisheries to sustainable levels will help to bring back an ecological
    balance in our marine environment.
        In response to the high-profile problems afflicting our fisheries
    and coastal communities, the 104th Congress took a significant step in
    rebuilding marine fisheries by enacting the Sustainable Fisheries Act
    Amendments to the Magnuson-Stevens Act in 1996. Under the amended
    Magnuson-Stevens Act, the Regional Fishery Management Councils and NMFS
    are required to adopt or amend fishery management plans that: (1)
    identify overfished stocks and stocks approaching an overfished
    condition, and prevent or eliminate overfishing and rebuild overfished
    stocks; (2) avoid bycatch and minimize the mortality of unavoidable
    bycatch; and (3) identify, designate and protect essential fish
    habitat, including minimizing adverse effects on essential fish habitat
    caused by fishing and non-fishing activities.
    Resource Information
        NMFS is requesting $92.7 million for base program activities
    associated with Resource Information. This represents an $8.95 million
    increase over current funding levels. This increase is to be used to
    conduct stock assessments which are needed to meet Magnuson-Stevens Act
    requirements and to restore base program funding that was used to meet
    earmarks in the fiscal year 1998 budget. With the status of many fish
    stocks declining at rapid rates and a growing skepticism among resource
    users of NMFS stock assessment data, funding to ensure use of the best
    available and most accurate science is imperative.
        American Oceans Campaign recommends that the Senate fund NMFS
    Resource Information programs at the level requested by the
    Administration--$92.7 million.
    Fishery Management Plans
        NMFS is requesting $34.4 million for base funding to support
    fishery management programs. This represents an increase of $8.65
    million over the current year's funding levels. This increase includes
    $2.85 million for implementation of essential fish habitat provisions
    of the Magnuson-Stevens Act; $1.45 million for new fishery management
    plan amendments which implement the overfishing and bycatch provisions
    of the Magnuson-Stevens Act; $2.85 million to implement new fishery
    management plans; and finally, $1.5 million to restore base program
    funding that was used to cover earmarks of the fiscal year 1998 budget.
    Ensuring compliance of fishery management plans with the new
    conservation provisions of the SFA aimed at preventing overfishing,
    minimizing bycatch, and protecting essential fish habitat is the first
    step towards rebuilding U.S. fishery populations to sustainable levels.
        American Oceans Campaign recommends that the Senate provide, at a
    minimum, the $34.4 million in NMFS' base funding for implementing
    fishery management programs.
    Regional Fishery Management Councils
        NMFS is requesting $12.8 million to support the work of the eight
    regional fishery management councils. This represents an increase of
    $900,000 over funding levels for this year.
        Fishery Management Councils were given significant responsibilities
    under the 1996 Magnuson-Stevens Act. Most important, the Councils are
    charged with developing and implementing the important new conservation
    provisions for the fisheries under their jurisdiction. Last year, this
    Subcommittee recognized the increased duties of the councils and
    provided $13 million to support the work of the regional Councils.
        American Oceans Campaign recommends that this Subcommittee again
    provide $13 million for the regional Fishery Management Councils.
    Enforcement/Surveillance
        NMFS is requesting $18.5 million to support its enforcement duties
    related to fishery management. This represents a $900,000 increase over
    the actual funding levels for this year.
        The enactment of the new provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act
    will require greater enforcement efforts from NMFS. The agency is
    intending to use the increased resources to expand efforts at voluntary
    compliance and vessel monitoring. Unfortunately, these initiatives are
    being scaled back due to NMFS receiving an adequate increase in the
    fiscal year 1998 budget.
        American Oceans Campaign supports the Administration's request of
    $18.5 million to strengthen compliance, surveillance, and enforcement
    activities of NMFS. We consider these activities to be critical for our
    national efforts to restore depleted fisheries to healthy and
    sustainable levels.
                             clean water initiative
        American Oceans Campaign urges the Subcommittee to, at a minimum,
    match the Administration's request for a coastal water quality
    initiative in NOAA's budget. This $22 million initiative funds the
    National Ocean Service (NOS) responsibilities and programs that are
    included in the Administration's recently announced Clean Water Action
    Plan. American Oceans Campaign considers the funding request to be
    absolutely critical for curtailing and preventing polluted runoff
    (nonpoint pollution) in our nation's coastal areas.
        Polluted runoff impairs more water bodies nationwide than any other
    pollution source. It occurs when rain, snow melt or other water washes
    over land, packing up oils and metals from parking lots and streets,
    pesticides from agricultural lands and lawns, excess nutrients from
    fertilizers and animal wastes, sediment, and other contaminants.
    Eventually, these contaminants find their way into streams, lakes,
    estuaries, and oceans.
        The environmental and economic impacts of this pollution on the
    coast are significant. Contaminants which enter storm sewers after
    rains pour into coastal waters at storm drain outfalls, causing beaches
    to close and health advisories against swimming to be issued. Polluted
    runoff is also responsible for closed or harvest-limited shellfish
    beds, declining fisheries, red tides, and other harmful algal blooms,
    fish kills, sediment contamination, habitat destruction, deteriorating
    coral reefs, and impurities in the drinking water supplies of coastal
    communities. Researchers in the mid-Atlantic states are also studying
    the links between nutrient pollution from runoff and outbreaks of
    Pfiesteria.
        Coastal waters provide considerable benefits to local communities
    and the nation as a whole. U.S. beaches and coastal areas rank as a
    favorite vacation destination for Americans, with the average resident
    spending 10 recreational days on the coasts each year. In addition,
    more than 75 percent of the United States' commercial fish catch
    depends on estuaries. Further investments which prevent and clean up
    the pollution damaging these coastal areas make perfect environmental
    and economic sense.
        The Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Program is our nation's best
    hope for reducing polluted runoff. Unlike other federal programs, this
    program ensures that actions to control polluted runoff will be taken
    if voluntary measures are ineffective. It stresses coordination among
    agencies, and allows states and local governments to craft their own
    clean-up and prevention strategies for their coastal areas subject to
    minimum national standards.
        Since 1990, NOS has been working with coastal states to develop
    nonpoint pollution control programs for the state's coastal zone.
    States are currently in the process of completing their coastal
    nonpoint source pollution control plans. The national program has now
    reached a critical stage where funding is absolutely necessary to
    ensure states have adequate resources to finalize their management
    programs. Additional funds are absolutely essential so that states and
    territories can implement programs to prevent polluted runoff and help
    restore coastal water quality.
        American Oceans Campaign urges the Senate to support NOAA's fiscal
    year 1999 budget request of $22 million for its Clean Water Initiative.
    This money is needed to help protect coastal communities from polluted
    runoff and harmful algal blooms.
        In summary, as America celebrates the ``International Year of the
    Oceans and the majesty of the oceans, we call upon this Senate
    subcommittee to increase funding for key NOAA programs that help to
    protect the oceans and its living resources for this and future
    generations. Thank you for your consideration.
                                     ______

            Prepared Statement of the Center for Marine Conservation
        The Center for Marine Conservation appreciates this opportunity to
    share our views regarding the President's fiscal year 1999 budget
    request for the marine conservation programs of the National Oceanic
    and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
        The Center for Marine Conservation is committed to protecting ocean
    environments and conserving the global abundance and diversity of
    marine life. Through science-based advocacy, research and public
    education, CMC promotes informed citizen participation to reverse the
    degradation of our oceans. CMC is a nonprofit conservation organization
    with 120,000 contributing members, headquartered in Washington DC, with
    field and regional offices in California, Florida and Virginia.
        In this the International Year of the Ocean, we commend this
    Subcommittee for the commitment it has shown to the protection of our
    marine ecosystems in the appropriations bill, for this fiscal year,
    passed by the United States Senate last year. We urge this
    Subcommittee, at a minimum, to provide funding for the base activities
    of the marine stewardship programs of NOAA requested by the President.
    We also urge you to provide for the additional needs described below.
                             national ocean service
    National Marine Sanctuary Program
        We urge the committee to provide $18 million for this important
    program, the authorized level. We were extremely disappointed by the
    President's request of only $13.8 million. The request represents cut
    in the of $800,000 from the $14 million level provided by Congress for
    this year.
        Often referred to as our marine parks, the 12 sanctuaries around
    the country encompass almost 18,000 square miles of the nation's most
    significant marine resources. Yet as this month's issue of National
    Geographic points out: ``The entire system has an annual budget of
    $11.7 million (referring to the fiscal year 1997 budget)--a sum in
    effect that reduces these sanctuaries to a state of poverty * * * The
    typical sanctuary, therefore must take care of an enormous area with a
    staff that could fit in a broom closet.'' In 1990, an independent
    National Marine Sanctuary Program review panel recommended annual
    funding of $30 million, a recommendation that was endorsed by NOAA's
    public advisory committee in 1992. Furthermore, this year NOAA is
    beginning a resource intensive review of each sanctuary's management
    plan as required by law, but the Administration has provided no
    additional resources for this important work.
    South Florida Interagency Ecosystem Restoration Initiative
        We recommend that the Committee fully fund NOAA's portion of this
    vital initiative for the coming fiscal year. The $5.1 million requested
    by NOAA, a small portion of the overall request for the Initiative,
    involves $3.2 million in the National Ocean Service budget for
    monitoring and modeling, and will allow NOAA to fully implement its
    integrated ecosystem monitoring program in Florida Bay and the Florida
    Keys National Marine Sanctuary. These waters are the downstream end of
    the South Florida ecosystem and thus are affected by the activities of
    other agencies working to restore and protect the Everglades. The
    monitoring program will help the agency model and assess changes to the
    marine resources of Florida Bay and the Florida Keys coral reef system.
    The Administration's request also includes $1.9 million in NMFS' budget
    for fisheries restoration and research.
    The Control of Polluted Runoff to Coastal Waters
        We urge the Committee to provide $22 million for NOAA's portion of
    the Administration's Clean Water Initiative. These funds are a sound
    investment in the future of our coastal waters. The Administration's
    request includes $10 million for NOAA to conduct research, monitoring
    and assessments of harmful algal blooms such as Pfiesteria and red
    tides through funding the National Pfiesteria Research and Monitoring
    Strategy, and the Ecology and Oceanography of Harmful Algal Boom
    program.
        The Initiative also includes $12 million for the states to complete
    and implement coastal nonpoint source pollution control programs,
    authorized under section 6217 of the Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization
    Amendments of 1990 (CZARA). This program was unfunded in 1996 and 1997.
    For the current year Congress gave the program a needed boost by
    providing for the President's request of $1 million. Much more funding
    is needed, however, for 1999.
        Nonpoint source pollution, or polluted runoff, is the largest
    source of pollution to the nation's coastal waters and is responsible
    for beach and shell fish bed closures. Section 6217 promotes reducing
    polluted runoff to coastal waters through better government
    coordination. There are few enforceable controls on this massive source
    of coastal pollution which threatens ecosystems, public health and
    local economies. Section 6217 is the only national program to ensure
    that if voluntary measures taken to reduce polluted runoff are
    ineffective, the State has enforceable backup authority to protect
    coastal waters.
        The nation's 6217 program has now reached a critical stage where
    adequate funding is absolutely necessary to ensure states and
    territories have resources to finalize and implement their programs.
    Twenty-nine coastal states and territories have submitted programs to
    NOAA and the Environmental Protection Agency for final review and
    approval. Seventeen of these programs have already been conditionally
    approved, but there remains a great deal of work to be done. Additional
    funds are essential so that states and territories can complete their
    programs and begin to implement management measures to reduce the
    impacts of polluted runoff.
    Commission on Ocean Policy
        We urge the committee to reject the Administration's proposed cut
    of $1 million for this commission. It is our hope that the Ocean Act of
    1997 will soon be enacted.
                       national marine fisheries service
    Resource Information
        We support the Administration's request for an additional $8.95
    million in funding for the Resource Information base program. Congress
    provided a significant $8 million increase for the program this year,
    but accompanied that increase with $12.4 million worth of earmarks. As
    a result, the agency has curtailed ongoing stock assessment and data
    collection work. The requested increase for next year will be used by
    the agency for much needed stock and bycatch assessments as required
    under the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
        In highlighting the effects of Congressional earmarks in this
    program (and in Fisheries Management) we are not opposed to them.
    Nearly all of these additional activities have merit. But absent the
    needed increases for the base programs, they erode the benefit to the
    marine environment of budget increases. We therefore request that the
    committee fund earmarks and add-ons with funds that are in addition to
    those requested by the Administration for core programmatic activities.
        CMC supports the continued funding for research into Dolphin Safe
    technologies. Continued research into sound ecological ways of catching
    large yellowfin tuna without encircling dolphins is critical to the
    conservation of dolphins, the tuna fishery, and the marine ecosystem of
    the Eastern Pacific Ocean. We also support maintaining funding for New
    England stock depletion research and the Gulf of Maine groundfish
    survey.
        We are, however, very concerned about some of the cuts proposed in
    specific line items under Resource Information in the Administration's
    request. We oppose the following proposed cuts:
      --the $200,000 cut for in the right whale research line item and the
            elimination of the gear modification research line item. With
            only 300 North Atlantic right whales remaining, and the
            species' continued existence threatened by entanglement in
            fishing gear and collisions with vessels, research must be
            continued to improve our understanding of right whale biology,
            determine the frequency and location of entanglements and
            collisions, and allow for the development of technologies to
            modify fishing to reduce entanglements.
      --the $50,000 cut in the Hawaiian monk seal line item. Hawaiian monk
            seals are the most endangered pinniped in the United States. We
            must commit the necessary funds to ensure that projects such as
            health assessments, marine debris assessments and removals, and
            habitat and foraging studies go forward.
      --the cut for the Stellar sea lion recovery plan line item. Since
            1994, the number of juvenile and adult Stellers has dropped by
            18 percent in the Gulf of Alaska population alone. Pup counts
            at Alaska's largest rookeries fell by 40 percent between 1991-
            1994. Using current population models, fisheries service
            biologists predict there is nearly a 100 percent chance the
            western Steller sea lion population will be extinct in the next
            65 to 100 years. CMC believes that current management measures
            are insufficient to prevent the extinction of this species and
            must therefore be modified. We recommend an additional $1
            million, over the President's request, for additional research
            including assessing how well fishing area closure zones have
            functioned to benefit Steller sea lions, and developing
            adaptive management experiments to reexamine how Stellers may
            interact with fishing operations.
    Fisheries Management Programs
        The marine fishery resources of the United States are in serious
    trouble. According to NMFS, of the fish stocks under its jurisdiction,
    whose status is known, 36 percent are overutilized. NMFS estimates that
    restoring fisheries will have a potential $25 billion total positive
    impact on the national economy.
        These public resources must be managed on a sustainable basis and
    assessments must be completed (for exploited stocks in particular) and
    kept up to date. In 1996, Congress took the first step in rebuilding
    and conserving these public resources by enacting the Sustainable
    Fisheries Act which strengthened the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
    Conservation and Management Act. Under the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the
    regional fishery management councils and NMFS are required to adopt or
    amend fishery management plans that: (1) identify overfished stocks and
    stocks approaching an overfished condition, and prevent or eliminate
    overfishing and rebuild overfished stocks; (2) avoid bycatch and
    minimize the mortality of unavoidable bycatch; and (3) identify,
    designate and protect essential fish habitat, including minimizing
    adverse effects on essential fish habitat caused by fishing and
    consulting with federal agencies proposing activities that may
    adversely affect such habitat.
        Last year, this Subcommittee demonstrated a recognition of the
    importance of restoring and managing the public's fishery resources.
    You went beyond the President's request for fisheries management
    programs by providing $30 million. Unfortunately, your increase was not
    sustained in the Conference Committee with $27.25 million being
    provided. While an increase was still provided, NMFS received only half
    the additional funding needed to implement the Magnuson-Stevens Act. As
    a result, the agency is limited in its ability to implement the Act's
    new provisions relating to overfishing, bycatch and essential fish
    habitat. The reduction from the Administration's request also limits
    resources available for implementing fishery management plans developed
    by the councils.
        NMFS has requested an increase of $8.65 million and 5 additional
    FTE;s over the current year's funding level including: $2.85 million
    for implementation of essential fish habitat provisions of the
    Magnuson-Stevens Act; $1.45 million for new fishery management plan
    amendments to implement new overfishing, rebuilding and bycatch
    provisions of the Act; $2.85 million to implement new fishery
    management plans; and $1.5 million for restoration of funds to the base
    program used to cover this year's earmarks.
        We recommend that the Subcommittee provide for these needed
    increases.
    Regional Fishery Management Councils
        For the current fiscal year, the Senate recognized the increased
    demands placed upon the councils to implement the critical conservation
    provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act and went beyond the President in
    recommending $13 million. While the Conference Committee provided $11.9
    million, this figure was still above the President's request and a
    needed boost in council resources. We recommend that the Senate again
    provide for $13 million, and at a minimum, no less than the $12.8
    million requested by the Administration.
    Protected Species Management
                Marine Mammal Protection Act
        The President's request for $9.5 million for Marine Mammal
    Protection Act implementation is woefully inadequate. We recommend an
    appropriation of $18 million. In 1994, the Center for Marine
    Conservation worked with the Congress and the fishing industry to amend
    the MMPA and institute a system to reduce the accidental mortality of
    marine mammals in commercial fishing operations. The program devised by
    these amendments anticipated stepped up monitoring and management
    activities. Twenty million dollars alone is needed to conduct the
    necessary marine mammal research and stock assessments, convene
    incidental take reduction teams, devise and implement take reduction
    plans, develop a streamlined system to report incidental mortality,
    observe fisheries at levels necessary to accurately determine
    incidental mortality, and to conduct public outreach to the fishing
    community to inform them of the various requirements under the MMPA.
    Lack of funding has been one of the primary reasons for NMFS's failure
    to effectively implement the MMPA. Furthermore, inadequate funding and
    the ineffectual implementation of the MMPA that is causes, threatens to
    destroy unprecedented cooperation, started in 1994, among conservation
    groups, commercial fishing industry, and the government.
        In addition, the proposed level of funding, does not provide
    sufficient research funds to assess marine mammal populations and to
    investigate fishing gear and technologies that reduce incidental
    mortality. These two areas are critical to the conservation of marine
    mammals while still allowing the commercial fishing operations to
    continue.
        As regards other sections and titles of the MMPA, Congress
    authorized nearly $19 million for implementation. Consequently, the
    proposed budget is insufficient to implement these sections as well.
    For example, Title IV, the Marine Mammal Health Stranding and Response
    Act has been historically underfunded; nevertheless, unexplained die-
    offs of marine mammals have continued on almost an annual basis along
    the United States coastline. Additionally, this Title should assist in
    funding the rescue of starved, sick, or injured seal and sea lion pups
    associated with El Nino in California. NMFS' response to these die-offs
    has been hampered because, to date, no funds have been appropriated to
    the Emergency Response Fund.
                Endangered Species Recovery Plans
        The Center for Marine Conservation appreciates the $10.25 million
    increase in appropriations and the additional 14 FTE's for Endangered
    Species Act Recovery Plans. However, the allocation of $2.95 million to
    critically endangered species such as the North Atlantic right whale,
    Hawaiian monk seals, and Steller sea lions is still insufficient to
    recover these species. We therefore recommend an additional $4 million
    for this line item. At the current level of funding NMFS will be unable
    to implement and revise recovery plans for these marine mammals. NMFS
    will also be unable to develop and implement recovery plans for all
    other species (other than salmon) currently listed and under its
    authority, adequately and promptly process and issue permits for
    scientific research, and meet new mandates to conduct research programs
    that will move NMFS toward an ecosystem approach to managing marine
    mammals and other protected species.
                Dolphin Encirclement
        The Center for Marine Conservation supports the $3.3 million
    appropriation to continue a four-year study on the effects of
    encirclement on dolphins as a method for harvesting tuna. However, the
    President's budget fails to include $3 million, authorized by Congress,
    for the implementation of the International Dolphin Conservation
    Program Act. This money is badly needed to develop and implement
    domestic regulations and participate in the international program that
    will allow the United States tuna fishery to participate in the
    yellowfin purse seine fishery in the Eastern Pacific Ocean.
    Additionally, these funds are needed to develop a tracking and
    monitoring system for verification of ``dolphin-safe'' tuna. CMC urges
    Congress to appropriate an additional $3 million to permit effective
    implementation of this law which had strong bipartisan support.
                Habitat Conservation
        CMC supports the Administration's requested $2.3 million increase
    in Habitat Conservation. We are concerned, however, about potential
    impacts of the transfer of the Beaufort, NC, and Oxford, MD, labs from
    NMFS to NOS. We urge the Committee to make sure that agreements are put
    in place between the two agencies that ensure NMFS will be able to meet
    its habitat responsibilities under the Fish and Wildlife Coordination
    Act and the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
                Enforcement and Surveillance
        CMC supports the Administration's proposed $900,000 increase and
    the additional 5 FTE's for enforcement. Adequate funding for
    enforcement and surveillance activities is critical to the successful
    implementation of any statute. The enactment of the new provisions of
    the Magnuson-Stevens Act require a greater enforcement effort from
    NMFS. Moreover, it is doubtful that the proposed $18.5 million is
    adequate to cover the enforcement of the Marine Mammal Protection Act
    and the Endangered Species Act as well as the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
    Initiatives to expand efforts at voluntary compliance and vessel
    monitoring are being curtailed as a result of not receiving an adequate
    increase for this year.
                                     ______

                    Prepared Statement of the Coast Alliance
        Mr. Chairman: The undersigned conservation, environmental, and
    fishing groups are submitting testimony to urge you to support a $22
    million appropriation for a coastal initiative in the fiscal year 1999
    budget request for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
    and the Department of Commerce. This funding request, called NOAA's
    Clean Water Initiative, is absolutely critical to fight polluted
    runoff, which is the leading source of water quality impairment. Last
    year, many coastal communities were devastated by outbreaks of red
    tides, dead zones, and Pfiesteria. In varying degrees, polluted runoff
    is implicated in these harmful events. The funding will provide states
    with the necessary resources to complete and begin to implement their
    Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Programs, and will provide critical
    funds for additional research, monitoring and assessment of the causes
    of hazardous algal blooms and oxygen depletion.
        Our economy depends on healthy coastal waters. The U.S. coasts
    support 34 percent of our national employment, more than 28 million
    jobs, and 70 percent of commercial and recreational fisheries.
    Commercial fishing is a $45 billion industry employing more than a
    quarter of a million people. We also spend about $24 billion per year
    on recreational fishing, generating $69 billion for our economy, much
    of it in coastal areas.
        Our coasts need help. Polluted runoff from farms, roads, timber,
    mining and construction activities, faulty septic systems, and other
    nonpoint sources of pollution is a major threat to coastal waters and
    marine life. It is the main reason why nearly 40 percent of tested
    waters in this country are not fishable and swimmable. It is
    responsible for thousands of beach closings and fishing advisories,
    millions of dead fish, and the closure for harvest of 30 percent of the
    nation's shellfish beds.
        The Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Program is our nation's best
    hope for reducing polluted runoff. Unlike other federal programs, the
    Coastal Nonpoint Program ensures that actions to control polluted
    runoff will be taken when voluntary measures are ineffective. It
    stresses coordination among agencies, and allows state and local
    governments to craft their own clean-up and prevention strategies for
    their coastal areas subject to minimum national standards. States are
    currently in the process of completing their coastal nonpoint source
    pollution control plans. States need adequate funding to secure final
    approval of their programs and to implement management measures that
    will prevent polluted runoff.
        The program has been woefully under-funded over the last few years.
    This has deprived many states of the resources necessary to complete
    and implement their nonpoint source pollution control programs. We urge
    you to support NOAA's $22 million request to address non-point source
    pollution and toxic algal blooms. We need to start making real progress
    in preventing polluted runoff. The very large payoff for water quality,
    wildlife, jobs, and the economy easily justifies this modest funding
    request.
                                     ______

    Prepared Statement of Dr. Raymond E. Bye, Jr., Associate Vice President
                     for Research, Florida State University
        Mr. Chairman, thank you and the Members of the Subcommittee for
    this opportunity to present testimony. I would like to take a moment to
    acquaint you with Florida State University. Located in the state
    capitol of Tallahassee, we have been a university since 1950; prior to
    that, we had a long and proud history as a seminary, a college, and a
    women's college. While widely-known for our athletics teams, we have a
    rapidly-emerging reputation as one of the Nation's top public
    universities. Having been designated as a Carnegie Research I
    University several years ago, Florida State University currently
    exceeds $100 million per year in research expenditures. With no
    agricultural nor medical school, few institutions can boast of that
    kind of success. We are strong in both the sciences and the arts. We
    have high quality students; we rank in the top 25 among U.S. colleges
    and universities in attracting National Merit Scholars. Our scientists
    and engineers do excellent research, and they work closely with
    industry to commercialize those results. Florida State ranks seventh
    this year among all U.S. universities in royalties collected from its
    patents and licenses. In short, Florida State University is an exciting
    and rapidly-changing institution.
        Mr. Chairman, let me describe two projects that we are pursuing
    this year. The first is a major collaborative program which focuses on
    climate variability in the State of Florida and the Southeast.
    Objectives include developing scientific applications for climate data.
    This consortium draws upon the expertise of scientists at FSU (climate
    analyses and coupled ocean-atmosphere prediction models), UM (climate
    analyses and economic value of forecasts), and the University of
    Florida (agriculture) to quantify climate variability (e.g., the El
    Nino phenomena) for the SE and to explore the potential value and
    practical application (there is a strong emphasis on agricultural
    applications) of climate forecasts.
        During the initial phase of this effort, the FSU team described
    qualitatively the impact of El Nino (and the other extreme, La Nina) on
    temperature and precipitation patterns across the SE. Additionally,
    they found a geographic shift in tornadic activity associated with El
    Nino events. A new climate forecast system to provide predictions of
    seasonal temperatures and precipitation with longer lead times and
    improved skill is in the testing phase. Improvements are due partly to
    the coupled nature (i.e., linking the ocean and atmosphere so they
    respond to each other dynamically) of the forecast system. Our
    colleagues at the University of Florida identified several crops in
    Florida which are vulnerable to shifts in weather patterns associated
    with El Nino and La Nina, but noted further that the impact is not
    uniform in nature across the state.
        Continuing with this collaboration, we hope to estimate the
    economic advantages that could be achieved by incorporating climate
    forecast information into farming management systems and eventually
    work with sector representatives in developing guidance products for
    the agricultural community. Initial funding has been provided by the
    National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
        We are seeking $3 million from NOAA to continue and expand this
    work in fiscal year 1999.
        Our second project we propose is a cooperative agreement with the
    National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), which is in the U.S.
    Department of Commerce, to provide funds for research and training
    directed towards building and sustaining fishery resources and healthy
    coasts in the southeastern United States (U.S. Department of Commerce,
    NOAA Strategic Plan: a Vision for 2005, pp. 9-12). This agreement will
    expand and strengthen the Institute for Fishery Resource Ecology
    (IFRE), which is a successful three-year old partnership between the
    NMFS Southeast Fishery Science Center (SEFSC) and Florida State
    University.
        Healthy coastal and marine resources play a major role in Florida's
    economy. Commercial and recreational fisheries have a direct value of
    $4 billion annually. That fraction of Florida's annual tourist industry
    associated with diving, which hinges upon tourists' desire to enjoy a
    healthy coastal environment, produces an additional $3 billion
    annually. All of these resources are at risk; Florida's citizens are
    concerned about this risk and Florida's best intellectual resources
    ought to help find solutions to the problems that have created that
    risk.
        The partnership between FSU and the NMFS will support a variety of
    programs. The critical research problems include, among others, finding
    reliable indicators of habitat quality, determining the critical
    factors that affect the numbers of fishes, and evaluating different
    ecological, economic, and social approaches to developing sustainable
    use of these resources. The results of this research are brought to
    bear on current management by the involvement of our scientists with
    the regional fisheries management councils of the Gulf of Mexico and
    the South Atlantic.
        The scientists working in the IFRE will play vital roles as
    educators. Most obviously, they will be training the next generation of
    resource managers and scientists through the graduate programs of the
    university. But they will also teach the next generation of resource
    users. They will engage undergraduates through problem-oriented
    classes, internships with FSU faculty and NMFS scientists, and work
    experience on contracts and grants. They will also help expand FSU's
    award-winning outreach programs in marine biology for elementary and
    middle-school students in north Florida.
        The proposed partnership will grow through the IFRE over the next
    five years. In the first year, we will solidify the scientific
    research, education, and outreach programs. We will also strengthen our
    ties to local, state, and federal resource management agencies. This
    research and education effort will provide the foundation for phase
    two, in which we will develop a multidisciplinary program in policy
    sciences by instituting new courses oriented towards social scientists
    and expanding our research into areas of policy sciences. All of these
    efforts are consistent with NOAA's Strategic Plan.
        These programs will include a commitment to the minority community.
    Of course, we want to attract and retain minority students in careers
    in either the natural or policy sciences in the area of marine
    resources. We have experience in doing so and will continue to work
    closely with the Florida-Georgia Alliance for Minority Progress Program
    at Florida A&M University, and with the NMFS Science Center, to
    identify and recruit interested students. In addition, we want to use
    our outreach programs to continue providing educational opportunities
    for the elementary and secondary school students in the predominantly
    rural, African-American communities in our area.
        We are requesting a specific line for this effort within the NMFS
    budget, and in the Administrative Operations portion. We request a
    separate line item in the Resource Information portion, designating $1
    million for this joint NMPS/FSU project. In addition, we have requested
    that the Florida legislature provide a substantial state match for
    these federal funds.
        Mr. Chairman, these activities discussed will make important
    contributions to solving some key problems and concerns we face today.
    Your support would be appreciated, and, again, thank you for an
    opportunity to present these views for your consideration.
                                     ______

      Prepared Statement of Dr. Robert Ballard, President, Institute for
                      Exploration, Sea Research Foundation
        My name is Dr. Robert Ballard. I serve as President of the
    Institute for Exploration (IFE) at the Sea Research Foundation in
    Mystic, Connecticut and I am Founder and Chief Scientist of the JASON
    Foundation for Education. My entire career has involved oceanography.
    In the last decade, I have been heavily involved with education,
    particularly the application of electronic communications to distance
    learning for students in K-12. As an educator and oceanographer
    speaking on behalf of JASON, IFE and millions of students and teachers
    throughout the United States, I would like to thank the members of this
    subcommittee for approving $15.5 million for NOAA's National Undersea
    Research Program (NURP) in the fiscal year 1998 Commerce, Justice,
    State and Judiciary Appropriations bill. The $15.5 million in funding
    for NURP will go a long way toward enhancing knowledge about our
    planet's largest and most basic ecosystem, the ocean. Furthermore, by
    directing that JASON and NURP work together to develop a program that
    will translate the data from America's NURP laboratories to students
    and teachers throughout the United States, the bill recognizes that
    oceanographic research is not only intrinsically important but that it
    should also serve education by stimulating interest in science and
    technology. This NURP-JASON partnership, inspired by the International
    Year of the Ocean, is already proving to be highly productive with an
    exciting and innovative plan for long-term collaboration taking shape.
    That is why I urge the subcommittee to approve funding for NURP at a
    higher level than fiscal year 1998 and to once again make provisions
    for an expanded NURP-JASON partnership for fiscal year 1999. On behalf
    of the partnership established between NURP, JASON and IFE, I request
    that $2 million be directed toward that partnership.
        The members of the subcommittee, no doubt, are aware of the
    relatively modest sums our country invests in oceanographic research
    compared to other endeavors such as medicine or space exploration. As a
    result, we know relatively little about the sea and almost nothing
    about the ocean depths. It's said that we know more about the surface
    of Mars, for example, than we do the bottom of the ocean. At the same
    time, I think it's safe to say that the vast majority of Americans
    recognize the importance of oceans to the overall health of our planet.
    In fact, a survey of 1,014 randomly selected adults commissioned by the
    Pew Charitable Trust last August showed that most Americans feel a
    personal, if not spiritual, connection with the oceans. When asked to
    choose between space and ocean exploration, 55 percent of those
    surveyed thought ocean exploration should be the priority as opposed to
    35 percent who chose space. Although I believe both areas should be
    priorities--indeed they should be explored together as inter-related
    parts of our own biosphere--in my view we need to invest considerably
    more in ocean research. The dividends we would reap from enhanced
    knowledge about this vital realm that covers three-quarters of the
    Earth's surface would be incalculable.
        Young people, of course, have an insatiable curiosity and for them,
    the oceans have a particular fascination. I discovered that in the
    months after I located the wreck of the Titanic in the North Atlantic
    more than ten years ago. To my surprise, I soon began getting thousands
    of letters from young people all over the world who wanted to know more
    about the Titanic and how we found its remains. On the part of so many
    of these students, I found a particular hunger for more information
    about the science, the technology and engineering that went into that
    discovery. That's when I decided to start the JASON Foundation for
    Education.
        Now in its ninth year, JASON's mission is to excite and engage
    students in science and technology and to motivate and provide
    professional development for their teachers. From oceans to rain
    forests, from polar regions to volcanoes, the JASON Project explores
    Planet Earth and closely examines its biological and geological
    development. Using advanced telecommunications technology under the
    guidance of their teachers, students learn the physical, biological and
    historical significance of the area under study and work with leading
    scientists to develop an appreciation in the earth's total ecology. The
    young voyagers in school districts throughout the country become hands-
    on participants. With internet and telepresence supplementing classroom
    instruction, students engage in a ``you-are-there'' experience. A
    network of museums, educational and government institutions, businesses
    and research organizations throughout the world serve as JASON sites
    allowing students to communicate with scientists at the expedition
    site, operate robots and scientific equipment via remote control and
    see live, up-to-the minute coverage of expedition activities. Most
    importantly, these sites link the JASON project with community
    resources, including access to local scientists and experts.
        With congressional approval in the fiscal year 1998 NOAA
    Appropriation for JASON's newly-established partnership with our
    nation's NURP laboratories, JASON and its many participants will
    benefit enormously from the data and insights developed by marine
    scientists on both of our nation's coasts and in Hawaii. Within weeks
    of congressional passage of the NURP-JASON partnership, five of the six
    NURP laboratory directors met at the Institute for Exploration (IFE) to
    prepare a plan of action. Based on that initial meeting and its follow-
    up, I am pleased to inform the subcommittee that the NURP laboratories
    will be an integral part of the 1998 JASON Expedition to Monterey Bay
    and Bermuda. NURP scientists are already involved in the planning of
    the program. During the expedition itself which begins in less than two
    weeks, NURP will make its scientists available to interact with
    students on real-time oceanographic activities.
        By serving as a mentoring organization to JASON, I believe NURP
    benefits as well. NURP does an outstanding job with the resources they
    have and the program should have more, but very few people have ever
    heard of the program. Through its association with JASON, millions of
    students along with their teachers, administrators and parents will not
    only hear about NURP, they will be able to see the work NURP does and
    interact with its personnel. Above all, the program will have the
    opportunity to present its data to young minds that are eager to learn.
    Many of them will themselves choose careers in science, hopefully in
    oceanography, as well as a whole range of existing and emerging
    opportunities in science and technology.
        An important element to the NURP-JASON partnership will be the
    involvement of the Institute for Exploration (IFE) as a full partner.
    Special exhibitry and on-line programming that will be developed and
    displayed at the IFE will make permanent the legacy of the
    International Year of the Ocean. (Through its affiliation with the
    Mystic Aquarium, the IFE participates in one of America's five Coastal
    Learning Centers that is working in collaboration with the Department
    of Commerce and other government agencies to educate the public on the
    critical need to protect and preserve the wealth and beauty of our
    coastline.)
        The exhibitry and public outreach technology for education to be
    established at the IFE under the provisions of the fiscal year 1998
    Appropriations bill, is just the beginning of the NURP-JASON-IFE
    partnership. JASON and IFE have submitted to NURP detailed work
    proposals for the next five years that begin with continued and
    expanded outreach to the millions of students from K-12 who join
    JASON's expeditions every year. NURP, JASON and IFE agree that our
    primary mission is to continue to educate young people about the
    oceans, the planet and its different environments and how they all work
    together to create the earth's total ecology. The technology-based
    partnership we propose, however, includes much more. Working together,
    we propose that IFE, NURP and JASON develop new technologies for
    exploration and research and that these be used to bring remote oceans
    to the classrooms and living rooms of America. This will include: the
    use of remotely operated vehicles for coastal research, exploration and
    education; establishment of a national network of regional-scale ocean
    observing systems; and promotion of public awareness of the oceans.
    This partnership will wed the best elements of basic science working in
    the field with educational outreach applying distance learning, on-line
    communication, curriculum development and classroom instruction.
        This testimony describes the benefits of the NURP-JASON-IFE
    partnership to science and to education, but there is no substitute for
    seeing for yourself how JASON works and I certainly encourage everyone
    to do so. One of our thirty-plus Primary Interactive Network Sites
    (PINS) is located at the National Geographic Society in Washington,
    D.C. Students from the District of Columbia and surrounding states will
    fill the auditorium for five sessions a day for two weeks in the latter
    part of March. I hope the subcommittee members and their staffs will
    contact Andy van Duym (202 857-7700) to arrange a time when they might
    be able to participate in the JASON program.
        I am aware that in approaching the subcommittee for funding to
    continue the NURP-JASON-IFE partnership, it is unreasonable to expect
    the government sector to support our efforts if we cannot support
    ourselves. The fact is, this partnership combines the best elements of
    a public-private partnership. In this case, one-third of the costs of
    JASON's annual programming will be borne by the private sector through
    the generous support of corporate sponsors, another third by the fees
    paid by participants in the program and another third through the
    support of the Congress. IFE, for its part, is engaged in a $57 million
    capital campaign that is supported by corporate sponsors, private
    foundations and the State of Connecticut through a generous grant and
    bond issue. Any federal funding we might get is dedicated to
    programming and is matched by private donations.
        There is no greater challenge than preparing for the future. It is
    our responsibility to leave our children with a sound environment and a
    good education. The NURP-JASON-IFE partnership furthers those
    objectives. By investing in National Undersea Research Program and the
    vital scientific work this program performs, we create the knowledge
    base and the tools we need to understand our greatest natural
    resource--the oceans. By investing in the education of our nation's
    young people, we give the next generation of Americans the means to
    solve whatever problems they might confront. By wedding the two
    programs into an ongoing partnership, we strengthen both and create a
    synergy that will pay many dividends for oceanography and for
    education.
        Thank you for your consideration.
                                     ______

                   Prepared Statement of Christian Andreasen
        My name is Christian Andreasen, Rear Admiral, NOAA retired, and I
    am the past President, 1992-1997 (internationally elected) of the
    Directing Committee for the International Hydrographic Organization
    (IHO), an intergovernmental scientific and technical organization
    consisting of 64 member governments working to support safety of
    navigation and the protection of the marine environment. The IHO
    coordinates the activities of worldwide national hydrographic offices,
    works towards uniformity in nautical chart documents, develops
    international standards for marine surveys and charting and coordinates
    with many national and international organizations with related marine
    interests. It is my pleasure to provide my views on the future of the
    Commissioned Officer Corps of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
    Administration (NOAA Corps).
                                   noaa corps
        As part of the National Performance Review the Administration sent
    a proposal to disestablish the NOAA Corps to Congress on May 22, 1997.
    Should this proposal be adopted, a uniformed service that is vital to
    NOAA programs, and in turn to the nation, would be dissolved.
    Dissolution would further mark the first elimination of a uniformed
    service in our nation's history. Equally disturbing is the real
    potential for the loss of the many very talented and dedicated
    officers, who in some cases, have talents not available elsewhere. A
    full inquiry into the facts and circumstances surrounding the proposal,
    including activities that have taken place since dissolution was first
    proposed, will reflect that the basic tenets of the dissolution
    proposal are simply not supportable.
                                   background
        Today's NOAA Corps, a direct descendant of the commissioned service
    of the United States Coast and Geodetic Survey, is distinctively
    designed to meet the operational needs of NOAA (ships, aircraft and
    mobile duty) and to respond quickly to the emergent requirements of the
    nation. It is the nation's only commissioned environmental service and
    is the only uniformed service that requires every officer to have a
    college degree in science or engineering prior to being commissioned.
        The NOAA Corps' rotational system provides NOAA with officers who
    are multifaceted. In this respect, officers typically serve within
    multiple line components, similar to the Department of Defense's joint
    service commands. This multiplicity of assignments results in officers
    who are experienced in many parts of NOAA, as well as extremely
    dedicated and loyal to NOAA and the Nation. The NOAA Corps talent pool
    has contributed significantly, not only to NOAA, but to other agencies,
    as well as to the international community. Examples are numerous,
    including several past presidents of the International Hydrographic
    Organization, fellows in the American Geophysical Union, and past
    presidents of various sections of prestigious scientific and
    professional societies. The Corps' officers are acknowledged world
    experts in the areas of geodesy, photogrammetry, and hydrography and
    are the only pilots experienced in penetrating hurricanes at the low
    altitude required for research purposes. The success of the NOAA Corps'
    personnel system can be seen as a virtual replica of the system
    recommended in a 1996 Brookings Institution publication ``Civil Service
    Reform--Building a Government that Works.'' The Corps has served NOAA
    and the nation very well, and should continue to do so through the 21st
    century.
                               national interests
        There are significant national interests, to include environmental
    safety and potential national security implications that must be
    carefully examined and considered in evaluating any proposal to disband
    the NOAA Corps.
        NOAA Corps officers are subject to a legislative transfer provision
    whereby the Corps' officers, ships, and equipment can be transferred
    immediately to the armed services in time of war or national emergency,
    as was done in World War II. More recently Corps officers have served,
    or are serving, in interface assignments with the National Imagery and
    Mapping Agency, Oceanographer of the Navy, Naval Meteorology and
    Oceanography Command, and with various foreign offices. NOAA Corps
    officers also serve on the staff of the commanders of various U.S.
    Coast Guard (USCG) Districts and provide support to the USCG in matters
    of hazardous material spills in a marine environment. Recently,
    officers have been assigned to the U.S. Army's Directorate of Combat
    Development and the U.S. Naval Academy, as experts in surveying
    procedures. The NOAA Corps and fleet also participate in Marine Defense
    Zone (MARDEZ) operations under the direction of the USCG.
                             environmental threats
        Today's threat moves beyond the Cold War definition of the United
    States' strategic interests and includes environmental threats. To
    many, the NOAA Corps is viewed as the nation's environmental service.
    The NOAA Corps and NOAA fleet have provided significant resources
    during numerous national emergencies. For example, when the Exxon
    Valdez oil spill occurred in Alaska, NOAA Corps officers, working in
    conjunction with the USCG and Naval units, conducted numerous air,
    ship, and land based environmental surveys within Prince William Sound.
        NOAA Corps officers are the only group of uniformed federal
    hydrographers in the nation and are responsible for NOAA's highly
    regarded nautical charts. With 98 percent of this nation's
    international trade traveling by ship, it is of vital interest to
    maximize both safety and economics. The loss of this hydrographic
    expertise, resident within the NOAA Corps, could jeopardize the benefit
    the nation enjoys through these very accurate charts. A poignant
    example of the importance of the NOAA Corps' hydrographic expertise is
    a recent U.S. District Court decision regarding a $52 million suit
    against the United States. The case relates to the grounding of an oil
    tanker on a rock in Alaska in 1987 and the resultant spilling of
    100,000 gallons of oil during the salmon season. The owner of the oil
    taker asserted that the cause of the grounding was an uncharted rock
    not depicted on a nautical chart. As recognized by Mr. R. Mike
    Underhill, Trial Attorney, Department of Justice Torts Branch, in a
    letter to Commerce Secretary Daley, the decision and findings in the
    government's favor were largely due to the hydrographic expertise
    resident in the NOAA Corps, who collected the data, managed chart
    production and served as expert witnesses.
        NOAA Corps aviators operate NOAA's specialized research aircraft
    for hurricane research and reconnaissance, snow surveys for prediction
    of spring floods, marine mammal surveys, and aeronautical and nautical
    charting. Snow survey aircraft collect critical data on snowpack depth,
    that is not obtainable from satellite imagery, are used for the
    prediction of spring floods and for the management of water resources
    for agricultural and western cities. Hurricane reconnaissance and
    research aircraft collect data vital to accurately predicting storm
    landfall. To qualify as a hurricane aircraft commander, NOAA aviators
    undergo 3-5 years of low-level hurricane penetration training, in
    addition to prerequisite heavy aircraft training. Although the United
    States Air Force supports NOAA with high-altitude hurricane
    reconnaissance, they are not trained to fly the more dangerous, low-
    level research penetrations and, unlike the NOAA Corps operated
    aircraft, are prohibited from flying over Cuban airspace.
        Any purported marginal savings realized through eliminating the
    Commissioned Corps, which I believe are nonexistent, would be more than
    offset by the loss of the NOAA Corps' capacity for rapid response to
    prevent catastrophic environmental accidents, such as the grounding of
    an oil tanker on an uncharted rock, inability to forecast the landfall
    zone of an approaching hurricane, or lack of data to predict flooding
    or manage water resources properly.
                          recent national emergencies
        NOAA Corps officers served with the armed forces during both
    Operation Desert Shield and Operation Desert Storm. The NOAA Corps
    provided ship and technical expertise for environmental appraisal, and
    the first comprehensive environmental study of the Persian Gulf. NOAA
    Corps officers ashore provided scientific expertise in hazardous
    materials management, leading shore parties, and conducting surveys of
    oil related damage to beaches and tidal areas.
        A more recent example of the vital importance of the NOAA Corps is
    the NOAA Ship Rude, which located the wreckage of TWA Flight 800 within
    24 hours of the crash. The Rude and a shore component composed of NOAA
    Corps officers, created highly detailed mapping products that greatly
    facilitated the retrieval of the wreckage of the plane. The NOAA Corps'
    talent and efforts in this regard were specifically noted in public
    ceremonies commending the officers involved, by both the Secretary of
    Commerce and the Secretary of Transportation.
                     public and private sector endorsements
        The programmatic and economic contributions of the NOAA Corps are
    becoming increasingly recognized. This is evidence by the large number
    of associations and international groups writing to the administration
    and the Congress expressing strong opposition to the disestablishment
    of the NOAA Corps. A partial list includes the Harbor Pilots
    Associations from Charleston, South Carolina; Savannah, Georgia;
    Southeast Alaska, and the Northeast U.S.; the International
    Hydrographic Bureau, the Center for Marine Conservation, American
    Oceans Campaign, EARTHJUSTICE (Sierra Club) Legal Defense Fund and
    Scenic America.
                                  cost savings
        The asserted cost savings from eliminating the NOAA Corps, simply
    stated, are nonexistent. The asserted basis for dissolution began with
    the mistaken belief that savings could be garnered through dissolution.
    The original proposal to eliminate the NOAA Corps was, however, as has
    now been clearly established by cost studies subsequently commissioned
    by the Commerce Department, not based on a thorough economic analysis.
        When the NOAA administrator announced his intention to eliminate
    the NOAA Corps, a GAO study requested by Representative Kasich was
    underway and nearing completion. The only cost study available at the
    time of the administration's announcement, however, showed that the
    NOAA Corps was actually less costly than an equivalent civil service
    work force. This study, prepared by Arthur Andersen & Company, under a
    contract initiated by the Under Secretary of Commerce's office, showed
    that the NOAA Corps was less expensive than its civilian counterpart.
    Subsequently, the General Accounting Office (GAO) released its report
    (GAOGGO9710, ``Federal Personnel Issues: Issues on the Need for NOAA's
    Commissioned Corps'') and found: ``that using civilian employees to
    carry out the Corps' current functions could result in limited
    savings''.
        Following both the Arthur Anderson & the GAO Report, the accounting
    firm of Hays Huggins, revised their annual estimate of the incurred
    unfunded retirement liability, using the latest cost figures in lieu of
    an earlier estimate that they had provided to Arthur Anderson and the
    GAO. These latest figures found the NOAA Corps to be cheaper in all
    aspects than their civilian counterparts. In terms of operations (i.e.,
    ships and aircraft) NOAA Corps officers are at least $2 million per
    year less expensive.
        I believe the Committee will be well served by thoroughly reviewing
    all aspects of the proposal to disestablish the NOAA Corps. The
    proposal is not based on either economic or programmatic
    considerations, but a political calling.
        Two documents are attached as enclosures (1) and (2). These
    documents clearly indicate the administration's knowledge that there
    are no cost savings to be incurred through dissolution and that the
    NOAA Corps capacity for movement and relocation on short notice would
    be lost. These documents also reflect the basis for the misplaced
    recommendation to dissolve the NOAA Corps.
        The first document (enclosure (1)) is a U.S. Department of Commerce
    document entitled, ``REGO II Options,'' or Reinventing Government II
    Options, which was used as briefing material for Vice President Gore in
    April 1995. Included in this document is the following statement: ``* *
    * termination of a uniformed service would be highly visible with
    significant political appeal.''
        Enclosure (2) is a memorandum dated February 16, 1995, for the
    Deputy Secretary, United States Department of Commerce, from the
    Administrator of NOAA addressing REGO II. One of the enclosures to this
    memorandum discusses the pros and cons for elimination of the NOAA
    Corps. To briefly paraphrase:
        PROS for elimination: ``* * * termination of a uniformed service
    would be highly visible with significant political appeal'' CONS for
    elimination: ``NOAA Corps provides an easily adaptable personnel force
    that can respond to changing NOAA personnel needs more quickly than a
    civilian workforce. The capacity for movement and relocation on short
    notice at little or no additional cost to NOAA would be lost.'' ``The
    cost of operating the NOAA Corps are comparable to the cost of
    equivalent civil service personnel so that would not be significant
    cost savings.'' ``NOAA Corps officers perform duties that are critical
    to achieving NOAA's mission, such as conducting onboard, realtime
    oceanographic, environmental, mapping and charting, and living marine
    research programs. In addition, between 40 and 50 NOAA Corps personnel
    provide the backbone of NOAA's nautical charting and geodetic service
    functions. Elimination of the Corps would make vulnerable the critical
    functions performed by these officers * * *.''
                                    summary
        In summary, for no increase in costs, the NOAA Corps provides the
    nation with a cadre of highly professional and dedicated women and men
    who serve in a multitude of ways. Any proposal to eliminate the
    Commissioned Corps must carefully examine the potential risks to the
    nation from the loss of the Corps and its unique technical expertise.
        Dissolution should not be permitted to proceed without a verifiable
    plan for how NOAA plans to continue providing services to the nation,
    such as nautical charting and hurricane research, without added cost to
    the taxpayer. This plan should be especially specific in the area of
    hydrographic surveys, where private contractors may not accept
    liability for their surveys, or agree to conduct surveys in remote
    areas such as Alaska or in times of national emergency with the other
    uniformed services.
        If all the costs of elimination are fairly considered, there is a
    significant savings in keeping the NOAA Corps that has served the
    nation faithfully for decades. Clearly, the potential cost savings from
    eliminating the NOAA Corps is nonexistent and the shortsighted basis
    for elimination of the NOAA Corps could have an adverse effect on the
    environment, as well as potentially impair our national security in
    time of crisis.
        Without the NOAA Corps, the nation will suffer over the long run.
    At some point in the future when we again find we need the NOAA Corps,
    it will take years to rebuild it, at an even higher cost, perhaps at
    the cost of lives. In short, the outstanding service the NOAA Corps
    provides to the nation and the fact that there will be no savings in
    its dissolution must lead to the retention of the NOAA Commissioned
    Corps.
                                     ______

                     Prepared Statement of John D. Bossler
        My name is John D. Bossler, Rear Admiral, NOAA (Ret.). I would like
    to focus my testimony on the difficulty the National Oceanic and
    Atmospheric Administration, or NOAA, will have replacing the
    commissioned officers of the NOAA Corps with civilian employees, and
    the potential negative effects of such replacement, if a dissolution
    plan for the NOAA Corps (e.g., S. 877) is passed.
        This plan stresses that the positions presently held by NOAA Corps
    officers will be filled by civilian employees with equivalent
    qualifications. An important specific issue facing NOAA, however,
    revolves around the dual role played by its commissioned officers in
    managing and navigating its ships (a Wage Marine (WM) role) and
    actually managing and conducting data collection operations (a General
    Schedule (GS) role).
        This dual role applies to both the fishery research ships and the
    oceanographic ships of the NOAA fleet, as well as the aviation program,
    but in my area of expertise it is probably most critical in the
    nautical charting program. Therefore, my comments are primarily
    directed to the charting program.
        The dual ``hatting'' of officers in the field of hydrography has
    been described quite clearly by Rear Admiral Andreasen, past president
    of the International Hydrographic Bureau Directing Committee,
    International Hydrographic Organization. Admiral Andreasen pointed out
    that ``The great majority of governments conducting this work worldwide
    do so through uniformed service personnel, and I believe for good
    reason.'' There is a reason for that is, as Captain Whitemarsh S.
    Smith, III, President, Charleston Branch Pilots' Association, has
    indicated, that they * * * ``fail to see where the creation of two
    separate cadres, one of ship drivers and one of hydrographers, would
    match the present efficient, responsive, multi-purpose resources and
    still yield a product that is mariner-friendly.'' Finally, Senator John
    Kerry (D-MA) has also spoke at some length about the tangible, and to
    some extent intangible, benefits to NOAA's programs of a uniformed
    service career system.
        The quality gained in the surveys and charts as a result of having
    commissioned officers as professional mariners involved in chart
    production ashore, as well as directly involved in the data collection
    at sea, is invaluable. The only type of personnel system that is
    presently capable of efficiently engaging the seagoing side of this
    equation and the shore side is the uniformed service personnel system.
        Much of the difficulty NOAA will face in emulating the uniformed
    service's dual role in a civilian service is inherent within the
    federal civilian personnel systems, General Schedule (a competitive
    service), and Wage Marine (an excepted service). To replace its
    commissioned officers, NOAA will be required to work within these
    personnel systems. The crux of the problem NOAA will face is that in
    both of the civilian systems, the grade and pay resides in the position
    itself, not in the individual. An individual is appointed to a specific
    position. If the duties of the position change significantly, the
    position must be reclassified. If the individual changes positions, he
    must accept the grade and pay of the new position. In a uniformed
    service, grade and pay reside in the individual officers through their
    commissions, not in the position. A change of position or duties does
    not, therefore, result in a change in pay or grade. The uniformed
    system is, thus, very responsive to periodic changes in assignment, in
    particular between shore and ship and on-board ship.
        NOAA will encounter difficulties when it attempts to merge the two
    civilian personnel systems--to recreate what the administration already
    has in the NOAA Corps. The duties of a merged position are simply not
    conducive to classification under either single system. For example,
    the commanding officer of a NOAA ship fills two equivalent civilian
    functions, WM master and GS chief of survey party. To attempt to
    classify this merged position under either system alone is virtually
    impossible without creating a whole new classification and pay system.
    Both WM master and GS chief of survey party are professional positions
    in their own fields, requiring many years of experience and
    certification or licensing from the respective controlling authorities.
    The commissioned officer is a professional in both of these occupations
    because he or she rotates from land-based position, as a professional
    hydrographer, to a ship-based position, as the commanding officer or
    master. The experiences gained in their career at sea serves the
    individual officers and the organization well when they are assigned to
    management level positions in the hydrographic office. The converse of
    this is true as well, with rotating officers taking to sea with them
    the untold needs of the charting program.
        These commissioned officers are not thus qualified because every
    one of them is in the 99th percentile. It is simply because the
    uniformed service personnel system allows career development along both
    paths with no detrimental effects to an individual due to service in
    one area versus service in the other, i.e., time at sea weighs equally
    with time ashore in the program area.
        While technically it is possible under the Federal Personnel
    regulations to rotate shoreside GS hydrographic personnel to sea for
    short periods of temporary duty, it is technically improbable, if not
    impossible, to gain sufficient experience as a mariner to satisfy the
    U.S. Coast Guard's requirements for a merchant seaman's license, given
    the constraints discussed previously. This is because without
    significant changes in the GS and/or WM personnel and pay systems it is
    not possible to spend long periods at sea without an individual's pay
    or shoreside career advancement suffering.
        Similarly, while it may be possible to rotate WM personnel ashore
    for short periods, it would, again, be technically and professionally
    improbable to gain sufficient experience to qualify to any professional
    extent for any program management level positions in the charting
    program.
        In summary, there are no civilian job descriptions, such as NOAA
    assumes in its dissolution plan, that are fully equivalent to the
    duties of the NOAA Corps. To provide the same services, NOAA Corps
    billets at sea must be divided between civilian GS and WM personnel.
    When the functions are split, a grade suitable for the required
    knowledge and responsibility of each function is necessary.
        The point, and this is ironic, is that these WM and GS employees
    are not interchangeable, as NOAA Corps officers are--yet it is the
    Corps that NOAA, ostensibly in the name of cost-efficiency, intends to
    dissolve. Although NOAA indicates that it hopes to be able to use the
    GS and WM employees interchangeably, it is not possible unless a new
    employee classification and pay system is created. This system would be
    similar to that which supports the NOAA Commissioned Officer today.
                                     ______

        Prepared Statement of Capt. Fred R. Becker, Jr., Director, Navy
           Affairs, Reserve Officers Association of the United States
        My name is Fred R. Becker, Jr. I am the Director, Naval Affairs of
    the Reserve Officers Association of the United States. I would like to
    limit my testimony to the cost studies that have been conducted with
    regard to the administration's proposal to dissolve the Commissioned
    Corps of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
        Much has been made of the purported cost savings to be achieved by
    dissolution. A full and complete review of all the cost studies,
    however, clearly reflects that no real savings will achieved. In this
    respect, the dissolution plan forwarded to the Congress by the
    administration reflects cost savings that are, simply stated, non-
    existent. In fact, the cost of dissolution, as will be discussed in
    detail, will exceed $26 million over 5 years. More importantly, there
    will no real cost savings even in the outyears, as dissolution of the
    NOAA Corps will increase the operating costs of NOAA's' ships and
    aircraft by over $2 million annually as a result of civilianization.
        The 1990 Commerce Department Inspector General report, that first
    asserted that there would be savings through dissolution of the NOAA
    Corps, has been largely discredited by three more recent cost studies
    that I shall later discuss in detail. As to the former Inspector
    General's report, the fault lies in the fact that his report focuses on
    the civilianization of only a portion of the shore side positions and
    ignores the clearly more expensive civilianization of the sea-side and
    aviation positions, where significant overtime costs are routinely
    incurred. In addition, the former Inspector General report does not
    attempt to grade each position by its responsibilities. For example,
    the report equates all captain positions to GS-14's, although many
    captain positions in the NOAA Corps have supervisory responsibilities
    equal to that of GS-15's or senior executive service positions. The
    former Inspector General report further incorrectly incorporates, as a
    cost of current operations, the annual payment of retired pay to
    formerly retired NOAA Corps officers, as opposed to the annual retired
    pay liability for those officers currently on active duty. In addition,
    there are a number of other irregularities in the former Inspector
    General's report. The later studies by Arthur Andersen and Company, the
    General Accounting Office (GAO), and Hay Huggins correct all these
    deficiencies.
        In January 1996, at the time the NOAA administrator announced his
    intention to eliminate the NOAA Corps, the only cost study available,
    conducted by Arthur Andersen and Company, showed that the NOAA Corps
    was actually less costly than an equivalent civilian work force.
    Specifically, the Arthur Andersen study, commissioned by the Department
    of Commerce, found that the NOAA Corps was about $500,000 less
    expensive annually than its civilian counterpart. Subsequently, the GAO
    released its report (GAO-GGD-97-10, ``Federal Personnel Issues: Issues
    on the Need for NOAA's Commissioned Corps'') that stated: ``* * * that
    using civilian employees to carry out the Corps' current functions
    would result in limited saving''. Referring to the Arthur Andersen
    study, the GAO report asserts that, when the estimated federal income
    tax benefits of Commissioned Corps officers are considered, the
    government would realize net savings of an estimated $661,000 by
    employing civilians. The GAO report also states: ``If the Corps were to
    be converted to civilian employment, the actual net cost reduction
    could vary depending on various factors * * *. It must also be
    recognized that, because the Corps is now smaller than it was in the
    period (in which the report was conducted) and further reductions are
    anticipated, any savings available from civilianizing the Corps in the
    future would be reduced accordingly.''
        At the time the GAO study was conducted the NOAA Corps strength was
    384 officers. The size of the NOAA Corps as of January 31, 1998, is,
    however, 262 and is not anticipated to exceed 299, even if the current
    hiring freeze, unilaterally imposed by administration over 3 years ago,
    is lifted. Therefore, the projected savings set forth in the GAO report
    have been markedly reduced. In addition, both Arthur Andersen and GAO
    fail to include overtime pay for aviation personnel. Increased moving
    expenses for civilians, included in the Arthur Andersen study, are also
    not considered in the GAO report. Lastly, both GAO and Arthur Andersen
    underestimate the contributions that would have to be made by the
    federal government to the Federal Employee Retirement System (FERS)
    were the NOAA Corps to be civilianized.
        The most recent study, by Hay/Huggins, also commissioned by the
    Commerce Department, includes a review of the previous studies
    conducted by Arthur Andersen and the GAO. Hay Huggins finds that the
    cost of operating either a civilian or military personnel system are
    identical ($27.9 million). The Hay Huggins study, however, notes that
    the separation of those officers who do not have a vested right to
    retirement, some possibly within as little as one month of vesting,
    would save approximately $2 million annually. Such ``firing before
    vesting'' savings would occur in any case where an individual is fired
    before his or her retirement account becomes vested. Furthermore, to
    suggest that such ``firing before vesting'' savings are, in reality, a
    savings to the taxpayer is unconscionable.
        The administration's dissolution plan, forwarded to the Congress in
    May of 1997 attaches, as an appendix, the Hay Huggins report. The only
    savings found by Hay Huggins are, however, those that relate to
    ``firing before vesting.'' Consequently, Hay Huggins does not support
    the other cost savings set forth in the administration's plan, wherein
    it is asserted that there will be savings over the next 5 years of $24
    million, or $4.9 million per year. Specific examples of the
    inaccuracies in the administration's plan not supported by Hay Huggins
    are: the inclusion of streamlining savings that have already occurred;
    an underestimation of the increase in salaries and benefits that will
    be accrued by civilianization; the inclusion of nonexistent savings
    based on assumptions regarding the retirement account liability for
    future work of those officers who would be involuntarily retired; a
    comparison of the NOAA Corps' current cost of operations (that has been
    increased by $3 million annually solely as a result of the current
    administration directed hiring freeze) to civilian positions that are
    not equivalent to those of NOAA Corps officers; and the transference of
    retiree health and dental costs to the Department of Defense. Each of
    the foregoing items is addressed below.
    Streamlining Savings
        The administration's plan includes $6 million per year, or $36
    million total, in savings over 6 years (1997 to 2002) from
    ``Streamlining Corps personnel from 415 to 299'' (Table 1). This
    reduction in personnel had, however, already occurred prior to the
    administration's submission of its plan to the Congress. As a result,
    these streamlining savings have already been achieved and should not be
    considered in any cost calculations. Furthermore, if only the $36
    million in nonexistent streamlining savings are omitted from Table 1,
    wherein it is asserted that there will be $24.6 million in costs
    savings over 5 years, it becomes readily apparent that disestablishment
    will in fact be more, not less expensive, over the next 5 years--in
    fact by nearly $12 million (See Tab A).
    Increased Salaries and Benefits Due to Civilianization
        As also reflected in Table 1 of the plan, the administration
    calculates an ``increase in salaries/benefits under a civilian
    system,'' as opposed to a uniformed system, of $2.54 million per year,
    or $12.7 million over 5 years (1998 to 2002). The $2.54 million
    increase in salaries/benefits under a civilian system is, however,
    based on the annualized salary cost of $20.327 million for the 299
    officers in the NOAA Corps in March 1997. In March 1997, however, the
    NOAA Corps had no ensigns. As a result, the Corps March 1997 costs are
    inflated by approximately $3 million, solely as a result of the
    administration's hiring freeze. The increased costs through
    civilianization, as reflected in Table 1, should therefore, be
    approximately $3 million more on an annual basis than that estimated in
    the administration's plan--for a total of $5.54 million per year, based
    on the actual increased costs incurred in civilianizing 299 positions
    (See, Tab A).
        Attached at Tab A is Table 1 to the administration's plan, modified
    to reflect the previously discussed changes in outlays, savings and
    receipts. Changes that have been made to Table 1 are reflected in bold
    type, with the administration's original figures shown in parenthesis.
    Based on the foregoing and as reflected in Tab A, the actual changes in
    outlays, savings, and receipts is, therefore, an increase of $26.367
    million in outlays over 5 years, not a savings of $24.633 million.
    Other Irregularities
        The administration's plan also includes other irregularities. Table
    2 (One Time Costs and Savings of Disestablishment Legislation)
    incorrectly includes, in the $80.4 million ``Savings in Retirement''
    column, $52 million based on assumptions regarding the retirement
    account liability for future work of those officers who would be
    involuntarily retired. No similar costs are, however, included for
    future work under a civilianized system. In addition, the $20.327
    million ``grade 01 to 10 (payroll),'' as reflected in Table 1-A, is
    based on the annualized cost for the 299 officers in the NOAA Corps in
    March 1997--inflated by approximately $3 million annually strictly as a
    result of the hiring freeze, as previously discussed. Furthermore, in
    comparing the salaries and benefits of a civilianized, as opposed to
    uniformed corps, system, Table 1-A reflects a total cost of $24.187
    million of civilian positions, calculated through estimation as opposed
    to desk audit or formal classification of civilian positions. Finally,
    the administration's plan does not include the $2 million annual cost
    that is transferred to the Department of Defense for the health and
    dental care of NOAA Corps retirees.
        In summary, in the examination of costs there are three issues: pay
    and benefits, retirement and overtime costs, and the unfunded liability
    of the NOAA Corps' retirement system. As to pay and benefits, the
    following chart reflects that the cost studies show there is virtually
    no difference in the pay and benefits of a uniformed and civilianized
    system.

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                         Civilian
                                  Study                                 NOAA Corps       Workforce      Difference
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Arthur Andersen & Co. (384 positions)...........................     $29,708,000     $30,281,000      ($573,000)
                                                                                                        (-2 percent)
    General Accounting Office (384 positions).......................      30,942,000      30,281,000         661,000
                                                                                                        (+2 percent)
    Hay/Huggins, Inc. (333 positions)...............................      27,954,000      27,953,000           1,000
                                                                                                         (0 percent)
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

        In addition, the following chart, taken from Tables 7 and 8 of the
    Hay Huggins report, reflects that the NOAA Corps' higher retirement
    costs are virtually totally offset by the increased costs in overtime
    incurred by a civilianized system.

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                        Civilian
                                  Cost                                 NOAA Corps       Workforce       Difference
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Retirement.....................................................      $5,326,000      $2,941,000      $2,385,000
    Overtime and Specialty Pays....................................         667,000       3,001,000      (2,334,000)
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Finally, regarding the unfunded liability of the retirement
    account, Hay Huggins notes that if you involuntarily separate those
    officers who have not reached retirement eligibility, some possibly
    within as little as one month of vesting, there would there be a
    reduction in unfunded liability of $2 million annually. Such saving
    would, however, be incurred in any case where an individual is fired
    before his or her retirement account becomes vested. In this respect, I
    sincerely hope that this Committee understands that the purported
    savings set forth by the administration's plan are not the result of a
    more efficient way to do business, but by betraying the bona fide
    expectations of officers who they took their oaths of office and
    voluntarily agreed to serve their country.
                                     ______

         Prepared Statement of Cyrus M. Jollivette, Vice President for
                   Government Relations, University of Miami
        Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: I am pleased to
    submit testimony on behalf of the University of Miami and Florida State
    University. Both of the institutions have long enjoyed your support,
    and my colleagues in Florida are deeply appreciative of your
    leadership, Mr. Chairman, and the Subcommittee's confidence. At no time
    in the past have you and your colleagues on the Appropriations
    Committee faced more difficult constraints. Yet, I am certain that you
    will continue to make the difficult choices with the best interests of
    the nation guiding your decisions. My colleagues and I hope that you
    will find it possible to fund the important initiatives detailed below
    in the fiscal year 1999 appropriations cycle.
        On behalf of the University of Miami and Florida State University
    jointly I commend you, Mr. Chairman, for your affirmative response to
    the Florida Delegation's earlier requests concerning The Florida
    Consortium for Climatic Research, a project involving the University of
    Miami, Florida State University, the University of Florida, and the
    University of South Florida.
        The importance of El Nino South Oscillation (ENSO) events as a
    major source of climate fluctuations, together with advances in ENSO
    predictability, suggest that forecasts have significant potential for
    benefitting agricultural productivity and economic decision-making. For
    fiscal year 1999, we seek $3 million for the Florida Regional
    Application Center.
        The geographic focus of the project will include the southeastern
    U.S., a large food producer whose productivity is significantly
    impacted by weather conditions generated by the ENSO phenomenon.
    Decisions made by well-informed participants from farm to policy level,
    made several months or seasons in advance, can significantly benefit
    productivity.
        This project presents an end-to-end approach that will provide the
    bridge between climate and forecast producers, such as the recently-
    formed International Research Institute for Climate Prediction (IRICP),
    and agricultural decision makers. Specific objectives for the project
    are to: (1) adapt, develop, and evaluate a generic, flexible set of
    tools and methodologies for assessing regional agricultural
    consequences of El Nino events and for applying forecasts to improve
    agricultural decision-making; (2) demonstrate by successful
    applications of forecasts to agriculture and other sectors which would
    benefit best in the southeastern United States that began in 1996; and
    (3) assess the value of climate predictions to different agricultural
    sectors in these southeastern region.
        The Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science at the
    University of Miami is one of the premier academic, oceanographic
    research facilities in the world. Located on a 16-acre facility on
    Miami's Virginia Key in Biscayne Bay, the Rosenstiel School offers the
    only subtropical marine research base in the continental United States.
    With the Gulf Stream off shore, a vast expanse of living coral reefs
    just to the south, and the Florida-Bahamas Carbonate Platform to the
    east, the campus is surrounded by a unique marine laboratory.
        My colleagues at the Rosenstiel School, 90 well-published and
    broadly talented Ph.D. scientists who work in close collaboration with
    other scientists--in Florida and across our region--are uniquely
    qualified to conduct valuable research in their fields. On their behalf
    I bring the following three projects to the attention of and
    respectfully request the endorsement of the Subcommittee for these
    projects through the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric
    Administration.
        On behalf of the University of Miami I seek your support for a
    Southeast Region Consortium for Coral Reef Research. Local changes in
    water quality, broader scale environmental changes potentially related
    to global climate change, and fisheries over-exploitation of coral reef
    ecosystems, are thought to be contributing to deterioration of coral
    reefs world-wide. Scientists are hampered in helping government make
    critical and socially difficult management decisions by our rudimentary
    understanding of coral reef ecosystem processes. Coral reef
    environmental research has historically been piece-meal and under
    funded, with few attempts at true interdisciplinary process-oriented
    research.
        The purpose for establishing a Southeast Consortium for Coral Reef
    Research is to foster greater organization and collaboration within the
    U.S. scientific community, to lead the development of a new level of
    understanding of the processes and environmental conditions necessary
    for the establishment, survival, and sustainable use of coral reef
    ecosystems, and to assist in the transfer of this information to
    managers and the general public.
        The initial focus of the Consortium would be to address problems
    faced by coral reef ecosystems in Florida and U.S. possessions in the
    Caribbean region (Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands), and also to
    coordinate these efforts with those of coral reef researchers within
    the Caribbean region, in recognition of the larger scale relationships
    between coral reef systems with the Inter-America Seas, and to the
    benefit of the whole region.
        This Consortium would invite partnership with regional academic
    institutions with expertise and interest in coral reef research, such
    as the Florida Institute of Oceanography; the Nova Oceanographic
    Institution; the University of South Florida, the University of North
    Carolina at Wilmington's Florida Keys Research program; the Mote Marine
    Laboratory; the University of Georgia; the College of Charleston; and
    others as researchers from elsewhere in the nation working in the
    region. Further, it is anticipated that several state of Florida and
    Federal agencies with coral reef research interests such as the Florida
    Institute of Marine Science, the NOAA Florida Keys National Marine
    Sanctuary, the EPA and the USGS are anticipated members of the
    Southeast Consortium for Coral Reef Research.
        The Southeast Consortium for Oceanographic Research (SECOR) was
    established in 1988 and is comprised of three universities--the
    University of Miami, Texas A&M University, and the University of Texas.
    Additionally, in 1996, the NOAA Atlantic Oceanographic and
    Meteorological Laboratory joined SECOR as an associate member. The
    broad goal of SECOR is to foster closer relationships between the major
    marine science groups in the southeastern United States for the purpose
    of promoting the most efficient use and operation of oceanographic
    research facilities.
        The University of Southern Mississippi is seeking support for
    construction of an intermediate class research vessel which it proposes
    to be operated by SECOR as a new regionally-based oceanography ship in
    cooperation with NOAA, NSF, and ONR as part of UNOLS, the University
    National Oceanographic Laboratory System. Research trends over the past
    five years as well as national needs make the Gulf Coast and Caribbean
    areas of great opportunity. Such a vessel could fill the need for a
    sub-intermediate class ship, capable of working on oceanographic
    projects on the continental shelf and offshore waters, as well as
    conducting National Marine Fisheries Service fishery stock assessment
    surveys.
        The institutional members of SECOR enthusiastically support the
    proposal by the University of Southern Mississippi Institute of Marine
    Sciences for construction of a Class III (approximately 190-foot)
    vessel in the Gulf of Mexico. A new fishery-oceanographic research ship
    with the capability to conduct complex, interdisciplinary research in
    shallow water regions of the Gulf Coast and Inter-American Seas is
    vitally needed in the region.
        The worldwide oceanographic community is working to develop the
    Global Ocean Observing System (GOOS) as a vehicle for providing regular
    observations to document climate variability and global change in
    support of the Rio Treaty; and to support marine operations such as
    safe navigation, fisheries management, ocean pollution control, and
    search and rescue activities. GOOS already has begun to implement these
    activities in Europe and Asia. Now is the time for the U.S. to move
    ahead in cooperation with Mexico and other Latin American and Caribbean
    nations with the initiation of a regional GOOS, the Inter-American
    Regional Control Global Ocean Observing System (IAS-GOOS).
        Modern marine operations have a common need for a regular program
    of remote oceanographic and atmospheric observations. These
    observations must be synthesized with computer models to provide
    predictions and products that can be applied to fisheries management
    and ocean pollution control. The Rosenstiel School's proposed plan
    includes a five-year research and demonstration phase, and includes
    partnering activities with regional NOAA laboratories.
                                     ______

       Prepared Statement of the National Audubon Society, Pacific Coast
      Federation of Fishermen's Associations, North Carolina Sierra Club,
     Fish Unlimited, National Fishing Association, Coastal Waters Project,
     Gulf Restoration Network, Cape Arago Audubon Society Coos Bay, Idaho
                        Watersheds Project, Fish Forever
        These comments address the Administration's Proposed fiscal year
    1999 Budget for the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), within
    the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Department
    of Commerce. They are submitted for your consideration on behalf of the
    undersigned conservation and fishing organizations. Our organizations
    and members are increasingly concerned about the continuing decline in
    populations of the nation's marine fishery resources, which is
    recognized to be due primarily to excessive fishing pressure and a
    nationwide loss and degradation of habitats that are essential to their
    survival. Such population declines have devastated coastal fishing
    communities, dramatically reduced the supply of one of the nation's
    highest quality sources of protein, resulted in the loss of tens of
    thousands of jobs, eliminated millions of dollars in state and federal
    tax revenues, and adversely affected the quality of the recreational
    fishing experience and the catch for a large part of the nation's 17
    million marine sport fishing enthusiasts.
        The undersigned organizations oppose the Administration's proposed
    transfer of NMFS' Beaufort, NC, and Oxford, MD, Laboratories to NOAA's
    National Ocean Service (NOS). The Administration's proposed adjustment
    to NMFS' base funding of $2.24 million, by transferring these two NMFS
    laboratories and their scientific staffs would decrease, not
    strengthen, NOAA's ability to protect coastal environmental quality. It
    would seriously weaken NMFS' ability to carry out its mission--``to act
    as the federal steward for the nation's living marine resources''--by
    eliminating its primary scientific expertise, and thus its credibility,
    in coastal and estuarine ecology. Such an elimination is nationally
    important because NMFS is the only federal agency with a legislative
    mandate to be involved on behalf of living marine resources in all
    federal decisions on proposed projects affecting them or their
    habitats, nationwide. Each year, such decisions involve about 20,000
    federal water resource development projects and federal authorizations
    of projects (through permits, leases or licenses) that would affect
    hundreds of thousands of acres of important habitat. Cumulatively, the
    outcome of these decisions determines the health of the nation's
    coastal environmental quality and the abundance of most populations of
    living marine resources. NOS has no legislative mandate for or role in
    such decision-making, and it lacks the necessary scientific expertise
    to become involved. Moreover, this proposed transfer of NMFS scientific
    expertise to NOS will substantially weaken NMFS' ability to fulfill the
    new stewardship requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens Act to rebuild
    overfished stocks and protect essential habitat.
        The transfer of these two laboratories and their staffs is being
    proposed as a means to develop a science capability within NOS and as
    one way to consolidate NOAA's coastal environmental stewardship
    activities in a single NOAA line organization. Such a transfer saves
    the taxpayer nothing since it is only a change in administration within
    NOAA. Affected NMFS laboratory directors see it as a potential means of
    finally obtaining full funding. NMFS has historically refused to
    provide its habitat-related research programs with more than half their
    needed funding, on average, forcing the laboratory directors to
    obligate their staffs to other organizations' priorities in return for
    reimbursable funds to support salaries and operations. This has reduced
    their involvement in and value to the Habitat Program's primary mission
    activities conducted under the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act
    (FWCA). This problem would be eliminated if NOAA provided NMFS with
    sufficient base funds to conduct its Habitat Program activities.
        Transfer of the Beaufort and Oxford Laboratories to NOS would
    eliminate NMFS' primary center of scientific expertise in inshore
    marine and estuarine ecology, fish disease and pathology, wetlands and
    seagrass functions and value, and understanding the importance of
    coastal and inshore habitats and ecosystems in sustaining healthy
    marine fishery populations. NMFS' Habitat Program consists of a total
    of about 400 scientists and support staff (located in 11 NMFS
    laboratories, all Regions and Fishery Science Centers and NMFS
    headquarters) having a combined budget of about $20 million per year.
    The transfer would strip such expertise from NMFS' Habitat Conservation
    Program, weakening it further in the process, and denying it direct
    access to the scientific involvement and credibility that for the past
    25 years has been one of the most valuable parts of the agency's
    ability to defend the interests of living marine resources in all
    federal agency decision-making on proposed projects that would
    adversely affect it. It will seriously reduce NMFS' ability to protect
    such habitats from physical alterations, water diversions, contaminant
    introductions and nutrient over-enrichment, which are the four primary
    threats to habitats important to living marine resources. By
    eliminating its core expertise in wetlands science, transfer of these
    two laboratories to NOS would also eliminate NMFS' capability to
    effectively restore degraded habitats and ecosystems under its habitat
    restoration program and its damage assessment authorities.
        Transfer of these laboratories to NOS would completely isolate
    these valuable scientists from any meaningful role in federal decision-
    making processes affecting coastal environmental quality. NMFS is the
    only component of NOAA and in fact the only agency that has a
    legislative mandate to act as the federal steward for the nation's
    living marine resources. This is provided by the Fish and Wildlife Act
    of 1956. In addition, under authority of the Fish and Wildlife
    Coordination Act, any federal agency that proposes to build or
    authorize others to build (through permit, lease or license) any
    project that might adversely affect any habitats that are important to
    living marine resources (throughout their range), must first consult
    with NMFS to obtain its views. (These authorities were transferred to
    NMFS when it was created from the Bureau of Commercial Fisheries in the
    U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and moved to the Dept. of Commerce when
    NOAA was created in 1970.) Thus, NMFS is the only federal agency having
    the authority to represent the interests of living marine resources in
    all federal agency decision-making affecting them, the cumulative
    effects of which determines the nation's coastal ecosystem health and,
    to a great degree, the potential future abundance of most marine fish
    populations.
        Loss of this valuable ecological research component would deprive
    NMFS (and NOAA) of its ability to actively protect habitats and coastal
    ecosystem health upon which an estimated 75 percent of the nation's
    commercial fishery resources and 80 to 90 percent of its marine
    recreational fishery resources are dependent for spawning, nursery and
    feeding areas or as migratory pathways. Loss by NMFS' Habitat Program
    of this vital expertise would be a devastating blow, from which it
    could not recover, since its scientific credibility in marine and
    coastal ecology would have been largely lost.
    Recommendation
        Rather than transferring NMFS' primary scientific expertise to
    other organizations, the Administration should strengthen NMFS' Habitat
    Program by proposing a significant budget increase--$20 million was
    recommended in 1992 by the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation and in
    1991 by the National Fish Habitat Symposium--to allow it to adequately
    fulfill its important legislative mandates under the FWCA, as described
    above. The Habitat Program represents only about 6 percent of NMFS'
    total budget while it deals with those human-caused factors that are
    responsible for roughly half of the losses, which have been experienced
    by U.S. marine fishery populations. A fully functional Habitat Program
    would provide protection sufficient to eventually double inshore-
    dependent populations of living marine resources, which is estimated to
    produce an additional $1 billion in dockside landings, $12 billion in
    economic activity and 250,000 additional jobs in the commercial sector
    and generating $4.2 billion in earnings, $15 billion in economic
    activity and 286,000 additional jobs in the recreational sector per
    year. Other related NOAA programs (e.g., Sea Grant, Coastal Zone
    Management, Ocean Assessment, Status and Trends, Marine Sanctuaries and
    Reserves, Environmental Research Laboratories, and Damage Assessment)
    should be managed by NOAA's senior leadership, as described in the NOAA
    Habitat Strategic Plan, to support and/or complement the single NOAA
    program (NMFS) having the legislative authority to both (1) act as the
    federal steward of living marine resources and their habitats, and (2)
    be involved in all federal decision-making on proposed projects that
    together determine the nation's coastal ecosystem health. Finally,
    NMFS' entire Habitat Program, including its research programs, should
    be managed as a unit under the direct line authority of a single
    national program manager in NMFS headquarters.
        Our organizations stand ready to assist the Administration and the
    Congress in determining how best to conserve and protect the nation's
    living marine resources and their essential habitats. Should you desire
    additional information, please contact James R. Chambers of the
    National Audubon Society's Living Oceans Program at (301) 949-3003. We
    appreciate your consideration of our comments.
                                     ______

    Prepared Statement of the American Oceans Campaign, Cape Arago Audubon
         Society, Center for Marine Conservation, Coastal Research and
     Education, Inc., Conservation Law Foundation, Defenders of Wildlife,
    Environment Hawaii, Fish Forever, Greenpeace, Gulf Restoration Network,
     Kodiak Community Conservation Network, Natural Resource Consultants,
    Natural Resources Defense Council, North Carolina Chapter Sierra Club,
               Safer Waters in Massachusetts, Trustees for Alaska
        We request that this statement be included in the Senate
    Appropriations Committee's hearing record for the Departments of
    Commerce, Justice and State, the Judiciary, and Related Agencies
    Appropriations Bill for fiscal year 1999. We urge, at a minimum, that
    the Committee fully fund Administration's request for the base
    activities and programs of the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS)
    for implementation of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and
    Management Act in fiscal year 1999. These programs and activities
    include the Resource Information, Fishery Management Programs, Regional
    Fishery Management Councils and the Enforcement and Surveillance
    portions of NMFS's budget request.
        We greatly appreciate the funding levels this Subcommittee provided
    for fisheries management last year, but needed increases in Resource
    Information and Fishery Management Programs were eroded by the
    inclusion of Congressional earmarks. In general, many if not most of
    these additional activities have merit. We urge you, however, to
    provide additional funding for these earmarks beyond the level needed
    for the NMFS's core programs to restore and manage the nation's fishery
    resources.
        The marine fishery resources of the United States are in serious
    trouble. According to NMFS, of the fish stocks under its jurisdiction,
    whose status is known, 36 percent are overutilized. There are
    significant costs to this depletion--both ecological and economic.
    Until our fisheries are better managed, our marine ecosystems will not
    recover, and fisheries will continue to produce far below their
    potential. NMFS estimates that restoring fisheries will have a
    potential $25 billion total positive impact on the national economy.
        These public resources must be managed on a sustainable basis and
    assessments must be completed (for exploited stocks in particular) and
    kept up to date. In 1996, you and your colleagues in Congress took the
    first step in rebuilding and conserving these public resources by
    enacting the Sustainable Fisheries Act which strengthened the Magnuson-
    Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. Under the Magnuson-
    Stevens Act, the regional fishery management councils and NMFS are
    required to adopt or amend fishery management plans that: (1) identify
    overfished stocks and stocks approaching an overfished condition, and
    prevent or eliminate overfishing and rebuild overfished stocks; (2)
    avoid bycatch and minimize the mortality of unavoidable bycatch; and
    (3) identify, designate and protect essential fish habitat, including
    minimizing adverse effects on essential fish habitat caused by fishing
    and consulting with federal agencies proposing activities that may
    adversely affect such habitat.
    Resource Information
        NMFS has requested an increase of $8.95 million and 10 additional
    FTE's over the current year including: $3.07 million to conduct needed
    stock assessments as required under the Magnuson-Stevens Act; and $5.88
    million to restore base program funding needed to cover earmarks in the
    current fiscal year.
        Congress provided a significant $8 million increase for the program
    this year, but accompanied that increase with $12.4 million worth of
    earmarks. As a result, the agency has curtailed ongoing stock
    assessment and data collection work.
        We recommend funding the Administration's request of $92.7 million
    for base program activities in Resource Information.
    Fishery Management Programs
        NMFS has requested an increase of $8.65 million and 5 additional
    FTE's over the current year's funding level including: $2.85 million
    for implementation of essential fish habitat provisions of the
    Magnuson-Stevens Act; $1.45 million for new fishery management plan
    amendments to implement new overfishing, rebuilding and bycatch
    provisions of the Act; $2.85 million to implement new fishery
    management plans; and $1.5 million for restoration of funds to the base
    program used to cover this year's earmarks.
        Last year, this Subcommittee demonstrated a recognition of the
    importance of restoring and managing the public's fishery resources.
    You went beyond the President's request for fisheries management
    programs by providing $30 million. Unfortunately, your increase was not
    sustained in the Conference Committee with $27.25 million being
    provided.
        While an increase was still provided, NMFS received only half the
    additional funding needed to implement the Magnuson-Stevens Act. As a
    result, the agency is limited in its ability to implement the Act's new
    provisions relating to overfishing, bycatch and essential fish habitat.
    The reduction from the Administration's request also limits resources
    available for implementing fishery management plans developed by the
    councils.
        We recommend that the Subcommittee, at a minimum, provide for the
    Administration's request of $34.4 million in NMFS's base funding for
    fisheries management programs.
    Regional Fishery Management Councils
        NMFS has requested $12.8 million, an increase of $900,000 for next
    year.
        For the current fiscal year, the Senate recognized the increased
    demands placed upon the councils to implement the critical conservation
    provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act and went beyond the President in
    recommending $13 million. While the Conference Committee provided $11.9
    million, this figure was still above the President's request and a
    needed boost in council resources.
        We recommend that the Senate again provide for $13 million, and at
    a minimum, no less than the $12.8 million requested by the
    Administration.
    Enforcement and Surveillance
        NMFS has requested $18.5 million for an increase of $900,000 and an
    additional 5 FTE's.
        The enactment of the new provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act
    will require greater enforcement effort from NMFS. The agency is
    intending to use the increased resources to expand efforts at voluntary
    compliance and vessel monitoring. These initiatives are being curtailed
    this as a result of not receiving an adequate increase for this year.
        We recommend providing for the Administration's request of $18.5
    million and 5 additional FTE's.
        We thank the Appropriations Committee for consideration of our
    recommendations. We feel it vitally important to the future of our
    nation's fishery resources, and the communities that depend upon them,
    that Congress at least provide for the Administration requests for base
    program funding to implement the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
                                     ______

                       SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
             Prepared Statement of the Investment Company Institute
        The Investment Company Institute \1\ appreciates this opportunity
    to submit testimony to the Subcommittee in support of the fiscal year
    1999 Appropriations request for the Securities and Exchange Commission
    (SEC). The Institute would like to commend the Subcommittee for its
    prior efforts to assure adequate resources for the SEC.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ The Investment Company Institute (Institute) is the national
    association of the American investment company industry. Its membership
    includes 6,896 open-end investment companies (``mutual funds''), 436
    closed-end investment companies and 10 sponsors of unit investment
    trusts. Its mutual fund members have assets of about $4.505 trillion,
    accounting for approximately 95 percent of total industry assets, and
    have over 62 million individual shareholders.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Mutual funds are very important to middle class Americans seeking
    to save and invest. Today, more than 65 million investors, at least one
    in every three households, own mutual fund shares. Mutual fund
    shareholders have a median household income of $50,000. These millions
    of average Americans receive and deserve vigilant regulatory oversight
    over mutual funds. Given the increasing importance of mutual funds to
    millions of investors, sufficient funding of the SEC should be a
    priority. The Institute urges Congress to provide appropriations at a
    level sufficient to ensure that the SEC may fulfill its regulatory
    mandate.
        The Administration's fiscal year 1999 Budget proposes SEC funding
    at a level of $341.1 million. The Institute supports this level of
    funding to support the SEC's operations, especially those of the
    Division of Investment Management, which regulates the mutual fund
    industry.
        Adequate financial resources for the SEC are essential to continue
    effective regulatory oversight and afford important investor protection
    and awareness initiatives. Several important SEC initiatives portend an
    increase in the workload of the Division of Investment Management.
    First, the SEC has adopted rules to require the use of plain English in
    mutual fund prospectuses. Second, the agency has adopted substantial
    revisions to the required disclosure in mutual fund prospectuses,
    including the requirement that it be simplified to provide essential
    information about a particular fund in a concise, less technical
    manner. In addition, the SEC has adopted a rule that would permit
    mutual funds to use fund ``profiles,'' which summarize key information
    about the fund in a concise, standardized form. The implementation of
    these important initiatives, which will benefit millions of American
    investors, will require additional staff to work with mutual funds as
    they revise their prospectuses and to review fund profiles. Adequate
    funding is also needed for routine inspections of investment advisers
    and fund companies, as well as special projects involving investor
    protection, such as monitoring the Year 2000 conversion project. It is
    for these and other reasons that Chairman Levitt is seeking additional
    staff in the Division of Investment Management.
        Finally, adequate funding is essential to the SEC's efforts to
    educate this nation's investors. The SEC recently has instituted
    several unprecedented outreach programs, such as nationwide Investor
    Town Meetings and the upcoming ``Facts on Saving and Investing
    Campaign'' at the end of March. These programs assist investors and
    small businesses to understand capital markets and establish realistic
    expectations about market performance. This is an integral part of the
    agency's mission to protect investors.
        In order to accomplish these worthy objectives and to continue to
    function as an effective regulatory agency, we support that the SEC be
    funded at the level requested by Chairman Levitt.
        We appreciate your consideration of our views.
                                     ______

                                RELATED AGENCIES
    Prepared Statement of William P. Fuller, President, The Asia Foundation
        Mr. Chairman: Thank you for the opportunity to submit testimony on
    behalf of The Asia Foundation's fiscal year 1999 budget request. The
    Foundation has been grateful for the support that the Congress and this
    Committee have provided over the years.
        Mr. Chairman, I want to discuss with you and the Committee the work
    The Asia Foundation is doing today, and our hopes and plans for future
    projects. We believe that we have many examples of how a small,
    independent organization can advance American interests in the Asia-
    Pacific region, particularly in light of the challenges facing Asia
    today.
        We are pleased that for fiscal year 1999 the Administration has
    endorsed the work of the Foundation by requesting an appropriations
    level of $15 million for the Foundation, $10 million for programs in
    the Asia-Pacific region, and $5 million specifically to advance the
    rule of law in China. During the course of the past two fiscal years,
    severe budget cuts have forced the Foundation to reduce significantly
    its programs in support of democratic development and economic
    liberalization. The funding level requested by the Administration will
    allow the Foundation to resume some of these program activities and
    expand its level of grantmaking in the region in support of broader
    American interests and more specifically, programs in China under the
    President's rule of law initiative.
        Let me put the work of the Foundation into context. While the Asia-
    Pacific region has, for the past several decades, experienced
    extraordinary growth and development, we have seen over the past year
    how fragile economic systems can be that are not supported by adequate
    legal and political systems. As I said in testimony last fall before
    the House Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific at a hearing on
    democracy promotion programs, experience in Asia has demonstrated that
    it is not enough to have a democratic ideal or democratic leaders. It
    is also important to help develop an environment of broad public
    support, an active and engaged civil society, predictable legal
    systems, responsible government and a strong private sector. Until
    recently, most of the emerging democracies in Asia have not been
    seriously tested economically. The recent declines in economic growth
    and the currency crisis in Asia is providing this test for several
    countries simultaneously. Serious economic downturn has led to
    dissatisfaction and unrest, and, if history is any guide, could lead to
    a slowdown in political reform or possibly in more extreme cases to a
    revived role for the military in government. Recent economic and
    political developments reinforce even more clearly the need for the
    United States to remain engaged and to continue to support the new
    democracies of Asia.
        We believe that The Asia Foundation, building on its 44 years of
    experience on the ground throughout the region in the service of U.S.
    interests, has the capability to advance these interests.
        The United States seeks an Asia-Pacific region which is
    increasingly democratic, with governments that are governed by the rule
    of law and are accountable to their people not only through free and
    fair elections, but through administrative processes that are open and
    transparent.
        The United States also seeks an Asia Pacific region that harnesses
    its enormous indigenous economic potential to improve the well-being of
    its own people, certainly in part by pursuing open trade and investment
    policies which allow U.S. businesses to trade and invest in the region
    to the mutual benefit of Americans and Asians.
        Finally, the United States seeks an Asia-Pacific region that is
    stable and free from military conflict and territorial aggression,
    where nations work together harmoniously within the region and in
    friendship with the United States.
        Mr. Chairman, these are precisely the three programming priorities
    of The Asia Foundation: (1) democracy and the rule of law; (2) open
    trade and investment, and (3) peaceful U.S.-Asian and intra-regional
    relations.
        The Asia Foundation has been operating in many countries for many
    years supporting the rule of law, democratic institutions, and
    nongovernmental organizations, including human rights, consumer and
    women's groups. Our purpose is to help local institutions and
    leadership and help develop appropriate and effective policies.
        I want to emphasize that the Foundation remains a field
    organization that supports indigenous groups and projects. Our job is
    to strengthen capacity. We are not Washington based. We are organized
    around small but effective offices in thirteen Asian nations, including
    a presence in both China and Taiwan. Through those offices, we can
    identify and form relationships with individuals and groups who merit
    our help as they seek to advance the same goals and interests that we
    support.
        We are not a research organization. We remain a grant-making
    organization, conscious at all times of the necessity of being
    efficient, committed to keeping our administrative overhead low and
    delivering financial and technical support to Asian projects. The
    Committee in the past has praised and encouraged that grant making role
    and we remain faithful to it. We make sequential grants to steadily
    build institutions, develop leaders and move policies forward.
    Foundation support is used for training, consultancies, technical
    assistance and seed funding for new organizations, all aimed at
    promoting reform and building in-country capacity. We can say with
    confidence that there is no other U.S. non-profit engaged on the ground
    for over forty years, that has the breadth of contacts and
    relationships or the trust and credibility that we have in Asia and the
    Pacific. This sustained involvement is the hallmark of the Foundation
    and its field presence in Asia.
        We are seeking an appropriation of $15 million because we have
    identified worthwhile and urgent programs in Asia that require that
    level of funding, particularly given the economic and political crisis
    facing many countries in the region of key interest to the United
    States. Furthermore, given the high level of attention and cooperation
    resulting from the recent U.S. China Summit Declaration on the Rule of
    Law in China, and the upcoming Presidential Summit scheduled for June
    1998, opportunities exist as never before for programs that will likely
    have real impact in reforming the legal system in China.
        Public funding is essential to us for many reasons. While the
    Foundation remains committed to expanding private fundraising, the
    credibility, flexibility and reliability that public funding lends to
    the Foundation's effort is critical. As an organization committed to
    American foreign policy interests in Asia, we can only be successful if
    potential private donors understand that the U.S. government continues
    to support our efforts in the region.
        Private funding does not replace public funding, either in scale or
    flexibility. Private funding is almost always tied to specific projects
    (as are USAID contract funds for which the Foundation competes) and the
    Foundation does not solicit or accept private funds that might
    compromise our fundamental commitment to support overall U.S. interests
    in Asia. Further, U.S. government appropriated funding maintains the
    Foundation's flexibility to respond quickly to fast-breaking program
    developments and enables the Foundation to work in key countries that
    are of high priority to the U.S. but where USAID and other assistance
    do not exist. This has proven true in Pakistan, where the Foundation
    coordinates and operates the Pakistan NGO initiative in the absence of
    USAID. Also in Thailand over the past year, where the Foundation has
    been engaged for decades and it became clear that other U.S. assistance
    would not be available. In this respect, Foundation programs are also
    able to undertake initiatives that government programs cannot, such as
    address sensitive issues related to economic and political reform. The
    Asia Foundation continues to be a model of public-private partnership
    and is a resource which complements official foreign policy efforts.
        In this discussion of what we are doing, I hope I can demonstrate
    the value to the United States of what we do and provide examples of
    what we would be able to do in programmatic terms with a $15 million
    appropriations level.
                         democracy and the rule of law
        The Foundation strengthens parliamentary processes, supports
    democratic elections, fosters accountability within governments,
    promotes the rule of law and encourages a vibrant civil society. Our
    support goes beyond the formal structures of institutions by focusing
    on the performance of those institutions and their ability to enhance
    the lives of the public they serve.
        Foundation programs have provided substantial assistance to
    parliaments in 16 countries in Asia, from technical assistance on
    specific legislation to training for members and staff, including
    facilitating interaction with the nongovernmental sector.
        In the last year, the Foundation supported election programs in
    Bangladesh, China, Mongolia and Nepal. In Bangladeshj, the Foundation
    coordinated international donor support, including Japanese support,
    for the Fair Election Monitoring Alliance (FEMA) which fielded 26,000
    volunteers to observe the country's most peaceful and participatory
    election in history. In Mongolia, the Foundation helped establish the
    country's first Voeter Education Center (VEC), which conducted
    extensive voter education programs and sponsored the first televised
    presidential debate. The Foundation continued to support local
    governance reform in China, which reaches over 100,000 villages
    nationwide, including training, production of videotapes on elections
    broadcast on national television, research on the role and structure of
    Villager Committees and county-level People's Congresses, and surveys
    of villagers' views of local governance.
        In promoting the rule of law and legal systems that support a
    stable and just society, the Foundation has assisted in the reform of
    legal and judicial systems through the training of judges and lawyers
    in 13 countries aimed at improving the performance of the formal legal
    system and court administration programs to reduce case backlog. The
    Foundation also assisted in providing technical assistance for
    substantive law reform. The Foundation helped China's Bureau of
    Legislative Affairs to draft a new administrative law that protects the
    rights of citizens, enables them to sue government agencies in order to
    curb government agency abuses. In Sri Lanka, the Foundation supports
    over 200 mediation boards which handle an annual case load of around
    350,000 as well as legal education programs reaching over 600,000
    people.
        The Foundation is the single largest supporter of the
    nongovernmental sector in all of the Asian countries in which we
    operate, supporting over 800 indigenous organizations since 1990. These
    organizations are essential for a vibrant civil society, encouraging
    public participation and transparency in the policy making process.
        In Cambodia, despite extraordinary difficulties and an uncertain
    future, there is an active Cambodian nongovernmental community which we
    have helped build up over the last five years. The Asia Foundation is
    the single most active American supporter of key human rights
    organizations after the events of July 1997, including support for the
    Cambodian Institute for Human Rights and the Cambodian League for the
    Promotion and Defense of Human Rights. Grants have supported human
    rights training, education, and investigation of human rights
    violations. In politically sensitive circumstances, building democratic
    systems takes time, sustained commitment, resources and experience.
    Programs like the one in Cambodia are carefully calibrated and based on
    regular analysis by local staff on the ground.
        Of great concern to the Foundation is the rapidly deteriorating
    situation in Indonesia. The growing nationalist sentiment in response
    to the conditions of the IMF, the continued effort to delink economic
    reform from political reformation and good governance, and the sharp
    decline in the economic status of the general population leading to a
    rising number of demonstrations and arrests, attacks on the Chinese
    minority and the growing increase in Islamic extremism are all critical
    problems for the country and of great concern to U.S. policymakers.
        With a $15 million appropriation, the Foundation would deepen its
    involvement in Indonesia, a country where it has maintained a program
    since 1955. Because of its long history and experience, the Foundation
    has been able to advance U.S. interests in important, yet sensitive
    public policy areas related to civil society development, including
    support for community development and conflict resolution activities of
    the Nahdlatul Ulama (NU) the largest nongovernmental, Islamic
    organization in Indonesia with over 30,000 members. The Foundation
    would expand its continuing program with Indonesia's moderate Islamic
    community to encourage support for peaceful community development;
    broaden its support for selected institutions in East Timor, including
    the university and local press; and increase its programs to support
    alternative forms of conflict resolution; and strengthen laws related
    to business and economics.
        The challenge to groups working in the field of human rights in
    Indonesia has increased in the wake of the worst economic crisis the
    country has faced in over three decades. Heightened social tensions
    resulting from the impact of the crisissuch as increased unemployment,
    rising prices and greater social inequity have raised concern among
    nongovernmental organizations and institutions such as the Foundation-
    supported National Human Rights Commission about the potential negative
    impact in terms of human rights.
        The Foundation plans to expand its support for the National Human
    Rights Commission, an organization that has demonstrated effectiveness
    in mediating disputes and handling politically sensitive issues in a
    fair, balanced and responsible manner. Its program will continue to
    focus on establishment of a network of educational institutions, NGO's
    and other target groups, including the police and military, in order to
    develop a human rights education system for the country. The Foundation
    is working with the Commission on database development for its
    monitoring and investigation work and to facilitate information
    dissemination.
                           open trade and investment
        The Asia Foundation supports programs that lead to open trade,
    investment and economic policy reform at the regional and national
    levels, and projects that work to spread the benefits of economic
    growth throughout Asian societies.
        The Foundation supports regional organizations such as APEC and the
    private sector Pacific Economic Cooperation Council (PECC) that are
    committed to open trade and investment. In the past year, the
    Foundation participated in the PECC Trade Policy Forum and funded and
    contributed to the analysis and monitoring of APEC individual country
    action plans to keep the region on target to reach free trade by the
    year 2020. In the Philippines, the Foundation supported efforts to
    reduce tariffs and help open trade in the information technology (IT)
    and civil aviation sectors, and supported a cluster of activities to
    eliminate key policy barriers and increase market access and
    opportunities in information technology. Addressing concerns on the
    implementation of government policy in IT, the Foundation supported the
    Asian Institute of Management's Forum to draft a policy that
    established a National Information Technology Board with private sector
    leadership and worked with private sector organizations to develop
    consensus for the U.S.-backed Information Technology Agreement, to
    eliminate tariffs on IT products and services by 2000.
        In Shanghai, China, the Foundation supported efforts to study the
    policy environment for liberalization of the insurance industry as a
    test case for wider opening of China's insurance market to foreign
    competition.
        As a part of its market liberalization program, Vietnam seeks to
    become a member of the World Trade Organization and to enter a trade
    agreement with the United States. The Foundation has assisted
    Vietnamese officials and the business community to understand better
    the basic free trade principles central to WTO membership and bilateral
    trade agreements, and identify key regulatory changes necessary prior
    to the successful negotiation of any agreements.
        The Foundation is helping to introduce a greater degree of
    predictability among major Asian economies by improving intellectual
    property rights protection, strengthening anti-corruption laws and
    establishing private commercial dispute resolution organizations. In
    Thailand, the Foundation focused on developing constituencies to
    promote sustained counter-corruption efforts by the government and
    civic sector through support for research on the political economy of
    corruption. This received widespread attention in the press and mass
    media.
        The Foundation supports small enterprise development in Indonesia,
    Bangladesh, and the Philippines. In Indonesia, the Foundation has
    contributed to policies to address the impediments to small business
    development through its programs in support of small and medium
    enterprises (SME's).
        As a result of the current economic crisis in Indonesia, the
    Foundation and its partner NGO's country-wide have actively approached
    the Indonesian government and the World Bank to recommend specific
    policies to assist small business, where the majority of the population
    are employed, at this critical time. Recommendations include creation
    of loan guarantee mechanisms to increase commercial lending for small
    and medium enterprises; specific deregulation; reduced corruption;
    dissolving certain monopolies and unfair practices affecting SME's; and
    speeding up the decentralization process. The Foundation's NGO partners
    are also developing plans to monitor implementation of deregulation
    efforts in accordance with the IMF package signed in January 1998.
    SME's are receiving increased attention during this time of economic
    crisis and the Foundation is seen as a leading resource in this field.
                            international relations
        The Asia Foundation organizes U.S.-Asian dialogues on issues such
    as democratization, human rights, civil society, regional economic
    policy, and the environment, and supports diplomatic efforts to address
    security issues. The Foundation also continued to pursue human rights
    programs on a regional basis, through an unofficial human rights
    working group that represents 16 countries in the region, including
    China and Vietnam. The Foundation will continue its support for the
    Council for Security Cooperation in the Asia Pacific (CSCAP) as a
    crucial vehicle for Track II dialogue on the evolving regional security
    structure in the region.
                           china and the rule of law
        Unique among U.S. non-profit organizations, The Asia Foundation
    maintains an active and mutually accepted programming presence in
    China, Taiwan and Hong Kong. With a legacy of trust, confidence and
    good-will developed over the years, the Foundation is able to work
    effectively with a wide range of actors, including government agencies,
    academic groups, emerging nongovernmental organizations and the private
    sector.
        The Foundation's goals in China are threefold: to support increased
    citizens' participation in governance and in a growing NGO sector;
    promote the rule of law and its application in a rapidly changing
    economic and political environment; and encourage a more informed,
    diverse foreign policy community. At a time when engagement in China is
    critical to U.S. interests, the Foundation is at the forefront in
    supporting important efforts that encourage greater pluralism and
    citizen participation.
        The U.S.-China Joint Declaration resulting from the Presidential
    Summit last November included a rule of law initiative to increase
    legal cooperation between the U.S. and China. China has made it clear
    that an internationally accepted legal system is important to its
    overall development and modernization strategy. Since 1994, the Chinese
    government has taken further steps in legal development, partly because
    of international economic requirements and partly as a result of
    decentralization which has been a key part of China's modernization
    effort. Between 1979 and the present, more than 300 laws have been
    enacted and nearly 4,000 State Council regulations issued, which define
    more clearly the functions of government, decentralize certain
    functions to provinces and communities and in some cases, provide
    standards for holding government accountable. Enacted within the past
    three years, this indicates an accelerated pace of legal reform.
        Since 1979, The Asia Foundation has given priority to the
    development of the rule of law in China. During the early years of
    China's opening to the West, the Foundation sponsored exchanges for
    Chinese law faculty and legal officials, particularly in economic
    fields, to take advantage of openings and support reformers where few
    existed. Over time, as opportunities and space for reform increased,
    the Foundation focused more on supporting broad legal education and
    institutional capacity building. This included training opportunities,
    technical support for law faculty and officials, law curriculum
    development, the distribution of legal materials, exchange programs for
    judges, and substantive law, including human rights, and legal
    drafting, especially in the administrative law area which governs the
    rights of citizens to seek redress for official government actions when
    rights have been violated.
        Given the high level of attention paid to legal reform by the
    leadership and the commitment through the Joint Declaration, the time
    is right for expanded programming in promotion of law and legal reform
    in China. Planned reforms in legal education, judicial training and
    expansion of administrative and commercial laws are all areas in which
    The Asia Foundation has been actively engaged, and has a record and
    history of programs and relationships. In fact, the Foundation has been
    asked by a range of Chinese institutions and asked by the U.S.
    government, specifically the Department of State, to take the lead on
    programs under the rule of law initiative. But with resource
    constraints, the Foundation has not been able to respond adequately.
    With additional resources, the Foundation would be able to increase its
    law and legal reform projects in China at this opportune time.
        It is The Asia Foundation's intention to expand its programs
    related to law and legal reform in China in a way that is consistent
    with the continuing concerns about human rights and the state's
    relations with citizens, and the desire to expand economic relations
    with China on the basis of free and fair trade. It is clear that
    progress will be gradual and there will be challenges, but it is
    important to bear in mind that the large majority of the reforms are
    less than three years old, underscoring an increased pace of reform
    today. We should take advantage of the openings that exist and an
    expanded Foundation program now would maximize the opportunity to do
    so. Such expansion will build upon nearly 20 years of Foundation work
    in promoting rule of law in China, and has the potential to advance the
    Presidential initiative agreed upon at the U.S. China Summit.
                                   conclusion
        In closing, Mr. Chairman, I have attempted to outline some of the
    program activities which the Foundation hopes to undertake throughout
    the region with special emphasis on the expanded programming in the
    rule of law in China. We hope and believe that these programs are at
    the core of U.S. interests in the region and that they merit an
    appropriation at the level of $15 million for fiscal year 1999,
    consistent with the President's request.
        As you and your colleagues know, the budget constraints of recent
    years have compelled significant reductions in the Foundation's annual
    appropriation. As a result, we at the Foundation have worked hard to
    reduce our budget, cut staff and expenditures, and increase our
    efficiency as well as diversify our funding sources. During this
    difficult period, we have worked to maintain our regional presence
    through our 13 offices in Asia, and to put the maximum possible amount
    of appropriated dollars toward on the ground program activity. I pledge
    to you that if the Congress appropriates the full $15 million request,
    The Asia Foundation will use those funds efficiently and effectively
    for program activity in the region as I have just described. Thank you
    for your attention and consideration.
                                     ______

       Prepared Statement of the American Association of Retired Persons
        The American Association of Retired Persons (AARP) appreciates this
    opportunity to comment on appropriations next year for the Legal
    Services Corporation (LSC) and on the issue of telemarketing fraud--a
    crime which is targeted primarily at older citizens. Our
    recommendations concerning telemarketing fraud comprise the second part
    of this statement.
        AARP supports the Administration's recommended increase next year
    (from $283 million to $340 million) for the Legal Services Corporation
    (LSC). Part of the increase would provide a cost-of-living adjustment
    for the local legal aid programs which provide assistance to low-income
    persons throughout the nation. Additional resources would also be
    targeted to special initiatives which address domestic violence and the
    unmet legal needs of children. The need for legal services continues to
    be overwhelming. The Corporation reports that almost one in every five
    Americans is potentially eligible for such aid. In 1996, the number of
    cases closed by LSC was approximately 1.5 million. More than 1.6
    million cases would be resolved next year under the Administration's
    proposal.
        LSC is a lifeline for vulnerable Americans of all ages, especially
    the largest beneficiary group: children living in poverty. These
    services often represent the only means available to protect their
    rights and defend their best interests. This is also the case with
    older Americans, including poor minority and disabled persons, who
    confront substantial legal issues beyond those of the general
    population due to their unique health, income and social problems.
    These include nursing home abuse, abuse by family members, obstacles in
    obtaining public benefits such as Social Security and Medicare,
    problems involving consumer fraud, denial of pension benefits and age
    discrimination.
        Legal services programs help solve a variety of problems for older
    Americans. In the past they have: helped a destitute client overcome an
    erroneous denial of Medicaid coverage; secured information under
    pension plans about clients' rights to pension benefits; prevented
    nursing homes from arbitrarily discharging immobile and indigent
    patients; and corrected clients' Social Security earnings records to
    establish their eligibility for benefits.
        While nationally there are 20 lawyers for every 10,000 people, the
    Legal Services Corporation Act embodies a goal of ``minimum access'',
    which is defined as two staff attorneys for every 10,000 people who are
    at or below the official poverty level. The Corporation has been able
    to implement this goal only once due to budgetary constraints. AARP
    believes it is critical that the Federal government continue to ensure
    that poor Americans have access to civil justice so that their
    fundamental rights may be protected.
        Telemarketing fraud is a major concern to the Association because
    of its impact on older persons, who are victimized in disproportionate
    numbers. In earlier testimony before the Subcommittee at its hearing on
    Telemarketing Scams, we reported that older consumers were the single
    largest group of individuals specifically targeted by fraudulent
    telemarketers. More than half of all victims are over 50 years old--an
    age group which represents only 36 percent of the total population.
    Once victimized, a person is at the greatest risk of being caught in
    the ``trap'' again. These criminals will target their ``marks''
    repeatedly until all assets are gone. An estimated $40 billion is lost
    each year as a result of such scams.
        There is a continuing need for a consistent, large-scale education
    campaign to warn potential victims. The Association will continue to
    press even harder next year with its own efforts in this regard. These
    include working with law enforcement agencies and hundreds of
    volunteers, including victims of telemarketing fraud, to get the
    message out to a broad cross-section of the public. AARP applauds the
    attention telemarketing fraud is receiving both in and out of
    government. The hearing held by this Subcommittee has helped to
    intensify public awareness of the crime and the scam artists who prey
    on vulnerable Americans. The hearing also underscored the advantages of
    establishing a 1-800 telephone hotline by the Federal Trade Commission.
    AARP strongly urges the Subcommittee to provide the necessary resources
    for such an effort in the Commission's fiscal year 1999 appropriation.
    Hotlines are the best source of information on emerging new scams and
    telemarketing pitches and provide an enormous service to individual
    consumers, law enforcement, and to the fraud-fighting agencies that
    help them.
                                     ______

    Prepared Statement of Doreen Dodson, Chair, Standing Committee on Legal
             Aid and Indigent Defendants, American Bar Association
        I am Doreen Dodson, a practicing lawyer in St. Louis, MO, and the
    Chair of the ABA Standing Committee on Legal Aid and Indigent
    Defendants of the American Bar Association. I appear here today at the
    request of our President, Jerome J. Shestack, to voice the
    Association's views with respect to the Legal Services Corporation and
    its fiscal year 1999 appropriation.
        The ABA recommends that the Legal Services Corporation's funding be
    restored to its fiscal year 1996 funding level of $415 million. In any
    event, the appropriation should not be less than the $340 million
    figure requested by both the Corporation itself and the Administration.
        We commend the leadership of the Corporation for the responsible
    and diligent manner in which it has been carrying out its duties,
    commendation which is particularly appropriate in light of the sweeping
    changes in this program mandated by the 104th and 105th Congresses. We
    believe the Corporation's new leadership deserves your confidence and
    support and urge that increased funding be provided to allow the
    program to carry out its important mission.
        This program is an important component of our democratic system of
    government. Justice and fairness are bedrock principles of our
    democracy. President Washington wrote that ``The due administration of
    justice is the firmest pillar of good government.'' But the justice
    system cannot retain the respect and popular support so essential to
    its functioning if it is apparent that access to justice is dependent
    upon one's wealth or place of residence. A comprehensive, national
    system providing civil legal services to the nation's poor must be
    maintained and strengthened.
        Federal dollars, channeled through the Legal Services Corporation,
    account for about 60 percent of the funding utilized by the LSC-funded
    local programs to address the legal needs of the poor. The remaining 40
    percent comes from a wide variety of sources--lawyer contributions,
    foundation grants, court filing fees, and, most significantly, IOLTA
    (``interest on lawyer trust account'') programs. In addition, the
    private bar has made an enormous ``in kind'' contribution in the form
    of donated, or ``pro bono'', legal services. Some 150,000 lawyers
    participate in formal pro bono programs affiliated with local legal
    services offices, and many thousands of others contribute their time
    through other means.
        But collectively, these resources are able to provide legal
    services to only about 20 percent of those who need them each year, as
    shown by numerous state and national statistically-sound surveys. Local
    legal services offices are functioning much like hospital emergency
    rooms, engaging in legal triage as they attempt to cope with the
    enormous unmet legal needs.
        The situation will become even worse if a challenge to the
    constitutionality of IOLTA programs is upheld by the United States
    Supreme Court. The case of Washington Legal Foundation v. Texas Legal
    Access to Justice Foundation was argued before the Court January 13 of
    this year, and a decision is anticipated by June. An adverse ruling by
    the Court would result in over $50 million of funding for local LSC
    recipient programs disappearing overnight--or more than 10 percent of
    the total legal services funding nationally.
        But even if the ruling is favorable, the nation will still be faced
    with the reality that 80 percent of the legal needs of the poor will
    remain unmet. It is in the interest of all of us to see that these
    legal needs are resolved in a peaceful manner and that respect for the
    rule of law is strengthened. ``Liberty and justice for all'' is our
    proud national credo, but it is empty rhetoric without the resources
    administered by the Legal Services Corporation.
        In fiscal year 1981, the Corporation was funded at a level of $321
    million. In real dollars, and adjusted only for inflation and not the
    interim growth in the poverty population, an appropriation in fiscal
    year 1999 of more than $600 million would be required just to ``stay
    even.''
        As noted above, Congress appropriated $415 million for LSC in
    fiscal year 1996. Congress has now made changes in the program which
    have addressed concerns about particular activities of legal services
    grantees. The Corporation has demonstrated its commitment to and
    ability to carry out the new Congressional charter for this program. We
    believe, under these circumstances, it would be appropriate and
    desirable to restore funding to the $415 million level. At the very
    minimum, we urge you to provide the $340 million in funding requested
    by both the Corporation and the Administration.
                                     ______

                  Prepared Statement of Georgetown University
        Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee: We are Father William L.
    George, S.J. and Father T. Byron Collins, S.J., Assistants to the
    President of Georgetown University, the Rev. Leo J. O'Donovan, S.J. We
    appreciate the opportunity to submit this testimony to the Subcommittee
    on the development of a Non-invasive Technology for the Testing of
    Medications for Children and the Non-Invasive Coronary Angiography
    Program.
    Non-Invasive Technology for the Testing of Medications for Children
        The Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation and
    the Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, State, The
    Judiciary and Related Agencies have expressed interest in the
    development of new technologies to improve the safe use of medications
    for children of the United States. We are requesting the appropriation
    of $8 million in fiscal year 1999 for a consortium of Georgetown
    University and Columbia University Medical Schools to develop non-
    invasive medication testing methods for children.
        Over 70 percent of all drugs that are prescribed by pediatricians
    for children have never been formally tested and approved by the Food
    and Drug Administration for use in children. For serious illnesses such
    as cancer, it approaches 95 percent of drugs. The Food and Drug
    Administration has encouraged companies to perform studies in children
    after new drugs are marketed but few companies have done so, usually
    citing the difficulties, dangers and potential litigation that might
    result from evaluation of the effects of their drugs on children. In
    1997 the FDA attempted to enforce a resolution that would have required
    that all new drugs having potential value for children be tested in
    children. This met with strong opposition from the pharmaceutical
    industry and was abandoned. Subsequently, the FDA announced that it
    would compromise and lower the requirement for approval of drugs for
    use in children. Instead of the usual requirement of two controlled
    clinical trials demonstrating the safety and effectiveness of a drug,
    the Agency would accept data that identified the dosage for children
    required to match the plasma concentrations previously associated with
    a positive response in adults. In the last few months of 1997, the FDA
    Modernization Act was passed and included a major incentive for the
    testing of drugs in children. New drugs that are evaluated in children
    can now be given a six month patent extension.
        While all of these efforts are laudable and seek to correct a
    serious problem (i.e. our ignorance in how to treat our children when
    ill), they are not based on a sound understanding of pediatric clinical
    pharmacology and human development pharmacology. These efforts assume
    that children are simply small adults and that we can use the same
    methods to evaluate and test drugs in them that we use in adults.
    Unfortunately, the limited data that we have available indicate that
    this is unlikely to be true. For example, a normal dosage and plasma
    concentration of digoxin, a drug used to strengthen the heartbeat in a
    child, even when reduced for the smaller size of a child, has no
    relationship to that required for the adult. Research in animals
    indicates that this is likely to be true for many other drugs. These
    proposals also assume that we can simply stick children with needles
    and draw blood samples every hour or so for up to 12-16 times a day to
    measure the amount of the drug in a child's plasma. Even if the data
    were to be valid, the amount of blood required, the pain, and the risk
    of infection make this approach unethical.
        What is needed is research to apply modern techniques such as
    nanofabrication, chip technology and nanofluidics to develop new, less
    invasive (or non-invasive) techniques to measure the amount of drug in
    the child's plasma and more importantly to assess the beneficial
    effects of drugs. For example, Dr. Carl Peck, Director of the
    Georgetown Center for Drug Development Sciences, has demonstrated that
    the concentration of the asthma drug theophylline in plasma can be
    estimated by simply measuring the amount absorbed through the skin
    using a simple charcoal filled gel skin patch on the back. Dr. John
    Currie, a physicist and Director of the Georgetown Advanced Engineering
    Laboratory, has the expertise and a newly built nanofabrication lab
    capable of engineering other modern effective and humane techniques for
    assessing the actions of drugs in children. Without new and appropriate
    methods specifically designed for children, we will be gathering data
    that is likely to be worthless and therefore misleading or even worse,
    endangering children participating in these trials. We are requesting
    appropriation of funds to conduct a demonstration program for the
    humane and scientifically sound development of medication for children.
    Non-Invasive Coronary Angiography Program
        Robert Ledley, DDS of the Georgetown University Medical Center,
    will design and construct a safe screening procedure using a
    specialized x-ray unit capable of viewing detailed images of the
    coronary arteries.
        At present, coronary angiography is performed only when there is an
    indication of a problem, such as angina or pain during exercise, an
    abnormal electrocardiograph, or negative results from a tread mill
    test, etc. The question naturally arises: Why not do coronary
    angiography as a screening test on presumed normal individuals? The
    answer is that arterial coronary angiography, where the catheter is
    placed into the aorta, and pushed to the heart, has a mortality risk.
    This risk is due to the fact that the catheter can break off debris or
    pieces of atherosclerotic plaque from the lining of the arterial wall,
    which then is carried by the arterial blood directly to the brain or
    other body organs potentially resulting in serious damage. This risk is
    very small, but nevertheless real, and therefore, arterial coronary
    angiography is done only when there is a distinct medical need for
    doing it.
        Cardiologists have been waiting for a safe method for imaging the
    coronary arteries that could be used for screening normal, apparently
    healthy individuals. Robert Ledley, DDS of the Georgetown University
    Medical Center will rapidly develop such a safe method. The brain and
    other body organs will not be at risk and the procedure will enable a
    clear image of the coronary arteries to be seen, just as clear as that
    of arterial angiography.
        The requested funding for this program is $1 million for fiscal
    year 1999.

           LIST OF WITNESSES, COMMUNICATIONS, AND PREPARED STATEMENTS

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page
    Albright, Madeleine K., Secretary of State, Department of State..    85
        Prepared statement...........................................    91
    Alliance for International Educational and Cultural Exchange,
      prepared statement.............................................   527
    Alvarez, Hon. Aida, Administrator, Small Business Administration.   367
        Prepared statement...........................................   368
    American Association of Retired Persons, prepared statement......   577
    American Federation of Government Employees, prepared statement..   507
    American Oceans Campaign, prepared statements

    60435

    Biographical sketch

    447____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    438____________________________________________________________________

    Kennedy, Hon. Anthony M., Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United
    States, the judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    394____________________________________________________________________

    Kodiak Community Conservation Network, prepared statement

    570____________________________________________________________________

    Kulik, Bernard, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance, Small
    Business Administration

    367____________________________________________________________________

    Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from New Jersey, questions
    submitted by

    145____________________________________________________________________

    Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., U.S. Senator from Vermont, questions submitted by

    80_____________________________________________________________________

    Levitt, Hon. Arthur, Chairman, Securities and Exchange Commission

    495____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    496____________________________________________________________________

    Lorson, Frank, Chief Deputy Clerk, Supreme Court of the United States, the
    judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Mayer, Haldane Robert, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the
    Femmission

    435____________________________________________________________________

    Biographical sketch

    447____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    438____________________________________________________________________

    Kennedy, Hon. Anthony M., Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United
    States, the judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    394____________________________________________________________________

    Kodiak Community Conservation Network, prepared statement

    570____________________________________________________________________

    Kulik, Bernard, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance, Small
    Business Administration

    367____________________________________________________________________

    Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from New Jersey, questions
    submitted by

    145____________________________________________________________________

    Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., U.S. Senator from Vermont, questions submitted by

    80_____________________________________________________________________

    Levitt, Hon. Arthur, Chairman, Securities and Exchange Commission

    495____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    496____________________________________________________________________

    Lorson, Frank, Chief Deputy Clerk, Supreme Court of the United States, the
    judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Mayer, Haldane Robert, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the
    Feketch

    447____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    438____________________________________________________________________

    Kennedy, Hon. Anthony M., Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United
    States, the judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    394____________________________________________________________________

    Kodiak Community Conservation Network, prepared statement

    570____________________________________________________________________

    Kulik, Bernard, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance, Small
    Business Administration

    367____________________________________________________________________

    Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from New Jersey, questions
    submitted by

    145____________________________________________________________________

    Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., U.S. Senator from Vermont, questions submitted by

    80_____________________________________________________________________

    Levitt, Hon. Arthur, Chairman, Securities and Exchange Commission

    495____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    496____________________________________________________________________

    Lorson, Frank, Chief Deputy Clerk, Supreme Court of the United States, the
    judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Mayer, Haldane Robert, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the
    Fetatement

    566____________________________________________________________________

    Kennard, Hon. William E., Chairman, Federal Communications Commission

    435____________________________________________________________________

    Biographical sketch

    447____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    438____________________________________________________________________

    Kennedy, Hon. Anthony M., Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United
    States, the judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    394____________________________________________________________________

    Kodiak Community Conservation Network, prepared statement

    570____________________________________________________________________

    Kulik, Bernard, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance, Small
    Business Administration

    367____________________________________________________________________

    Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from New Jersey, questions
    submitted by

    145____________________________________________________________________

    Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., U.S. Senator from Vermont, questions submitted by

    80_____________________________________________________________________

    Levitt, Hon. Arthur, Chairman, Securities and Exchange Commission

    495____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    496____________________________________________________________________

    Lorson, Frank, Chief Deputy Clerk, Supreme Court of the United States, the
    judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Mayer, Haldane Robert, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the
    Fet Company Institute, prepared statement

    571____________________________________________________________________

    Jollivette, Cyrus M., vice president for Government relations, University
    of Miami, prepared statement

    566____________________________________________________________________

    Kennard, Hon. William E., Chairman, Federal Communications Commission

    435____________________________________________________________________

    Biographical sketch

    447____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    438____________________________________________________________________

    Kennedy, Hon. Anthony M., Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United
    States, the judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    394____________________________________________________________________

    Kodiak Community Conservation Network, prepared statement

    570____________________________________________________________________

    Kulik, Bernard, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance, Small
    Business Administration

    367____________________________________________________________________

    Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from New Jersey, questions
    submitted by

    145____________________________________________________________________

    Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., U.S. Senator from Vermont, questions submitted by

    80_____________________________________________________________________

    Levitt, Hon. Arthur, Chairman, Securities and Exchange Commission

    495____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    496____________________________________________________________________

    Lorson, Frank, Chief Deputy Clerk, Supreme Court of the United States, the
    judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Mayer, Haldane Robert, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the
    Fe60435

    Biographical sketch

    447____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    438____________________________________________________________________

    Kennedy, Hon. Anthony M., Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United
    States, the judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    394____________________________________________________________________

    Kodiak Community Conservation Network, prepared statement

    570____________________________________________________________________

    Kulik, Bernard, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance, Small
    Business Administration

    367____________________________________________________________________

    Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from New Jersey, questions
    submitted by

    145____________________________________________________________________

    Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., U.S. Senator from Vermont, questions submitted by

    80_____________________________________________________________________

    Levitt, Hon. Arthur, Chairman, Securities and Exchange Commission

    495____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    496____________________________________________________________________

    Lorson, Frank, Chief Deputy Clerk, Supreme Court of the United States, the
    judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Mayer, Haldane Robert, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the
    FeM/Biographical sketch

    447____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    438____________________________________________________________________

    Kennedy, Hon. Anthony M., Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United
    States, the judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    394____________________________________________________________________

    Kodiak Community Conservation Network, prepared statement

    570____________________________________________________________________

    Kulik, Bernard, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance, Small
    Business Administration

    367____________________________________________________________________

    Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from New Jersey, questions
    submitted by

    145____________________________________________________________________

    Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., U.S. Senator from Vermont, questions submitted by

    80_____________________________________________________________________

    Levitt, Hon. Arthur, Chairman, Securities and Exchange Commission

    495____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    496____________________________________________________________________

    Lorson, Frank, Chief Deputy Clerk, Supreme Court of the United States, the
    judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Mayer, Haldane Robert, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the
    FeNM/Kennard, Hon. William E., Chairman, Federal
    Communications Commission

    435____________________________________________________________________

    Biographical sketch

    447____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    438____________________________________________________________________

    Kennedy, Hon. Anthony M., Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United
    States, the judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    394____________________________________________________________________

    Kodiak Community Conservation Network, prepared statement

    570____________________________________________________________________

    Kulik, Bernard, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance, Small
    Business Administration

    367____________________________________________________________________

    Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from New Jersey, questions
    submitted by

    145____________________________________________________________________

    Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., U.S. Senator from Vermont, questions submitted by

    80_____________________________________________________________________

    Levitt, Hon. Arthur, Chairman, Securities and Exchange Commission

    495____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    496____________________________________________________________________

    Lorson, Frank, Chief Deputy Clerk, Supreme Court of the United States, the
    judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Mayer, Haldane Robert, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the
    FeAmerican Society of Civil Engineers, prepared statement..........
    532Andreasen, Christian, prepared statement.........................
    558Arbetman, Lee, coordinator, National Law-Related Education Program,
    prepared statement.................................... 520Association of
    America's Public Television Stations, prepared
    statement...................................................... 536Baker,
    D. James, Under Secretary for Oceans and Atmosphere, National Oceanic and
    Atmospheric Administration, Department of
    Commerce....................................................... 333
    Prepared statement........................................... 336Ballard,
    Dr. Robert, president, Institute for Exploration, Sea Research Foundation,
    prepared statement........................ 556Becker, Capt. Fred R., Jr.,
    director, Navy affairs, Reserve Officers Association of the United States,
    prepared statement.. 563Bischoff, Kenneth E., chairman, National Consortium
    for Justice Information and Statistics, prepared statement.................
    515Bosley, Dale, Marshal, Supreme Court of the United States, the
    judiciary...................................................... 393Bossler,
    John D., prepared statement............................. 562Brown, Mark E.,
    Director, Office of Budget, Office of the Secretary, Department of
    Commerce.............................. 261Bye, Dr. Raymond E., Jr.,
    associate vice president for research, Florida State University, prepared
    statement................... 555Byrd, Hon. Robert C., U.S. Senator from
    West Virginia, questions submitted
    by................................................... 243Campbell, Hon. Ben
    Nighthorse, U.S. Senator from Colorado: Prepared statements
    William E., Chairman, Federal Communications Commission

    435____________________________________________________________________

    Biographical sketch

    447____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    438____________________________________________________________________

    Kennedy, Hon. Anthony M., Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United
    States, the judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    394____________________________________________________________________

    Kodiak Community Conservation Network, prepared statement

    570____________________________________________________________________

    Kulik, Bernard, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance, Small
    Business Administration

    367____________________________________________________________________

    Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from New Jersey, questions
    submitted by

    145____________________________________________________________________

    Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., U.S. Senator from Vermont, questions submitted by

    80_____________________________________________________________________

    Levitt, Hon. Arthur, Chairman, Securities and Exchange Commission

    495____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    496____________________________________________________________________

    Lorson, Frank, Chief Deputy Clerk, Supreme Court of the United States, the
    judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Mayer, Haldane Robert, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the
    FeNM/Kennard, Hon. William E., Chairman, Federal
    Communications Commission

    435____________________________________________________________________

    Biographical sketch

    447____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    438____________________________________________________________________

    Kennedy, Hon. Anthony M., Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United
    States, the judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    394____________________________________________________________________

    Kodiak Community Conservation Network, prepared statement

    570____________________________________________________________________

    Kulik, Bernard, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance, Small
    Business Administration

    367____________________________________________________________________

    Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from New Jersey, questions
    submitted by

    145____________________________________________________________________

    Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., U.S. Senator from Vermont, questions submitted by

    80_____________________________________________________________________

    Levitt, Hon. Arthur, Chairman, Securities and Exchange Commission

    495____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    496____________________________________________________________________

    Lorson, Frank, Chief Deputy Clerk, Supreme Court of the United States, the
    judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Mayer, Haldane Robert, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the
    Feirman, Federal Communications Commission

    435____________________________________________________________________

    Biographical sketch

    447____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    438____________________________________________________________________

    Kennedy, Hon. Anthony M., Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United
    States, the judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    394____________________________________________________________________

    Kodiak Community Conservation Network, prepared statement

    570____________________________________________________________________

    Kulik, Bernard, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance, Small
    Business Administration

    367____________________________________________________________________

    Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from New Jersey, questions
    submitted by

    145____________________________________________________________________

    Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., U.S. Senator from Vermont, questions submitted by

    80_____________________________________________________________________

    Levitt, Hon. Arthur, Chairman, Securities and Exchange Commission

    495____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    496____________________________________________________________________

    Lorson, Frank, Chief Deputy Clerk, Supreme Court of the United States, the
    judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Mayer, Haldane Robert, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the
    Fetatement

    566____________________________________________________________________

    Kennard, Hon. William E., Chairman, Federal Communications Commission

    435____________________________________________________________________

    Biographical sketch

    447____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    438____________________________________________________________________

    Kennedy, Hon. Anthony M., Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United
    States, the judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    394____________________________________________________________________

    Kodiak Community Conservation Network, prepared statement

    570____________________________________________________________________

    Kulik, Bernard, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance, Small
    Business Administration

    367____________________________________________________________________

    Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from New Jersey, questions
    submitted by

    145____________________________________________________________________

    Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., U.S. Senator from Vermont, questions submitted by

    80_____________________________________________________________________

    Levitt, Hon. Arthur, Chairman, Securities and Exchange Commission

    495____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    496____________________________________________________________________

    Lorson, Frank, Chief Deputy Clerk, Supreme Court of the United States, the
    judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Mayer, Haldane Robert, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the
    Fet Company Institute, prepared statement

    571____________________________________________________________________

    Jollivette, Cyrus M., vice president for Government relations, University
    of Miami, prepared statement

    566____________________________________________________________________

    Kennard, Hon. William E., Chairman, Federal Communications Commission

    435____________________________________________________________________

    Biographical sketch

    447____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    438____________________________________________________________________

    Kennedy, Hon. Anthony M., Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United
    States, the judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    394____________________________________________________________________

    Kodiak Community Conservation Network, prepared statement

    570____________________________________________________________________

    Kulik, Bernard, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance, Small
    Business Administration

    367____________________________________________________________________

    Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from New Jersey, questions
    submitted by

    145____________________________________________________________________

    Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., U.S. Senator from Vermont, questions submitted by

    80_____________________________________________________________________

    Levitt, Hon. Arthur, Chairman, Securities and Exchange Commission

    495____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    496____________________________________________________________________

    Lorson, Frank, Chief Deputy Clerk, Supreme Court of the United States, the
    judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Mayer, Haldane Robert, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the
    Feirman, Federal Communications Commission

    435____________________________________________________________________

    Biographical sketch

    447____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    438____________________________________________________________________

    Kennedy, Hon. Anthony M., Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United
    States, the judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    394____________________________________________________________________

    Kodiak Community Conservation Network, prepared statement

    570____________________________________________________________________

    Kulik, Bernard, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance, Small
    Business Administration

    367____________________________________________________________________

    Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from New Jersey, questions
    submitted by

    145____________________________________________________________________

    Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., U.S. Senator from Vermont, questions submitted by

    80_____________________________________________________________________

    Levitt, Hon. Arthur, Chairman, Securities and Exchange Commission

    495____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    496____________________________________________________________________

    Lorson, Frank, Chief Deputy Clerk, Supreme Court of the United States, the
    judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Mayer, Haldane Robert, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the
    FeNM/Kennard, Hon. William E., Chairman, Federal
    Communications Commission

    435____________________________________________________________________

    Biographical sketch

    447____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    438____________________________________________________________________

    Kennedy, Hon. Anthony M., Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United
    States, the judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    394____________________________________________________________________

    Kodiak Community Conservation Network, prepared statement

    570____________________________________________________________________

    Kulik, Bernard, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance, Small
    Business Administration

    367____________________________________________________________________

    Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from New Jersey, questions
    submitted by

    145____________________________________________________________________

    Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., U.S. Senator from Vermont, questions submitted by

    80_____________________________________________________________________

    Levitt, Hon. Arthur, Chairman, Securities and Exchange Commission

    495____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    496____________________________________________________________________

    Lorson, Frank, Chief Deputy Clerk, Supreme Court of the United States, the
    judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Mayer, Haldane Robert, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the
    Fe William E., Chairman, Federal Communications
    Commission

    435____________________________________________________________________

    Biographical sketch

    447____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    438____________________________________________________________________

    Kennedy, Hon. Anthony M., Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United
    States, the judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    394____________________________________________________________________

    Kodiak Community Conservation Network, prepared statement

    570____________________________________________________________________

    Kulik, Bernard, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance, Small
    Business Administration

    367____________________________________________________________________

    Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from New Jersey, questions
    submitted by

    145____________________________________________________________________

    Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., U.S. Senator from Vermont, questions submitted by

    80_____________________________________________________________________

    Levitt, Hon. Arthur, Chairman, Securities and Exchange Commission

    495____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    496____________________________________________________________________

    Lorson, Frank, Chief Deputy Clerk, Supreme Court of the United States, the
    judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Mayer, Haldane Robert, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the
    Fe Questions submitted by

    Biographical sketch

    447____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    438____________________________________________________________________

    Kennedy, Hon. Anthony M., Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United
    States, the judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    394____________________________________________________________________

    Kodiak Community Conservation Network, prepared statement

    570____________________________________________________________________

    Kulik, Bernard, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance, Small
    Business Administration

    367____________________________________________________________________

    Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from New Jersey, questions
    submitted by

    145____________________________________________________________________

    Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., U.S. Senator from Vermont, questions submitted by

    80_____________________________________________________________________

    Levitt, Hon. Arthur, Chairman, Securities and Exchange Commission

    495____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    496____________________________________________________________________

    Lorson, Frank, Chief Deputy Clerk, Supreme Court of the United States, the
    judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Mayer, Haldane Robert, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the
    Fe60435

    Biographical sketch

    447____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    438____________________________________________________________________

    Kennedy, Hon. Anthony M., Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United
    States, the judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    394____________________________________________________________________

    Kodiak Community Conservation Network, prepared statement

    570____________________________________________________________________

    Kulik, Bernard, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance, Small
    Business Administration

    367____________________________________________________________________

    Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from New Jersey, questions
    submitted by

    145____________________________________________________________________

    Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., U.S. Senator from Vermont, questions submitted by

    80_____________________________________________________________________

    Levitt, Hon. Arthur, Chairman, Securities and Exchange Commission

    495____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    496____________________________________________________________________

    Lorson, Frank, Chief Deputy Clerk, Supreme Court of the United States, the
    judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Mayer, Haldane Robert, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the
    Fetatement

    566____________________________________________________________________

    Kennard, Hon. William E., Chairman, Federal Communications Commission

    435____________________________________________________________________

    Biographical sketch

    447____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    438____________________________________________________________________

    Kennedy, Hon. Anthony M., Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United
    States, the judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    394____________________________________________________________________

    Kodiak Community Conservation Network, prepared statement

    570____________________________________________________________________

    Kulik, Bernard, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance, Small
    Business Administration

    367____________________________________________________________________

    Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from New Jersey, questions
    submitted by

    145____________________________________________________________________

    Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., U.S. Senator from Vermont, questions submitted by

    80_____________________________________________________________________

    Levitt, Hon. Arthur, Chairman, Securities and Exchange Commission

    495____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    496____________________________________________________________________

    Lorson, Frank, Chief Deputy Clerk, Supreme Court of the United States, the
    judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Mayer, Haldane Robert, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the
    Fet Company Institute, prepared statement

    571____________________________________________________________________

    Jollivette, Cyrus M., vice president for Government relations, University
    of Miami, prepared statement

    566____________________________________________________________________

    Kennard, Hon. William E., Chairman, Federal Communications Commission

    435____________________________________________________________________

    Biographical sketch

    447____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    438____________________________________________________________________

    Kennedy, Hon. Anthony M., Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United
    States, the judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    394____________________________________________________________________

    Kodiak Community Conservation Network, prepared statement

    570____________________________________________________________________

    Kulik, Bernard, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance, Small
    Business Administration

    367____________________________________________________________________

    Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from New Jersey, questions
    submitted by

    145____________________________________________________________________

    Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., U.S. Senator from Vermont, questions submitted by

    80_____________________________________________________________________

    Levitt, Hon. Arthur, Chairman, Securities and Exchange Commission

    495____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    496____________________________________________________________________

    Lorson, Frank, Chief Deputy Clerk, Supreme Court of the United States, the
    judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Mayer, Haldane Robert, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the
    Fe William E., Chairman, Federal Communications
    Commission

    435____________________________________________________________________

    Biographical sketch

    447____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    438____________________________________________________________________

    Kennedy, Hon. Anthony M., Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United
    States, the judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    394____________________________________________________________________

    Kodiak Community Conservation Network, prepared statement

    570____________________________________________________________________

    Kulik, Bernard, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance, Small
    Business Administration

    367____________________________________________________________________

    Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from New Jersey, questions
    submitted by

    145____________________________________________________________________

    Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., U.S. Senator from Vermont, questions submitted by

    80_____________________________________________________________________

    Levitt, Hon. Arthur, Chairman, Securities and Exchange Commission

    495____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    496____________________________________________________________________

    Lorson, Frank, Chief Deputy Clerk, Supreme Court of the United States, the
    judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Mayer, Haldane Robert, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the
    Feirman, Federal Communications Commission

    435____________________________________________________________________

    Biographical sketch

    447____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    438____________________________________________________________________

    Kennedy, Hon. Anthony M., Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United
    States, the judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    394____________________________________________________________________

    Kodiak Community Conservation Network, prepared statement

    570____________________________________________________________________

    Kulik, Bernard, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance, Small
    Business Administration

    367____________________________________________________________________

    Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from New Jersey, questions
    submitted by

    145____________________________________________________________________

    Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., U.S. Senator from Vermont, questions submitted by

    80_____________________________________________________________________

    Levitt, Hon. Arthur, Chairman, Securities and Exchange Commission

    495____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    496____________________________________________________________________

    Lorson, Frank, Chief Deputy Clerk, Supreme Court of the United States, the
    judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Mayer, Haldane Robert, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the
    Femmission

    435____________________________________________________________________

    Biographical sketch

    447____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    438____________________________________________________________________

    Kennedy, Hon. Anthony M., Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United
    States, the judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    394____________________________________________________________________

    Kodiak Community Conservation Network, prepared statement

    570____________________________________________________________________

    Kulik, Bernard, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance, Small
    Business Administration

    367____________________________________________________________________

    Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from New Jersey, questions
    submitted by

    145____________________________________________________________________

    Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., U.S. Senator from Vermont, questions submitted by

    80_____________________________________________________________________

    Levitt, Hon. Arthur, Chairman, Securities and Exchange Commission

    495____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    496____________________________________________________________________

    Lorson, Frank, Chief Deputy Clerk, Supreme Court of the United States, the
    judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Mayer, Haldane Robert, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the
    Fetatement

    566____________________________________________________________________

    Kennard, Hon. William E., Chairman, Federal Communications Commission

    435____________________________________________________________________

    Biographical sketch

    447____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    438____________________________________________________________________

    Kennedy, Hon. Anthony M., Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United
    States, the judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    394____________________________________________________________________

    Kodiak Community Conservation Network, prepared statement

    570____________________________________________________________________

    Kulik, Bernard, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance, Small
    Business Administration

    367____________________________________________________________________

    Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from New Jersey, questions
    submitted by

    145____________________________________________________________________

    Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., U.S. Senator from Vermont, questions submitted by

    80_____________________________________________________________________

    Levitt, Hon. Arthur, Chairman, Securities and Exchange Commission

    495____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    496____________________________________________________________________

    Lorson, Frank, Chief Deputy Clerk, Supreme Court of the United States, the
    judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Mayer, Haldane Robert, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the
    Fet Company Institute, prepared statement

    571____________________________________________________________________

    Jollivette, Cyrus M., vice president for Government relations, University
    of Miami, prepared statement

    566____________________________________________________________________

    Kennard, Hon. William E., Chairman, Federal Communications Commission

    435____________________________________________________________________

    Biographical sketch

    447____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    438____________________________________________________________________

    Kennedy, Hon. Anthony M., Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United
    States, the judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    394____________________________________________________________________

    Kodiak Community Conservation Network, prepared statement

    570____________________________________________________________________

    Kulik, Bernard, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance, Small
    Business Administration

    367____________________________________________________________________

    Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from New Jersey, questions
    submitted by

    145____________________________________________________________________

    Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., U.S. Senator from Vermont, questions submitted by

    80_____________________________________________________________________

    Levitt, Hon. Arthur, Chairman, Securities and Exchange Commission

    495____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    496____________________________________________________________________

    Lorson, Frank, Chief Deputy Clerk, Supreme Court of the United States, the
    judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Mayer, Haldane Robert, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the
    Feirman, Federal Communications Commission

    435____________________________________________________________________

    Biographical sketch

    447____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    438____________________________________________________________________

    Kennedy, Hon. Anthony M., Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United
    States, the judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    394____________________________________________________________________

    Kodiak Community Conservation Network, prepared statement

    570____________________________________________________________________

    Kulik, Bernard, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance, Small
    Business Administration

    367____________________________________________________________________

    Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from New Jersey, questions
    submitted by

    145____________________________________________________________________

    Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., U.S. Senator from Vermont, questions submitted by

    80_____________________________________________________________________

    Levitt, Hon. Arthur, Chairman, Securities and Exchange Commission

    495____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    496____________________________________________________________________

    Lorson, Frank, Chief Deputy Clerk, Supreme Court of the United States, the
    judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Mayer, Haldane Robert, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the
    Feommunications Commission

    435____________________________________________________________________

    Biographical sketch

    447____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    438____________________________________________________________________

    Kennedy, Hon. Anthony M., Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United
    States, the judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    394____________________________________________________________________

    Kodiak Community Conservation Network, prepared statement

    570____________________________________________________________________

    Kulik, Bernard, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance, Small
    Business Administration

    367____________________________________________________________________

    Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from New Jersey, questions
    submitted by

    145____________________________________________________________________

    Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., U.S. Senator from Vermont, questions submitted by

    80_____________________________________________________________________

    Levitt, Hon. Arthur, Chairman, Securities and Exchange Commission

    495____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    496____________________________________________________________________

    Lorson, Frank, Chief Deputy Clerk, Supreme Court of the United States, the
    judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Mayer, Haldane Robert, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the
    Feirman, Federal Communications Commission

    435____________________________________________________________________

    Biographical sketch

    447____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    438____________________________________________________________________

    Kennedy, Hon. Anthony M., Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United
    States, the judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    394____________________________________________________________________

    Kodiak Community Conservation Network, prepared statement

    570____________________________________________________________________

    Kulik, Bernard, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance, Small
    Business Administration

    367____________________________________________________________________

    Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from New Jersey, questions
    submitted by

    145____________________________________________________________________

    Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., U.S. Senator from Vermont, questions submitted by

    80_____________________________________________________________________

    Levitt, Hon. Arthur, Chairman, Securities and Exchange Commission

    495____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    496____________________________________________________________________

    Lorson, Frank, Chief Deputy Clerk, Supreme Court of the United States, the
    judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Mayer, Haldane Robert, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the
    Fetatement

    566____________________________________________________________________

    Kennard, Hon. William E., Chairman, Federal Communications Commission

    435____________________________________________________________________

    Biographical sketch

    447____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    438____________________________________________________________________

    Kennedy, Hon. Anthony M., Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United
    States, the judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    394____________________________________________________________________

    Kodiak Community Conservation Network, prepared statement

    570____________________________________________________________________

    Kulik, Bernard, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance, Small
    Business Administration

    367____________________________________________________________________

    Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from New Jersey, questions
    submitted by

    145____________________________________________________________________

    Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., U.S. Senator from Vermont, questions submitted by

    80_____________________________________________________________________

    Levitt, Hon. Arthur, Chairman, Securities and Exchange Commission

    495____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    496____________________________________________________________________

    Lorson, Frank, Chief Deputy Clerk, Supreme Court of the United States, the
    judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Mayer, Haldane Robert, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the
    Fet Company Institute, prepared statement

    571____________________________________________________________________

    Jollivette, Cyrus M., vice president for Government relations, University
    of Miami, prepared statement

    566____________________________________________________________________

    Kennard, Hon. William E., Chairman, Federal Communications Commission

    435____________________________________________________________________

    Biographical sketch

    447____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    438____________________________________________________________________

    Kennedy, Hon. Anthony M., Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United
    States, the judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    394____________________________________________________________________

    Kodiak Community Conservation Network, prepared statement

    570____________________________________________________________________

    Kulik, Bernard, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance, Small
    Business Administration

    367____________________________________________________________________

    Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from New Jersey, questions
    submitted by

    145____________________________________________________________________

    Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., U.S. Senator from Vermont, questions submitted by

    80_____________________________________________________________________

    Levitt, Hon. Arthur, Chairman, Securities and Exchange Commission

    495____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    496____________________________________________________________________

    Lorson, Frank, Chief Deputy Clerk, Supreme Court of the United States, the
    judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Mayer, Haldane Robert, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the
    Feirman, Federal Communications Commission

    435____________________________________________________________________

    Biographical sketch

    447____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    438____________________________________________________________________

    Kennedy, Hon. Anthony M., Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United
    States, the judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    394____________________________________________________________________

    Kodiak Community Conservation Network, prepared statement

    570____________________________________________________________________

    Kulik, Bernard, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance, Small
    Business Administration

    367____________________________________________________________________

    Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from New Jersey, questions
    submitted by

    145____________________________________________________________________

    Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., U.S. Senator from Vermont, questions submitted by

    80_____________________________________________________________________

    Levitt, Hon. Arthur, Chairman, Securities and Exchange Commission

    495____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    496____________________________________________________________________

    Lorson, Frank, Chief Deputy Clerk, Supreme Court of the United States, the
    judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Mayer, Haldane Robert, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the
    Feommunications Commission

    435____________________________________________________________________

    Biographical sketch

    447____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    438____________________________________________________________________

    Kennedy, Hon. Anthony M., Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United
    States, the judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    394____________________________________________________________________

    Kodiak Community Conservation Network, prepared statement

    570____________________________________________________________________

    Kulik, Bernard, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance, Small
    Business Administration

    367____________________________________________________________________

    Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from New Jersey, questions
    submitted by

    145____________________________________________________________________

    Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., U.S. Senator from Vermont, questions submitted by

    80_____________________________________________________________________

    Levitt, Hon. Arthur, Chairman, Securities and Exchange Commission

    495____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    496____________________________________________________________________

    Lorson, Frank, Chief Deputy Clerk, Supreme Court of the United States, the
    judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Mayer, Haldane Robert, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the
    FeMDNM/447

    Prepared statement

    438____________________________________________________________________

    Kennedy, Hon. Anthony M., Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United
    States, the judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    394____________________________________________________________________

    Kodiak Community Conservation Network, prepared statement

    570____________________________________________________________________

    Kulik, Bernard, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance, Small
    Business Administration

    367____________________________________________________________________

    Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from New Jersey, questions
    submitted by

    145____________________________________________________________________

    Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., U.S. Senator from Vermont, questions submitted by

    80_____________________________________________________________________

    Levitt, Hon. Arthur, Chairman, Securities and Exchange Commission

    495____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    496____________________________________________________________________

    Lorson, Frank, Chief Deputy Clerk, Supreme Court of the United States, the
    judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Mayer, Haldane Robert, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the
    Fetatement

    566____________________________________________________________________

    Kennard, Hon. William E., Chairman, Federal Communications Commission

    435____________________________________________________________________

    Biographical sketch

    447____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    438____________________________________________________________________

    Kennedy, Hon. Anthony M., Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United
    States, the judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    394____________________________________________________________________

    Kodiak Community Conservation Network, prepared statement

    570____________________________________________________________________

    Kulik, Bernard, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance, Small
    Business Administration

    367____________________________________________________________________

    Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from New Jersey, questions
    submitted by

    145____________________________________________________________________

    Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., U.S. Senator from Vermont, questions submitted by

    80_____________________________________________________________________

    Levitt, Hon. Arthur, Chairman, Securities and Exchange Commission

    495____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    496____________________________________________________________________

    Lorson, Frank, Chief Deputy Clerk, Supreme Court of the United States, the
    judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Mayer, Haldane Robert, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the
    Fet Company Institute, prepared statement

    571____________________________________________________________________

    Jollivette, Cyrus M., vice president for Government relations, University
    of Miami, prepared statement

    566____________________________________________________________________

    Kennard, Hon. William E., Chairman, Federal Communications Commission

    435____________________________________________________________________

    Biographical sketch

    447____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    438____________________________________________________________________

    Kennedy, Hon. Anthony M., Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United
    States, the judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    394____________________________________________________________________

    Kodiak Community Conservation Network, prepared statement

    570____________________________________________________________________

    Kulik, Bernard, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance, Small
    Business Administration

    367____________________________________________________________________

    Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from New Jersey, questions
    submitted by

    145____________________________________________________________________

    Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., U.S. Senator from Vermont, questions submitted by

    80_____________________________________________________________________

    Levitt, Hon. Arthur, Chairman, Securities and Exchange Commission

    495____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    496____________________________________________________________________

    Lorson, Frank, Chief Deputy Clerk, Supreme Court of the United States, the
    judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Mayer, Haldane Robert, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the
    Feirman, Federal Communications Commission

    435____________________________________________________________________

    Biographical sketch

    447____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    438____________________________________________________________________

    Kennedy, Hon. Anthony M., Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United
    States, the judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    394____________________________________________________________________

    Kodiak Community Conservation Network, prepared statement

    570____________________________________________________________________

    Kulik, Bernard, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance, Small
    Business Administration

    367____________________________________________________________________

    Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from New Jersey, questions
    submitted by

    145____________________________________________________________________

    Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., U.S. Senator from Vermont, questions submitted by

    80_____________________________________________________________________

    Levitt, Hon. Arthur, Chairman, Securities and Exchange Commission

    495____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    496____________________________________________________________________

    Lorson, Frank, Chief Deputy Clerk, Supreme Court of the United States, the
    judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Mayer, Haldane Robert, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the
    Fe60435

    Biographical sketch

    447____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    438____________________________________________________________________

    Kennedy, Hon. Anthony M., Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United
    States, the judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    394____________________________________________________________________

    Kodiak Community Conservation Network, prepared statement

    570____________________________________________________________________

    Kulik, Bernard, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance, Small
    Business Administration

    367____________________________________________________________________

    Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from New Jersey, questions
    submitted by

    145____________________________________________________________________

    Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., U.S. Senator from Vermont, questions submitted by

    80_____________________________________________________________________

    Levitt, Hon. Arthur, Chairman, Securities and Exchange Commission

    495____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    496____________________________________________________________________

    Lorson, Frank, Chief Deputy Clerk, Supreme Court of the United States, the
    judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Mayer, Haldane Robert, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the
    FeNM/Kennard, Hon. William E., Chairman, Federal
    Communications Commission

    435____________________________________________________________________

    Biographical sketch

    447____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    438____________________________________________________________________

    Kennedy, Hon. Anthony M., Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United
    States, the judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    394____________________________________________________________________

    Kodiak Community Conservation Network, prepared statement

    570____________________________________________________________________

    Kulik, Bernard, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance, Small
    Business Administration

    367____________________________________________________________________

    Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from New Jersey, questions
    submitted by

    145____________________________________________________________________

    Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., U.S. Senator from Vermont, questions submitted by

    80_____________________________________________________________________

    Levitt, Hon. Arthur, Chairman, Securities and Exchange Commission

    495____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    496____________________________________________________________________

    Lorson, Frank, Chief Deputy Clerk, Supreme Court of the United States, the
    judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Mayer, Haldane Robert, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the
    Fetatement

    566____________________________________________________________________

    Kennard, Hon. William E., Chairman, Federal Communications Commission

    435____________________________________________________________________

    Biographical sketch

    447____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    438____________________________________________________________________

    Kennedy, Hon. Anthony M., Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United
    States, the judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    394____________________________________________________________________

    Kodiak Community Conservation Network, prepared statement

    570____________________________________________________________________

    Kulik, Bernard, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance, Small
    Business Administration

    367____________________________________________________________________

    Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from New Jersey, questions
    submitted by

    145____________________________________________________________________

    Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., U.S. Senator from Vermont, questions submitted by

    80_____________________________________________________________________

    Levitt, Hon. Arthur, Chairman, Securities and Exchange Commission

    495____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    496____________________________________________________________________

    Lorson, Frank, Chief Deputy Clerk, Supreme Court of the United States, the
    judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Mayer, Haldane Robert, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the
    Fet Company Institute, prepared statement

    571____________________________________________________________________

    Jollivette, Cyrus M., vice president for Government relations, University
    of Miami, prepared statement

    566____________________________________________________________________

    Kennard, Hon. William E., Chairman, Federal Communications Commission

    435____________________________________________________________________

    Biographical sketch

    447____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    438____________________________________________________________________

    Kennedy, Hon. Anthony M., Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United
    States, the judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    394____________________________________________________________________

    Kodiak Community Conservation Network, prepared statement

    570____________________________________________________________________

    Kulik, Bernard, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance, Small
    Business Administration

    367____________________________________________________________________

    Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from New Jersey, questions
    submitted by

    145____________________________________________________________________

    Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., U.S. Senator from Vermont, questions submitted by

    80_____________________________________________________________________

    Levitt, Hon. Arthur, Chairman, Securities and Exchange Commission

    495____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    496____________________________________________________________________

    Lorson, Frank, Chief Deputy Clerk, Supreme Court of the United States, the
    judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Mayer, Haldane Robert, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the
    Feommunications Commission

    435____________________________________________________________________

    Biographical sketch

    447____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    438____________________________________________________________________

    Kennedy, Hon. Anthony M., Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United
    States, the judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    394____________________________________________________________________

    Kodiak Community Conservation Network, prepared statement

    570____________________________________________________________________

    Kulik, Bernard, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance, Small
    Business Administration

    367____________________________________________________________________

    Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from New Jersey, questions
    submitted by

    145____________________________________________________________________

    Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., U.S. Senator from Vermont, questions submitted by

    80_____________________________________________________________________

    Levitt, Hon. Arthur, Chairman, Securities and Exchange Commission

    495____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    496____________________________________________________________________

    Lorson, Frank, Chief Deputy Clerk, Supreme Court of the United States, the
    judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Mayer, Haldane Robert, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the
    Fe William E., Chairman, Federal Communications
    Commission

    435____________________________________________________________________

    Biographical sketch

    447____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    438____________________________________________________________________

    Kennedy, Hon. Anthony M., Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United
    States, the judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    394____________________________________________________________________

    Kodiak Community Conservation Network, prepared statement

    570____________________________________________________________________

    Kulik, Bernard, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance, Small
    Business Administration

    367____________________________________________________________________

    Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from New Jersey, questions
    submitted by

    145____________________________________________________________________

    Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., U.S. Senator from Vermont, questions submitted by

    80_____________________________________________________________________

    Levitt, Hon. Arthur, Chairman, Securities and Exchange Commission

    495____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    496____________________________________________________________________

    Lorson, Frank, Chief Deputy Clerk, Supreme Court of the United States, the
    judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Mayer, Haldane Robert, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the
    Fe60435

    Biographical sketch

    447____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    438____________________________________________________________________

    Kennedy, Hon. Anthony M., Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United
    States, the judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    394____________________________________________________________________

    Kodiak Community Conservation Network, prepared statement

    570____________________________________________________________________

    Kulik, Bernard, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance, Small
    Business Administration

    367____________________________________________________________________

    Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from New Jersey, questions
    submitted by

    145____________________________________________________________________

    Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., U.S. Senator from Vermont, questions submitted by

    80_____________________________________________________________________

    Levitt, Hon. Arthur, Chairman, Securities and Exchange Commission

    495____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    496____________________________________________________________________

    Lorson, Frank, Chief Deputy Clerk, Supreme Court of the United States, the
    judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Mayer, Haldane Robert, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the
    Fetatement

    566____________________________________________________________________

    Kennard, Hon. William E., Chairman, Federal Communications Commission

    435____________________________________________________________________

    Biographical sketch

    447____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    438____________________________________________________________________

    Kennedy, Hon. Anthony M., Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United
    States, the judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    394____________________________________________________________________

    Kodiak Community Conservation Network, prepared statement

    570____________________________________________________________________

    Kulik, Bernard, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance, Small
    Business Administration

    367____________________________________________________________________

    Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from New Jersey, questions
    submitted by

    145____________________________________________________________________

    Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., U.S. Senator from Vermont, questions submitted by

    80_____________________________________________________________________

    Levitt, Hon. Arthur, Chairman, Securities and Exchange Commission

    495____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    496____________________________________________________________________

    Lorson, Frank, Chief Deputy Clerk, Supreme Court of the United States, the
    judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Mayer, Haldane Robert, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the
    Fet Company Institute, prepared statement

    571____________________________________________________________________

    Jollivette, Cyrus M., vice president for Government relations, University
    of Miami, prepared statement

    566____________________________________________________________________

    Kennard, Hon. William E., Chairman, Federal Communications Commission

    435____________________________________________________________________

    Biographical sketch

    447____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    438____________________________________________________________________

    Kennedy, Hon. Anthony M., Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United
    States, the judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    394____________________________________________________________________

    Kodiak Community Conservation Network, prepared statement

    570____________________________________________________________________

    Kulik, Bernard, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance, Small
    Business Administration

    367____________________________________________________________________

    Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from New Jersey, questions
    submitted by

    145____________________________________________________________________

    Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., U.S. Senator from Vermont, questions submitted by

    80_____________________________________________________________________

    Levitt, Hon. Arthur, Chairman, Securities and Exchange Commission

    495____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    496____________________________________________________________________

    Lorson, Frank, Chief Deputy Clerk, Supreme Court of the United States, the
    judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Mayer, Haldane Robert, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the
    Femmission

    435____________________________________________________________________

    Biographical sketch

    447____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    438____________________________________________________________________

    Kennedy, Hon. Anthony M., Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United
    States, the judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    394____________________________________________________________________

    Kodiak Community Conservation Network, prepared statement

    570____________________________________________________________________

    Kulik, Bernard, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance, Small
    Business Administration

    367____________________________________________________________________

    Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from New Jersey, questions
    submitted by

    145____________________________________________________________________

    Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., U.S. Senator from Vermont, questions submitted by

    80_____________________________________________________________________

    Levitt, Hon. Arthur, Chairman, Securities and Exchange Commission

    495____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    496____________________________________________________________________

    Lorson, Frank, Chief Deputy Clerk, Supreme Court of the United States, the
    judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Mayer, Haldane Robert, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the
    Fe

    Biographical sketch

    447____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    438____________________________________________________________________

    Kennedy, Hon. Anthony M., Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United
    States, the judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    394____________________________________________________________________

    Kodiak Community Conservation Network, prepared statement

    570____________________________________________________________________

    Kulik, Bernard, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance, Small
    Business Administration

    367____________________________________________________________________

    Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from New Jersey, questions
    submitted by

    145____________________________________________________________________

    Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., U.S. Senator from Vermont, questions submitted by

    80_____________________________________________________________________

    Levitt, Hon. Arthur, Chairman, Securities and Exchange Commission

    495____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    496____________________________________________________________________

    Lorson, Frank, Chief Deputy Clerk, Supreme Court of the United States, the
    judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Mayer, Haldane Robert, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the
    FeMDNM/447

    Prepared statement

    438____________________________________________________________________

    Kennedy, Hon. Anthony M., Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United
    States, the judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    394____________________________________________________________________

    Kodiak Community Conservation Network, prepared statement

    570____________________________________________________________________

    Kulik, Bernard, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance, Small
    Business Administration

    367____________________________________________________________________

    Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from New Jersey, questions
    submitted by

    145____________________________________________________________________

    Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., U.S. Senator from Vermont, questions submitted by

    80_____________________________________________________________________

    Levitt, Hon. Arthur, Chairman, Securities and Exchange Commission

    495____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    496____________________________________________________________________

    Lorson, Frank, Chief Deputy Clerk, Supreme Court of the United States, the
    judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Mayer, Haldane Robert, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the
    FeCape Arago Audubon Society Coos Bay, prepared statements 60435

    Biographical sketch

    447____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    438____________________________________________________________________

    Kennedy, Hon. Anthony M., Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United
    States, the judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    394____________________________________________________________________

    Kodiak Community Conservation Network, prepared statement

    570____________________________________________________________________

    Kulik, Bernard, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance, Small
    Business Administration

    367____________________________________________________________________

    Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from New Jersey, questions
    submitted by

    145____________________________________________________________________

    Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., U.S. Senator from Vermont, questions submitted by

    80_____________________________________________________________________

    Levitt, Hon. Arthur, Chairman, Securities and Exchange Commission

    495____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    496____________________________________________________________________

    Lorson, Frank, Chief Deputy Clerk, Supreme Court of the United States, the
    judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Mayer, Haldane Robert, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the
    Fe

    Biographical sketch

    447____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    438____________________________________________________________________

    Kennedy, Hon. Anthony M., Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United
    States, the judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    394____________________________________________________________________

    Kodiak Community Conservation Network, prepared statement

    570____________________________________________________________________

    Kulik, Bernard, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance, Small
    Business Administration

    367____________________________________________________________________

    Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from New Jersey, questions
    submitted by

    145____________________________________________________________________

    Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., U.S. Senator from Vermont, questions submitted by

    80_____________________________________________________________________

    Levitt, Hon. Arthur, Chairman, Securities and Exchange Commission

    495____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    496____________________________________________________________________

    Lorson, Frank, Chief Deputy Clerk, Supreme Court of the United States, the
    judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Mayer, Haldane Robert, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the
    Feketch

    447____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    438____________________________________________________________________

    Kennedy, Hon. Anthony M., Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United
    States, the judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    394____________________________________________________________________

    Kodiak Community Conservation Network, prepared statement

    570____________________________________________________________________

    Kulik, Bernard, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance, Small
    Business Administration

    367____________________________________________________________________

    Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from New Jersey, questions
    submitted by

    145____________________________________________________________________

    Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., U.S. Senator from Vermont, questions submitted by

    80_____________________________________________________________________

    Levitt, Hon. Arthur, Chairman, Securities and Exchange Commission

    495____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    496____________________________________________________________________

    Lorson, Frank, Chief Deputy Clerk, Supreme Court of the United States, the
    judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Mayer, Haldane Robert, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the
    Fetatement

    566____________________________________________________________________

    Kennard, Hon. William E., Chairman, Federal Communications Commission

    435____________________________________________________________________

    Biographical sketch

    447____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    438____________________________________________________________________

    Kennedy, Hon. Anthony M., Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United
    States, the judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    394____________________________________________________________________

    Kodiak Community Conservation Network, prepared statement

    570____________________________________________________________________

    Kulik, Bernard, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance, Small
    Business Administration

    367____________________________________________________________________

    Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from New Jersey, questions
    submitted by

    145____________________________________________________________________

    Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., U.S. Senator from Vermont, questions submitted by

    80_____________________________________________________________________

    Levitt, Hon. Arthur, Chairman, Securities and Exchange Commission

    495____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    496____________________________________________________________________

    Lorson, Frank, Chief Deputy Clerk, Supreme Court of the United States, the
    judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Mayer, Haldane Robert, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the
    Fet Company Institute, prepared statement

    571____________________________________________________________________

    Jollivette, Cyrus M., vice president for Government relations, University
    of Miami, prepared statement

    566____________________________________________________________________

    Kennard, Hon. William E., Chairman, Federal Communications Commission

    435____________________________________________________________________

    Biographical sketch

    447____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    438____________________________________________________________________

    Kennedy, Hon. Anthony M., Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United
    States, the judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    394____________________________________________________________________

    Kodiak Community Conservation Network, prepared statement

    570____________________________________________________________________

    Kulik, Bernard, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance, Small
    Business Administration

    367____________________________________________________________________

    Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from New Jersey, questions
    submitted by

    145____________________________________________________________________

    Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., U.S. Senator from Vermont, questions submitted by

    80_____________________________________________________________________

    Levitt, Hon. Arthur, Chairman, Securities and Exchange Commission

    495____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    496____________________________________________________________________

    Lorson, Frank, Chief Deputy Clerk, Supreme Court of the United States, the
    judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Mayer, Haldane Robert, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the
    Fe60435

    Biographical sketch

    447____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    438____________________________________________________________________

    Kennedy, Hon. Anthony M., Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United
    States, the judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    394____________________________________________________________________

    Kodiak Community Conservation Network, prepared statement

    570____________________________________________________________________

    Kulik, Bernard, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance, Small
    Business Administration

    367____________________________________________________________________

    Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from New Jersey, questions
    submitted by

    145____________________________________________________________________

    Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., U.S. Senator from Vermont, questions submitted by

    80_____________________________________________________________________

    Levitt, Hon. Arthur, Chairman, Securities and Exchange Commission

    495____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    496____________________________________________________________________

    Lorson, Frank, Chief Deputy Clerk, Supreme Court of the United States, the
    judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Mayer, Haldane Robert, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the
    FeM/Biographical sketch

    447____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    438____________________________________________________________________

    Kennedy, Hon. Anthony M., Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United
    States, the judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    394____________________________________________________________________

    Kodiak Community Conservation Network, prepared statement

    570____________________________________________________________________

    Kulik, Bernard, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance, Small
    Business Administration

    367____________________________________________________________________

    Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from New Jersey, questions
    submitted by

    145____________________________________________________________________

    Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., U.S. Senator from Vermont, questions submitted by

    80_____________________________________________________________________

    Levitt, Hon. Arthur, Chairman, Securities and Exchange Commission

    495____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    496____________________________________________________________________

    Lorson, Frank, Chief Deputy Clerk, Supreme Court of the United States, the
    judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Mayer, Haldane Robert, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the
    FeNM/Kennard, Hon. William E., Chairman, Federal
    Communications Commission

    435____________________________________________________________________

    Biographical sketch

    447____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    438____________________________________________________________________

    Kennedy, Hon. Anthony M., Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United
    States, the judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    394____________________________________________________________________

    Kodiak Community Conservation Network, prepared statement

    570____________________________________________________________________

    Kulik, Bernard, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance, Small
    Business Administration

    367____________________________________________________________________

    Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from New Jersey, questions
    submitted by

    145____________________________________________________________________

    Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., U.S. Senator from Vermont, questions submitted by

    80_____________________________________________________________________

    Levitt, Hon. Arthur, Chairman, Securities and Exchange Commission

    495____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    496____________________________________________________________________

    Lorson, Frank, Chief Deputy Clerk, Supreme Court of the United States, the
    judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Mayer, Haldane Robert, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the
    FeCarman, Gregory W., Chief Judge, U.S. Court of International
    Trade, U.S. courts, the judiciary, prepared statement.......... 420Center
    for Marine Conservation, prepared statements 60435

    Biographical sketch

    447____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    438____________________________________________________________________

    Kennedy, Hon. Anthony M., Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United
    States, the judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    394____________________________________________________________________

    Kodiak Community Conservation Network, prepared statement

    570____________________________________________________________________

    Kulik, Bernard, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance, Small
    Business Administration

    367____________________________________________________________________

    Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from New Jersey, questions
    submitted by

    145____________________________________________________________________

    Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., U.S. Senator from Vermont, questions submitted by

    80_____________________________________________________________________

    Levitt, Hon. Arthur, Chairman, Securities and Exchange Commission

    495____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    496____________________________________________________________________

    Lorson, Frank, Chief Deputy Clerk, Supreme Court of the United States, the
    judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Mayer, Haldane Robert, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the
    Fe60435

    Biographical sketch

    447____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    438____________________________________________________________________

    Kennedy, Hon. Anthony M., Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United
    States, the judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    394____________________________________________________________________

    Kodiak Community Conservation Network, prepared statement

    570____________________________________________________________________

    Kulik, Bernard, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance, Small
    Business Administration

    367____________________________________________________________________

    Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from New Jersey, questions
    submitted by

    145____________________________________________________________________

    Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., U.S. Senator from Vermont, questions submitted by

    80_____________________________________________________________________

    Levitt, Hon. Arthur, Chairman, Securities and Exchange Commission

    495____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    496____________________________________________________________________

    Lorson, Frank, Chief Deputy Clerk, Supreme Court of the United States, the
    judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Mayer, Haldane Robert, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the
    FeNM/Kennard, Hon. William E., Chairman, Federal
    Communications Commission

    435____________________________________________________________________

    Biographical sketch

    447____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    438____________________________________________________________________

    Kennedy, Hon. Anthony M., Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United
    States, the judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    394____________________________________________________________________

    Kodiak Community Conservation Network, prepared statement

    570____________________________________________________________________

    Kulik, Bernard, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance, Small
    Business Administration

    367____________________________________________________________________

    Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from New Jersey, questions
    submitted by

    145____________________________________________________________________

    Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., U.S. Senator from Vermont, questions submitted by

    80_____________________________________________________________________

    Levitt, Hon. Arthur, Chairman, Securities and Exchange Commission

    495____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    496____________________________________________________________________

    Lorson, Frank, Chief Deputy Clerk, Supreme Court of the United States, the
    judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Mayer, Haldane Robert, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the
    Fetatement

    566____________________________________________________________________

    Kennard, Hon. William E., Chairman, Federal Communications Commission

    435____________________________________________________________________

    Biographical sketch

    447____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    438____________________________________________________________________

    Kennedy, Hon. Anthony M., Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United
    States, the judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    394____________________________________________________________________

    Kodiak Community Conservation Network, prepared statement

    570____________________________________________________________________

    Kulik, Bernard, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance, Small
    Business Administration

    367____________________________________________________________________

    Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from New Jersey, questions
    submitted by

    145____________________________________________________________________

    Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., U.S. Senator from Vermont, questions submitted by

    80_____________________________________________________________________

    Levitt, Hon. Arthur, Chairman, Securities and Exchange Commission

    495____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    496____________________________________________________________________

    Lorson, Frank, Chief Deputy Clerk, Supreme Court of the United States, the
    judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Mayer, Haldane Robert, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the
    Fet Company Institute, prepared statement

    571____________________________________________________________________

    Jollivette, Cyrus M., vice president for Government relations, University
    of Miami, prepared statement

    566____________________________________________________________________

    Kennard, Hon. William E., Chairman, Federal Communications Commission

    435____________________________________________________________________

    Biographical sketch

    447____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    438____________________________________________________________________

    Kennedy, Hon. Anthony M., Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United
    States, the judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    394____________________________________________________________________

    Kodiak Community Conservation Network, prepared statement

    570____________________________________________________________________

    Kulik, Bernard, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance, Small
    Business Administration

    367____________________________________________________________________

    Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from New Jersey, questions
    submitted by

    145____________________________________________________________________

    Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., U.S. Senator from Vermont, questions submitted by

    80_____________________________________________________________________

    Levitt, Hon. Arthur, Chairman, Securities and Exchange Commission

    495____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    496____________________________________________________________________

    Lorson, Frank, Chief Deputy Clerk, Supreme Court of the United States, the
    judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Mayer, Haldane Robert, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the
    Fe60435

    Biographical sketch

    447____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    438____________________________________________________________________

    Kennedy, Hon. Anthony M., Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United
    States, the judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    394____________________________________________________________________

    Kodiak Community Conservation Network, prepared statement

    570____________________________________________________________________

    Kulik, Bernard, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance, Small
    Business Administration

    367____________________________________________________________________

    Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from New Jersey, questions
    submitted by

    145____________________________________________________________________

    Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., U.S. Senator from Vermont, questions submitted by

    80_____________________________________________________________________

    Levitt, Hon. Arthur, Chairman, Securities and Exchange Commission

    495____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    496____________________________________________________________________

    Lorson, Frank, Chief Deputy Clerk, Supreme Court of the United States, the
    judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Mayer, Haldane Robert, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the
    FeM/Biographical sketch

    447____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    438____________________________________________________________________

    Kennedy, Hon. Anthony M., Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United
    States, the judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    394____________________________________________________________________

    Kodiak Community Conservation Network, prepared statement

    570____________________________________________________________________

    Kulik, Bernard, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance, Small
    Business Administration

    367____________________________________________________________________

    Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from New Jersey, questions
    submitted by

    145____________________________________________________________________

    Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., U.S. Senator from Vermont, questions submitted by

    80_____________________________________________________________________

    Levitt, Hon. Arthur, Chairman, Securities and Exchange Commission

    495____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    496____________________________________________________________________

    Lorson, Frank, Chief Deputy Clerk, Supreme Court of the United States, the
    judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Mayer, Haldane Robert, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the
    FeNM/Kennard, Hon. William E., Chairman, Federal
    Communications Commission

    435____________________________________________________________________

    Biographical sketch

    447____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    438____________________________________________________________________

    Kennedy, Hon. Anthony M., Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United
    States, the judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    394____________________________________________________________________

    Kodiak Community Conservation Network, prepared statement

    570____________________________________________________________________

    Kulik, Bernard, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance, Small
    Business Administration

    367____________________________________________________________________

    Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from New Jersey, questions
    submitted by

    145____________________________________________________________________

    Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., U.S. Senator from Vermont, questions submitted by

    80_____________________________________________________________________

    Levitt, Hon. Arthur, Chairman, Securities and Exchange Commission

    495____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    496____________________________________________________________________

    Lorson, Frank, Chief Deputy Clerk, Supreme Court of the United States, the
    judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Mayer, Haldane Robert, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the
    FeCoast Alliance, prepared statement...............................
    554Coastal Research and Education, Inc., prepared statement.........
    570Coastal Waters Project, prepared statement.......................
    568Colgate, Stephen R., Assistant Attorney General for Administration,
    Office of the Attorney General, Department of
    Justice........................................................
    1Conservation Law Foundation, prepared statement..................
    570Constantine, Thomas A., Administrator, Drug Enforcement Administration,
    Department of Justice.......................... 151 Prepared
    statement........................................... 155Curtis, Adrian A.,
    Director, Budget Staff, Office of the Attorney General, Department of
    Justice................................. 1Daley, William M., Secretary of
    Commerce, Office of the Secretary, Department of
    Commerce.............................. 261 Prepared
    statement........................................... 265Defenders of
    Wildlife, prepared statement........................ 570Delaney, Hon. Bruce
    L., mayor-commissioner, Gainesville, FL, prepared statements 60435

    Biographical sketch

    447____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    438____________________________________________________________________

    Kennedy, Hon. Anthony M., Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United
    States, the judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    394____________________________________________________________________

    Kodiak Community Conservation Network, prepared statement

    570____________________________________________________________________

    Kulik, Bernard, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance, Small
    Business Administration

    367____________________________________________________________________

    Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from New Jersey, questions
    submitted by

    145____________________________________________________________________

    Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., U.S. Senator from Vermont, questions submitted by

    80_____________________________________________________________________

    Levitt, Hon. Arthur, Chairman, Securities and Exchange Commission

    495____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    496____________________________________________________________________

    Lorson, Frank, Chief Deputy Clerk, Supreme Court of the United States, the
    judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Mayer, Haldane Robert, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the
    FeNM/Kennard, Hon. William E., Chairman, Federal
    Communications Commission

    435____________________________________________________________________

    Biographical sketch

    447____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    438____________________________________________________________________

    Kennedy, Hon. Anthony M., Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United
    States, the judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    394____________________________________________________________________

    Kodiak Community Conservation Network, prepared statement

    570____________________________________________________________________

    Kulik, Bernard, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance, Small
    Business Administration

    367____________________________________________________________________

    Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from New Jersey, questions
    submitted by

    145____________________________________________________________________

    Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., U.S. Senator from Vermont, questions submitted by

    80_____________________________________________________________________

    Levitt, Hon. Arthur, Chairman, Securities and Exchange Commission

    495____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    496____________________________________________________________________

    Lorson, Frank, Chief Deputy Clerk, Supreme Court of the United States, the
    judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Mayer, Haldane Robert, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the
    Feketch

    447____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    438____________________________________________________________________

    Kennedy, Hon. Anthony M., Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United
    States, the judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    394____________________________________________________________________

    Kodiak Community Conservation Network, prepared statement

    570____________________________________________________________________

    Kulik, Bernard, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance, Small
    Business Administration

    367____________________________________________________________________

    Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from New Jersey, questions
    submitted by

    145____________________________________________________________________

    Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., U.S. Senator from Vermont, questions submitted by

    80_____________________________________________________________________

    Levitt, Hon. Arthur, Chairman, Securities and Exchange Commission

    495____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    496____________________________________________________________________

    Lorson, Frank, Chief Deputy Clerk, Supreme Court of the United States, the
    judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Mayer, Haldane Robert, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the
    Fetatement

    566____________________________________________________________________

    Kennard, Hon. William E., Chairman, Federal Communications Commission

    435____________________________________________________________________

    Biographical sketch

    447____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    438____________________________________________________________________

    Kennedy, Hon. Anthony M., Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United
    States, the judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    394____________________________________________________________________

    Kodiak Community Conservation Network, prepared statement

    570____________________________________________________________________

    Kulik, Bernard, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance, Small
    Business Administration

    367____________________________________________________________________

    Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from New Jersey, questions
    submitted by

    145____________________________________________________________________

    Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., U.S. Senator from Vermont, questions submitted by

    80_____________________________________________________________________

    Levitt, Hon. Arthur, Chairman, Securities and Exchange Commission

    495____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    496____________________________________________________________________

    Lorson, Frank, Chief Deputy Clerk, Supreme Court of the United States, the
    judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Mayer, Haldane Robert, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the
    Fet Company Institute, prepared statement

    571____________________________________________________________________

    Jollivette, Cyrus M., vice president for Government relations, University
    of Miami, prepared statement

    566____________________________________________________________________

    Kennard, Hon. William E., Chairman, Federal Communications Commission

    435____________________________________________________________________

    Biographical sketch

    447____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    438____________________________________________________________________

    Kennedy, Hon. Anthony M., Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United
    States, the judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    394____________________________________________________________________

    Kodiak Community Conservation Network, prepared statement

    570____________________________________________________________________

    Kulik, Bernard, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance, Small
    Business Administration

    367____________________________________________________________________

    Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from New Jersey, questions
    submitted by

    145____________________________________________________________________

    Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., U.S. Senator from Vermont, questions submitted by

    80_____________________________________________________________________

    Levitt, Hon. Arthur, Chairman, Securities and Exchange Commission

    495____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    496____________________________________________________________________

    Lorson, Frank, Chief Deputy Clerk, Supreme Court of the United States, the
    judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Mayer, Haldane Robert, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the
    Fe60435

    Biographical sketch

    447____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    438____________________________________________________________________

    Kennedy, Hon. Anthony M., Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United
    States, the judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    394____________________________________________________________________

    Kodiak Community Conservation Network, prepared statement

    570____________________________________________________________________

    Kulik, Bernard, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance, Small
    Business Administration

    367____________________________________________________________________

    Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from New Jersey, questions
    submitted by

    145____________________________________________________________________

    Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., U.S. Senator from Vermont, questions submitted by

    80_____________________________________________________________________

    Levitt, Hon. Arthur, Chairman, Securities and Exchange Commission

    495____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    496____________________________________________________________________

    Lorson, Frank, Chief Deputy Clerk, Supreme Court of the United States, the
    judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Mayer, Haldane Robert, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the
    Fe William E., Chairman, Federal Communications
    Commission

    435____________________________________________________________________

    Biographical sketch

    447____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    438____________________________________________________________________

    Kennedy, Hon. Anthony M., Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United
    States, the judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    394____________________________________________________________________

    Kodiak Community Conservation Network, prepared statement

    570____________________________________________________________________

    Kulik, Bernard, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance, Small
    Business Administration

    367____________________________________________________________________

    Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from New Jersey, questions
    submitted by

    145____________________________________________________________________

    Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., U.S. Senator from Vermont, questions submitted by

    80_____________________________________________________________________

    Levitt, Hon. Arthur, Chairman, Securities and Exchange Commission

    495____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    496____________________________________________________________________

    Lorson, Frank, Chief Deputy Clerk, Supreme Court of the United States, the
    judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Mayer, Haldane Robert, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the
    Fe William E., Chairman, Federal Communications Commission

    435____________________________________________________________________

    Biographical sketch

    447____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    438____________________________________________________________________

    Kennedy, Hon. Anthony M., Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United
    States, the judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    394____________________________________________________________________

    Kodiak Community Conservation Network, prepared statement

    570____________________________________________________________________

    Kulik, Bernard, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance, Small
    Business Administration

    367____________________________________________________________________

    Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from New Jersey, questions
    submitted by

    145____________________________________________________________________

    Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., U.S. Senator from Vermont, questions submitted by

    80_____________________________________________________________________

    Levitt, Hon. Arthur, Chairman, Securities and Exchange Commission

    495____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    496____________________________________________________________________

    Lorson, Frank, Chief Deputy Clerk, Supreme Court of the United States, the
    judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Mayer, Haldane Robert, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the
    FeDodson, Doreen, chair, Standing Committee on Legal Aid and
    Indigent Defendants, American Bar Association, prepared
    statement......................................................
    578Domenici, Hon. Pete V., U.S. Senator from New Mexico, questions
    submitted by mmission

    435____________________________________________________________________

    Biographical sketch

    447____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    438____________________________________________________________________

    Kennedy, Hon. Anthony M., Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United
    States, the judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    394____________________________________________________________________

    Kodiak Community Conservation Network, prepared statement

    570____________________________________________________________________

    Kulik, Bernard, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance, Small
    Business Administration

    367____________________________________________________________________

    Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from New Jersey, questions
    submitted by

    145____________________________________________________________________

    Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., U.S. Senator from Vermont, questions submitted by

    80_____________________________________________________________________

    Levitt, Hon. Arthur, Chairman, Securities and Exchange Commission

    495____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    496____________________________________________________________________

    Lorson, Frank, Chief Deputy Clerk, Supreme Court of the United States, the
    judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Mayer, Haldane Robert, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the
    Fe

    Biographical sketch

    447____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    438____________________________________________________________________

    Kennedy, Hon. Anthony M., Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United
    States, the judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    394____________________________________________________________________

    Kodiak Community Conservation Network, prepared statement

    570____________________________________________________________________

    Kulik, Bernard, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance, Small
    Business Administration

    367____________________________________________________________________

    Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from New Jersey, questions
    submitted by

    145____________________________________________________________________

    Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., U.S. Senator from Vermont, questions submitted by

    80_____________________________________________________________________

    Levitt, Hon. Arthur, Chairman, Securities and Exchange Commission

    495____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    496____________________________________________________________________

    Lorson, Frank, Chief Deputy Clerk, Supreme Court of the United States, the
    judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Mayer, Haldane Robert, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the
    Fetatement

    566____________________________________________________________________

    Kennard, Hon. William E., Chairman, Federal Communications Commission

    435____________________________________________________________________

    Biographical sketch

    447____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    438____________________________________________________________________

    Kennedy, Hon. Anthony M., Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United
    States, the judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    394____________________________________________________________________

    Kodiak Community Conservation Network, prepared statement

    570____________________________________________________________________

    Kulik, Bernard, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance, Small
    Business Administration

    367____________________________________________________________________

    Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from New Jersey, questions
    submitted by

    145____________________________________________________________________

    Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., U.S. Senator from Vermont, questions submitted by

    80_____________________________________________________________________

    Levitt, Hon. Arthur, Chairman, Securities and Exchange Commission

    495____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    496____________________________________________________________________

    Lorson, Frank, Chief Deputy Clerk, Supreme Court of the United States, the
    judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Mayer, Haldane Robert, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the
    Fet Company Institute, prepared statement

    571____________________________________________________________________

    Jollivette, Cyrus M., vice president for Government relations, University
    of Miami, prepared statement

    566____________________________________________________________________

    Kennard, Hon. William E., Chairman, Federal Communications Commission

    435____________________________________________________________________

    Biographical sketch

    447____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    438____________________________________________________________________

    Kennedy, Hon. Anthony M., Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United
    States, the judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    394____________________________________________________________________

    Kodiak Community Conservation Network, prepared statement

    570____________________________________________________________________

    Kulik, Bernard, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance, Small
    Business Administration

    367____________________________________________________________________

    Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from New Jersey, questions
    submitted by

    145____________________________________________________________________

    Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., U.S. Senator from Vermont, questions submitted by

    80_____________________________________________________________________

    Levitt, Hon. Arthur, Chairman, Securities and Exchange Commission

    495____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    496____________________________________________________________________

    Lorson, Frank, Chief Deputy Clerk, Supreme Court of the United States, the
    judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Mayer, Haldane Robert, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the
    Fe William E., Chairman, Federal Communications
    Commission

    435____________________________________________________________________

    Biographical sketch

    447____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    438____________________________________________________________________

    Kennedy, Hon. Anthony M., Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United
    States, the judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    394____________________________________________________________________

    Kodiak Community Conservation Network, prepared statement

    570____________________________________________________________________

    Kulik, Bernard, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance, Small
    Business Administration

    367____________________________________________________________________

    Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from New Jersey, questions
    submitted by

    145____________________________________________________________________

    Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., U.S. Senator from Vermont, questions submitted by

    80_____________________________________________________________________

    Levitt, Hon. Arthur, Chairman, Securities and Exchange Commission

    495____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    496____________________________________________________________________

    Lorson, Frank, Chief Deputy Clerk, Supreme Court of the United States, the
    judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Mayer, Haldane Robert, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the
    Feirman, Federal Communications Commission

    435____________________________________________________________________

    Biographical sketch

    447____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    438____________________________________________________________________

    Kennedy, Hon. Anthony M., Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United
    States, the judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    394____________________________________________________________________

    Kodiak Community Conservation Network, prepared statement

    570____________________________________________________________________

    Kulik, Bernard, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance, Small
    Business Administration

    367____________________________________________________________________

    Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from New Jersey, questions
    submitted by

    145____________________________________________________________________

    Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., U.S. Senator from Vermont, questions submitted by

    80_____________________________________________________________________

    Levitt, Hon. Arthur, Chairman, Securities and Exchange Commission

    495____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    496____________________________________________________________________

    Lorson, Frank, Chief Deputy Clerk, Supreme Court of the United States, the
    judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Mayer, Haldane Robert, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the
    FeNM/Kennard, Hon. William E., Chairman, Federal
    Communications Commission

    435____________________________________________________________________

    Biographical sketch

    447____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    438____________________________________________________________________

    Kennedy, Hon. Anthony M., Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United
    States, the judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    394____________________________________________________________________

    Kodiak Community Conservation Network, prepared statement

    570____________________________________________________________________

    Kulik, Bernard, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance, Small
    Business Administration

    367____________________________________________________________________

    Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from New Jersey, questions
    submitted by

    145____________________________________________________________________

    Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., U.S. Senator from Vermont, questions submitted by

    80_____________________________________________________________________

    Levitt, Hon. Arthur, Chairman, Securities and Exchange Commission

    495____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    496____________________________________________________________________

    Lorson, Frank, Chief Deputy Clerk, Supreme Court of the United States, the
    judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Mayer, Haldane Robert, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the
    Fetatement

    566____________________________________________________________________

    Kennard, Hon. William E., Chairman, Federal Communications Commission

    435____________________________________________________________________

    Biographical sketch

    447____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    438____________________________________________________________________

    Kennedy, Hon. Anthony M., Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United
    States, the judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    394____________________________________________________________________

    Kodiak Community Conservation Network, prepared statement

    570____________________________________________________________________

    Kulik, Bernard, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance, Small
    Business Administration

    367____________________________________________________________________

    Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from New Jersey, questions
    submitted by

    145____________________________________________________________________

    Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., U.S. Senator from Vermont, questions submitted by

    80_____________________________________________________________________

    Levitt, Hon. Arthur, Chairman, Securities and Exchange Commission

    495____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    496____________________________________________________________________

    Lorson, Frank, Chief Deputy Clerk, Supreme Court of the United States, the
    judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Mayer, Haldane Robert, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the
    Fet Company Institute, prepared statement

    571____________________________________________________________________

    Jollivette, Cyrus M., vice president for Government relations, University
    of Miami, prepared statement

    566____________________________________________________________________

    Kennard, Hon. William E., Chairman, Federal Communications Commission

    435____________________________________________________________________

    Biographical sketch

    447____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    438____________________________________________________________________

    Kennedy, Hon. Anthony M., Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United
    States, the judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    394____________________________________________________________________

    Kodiak Community Conservation Network, prepared statement

    570____________________________________________________________________

    Kulik, Bernard, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance, Small
    Business Administration

    367____________________________________________________________________

    Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from New Jersey, questions
    submitted by

    145____________________________________________________________________

    Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., U.S. Senator from Vermont, questions submitted by

    80_____________________________________________________________________

    Levitt, Hon. Arthur, Chairman, Securities and Exchange Commission

    495____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    496____________________________________________________________________

    Lorson, Frank, Chief Deputy Clerk, Supreme Court of the United States, the
    judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Mayer, Haldane Robert, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the
    Feirman, Federal Communications Commission

    435____________________________________________________________________

    Biographical sketch

    447____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    438____________________________________________________________________

    Kennedy, Hon. Anthony M., Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United
    States, the judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    394____________________________________________________________________

    Kodiak Community Conservation Network, prepared statement

    570____________________________________________________________________

    Kulik, Bernard, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance, Small
    Business Administration

    367____________________________________________________________________

    Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from New Jersey, questions
    submitted by

    145____________________________________________________________________

    Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., U.S. Senator from Vermont, questions submitted by

    80_____________________________________________________________________

    Levitt, Hon. Arthur, Chairman, Securities and Exchange Commission

    495____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    496____________________________________________________________________

    Lorson, Frank, Chief Deputy Clerk, Supreme Court of the United States, the
    judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Mayer, Haldane Robert, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the
    Feirman, Federal Communications Commission

    435____________________________________________________________________

    Biographical sketch

    447____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    438____________________________________________________________________

    Kennedy, Hon. Anthony M., Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United
    States, the judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    394____________________________________________________________________

    Kodiak Community Conservation Network, prepared statement

    570____________________________________________________________________

    Kulik, Bernard, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance, Small
    Business Administration

    367____________________________________________________________________

    Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from New Jersey, questions
    submitted by

    145____________________________________________________________________

    Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., U.S. Senator from Vermont, questions submitted by

    80_____________________________________________________________________

    Levitt, Hon. Arthur, Chairman, Securities and Exchange Commission

    495____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    496____________________________________________________________________

    Lorson, Frank, Chief Deputy Clerk, Supreme Court of the United States, the
    judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Mayer, Haldane Robert, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the
    FeMDNM/447

    Prepared statement

    438____________________________________________________________________

    Kennedy, Hon. Anthony M., Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United
    States, the judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    394____________________________________________________________________

    Kodiak Community Conservation Network, prepared statement

    570____________________________________________________________________

    Kulik, Bernard, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance, Small
    Business Administration

    367____________________________________________________________________

    Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from New Jersey, questions
    submitted by

    145____________________________________________________________________

    Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., U.S. Senator from Vermont, questions submitted by

    80_____________________________________________________________________

    Levitt, Hon. Arthur, Chairman, Securities and Exchange Commission

    495____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    496____________________________________________________________________

    Lorson, Frank, Chief Deputy Clerk, Supreme Court of the United States, the
    judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Mayer, Haldane Robert, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the
    Fetatement

    566____________________________________________________________________

    Kennard, Hon. William E., Chairman, Federal Communications Commission

    435____________________________________________________________________

    Biographical sketch

    447____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    438____________________________________________________________________

    Kennedy, Hon. Anthony M., Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United
    States, the judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    394____________________________________________________________________

    Kodiak Community Conservation Network, prepared statement

    570____________________________________________________________________

    Kulik, Bernard, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance, Small
    Business Administration

    367____________________________________________________________________

    Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from New Jersey, questions
    submitted by

    145____________________________________________________________________

    Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., U.S. Senator from Vermont, questions submitted by

    80_____________________________________________________________________

    Levitt, Hon. Arthur, Chairman, Securities and Exchange Commission

    495____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    496____________________________________________________________________

    Lorson, Frank, Chief Deputy Clerk, Supreme Court of the United States, the
    judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Mayer, Haldane Robert, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the
    Fet Company Institute, prepared statement

    571____________________________________________________________________

    Jollivette, Cyrus M., vice president for Government relations, University
    of Miami, prepared statement

    566____________________________________________________________________

    Kennard, Hon. William E., Chairman, Federal Communications Commission

    435____________________________________________________________________

    Biographical sketch

    447____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    438____________________________________________________________________

    Kennedy, Hon. Anthony M., Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United
    States, the judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    394____________________________________________________________________

    Kodiak Community Conservation Network, prepared statement

    570____________________________________________________________________

    Kulik, Bernard, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance, Small
    Business Administration

    367____________________________________________________________________

    Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from New Jersey, questions
    submitted by

    145____________________________________________________________________

    Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., U.S. Senator from Vermont, questions submitted by

    80_____________________________________________________________________

    Levitt, Hon. Arthur, Chairman, Securities and Exchange Commission

    495____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    496____________________________________________________________________

    Lorson, Frank, Chief Deputy Clerk, Supreme Court of the United States, the
    judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Mayer, Haldane Robert, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the
    Feirman, Federal Communications Commission

    435____________________________________________________________________

    Biographical sketch

    447____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    438____________________________________________________________________

    Kennedy, Hon. Anthony M., Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United
    States, the judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    394____________________________________________________________________

    Kodiak Community Conservation Network, prepared statement

    570____________________________________________________________________

    Kulik, Bernard, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance, Small
    Business Administration

    367____________________________________________________________________

    Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from New Jersey, questions
    submitted by

    145____________________________________________________________________

    Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., U.S. Senator from Vermont, questions submitted by

    80_____________________________________________________________________

    Levitt, Hon. Arthur, Chairman, Securities and Exchange Commission

    495____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    496____________________________________________________________________

    Lorson, Frank, Chief Deputy Clerk, Supreme Court of the United States, the
    judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Mayer, Haldane Robert, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the
    Femmission

    435____________________________________________________________________

    Biographical sketch

    447____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    438____________________________________________________________________

    Kennedy, Hon. Anthony M., Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United
    States, the judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    394____________________________________________________________________

    Kodiak Community Conservation Network, prepared statement

    570____________________________________________________________________

    Kulik, Bernard, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance, Small
    Business Administration

    367____________________________________________________________________

    Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from New Jersey, questions
    submitted by

    145____________________________________________________________________

    Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., U.S. Senator from Vermont, questions submitted by

    80_____________________________________________________________________

    Levitt, Hon. Arthur, Chairman, Securities and Exchange Commission

    495____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    496____________________________________________________________________

    Lorson, Frank, Chief Deputy Clerk, Supreme Court of the United States, the
    judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Mayer, Haldane Robert, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the
    Fe

    Biographical sketch

    447____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    438____________________________________________________________________

    Kennedy, Hon. Anthony M., Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United
    States, the judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    394____________________________________________________________________

    Kodiak Community Conservation Network, prepared statement

    570____________________________________________________________________

    Kulik, Bernard, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance, Small
    Business Administration

    367____________________________________________________________________

    Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from New Jersey, questions
    submitted by

    145____________________________________________________________________

    Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., U.S. Senator from Vermont, questions submitted by

    80_____________________________________________________________________

    Levitt, Hon. Arthur, Chairman, Securities and Exchange Commission

    495____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    496____________________________________________________________________

    Lorson, Frank, Chief Deputy Clerk, Supreme Court of the United States, the
    judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Mayer, Haldane Robert, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the
    Fetatement

    566____________________________________________________________________

    Kennard, Hon. William E., Chairman, Federal Communications Commission

    435____________________________________________________________________

    Biographical sketch

    447____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    438____________________________________________________________________

    Kennedy, Hon. Anthony M., Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United
    States, the judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    394____________________________________________________________________

    Kodiak Community Conservation Network, prepared statement

    570____________________________________________________________________

    Kulik, Bernard, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance, Small
    Business Administration

    367____________________________________________________________________

    Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from New Jersey, questions
    submitted by

    145____________________________________________________________________

    Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., U.S. Senator from Vermont, questions submitted by

    80_____________________________________________________________________

    Levitt, Hon. Arthur, Chairman, Securities and Exchange Commission

    495____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    496____________________________________________________________________

    Lorson, Frank, Chief Deputy Clerk, Supreme Court of the United States, the
    judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Mayer, Haldane Robert, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the
    Fet Company Institute, prepared statement

    571____________________________________________________________________

    Jollivette, Cyrus M., vice president for Government relations, University
    of Miami, prepared statement

    566____________________________________________________________________

    Kennard, Hon. William E., Chairman, Federal Communications Commission

    435____________________________________________________________________

    Biographical sketch

    447____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    438____________________________________________________________________

    Kennedy, Hon. Anthony M., Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United
    States, the judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    394____________________________________________________________________

    Kodiak Community Conservation Network, prepared statement

    570____________________________________________________________________

    Kulik, Bernard, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance, Small
    Business Administration

    367____________________________________________________________________

    Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from New Jersey, questions
    submitted by

    145____________________________________________________________________

    Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., U.S. Senator from Vermont, questions submitted by

    80_____________________________________________________________________

    Levitt, Hon. Arthur, Chairman, Securities and Exchange Commission

    495____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    496____________________________________________________________________

    Lorson, Frank, Chief Deputy Clerk, Supreme Court of the United States, the
    judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Mayer, Haldane Robert, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the
    Feommunications Commission

    435____________________________________________________________________

    Biographical sketch

    447____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    438____________________________________________________________________

    Kennedy, Hon. Anthony M., Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United
    States, the judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    394____________________________________________________________________

    Kodiak Community Conservation Network, prepared statement

    570____________________________________________________________________

    Kulik, Bernard, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance, Small
    Business Administration

    367____________________________________________________________________

    Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from New Jersey, questions
    submitted by

    145____________________________________________________________________

    Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., U.S. Senator from Vermont, questions submitted by

    80_____________________________________________________________________

    Levitt, Hon. Arthur, Chairman, Securities and Exchange Commission

    495____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    496____________________________________________________________________

    Lorson, Frank, Chief Deputy Clerk, Supreme Court of the United States, the
    judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Mayer, Haldane Robert, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the
    Fe60435

    Biographical sketch

    447____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    438____________________________________________________________________

    Kennedy, Hon. Anthony M., Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United
    States, the judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    394____________________________________________________________________

    Kodiak Community Conservation Network, prepared statement

    570____________________________________________________________________

    Kulik, Bernard, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance, Small
    Business Administration

    367____________________________________________________________________

    Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from New Jersey, questions
    submitted by

    145____________________________________________________________________

    Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., U.S. Senator from Vermont, questions submitted by

    80_____________________________________________________________________

    Levitt, Hon. Arthur, Chairman, Securities and Exchange Commission

    495____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    496____________________________________________________________________

    Lorson, Frank, Chief Deputy Clerk, Supreme Court of the United States, the
    judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Mayer, Haldane Robert, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the
    Feommunications Commission

    435____________________________________________________________________

    Biographical sketch

    447____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    438____________________________________________________________________

    Kennedy, Hon. Anthony M., Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United
    States, the judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    394____________________________________________________________________

    Kodiak Community Conservation Network, prepared statement

    570____________________________________________________________________

    Kulik, Bernard, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance, Small
    Business Administration

    367____________________________________________________________________

    Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from New Jersey, questions
    submitted by

    145____________________________________________________________________

    Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., U.S. Senator from Vermont, questions submitted by

    80_____________________________________________________________________

    Levitt, Hon. Arthur, Chairman, Securities and Exchange Commission

    495____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    496____________________________________________________________________

    Lorson, Frank, Chief Deputy Clerk, Supreme Court of the United States, the
    judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Mayer, Haldane Robert, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the
    Fetatement

    566____________________________________________________________________

    Kennard, Hon. William E., Chairman, Federal Communications Commission

    435____________________________________________________________________

    Biographical sketch

    447____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    438____________________________________________________________________

    Kennedy, Hon. Anthony M., Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United
    States, the judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    394____________________________________________________________________

    Kodiak Community Conservation Network, prepared statement

    570____________________________________________________________________

    Kulik, Bernard, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance, Small
    Business Administration

    367____________________________________________________________________

    Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from New Jersey, questions
    submitted by

    145____________________________________________________________________

    Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., U.S. Senator from Vermont, questions submitted by

    80_____________________________________________________________________

    Levitt, Hon. Arthur, Chairman, Securities and Exchange Commission

    495____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    496____________________________________________________________________

    Lorson, Frank, Chief Deputy Clerk, Supreme Court of the United States, the
    judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Mayer, Haldane Robert, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the
    Fet Company Institute, prepared statement

    571____________________________________________________________________

    Jollivette, Cyrus M., vice president for Government relations, University
    of Miami, prepared statement

    566____________________________________________________________________

    Kennard, Hon. William E., Chairman, Federal Communications Commission

    435____________________________________________________________________

    Biographical sketch

    447____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    438____________________________________________________________________

    Kennedy, Hon. Anthony M., Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United
    States, the judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    394____________________________________________________________________

    Kodiak Community Conservation Network, prepared statement

    570____________________________________________________________________

    Kulik, Bernard, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance, Small
    Business Administration

    367____________________________________________________________________

    Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from New Jersey, questions
    submitted by

    145____________________________________________________________________

    Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., U.S. Senator from Vermont, questions submitted by

    80_____________________________________________________________________

    Levitt, Hon. Arthur, Chairman, Securities and Exchange Commission

    495____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    496____________________________________________________________________

    Lorson, Frank, Chief Deputy Clerk, Supreme Court of the United States, the
    judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Mayer, Haldane Robert, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the
    Feommunications Commission

    435____________________________________________________________________

    Biographical sketch

    447____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    438____________________________________________________________________

    Kennedy, Hon. Anthony M., Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United
    States, the judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    394____________________________________________________________________

    Kodiak Community Conservation Network, prepared statement

    570____________________________________________________________________

    Kulik, Bernard, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance, Small
    Business Administration

    367____________________________________________________________________

    Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from New Jersey, questions
    submitted by

    145____________________________________________________________________

    Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., U.S. Senator from Vermont, questions submitted by

    80_____________________________________________________________________

    Levitt, Hon. Arthur, Chairman, Securities and Exchange Commission

    495____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    496____________________________________________________________________

    Lorson, Frank, Chief Deputy Clerk, Supreme Court of the United States, the
    judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Mayer, Haldane Robert, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the
    Feketch

    447____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    438____________________________________________________________________

    Kennedy, Hon. Anthony M., Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United
    States, the judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    394____________________________________________________________________

    Kodiak Community Conservation Network, prepared statement

    570____________________________________________________________________

    Kulik, Bernard, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance, Small
    Business Administration

    367____________________________________________________________________

    Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from New Jersey, questions
    submitted by

    145____________________________________________________________________

    Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., U.S. Senator from Vermont, questions submitted by

    80_____________________________________________________________________

    Levitt, Hon. Arthur, Chairman, Securities and Exchange Commission

    495____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    496____________________________________________________________________

    Lorson, Frank, Chief Deputy Clerk, Supreme Court of the United States, the
    judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Mayer, Haldane Robert, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the
    Feketch

    447____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    438____________________________________________________________________

    Kennedy, Hon. Anthony M., Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United
    States, the judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    394____________________________________________________________________

    Kodiak Community Conservation Network, prepared statement

    570____________________________________________________________________

    Kulik, Bernard, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance, Small
    Business Administration

    367____________________________________________________________________

    Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from New Jersey, questions
    submitted by

    145____________________________________________________________________

    Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., U.S. Senator from Vermont, questions submitted by

    80_____________________________________________________________________

    Levitt, Hon. Arthur, Chairman, Securities and Exchange Commission

    495____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    496____________________________________________________________________

    Lorson, Frank, Chief Deputy Clerk, Supreme Court of the United States, the
    judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Mayer, Haldane Robert, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the
    Fetatement

    566____________________________________________________________________

    Kennard, Hon. William E., Chairman, Federal Communications Commission

    435____________________________________________________________________

    Biographical sketch

    447____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    438____________________________________________________________________

    Kennedy, Hon. Anthony M., Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United
    States, the judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    394____________________________________________________________________

    Kodiak Community Conservation Network, prepared statement

    570____________________________________________________________________

    Kulik, Bernard, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance, Small
    Business Administration

    367____________________________________________________________________

    Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from New Jersey, questions
    submitted by

    145____________________________________________________________________

    Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., U.S. Senator from Vermont, questions submitted by

    80_____________________________________________________________________

    Levitt, Hon. Arthur, Chairman, Securities and Exchange Commission

    495____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    496____________________________________________________________________

    Lorson, Frank, Chief Deputy Clerk, Supreme Court of the United States, the
    judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Mayer, Haldane Robert, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the
    Fet Company Institute, prepared statement

    571____________________________________________________________________

    Jollivette, Cyrus M., vice president for Government relations, University
    of Miami, prepared statement

    566____________________________________________________________________

    Kennard, Hon. William E., Chairman, Federal Communications Commission

    435____________________________________________________________________

    Biographical sketch

    447____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    438____________________________________________________________________

    Kennedy, Hon. Anthony M., Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United
    States, the judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    394____________________________________________________________________

    Kodiak Community Conservation Network, prepared statement

    570____________________________________________________________________

    Kulik, Bernard, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance, Small
    Business Administration

    367____________________________________________________________________

    Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from New Jersey, questions
    submitted by

    145____________________________________________________________________

    Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., U.S. Senator from Vermont, questions submitted by

    80_____________________________________________________________________

    Levitt, Hon. Arthur, Chairman, Securities and Exchange Commission

    495____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    496____________________________________________________________________

    Lorson, Frank, Chief Deputy Clerk, Supreme Court of the United States, the
    judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Mayer, Haldane Robert, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the
    Femmission

    435____________________________________________________________________

    Biographical sketch

    447____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    438____________________________________________________________________

    Kennedy, Hon. Anthony M., Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United
    States, the judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    394____________________________________________________________________

    Kodiak Community Conservation Network, prepared statement

    570____________________________________________________________________

    Kulik, Bernard, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance, Small
    Business Administration

    367____________________________________________________________________

    Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from New Jersey, questions
    submitted by

    145____________________________________________________________________

    Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., U.S. Senator from Vermont, questions submitted by

    80_____________________________________________________________________

    Levitt, Hon. Arthur, Chairman, Securities and Exchange Commission

    495____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    496____________________________________________________________________

    Lorson, Frank, Chief Deputy Clerk, Supreme Court of the United States, the
    judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Mayer, Haldane Robert, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the
    Fe

    Biographical sketch

    447____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    438____________________________________________________________________

    Kennedy, Hon. Anthony M., Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United
    States, the judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    394____________________________________________________________________

    Kodiak Community Conservation Network, prepared statement

    570____________________________________________________________________

    Kulik, Bernard, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance, Small
    Business Administration

    367____________________________________________________________________

    Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from New Jersey, questions
    submitted by

    145____________________________________________________________________

    Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., U.S. Senator from Vermont, questions submitted by

    80_____________________________________________________________________

    Levitt, Hon. Arthur, Chairman, Securities and Exchange Commission

    495____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    496____________________________________________________________________

    Lorson, Frank, Chief Deputy Clerk, Supreme Court of the United States, the
    judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Mayer, Haldane Robert, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the
    Fe

    Biographical sketch

    447____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    438____________________________________________________________________

    Kennedy, Hon. Anthony M., Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United
    States, the judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    394____________________________________________________________________

    Kodiak Community Conservation Network, prepared statement

    570____________________________________________________________________

    Kulik, Bernard, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance, Small
    Business Administration

    367____________________________________________________________________

    Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from New Jersey, questions
    submitted by

    145____________________________________________________________________

    Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., U.S. Senator from Vermont, questions submitted by

    80_____________________________________________________________________

    Levitt, Hon. Arthur, Chairman, Securities and Exchange Commission

    495____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    496____________________________________________________________________

    Lorson, Frank, Chief Deputy Clerk, Supreme Court of the United States, the
    judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Mayer, Haldane Robert, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the
    FeDonnelly, Tony, Director of Budget and Personnel, Supreme Court
    of the United States, the judiciary............................ 393Duff,
    James C., Administrative Assistant to the Chief Justice, Supreme Court of
    the United States, the judiciary.............. 393Environment Hawaii,
    prepared statement........................... 570Fish Forever, prepared
    statement................................. 570Fish Unlimited, prepared
    statement............................... 568Fishel, Andrew, Managing
    Director, Federal Communications
    Commission..................................................... 435Freeh,
    Louis J., Director, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Department of Justice
     William E., Chairman, Federal Communications Commission

    435____________________________________________________________________

    Biographical sketch

    447____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    438____________________________________________________________________

    Kennedy, Hon. Anthony M., Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United
    States, the judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    394____________________________________________________________________

    Kodiak Community Conservation Network, prepared statement

    570____________________________________________________________________

    Kulik, Bernard, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance, Small
    Business Administration

    367____________________________________________________________________

    Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from New Jersey, questions
    submitted by

    145____________________________________________________________________

    Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., U.S. Senator from Vermont, questions submitted by

    80_____________________________________________________________________

    Levitt, Hon. Arthur, Chairman, Securities and Exchange Commission

    495____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    496____________________________________________________________________

    Lorson, Frank, Chief Deputy Clerk, Supreme Court of the United States, the
    judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Mayer, Haldane Robert, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the
    Fe60435

    Biographical sketch

    447____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    438____________________________________________________________________

    Kennedy, Hon. Anthony M., Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United
    States, the judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    394____________________________________________________________________

    Kodiak Community Conservation Network, prepared statement

    570____________________________________________________________________

    Kulik, Bernard, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance, Small
    Business Administration

    367____________________________________________________________________

    Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from New Jersey, questions
    submitted by

    145____________________________________________________________________

    Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., U.S. Senator from Vermont, questions submitted by

    80_____________________________________________________________________

    Levitt, Hon. Arthur, Chairman, Securities and Exchange Commission

    495____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    496____________________________________________________________________

    Lorson, Frank, Chief Deputy Clerk, Supreme Court of the United States, the
    judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Mayer, Haldane Robert, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the
    Fe William E., Chairman, Federal Communications
    Commission

    435____________________________________________________________________

    Biographical sketch

    447____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    438____________________________________________________________________

    Kennedy, Hon. Anthony M., Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United
    States, the judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    394____________________________________________________________________

    Kodiak Community Conservation Network, prepared statement

    570____________________________________________________________________

    Kulik, Bernard, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance, Small
    Business Administration

    367____________________________________________________________________

    Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from New Jersey, questions
    submitted by

    145____________________________________________________________________

    Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., U.S. Senator from Vermont, questions submitted by

    80_____________________________________________________________________

    Levitt, Hon. Arthur, Chairman, Securities and Exchange Commission

    495____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    496____________________________________________________________________

    Lorson, Frank, Chief Deputy Clerk, Supreme Court of the United States, the
    judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Mayer, Haldane Robert, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the
    Fetatement

    566____________________________________________________________________

    Kennard, Hon. William E., Chairman, Federal Communications Commission

    435____________________________________________________________________

    Biographical sketch

    447____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    438____________________________________________________________________

    Kennedy, Hon. Anthony M., Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United
    States, the judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    394____________________________________________________________________

    Kodiak Community Conservation Network, prepared statement

    570____________________________________________________________________

    Kulik, Bernard, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance, Small
    Business Administration

    367____________________________________________________________________

    Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from New Jersey, questions
    submitted by

    145____________________________________________________________________

    Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., U.S. Senator from Vermont, questions submitted by

    80_____________________________________________________________________

    Levitt, Hon. Arthur, Chairman, Securities and Exchange Commission

    495____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    496____________________________________________________________________

    Lorson, Frank, Chief Deputy Clerk, Supreme Court of the United States, the
    judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Mayer, Haldane Robert, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the
    Fet Company Institute, prepared statement

    571____________________________________________________________________

    Jollivette, Cyrus M., vice president for Government relations, University
    of Miami, prepared statement

    566____________________________________________________________________

    Kennard, Hon. William E., Chairman, Federal Communications Commission

    435____________________________________________________________________

    Biographical sketch

    447____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    438____________________________________________________________________

    Kennedy, Hon. Anthony M., Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United
    States, the judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    394____________________________________________________________________

    Kodiak Community Conservation Network, prepared statement

    570____________________________________________________________________

    Kulik, Bernard, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance, Small
    Business Administration

    367____________________________________________________________________

    Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from New Jersey, questions
    submitted by

    145____________________________________________________________________

    Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., U.S. Senator from Vermont, questions submitted by

    80_____________________________________________________________________

    Levitt, Hon. Arthur, Chairman, Securities and Exchange Commission

    495____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    496____________________________________________________________________

    Lorson, Frank, Chief Deputy Clerk, Supreme Court of the United States, the
    judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Mayer, Haldane Robert, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the
    Fe William E., Chairman, Federal Communications
    Commission

    435____________________________________________________________________

    Biographical sketch

    447____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    438____________________________________________________________________

    Kennedy, Hon. Anthony M., Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United
    States, the judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    394____________________________________________________________________

    Kodiak Community Conservation Network, prepared statement

    570____________________________________________________________________

    Kulik, Bernard, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance, Small
    Business Administration

    367____________________________________________________________________

    Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from New Jersey, questions
    submitted by

    145____________________________________________________________________

    Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., U.S. Senator from Vermont, questions submitted by

    80_____________________________________________________________________

    Levitt, Hon. Arthur, Chairman, Securities and Exchange Commission

    495____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    496____________________________________________________________________

    Lorson, Frank, Chief Deputy Clerk, Supreme Court of the United States, the
    judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Mayer, Haldane Robert, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the
    Feketch

    447____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    438____________________________________________________________________

    Kennedy, Hon. Anthony M., Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United
    States, the judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    394____________________________________________________________________

    Kodiak Community Conservation Network, prepared statement

    570____________________________________________________________________

    Kulik, Bernard, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance, Small
    Business Administration

    367____________________________________________________________________

    Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from New Jersey, questions
    submitted by

    145____________________________________________________________________

    Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., U.S. Senator from Vermont, questions submitted by

    80_____________________________________________________________________

    Levitt, Hon. Arthur, Chairman, Securities and Exchange Commission

    495____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    496____________________________________________________________________

    Lorson, Frank, Chief Deputy Clerk, Supreme Court of the United States, the
    judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Mayer, Haldane Robert, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the
    Fe William E., Chairman, Federal Communications
    Commission

    435____________________________________________________________________

    Biographical sketch

    447____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    438____________________________________________________________________

    Kennedy, Hon. Anthony M., Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United
    States, the judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    394____________________________________________________________________

    Kodiak Community Conservation Network, prepared statement

    570____________________________________________________________________

    Kulik, Bernard, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance, Small
    Business Administration

    367____________________________________________________________________

    Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from New Jersey, questions
    submitted by

    145____________________________________________________________________

    Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., U.S. Senator from Vermont, questions submitted by

    80_____________________________________________________________________

    Levitt, Hon. Arthur, Chairman, Securities and Exchange Commission

    495____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    496____________________________________________________________________

    Lorson, Frank, Chief Deputy Clerk, Supreme Court of the United States, the
    judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Mayer, Haldane Robert, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the
    Fe Prepared statement...........................................
    185Fuller, William P., president, The Asia Foundation, prepared
    statement...................................................... 572Garcia,
    Terry D., Assistant Secretary for Oceans and Atmosphere, National Oceanic
    and Atmospheric Administration, Department of
    Commerce....................................................... 333Geisler,
    Daniel F., president, American Foreign Service Association, prepared
    statement................................ 525Georgetown University,
    prepared statement........................ 579Gould, W. Scott, Chief
    Financial Officer/Assistant Secretary for Administration, Office of the
    Secretary, Department of Commerce 261Grant, Glenn A., Esq., business
    administrator, city of Newark, NJ, prepared
    statement......................................... 543Gray, John, Associate
    Deputy Administrator for Capital Access, Small Business
    Administration.................................. 367Greenpeace, prepared
    statement................................... 570Gulf Restoration Network,
    prepared statements 60435

    Biographical sketch

    447____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    438____________________________________________________________________

    Kennedy, Hon. Anthony M., Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United
    States, the judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    394____________________________________________________________________

    Kodiak Community Conservation Network, prepared statement

    570____________________________________________________________________

    Kulik, Bernard, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance, Small
    Business Administration

    367____________________________________________________________________

    Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from New Jersey, questions
    submitted by

    145____________________________________________________________________

    Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., U.S. Senator from Vermont, questions submitted by

    80_____________________________________________________________________

    Levitt, Hon. Arthur, Chairman, Securities and Exchange Commission

    495____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    496____________________________________________________________________

    Lorson, Frank, Chief Deputy Clerk, Supreme Court of the United States, the
    judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Mayer, Haldane Robert, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the
    Fe

    Biographical sketch

    447____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    438____________________________________________________________________

    Kennedy, Hon. Anthony M., Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United
    States, the judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    394____________________________________________________________________

    Kodiak Community Conservation Network, prepared statement

    570____________________________________________________________________

    Kulik, Bernard, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance, Small
    Business Administration

    367____________________________________________________________________

    Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from New Jersey, questions
    submitted by

    145____________________________________________________________________

    Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., U.S. Senator from Vermont, questions submitted by

    80_____________________________________________________________________

    Levitt, Hon. Arthur, Chairman, Securities and Exchange Commission

    495____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    496____________________________________________________________________

    Lorson, Frank, Chief Deputy Clerk, Supreme Court of the United States, the
    judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Mayer, Haldane Robert, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the
    Feketch

    447____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    438____________________________________________________________________

    Kennedy, Hon. Anthony M., Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United
    States, the judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    394____________________________________________________________________

    Kodiak Community Conservation Network, prepared statement

    570____________________________________________________________________

    Kulik, Bernard, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance, Small
    Business Administration

    367____________________________________________________________________

    Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from New Jersey, questions
    submitted by

    145____________________________________________________________________

    Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., U.S. Senator from Vermont, questions submitted by

    80_____________________________________________________________________

    Levitt, Hon. Arthur, Chairman, Securities and Exchange Commission

    495____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    496____________________________________________________________________

    Lorson, Frank, Chief Deputy Clerk, Supreme Court of the United States, the
    judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Mayer, Haldane Robert, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the
    Fetatement

    566____________________________________________________________________

    Kennard, Hon. William E., Chairman, Federal Communications Commission

    435____________________________________________________________________

    Biographical sketch

    447____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    438____________________________________________________________________

    Kennedy, Hon. Anthony M., Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United
    States, the judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    394____________________________________________________________________

    Kodiak Community Conservation Network, prepared statement

    570____________________________________________________________________

    Kulik, Bernard, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance, Small
    Business Administration

    367____________________________________________________________________

    Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from New Jersey, questions
    submitted by

    145____________________________________________________________________

    Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., U.S. Senator from Vermont, questions submitted by

    80_____________________________________________________________________

    Levitt, Hon. Arthur, Chairman, Securities and Exchange Commission

    495____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    496____________________________________________________________________

    Lorson, Frank, Chief Deputy Clerk, Supreme Court of the United States, the
    judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Mayer, Haldane Robert, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the
    Fet Company Institute, prepared statement

    571____________________________________________________________________

    Jollivette, Cyrus M., vice president for Government relations, University
    of Miami, prepared statement

    566____________________________________________________________________

    Kennard, Hon. William E., Chairman, Federal Communications Commission

    435____________________________________________________________________

    Biographical sketch

    447____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    438____________________________________________________________________

    Kennedy, Hon. Anthony M., Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United
    States, the judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    394____________________________________________________________________

    Kodiak Community Conservation Network, prepared statement

    570____________________________________________________________________

    Kulik, Bernard, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance, Small
    Business Administration

    367____________________________________________________________________

    Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from New Jersey, questions
    submitted by

    145____________________________________________________________________

    Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., U.S. Senator from Vermont, questions submitted by

    80_____________________________________________________________________

    Levitt, Hon. Arthur, Chairman, Securities and Exchange Commission

    495____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    496____________________________________________________________________

    Lorson, Frank, Chief Deputy Clerk, Supreme Court of the United States, the
    judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Mayer, Haldane Robert, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the
    Fe60435

    Biographical sketch

    447____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    438____________________________________________________________________

    Kennedy, Hon. Anthony M., Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United
    States, the judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    394____________________________________________________________________

    Kodiak Community Conservation Network, prepared statement

    570____________________________________________________________________

    Kulik, Bernard, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance, Small
    Business Administration

    367____________________________________________________________________

    Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from New Jersey, questions
    submitted by

    145____________________________________________________________________

    Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., U.S. Senator from Vermont, questions submitted by

    80_____________________________________________________________________

    Levitt, Hon. Arthur, Chairman, Securities and Exchange Commission

    495____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    496____________________________________________________________________

    Lorson, Frank, Chief Deputy Clerk, Supreme Court of the United States, the
    judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Mayer, Haldane Robert, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the
    FeM/Biographical sketch

    447____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    438____________________________________________________________________

    Kennedy, Hon. Anthony M., Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United
    States, the judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    394____________________________________________________________________

    Kodiak Community Conservation Network, prepared statement

    570____________________________________________________________________

    Kulik, Bernard, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance, Small
    Business Administration

    367____________________________________________________________________

    Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from New Jersey, questions
    submitted by

    145____________________________________________________________________

    Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., U.S. Senator from Vermont, questions submitted by

    80_____________________________________________________________________

    Levitt, Hon. Arthur, Chairman, Securities and Exchange Commission

    495____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    496____________________________________________________________________

    Lorson, Frank, Chief Deputy Clerk, Supreme Court of the United States, the
    judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Mayer, Haldane Robert, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the
    FeNM/Kennard, Hon. William E., Chairman, Federal
    Communications Commission

    435____________________________________________________________________

    Biographical sketch

    447____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    438____________________________________________________________________

    Kennedy, Hon. Anthony M., Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United
    States, the judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    394____________________________________________________________________

    Kodiak Community Conservation Network, prepared statement

    570____________________________________________________________________

    Kulik, Bernard, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance, Small
    Business Administration

    367____________________________________________________________________

    Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from New Jersey, questions
    submitted by

    145____________________________________________________________________

    Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., U.S. Senator from Vermont, questions submitted by

    80_____________________________________________________________________

    Levitt, Hon. Arthur, Chairman, Securities and Exchange Commission

    495____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    496____________________________________________________________________

    Lorson, Frank, Chief Deputy Clerk, Supreme Court of the United States, the
    judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Mayer, Haldane Robert, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the
    FeHantman, Alan M., AIA, Architect of the Capitol, prepared
    statement...................................................... 396Heyburn,
    Hon. John G., II, Chairman, Committee on the Budget of the Judicial
    Conference of the United States, U.S. courts, the
    judiciary...................................................... 401
    Biographical sketch.......................................... 401 Prepared
    statement........................................... 404Hollings, Hon.
    Ernest F., U.S. Senator from South Carolina, questions submitted by
    M/Biographical sketch

    447____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    438____________________________________________________________________

    Kennedy, Hon. Anthony M., Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United
    States, the judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    394____________________________________________________________________

    Kodiak Community Conservation Network, prepared statement

    570____________________________________________________________________

    Kulik, Bernard, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance, Small
    Business Administration

    367____________________________________________________________________

    Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from New Jersey, questions
    submitted by

    145____________________________________________________________________

    Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., U.S. Senator from Vermont, questions submitted by

    80_____________________________________________________________________

    Levitt, Hon. Arthur, Chairman, Securities and Exchange Commission

    495____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    496____________________________________________________________________

    Lorson, Frank, Chief Deputy Clerk, Supreme Court of the United States, the
    judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Mayer, Haldane Robert, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the
    FeNM/Kennard, Hon. William E., Chairman, Federal
    Communications Commission

    435____________________________________________________________________

    Biographical sketch

    447____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    438____________________________________________________________________

    Kennedy, Hon. Anthony M., Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United
    States, the judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    394____________________________________________________________________

    Kodiak Community Conservation Network, prepared statement

    570____________________________________________________________________

    Kulik, Bernard, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance, Small
    Business Administration

    367____________________________________________________________________

    Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from New Jersey, questions
    submitted by

    145____________________________________________________________________

    Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., U.S. Senator from Vermont, questions submitted by

    80_____________________________________________________________________

    Levitt, Hon. Arthur, Chairman, Securities and Exchange Commission

    495____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    496____________________________________________________________________

    Lorson, Frank, Chief Deputy Clerk, Supreme Court of the United States, the
    judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Mayer, Haldane Robert, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the
    Fetatement

    566____________________________________________________________________

    Kennard, Hon. William E., Chairman, Federal Communications Commission

    435____________________________________________________________________

    Biographical sketch

    447____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    438____________________________________________________________________

    Kennedy, Hon. Anthony M., Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United
    States, the judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    394____________________________________________________________________

    Kodiak Community Conservation Network, prepared statement

    570____________________________________________________________________

    Kulik, Bernard, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance, Small
    Business Administration

    367____________________________________________________________________

    Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from New Jersey, questions
    submitted by

    145____________________________________________________________________

    Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., U.S. Senator from Vermont, questions submitted by

    80_____________________________________________________________________

    Levitt, Hon. Arthur, Chairman, Securities and Exchange Commission

    495____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    496____________________________________________________________________

    Lorson, Frank, Chief Deputy Clerk, Supreme Court of the United States, the
    judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Mayer, Haldane Robert, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the
    Fet Company Institute, prepared statement

    571____________________________________________________________________

    Jollivette, Cyrus M., vice president for Government relations, University
    of Miami, prepared statement

    566____________________________________________________________________

    Kennard, Hon. William E., Chairman, Federal Communications Commission

    435____________________________________________________________________

    Biographical sketch

    447____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    438____________________________________________________________________

    Kennedy, Hon. Anthony M., Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United
    States, the judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    394____________________________________________________________________

    Kodiak Community Conservation Network, prepared statement

    570____________________________________________________________________

    Kulik, Bernard, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance, Small
    Business Administration

    367____________________________________________________________________

    Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from New Jersey, questions
    submitted by

    145____________________________________________________________________

    Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., U.S. Senator from Vermont, questions submitted by

    80_____________________________________________________________________

    Levitt, Hon. Arthur, Chairman, Securities and Exchange Commission

    495____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    496____________________________________________________________________

    Lorson, Frank, Chief Deputy Clerk, Supreme Court of the United States, the
    judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Mayer, Haldane Robert, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the
    Fe William E., Chairman, Federal Communications
    Commission

    435____________________________________________________________________

    Biographical sketch

    447____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    438____________________________________________________________________

    Kennedy, Hon. Anthony M., Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United
    States, the judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    394____________________________________________________________________

    Kodiak Community Conservation Network, prepared statement

    570____________________________________________________________________

    Kulik, Bernard, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance, Small
    Business Administration

    367____________________________________________________________________

    Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from New Jersey, questions
    submitted by

    145____________________________________________________________________

    Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., U.S. Senator from Vermont, questions submitted by

    80_____________________________________________________________________

    Levitt, Hon. Arthur, Chairman, Securities and Exchange Commission

    495____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    496____________________________________________________________________

    Lorson, Frank, Chief Deputy Clerk, Supreme Court of the United States, the
    judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Mayer, Haldane Robert, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the
    Feommunications Commission

    435____________________________________________________________________

    Biographical sketch

    447____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    438____________________________________________________________________

    Kennedy, Hon. Anthony M., Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United
    States, the judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    394____________________________________________________________________

    Kodiak Community Conservation Network, prepared statement

    570____________________________________________________________________

    Kulik, Bernard, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance, Small
    Business Administration

    367____________________________________________________________________

    Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from New Jersey, questions
    submitted by

    145____________________________________________________________________

    Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., U.S. Senator from Vermont, questions submitted by

    80_____________________________________________________________________

    Levitt, Hon. Arthur, Chairman, Securities and Exchange Commission

    495____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    496____________________________________________________________________

    Lorson, Frank, Chief Deputy Clerk, Supreme Court of the United States, the
    judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Mayer, Haldane Robert, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the
    Fe

    Biographical sketch

    447____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    438____________________________________________________________________

    Kennedy, Hon. Anthony M., Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United
    States, the judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    394____________________________________________________________________

    Kodiak Community Conservation Network, prepared statement

    570____________________________________________________________________

    Kulik, Bernard, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance, Small
    Business Administration

    367____________________________________________________________________

    Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from New Jersey, questions
    submitted by

    145____________________________________________________________________

    Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., U.S. Senator from Vermont, questions submitted by

    80_____________________________________________________________________

    Levitt, Hon. Arthur, Chairman, Securities and Exchange Commission

    495____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    496____________________________________________________________________

    Lorson, Frank, Chief Deputy Clerk, Supreme Court of the United States, the
    judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Mayer, Haldane Robert, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the
    Fetatement

    566____________________________________________________________________

    Kennard, Hon. William E., Chairman, Federal Communications Commission

    435____________________________________________________________________

    Biographical sketch

    447____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    438____________________________________________________________________

    Kennedy, Hon. Anthony M., Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United
    States, the judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    394____________________________________________________________________

    Kodiak Community Conservation Network, prepared statement

    570____________________________________________________________________

    Kulik, Bernard, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance, Small
    Business Administration

    367____________________________________________________________________

    Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from New Jersey, questions
    submitted by

    145____________________________________________________________________

    Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., U.S. Senator from Vermont, questions submitted by

    80_____________________________________________________________________

    Levitt, Hon. Arthur, Chairman, Securities and Exchange Commission

    495____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    496____________________________________________________________________

    Lorson, Frank, Chief Deputy Clerk, Supreme Court of the United States, the
    judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Mayer, Haldane Robert, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the
    Fet Company Institute, prepared statement

    571____________________________________________________________________

    Jollivette, Cyrus M., vice president for Government relations, University
    of Miami, prepared statement

    566____________________________________________________________________

    Kennard, Hon. William E., Chairman, Federal Communications Commission

    435____________________________________________________________________

    Biographical sketch

    447____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    438____________________________________________________________________

    Kennedy, Hon. Anthony M., Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United
    States, the judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    394____________________________________________________________________

    Kodiak Community Conservation Network, prepared statement

    570____________________________________________________________________

    Kulik, Bernard, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance, Small
    Business Administration

    367____________________________________________________________________

    Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from New Jersey, questions
    submitted by

    145____________________________________________________________________

    Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., U.S. Senator from Vermont, questions submitted by

    80_____________________________________________________________________

    Levitt, Hon. Arthur, Chairman, Securities and Exchange Commission

    495____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    496____________________________________________________________________

    Lorson, Frank, Chief Deputy Clerk, Supreme Court of the United States, the
    judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Mayer, Haldane Robert, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the
    Feirman, Federal Communications Commission

    435____________________________________________________________________

    Biographical sketch

    447____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    438____________________________________________________________________

    Kennedy, Hon. Anthony M., Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United
    States, the judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    394____________________________________________________________________

    Kodiak Community Conservation Network, prepared statement

    570____________________________________________________________________

    Kulik, Bernard, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance, Small
    Business Administration

    367____________________________________________________________________

    Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from New Jersey, questions
    submitted by

    145____________________________________________________________________

    Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., U.S. Senator from Vermont, questions submitted by

    80_____________________________________________________________________

    Levitt, Hon. Arthur, Chairman, Securities and Exchange Commission

    495____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    496____________________________________________________________________

    Lorson, Frank, Chief Deputy Clerk, Supreme Court of the United States, the
    judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Mayer, Haldane Robert, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the
    Feommunications Commission

    435____________________________________________________________________

    Biographical sketch

    447____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    438____________________________________________________________________

    Kennedy, Hon. Anthony M., Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United
    States, the judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    394____________________________________________________________________

    Kodiak Community Conservation Network, prepared statement

    570____________________________________________________________________

    Kulik, Bernard, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance, Small
    Business Administration

    367____________________________________________________________________

    Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from New Jersey, questions
    submitted by

    145____________________________________________________________________

    Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., U.S. Senator from Vermont, questions submitted by

    80_____________________________________________________________________

    Levitt, Hon. Arthur, Chairman, Securities and Exchange Commission

    495____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    496____________________________________________________________________

    Lorson, Frank, Chief Deputy Clerk, Supreme Court of the United States, the
    judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Mayer, Haldane Robert, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the
    Feirman, Federal Communications Commission

    435____________________________________________________________________

    Biographical sketch

    447____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    438____________________________________________________________________

    Kennedy, Hon. Anthony M., Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United
    States, the judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    394____________________________________________________________________

    Kodiak Community Conservation Network, prepared statement

    570____________________________________________________________________

    Kulik, Bernard, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance, Small
    Business Administration

    367____________________________________________________________________

    Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from New Jersey, questions
    submitted by

    145____________________________________________________________________

    Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., U.S. Senator from Vermont, questions submitted by

    80_____________________________________________________________________

    Levitt, Hon. Arthur, Chairman, Securities and Exchange Commission

    495____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    496____________________________________________________________________

    Lorson, Frank, Chief Deputy Clerk, Supreme Court of the United States, the
    judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Mayer, Haldane Robert, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the
    Fetatement

    566____________________________________________________________________

    Kennard, Hon. William E., Chairman, Federal Communications Commission

    435____________________________________________________________________

    Biographical sketch

    447____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    438____________________________________________________________________

    Kennedy, Hon. Anthony M., Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United
    States, the judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    394____________________________________________________________________

    Kodiak Community Conservation Network, prepared statement

    570____________________________________________________________________

    Kulik, Bernard, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance, Small
    Business Administration

    367____________________________________________________________________

    Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from New Jersey, questions
    submitted by

    145____________________________________________________________________

    Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., U.S. Senator from Vermont, questions submitted by

    80_____________________________________________________________________

    Levitt, Hon. Arthur, Chairman, Securities and Exchange Commission

    495____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    496____________________________________________________________________

    Lorson, Frank, Chief Deputy Clerk, Supreme Court of the United States, the
    judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Mayer, Haldane Robert, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the
    Fet Company Institute, prepared statement

    571____________________________________________________________________

    Jollivette, Cyrus M., vice president for Government relations, University
    of Miami, prepared statement

    566____________________________________________________________________

    Kennard, Hon. William E., Chairman, Federal Communications Commission

    435____________________________________________________________________

    Biographical sketch

    447____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    438____________________________________________________________________

    Kennedy, Hon. Anthony M., Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United
    States, the judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    394____________________________________________________________________

    Kodiak Community Conservation Network, prepared statement

    570____________________________________________________________________

    Kulik, Bernard, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance, Small
    Business Administration

    367____________________________________________________________________

    Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from New Jersey, questions
    submitted by

    145____________________________________________________________________

    Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., U.S. Senator from Vermont, questions submitted by

    80_____________________________________________________________________

    Levitt, Hon. Arthur, Chairman, Securities and Exchange Commission

    495____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    496____________________________________________________________________

    Lorson, Frank, Chief Deputy Clerk, Supreme Court of the United States, the
    judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Mayer, Haldane Robert, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the
    Feirman, Federal Communications Commission

    435____________________________________________________________________

    Biographical sketch

    447____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    438____________________________________________________________________

    Kennedy, Hon. Anthony M., Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United
    States, the judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    394____________________________________________________________________

    Kodiak Community Conservation Network, prepared statement

    570____________________________________________________________________

    Kulik, Bernard, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance, Small
    Business Administration

    367____________________________________________________________________

    Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from New Jersey, questions
    submitted by

    145____________________________________________________________________

    Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., U.S. Senator from Vermont, questions submitted by

    80_____________________________________________________________________

    Levitt, Hon. Arthur, Chairman, Securities and Exchange Commission

    495____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    496____________________________________________________________________

    Lorson, Frank, Chief Deputy Clerk, Supreme Court of the United States, the
    judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Mayer, Haldane Robert, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the
    Femmission

    435____________________________________________________________________

    Biographical sketch

    447____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    438____________________________________________________________________

    Kennedy, Hon. Anthony M., Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United
    States, the judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    394____________________________________________________________________

    Kodiak Community Conservation Network, prepared statement

    570____________________________________________________________________

    Kulik, Bernard, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance, Small
    Business Administration

    367____________________________________________________________________

    Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from New Jersey, questions
    submitted by

    145____________________________________________________________________

    Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., U.S. Senator from Vermont, questions submitted by

    80_____________________________________________________________________

    Levitt, Hon. Arthur, Chairman, Securities and Exchange Commission

    495____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    496____________________________________________________________________

    Lorson, Frank, Chief Deputy Clerk, Supreme Court of the United States, the
    judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Mayer, Haldane Robert, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the
    Fe William E., Chairman, Federal Communications
    Commission

    435____________________________________________________________________

    Biographical sketch

    447____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    438____________________________________________________________________

    Kennedy, Hon. Anthony M., Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United
    States, the judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    394____________________________________________________________________

    Kodiak Community Conservation Network, prepared statement

    570____________________________________________________________________

    Kulik, Bernard, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance, Small
    Business Administration

    367____________________________________________________________________

    Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from New Jersey, questions
    submitted by

    145____________________________________________________________________

    Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., U.S. Senator from Vermont, questions submitted by

    80_____________________________________________________________________

    Levitt, Hon. Arthur, Chairman, Securities and Exchange Commission

    495____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    496____________________________________________________________________

    Lorson, Frank, Chief Deputy Clerk, Supreme Court of the United States, the
    judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Mayer, Haldane Robert, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the
    Fetatement

    566____________________________________________________________________

    Kennard, Hon. William E., Chairman, Federal Communications Commission

    435____________________________________________________________________

    Biographical sketch

    447____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    438____________________________________________________________________

    Kennedy, Hon. Anthony M., Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United
    States, the judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    394____________________________________________________________________

    Kodiak Community Conservation Network, prepared statement

    570____________________________________________________________________

    Kulik, Bernard, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance, Small
    Business Administration

    367____________________________________________________________________

    Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from New Jersey, questions
    submitted by

    145____________________________________________________________________

    Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., U.S. Senator from Vermont, questions submitted by

    80_____________________________________________________________________

    Levitt, Hon. Arthur, Chairman, Securities and Exchange Commission

    495____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    496____________________________________________________________________

    Lorson, Frank, Chief Deputy Clerk, Supreme Court of the United States, the
    judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Mayer, Haldane Robert, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the
    Fet Company Institute, prepared statement

    571____________________________________________________________________

    Jollivette, Cyrus M., vice president for Government relations, University
    of Miami, prepared statement

    566____________________________________________________________________

    Kennard, Hon. William E., Chairman, Federal Communications Commission

    435____________________________________________________________________

    Biographical sketch

    447____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    438____________________________________________________________________

    Kennedy, Hon. Anthony M., Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United
    States, the judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    394____________________________________________________________________

    Kodiak Community Conservation Network, prepared statement

    570____________________________________________________________________

    Kulik, Bernard, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance, Small
    Business Administration

    367____________________________________________________________________

    Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from New Jersey, questions
    submitted by

    145____________________________________________________________________

    Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., U.S. Senator from Vermont, questions submitted by

    80_____________________________________________________________________

    Levitt, Hon. Arthur, Chairman, Securities and Exchange Commission

    495____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    496____________________________________________________________________

    Lorson, Frank, Chief Deputy Clerk, Supreme Court of the United States, the
    judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Mayer, Haldane Robert, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the
    Feirman, Federal Communications Commission

    435____________________________________________________________________

    Biographical sketch

    447____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    438____________________________________________________________________

    Kennedy, Hon. Anthony M., Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United
    States, the judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    394____________________________________________________________________

    Kodiak Community Conservation Network, prepared statement

    570____________________________________________________________________

    Kulik, Bernard, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance, Small
    Business Administration

    367____________________________________________________________________

    Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from New Jersey, questions
    submitted by

    145____________________________________________________________________

    Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., U.S. Senator from Vermont, questions submitted by

    80_____________________________________________________________________

    Levitt, Hon. Arthur, Chairman, Securities and Exchange Commission

    495____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    496____________________________________________________________________

    Lorson, Frank, Chief Deputy Clerk, Supreme Court of the United States, the
    judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Mayer, Haldane Robert, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the
    Fe60435

    Biographical sketch

    447____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    438____________________________________________________________________

    Kennedy, Hon. Anthony M., Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United
    States, the judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    394____________________________________________________________________

    Kodiak Community Conservation Network, prepared statement

    570____________________________________________________________________

    Kulik, Bernard, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance, Small
    Business Administration

    367____________________________________________________________________

    Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from New Jersey, questions
    submitted by

    145____________________________________________________________________

    Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., U.S. Senator from Vermont, questions submitted by

    80_____________________________________________________________________

    Levitt, Hon. Arthur, Chairman, Securities and Exchange Commission

    495____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    496____________________________________________________________________

    Lorson, Frank, Chief Deputy Clerk, Supreme Court of the United States, the
    judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Mayer, Haldane Robert, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the
    FeM/Biographical sketch

    447____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    438____________________________________________________________________

    Kennedy, Hon. Anthony M., Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United
    States, the judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    394____________________________________________________________________

    Kodiak Community Conservation Network, prepared statement

    570____________________________________________________________________

    Kulik, Bernard, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance, Small
    Business Administration

    367____________________________________________________________________

    Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from New Jersey, questions
    submitted by

    145____________________________________________________________________

    Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., U.S. Senator from Vermont, questions submitted by

    80_____________________________________________________________________

    Levitt, Hon. Arthur, Chairman, Securities and Exchange Commission

    495____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    496____________________________________________________________________

    Lorson, Frank, Chief Deputy Clerk, Supreme Court of the United States, the
    judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Mayer, Haldane Robert, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the
    Fetatement

    566____________________________________________________________________

    Kennard, Hon. William E., Chairman, Federal Communications Commission

    435____________________________________________________________________

    Biographical sketch

    447____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    438____________________________________________________________________

    Kennedy, Hon. Anthony M., Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United
    States, the judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    394____________________________________________________________________

    Kodiak Community Conservation Network, prepared statement

    570____________________________________________________________________

    Kulik, Bernard, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance, Small
    Business Administration

    367____________________________________________________________________

    Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from New Jersey, questions
    submitted by

    145____________________________________________________________________

    Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., U.S. Senator from Vermont, questions submitted by

    80_____________________________________________________________________

    Levitt, Hon. Arthur, Chairman, Securities and Exchange Commission

    495____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    496____________________________________________________________________

    Lorson, Frank, Chief Deputy Clerk, Supreme Court of the United States, the
    judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Mayer, Haldane Robert, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the
    Fet Company Institute, prepared statement

    571____________________________________________________________________

    Jollivette, Cyrus M., vice president for Government relations, University
    of Miami, prepared statement

    566____________________________________________________________________

    Kennard, Hon. William E., Chairman, Federal Communications Commission

    435____________________________________________________________________

    Biographical sketch

    447____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    438____________________________________________________________________

    Kennedy, Hon. Anthony M., Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United
    States, the judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    394____________________________________________________________________

    Kodiak Community Conservation Network, prepared statement

    570____________________________________________________________________

    Kulik, Bernard, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance, Small
    Business Administration

    367____________________________________________________________________

    Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from New Jersey, questions
    submitted by

    145____________________________________________________________________

    Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., U.S. Senator from Vermont, questions submitted by

    80_____________________________________________________________________

    Levitt, Hon. Arthur, Chairman, Securities and Exchange Commission

    495____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    496____________________________________________________________________

    Lorson, Frank, Chief Deputy Clerk, Supreme Court of the United States, the
    judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Mayer, Haldane Robert, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the
    Feommunications Commission

    435____________________________________________________________________

    Biographical sketch

    447____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    438____________________________________________________________________

    Kennedy, Hon. Anthony M., Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United
    States, the judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    394____________________________________________________________________

    Kodiak Community Conservation Network, prepared statement

    570____________________________________________________________________

    Kulik, Bernard, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance, Small
    Business Administration

    367____________________________________________________________________

    Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from New Jersey, questions
    submitted by

    145____________________________________________________________________

    Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., U.S. Senator from Vermont, questions submitted by

    80_____________________________________________________________________

    Levitt, Hon. Arthur, Chairman, Securities and Exchange Commission

    495____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    496____________________________________________________________________

    Lorson, Frank, Chief Deputy Clerk, Supreme Court of the United States, the
    judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Mayer, Haldane Robert, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the
    Feirman, Federal Communications Commission

    435____________________________________________________________________

    Biographical sketch

    447____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    438____________________________________________________________________

    Kennedy, Hon. Anthony M., Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United
    States, the judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    394____________________________________________________________________

    Kodiak Community Conservation Network, prepared statement

    570____________________________________________________________________

    Kulik, Bernard, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance, Small
    Business Administration

    367____________________________________________________________________

    Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from New Jersey, questions
    submitted by

    145____________________________________________________________________

    Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., U.S. Senator from Vermont, questions submitted by

    80_____________________________________________________________________

    Levitt, Hon. Arthur, Chairman, Securities and Exchange Commission

    495____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    496____________________________________________________________________

    Lorson, Frank, Chief Deputy Clerk, Supreme Court of the United States, the
    judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Mayer, Haldane Robert, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the
    FeNM/Kennard, Hon. William E., Chairman, Federal
    Communications Commission

    435____________________________________________________________________

    Biographical sketch

    447____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    438____________________________________________________________________

    Kennedy, Hon. Anthony M., Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United
    States, the judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    394____________________________________________________________________

    Kodiak Community Conservation Network, prepared statement

    570____________________________________________________________________

    Kulik, Bernard, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance, Small
    Business Administration

    367____________________________________________________________________

    Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from New Jersey, questions
    submitted by

    145____________________________________________________________________

    Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., U.S. Senator from Vermont, questions submitted by

    80_____________________________________________________________________

    Levitt, Hon. Arthur, Chairman, Securities and Exchange Commission

    495____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    496____________________________________________________________________

    Lorson, Frank, Chief Deputy Clerk, Supreme Court of the United States, the
    judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Mayer, Haldane Robert, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the
    Fetatement

    566____________________________________________________________________

    Kennard, Hon. William E., Chairman, Federal Communications Commission

    435____________________________________________________________________

    Biographical sketch

    447____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    438____________________________________________________________________

    Kennedy, Hon. Anthony M., Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United
    States, the judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    394____________________________________________________________________

    Kodiak Community Conservation Network, prepared statement

    570____________________________________________________________________

    Kulik, Bernard, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance, Small
    Business Administration

    367____________________________________________________________________

    Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from New Jersey, questions
    submitted by

    145____________________________________________________________________

    Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., U.S. Senator from Vermont, questions submitted by

    80_____________________________________________________________________

    Levitt, Hon. Arthur, Chairman, Securities and Exchange Commission

    495____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    496____________________________________________________________________

    Lorson, Frank, Chief Deputy Clerk, Supreme Court of the United States, the
    judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Mayer, Haldane Robert, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the
    Fet Company Institute, prepared statement

    571____________________________________________________________________

    Jollivette, Cyrus M., vice president for Government relations, University
    of Miami, prepared statement

    566____________________________________________________________________

    Kennard, Hon. William E., Chairman, Federal Communications Commission

    435____________________________________________________________________

    Biographical sketch

    447____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    438____________________________________________________________________

    Kennedy, Hon. Anthony M., Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United
    States, the judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    394____________________________________________________________________

    Kodiak Community Conservation Network, prepared statement

    570____________________________________________________________________

    Kulik, Bernard, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance, Small
    Business Administration

    367____________________________________________________________________

    Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from New Jersey, questions
    submitted by

    145____________________________________________________________________

    Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., U.S. Senator from Vermont, questions submitted by

    80_____________________________________________________________________

    Levitt, Hon. Arthur, Chairman, Securities and Exchange Commission

    495____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    496____________________________________________________________________

    Lorson, Frank, Chief Deputy Clerk, Supreme Court of the United States, the
    judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Mayer, Haldane Robert, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the
    Feommunications Commission

    435____________________________________________________________________

    Biographical sketch

    447____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    438____________________________________________________________________

    Kennedy, Hon. Anthony M., Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United
    States, the judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    394____________________________________________________________________

    Kodiak Community Conservation Network, prepared statement

    570____________________________________________________________________

    Kulik, Bernard, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance, Small
    Business Administration

    367____________________________________________________________________

    Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from New Jersey, questions
    submitted by

    145____________________________________________________________________

    Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., U.S. Senator from Vermont, questions submitted by

    80_____________________________________________________________________

    Levitt, Hon. Arthur, Chairman, Securities and Exchange Commission

    495____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    496____________________________________________________________________

    Lorson, Frank, Chief Deputy Clerk, Supreme Court of the United States, the
    judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Mayer, Haldane Robert, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the
    Fe60435

    Biographical sketch

    447____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    438____________________________________________________________________

    Kennedy, Hon. Anthony M., Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United
    States, the judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    394____________________________________________________________________

    Kodiak Community Conservation Network, prepared statement

    570____________________________________________________________________

    Kulik, Bernard, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance, Small
    Business Administration

    367____________________________________________________________________

    Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from New Jersey, questions
    submitted by

    145____________________________________________________________________

    Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., U.S. Senator from Vermont, questions submitted by

    80_____________________________________________________________________

    Levitt, Hon. Arthur, Chairman, Securities and Exchange Commission

    495____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    496____________________________________________________________________

    Lorson, Frank, Chief Deputy Clerk, Supreme Court of the United States, the
    judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Mayer, Haldane Robert, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the
    Feketch

    447____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    438____________________________________________________________________

    Kennedy, Hon. Anthony M., Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United
    States, the judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    394____________________________________________________________________

    Kodiak Community Conservation Network, prepared statement

    570____________________________________________________________________

    Kulik, Bernard, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance, Small
    Business Administration

    367____________________________________________________________________

    Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from New Jersey, questions
    submitted by

    145____________________________________________________________________

    Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., U.S. Senator from Vermont, questions submitted by

    80_____________________________________________________________________

    Levitt, Hon. Arthur, Chairman, Securities and Exchange Commission

    495____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    496____________________________________________________________________

    Lorson, Frank, Chief Deputy Clerk, Supreme Court of the United States, the
    judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Mayer, Haldane Robert, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the
    Fetatement

    566____________________________________________________________________

    Kennard, Hon. William E., Chairman, Federal Communications Commission

    435____________________________________________________________________

    Biographical sketch

    447____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    438____________________________________________________________________

    Kennedy, Hon. Anthony M., Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United
    States, the judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    394____________________________________________________________________

    Kodiak Community Conservation Network, prepared statement

    570____________________________________________________________________

    Kulik, Bernard, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance, Small
    Business Administration

    367____________________________________________________________________

    Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from New Jersey, questions
    submitted by

    145____________________________________________________________________

    Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., U.S. Senator from Vermont, questions submitted by

    80_____________________________________________________________________

    Levitt, Hon. Arthur, Chairman, Securities and Exchange Commission

    495____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    496____________________________________________________________________

    Lorson, Frank, Chief Deputy Clerk, Supreme Court of the United States, the
    judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Mayer, Haldane Robert, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the
    Fet Company Institute, prepared statement

    571____________________________________________________________________

    Jollivette, Cyrus M., vice president for Government relations, University
    of Miami, prepared statement

    566____________________________________________________________________

    Kennard, Hon. William E., Chairman, Federal Communications Commission

    435____________________________________________________________________

    Biographical sketch

    447____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    438____________________________________________________________________

    Kennedy, Hon. Anthony M., Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United
    States, the judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    394____________________________________________________________________

    Kodiak Community Conservation Network, prepared statement

    570____________________________________________________________________

    Kulik, Bernard, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance, Small
    Business Administration

    367____________________________________________________________________

    Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from New Jersey, questions
    submitted by

    145____________________________________________________________________

    Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., U.S. Senator from Vermont, questions submitted by

    80_____________________________________________________________________

    Levitt, Hon. Arthur, Chairman, Securities and Exchange Commission

    495____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    496____________________________________________________________________

    Lorson, Frank, Chief Deputy Clerk, Supreme Court of the United States, the
    judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Mayer, Haldane Robert, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the
    Feommunications Commission

    435____________________________________________________________________

    Biographical sketch

    447____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    438____________________________________________________________________

    Kennedy, Hon. Anthony M., Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United
    States, the judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    394____________________________________________________________________

    Kodiak Community Conservation Network, prepared statement

    570____________________________________________________________________

    Kulik, Bernard, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance, Small
    Business Administration

    367____________________________________________________________________

    Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from New Jersey, questions
    submitted by

    145____________________________________________________________________

    Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., U.S. Senator from Vermont, questions submitted by

    80_____________________________________________________________________

    Levitt, Hon. Arthur, Chairman, Securities and Exchange Commission

    495____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    496____________________________________________________________________

    Lorson, Frank, Chief Deputy Clerk, Supreme Court of the United States, the
    judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Mayer, Haldane Robert, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the
    FeMDNM/447

    Prepared statement

    438____________________________________________________________________

    Kennedy, Hon. Anthony M., Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United
    States, the judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    394____________________________________________________________________

    Kodiak Community Conservation Network, prepared statement

    570____________________________________________________________________

    Kulik, Bernard, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance, Small
    Business Administration

    367____________________________________________________________________

    Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from New Jersey, questions
    submitted by

    145____________________________________________________________________

    Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., U.S. Senator from Vermont, questions submitted by

    80_____________________________________________________________________

    Levitt, Hon. Arthur, Chairman, Securities and Exchange Commission

    495____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    496____________________________________________________________________

    Lorson, Frank, Chief Deputy Clerk, Supreme Court of the United States, the
    judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Mayer, Haldane Robert, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the
    FeNM/Kennard, Hon. William E., Chairman, Federal
    Communications Commission

    435____________________________________________________________________

    Biographical sketch

    447____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    438____________________________________________________________________

    Kennedy, Hon. Anthony M., Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United
    States, the judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    394____________________________________________________________________

    Kodiak Community Conservation Network, prepared statement

    570____________________________________________________________________

    Kulik, Bernard, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance, Small
    Business Administration

    367____________________________________________________________________

    Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from New Jersey, questions
    submitted by

    145____________________________________________________________________

    Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., U.S. Senator from Vermont, questions submitted by

    80_____________________________________________________________________

    Levitt, Hon. Arthur, Chairman, Securities and Exchange Commission

    495____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    496____________________________________________________________________

    Lorson, Frank, Chief Deputy Clerk, Supreme Court of the United States, the
    judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Mayer, Haldane Robert, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the
    Fetatement

    566____________________________________________________________________

    Kennard, Hon. William E., Chairman, Federal Communications Commission

    435____________________________________________________________________

    Biographical sketch

    447____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    438____________________________________________________________________

    Kennedy, Hon. Anthony M., Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United
    States, the judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    394____________________________________________________________________

    Kodiak Community Conservation Network, prepared statement

    570____________________________________________________________________

    Kulik, Bernard, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance, Small
    Business Administration

    367____________________________________________________________________

    Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from New Jersey, questions
    submitted by

    145____________________________________________________________________

    Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., U.S. Senator from Vermont, questions submitted by

    80_____________________________________________________________________

    Levitt, Hon. Arthur, Chairman, Securities and Exchange Commission

    495____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    496____________________________________________________________________

    Lorson, Frank, Chief Deputy Clerk, Supreme Court of the United States, the
    judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Mayer, Haldane Robert, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the
    Fet Company Institute, prepared statement

    571____________________________________________________________________

    Jollivette, Cyrus M., vice president for Government relations, University
    of Miami, prepared statement

    566____________________________________________________________________

    Kennard, Hon. William E., Chairman, Federal Communications Commission

    435____________________________________________________________________

    Biographical sketch

    447____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    438____________________________________________________________________

    Kennedy, Hon. Anthony M., Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United
    States, the judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    394____________________________________________________________________

    Kodiak Community Conservation Network, prepared statement

    570____________________________________________________________________

    Kulik, Bernard, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance, Small
    Business Administration

    367____________________________________________________________________

    Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from New Jersey, questions
    submitted by

    145____________________________________________________________________

    Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., U.S. Senator from Vermont, questions submitted by

    80_____________________________________________________________________

    Levitt, Hon. Arthur, Chairman, Securities and Exchange Commission

    495____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    496____________________________________________________________________

    Lorson, Frank, Chief Deputy Clerk, Supreme Court of the United States, the
    judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Mayer, Haldane Robert, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the
    Feommunications Commission

    435____________________________________________________________________

    Biographical sketch

    447____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    438____________________________________________________________________

    Kennedy, Hon. Anthony M., Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United
    States, the judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    394____________________________________________________________________

    Kodiak Community Conservation Network, prepared statement

    570____________________________________________________________________

    Kulik, Bernard, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance, Small
    Business Administration

    367____________________________________________________________________

    Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from New Jersey, questions
    submitted by

    145____________________________________________________________________

    Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., U.S. Senator from Vermont, questions submitted by

    80_____________________________________________________________________

    Levitt, Hon. Arthur, Chairman, Securities and Exchange Commission

    495____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    496____________________________________________________________________

    Lorson, Frank, Chief Deputy Clerk, Supreme Court of the United States, the
    judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Mayer, Haldane Robert, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the
    FeMDNM/447

    Prepared statement

    438____________________________________________________________________

    Kennedy, Hon. Anthony M., Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United
    States, the judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    394____________________________________________________________________

    Kodiak Community Conservation Network, prepared statement

    570____________________________________________________________________

    Kulik, Bernard, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance, Small
    Business Administration

    367____________________________________________________________________

    Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from New Jersey, questions
    submitted by

    145____________________________________________________________________

    Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., U.S. Senator from Vermont, questions submitted by

    80_____________________________________________________________________

    Levitt, Hon. Arthur, Chairman, Securities and Exchange Commission

    495____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    496____________________________________________________________________

    Lorson, Frank, Chief Deputy Clerk, Supreme Court of the United States, the
    judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Mayer, Haldane Robert, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the
    FeMDNM/447

    Prepared statement

    438____________________________________________________________________

    Kennedy, Hon. Anthony M., Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United
    States, the judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    394____________________________________________________________________

    Kodiak Community Conservation Network, prepared statement

    570____________________________________________________________________

    Kulik, Bernard, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance, Small
    Business Administration

    367____________________________________________________________________

    Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from New Jersey, questions
    submitted by

    145____________________________________________________________________

    Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., U.S. Senator from Vermont, questions submitted by

    80_____________________________________________________________________

    Levitt, Hon. Arthur, Chairman, Securities and Exchange Commission

    495____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    496____________________________________________________________________

    Lorson, Frank, Chief Deputy Clerk, Supreme Court of the United States, the
    judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Mayer, Haldane Robert, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the
    Fetatement

    566____________________________________________________________________

    Kennard, Hon. William E., Chairman, Federal Communications Commission

    435____________________________________________________________________

    Biographical sketch

    447____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    438____________________________________________________________________

    Kennedy, Hon. Anthony M., Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United
    States, the judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    394____________________________________________________________________

    Kodiak Community Conservation Network, prepared statement

    570____________________________________________________________________

    Kulik, Bernard, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance, Small
    Business Administration

    367____________________________________________________________________

    Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from New Jersey, questions
    submitted by

    145____________________________________________________________________

    Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., U.S. Senator from Vermont, questions submitted by

    80_____________________________________________________________________

    Levitt, Hon. Arthur, Chairman, Securities and Exchange Commission

    495____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    496____________________________________________________________________

    Lorson, Frank, Chief Deputy Clerk, Supreme Court of the United States, the
    judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Mayer, Haldane Robert, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the
    Fet Company Institute, prepared statement

    571____________________________________________________________________

    Jollivette, Cyrus M., vice president for Government relations, University
    of Miami, prepared statement

    566____________________________________________________________________

    Kennard, Hon. William E., Chairman, Federal Communications Commission

    435____________________________________________________________________

    Biographical sketch

    447____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    438____________________________________________________________________

    Kennedy, Hon. Anthony M., Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United
    States, the judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    394____________________________________________________________________

    Kodiak Community Conservation Network, prepared statement

    570____________________________________________________________________

    Kulik, Bernard, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance, Small
    Business Administration

    367____________________________________________________________________

    Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from New Jersey, questions
    submitted by

    145____________________________________________________________________

    Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., U.S. Senator from Vermont, questions submitted by

    80_____________________________________________________________________

    Levitt, Hon. Arthur, Chairman, Securities and Exchange Commission

    495____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    496____________________________________________________________________

    Lorson, Frank, Chief Deputy Clerk, Supreme Court of the United States, the
    judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Mayer, Haldane Robert, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the
    Femmission

    435____________________________________________________________________

    Biographical sketch

    447____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    438____________________________________________________________________

    Kennedy, Hon. Anthony M., Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United
    States, the judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    394____________________________________________________________________

    Kodiak Community Conservation Network, prepared statement

    570____________________________________________________________________

    Kulik, Bernard, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance, Small
    Business Administration

    367____________________________________________________________________

    Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from New Jersey, questions
    submitted by

    145____________________________________________________________________

    Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., U.S. Senator from Vermont, questions submitted by

    80_____________________________________________________________________

    Levitt, Hon. Arthur, Chairman, Securities and Exchange Commission

    495____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    496____________________________________________________________________

    Lorson, Frank, Chief Deputy Clerk, Supreme Court of the United States, the
    judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Mayer, Haldane Robert, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the
    FeM/Biographical sketch

    447____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    438____________________________________________________________________

    Kennedy, Hon. Anthony M., Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United
    States, the judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    394____________________________________________________________________

    Kodiak Community Conservation Network, prepared statement

    570____________________________________________________________________

    Kulik, Bernard, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance, Small
    Business Administration

    367____________________________________________________________________

    Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from New Jersey, questions
    submitted by

    145____________________________________________________________________

    Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., U.S. Senator from Vermont, questions submitted by

    80_____________________________________________________________________

    Levitt, Hon. Arthur, Chairman, Securities and Exchange Commission

    495____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    496____________________________________________________________________

    Lorson, Frank, Chief Deputy Clerk, Supreme Court of the United States, the
    judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Mayer, Haldane Robert, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the
    Feirman, Federal Communications Commission

    435____________________________________________________________________

    Biographical sketch

    447____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    438____________________________________________________________________

    Kennedy, Hon. Anthony M., Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United
    States, the judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    394____________________________________________________________________

    Kodiak Community Conservation Network, prepared statement

    570____________________________________________________________________

    Kulik, Bernard, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance, Small
    Business Administration

    367____________________________________________________________________

    Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from New Jersey, questions
    submitted by

    145____________________________________________________________________

    Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., U.S. Senator from Vermont, questions submitted by

    80_____________________________________________________________________

    Levitt, Hon. Arthur, Chairman, Securities and Exchange Commission

    495____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    496____________________________________________________________________

    Lorson, Frank, Chief Deputy Clerk, Supreme Court of the United States, the
    judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Mayer, Haldane Robert, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the
    FeIdaho Watersheds Project, Fish Forever, prepared statement.......
    568Inouye, Hon. Daniel K., U.S. Senator from Hawaii: Prepared
    statement........................................... 107 Questions
    submitted by  William E., Chairman, Federal Communications
    Commission

    435____________________________________________________________________

    Biographical sketch

    447____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    438____________________________________________________________________

    Kennedy, Hon. Anthony M., Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United
    States, the judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    394____________________________________________________________________

    Kodiak Community Conservation Network, prepared statement

    570____________________________________________________________________

    Kulik, Bernard, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance, Small
    Business Administration

    367____________________________________________________________________

    Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from New Jersey, questions
    submitted by

    145____________________________________________________________________

    Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., U.S. Senator from Vermont, questions submitted by

    80_____________________________________________________________________

    Levitt, Hon. Arthur, Chairman, Securities and Exchange Commission

    495____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    496____________________________________________________________________

    Lorson, Frank, Chief Deputy Clerk, Supreme Court of the United States, the
    judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Mayer, Haldane Robert, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the
    Femmission

    435____________________________________________________________________

    Biographical sketch

    447____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    438____________________________________________________________________

    Kennedy, Hon. Anthony M., Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United
    States, the judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    394____________________________________________________________________

    Kodiak Community Conservation Network, prepared statement

    570____________________________________________________________________

    Kulik, Bernard, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance, Small
    Business Administration

    367____________________________________________________________________

    Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from New Jersey, questions
    submitted by

    145____________________________________________________________________

    Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., U.S. Senator from Vermont, questions submitted by

    80_____________________________________________________________________

    Levitt, Hon. Arthur, Chairman, Securities and Exchange Commission

    495____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    496____________________________________________________________________

    Lorson, Frank, Chief Deputy Clerk, Supreme Court of the United States, the
    judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Mayer, Haldane Robert, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the
    Fe William E., Chairman, Federal Communications
    Commission

    435____________________________________________________________________

    Biographical sketch

    447____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    438____________________________________________________________________

    Kennedy, Hon. Anthony M., Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United
    States, the judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    394____________________________________________________________________

    Kodiak Community Conservation Network, prepared statement

    570____________________________________________________________________

    Kulik, Bernard, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance, Small
    Business Administration

    367____________________________________________________________________

    Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from New Jersey, questions
    submitted by

    145____________________________________________________________________

    Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., U.S. Senator from Vermont, questions submitted by

    80_____________________________________________________________________

    Levitt, Hon. Arthur, Chairman, Securities and Exchange Commission

    495____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    496____________________________________________________________________

    Lorson, Frank, Chief Deputy Clerk, Supreme Court of the United States, the
    judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Mayer, Haldane Robert, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the
    Fetatement

    566____________________________________________________________________

    Kennard, Hon. William E., Chairman, Federal Communications Commission

    435____________________________________________________________________

    Biographical sketch

    447____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    438____________________________________________________________________

    Kennedy, Hon. Anthony M., Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United
    States, the judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    394____________________________________________________________________

    Kodiak Community Conservation Network, prepared statement

    570____________________________________________________________________

    Kulik, Bernard, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance, Small
    Business Administration

    367____________________________________________________________________

    Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from New Jersey, questions
    submitted by

    145____________________________________________________________________

    Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., U.S. Senator from Vermont, questions submitted by

    80_____________________________________________________________________

    Levitt, Hon. Arthur, Chairman, Securities and Exchange Commission

    495____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    496____________________________________________________________________

    Lorson, Frank, Chief Deputy Clerk, Supreme Court of the United States, the
    judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Mayer, Haldane Robert, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the
    Fet Company Institute, prepared statement

    571____________________________________________________________________

    Jollivette, Cyrus M., vice president for Government relations, University
    of Miami, prepared statement

    566____________________________________________________________________

    Kennard, Hon. William E., Chairman, Federal Communications Commission

    435____________________________________________________________________

    Biographical sketch

    447____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    438____________________________________________________________________

    Kennedy, Hon. Anthony M., Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United
    States, the judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    394____________________________________________________________________

    Kodiak Community Conservation Network, prepared statement

    570____________________________________________________________________

    Kulik, Bernard, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance, Small
    Business Administration

    367____________________________________________________________________

    Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from New Jersey, questions
    submitted by

    145____________________________________________________________________

    Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., U.S. Senator from Vermont, questions submitted by

    80_____________________________________________________________________

    Levitt, Hon. Arthur, Chairman, Securities and Exchange Commission

    495____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    496____________________________________________________________________

    Lorson, Frank, Chief Deputy Clerk, Supreme Court of the United States, the
    judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Mayer, Haldane Robert, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the
    Feirman, Federal Communications Commission

    435____________________________________________________________________

    Biographical sketch

    447____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    438____________________________________________________________________

    Kennedy, Hon. Anthony M., Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United
    States, the judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    394____________________________________________________________________

    Kodiak Community Conservation Network, prepared statement

    570____________________________________________________________________

    Kulik, Bernard, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance, Small
    Business Administration

    367____________________________________________________________________

    Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from New Jersey, questions
    submitted by

    145____________________________________________________________________

    Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., U.S. Senator from Vermont, questions submitted by

    80_____________________________________________________________________

    Levitt, Hon. Arthur, Chairman, Securities and Exchange Commission

    495____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    496____________________________________________________________________

    Lorson, Frank, Chief Deputy Clerk, Supreme Court of the United States, the
    judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Mayer, Haldane Robert, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the
    Feommunications Commission

    435____________________________________________________________________

    Biographical sketch

    447____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    438____________________________________________________________________

    Kennedy, Hon. Anthony M., Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United
    States, the judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    394____________________________________________________________________

    Kodiak Community Conservation Network, prepared statement

    570____________________________________________________________________

    Kulik, Bernard, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance, Small
    Business Administration

    367____________________________________________________________________

    Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from New Jersey, questions
    submitted by

    145____________________________________________________________________

    Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., U.S. Senator from Vermont, questions submitted by

    80_____________________________________________________________________

    Levitt, Hon. Arthur, Chairman, Securities and Exchange Commission

    495____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    496____________________________________________________________________

    Lorson, Frank, Chief Deputy Clerk, Supreme Court of the United States, the
    judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Mayer, Haldane Robert, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the
    FeM/Biographical sketch

    447____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    438____________________________________________________________________

    Kennedy, Hon. Anthony M., Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United
    States, the judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    394____________________________________________________________________

    Kodiak Community Conservation Network, prepared statement

    570____________________________________________________________________

    Kulik, Bernard, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance, Small
    Business Administration

    367____________________________________________________________________

    Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from New Jersey, questions
    submitted by

    145____________________________________________________________________

    Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., U.S. Senator from Vermont, questions submitted by

    80_____________________________________________________________________

    Levitt, Hon. Arthur, Chairman, Securities and Exchange Commission

    495____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    496____________________________________________________________________

    Lorson, Frank, Chief Deputy Clerk, Supreme Court of the United States, the
    judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Mayer, Haldane Robert, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the
    Fetatement

    566____________________________________________________________________

    Kennard, Hon. William E., Chairman, Federal Communications Commission

    435____________________________________________________________________

    Biographical sketch

    447____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    438____________________________________________________________________

    Kennedy, Hon. Anthony M., Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United
    States, the judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    394____________________________________________________________________

    Kodiak Community Conservation Network, prepared statement

    570____________________________________________________________________

    Kulik, Bernard, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance, Small
    Business Administration

    367____________________________________________________________________

    Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from New Jersey, questions
    submitted by

    145____________________________________________________________________

    Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., U.S. Senator from Vermont, questions submitted by

    80_____________________________________________________________________

    Levitt, Hon. Arthur, Chairman, Securities and Exchange Commission

    495____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    496____________________________________________________________________

    Lorson, Frank, Chief Deputy Clerk, Supreme Court of the United States, the
    judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Mayer, Haldane Robert, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the
    Fet Company Institute, prepared statement

    571____________________________________________________________________

    Jollivette, Cyrus M., vice president for Government relations, University
    of Miami, prepared statement

    566____________________________________________________________________

    Kennard, Hon. William E., Chairman, Federal Communications Commission

    435____________________________________________________________________

    Biographical sketch

    447____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    438____________________________________________________________________

    Kennedy, Hon. Anthony M., Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United
    States, the judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    394____________________________________________________________________

    Kodiak Community Conservation Network, prepared statement

    570____________________________________________________________________

    Kulik, Bernard, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance, Small
    Business Administration

    367____________________________________________________________________

    Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from New Jersey, questions
    submitted by

    145____________________________________________________________________

    Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., U.S. Senator from Vermont, questions submitted by

    80_____________________________________________________________________

    Levitt, Hon. Arthur, Chairman, Securities and Exchange Commission

    495____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    496____________________________________________________________________

    Lorson, Frank, Chief Deputy Clerk, Supreme Court of the United States, the
    judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Mayer, Haldane Robert, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the
    Femmission

    435____________________________________________________________________

    Biographical sketch

    447____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    438____________________________________________________________________

    Kennedy, Hon. Anthony M., Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United
    States, the judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    394____________________________________________________________________

    Kodiak Community Conservation Network, prepared statement

    570____________________________________________________________________

    Kulik, Bernard, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance, Small
    Business Administration

    367____________________________________________________________________

    Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from New Jersey, questions
    submitted by

    145____________________________________________________________________

    Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., U.S. Senator from Vermont, questions submitted by

    80_____________________________________________________________________

    Levitt, Hon. Arthur, Chairman, Securities and Exchange Commission

    495____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    496____________________________________________________________________

    Lorson, Frank, Chief Deputy Clerk, Supreme Court of the United States, the
    judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Mayer, Haldane Robert, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the
    FeM/Biographical sketch

    447____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    438____________________________________________________________________

    Kennedy, Hon. Anthony M., Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United
    States, the judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    394____________________________________________________________________

    Kodiak Community Conservation Network, prepared statement

    570____________________________________________________________________

    Kulik, Bernard, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance, Small
    Business Administration

    367____________________________________________________________________

    Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from New Jersey, questions
    submitted by

    145____________________________________________________________________

    Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., U.S. Senator from Vermont, questions submitted by

    80_____________________________________________________________________

    Levitt, Hon. Arthur, Chairman, Securities and Exchange Commission

    495____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    496____________________________________________________________________

    Lorson, Frank, Chief Deputy Clerk, Supreme Court of the United States, the
    judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Mayer, Haldane Robert, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the
    Femmission

    435____________________________________________________________________

    Biographical sketch

    447____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    438____________________________________________________________________

    Kennedy, Hon. Anthony M., Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United
    States, the judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    394____________________________________________________________________

    Kodiak Community Conservation Network, prepared statement

    570____________________________________________________________________

    Kulik, Bernard, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance, Small
    Business Administration

    367____________________________________________________________________

    Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from New Jersey, questions
    submitted by

    145____________________________________________________________________

    Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., U.S. Senator from Vermont, questions submitted by

    80_____________________________________________________________________

    Levitt, Hon. Arthur, Chairman, Securities and Exchange Commission

    495____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    496____________________________________________________________________

    Lorson, Frank, Chief Deputy Clerk, Supreme Court of the United States, the
    judiciary

    393____________________________________________________________________

    Mayer, Haldane Robert, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the
    FeInvestment Company Institute, prepared statement.................
    571Jollivette, Cyrus M., vice president for Government relations,
    University of Miami, prepared statement........................ 566Kennard,
    Hon. William E., Chairman, Federal Communications
    Commission..................................................... 435
    Biographical sketch.......................................... 447 Prepared
    statement........................................... 438Kennedy, Hon.
    Anthony M., Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United States, the
    judiciary................................... 393 Prepared
    statement........................................... 394Kodiak Community
    Conservation Network, prepared statement........ 570Kulik, Bernard,
    Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance, Small Business
    Administration.................................. 367Lautenberg, Hon. Frank
    R., U.S. Senator from New Jersey, questions submitted
    by......................................... 145Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., U.S.
    Senator from Vermont, questions submitted
    by................................................... 80Levitt, Hon.
    Arthur, Chairman, Securities and Exchange Commission 495 Prepared
    statement........................................... 496Lorson, Frank,
    Chief Deputy Clerk, Supreme Court of the United States, the
    judiciary.......................................... 393Mayer, Haldane
    Robert, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, U.S.
    courts, the judiciary, prepared statement 418Mecham, Leonidas Ralph,
    Director, Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, U.S. courts, the
    judiciary, prepared statement.... 413Meissner, Doris, Commissioner,
    Immigration and Naturalization Service, Department of Justice
    ication:

    Decision--lead role

    224____________________________________________________________________

    Process

    196____________________________________________________________________

    DEA and INS coordination

    194____________________________________________________________________

    Drug certification

    257____________________________________________________________________

    Drug strategy

    152____________________________________________________________________

    FBI-DEA cross training

    228____________________________________________________________________

    Heroin

    154____________________________________________________________________

    HIDTA

    250____________________________________________________________________

    Indicted Mexican nationals or Americans who reside in Mexico

    225____________________________________________________________________

    Initiatives

    153____________________________________________________________________

    Methamphetamine

    154, 252_______________________________________________________________

    Controlling

    205____________________________________________________________________

    Status of fight against

    204____________________________________________________________________

    Strategy

    153____________________________________________________________________

    Mexican Government cooperation

    215____________________________________________________________________

    Mexico drug certification

    246____________________________________________________________________

    Mexico, status of

    195____________________________________________________________________

    Opening statement--DEA

    151____________________________________________________________________

    Drug organizations, investigations of major

    152____________________________________________________________________

    Pharmacies, raid on

    217____________________________________________________________________

    Federal Bureau of Investigation/224

    Process

    196____________________________________________________________________

    DEA and INS coordination

    194____________________________________________________________________

    Drug certification

    257____________________________________________________________________

    Drug strategy

    152____________________________________________________________________

    FBI-DEA cross training

    228____________________________________________________________________

    Heroin

    154____________________________________________________________________

    HIDTA

    250____________________________________________________________________

    Indicted Mexican nationals or Americans who reside in Mexico

    225____________________________________________________________________

    Initiatives

    153____________________________________________________________________

    Methamphetamine

    154, 252_______________________________________________________________

    Controlling

    205____________________________________________________________________

    Status of fight against

    204____________________________________________________________________

    Strategy

    153____________________________________________________________________

    Mexican Government cooperation

    215____________________________________________________________________

    Mexico drug certification

    246____________________________________________________________________

    Mexico, status of

    195____________________________________________________________________

    Opening statement--DEA

    151____________________________________________________________________

    Drug organizations, investigations of major

    152____________________________________________________________________

    Pharmacies, raid on

    217____________________________________________________________________

    Federal Bureau of Investigationication:

    Decision--lead role

    224____________________________________________________________________

    Process

    196____________________________________________________________________

    DEA and INS coordination

    194____________________________________________________________________

    Drug certification

    257____________________________________________________________________

    Drug strategy

    152____________________________________________________________________

    FBI-DEA cross training

    228____________________________________________________________________

    Heroin

    154____________________________________________________________________

    HIDTA

    250____________________________________________________________________

    Indicted Mexican nationals or Americans who reside in Mexico

    225____________________________________________________________________

    Initiatives

    153____________________________________________________________________

    Methamphetamine

    154, 252_______________________________________________________________

    Controlling

    205____________________________________________________________________

    Status of fight against

    204____________________________________________________________________

    Strategy

    153____________________________________________________________________

    Mexican Government cooperation

    215____________________________________________________________________

    Mexico drug certification

    246____________________________________________________________________

    Mexico, status of

    195____________________________________________________________________

    Opening statement--DEA

    151____________________________________________________________________

    Drug organizations, investigations of major

    152____________________________________________________________________

    Pharmacies, raid on

    217____________________________________________________________________

    Federal Bureau of InvestigationMDNM/Budget request, fiscal
    year 1999

    165____________________________________________________________________

    Certification:

    Decision--lead role

    224____________________________________________________________________

    Process

    196____________________________________________________________________

    DEA and INS coordination

    194____________________________________________________________________

    Drug certification

    257____________________________________________________________________

    Drug strategy

    152____________________________________________________________________

    FBI-DEA cross training

    228____________________________________________________________________

    Heroin

    154____________________________________________________________________

    HIDTA

    250____________________________________________________________________

    Indicted Mexican nationals or Americans who reside in Mexico

    225____________________________________________________________________

    Initiatives

    153____________________________________________________________________

    Methamphetamine

    154, 252_______________________________________________________________

    Controlling

    205____________________________________________________________________

    Status of fight against

    204____________________________________________________________________

    Strategy

    153____________________________________________________________________

    Mexican Government cooperation

    215____________________________________________________________________

    Mexico drug certification

    246____________________________________________________________________

    Mexico, status of

    195____________________________________________________________________

    Opening statement--DEA

    151____________________________________________________________________

    Drug organizations, investigations of major

    152____________________________________________________________________

    Pharmacies, raid on

    217____________________________________________________________________

    Federal Bureau of Investigation

    DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

    Drug Enforcement Administration

    Additional committee questions

    246____________________________________________________________________

    Budget request, fiscal year 1999

    165____________________________________________________________________

    Certification:

    Decision--lead role

    224____________________________________________________________________

    Process

    196____________________________________________________________________

    DEA and INS coordination

    194____________________________________________________________________

    Drug certification

    257____________________________________________________________________

    Drug strategy

    152____________________________________________________________________

    FBI-DEA cross training

    228____________________________________________________________________

    Heroin

    154____________________________________________________________________

    HIDTA

    250____________________________________________________________________

    Indicted Mexican nationals or Americans who reside in Mexico

    225____________________________________________________________________

    Initiatives

    153____________________________________________________________________

    Methamphetamine

    154, 252_______________________________________________________________

    Controlling

    205____________________________________________________________________

    Status of fight against

    204____________________________________________________________________

    Strategy

    153____________________________________________________________________

    Mexican Government cooperation

    215____________________________________________________________________

    Mexico drug certification

    246____________________________________________________________________

    Mexico, status of

    195____________________________________________________________________

    Opening statement--DEA

    151____________________________________________________________________

    Drug organizations, investigations of major

    152____________________________________________________________________

    Pharmacies, raid on

    217____________________________________________________________________

    Federal Bureau of Investigationication:

    Decision--lead role

    224____________________________________________________________________

    Process

    196____________________________________________________________________

    DEA and INS coordination

    194____________________________________________________________________

    Drug certification

    257____________________________________________________________________

    Drug strategy

    152____________________________________________________________________

    FBI-DEA cross training

    228____________________________________________________________________

    Heroin

    154____________________________________________________________________

    HIDTA

    250____________________________________________________________________

    Indicted Mexican nationals or Americans who reside in Mexico

    225____________________________________________________________________

    Initiatives

    153____________________________________________________________________

    Methamphetamine

    154, 252_______________________________________________________________

    Controlling

    205____________________________________________________________________

    Status of fight against

    204____________________________________________________________________

    Strategy

    153____________________________________________________________________

    Mexican Government cooperation

    215____________________________________________________________________

    Mexico drug certification

    246____________________________________________________________________

    Mexico, status of

    195____________________________________________________________________

    Opening statement--DEA

    151____________________________________________________________________

    Drug organizations, investigations of major

    152____________________________________________________________________

    Pharmacies, raid on

    217____________________________________________________________________

    Federal Bureau of Investigation/

    Process

    196____________________________________________________________________

    DEA and INS coordination

    194____________________________________________________________________

    Drug certification

    257____________________________________________________________________

    Drug strategy

    152____________________________________________________________________

    FBI-DEA cross training

    228____________________________________________________________________

    Heroin

    154____________________________________________________________________

    HIDTA

    250____________________________________________________________________

    Indicted Mexican nationals or Americans who reside in Mexico

    225____________________________________________________________________

    Initiatives

    153____________________________________________________________________

    Methamphetamine

    154, 252_______________________________________________________________

    Controlling

    205____________________________________________________________________

    Status of fight against

    204____________________________________________________________________

    Strategy

    153____________________________________________________________________

    Mexican Government cooperation

    215____________________________________________________________________

    Mexico drug certification

    246____________________________________________________________________

    Mexico, status of

    195____________________________________________________________________

    Opening statement--DEA

    151____________________________________________________________________

    Drug organizations, investigations of major

    152____________________________________________________________________

    Pharmacies, raid on

    217____________________________________________________________________

    Federal Bureau of Investigationss

    196____________________________________________________________________

    DEA and INS coordination

    194____________________________________________________________________

    Drug certification

    257____________________________________________________________________

    Drug strategy

    152____________________________________________________________________

    FBI-DEA cross training

    228____________________________________________________________________

    Heroin

    154____________________________________________________________________

    HIDTA

    250____________________________________________________________________

    Indicted Mexican nationals or Americans who reside in Mexico

    225____________________________________________________________________

    Initiatives

    153____________________________________________________________________

    Methamphetamine

    154, 252_______________________________________________________________

    Controlling

    205____________________________________________________________________

    Status of fight against

    204____________________________________________________________________

    Strategy

    153____________________________________________________________________

    Mexican Government cooperation

    215____________________________________________________________________

    Mexico drug certification

    246____________________________________________________________________

    Mexico, status of

    195____________________________________________________________________

    Opening statement--DEA

    151____________________________________________________________________

    Drug organizations, investigations of major

    152____________________________________________________________________

    Pharmacies, raid on

    217____________________________________________________________________

    Federal Bureau of Investigation Prepared
    statement........................................... 170Mikulski, Hon.
    Barbara A., U.S. Senator from Maryland, questions submitted
    by................................................... 476Moxam, Andrew H.,
    Acting Chief Financial Officer, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
    Administration, Department of Commerce. 333National Audubon Society,
    prepared statement..................... 568National Fishing Association,
    prepared statement................. 568National Public Radio, prepared
    statement........................ 540Natural Resource Consultants, prepared
    statement................. 570Natural Resources Defense Council, prepared
    statement............ 570North Carolina Chapter Sierra Club, prepared
    statement........... 570North Carolina Sierra Club, prepared
    statement................... 568Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's
    Associations, prepared
    statement...................................................... 568Reno,
    Hon. Janet, U.S. Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General,
    Department of Justice................................. 1 Prepared
    statement........................................... 3Rogstad, Barry K.,
    president, American Business Conference and chairman, Board of Overseers,
    Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award, prepared
    statement...................................... 529Roper, Michael J.,
    Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Controller, Office of the Attorney
    General, Department of Justice.......... 1Safer Waters in Massachusetts,
    prepared statement................ 570Souter, Hon. David Hackett, Associate
    Justice, Supreme Court of the United States, the
    judiciary............................... 393Stevens, Hon. Ted, U.S. Senator
    from Alaska, questions submitted by e

    224____________________________________________________________________

    Process

    196____________________________________________________________________

    DEA and INS coordination

    194____________________________________________________________________

    Drug certification

    257____________________________________________________________________

    Drug strategy

    152____________________________________________________________________

    FBI-DEA cross training

    228____________________________________________________________________

    Heroin

    154____________________________________________________________________

    HIDTA

    250____________________________________________________________________

    Indicted Mexican nationals or Americans who reside in Mexico

    225____________________________________________________________________

    Initiatives

    153____________________________________________________________________

    Methamphetamine

    154, 252_______________________________________________________________

    Controlling

    205____________________________________________________________________

    Status of fight against

    204____________________________________________________________________

    Strategy

    153____________________________________________________________________

    Mexican Government cooperation

    215____________________________________________________________________

    Mexico drug certification

    246____________________________________________________________________

    Mexico, status of

    195____________________________________________________________________

    Opening statement--DEA

    151____________________________________________________________________

    Drug organizations, investigations of major

    152____________________________________________________________________

    Pharmacies, raid on

    217____________________________________________________________________

    Federal Bureau of Investigatione

    224____________________________________________________________________

    Process

    196____________________________________________________________________

    DEA and INS coordination

    194____________________________________________________________________

    Drug certification

    257____________________________________________________________________

    Drug strategy

    152____________________________________________________________________

    FBI-DEA cross training

    228____________________________________________________________________

    Heroin

    154____________________________________________________________________

    HIDTA

    250____________________________________________________________________

    Indicted Mexican nationals or Americans who reside in Mexico

    225____________________________________________________________________

    Initiatives

    153____________________________________________________________________

    Methamphetamine

    154, 252_______________________________________________________________

    Controlling

    205____________________________________________________________________

    Status of fight against

    204____________________________________________________________________

    Strategy

    153____________________________________________________________________

    Mexican Government cooperation

    215____________________________________________________________________

    Mexico drug certification

    246____________________________________________________________________

    Mexico, status of

    195____________________________________________________________________

    Opening statement--DEA

    151____________________________________________________________________

    Drug organizations, investigations of major

    152____________________________________________________________________

    Pharmacies, raid on

    217____________________________________________________________________

    Federal Bureau of InvestigationMDNM/Budget request, fiscal
    year 1999

    165____________________________________________________________________

    Certification:

    Decision--lead role

    224____________________________________________________________________

    Process

    196____________________________________________________________________

    DEA and INS coordination

    194____________________________________________________________________

    Drug certification

    257____________________________________________________________________

    Drug strategy

    152____________________________________________________________________

    FBI-DEA cross training

    228____________________________________________________________________

    Heroin

    154____________________________________________________________________

    HIDTA

    250____________________________________________________________________

    Indicted Mexican nationals or Americans who reside in Mexico

    225____________________________________________________________________

    Initiatives

    153____________________________________________________________________

    Methamphetamine

    154, 252_______________________________________________________________

    Controlling

    205____________________________________________________________________

    Status of fight against

    204____________________________________________________________________

    Strategy

    153____________________________________________________________________

    Mexican Government cooperation

    215____________________________________________________________________

    Mexico drug certification

    246____________________________________________________________________

    Mexico, status of

    195____________________________________________________________________

    Opening statement--DEA

    151____________________________________________________________________

    Drug organizations, investigations of major

    152____________________________________________________________________

    Pharmacies, raid on

    217____________________________________________________________________

    Federal Bureau of Investigation

    DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

    Drug Enforcement Administration

    Additional committee questions

    246____________________________________________________________________

    Budget request, fiscal year 1999

    165____________________________________________________________________

    Certification:

    Decision--lead role

    224____________________________________________________________________

    Process

    196____________________________________________________________________

    DEA and INS coordination

    194____________________________________________________________________

    Drug certification

    257____________________________________________________________________

    Drug strategy

    152____________________________________________________________________

    FBI-DEA cross training

    228____________________________________________________________________

    Heroin

    154____________________________________________________________________

    HIDTA

    250____________________________________________________________________

    Indicted Mexican nationals or Americans who reside in Mexico

    225____________________________________________________________________

    Initiatives

    153____________________________________________________________________

    Methamphetamine

    154, 252_______________________________________________________________

    Controlling

    205____________________________________________________________________

    Status of fight against

    204____________________________________________________________________

    Strategy

    153____________________________________________________________________

    Mexican Government cooperation

    215____________________________________________________________________

    Mexico drug certification

    246____________________________________________________________________

    Mexico, status of

    195____________________________________________________________________

    Opening statement--DEA

    151____________________________________________________________________

    Drug organizations, investigations of major

    152____________________________________________________________________

    Pharmacies, raid on

    217____________________________________________________________________

    Federal Bureau of Investigationication:

    Decision--lead role

    224____________________________________________________________________

    Process

    196____________________________________________________________________

    DEA and INS coordination

    194____________________________________________________________________

    Drug certification

    257____________________________________________________________________

    Drug strategy

    152____________________________________________________________________

    FBI-DEA cross training

    228____________________________________________________________________

    Heroin

    154____________________________________________________________________

    HIDTA

    250____________________________________________________________________

    Indicted Mexican nationals or Americans who reside in Mexico

    225____________________________________________________________________

    Initiatives

    153____________________________________________________________________

    Methamphetamine

    154, 252_______________________________________________________________

    Controlling

    205____________________________________________________________________

    Status of fight against

    204____________________________________________________________________

    Strategy

    153____________________________________________________________________

    Mexican Government cooperation

    215____________________________________________________________________

    Mexico drug certification

    246____________________________________________________________________

    Mexico, status of

    195____________________________________________________________________

    Opening statement--DEA

    151____________________________________________________________________

    Drug organizations, investigations of major

    152____________________________________________________________________

    Pharmacies, raid on

    217____________________________________________________________________

    Federal Bureau of Investigationication:

    Decision--lead role

    224____________________________________________________________________

    Process

    196____________________________________________________________________

    DEA and INS coordination

    194____________________________________________________________________

    Drug certification

    257____________________________________________________________________

    Drug strategy

    152____________________________________________________________________

    FBI-DEA cross training

    228____________________________________________________________________

    Heroin

    154____________________________________________________________________

    HIDTA

    250____________________________________________________________________

    Indicted Mexican nationals or Americans who reside in Mexico

    225____________________________________________________________________

    Initiatives

    153____________________________________________________________________

    Methamphetamine

    154, 252_______________________________________________________________

    Controlling

    205____________________________________________________________________

    Status of fight against

    204____________________________________________________________________

    Strategy

    153____________________________________________________________________

    Mexican Government cooperation

    215____________________________________________________________________

    Mexico drug certification

    246____________________________________________________________________

    Mexico, status of

    195____________________________________________________________________

    Opening statement--DEA

    151____________________________________________________________________

    Drug organizations, investigations of major

    152____________________________________________________________________

    Pharmacies, raid on

    217____________________________________________________________________

    Federal Bureau of Investigatione

    224____________________________________________________________________

    Process

    196____________________________________________________________________

    DEA and INS coordination

    194____________________________________________________________________

    Drug certification

    257____________________________________________________________________

    Drug strategy

    152____________________________________________________________________

    FBI-DEA cross training

    228____________________________________________________________________

    Heroin

    154____________________________________________________________________

    HIDTA

    250____________________________________________________________________

    Indicted Mexican nationals or Americans who reside in Mexico

    225____________________________________________________________________

    Initiatives

    153____________________________________________________________________

    Methamphetamine

    154, 252_______________________________________________________________

    Controlling

    205____________________________________________________________________

    Status of fight against

    204____________________________________________________________________

    Strategy

    153____________________________________________________________________

    Mexican Government cooperation

    215____________________________________________________________________

    Mexico drug certification

    246____________________________________________________________________

    Mexico, status of

    195____________________________________________________________________

    Opening statement--DEA

    151____________________________________________________________________

    Drug organizations, investigations of major

    152____________________________________________________________________

    Pharmacies, raid on

    217____________________________________________________________________

    Federal Bureau of InvestigationMDNM/Budget request, fiscal
    year 1999

    165____________________________________________________________________

    Certification:

    Decision--lead role

    224____________________________________________________________________

    Process

    196____________________________________________________________________

    DEA and INS coordination

    194____________________________________________________________________

    Drug certification

    257____________________________________________________________________

    Drug strategy

    152____________________________________________________________________

    FBI-DEA cross training

    228____________________________________________________________________

    Heroin

    154____________________________________________________________________

    HIDTA

    250____________________________________________________________________

    Indicted Mexican nationals or Americans who reside in Mexico

    225____________________________________________________________________

    Initiatives

    153____________________________________________________________________

    Methamphetamine

    154, 252_______________________________________________________________

    Controlling

    205____________________________________________________________________

    Status of fight against

    204____________________________________________________________________

    Strategy

    153____________________________________________________________________

    Mexican Government cooperation

    215____________________________________________________________________

    Mexico drug certification

    246____________________________________________________________________

    Mexico, status of

    195____________________________________________________________________

    Opening statement--DEA

    151____________________________________________________________________

    Drug organizations, investigations of major

    152____________________________________________________________________

    Pharmacies, raid on

    217____________________________________________________________________

    Federal Bureau of Investigation

    DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

    Drug Enforcement Administration

    Additional committee questions

    246____________________________________________________________________

    Budget request, fiscal year 1999

    165____________________________________________________________________

    Certification:

    Decision--lead role

    224____________________________________________________________________

    Process

    196____________________________________________________________________

    DEA and INS coordination

    194____________________________________________________________________

    Drug certification

    257____________________________________________________________________

    Drug strategy

    152____________________________________________________________________

    FBI-DEA cross training

    228____________________________________________________________________

    Heroin

    154____________________________________________________________________

    HIDTA

    250____________________________________________________________________

    Indicted Mexican nationals or Americans who reside in Mexico

    225____________________________________________________________________

    Initiatives

    153____________________________________________________________________

    Methamphetamine

    154, 252_______________________________________________________________

    Controlling

    205____________________________________________________________________

    Status of fight against

    204____________________________________________________________________

    Strategy

    153____________________________________________________________________

    Mexican Government cooperation

    215____________________________________________________________________

    Mexico drug certification

    246____________________________________________________________________

    Mexico, status of

    195____________________________________________________________________

    Opening statement--DEA

    151____________________________________________________________________

    Drug organizations, investigations of major

    152____________________________________________________________________

    Pharmacies, raid on

    217____________________________________________________________________

    Federal Bureau of Investigationecision--lead role

    224____________________________________________________________________

    Process

    196____________________________________________________________________

    DEA and INS coordination

    194____________________________________________________________________

    Drug certification

    257____________________________________________________________________

    Drug strategy

    152____________________________________________________________________

    FBI-DEA cross training

    228____________________________________________________________________

    Heroin

    154____________________________________________________________________

    HIDTA

    250____________________________________________________________________

    Indicted Mexican nationals or Americans who reside in Mexico

    225____________________________________________________________________

    Initiatives

    153____________________________________________________________________

    Methamphetamine

    154, 252_______________________________________________________________

    Controlling

    205____________________________________________________________________

    Status of fight against

    204____________________________________________________________________

    Strategy

    153____________________________________________________________________

    Mexican Government cooperation

    215____________________________________________________________________

    Mexico drug certification

    246____________________________________________________________________

    Mexico, status of

    195____________________________________________________________________

    Opening statement--DEA

    151____________________________________________________________________

    Drug organizations, investigations of major

    152____________________________________________________________________

    Pharmacies, raid on

    217____________________________________________________________________

    Federal Bureau of InvestigationM/196

    DEA and INS coordination

    194____________________________________________________________________

    Drug certification

    257____________________________________________________________________

    Drug strategy

    152____________________________________________________________________

    FBI-DEA cross training

    228____________________________________________________________________

    Heroin

    154____________________________________________________________________

    HIDTA

    250____________________________________________________________________

    Indicted Mexican nationals or Americans who reside in Mexico

    225____________________________________________________________________

    Initiatives

    153____________________________________________________________________

    Methamphetamine

    154, 252_______________________________________________________________

    Controlling

    205____________________________________________________________________

    Status of fight against

    204____________________________________________________________________

    Strategy

    153____________________________________________________________________

    Mexican Government cooperation

    215____________________________________________________________________

    Mexico drug certification

    246____________________________________________________________________

    Mexico, status of

    195____________________________________________________________________

    Opening statement--DEA

    151____________________________________________________________________

    Drug organizations, investigations of major

    152____________________________________________________________________

    Pharmacies, raid on

    217____________________________________________________________________

    Federal Bureau of Investigationss

    196____________________________________________________________________

    DEA and INS coordination

    194____________________________________________________________________

    Drug certification

    257____________________________________________________________________

    Drug strategy

    152____________________________________________________________________

    FBI-DEA cross training

    228____________________________________________________________________

    Heroin

    154____________________________________________________________________

    HIDTA

    250____________________________________________________________________

    Indicted Mexican nationals or Americans who reside in Mexico

    225____________________________________________________________________

    Initiatives

    153____________________________________________________________________

    Methamphetamine

    154, 252_______________________________________________________________

    Controlling

    205____________________________________________________________________

    Status of fight against

    204____________________________________________________________________

    Strategy

    153____________________________________________________________________

    Mexican Government cooperation

    215____________________________________________________________________

    Mexico drug certification

    246____________________________________________________________________

    Mexico, status of

    195____________________________________________________________________

    Opening statement--DEA

    151____________________________________________________________________

    Drug organizations, investigations of major

    152____________________________________________________________________

    Pharmacies, raid on

    217____________________________________________________________________

    Federal Bureau of InvestigationTrustees for Alaska, prepared
    statement.......................... 570University of Medicine & Dentistry
    of New Jersey, prepared statements /224

    Process

    196____________________________________________________________________

    DEA and INS coordination

    194____________________________________________________________________

    Drug certification

    257____________________________________________________________________

    Drug strategy

    152____________________________________________________________________

    FBI-DEA cross training

    228____________________________________________________________________

    Heroin

    154____________________________________________________________________

    HIDTA

    250____________________________________________________________________

    Indicted Mexican nationals or Americans who reside in Mexico

    225____________________________________________________________________

    Initiatives

    153____________________________________________________________________

    Methamphetamine

    154, 252_______________________________________________________________

    Controlling

    205____________________________________________________________________

    Status of fight against

    204____________________________________________________________________

    Strategy

    153____________________________________________________________________

    Mexican Government cooperation

    215____________________________________________________________________

    Mexico drug certification

    246____________________________________________________________________

    Mexico, status of

    195____________________________________________________________________

    Opening statement--DEA

    151____________________________________________________________________

    Drug organizations, investigations of major

    152____________________________________________________________________

    Pharmacies, raid on

    217____________________________________________________________________

    Federal Bureau of InvestigationMDBO/

    Decision--lead role

    224____________________________________________________________________

    Process

    196____________________________________________________________________

    DEA and INS coordination

    194____________________________________________________________________

    Drug certification

    257____________________________________________________________________

    Drug strategy

    152____________________________________________________________________

    FBI-DEA cross training

    228____________________________________________________________________

    Heroin

    154____________________________________________________________________

    HIDTA

    250____________________________________________________________________

    Indicted Mexican nationals or Americans who reside in Mexico

    225____________________________________________________________________

    Initiatives

    153____________________________________________________________________

    Methamphetamine

    154, 252_______________________________________________________________

    Controlling

    205____________________________________________________________________

    Status of fight against

    204____________________________________________________________________

    Strategy

    153____________________________________________________________________

    Mexican Government cooperation

    215____________________________________________________________________

    Mexico drug certification

    246____________________________________________________________________

    Mexico, status of

    195____________________________________________________________________

    Opening statement--DEA

    151____________________________________________________________________

    Drug organizations, investigations of major

    152____________________________________________________________________

    Pharmacies, raid on

    217____________________________________________________________________

    Federal Bureau of Investigationecision--lead role

    224____________________________________________________________________

    Process

    196____________________________________________________________________

    DEA and INS coordination

    194____________________________________________________________________

    Drug certification

    257____________________________________________________________________

    Drug strategy

    152____________________________________________________________________

    FBI-DEA cross training

    228____________________________________________________________________

    Heroin

    154____________________________________________________________________

    HIDTA

    250____________________________________________________________________

    Indicted Mexican nationals or Americans who reside in Mexico

    225____________________________________________________________________

    Initiatives

    153____________________________________________________________________

    Methamphetamine

    154, 252_______________________________________________________________

    Controlling

    205____________________________________________________________________

    Status of fight against

    204____________________________________________________________________

    Strategy

    153____________________________________________________________________

    Mexican Government cooperation

    215____________________________________________________________________

    Mexico drug certification

    246____________________________________________________________________

    Mexico, status of

    195____________________________________________________________________

    Opening statement--DEA

    151____________________________________________________________________

    Drug organizations, investigations of major

    152____________________________________________________________________

    Pharmacies, raid on

    217____________________________________________________________________

    Federal Bureau of InvestigationMDNM/Budget request, fiscal
    year 1999

    165____________________________________________________________________

    Certification:

    Decision--lead role

    224____________________________________________________________________

    Process

    196____________________________________________________________________

    DEA and INS coordination

    194____________________________________________________________________

    Drug certification

    257____________________________________________________________________

    Drug strategy

    152____________________________________________________________________

    FBI-DEA cross training

    228____________________________________________________________________

    Heroin

    154____________________________________________________________________

    HIDTA

    250____________________________________________________________________

    Indicted Mexican nationals or Americans who reside in Mexico

    225____________________________________________________________________

    Initiatives

    153____________________________________________________________________

    Methamphetamine

    154, 252_______________________________________________________________

    Controlling

    205____________________________________________________________________

    Status of fight against

    204____________________________________________________________________

    Strategy

    153____________________________________________________________________

    Mexican Government cooperation

    215____________________________________________________________________

    Mexico drug certification

    246____________________________________________________________________

    Mexico, status of

    195____________________________________________________________________

    Opening statement--DEA

    151____________________________________________________________________

    Drug organizations, investigations of major

    152____________________________________________________________________

    Pharmacies, raid on

    217____________________________________________________________________

    Federal Bureau of Investigation

    DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

    Drug Enforcement Administration

    Additional committee questions

    246____________________________________________________________________

    Budget request, fiscal year 1999

    165____________________________________________________________________

    Certification:

    Decision--lead role

    224____________________________________________________________________

    Process

    196____________________________________________________________________

    DEA and INS coordination

    194____________________________________________________________________

    Drug certification

    257____________________________________________________________________

    Drug strategy

    152____________________________________________________________________

    FBI-DEA cross training

    228____________________________________________________________________

    Heroin

    154____________________________________________________________________

    HIDTA

    250____________________________________________________________________

    Indicted Mexican nationals or Americans who reside in Mexico

    225____________________________________________________________________

    Initiatives

    153____________________________________________________________________

    Methamphetamine

    154, 252_______________________________________________________________

    Controlling

    205____________________________________________________________________

    Status of fight against

    204____________________________________________________________________

    Strategy

    153____________________________________________________________________

    Mexican Government cooperation

    215____________________________________________________________________

    Mexico drug certification

    246____________________________________________________________________

    Mexico, status of

    195____________________________________________________________________

    Opening statement--DEA

    151____________________________________________________________________

    Drug organizations, investigations of major

    152____________________________________________________________________

    Pharmacies, raid on

    217____________________________________________________________________

    Federal Bureau of Investigation/224

    Process

    196____________________________________________________________________

    DEA and INS coordination

    194____________________________________________________________________

    Drug certification

    257____________________________________________________________________

    Drug strategy

    152____________________________________________________________________

    FBI-DEA cross training

    228____________________________________________________________________

    Heroin

    154____________________________________________________________________

    HIDTA

    250____________________________________________________________________

    Indicted Mexican nationals or Americans who reside in Mexico

    225____________________________________________________________________

    Initiatives

    153____________________________________________________________________

    Methamphetamine

    154, 252_______________________________________________________________

    Controlling

    205____________________________________________________________________

    Status of fight against

    204____________________________________________________________________

    Strategy

    153____________________________________________________________________

    Mexican Government cooperation

    215____________________________________________________________________

    Mexico drug certification

    246____________________________________________________________________

    Mexico, status of

    195____________________________________________________________________

    Opening statement--DEA

    151____________________________________________________________________

    Drug organizations, investigations of major

    152____________________________________________________________________

    Pharmacies, raid on

    217____________________________________________________________________

    Federal Bureau of Investigatione

    224____________________________________________________________________

    Process

    196____________________________________________________________________

    DEA and INS coordination

    194____________________________________________________________________

    Drug certification

    257____________________________________________________________________

    Drug strategy

    152____________________________________________________________________

    FBI-DEA cross training

    228____________________________________________________________________

    Heroin

    154____________________________________________________________________

    HIDTA

    250____________________________________________________________________

    Indicted Mexican nationals or Americans who reside in Mexico

    225____________________________________________________________________

    Initiatives

    153____________________________________________________________________

    Methamphetamine

    154, 252_______________________________________________________________

    Controlling

    205____________________________________________________________________

    Status of fight against

    204____________________________________________________________________

    Strategy

    153____________________________________________________________________

    Mexican Government cooperation

    215____________________________________________________________________

    Mexico drug certification

    246____________________________________________________________________

    Mexico, status of

    195____________________________________________________________________

    Opening statement--DEA

    151____________________________________________________________________

    Drug organizations, investigations of major

    152____________________________________________________________________

    Pharmacies, raid on

    217____________________________________________________________________

    Federal Bureau of Investigation/224

    Process

    196____________________________________________________________________

    DEA and INS coordination

    194____________________________________________________________________

    Drug certification

    257____________________________________________________________________

    Drug strategy

    152____________________________________________________________________

    FBI-DEA cross training

    228____________________________________________________________________

    Heroin

    154____________________________________________________________________

    HIDTA

    250____________________________________________________________________

    Indicted Mexican nationals or Americans who reside in Mexico

    225____________________________________________________________________

    Initiatives

    153____________________________________________________________________

    Methamphetamine

    154, 252_______________________________________________________________

    Controlling

    205____________________________________________________________________

    Status of fight against

    204____________________________________________________________________

    Strategy

    153____________________________________________________________________

    Mexican Government cooperation

    215____________________________________________________________________

    Mexico drug certification

    246____________________________________________________________________

    Mexico, status of

    195____________________________________________________________________

    Opening statement--DEA

    151____________________________________________________________________

    Drug organizations, investigations of major

    152____________________________________________________________________

    Pharmacies, raid on

    217____________________________________________________________________

    Federal Bureau of InvestigationWagner, Frank, Reporter of
    Decisions, Supreme Court of the United States, the
    judiciary.......................................... 393Walter, Gregory A.,
    Deputy Chief Financial Officer, Small Business
    Administration........................................ 367Zobel, Hon. Rya
    W., Director, Federal Judicial Center, prepared
    statement...................................................... 412 SUBJECT
    INDEX ---------- DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric
    Administration PageAdditional committee
    questions................................... 353AWIPS program
    ecision--lead role

    224____________________________________________________________________

    Process

    196____________________________________________________________________

    DEA and INS coordination

    194____________________________________________________________________

    Drug certification

    257____________________________________________________________________

    Drug strategy

    152____________________________________________________________________

    FBI-DEA cross training

    228____________________________________________________________________

    Heroin

    154____________________________________________________________________

    HIDTA

    250____________________________________________________________________

    Indicted Mexican nationals or Americans who reside in Mexico

    225____________________________________________________________________

    Initiatives

    153____________________________________________________________________

    Methamphetamine

    154, 252_______________________________________________________________

    Controlling

    205____________________________________________________________________

    Status of fight against

    204____________________________________________________________________

    Strategy

    153____________________________________________________________________

    Mexican Government cooperation

    215____________________________________________________________________

    Mexico drug certification

    246____________________________________________________________________

    Mexico, status of

    195____________________________________________________________________

    Opening statement--DEA

    151____________________________________________________________________

    Drug organizations, investigations of major

    152____________________________________________________________________

    Pharmacies, raid on

    217____________________________________________________________________

    Federal Bureau of Investigation/224

    Process

    196____________________________________________________________________

    DEA and INS coordination

    194____________________________________________________________________

    Drug certification

    257____________________________________________________________________

    Drug strategy

    152____________________________________________________________________

    FBI-DEA cross training

    228____________________________________________________________________

    Heroin

    154____________________________________________________________________

    HIDTA

    250____________________________________________________________________

    Indicted Mexican nationals or Americans who reside in Mexico

    225____________________________________________________________________

    Initiatives

    153____________________________________________________________________

    Methamphetamine

    154, 252_______________________________________________________________

    Controlling

    205____________________________________________________________________

    Status of fight against

    204____________________________________________________________________

    Strategy

    153____________________________________________________________________

    Mexican Government cooperation

    215____________________________________________________________________

    Mexico drug certification

    246____________________________________________________________________

    Mexico, status of

    195____________________________________________________________________

    Opening statement--DEA

    151____________________________________________________________________

    Drug organizations, investigations of major

    152____________________________________________________________________

    Pharmacies, raid on

    217____________________________________________________________________

    Federal Bureau of Investigationication:

    Decision--lead role

    224____________________________________________________________________

    Process

    196____________________________________________________________________

    DEA and INS coordination

    194____________________________________________________________________

    Drug certification

    257____________________________________________________________________

    Drug strategy

    152____________________________________________________________________

    FBI-DEA cross training

    228____________________________________________________________________

    Heroin

    154____________________________________________________________________

    HIDTA

    250____________________________________________________________________

    Indicted Mexican nationals or Americans who reside in Mexico

    225____________________________________________________________________

    Initiatives

    153____________________________________________________________________

    Methamphetamine

    154, 252_______________________________________________________________

    Controlling

    205____________________________________________________________________

    Status of fight against

    204____________________________________________________________________

    Strategy

    153____________________________________________________________________

    Mexican Government cooperation

    215____________________________________________________________________

    Mexico drug certification

    246____________________________________________________________________

    Mexico, status of

    195____________________________________________________________________

    Opening statement--DEA

    151____________________________________________________________________

    Drug organizations, investigations of major

    152____________________________________________________________________

    Pharmacies, raid on

    217____________________________________________________________________

    Federal Bureau of InvestigationMDNM/Budget request, fiscal
    year 1999

    165____________________________________________________________________

    Certification:

    Decision--lead role

    224____________________________________________________________________

    Process

    196____________________________________________________________________

    DEA and INS coordination

    194____________________________________________________________________

    Drug certification

    257____________________________________________________________________

    Drug strategy

    152____________________________________________________________________

    FBI-DEA cross training

    228____________________________________________________________________

    Heroin

    154____________________________________________________________________

    HIDTA

    250____________________________________________________________________

    Indicted Mexican nationals or Americans who reside in Mexico

    225____________________________________________________________________

    Initiatives

    153____________________________________________________________________

    Methamphetamine

    154, 252_______________________________________________________________

    Controlling

    205____________________________________________________________________

    Status of fight against

    204____________________________________________________________________

    Strategy

    153____________________________________________________________________

    Mexican Government cooperation

    215____________________________________________________________________

    Mexico drug certification

    246____________________________________________________________________

    Mexico, status of

    195____________________________________________________________________

    Opening statement--DEA

    151____________________________________________________________________

    Drug organizations, investigations of major

    152____________________________________________________________________

    Pharmacies, raid on

    217____________________________________________________________________

    Federal Bureau of Investigation

    DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

    Drug Enforcement Administration

    Additional committee questions

    246____________________________________________________________________

    Budget request, fiscal year 1999

    165____________________________________________________________________

    Certification:

    Decision--lead role

    224____________________________________________________________________

    Process

    196____________________________________________________________________

    DEA and INS coordination

    194____________________________________________________________________

    Drug certification

    257____________________________________________________________________

    Drug strategy

    152____________________________________________________________________

    FBI-DEA cross training

    228____________________________________________________________________

    Heroin

    154____________________________________________________________________

    HIDTA

    250____________________________________________________________________

    Indicted Mexican nationals or Americans who reside in Mexico

    225____________________________________________________________________

    Initiatives

    153____________________________________________________________________

    Methamphetamine

    154, 252_______________________________________________________________

    Controlling

    205____________________________________________________________________

    Status of fight against

    204____________________________________________________________________

    Strategy

    153____________________________________________________________________

    Mexican Government cooperation

    215____________________________________________________________________

    Mexico drug certification

    246____________________________________________________________________

    Mexico, status of

    195____________________________________________________________________

    Opening statement--DEA

    151____________________________________________________________________

    Drug organizations, investigations of major

    152____________________________________________________________________

    Pharmacies, raid on

    217____________________________________________________________________

    Federal Bureau of Investigationecision--lead role

    224____________________________________________________________________

    Process

    196____________________________________________________________________

    DEA and INS coordination

    194____________________________________________________________________

    Drug certification

    257____________________________________________________________________

    Drug strategy

    152____________________________________________________________________

    FBI-DEA cross training

    228____________________________________________________________________

    Heroin

    154____________________________________________________________________

    HIDTA

    250____________________________________________________________________

    Indicted Mexican nationals or Americans who reside in Mexico

    225____________________________________________________________________

    Initiatives

    153____________________________________________________________________

    Methamphetamine

    154, 252_______________________________________________________________

    Controlling

    205____________________________________________________________________

    Status of fight against

    204____________________________________________________________________

    Strategy

    153____________________________________________________________________

    Mexican Government cooperation

    215____________________________________________________________________

    Mexico drug certification

    246____________________________________________________________________

    Mexico, status of

    195____________________________________________________________________

    Opening statement--DEA

    151____________________________________________________________________

    Drug organizations, investigations of major

    152____________________________________________________________________

    Pharmacies, raid on

    217____________________________________________________________________

    Federal Bureau of Investigation/224

    Process

    196____________________________________________________________________

    DEA and INS coordination

    194____________________________________________________________________

    Drug certification

    257____________________________________________________________________

    Drug strategy

    152____________________________________________________________________

    FBI-DEA cross training

    228____________________________________________________________________

    Heroin

    154____________________________________________________________________

    HIDTA

    250____________________________________________________________________

    Indicted Mexican nationals or Americans who reside in Mexico

    225____________________________________________________________________

    Initiatives

    153____________________________________________________________________

    Methamphetamine

    154, 252_______________________________________________________________

    Controlling

    205____________________________________________________________________

    Status of fight against

    204____________________________________________________________________

    Strategy

    153____________________________________________________________________

    Mexican Government cooperation

    215____________________________________________________________________

    Mexico drug certification

    246____________________________________________________________________

    Mexico, status of

    195____________________________________________________________________

    Opening statement--DEA

    151____________________________________________________________________

    Drug organizations, investigations of major

    152____________________________________________________________________

    Pharmacies, raid on

    217____________________________________________________________________

    Federal Bureau of InvestigationM/196

    DEA and INS coordination

    194____________________________________________________________________

    Drug certification

    257____________________________________________________________________

    Drug strategy

    152____________________________________________________________________

    FBI-DEA cross training

    228____________________________________________________________________

    Heroin

    154____________________________________________________________________

    HIDTA

    250____________________________________________________________________

    Indicted Mexican nationals or Americans who reside in Mexico

    225____________________________________________________________________

    Initiatives

    153____________________________________________________________________

    Methamphetamine

    154, 252_______________________________________________________________

    Controlling

    205____________________________________________________________________

    Status of fight against

    204____________________________________________________________________

    Strategy

    153____________________________________________________________________

    Mexican Government cooperation

    215____________________________________________________________________

    Mexico drug certification

    246____________________________________________________________________

    Mexico, status of

    195____________________________________________________________________

    Opening statement--DEA

    151____________________________________________________________________

    Drug organizations, investigations of major

    152____________________________________________________________________

    Pharmacies, raid on

    217____________________________________________________________________

    Federal Bureau of InvestigationBudget, highlights of the fiscal
    year 1999....................... 337Clean water
    initiative........................................... 360Climate and global
    change........................................ 364Community development
    quotas [CDQ's] sunset legislation.......... 345Environmental
    assessment......................................... 352 And
    prediction............................................... 338Environmental
    stewardship........................................ 341Fishery
    stamps................................................... 345Natural
    disaster reduction initiative [NDRI] ecision--lead role

    224____________________________________________________________________

    Process

    196____________________________________________________________________

    DEA and INS coordination

    194____________________________________________________________________

    Drug certification

    257____________________________________________________________________

    Drug strategy

    152____________________________________________________________________

    FBI-DEA cross training

    228____________________________________________________________________

    Heroin

    154____________________________________________________________________

    HIDTA

    250____________________________________________________________________

    Indicted Mexican nationals or Americans who reside in Mexico

    225____________________________________________________________________

    Initiatives

    153____________________________________________________________________

    Methamphetamine

    154, 252_______________________________________________________________

    Controlling

    205____________________________________________________________________

    Status of fight against

    204____________________________________________________________________

    Strategy

    153____________________________________________________________________

    Mexican Government cooperation

    215____________________________________________________________________

    Mexico drug certification

    246____________________________________________________________________

    Mexico, status of

    195____________________________________________________________________

    Opening statement--DEA

    151____________________________________________________________________

    Drug organizations, investigations of major

    152____________________________________________________________________

    Pharmacies, raid on

    217____________________________________________________________________

    Federal Bureau of Investigation/224

    Process

    196____________________________________________________________________

    DEA and INS coordination

    194____________________________________________________________________

    Drug certification

    257____________________________________________________________________

    Drug strategy

    152____________________________________________________________________

    FBI-DEA cross training

    228____________________________________________________________________

    Heroin

    154____________________________________________________________________

    HIDTA

    250____________________________________________________________________

    Indicted Mexican nationals or Americans who reside in Mexico

    225____________________________________________________________________

    Initiatives

    153____________________________________________________________________

    Methamphetamine

    154, 252_______________________________________________________________

    Controlling

    205____________________________________________________________________

    Status of fight against

    204____________________________________________________________________

    Strategy

    153____________________________________________________________________

    Mexican Government cooperation

    215____________________________________________________________________

    Mexico drug certification

    246____________________________________________________________________

    Mexico, status of

    195____________________________________________________________________

    Opening statement--DEA

    151____________________________________________________________________

    Drug organizations, investigations of major

    152____________________________________________________________________

    Pharmacies, raid on

    217____________________________________________________________________

    Federal Bureau of Investigationication:

    Decision--lead role

    224____________________________________________________________________

    Process

    196____________________________________________________________________

    DEA and INS coordination

    194____________________________________________________________________

    Drug certification

    257____________________________________________________________________

    Drug strategy

    152____________________________________________________________________

    FBI-DEA cross training

    228____________________________________________________________________

    Heroin

    154____________________________________________________________________

    HIDTA

    250____________________________________________________________________

    Indicted Mexican nationals or Americans who reside in Mexico

    225____________________________________________________________________

    Initiatives

    153____________________________________________________________________

    Methamphetamine

    154, 252_______________________________________________________________

    Controlling

    205____________________________________________________________________

    Status of fight against

    204____________________________________________________________________

    Strategy

    153____________________________________________________________________

    Mexican Government cooperation

    215____________________________________________________________________

    Mexico drug certification

    246____________________________________________________________________

    Mexico, status of

    195____________________________________________________________________

    Opening statement--DEA

    151____________________________________________________________________

    Drug organizations, investigations of major

    152____________________________________________________________________

    Pharmacies, raid on

    217____________________________________________________________________

    Federal Bureau of InvestigationMDNM/Budget request, fiscal
    year 1999

    165____________________________________________________________________

    Certification:

    Decision--lead role

    224____________________________________________________________________

    Process

    196____________________________________________________________________

    DEA and INS coordination

    194____________________________________________________________________

    Drug certification

    257____________________________________________________________________

    Drug strategy

    152____________________________________________________________________

    FBI-DEA cross training

    228____________________________________________________________________

    Heroin

    154____________________________________________________________________

    HIDTA

    250____________________________________________________________________

    Indicted Mexican nationals or Americans who reside in Mexico

    225____________________________________________________________________

    Initiatives

    153____________________________________________________________________

    Methamphetamine

    154, 252_______________________________________________________________

    Controlling

    205____________________________________________________________________

    Status of fight against

    204____________________________________________________________________

    Strategy

    153____________________________________________________________________

    Mexican Government cooperation

    215____________________________________________________________________

    Mexico drug certification

    246____________________________________________________________________

    Mexico, status of

    195____________________________________________________________________

    Opening statement--DEA

    151____________________________________________________________________

    Drug organizations, investigations of major

    152____________________________________________________________________

    Pharmacies, raid on

    217____________________________________________________________________

    Federal Bureau of Investigation

    DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

    Drug Enforcement Administration

    Additional committee questions

    246____________________________________________________________________

    Budget request, fiscal year 1999

    165____________________________________________________________________

    Certification:

    Decision--lead role

    224____________________________________________________________________

    Process

    196____________________________________________________________________

    DEA and INS coordination

    194____________________________________________________________________

    Drug certification

    257____________________________________________________________________

    Drug strategy

    152____________________________________________________________________

    FBI-DEA cross training

    228____________________________________________________________________

    Heroin

    154____________________________________________________________________

    HIDTA

    250____________________________________________________________________

    Indicted Mexican nationals or Americans who reside in Mexico

    225____________________________________________________________________

    Initiatives

    153____________________________________________________________________

    Methamphetamine

    154, 252_______________________________________________________________

    Controlling

    205____________________________________________________________________

    Status of fight against

    204____________________________________________________________________

    Strategy

    153____________________________________________________________________

    Mexican Government cooperation

    215____________________________________________________________________

    Mexico drug certification

    246____________________________________________________________________

    Mexico, status of

    195____________________________________________________________________

    Opening statement--DEA

    151____________________________________________________________________

    Drug organizations, investigations of major

    152____________________________________________________________________

    Pharmacies, raid on

    217____________________________________________________________________

    Federal Bureau of Investigationecision--lead role

    224____________________________________________________________________

    Process

    196____________________________________________________________________

    DEA and INS coordination

    194____________________________________________________________________

    Drug certification

    257____________________________________________________________________

    Drug strategy

    152____________________________________________________________________

    FBI-DEA cross training

    228____________________________________________________________________

    Heroin

    154____________________________________________________________________

    HIDTA

    250____________________________________________________________________

    Indicted Mexican nationals or Americans who reside in Mexico

    225____________________________________________________________________

    Initiatives

    153____________________________________________________________________

    Methamphetamine

    154, 252_______________________________________________________________

    Controlling

    205____________________________________________________________________

    Status of fight against

    204____________________________________________________________________

    Strategy

    153____________________________________________________________________

    Mexican Government cooperation

    215____________________________________________________________________

    Mexico drug certification

    246____________________________________________________________________

    Mexico, status of

    195____________________________________________________________________

    Opening statement--DEA

    151____________________________________________________________________

    Drug organizations, investigations of major

    152____________________________________________________________________

    Pharmacies, raid on

    217____________________________________________________________________

    Federal Bureau of Investigation/

    Process

    196____________________________________________________________________

    DEA and INS coordination

    194____________________________________________________________________

    Drug certification

    257____________________________________________________________________

    Drug strategy

    152____________________________________________________________________

    FBI-DEA cross training

    228____________________________________________________________________

    Heroin

    154____________________________________________________________________

    HIDTA

    250____________________________________________________________________

    Indicted Mexican nationals or Americans who reside in Mexico

    225____________________________________________________________________

    Initiatives

    153____________________________________________________________________

    Methamphetamine

    154, 252_______________________________________________________________

    Controlling

    205____________________________________________________________________

    Status of fight against

    204____________________________________________________________________

    Strategy

    153____________________________________________________________________

    Mexican Government cooperation

    215____________________________________________________________________

    Mexico drug certification

    246____________________________________________________________________

    Mexico, status of

    195____________________________________________________________________

    Opening statement--DEA

    151____________________________________________________________________

    Drug organizations, investigations of major

    152____________________________________________________________________

    Pharmacies, raid on

    217____________________________________________________________________

    Federal Bureau of Investigation

    Certification:

    Decision--lead role

    224____________________________________________________________________

    Process

    196____________________________________________________________________

    DEA and INS coordination

    194____________________________________________________________________

    Drug certification

    257____________________________________________________________________

    Drug strategy

    152____________________________________________________________________

    FBI-DEA cross training

    228____________________________________________________________________

    Heroin

    154____________________________________________________________________

    HIDTA

    250____________________________________________________________________

    Indicted Mexican nationals or Americans who reside in Mexico

    225____________________________________________________________________

    Initiatives

    153____________________________________________________________________

    Methamphetamine

    154, 252_______________________________________________________________

    Controlling

    205____________________________________________________________________

    Status of fight against

    204____________________________________________________________________

    Strategy

    153____________________________________________________________________

    Mexican Government cooperation

    215____________________________________________________________________

    Mexico drug certification

    246____________________________________________________________________

    Mexico, status of

    195____________________________________________________________________

    Opening statement--DEA

    151____________________________________________________________________

    Drug organizations, investigations of major

    152____________________________________________________________________

    Pharmacies, raid on

    217____________________________________________________________________

    Federal Bureau of InvestigationNOAA: Corps ecision--lead role

    224____________________________________________________________________

    Process

    196____________________________________________________________________

    DEA and INS coordination

    194____________________________________________________________________

    Drug certification

    257____________________________________________________________________

    Drug strategy

    152____________________________________________________________________

    FBI-DEA cross training

    228____________________________________________________________________

    Heroin

    154____________________________________________________________________

    HIDTA

    250____________________________________________________________________

    Indicted Mexican nationals or Americans who reside in Mexico

    225____________________________________________________________________

    Initiatives

    153____________________________________________________________________

    Methamphetamine

    154, 252_______________________________________________________________

    Controlling

    205____________________________________________________________________

    Status of fight against

    204____________________________________________________________________

    Strategy

    153____________________________________________________________________

    Mexican Government cooperation

    215____________________________________________________________________

    Mexico drug certification

    246____________________________________________________________________

    Mexico, status of

    195____________________________________________________________________

    Opening statement--DEA

    151____________________________________________________________________

    Drug organizations, investigations of major

    152____________________________________________________________________

    Pharmacies, raid on

    217____________________________________________________________________

    Federal Bureau of Investigatione

    224____________________________________________________________________

    Process

    196____________________________________________________________________

    DEA and INS coordination

    194____________________________________________________________________

    Drug certification

    257____________________________________________________________________

    Drug strategy

    152____________________________________________________________________

    FBI-DEA cross training

    228____________________________________________________________________

    Heroin

    154____________________________________________________________________

    HIDTA

    250____________________________________________________________________

    Indicted Mexican nationals or Americans who reside in Mexico

    225____________________________________________________________________

    Initiatives

    153____________________________________________________________________

    Methamphetamine

    154, 252_______________________________________________________________

    Controlling

    205____________________________________________________________________

    Status of fight against

    204____________________________________________________________________

    Strategy

    153____________________________________________________________________

    Mexican Government cooperation

    215____________________________________________________________________

    Mexico drug certification

    246____________________________________________________________________

    Mexico, status of

    195____________________________________________________________________

    Opening statement--DEA

    151____________________________________________________________________

    Drug organizations, investigations of major

    152____________________________________________________________________

    Pharmacies, raid on

    217____________________________________________________________________

    Federal Bureau of Investigationss

    196____________________________________________________________________

    DEA and INS coordination

    194____________________________________________________________________

    Drug certification

    257____________________________________________________________________

    Drug strategy

    152____________________________________________________________________

    FBI-DEA cross training

    228____________________________________________________________________

    Heroin

    154____________________________________________________________________

    HIDTA

    250____________________________________________________________________

    Indicted Mexican nationals or Americans who reside in Mexico

    225____________________________________________________________________

    Initiatives

    153____________________________________________________________________

    Methamphetamine

    154, 252_______________________________________________________________

    Controlling

    205____________________________________________________________________

    Status of fight against

    204____________________________________________________________________

    Strategy

    153____________________________________________________________________

    Mexican Government cooperation

    215____________________________________________________________________

    Mexico drug certification

    246____________________________________________________________________

    Mexico, status of

    195____________________________________________________________________

    Opening statement--DEA

    151____________________________________________________________________

    Drug organizations, investigations of major

    152____________________________________________________________________

    Pharmacies, raid on

    217____________________________________________________________________

    Federal Bureau of InvestigationMDNM/Budget request, fiscal
    year 1999

    165____________________________________________________________________

    Certification:

    Decision--lead role

    224____________________________________________________________________

    Process

    196____________________________________________________________________

    DEA and INS coordination

    194____________________________________________________________________

    Drug certification

    257____________________________________________________________________

    Drug strategy

    152____________________________________________________________________

    FBI-DEA cross training

    228____________________________________________________________________

    Heroin

    154____________________________________________________________________

    HIDTA

    250____________________________________________________________________

    Indicted Mexican nationals or Americans who reside in Mexico

    225____________________________________________________________________

    Initiatives

    153____________________________________________________________________

    Methamphetamine

    154, 252_______________________________________________________________

    Controlling

    205____________________________________________________________________

    Status of fight against

    204____________________________________________________________________

    Strategy

    153____________________________________________________________________

    Mexican Government cooperation

    215____________________________________________________________________

    Mexico drug certification

    246____________________________________________________________________

    Mexico, status of

    195____________________________________________________________________

    Opening statement--DEA

    151____________________________________________________________________

    Drug organizations, investigations of major

    152____________________________________________________________________

    Pharmacies, raid on

    217____________________________________________________________________

    Federal Bureau of Investigation

    DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

    Drug Enforcement Administration

    Additional committee questions

    246____________________________________________________________________

    Budget request, fiscal year 1999

    165____________________________________________________________________

    Certification:

    Decision--lead role

    224____________________________________________________________________

    Process

    196____________________________________________________________________

    DEA and INS coordination

    194____________________________________________________________________

    Drug certification

    257____________________________________________________________________

    Drug strategy

    152____________________________________________________________________

    FBI-DEA cross training

    228____________________________________________________________________

    Heroin

    154____________________________________________________________________

    HIDTA

    250____________________________________________________________________

    Indicted Mexican nationals or Americans who reside in Mexico

    225____________________________________________________________________

    Initiatives

    153____________________________________________________________________

    Methamphetamine

    154, 252_______________________________________________________________

    Controlling

    205____________________________________________________________________

    Status of fight against

    204____________________________________________________________________

    Strategy

    153____________________________________________________________________

    Mexican Government cooperation

    215____________________________________________________________________

    Mexico drug certification

    246____________________________________________________________________

    Mexico, status of

    195____________________________________________________________________

    Opening statement--DEA

    151____________________________________________________________________

    Drug organizations, investigations of major

    152____________________________________________________________________

    Pharmacies, raid on

    217____________________________________________________________________

    Federal Bureau of Investigationecision--lead role

    224____________________________________________________________________

    Process

    196____________________________________________________________________

    DEA and INS coordination

    194____________________________________________________________________

    Drug certification

    257____________________________________________________________________

    Drug strategy

    152____________________________________________________________________

    FBI-DEA cross training

    228____________________________________________________________________

    Heroin

    154____________________________________________________________________

    HIDTA

    250____________________________________________________________________

    Indicted Mexican nationals or Americans who reside in Mexico

    225____________________________________________________________________

    Initiatives

    153____________________________________________________________________

    Methamphetamine

    154, 252_______________________________________________________________

    Controlling

    205____________________________________________________________________

    Status of fight against

    204____________________________________________________________________

    Strategy

    153____________________________________________________________________

    Mexican Government cooperation

    215____________________________________________________________________

    Mexico drug certification

    246____________________________________________________________________

    Mexico, status of

    195____________________________________________________________________

    Opening statement--DEA

    151____________________________________________________________________

    Drug organizations, investigations of major

    152____________________________________________________________________

    Pharmacies, raid on

    217____________________________________________________________________

    Federal Bureau of Investigation/

    Process

    196____________________________________________________________________

    DEA and INS coordination

    194____________________________________________________________________

    Drug certification

    257____________________________________________________________________

    Drug strategy

    152____________________________________________________________________

    FBI-DEA cross training

    228____________________________________________________________________

    Heroin

    154____________________________________________________________________

    HIDTA

    250____________________________________________________________________

    Indicted Mexican nationals or Americans who reside in Mexico

    225____________________________________________________________________

    Initiatives

    153____________________________________________________________________

    Methamphetamine

    154, 252_______________________________________________________________

    Controlling

    205____________________________________________________________________

    Status of fight against

    204____________________________________________________________________

    Strategy

    153____________________________________________________________________

    Mexican Government cooperation

    215____________________________________________________________________

    Mexico drug certification

    246____________________________________________________________________

    Mexico, status of

    195____________________________________________________________________

    Opening statement--DEA

    151____________________________________________________________________

    Drug organizations, investigations of major

    152____________________________________________________________________

    Pharmacies, raid on

    217____________________________________________________________________

    Federal Bureau of Investigationecision--lead role

    224____________________________________________________________________

    Process

    196____________________________________________________________________

    DEA and INS coordination

    194____________________________________________________________________

    Drug certification

    257____________________________________________________________________

    Drug strategy

    152____________________________________________________________________

    FBI-DEA cross training

    228____________________________________________________________________

    Heroin

    154____________________________________________________________________

    HIDTA

    250____________________________________________________________________

    Indicted Mexican nationals or Americans who reside in Mexico

    225____________________________________________________________________

    Initiatives

    153____________________________________________________________________

    Methamphetamine

    154, 252_______________________________________________________________

    Controlling

    205____________________________________________________________________

    Status of fight against

    204____________________________________________________________________

    Strategy

    153____________________________________________________________________

    Mexican Government cooperation

    215____________________________________________________________________

    Mexico drug certification

    246____________________________________________________________________

    Mexico, status of

    195____________________________________________________________________

    Opening statement--DEA

    151____________________________________________________________________

    Drug organizations, investigations of major

    152____________________________________________________________________

    Pharmacies, raid on

    217____________________________________________________________________

    Federal Bureau of Investigation
    Role......................................................... 336 Weather
    Service modernization--New Mexico.................... 353Oceans
    Act....................................................... 359Oceans
    study.....................................................
    346Overview.........................................................
    334Polar-orbiting weather satellite.................................
    364Radar coverage: Assessment of overall in
    Mexico.............................. 348 Assessment of the in New
    Mexico.............................. 348 Gap
    in....................................................... 347 In the four
    corners area..................................... 348Reducing costs and
    improving effectiveness....................... 344Sea turtles and spending
    on protected species.................... 361South Carolina
    permit............................................ 363Space, NOAA-wide
    requirement for................................. 352Turtle
    extruder.................................................. 346Year of the
    ocean................................................ 334 Office of the
    SecretaryAdditional committee questions...................................
    282Asian: Economies, opening of........................................ 316
    Financial crisis, impact on U.S. exports of..................
    325AWIPS............................................................ 274
    Again........................................................ 330Budget,
    fiscal year 1999......................................... 265Business
    organizations, cooperation with......................... 320Census:
    Sampling..................................................... 263
    2000......................................................... 321Colorado:
    Foreign trade zones [FTZ's].................................. 318 Role in
    U.S. competitiveness................................. 317Decennial census
    MDBO/

    Decision--lead role

    224____________________________________________________________________

    Process

    196____________________________________________________________________

    DEA and INS coordination

    194____________________________________________________________________

    Drug certification

    257____________________________________________________________________

    Drug strategy

    152____________________________________________________________________

    FBI-DEA cross training

    228____________________________________________________________________

    Heroin

    154____________________________________________________________________

    HIDTA

    250____________________________________________________________________

    Indicted Mexican nationals or Americans who reside in Mexico

    225____________________________________________________________________

    Initiatives

    153____________________________________________________________________

    Methamphetamine

    154, 252_______________________________________________________________

    Controlling

    205____________________________________________________________________

    Status of fight against

    204____________________________________________________________________

    Strategy

    153____________________________________________________________________

    Mexican Government cooperation

    215____________________________________________________________________

    Mexico drug certification

    246____________________________________________________________________

    Mexico, status of

    195____________________________________________________________________

    Opening statement--DEA

    151____________________________________________________________________

    Drug organizations, investigations of major

    152____________________________________________________________________

    Pharmacies, raid on

    217____________________________________________________________________

    Federal Bureau of Investigation/

    Process

    196____________________________________________________________________

    DEA and INS coordination

    194____________________________________________________________________

    Drug certification

    257____________________________________________________________________

    Drug strategy

    152____________________________________________________________________

    FBI-DEA cross training

    228____________________________________________________________________

    Heroin

    154____________________________________________________________________

    HIDTA

    250____________________________________________________________________

    Indicted Mexican nationals or Americans who reside in Mexico

    225____________________________________________________________________

    Initiatives

    153____________________________________________________________________

    Methamphetamine

    154, 252_______________________________________________________________

    Controlling

    205____________________________________________________________________

    Status of fight against

    204____________________________________________________________________

    Strategy

    153____________________________________________________________________

    Mexican Government cooperation

    215____________________________________________________________________

    Mexico drug certification

    246____________________________________________________________________

    Mexico, status of

    195____________________________________________________________________

    Opening statement--DEA

    151____________________________________________________________________

    Drug organizations, investigations of major

    152____________________________________________________________________

    Pharmacies, raid on

    217____________________________________________________________________

    Federal Bureau of InvestigationMDBO/

    Decision--lead role

    224____________________________________________________________________

    Process

    196____________________________________________________________________

    DEA and INS coordination

    194____________________________________________________________________

    Drug certification

    257____________________________________________________________________

    Drug strategy

    152____________________________________________________________________

    FBI-DEA cross training

    228____________________________________________________________________

    Heroin

    154____________________________________________________________________

    HIDTA

    250____________________________________________________________________

    Indicted Mexican nationals or Americans who reside in Mexico

    225____________________________________________________________________

    Initiatives

    153____________________________________________________________________

    Methamphetamine

    154, 252_______________________________________________________________

    Controlling

    205____________________________________________________________________

    Status of fight against

    204____________________________________________________________________

    Strategy

    153____________________________________________________________________

    Mexican Government cooperation

    215____________________________________________________________________

    Mexico drug certification

    246____________________________________________________________________

    Mexico, status of

    195____________________________________________________________________

    Opening statement--DEA

    151____________________________________________________________________

    Drug organizations, investigations of major

    152____________________________________________________________________

    Pharmacies, raid on

    217____________________________________________________________________

    Federal Bureau of InvestigationMDNM/Budget request, fiscal
    year 1999

    165____________________________________________________________________

    Certification:

    Decision--lead role

    224____________________________________________________________________

    Process

    196____________________________________________________________________

    DEA and INS coordination

    194____________________________________________________________________

    Drug certification

    257____________________________________________________________________

    Drug strategy

    152____________________________________________________________________

    FBI-DEA cross training

    228____________________________________________________________________

    Heroin

    154____________________________________________________________________

    HIDTA

    250____________________________________________________________________

    Indicted Mexican nationals or Americans who reside in Mexico

    225____________________________________________________________________

    Initiatives

    153____________________________________________________________________

    Methamphetamine

    154, 252_______________________________________________________________

    Controlling

    205____________________________________________________________________

    Status of fight against

    204____________________________________________________________________

    Strategy

    153____________________________________________________________________

    Mexican Government cooperation

    215____________________________________________________________________

    Mexico drug certification

    246____________________________________________________________________

    Mexico, status of

    195____________________________________________________________________

    Opening statement--DEA

    151____________________________________________________________________

    Drug organizations, investigations of major

    152____________________________________________________________________

    Pharmacies, raid on

    217____________________________________________________________________

    Federal Bureau of Investigation

    DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

    Drug Enforcement Administration

    Additional committee questions

    246____________________________________________________________________

    Budget request, fiscal year 1999

    165____________________________________________________________________

    Certification:

    Decision--lead role

    224____________________________________________________________________

    Process

    196____________________________________________________________________

    DEA and INS coordination

    194____________________________________________________________________

    Drug certification

    257____________________________________________________________________

    Drug strategy

    152____________________________________________________________________

    FBI-DEA cross training

    228____________________________________________________________________

    Heroin

    154____________________________________________________________________

    HIDTA

    250____________________________________________________________________

    Indicted Mexican nationals or Americans who reside in Mexico

    225____________________________________________________________________

    Initiatives

    153____________________________________________________________________

    Methamphetamine

    154, 252_______________________________________________________________

    Controlling

    205____________________________________________________________________

    Status of fight against

    204____________________________________________________________________

    Strategy

    153____________________________________________________________________

    Mexican Government cooperation

    215____________________________________________________________________

    Mexico drug certification

    246____________________________________________________________________

    Mexico, status of

    195____________________________________________________________________

    Opening statement--DEA

    151____________________________________________________________________

    Drug organizations, investigations of major

    152____________________________________________________________________

    Pharmacies, raid on

    217____________________________________________________________________

    Federal Bureau of InvestigationMDBO/

    Decision--lead role

    224____________________________________________________________________

    Process

    196____________________________________________________________________

    DEA and INS coordination

    194____________________________________________________________________

    Drug certification

    257____________________________________________________________________

    Drug strategy

    152____________________________________________________________________

    FBI-DEA cross training

    228____________________________________________________________________

    Heroin

    154____________________________________________________________________

    HIDTA

    250____________________________________________________________________

    Indicted Mexican nationals or Americans who reside in Mexico

    225____________________________________________________________________

    Initiatives

    153____________________________________________________________________

    Methamphetamine

    154, 252_______________________________________________________________

    Controlling

    205____________________________________________________________________

    Status of fight against

    204____________________________________________________________________

    Strategy

    153____________________________________________________________________

    Mexican Government cooperation

    215____________________________________________________________________

    Mexico drug certification

    246____________________________________________________________________

    Mexico, status of

    195____________________________________________________________________

    Opening statement--DEA

    151____________________________________________________________________

    Drug organizations, investigations of major

    152____________________________________________________________________

    Pharmacies, raid on

    217____________________________________________________________________

    Federal Bureau of Investigationss

    196____________________________________________________________________

    DEA and INS coordination

    194____________________________________________________________________

    Drug certification

    257____________________________________________________________________

    Drug strategy

    152____________________________________________________________________

    FBI-DEA cross training

    228____________________________________________________________________

    Heroin

    154____________________________________________________________________

    HIDTA

    250____________________________________________________________________

    Indicted Mexican nationals or Americans who reside in Mexico

    225____________________________________________________________________

    Initiatives

    153____________________________________________________________________

    Methamphetamine

    154, 252_______________________________________________________________

    Controlling

    205____________________________________________________________________

    Status of fight against

    204____________________________________________________________________

    Strategy

    153____________________________________________________________________

    Mexican Government cooperation

    215____________________________________________________________________

    Mexico drug certification

    246____________________________________________________________________

    Mexico, status of

    195____________________________________________________________________

    Opening statement--DEA

    151____________________________________________________________________

    Drug organizations, investigations of major

    152____________________________________________________________________

    Pharmacies, raid on

    217____________________________________________________________________

    Federal Bureau of Investigation

    Certification:

    Decision--lead role

    224____________________________________________________________________

    Process

    196____________________________________________________________________

    DEA and INS coordination

    194____________________________________________________________________

    Drug certification

    257____________________________________________________________________

    Drug strategy

    152____________________________________________________________________

    FBI-DEA cross training

    228____________________________________________________________________

    Heroin

    154____________________________________________________________________

    HIDTA

    250____________________________________________________________________

    Indicted Mexican nationals or Americans who reside in Mexico

    225____________________________________________________________________

    Initiatives

    153____________________________________________________________________

    Methamphetamine

    154, 252_______________________________________________________________

    Controlling

    205____________________________________________________________________

    Status of fight against

    204____________________________________________________________________

    Strategy

    153____________________________________________________________________

    Mexican Government cooperation

    215____________________________________________________________________

    Mexico drug certification

    246____________________________________________________________________

    Mexico, status of

    195____________________________________________________________________

    Opening statement--DEA

    151____________________________________________________________________

    Drug organizations, investigations of major

    152____________________________________________________________________

    Pharmacies, raid on

    217____________________________________________________________________

    Federal Bureau of Investigation
    Sampling..................................................... 276Economic
    Development Administration [EDA] trade adjustment....... 320Economic
    growth.................................................. 262Economic
    infrastructure.......................................... 265Government
    Performance and Results Act [GPRA].................... 282Hanbo
    Steel...................................................... 322
    Bankruptcy................................................... 324 Public
    financial statement................................... 323 Subsidization
    of............................................. 323Import
    surges.................................................... 324Imports and
    exports, impact of Asia economy on United States..... 279International
    Trade Administration: Civil servants advancing a political
    agenda.................. 325
    Reorganization............................................... 325Management
    review................................................ 264Manufacturing
    technology centers................................. 278National Oceanic and
    Atmospheric Administration [NOAA]: Corps MDBO/

    Decision--lead role

    224____________________________________________________________________

    Process

    196____________________________________________________________________

    DEA and INS coordination

    194____________________________________________________________________

    Drug certification

    257____________________________________________________________________

    Drug strategy

    152____________________________________________________________________

    FBI-DEA cross training

    228____________________________________________________________________

    Heroin

    154____________________________________________________________________

    HIDTA

    250____________________________________________________________________

    Indicted Mexican nationals or Americans who reside in Mexico

    225____________________________________________________________________

    Initiatives

    153____________________________________________________________________

    Methamphetamine

    154, 252_______________________________________________________________

    Controlling

    205____________________________________________________________________

    Status of fight against

    204____________________________________________________________________

    Strategy

    153____________________________________________________________________

    Mexican Government cooperation

    215____________________________________________________________________

    Mexico drug certification

    246____________________________________________________________________

    Mexico, status of

    195____________________________________________________________________

    Opening statement--DEA

    151____________________________________________________________________

    Drug organizations, investigations of major

    152____________________________________________________________________

    Pharmacies, raid on

    217____________________________________________________________________

    Federal Bureau of Investigationss

    196____________________________________________________________________

    DEA and INS coordination

    194____________________________________________________________________

    Drug certification

    257____________________________________________________________________

    Drug strategy

    152____________________________________________________________________

    FBI-DEA cross training

    228____________________________________________________________________

    Heroin

    154____________________________________________________________________

    HIDTA

    250____________________________________________________________________

    Indicted Mexican nationals or Americans who reside in Mexico

    225____________________________________________________________________

    Initiatives

    153____________________________________________________________________

    Methamphetamine

    154, 252_______________________________________________________________

    Controlling

    205____________________________________________________________________

    Status of fight against

    204____________________________________________________________________

    Strategy

    153____________________________________________________________________

    Mexican Government cooperation

    215____________________________________________________________________

    Mexico drug certification

    246____________________________________________________________________

    Mexico, status of

    195____________________________________________________________________

    Opening statement--DEA

    151____________________________________________________________________

    Drug organizations, investigations of major

    152____________________________________________________________________

    Pharmacies, raid on

    217____________________________________________________________________

    Federal Bureau of Investigationecision--lead role

    224____________________________________________________________________

    Process

    196____________________________________________________________________

    DEA and INS coordination

    194____________________________________________________________________

    Drug certification

    257____________________________________________________________________

    Drug strategy

    152____________________________________________________________________

    FBI-DEA cross training

    228____________________________________________________________________

    Heroin

    154____________________________________________________________________

    HIDTA

    250____________________________________________________________________

    Indicted Mexican nationals or Americans who reside in Mexico

    225____________________________________________________________________

    Initiatives

    153____________________________________________________________________

    Methamphetamine

    154, 252_______________________________________________________________

    Controlling

    205____________________________________________________________________

    Status of fight against

    204____________________________________________________________________

    Strategy

    153____________________________________________________________________

    Mexican Government cooperation

    215____________________________________________________________________

    Mexico drug certification

    246____________________________________________________________________

    Mexico, status of

    195____________________________________________________________________

    Opening statement--DEA

    151____________________________________________________________________

    Drug organizations, investigations of major

    152____________________________________________________________________

    Pharmacies, raid on

    217____________________________________________________________________

    Federal Bureau of InvestigationMDNM/Budget request, fiscal
    year 1999

    165____________________________________________________________________

    Certification:

    Decision--lead role

    224____________________________________________________________________

    Process

    196____________________________________________________________________

    DEA and INS coordination

    194____________________________________________________________________

    Drug certification

    257____________________________________________________________________

    Drug strategy

    152____________________________________________________________________

    FBI-DEA cross training

    228____________________________________________________________________

    Heroin

    154____________________________________________________________________

    HIDTA

    250____________________________________________________________________

    Indicted Mexican nationals or Americans who reside in Mexico

    225____________________________________________________________________

    Initiatives

    153____________________________________________________________________

    Methamphetamine

    154, 252_______________________________________________________________

    Controlling

    205____________________________________________________________________

    Status of fight against

    204____________________________________________________________________

    Strategy

    153____________________________________________________________________

    Mexican Government cooperation

    215____________________________________________________________________

    Mexico drug certification

    246____________________________________________________________________

    Mexico, status of

    195____________________________________________________________________

    Opening statement--DEA

    151____________________________________________________________________

    Drug organizations, investigations of major

    152____________________________________________________________________

    Pharmacies, raid on

    217____________________________________________________________________

    Federal Bureau of Investigation

    DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

    Drug Enforcement Administration

    Additional committee questions

    246____________________________________________________________________

    Budget request, fiscal year 1999

    165____________________________________________________________________

    Certification:

    Decision--lead role

    224____________________________________________________________________

    Process

    196____________________________________________________________________

    DEA and INS coordination

    194____________________________________________________________________

    Drug certification

    257____________________________________________________________________

    Drug strategy

    152____________________________________________________________________

    FBI-DEA cross training

    228____________________________________________________________________

    Heroin

    154____________________________________________________________________

    HIDTA

    250____________________________________________________________________

    Indicted Mexican nationals or Americans who reside in Mexico

    225____________________________________________________________________

    Initiatives

    153____________________________________________________________________

    Methamphetamine

    154, 252_______________________________________________________________

    Controlling

    205____________________________________________________________________

    Status of fight against

    204____________________________________________________________________

    Strategy

    153____________________________________________________________________

    Mexican Government cooperation

    215____________________________________________________________________

    Mexico drug certification

    246____________________________________________________________________

    Mexico, status of

    195____________________________________________________________________

    Opening statement--DEA

    151____________________________________________________________________

    Drug organizations, investigations of major

    152____________________________________________________________________

    Pharmacies, raid on

    217____________________________________________________________________

    Federal Bureau of Investigationecision--lead role

    224____________________________________________________________________

    Process

    196____________________________________________________________________

    DEA and INS coordination

    194____________________________________________________________________

    Drug certification

    257____________________________________________________________________

    Drug strategy

    152____________________________________________________________________

    FBI-DEA cross training

    228____________________________________________________________________

    Heroin

    154____________________________________________________________________

    HIDTA

    250____________________________________________________________________

    Indicted Mexican nationals or Americans who reside in Mexico

    225____________________________________________________________________

    Initiatives

    153____________________________________________________________________

    Methamphetamine

    154, 252_______________________________________________________________

    Controlling

    205____________________________________________________________________

    Status of fight against

    204____________________________________________________________________

    Strategy

    153____________________________________________________________________

    Mexican Government cooperation

    215____________________________________________________________________

    Mexico drug certification

    246____________________________________________________________________

    Mexico, status of

    195____________________________________________________________________

    Opening statement--DEA

    151____________________________________________________________________

    Drug organizations, investigations of major

    152____________________________________________________________________

    Pharmacies, raid on

    217____________________________________________________________________

    Federal Bureau of InvestigationMDBO/

    Decision--lead role

    224____________________________________________________________________

    Process

    196____________________________________________________________________

    DEA and INS coordination

    194____________________________________________________________________

    Drug certification

    257____________________________________________________________________

    Drug strategy

    152____________________________________________________________________

    FBI-DEA cross training

    228____________________________________________________________________

    Heroin

    154____________________________________________________________________

    HIDTA

    250____________________________________________________________________

    Indicted Mexican nationals or Americans who reside in Mexico

    225____________________________________________________________________

    Initiatives

    153____________________________________________________________________

    Methamphetamine

    154, 252_______________________________________________________________

    Controlling

    205____________________________________________________________________

    Status of fight against

    204____________________________________________________________________

    Strategy

    153____________________________________________________________________

    Mexican Government cooperation

    215____________________________________________________________________

    Mexico drug certification

    246____________________________________________________________________

    Mexico, status of

    195____________________________________________________________________

    Opening statement--DEA

    151____________________________________________________________________

    Drug organizations, investigations of major

    152____________________________________________________________________

    Pharmacies, raid on

    217____________________________________________________________________

    Federal Bureau of Investigation1DEA and INS coordination

    194____________________________________________________________________

    Drug certification

    257____________________________________________________________________

    Drug strategy

    152____________________________________________________________________

    FBI-DEA cross training

    228____________________________________________________________________

    Heroin

    154____________________________________________________________________

    HIDTA

    250____________________________________________________________________

    Indicted Mexican nationals or Americans who reside in Mexico

    225____________________________________________________________________

    Initiatives

    153____________________________________________________________________

    Methamphetamine

    154, 252_______________________________________________________________

    Controlling

    205____________________________________________________________________

    Status of fight against

    204____________________________________________________________________

    Strategy

    153____________________________________________________________________

    Mexican Government cooperation

    215____________________________________________________________________

    Mexico drug certification

    246____________________________________________________________________

    Mexico, status of

    195____________________________________________________________________

    Opening statement--DEA

    151____________________________________________________________________

    Drug organizations, investigations of major

    152____________________________________________________________________

    Pharmacies, raid on

    217____________________________________________________________________

    Federal Bureau of Investigation
    Fees......................................................... 273
    Fleet........................................................ 330Natural
    disaster reduction initiative MDBO/

    Decision--lead role

    224____________________________________________________________________

    Process

    196____________________________________________________________________

    DEA and INS coordination

    194____________________________________________________________________

    Drug certification

    257____________________________________________________________________

    Drug strategy

    152____________________________________________________________________

    FBI-DEA cross training

    228____________________________________________________________________

    Heroin

    154____________________________________________________________________

    HIDTA

    250____________________________________________________________________

    Indicted Mexican nationals or Americans who reside in Mexico

    225____________________________________________________________________

    Initiatives

    153____________________________________________________________________

    Methamphetamine

    154, 252_______________________________________________________________

    Controlling

    205____________________________________________________________________

    Status of fight against

    204____________________________________________________________________

    Strategy

    153____________________________________________________________________

    Mexican Government cooperation

    215____________________________________________________________________

    Mexico drug certification

    246____________________________________________________________________

    Mexico, status of

    195____________________________________________________________________

    Opening statement--DEA

    151____________________________________________________________________

    Drug organizations, investigations of major

    152____________________________________________________________________

    Pharmacies, raid on

    217____________________________________________________________________

    Federal Bureau of Investigation/

    Process

    196____________________________________________________________________

    DEA and INS coordination

    194____________________________________________________________________

    Drug certification

    257____________________________________________________________________

    Drug strategy

    152____________________________________________________________________

    FBI-DEA cross training

    228____________________________________________________________________

    Heroin

    154____________________________________________________________________

    HIDTA

    250____________________________________________________________________

    Indicted Mexican nationals or Americans who reside in Mexico

    225____________________________________________________________________

    Initiatives

    153____________________________________________________________________

    Methamphetamine

    154, 252_______________________________________________________________

    Controlling

    205____________________________________________________________________

    Status of fight against

    204____________________________________________________________________

    Strategy

    153____________________________________________________________________

    Mexican Government cooperation

    215____________________________________________________________________

    Mexico drug certification

    246____________________________________________________________________

    Mexico, status of

    195____________________________________________________________________

    Opening statement--DEA

    151____________________________________________________________________

    Drug organizations, investigations of major

    152____________________________________________________________________

    Pharmacies, raid on

    217____________________________________________________________________

    Federal Bureau of Investigatione

    224____________________________________________________________________

    Process

    196____________________________________________________________________

    DEA and INS coordination

    194____________________________________________________________________

    Drug certification

    257____________________________________________________________________

    Drug strategy

    152____________________________________________________________________

    FBI-DEA cross training

    228____________________________________________________________________

    Heroin

    154____________________________________________________________________

    HIDTA

    250____________________________________________________________________

    Indicted Mexican nationals or Americans who reside in Mexico

    225____________________________________________________________________

    Initiatives

    153____________________________________________________________________

    Methamphetamine

    154, 252_______________________________________________________________

    Controlling

    205____________________________________________________________________

    Status of fight against

    204____________________________________________________________________

    Strategy

    153____________________________________________________________________

    Mexican Government cooperation

    215____________________________________________________________________

    Mexico drug certification

    246____________________________________________________________________

    Mexico, status of

    195____________________________________________________________________

    Opening statement--DEA

    151____________________________________________________________________

    Drug organizations, investigations of major

    152____________________________________________________________________

    Pharmacies, raid on

    217____________________________________________________________________

    Federal Bureau of InvestigationMDNM/Budget request, fiscal
    year 1999

    165____________________________________________________________________

    Certification:

    Decision--lead role

    224____________________________________________________________________

    Process

    196____________________________________________________________________

    DEA and INS coordination

    194____________________________________________________________________

    Drug certification

    257____________________________________________________________________

    Drug strategy

    152____________________________________________________________________

    FBI-DEA cross training

    228____________________________________________________________________

    Heroin

    154____________________________________________________________________

    HIDTA

    250____________________________________________________________________

    Indicted Mexican nationals or Americans who reside in Mexico

    225____________________________________________________________________

    Initiatives

    153____________________________________________________________________

    Methamphetamine

    154, 252_______________________________________________________________

    Controlling

    205____________________________________________________________________

    Status of fight against

    204____________________________________________________________________

    Strategy

    153____________________________________________________________________

    Mexican Government cooperation

    215____________________________________________________________________

    Mexico drug certification

    246____________________________________________________________________

    Mexico, status of

    195____________________________________________________________________

    Opening statement--DEA

    151____________________________________________________________________

    Drug organizations, investigations of major

    152____________________________________________________________________

    Pharmacies, raid on

    217____________________________________________________________________

    Federal Bureau of Investigation

    DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

    Drug Enforcement Administration

    Additional committee questions

    246____________________________________________________________________

    Budget request, fiscal year 1999

    165____________________________________________________________________

    Certification:

    Decision--lead role

    224____________________________________________________________________

    Process

    196____________________________________________________________________

    DEA and INS coordination

    194____________________________________________________________________

    Drug certification

    257____________________________________________________________________

    Drug strategy

    152____________________________________________________________________

    FBI-DEA cross training

    228____________________________________________________________________

    Heroin

    154____________________________________________________________________

    HIDTA

    250____________________________________________________________________

    Indicted Mexican nationals or Americans who reside in Mexico

    225____________________________________________________________________

    Initiatives

    153____________________________________________________________________

    Methamphetamine

    154, 252_______________________________________________________________

    Controlling

    205____________________________________________________________________

    Status of fight against

    204____________________________________________________________________

    Strategy

    153____________________________________________________________________

    Mexican Government cooperation

    215____________________________________________________________________

    Mexico drug certification

    246____________________________________________________________________

    Mexico, status of

    195____________________________________________________________________

    Opening statement--DEA

    151____________________________________________________________________

    Drug organizations, investigations of major

    152____________________________________________________________________

    Pharmacies, raid on

    217____________________________________________________________________

    Federal Bureau of InvestigationMDBO/

    Decision--lead role

    224____________________________________________________________________

    Process

    196____________________________________________________________________

    DEA and INS coordination

    194____________________________________________________________________

    Drug certification

    257____________________________________________________________________

    Drug strategy

    152____________________________________________________________________

    FBI-DEA cross training

    228____________________________________________________________________

    Heroin

    154____________________________________________________________________

    HIDTA

    250____________________________________________________________________

    Indicted Mexican nationals or Americans who reside in Mexico

    225____________________________________________________________________

    Initiatives

    153____________________________________________________________________

    Methamphetamine

    154, 252_______________________________________________________________

    Controlling

    205____________________________________________________________________

    Status of fight against

    204____________________________________________________________________

    Strategy

    153____________________________________________________________________

    Mexican Government cooperation

    215____________________________________________________________________

    Mexico drug certification

    246____________________________________________________________________

    Mexico, status of

    195____________________________________________________________________

    Opening statement--DEA

    151____________________________________________________________________

    Drug organizations, investigations of major

    152____________________________________________________________________

    Pharmacies, raid on

    217____________________________________________________________________

    Federal Bureau of Investigationss

    196____________________________________________________________________

    DEA and INS coordination

    194____________________________________________________________________

    Drug certification

    257____________________________________________________________________

    Drug strategy

    152____________________________________________________________________

    FBI-DEA cross training

    228____________________________________________________________________

    Heroin

    154____________________________________________________________________

    HIDTA

    250____________________________________________________________________

    Indicted Mexican nationals or Americans who reside in Mexico

    225____________________________________________________________________

    Initiatives

    153____________________________________________________________________

    Methamphetamine

    154, 252_______________________________________________________________

    Controlling

    205____________________________________________________________________

    Status of fight against

    204____________________________________________________________________

    Strategy

    153____________________________________________________________________

    Mexican Government cooperation

    215____________________________________________________________________

    Mexico drug certification

    246____________________________________________________________________

    Mexico, status of

    195____________________________________________________________________

    Opening statement--DEA

    151____________________________________________________________________

    Drug organizations, investigations of major

    152____________________________________________________________________

    Pharmacies, raid on

    217____________________________________________________________________

    Federal Bureau of Investigationication:

    Decision--lead role

    224____________________________________________________________________

    Process

    196____________________________________________________________________

    DEA and INS coordination

    194____________________________________________________________________

    Drug certification

    257____________________________________________________________________

    Drug strategy

    152____________________________________________________________________

    FBI-DEA cross training

    228____________________________________________________________________

    Heroin

    154____________________________________________________________________

    HIDTA

    250____________________________________________________________________

    Indicted Mexican nationals or Americans who reside in Mexico

    225____________________________________________________________________

    Initiatives

    153____________________________________________________________________

    Methamphetamine

    154, 252_______________________________________________________________

    Controlling

    205____________________________________________________________________

    Status of fight against

    204____________________________________________________________________

    Strategy

    153____________________________________________________________________

    Mexican Government cooperation

    215____________________________________________________________________

    Mexico drug certification

    246____________________________________________________________________

    Mexico, status of

    195____________________________________________________________________

    Opening statement--DEA

    151____________________________________________________________________

    Drug organizations, investigations of major

    152____________________________________________________________________

    Pharmacies, raid on

    217____________________________________________________________________

    Federal Bureau of InvestigationNonmarket economy
    methodology.................................... 324Patent and Trademark
    Office: Fees......................................................... 281
    Relocation................................................... 277Russia,
    business relationships with.............................. 319Science,
    technology, and information............................. 266Secretary
    Daley's summary statement.............................. 261Statistics,
    upgrading............................................ 263Sustainable
    development..........................................
    268Tourism.......................................................... 326
    Data collection.............................................. 328
    Marketing.................................................... 328Trade:
    Deficit...................................................... 262
    Dislocation or technology improvement, assistance to communities affected
    by.................................... 279U.S. Department of Commerce
    natural disaster reduction initiative 272Under Secretary for
    Technology................................... 278 DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
    Drug Enforcement AdministrationAdditional committee
    questions................................... 246Budget request, fiscal year
    1999................................. 165Certification: Decision--lead
    role.......................................... 224
    Process...................................................... 196DEA and
    INS coordination......................................... 194Drug
    certification............................................... 257Drug
    strategy.................................................... 152FBI-DEA
    cross training...........................................
    228Heroin...........................................................
    154HIDTA............................................................
    250Indicted Mexican nationals or Americans who reside in Mexico.....
    225Initiatives......................................................
    153Methamphetamine ication:

    Decision--lead role

    224____________________________________________________________________

    Process

    196____________________________________________________________________

    DEA and INS coordination

    194____________________________________________________________________

    Drug certification

    257____________________________________________________________________

    Drug strategy

    152____________________________________________________________________

    FBI-DEA cross training

    228____________________________________________________________________

    Heroin

    154____________________________________________________________________

    HIDTA

    250____________________________________________________________________

    Indicted Mexican nationals or Americans who reside in Mexico

    225____________________________________________________________________

    Initiatives

    153____________________________________________________________________

    Methamphetamine

    154, 252_______________________________________________________________

    Controlling

    205____________________________________________________________________

    Status of fight against

    204____________________________________________________________________

    Strategy

    153____________________________________________________________________

    Mexican Government cooperation

    215____________________________________________________________________

    Mexico drug certification

    246____________________________________________________________________

    Mexico, status of

    195____________________________________________________________________

    Opening statement--DEA

    151____________________________________________________________________

    Drug organizations, investigations of major

    152____________________________________________________________________

    Pharmacies, raid on

    217____________________________________________________________________

    Federal Bureau of Investigation/224

    Process

    196____________________________________________________________________

    DEA and INS coordination

    194____________________________________________________________________

    Drug certification

    257____________________________________________________________________

    Drug strategy

    152____________________________________________________________________

    FBI-DEA cross training

    228____________________________________________________________________

    Heroin

    154____________________________________________________________________

    HIDTA

    250____________________________________________________________________

    Indicted Mexican nationals or Americans who reside in Mexico

    225____________________________________________________________________

    Initiatives

    153____________________________________________________________________

    Methamphetamine

    154, 252_______________________________________________________________

    Controlling

    205____________________________________________________________________

    Status of fight against

    204____________________________________________________________________

    Strategy

    153____________________________________________________________________

    Mexican Government cooperation

    215____________________________________________________________________

    Mexico drug certification

    246____________________________________________________________________

    Mexico, status of

    195____________________________________________________________________

    Opening statement--DEA

    151____________________________________________________________________

    Drug organizations, investigations of major

    152____________________________________________________________________

    Pharmacies, raid on

    217____________________________________________________________________

    Federal Bureau of Investigatione

    224____________________________________________________________________

    Process

    196____________________________________________________________________

    DEA and INS coordination

    194____________________________________________________________________

    Drug certification

    257____________________________________________________________________

    Drug strategy

    152____________________________________________________________________

    FBI-DEA cross training

    228____________________________________________________________________

    Heroin

    154____________________________________________________________________

    HIDTA

    250____________________________________________________________________

    Indicted Mexican nationals or Americans who reside in Mexico

    225____________________________________________________________________

    Initiatives

    153____________________________________________________________________

    Methamphetamine

    154, 252_______________________________________________________________

    Controlling

    205____________________________________________________________________

    Status of fight against

    204____________________________________________________________________

    Strategy

    153____________________________________________________________________

    Mexican Government cooperation

    215____________________________________________________________________

    Mexico drug certification

    246____________________________________________________________________

    Mexico, status of

    195____________________________________________________________________

    Opening statement--DEA

    151____________________________________________________________________

    Drug organizations, investigations of major

    152____________________________________________________________________

    Pharmacies, raid on

    217____________________________________________________________________

    Federal Bureau of InvestigationMDNM/Budget request, fiscal
    year 1999

    165____________________________________________________________________

    Certification:

    Decision--lead role

    224____________________________________________________________________

    Process

    196____________________________________________________________________

    DEA and INS coordination

    194____________________________________________________________________

    Drug certification

    257____________________________________________________________________

    Drug strategy

    152____________________________________________________________________

    FBI-DEA cross training

    228____________________________________________________________________

    Heroin

    154____________________________________________________________________

    HIDTA

    250____________________________________________________________________

    Indicted Mexican nationals or Americans who reside in Mexico

    225____________________________________________________________________

    Initiatives

    153____________________________________________________________________

    Methamphetamine

    154, 252_______________________________________________________________

    Controlling

    205____________________________________________________________________

    Status of fight against

    204____________________________________________________________________

    Strategy

    153____________________________________________________________________

    Mexican Government cooperation

    215____________________________________________________________________

    Mexico drug certification

    246____________________________________________________________________

    Mexico, status of

    195____________________________________________________________________

    Opening statement--DEA

    151____________________________________________________________________

    Drug organizations, investigations of major

    152____________________________________________________________________

    Pharmacies, raid on

    217____________________________________________________________________

    Federal Bureau of Investigation

    DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

    Drug Enforcement Administration

    Additional committee questions

    246____________________________________________________________________

    Budget request, fiscal year 1999

    165____________________________________________________________________

    Certification:

    Decision--lead role

    224____________________________________________________________________

    Process

    196____________________________________________________________________

    DEA and INS coordination

    194____________________________________________________________________

    Drug certification

    257____________________________________________________________________

    Drug strategy

    152____________________________________________________________________

    FBI-DEA cross training

    228____________________________________________________________________

    Heroin

    154____________________________________________________________________

    HIDTA

    250____________________________________________________________________

    Indicted Mexican nationals or Americans who reside in Mexico

    225____________________________________________________________________

    Initiatives

    153____________________________________________________________________

    Methamphetamine

    154, 252_______________________________________________________________

    Controlling

    205____________________________________________________________________

    Status of fight against

    204____________________________________________________________________

    Strategy

    153____________________________________________________________________

    Mexican Government cooperation

    215____________________________________________________________________

    Mexico drug certification

    246____________________________________________________________________

    Mexico, status of

    195____________________________________________________________________

    Opening statement--DEA

    151____________________________________________________________________

    Drug organizations, investigations of major

    152____________________________________________________________________

    Pharmacies, raid on

    217____________________________________________________________________

    Federal Bureau of InvestigationMDBO/

    Decision--lead role

    224____________________________________________________________________

    Process

    196____________________________________________________________________

    DEA and INS coordination

    194____________________________________________________________________

    Drug certification

    257____________________________________________________________________

    Drug strategy

    152____________________________________________________________________

    FBI-DEA cross training

    228____________________________________________________________________

    Heroin

    154____________________________________________________________________

    HIDTA

    250____________________________________________________________________

    Indicted Mexican nationals or Americans who reside in Mexico

    225____________________________________________________________________

    Initiatives

    153____________________________________________________________________

    Methamphetamine

    154, 252_______________________________________________________________

    Controlling

    205____________________________________________________________________

    Status of fight against

    204____________________________________________________________________

    Strategy

    153____________________________________________________________________

    Mexican Government cooperation

    215____________________________________________________________________

    Mexico drug certification

    246____________________________________________________________________

    Mexico, status of

    195____________________________________________________________________

    Opening statement--DEA

    151____________________________________________________________________

    Drug organizations, investigations of major

    152____________________________________________________________________

    Pharmacies, raid on

    217____________________________________________________________________

    Federal Bureau of Investigation/224

    Process

    196____________________________________________________________________

    DEA and INS coordination

    194____________________________________________________________________

    Drug certification

    257____________________________________________________________________

    Drug strategy

    152____________________________________________________________________

    FBI-DEA cross training

    228____________________________________________________________________

    Heroin

    154____________________________________________________________________

    HIDTA

    250____________________________________________________________________

    Indicted Mexican nationals or Americans who reside in Mexico

    225____________________________________________________________________

    Initiatives

    153____________________________________________________________________

    Methamphetamine

    154, 252_______________________________________________________________

    Controlling

    205____________________________________________________________________

    Status of fight against

    204____________________________________________________________________

    Strategy

    153____________________________________________________________________

    Mexican Government cooperation

    215____________________________________________________________________

    Mexico drug certification

    246____________________________________________________________________

    Mexico, status of

    195____________________________________________________________________

    Opening statement--DEA

    151____________________________________________________________________

    Drug organizations, investigations of major

    152____________________________________________________________________

    Pharmacies, raid on

    217____________________________________________________________________

    Federal Bureau of InvestigationMDBO/

    Decision--lead role

    224____________________________________________________________________

    Process

    196____________________________________________________________________

    DEA and INS coordination

    194____________________________________________________________________

    Drug certification

    257____________________________________________________________________

    Drug strategy

    152____________________________________________________________________

    FBI-DEA cross training

    228____________________________________________________________________

    Heroin

    154____________________________________________________________________

    HIDTA

    250____________________________________________________________________

    Indicted Mexican nationals or Americans who reside in Mexico

    225____________________________________________________________________

    Initiatives

    153____________________________________________________________________

    Methamphetamine

    154, 252_______________________________________________________________

    Controlling

    205____________________________________________________________________

    Status of fight against

    204____________________________________________________________________

    Strategy

    153____________________________________________________________________

    Mexican Government cooperation

    215____________________________________________________________________

    Mexico drug certification

    246____________________________________________________________________

    Mexico, status of

    195____________________________________________________________________

    Opening statement--DEA

    151____________________________________________________________________

    Drug organizations, investigations of major

    152____________________________________________________________________

    Pharmacies, raid on

    217____________________________________________________________________

    Federal Bureau of Investigation
    Controlling.................................................. 205 Status of
    fight against...................................... 204
    Strategy..................................................... 153Mexican
    Government cooperation................................... 215Mexico drug
    certification........................................ 246Mexico, status
    of................................................ 195Opening statement--
    DEA........................................... 151Drug organizations,
    investigations of major...................... 152Pharmacies, raid
    on.............................................. 217 Federal Bureau of
    InvestigationAcademy........................................................
    .. 242 Improvements and construction................................
    190Additional committee questions...................................
    239Budget increases.................................................
    182CALEA............................................................ 201
    Status of implementation..................................... 200Challenges
    facing the FBI........................................ 185Chemical and
    biological attacks.................................. 192Communications
    Assistance for Law Enforcement Act [CALEA]........ 241Counterterrorism and
    cybercrime  and Local Law Enforcement Wireless Communications and
    Interoperability'' report

    67_____________________________________________________________________

    Taped telephone conversation

    34_____________________________________________________________________

    Terrorism, domestic

    24_____________________________________________________________________

    Training facilities

    37_____________________________________________________________________

    Women, violence against

    9______________________________________________________________________

    Youth violence grant programs

    8______________________________________________________________________

    ``Winstar''

    71_____________________________________________________________________

    DEPARTMENT OF STATE

    Secretary of State

    Activity costs, measuring

    119____________________________________________________________________

    Additional committee questions

    114____________________________________________________________________

    Aid

    108____________________________________________________________________

    Algeria

    148____________________________________________________________________

    American leadership around the world

    92_____________________________________________________________________

    Anticorruption: Ukraine

    125____________________________________________________________________

    Bosnia funding

    123____________________________________________________________________

    Bosnian Serb issues

    145____________________________________________________________________

    Budget request, overall

    122____________________________________________________________________

    Certification:

    Decisions

    120____________________________________________________________________

    Process, improving the

    121____________________________________________________________________

    Chiapas, Mexico, massacre in

    131DNM/Taped telephone conversation_______________________
    34_____________________________________________________________________

    Terrorism, domestic

    24_____________________________________________________________________

    Training facilities

    37_____________________________________________________________________

    Women, violence against

    9______________________________________________________________________

    Youth violence grant programs

    8______________________________________________________________________

    ``Winstar''

    71_____________________________________________________________________

    DEPARTMENT OF STATE

    Secretary of State

    Activity costs, measuring

    119____________________________________________________________________

    Additional committee questions

    114____________________________________________________________________

    Aid

    108____________________________________________________________________

    Algeria

    148____________________________________________________________________

    American leadership around the world

    92_____________________________________________________________________

    Anticorruption: Ukraine

    125____________________________________________________________________

    Bosnia funding

    123____________________________________________________________________

    Bosnian Serb issues

    145____________________________________________________________________

    Budget request, overall

    122____________________________________________________________________

    Certification:

    Decisions

    120____________________________________________________________________

    Process, improving the

    121____________________________________________________________________

    Chiapas, Mexico, massacre in

    131nforcement Wireless Communications and
    Interoperability'' report______________________________________________
    67_____________________________________________________________________

    Taped telephone conversation

    34_____________________________________________________________________

    Terrorism, domestic

    24_____________________________________________________________________

    Training facilities

    37_____________________________________________________________________

    Women, violence against

    9______________________________________________________________________

    Youth violence grant programs

    8______________________________________________________________________

    ``Winstar''

    71_____________________________________________________________________

    DEPARTMENT OF STATE

    Secretary of State

    Activity costs, measuring

    119____________________________________________________________________

    Additional committee questions

    114____________________________________________________________________

    Aid

    108____________________________________________________________________

    Algeria

    148____________________________________________________________________

    American leadership around the world

    92_____________________________________________________________________

    Anticorruption: Ukraine

    125____________________________________________________________________

    Bosnia funding

    123____________________________________________________________________

    Bosnian Serb issues

    145____________________________________________________________________

    Budget request, overall

    122____________________________________________________________________

    Certification:

    Decisions

    120____________________________________________________________________

    Process, improving the

    121____________________________________________________________________

    Chiapas, Mexico, massacre in

    131DNM/Special immigrant juvenile status__________________
    55_____________________________________________________________________

    ``State and Local Law Enforcement Wireless Communications and
    Interoperability'' report

    67_____________________________________________________________________

    Taped telephone conversation

    34_____________________________________________________________________

    Terrorism, domestic

    24_____________________________________________________________________

    Training facilities

    37_____________________________________________________________________

    Women, violence against

    9______________________________________________________________________

    Youth violence grant programs

    8______________________________________________________________________

    ``Winstar''

    71_____________________________________________________________________

    DEPARTMENT OF STATE

    Secretary of State

    Activity costs, measuring

    119____________________________________________________________________

    Additional committee questions

    114____________________________________________________________________

    Aid

    108____________________________________________________________________

    Algeria

    148____________________________________________________________________

    American leadership around the world

    92_____________________________________________________________________

    Anticorruption: Ukraine

    125____________________________________________________________________

    Bosnia funding

    123____________________________________________________________________

    Bosnian Serb issues

    145____________________________________________________________________

    Budget request, overall

    122____________________________________________________________________

    Certification:

    Decisions

    120____________________________________________________________________

    Process, improving the

    121____________________________________________________________________

    Chiapas, Mexico, massacre in

    131MDUL/_______________________________________________________

    Radiation exposure compensation

    62_____________________________________________________________________

    Rural drug enforcement

    45_____________________________________________________________________

    Special agent hiring

    14_____________________________________________________________________

    Special immigrant juvenile status

    55_____________________________________________________________________

    ``State and Local Law Enforcement Wireless Communications and
    Interoperability'' report

    67_____________________________________________________________________

    Taped telephone conversation

    34_____________________________________________________________________

    Terrorism, domestic

    24_____________________________________________________________________

    Training facilities

    37_____________________________________________________________________

    Women, violence against

    9______________________________________________________________________

    Youth violence grant programs

    8______________________________________________________________________

    ``Winstar''

    71_____________________________________________________________________

    DEPARTMENT OF STATE

    Secretary of State

    Activity costs, measuring

    119____________________________________________________________________

    Additional committee questions

    114____________________________________________________________________

    Aid

    108____________________________________________________________________

    Algeria

    148____________________________________________________________________

    American leadership around the world

    92_____________________________________________________________________

    Anticorruption: Ukraine

    125____________________________________________________________________

    Bosnia funding

    123____________________________________________________________________

    Bosnian Serb issues

    145____________________________________________________________________

    Budget request, overall

    122____________________________________________________________________

    Certification:

    Decisions

    120____________________________________________________________________

    Process, improving the

    121____________________________________________________________________

    Chiapas, Mexico, massacre in

    131 and Local Law Enforcement Wireless Communications
    and Interoperability'' report__________________________________________
    67_____________________________________________________________________

    Taped telephone conversation

    34_____________________________________________________________________

    Terrorism, domestic

    24_____________________________________________________________________

    Training facilities

    37_____________________________________________________________________

    Women, violence against

    9______________________________________________________________________

    Youth violence grant programs

    8______________________________________________________________________

    ``Winstar''

    71_____________________________________________________________________

    DEPARTMENT OF STATE

    Secretary of State

    Activity costs, measuring

    119____________________________________________________________________

    Additional committee questions

    114____________________________________________________________________

    Aid

    108____________________________________________________________________

    Algeria

    148____________________________________________________________________

    American leadership around the world

    92_____________________________________________________________________

    Anticorruption: Ukraine

    125____________________________________________________________________

    Bosnia funding

    123____________________________________________________________________

    Bosnian Serb issues

    145____________________________________________________________________

    Budget request, overall

    122____________________________________________________________________

    Certification:

    Decisions

    120____________________________________________________________________

    Process, improving the

    121____________________________________________________________________

    Chiapas, Mexico, massacre in

    131DNM/Taped telephone conversation_______________________
    34_____________________________________________________________________

    Terrorism, domestic

    24_____________________________________________________________________

    Training facilities

    37_____________________________________________________________________

    Women, violence against

    9______________________________________________________________________

    Youth violence grant programs

    8______________________________________________________________________

    ``Winstar''

    71_____________________________________________________________________

    DEPARTMENT OF STATE

    Secretary of State

    Activity costs, measuring

    119____________________________________________________________________

    Additional committee questions

    114____________________________________________________________________

    Aid

    108____________________________________________________________________

    Algeria

    148____________________________________________________________________

    American leadership around the world

    92_____________________________________________________________________

    Anticorruption: Ukraine

    125____________________________________________________________________

    Bosnia funding

    123____________________________________________________________________

    Bosnian Serb issues

    145____________________________________________________________________

    Budget request, overall

    122____________________________________________________________________

    Certification:

    Decisions

    120____________________________________________________________________

    Process, improving the

    121____________________________________________________________________

    Chiapas, Mexico, massacre in

    13167_____________________________________________________

    Taped telephone conversation

    34_____________________________________________________________________

    Terrorism, domestic

    24_____________________________________________________________________

    Training facilities

    37_____________________________________________________________________

    Women, violence against

    9______________________________________________________________________

    Youth violence grant programs

    8______________________________________________________________________

    ``Winstar''

    71_____________________________________________________________________

    DEPARTMENT OF STATE

    Secretary of State

    Activity costs, measuring

    119____________________________________________________________________

    Additional committee questions

    114____________________________________________________________________

    Aid

    108____________________________________________________________________

    Algeria

    148____________________________________________________________________

    American leadership around the world

    92_____________________________________________________________________

    Anticorruption: Ukraine

    125____________________________________________________________________

    Bosnia funding

    123____________________________________________________________________

    Bosnian Serb issues

    145____________________________________________________________________

    Budget request, overall

    122____________________________________________________________________

    Certification:

    Decisions

    120____________________________________________________________________

    Process, improving the

    121____________________________________________________________________

    Chiapas, Mexico, massacre in

    131Denver metro gang task
    force..................................... 239Encryption:
    Agreement.................................................... 193
    Issue........................................................ 182FBI-
    DEA cross training...........................................
    228Fingerprint Center...............................................
    220First responder training.........................................
    207Hate crimes......................................................
    184 And civil rights enforcement.................................
    190Indian country nforcement Wireless Communications and
    Interoperability'' report______________________________________________
    67_____________________________________________________________________

    Taped telephone conversation

    34_____________________________________________________________________

    Terrorism, domestic

    24_____________________________________________________________________

    Training facilities

    37_____________________________________________________________________

    Women, violence against

    9______________________________________________________________________

    Youth violence grant programs

    8______________________________________________________________________

    ``Winstar''

    71_____________________________________________________________________

    DEPARTMENT OF STATE

    Secretary of State

    Activity costs, measuring

    119____________________________________________________________________

    Additional committee questions

    114____________________________________________________________________

    Aid

    108____________________________________________________________________

    Algeria

    148____________________________________________________________________

    American leadership around the world

    92_____________________________________________________________________

    Anticorruption: Ukraine

    125____________________________________________________________________

    Bosnia funding

    123____________________________________________________________________

    Bosnian Serb issues

    145____________________________________________________________________

    Budget request, overall

    122____________________________________________________________________

    Certification:

    Decisions

    120____________________________________________________________________

    Process, improving the

    121____________________________________________________________________

    Chiapas, Mexico, massacre in

    131nforcement Wireless Communications and Interoperability''
    report_________________________________________________________________
    67_____________________________________________________________________

    Taped telephone conversation

    34_____________________________________________________________________

    Terrorism, domestic

    24_____________________________________________________________________

    Training facilities

    37_____________________________________________________________________

    Women, violence against

    9______________________________________________________________________

    Youth violence grant programs

    8______________________________________________________________________

    ``Winstar''

    71_____________________________________________________________________

    DEPARTMENT OF STATE

    Secretary of State

    Activity costs, measuring

    119____________________________________________________________________

    Additional committee questions

    114____________________________________________________________________

    Aid

    108____________________________________________________________________

    Algeria

    148____________________________________________________________________

    American leadership around the world

    92_____________________________________________________________________

    Anticorruption: Ukraine

    125____________________________________________________________________

    Bosnia funding

    123____________________________________________________________________

    Bosnian Serb issues

    145____________________________________________________________________

    Budget request, overall

    122____________________________________________________________________

    Certification:

    Decisions

    120____________________________________________________________________

    Process, improving the

    121____________________________________________________________________

    Chiapas, Mexico, massacre in

    131nforcement Wireless Communications and Interoperability''
    report_________________________________________________________________
    67_____________________________________________________________________

    Taped telephone conversation

    34_____________________________________________________________________

    Terrorism, domestic

    24_____________________________________________________________________

    Training facilities

    37_____________________________________________________________________

    Women, violence against

    9______________________________________________________________________

    Youth violence grant programs

    8______________________________________________________________________

    ``Winstar''

    71_____________________________________________________________________

    DEPARTMENT OF STATE

    Secretary of State

    Activity costs, measuring

    119____________________________________________________________________

    Additional committee questions

    114____________________________________________________________________

    Aid

    108____________________________________________________________________

    Algeria

    148____________________________________________________________________

    American leadership around the world

    92_____________________________________________________________________

    Anticorruption: Ukraine

    125____________________________________________________________________

    Bosnia funding

    123____________________________________________________________________

    Bosnian Serb issues

    145____________________________________________________________________

    Budget request, overall

    122____________________________________________________________________

    Certification:

    Decisions

    120____________________________________________________________________

    Process, improving the

    121____________________________________________________________________

    Chiapas, Mexico, massacre in

    131DNM/Special immigrant juvenile status__________________
    55_____________________________________________________________________

    ``State and Local Law Enforcement Wireless Communications and
    Interoperability'' report

    67_____________________________________________________________________

    Taped telephone conversation

    34_____________________________________________________________________

    Terrorism, domestic

    24_____________________________________________________________________

    Training facilities

    37_____________________________________________________________________

    Women, violence against

    9______________________________________________________________________

    Youth violence grant programs

    8______________________________________________________________________

    ``Winstar''

    71_____________________________________________________________________

    DEPARTMENT OF STATE

    Secretary of State

    Activity costs, measuring

    119____________________________________________________________________

    Additional committee questions

    114____________________________________________________________________

    Aid

    108____________________________________________________________________

    Algeria

    148____________________________________________________________________

    American leadership around the world

    92_____________________________________________________________________

    Anticorruption: Ukraine

    125____________________________________________________________________

    Bosnia funding

    123____________________________________________________________________

    Bosnian Serb issues

    145____________________________________________________________________

    Budget request, overall

    122____________________________________________________________________

    Certification:

    Decisions

    120____________________________________________________________________

    Process, improving the

    121____________________________________________________________________

    Chiapas, Mexico, massacre in

    131MDUL/_______________________________________________________

    Radiation exposure compensation

    62_____________________________________________________________________

    Rural drug enforcement

    45_____________________________________________________________________

    Special agent hiring

    14_____________________________________________________________________

    Special immigrant juvenile status

    55_____________________________________________________________________

    ``State and Local Law Enforcement Wireless Communications and
    Interoperability'' report

    67_____________________________________________________________________

    Taped telephone conversation

    34_____________________________________________________________________

    Terrorism, domestic

    24_____________________________________________________________________

    Training facilities

    37_____________________________________________________________________

    Women, violence against

    9______________________________________________________________________

    Youth violence grant programs

    8______________________________________________________________________

    ``Winstar''

    71_____________________________________________________________________

    DEPARTMENT OF STATE

    Secretary of State

    Activity costs, measuring

    119____________________________________________________________________

    Additional committee questions

    114____________________________________________________________________

    Aid

    108____________________________________________________________________

    Algeria

    148____________________________________________________________________

    American leadership around the world

    92_____________________________________________________________________

    Anticorruption: Ukraine

    125____________________________________________________________________

    Bosnia funding

    123____________________________________________________________________

    Bosnian Serb issues

    145____________________________________________________________________

    Budget request, overall

    122____________________________________________________________________

    Certification:

    Decisions

    120____________________________________________________________________

    Process, improving the

    121____________________________________________________________________

    Chiapas, Mexico, massacre in

    131nforcement Wireless Communications and
    Interoperability'' report______________________________________________
    67_____________________________________________________________________

    Taped telephone conversation

    34_____________________________________________________________________

    Terrorism, domestic

    24_____________________________________________________________________

    Training facilities

    37_____________________________________________________________________

    Women, violence against

    9______________________________________________________________________

    Youth violence grant programs

    8______________________________________________________________________

    ``Winstar''

    71_____________________________________________________________________

    DEPARTMENT OF STATE

    Secretary of State

    Activity costs, measuring

    119____________________________________________________________________

    Additional committee questions

    114____________________________________________________________________

    Aid

    108____________________________________________________________________

    Algeria

    148____________________________________________________________________

    American leadership around the world

    92_____________________________________________________________________

    Anticorruption: Ukraine

    125____________________________________________________________________

    Bosnia funding

    123____________________________________________________________________

    Bosnian Serb issues

    145____________________________________________________________________

    Budget request, overall

    122____________________________________________________________________

    Certification:

    Decisions

    120____________________________________________________________________

    Process, improving the

    121____________________________________________________________________

    Chiapas, Mexico, massacre in

    131nforcement Wireless Communications and Interoperability''
    report_________________________________________________________________
    67_____________________________________________________________________

    Taped telephone conversation

    34_____________________________________________________________________

    Terrorism, domestic

    24_____________________________________________________________________

    Training facilities

    37_____________________________________________________________________

    Women, violence against

    9______________________________________________________________________

    Youth violence grant programs

    8______________________________________________________________________

    ``Winstar''

    71_____________________________________________________________________

    DEPARTMENT OF STATE

    Secretary of State

    Activity costs, measuring

    119____________________________________________________________________

    Additional committee questions

    114____________________________________________________________________

    Aid

    108____________________________________________________________________

    Algeria

    148____________________________________________________________________

    American leadership around the world

    92_____________________________________________________________________

    Anticorruption: Ukraine

    125____________________________________________________________________

    Bosnia funding

    123____________________________________________________________________

    Bosnian Serb issues

    145____________________________________________________________________

    Budget request, overall

    122____________________________________________________________________

    Certification:

    Decisions

    120____________________________________________________________________

    Process, improving the

    121____________________________________________________________________

    Chiapas, Mexico, massacre in

    131ess Communications and Interoperability'' report__
    67_____________________________________________________________________

    Taped telephone conversation

    34_____________________________________________________________________

    Terrorism, domestic

    24_____________________________________________________________________

    Training facilities

    37_____________________________________________________________________

    Women, violence against

    9______________________________________________________________________

    Youth violence grant programs

    8______________________________________________________________________

    ``Winstar''

    71_____________________________________________________________________

    DEPARTMENT OF STATE

    Secretary of State

    Activity costs, measuring

    119____________________________________________________________________

    Additional committee questions

    114____________________________________________________________________

    Aid

    108____________________________________________________________________

    Algeria

    148____________________________________________________________________

    American leadership around the world

    92_____________________________________________________________________

    Anticorruption: Ukraine

    125____________________________________________________________________

    Bosnia funding

    123____________________________________________________________________

    Bosnian Serb issues

    145____________________________________________________________________

    Budget request, overall

    122____________________________________________________________________

    Certification:

    Decisions

    120____________________________________________________________________

    Process, improving the

    121____________________________________________________________________

    Chiapas, Mexico, massacre in

    131 Law
    enforcement.............................................. 189
    Initiative............................................... 184Indicted
    Mexican nationals....................................... 226Information
    sharing.............................................. 188Integrated
    automated fingerprint identification system [IAFIS]... 243International
    crime.............................................. 239Iraqi spying
    allegations......................................... 192Laboratory
    construction.......................................... 228Narrowband
    radio communications  and Local Law Enforcement Wireless
    Communications and Interoperability'' report___________________________
    67_____________________________________________________________________

    Taped telephone conversation

    34_____________________________________________________________________

    Terrorism, domestic

    24_____________________________________________________________________

    Training facilities

    37_____________________________________________________________________

    Women, violence against

    9______________________________________________________________________

    Youth violence grant programs

    8______________________________________________________________________

    ``Winstar''

    71_____________________________________________________________________

    DEPARTMENT OF STATE

    Secretary of State

    Activity costs, measuring

    119____________________________________________________________________

    Additional committee questions

    114____________________________________________________________________

    Aid

    108____________________________________________________________________

    Algeria

    148____________________________________________________________________

    American leadership around the world

    92_____________________________________________________________________

    Anticorruption: Ukraine

    125____________________________________________________________________

    Bosnia funding

    123____________________________________________________________________

    Bosnian Serb issues

    145____________________________________________________________________

    Budget request, overall

    122____________________________________________________________________

    Certification:

    Decisions

    120____________________________________________________________________

    Process, improving the

    121____________________________________________________________________

    Chiapas, Mexico, massacre in

    131DNM/Taped telephone conversation_______________________
    34_____________________________________________________________________

    Terrorism, domestic

    24_____________________________________________________________________

    Training facilities

    37_____________________________________________________________________

    Women, violence against

    9______________________________________________________________________

    Youth violence grant programs

    8______________________________________________________________________

    ``Winstar''

    71_____________________________________________________________________

    DEPARTMENT OF STATE

    Secretary of State

    Activity costs, measuring

    119____________________________________________________________________

    Additional committee questions

    114____________________________________________________________________

    Aid

    108____________________________________________________________________

    Algeria

    148____________________________________________________________________

    American leadership around the world

    92_____________________________________________________________________

    Anticorruption: Ukraine

    125____________________________________________________________________

    Bosnia funding

    123____________________________________________________________________

    Bosnian Serb issues

    145____________________________________________________________________

    Budget request, overall

    122____________________________________________________________________

    Certification:

    Decisions

    120____________________________________________________________________

    Process, improving the

    121____________________________________________________________________

    Chiapas, Mexico, massacre in

    131ability'' report__________________________________
    67_____________________________________________________________________

    Taped telephone conversation

    34_____________________________________________________________________

    Terrorism, domestic

    24_____________________________________________________________________

    Training facilities

    37_____________________________________________________________________

    Women, violence against

    9______________________________________________________________________

    Youth violence grant programs

    8______________________________________________________________________

    ``Winstar''

    71_____________________________________________________________________

    DEPARTMENT OF STATE

    Secretary of State

    Activity costs, measuring

    119____________________________________________________________________

    Additional committee questions

    114____________________________________________________________________

    Aid

    108____________________________________________________________________

    Algeria

    148____________________________________________________________________

    American leadership around the world

    92_____________________________________________________________________

    Anticorruption: Ukraine

    125____________________________________________________________________

    Bosnia funding

    123____________________________________________________________________

    Bosnian Serb issues

    145____________________________________________________________________

    Budget request, overall

    122____________________________________________________________________

    Certification:

    Decisions

    120____________________________________________________________________

    Process, improving the

    121____________________________________________________________________

    Chiapas, Mexico, massacre in

    131DNM/Special immigrant juvenile status__________________
    55_____________________________________________________________________

    ``State and Local Law Enforcement Wireless Communications and
    Interoperability'' report

    67_____________________________________________________________________

    Taped telephone conversation

    34_____________________________________________________________________

    Terrorism, domestic

    24_____________________________________________________________________

    Training facilities

    37_____________________________________________________________________

    Women, violence against

    9______________________________________________________________________

    Youth violence grant programs

    8______________________________________________________________________

    ``Winstar''

    71_____________________________________________________________________

    DEPARTMENT OF STATE

    Secretary of State

    Activity costs, measuring

    119____________________________________________________________________

    Additional committee questions

    114____________________________________________________________________

    Aid

    108____________________________________________________________________

    Algeria

    148____________________________________________________________________

    American leadership around the world

    92_____________________________________________________________________

    Anticorruption: Ukraine

    125____________________________________________________________________

    Bosnia funding

    123____________________________________________________________________

    Bosnian Serb issues

    145____________________________________________________________________

    Budget request, overall

    122____________________________________________________________________

    Certification:

    Decisions

    120____________________________________________________________________

    Process, improving the

    121____________________________________________________________________

    Chiapas, Mexico, massacre in

    131MDUL/_______________________________________________________

    Radiation exposure compensation

    62_____________________________________________________________________

    Rural drug enforcement

    45_____________________________________________________________________

    Special agent hiring

    14_____________________________________________________________________

    Special immigrant juvenile status

    55_____________________________________________________________________

    ``State and Local Law Enforcement Wireless Communications and
    Interoperability'' report

    67_____________________________________________________________________

    Taped telephone conversation

    34_____________________________________________________________________

    Terrorism, domestic

    24_____________________________________________________________________

    Training facilities

    37_____________________________________________________________________

    Women, violence against

    9______________________________________________________________________

    Youth violence grant programs

    8______________________________________________________________________

    ``Winstar''

    71_____________________________________________________________________

    DEPARTMENT OF STATE

    Secretary of State

    Activity costs, measuring

    119____________________________________________________________________

    Additional committee questions

    114____________________________________________________________________

    Aid

    108____________________________________________________________________

    Algeria

    148____________________________________________________________________

    American leadership around the world

    92_____________________________________________________________________

    Anticorruption: Ukraine

    125____________________________________________________________________

    Bosnia funding

    123____________________________________________________________________

    Bosnian Serb issues

    145____________________________________________________________________

    Budget request, overall

    122____________________________________________________________________

    Certification:

    Decisions

    120____________________________________________________________________

    Process, improving the

    121____________________________________________________________________

    Chiapas, Mexico, massacre in

    131 and Local Law Enforcement Wireless Communications
    and Interoperability'' report__________________________________________
    67_____________________________________________________________________

    Taped telephone conversation

    34_____________________________________________________________________

    Terrorism, domestic

    24_____________________________________________________________________

    Training facilities

    37_____________________________________________________________________

    Women, violence against

    9______________________________________________________________________

    Youth violence grant programs

    8______________________________________________________________________

    ``Winstar''

    71_____________________________________________________________________

    DEPARTMENT OF STATE

    Secretary of State

    Activity costs, measuring

    119____________________________________________________________________

    Additional committee questions

    114____________________________________________________________________

    Aid

    108____________________________________________________________________

    Algeria

    148____________________________________________________________________

    American leadership around the world

    92_____________________________________________________________________

    Anticorruption: Ukraine

    125____________________________________________________________________

    Bosnia funding

    123____________________________________________________________________

    Bosnian Serb issues

    145____________________________________________________________________

    Budget request, overall

    122____________________________________________________________________

    Certification:

    Decisions

    120____________________________________________________________________

    Process, improving the

    121____________________________________________________________________

    Chiapas, Mexico, massacre in

    131one conversation__________________________________
    34_____________________________________________________________________

    Terrorism, domestic

    24_____________________________________________________________________

    Training facilities

    37_____________________________________________________________________

    Women, violence against

    9______________________________________________________________________

    Youth violence grant programs

    8______________________________________________________________________

    ``Winstar''

    71_____________________________________________________________________

    DEPARTMENT OF STATE

    Secretary of State

    Activity costs, measuring

    119____________________________________________________________________

    Additional committee questions

    114____________________________________________________________________

    Aid

    108____________________________________________________________________

    Algeria

    148____________________________________________________________________

    American leadership around the world

    92_____________________________________________________________________

    Anticorruption: Ukraine

    125____________________________________________________________________

    Bosnia funding

    123____________________________________________________________________

    Bosnian Serb issues

    145____________________________________________________________________

    Budget request, overall

    122____________________________________________________________________

    Certification:

    Decisions

    120____________________________________________________________________

    Process, improving the

    121____________________________________________________________________

    Chiapas, Mexico, massacre in

    131 and Local Law Enforcement Wireless Communications
    and Interoperability'' report__________________________________________
    67_____________________________________________________________________

    Taped telephone conversation

    34_____________________________________________________________________

    Terrorism, domestic

    24_____________________________________________________________________

    Training facilities

    37_____________________________________________________________________

    Women, violence against

    9______________________________________________________________________

    Youth violence grant programs

    8______________________________________________________________________

    ``Winstar''

    71_____________________________________________________________________

    DEPARTMENT OF STATE

    Secretary of State

    Activity costs, measuring

    119____________________________________________________________________

    Additional committee questions

    114____________________________________________________________________

    Aid

    108____________________________________________________________________

    Algeria

    148____________________________________________________________________

    American leadership around the world

    92_____________________________________________________________________

    Anticorruption: Ukraine

    125____________________________________________________________________

    Bosnia funding

    123____________________________________________________________________

    Bosnian Serb issues

    145____________________________________________________________________

    Budget request, overall

    122____________________________________________________________________

    Certification:

    Decisions

    120____________________________________________________________________

    Process, improving the

    121____________________________________________________________________

    Chiapas, Mexico, massacre in

    1311999 budget
    summary.............................................. 187Nunn-Lugar-
    Domenici Domestic Preparedness Program................ 208Puerto
    Rico......................................................
    242Telecommunications carrier compliance  and Local Law
    Enforcement Wireless Communications and Interoperability'' report______
    67_____________________________________________________________________

    Taped telephone conversation

    34_____________________________________________________________________

    Terrorism, domestic

    24_____________________________________________________________________

    Training facilities

    37_____________________________________________________________________

    Women, violence against

    9______________________________________________________________________

    Youth violence grant programs

    8______________________________________________________________________

    ``Winstar''

    71_____________________________________________________________________

    DEPARTMENT OF STATE

    Secretary of State

    Activity costs, measuring

    119____________________________________________________________________

    Additional committee questions

    114____________________________________________________________________

    Aid

    108____________________________________________________________________

    Algeria

    148____________________________________________________________________

    American leadership around the world

    92_____________________________________________________________________

    Anticorruption: Ukraine

    125____________________________________________________________________

    Bosnia funding

    123____________________________________________________________________

    Bosnian Serb issues

    145____________________________________________________________________

    Budget request, overall

    122____________________________________________________________________

    Certification:

    Decisions

    120____________________________________________________________________

    Process, improving the

    121____________________________________________________________________

    Chiapas, Mexico, massacre in

    131DNM/Taped telephone conversation_______________________
    34_____________________________________________________________________

    Terrorism, domestic

    24_____________________________________________________________________

    Training facilities

    37_____________________________________________________________________

    Women, violence against

    9______________________________________________________________________

    Youth violence grant programs

    8______________________________________________________________________

    ``Winstar''

    71_____________________________________________________________________

    DEPARTMENT OF STATE

    Secretary of State

    Activity costs, measuring

    119____________________________________________________________________

    Additional committee questions

    114____________________________________________________________________

    Aid

    108____________________________________________________________________

    Algeria

    148____________________________________________________________________

    American leadership around the world

    92_____________________________________________________________________

    Anticorruption: Ukraine

    125____________________________________________________________________

    Bosnia funding

    123____________________________________________________________________

    Bosnian Serb issues

    145____________________________________________________________________

    Budget request, overall

    122____________________________________________________________________

    Certification:

    Decisions

    120____________________________________________________________________

    Process, improving the

    121____________________________________________________________________

    Chiapas, Mexico, massacre in

    131ns and Interoperability'' report__________________
    67_____________________________________________________________________

    Taped telephone conversation

    34_____________________________________________________________________

    Terrorism, domestic

    24_____________________________________________________________________

    Training facilities

    37_____________________________________________________________________

    Women, violence against

    9______________________________________________________________________

    Youth violence grant programs

    8______________________________________________________________________

    ``Winstar''

    71_____________________________________________________________________

    DEPARTMENT OF STATE

    Secretary of State

    Activity costs, measuring

    119____________________________________________________________________

    Additional committee questions

    114____________________________________________________________________

    Aid

    108____________________________________________________________________

    Algeria

    148____________________________________________________________________

    American leadership around the world

    92_____________________________________________________________________

    Anticorruption: Ukraine

    125____________________________________________________________________

    Bosnia funding

    123____________________________________________________________________

    Bosnian Serb issues

    145____________________________________________________________________

    Budget request, overall

    122____________________________________________________________________

    Certification:

    Decisions

    120____________________________________________________________________

    Process, improving the

    121____________________________________________________________________

    Chiapas, Mexico, massacre in

    131DNM/Special immigrant juvenile status__________________
    55_____________________________________________________________________

    ``State and Local Law Enforcement Wireless Communications and
    Interoperability'' report

    67_____________________________________________________________________

    Taped telephone conversation

    34_____________________________________________________________________

    Terrorism, domestic

    24_____________________________________________________________________

    Training facilities

    37_____________________________________________________________________

    Women, violence against

    9______________________________________________________________________

    Youth violence grant programs

    8______________________________________________________________________

    ``Winstar''

    71_____________________________________________________________________

    DEPARTMENT OF STATE

    Secretary of State

    Activity costs, measuring

    119____________________________________________________________________

    Additional committee questions

    114____________________________________________________________________

    Aid

    108____________________________________________________________________

    Algeria

    148____________________________________________________________________

    American leadership around the world

    92_____________________________________________________________________

    Anticorruption: Ukraine

    125____________________________________________________________________

    Bosnia funding

    123____________________________________________________________________

    Bosnian Serb issues

    145____________________________________________________________________

    Budget request, overall

    122____________________________________________________________________

    Certification:

    Decisions

    120____________________________________________________________________

    Process, improving the

    121____________________________________________________________________

    Chiapas, Mexico, massacre in

    131MDUL/_______________________________________________________

    Radiation exposure compensation

    62_____________________________________________________________________

    Rural drug enforcement

    45_____________________________________________________________________

    Special agent hiring

    14_____________________________________________________________________

    Special immigrant juvenile status

    55_____________________________________________________________________

    ``State and Local Law Enforcement Wireless Communications and
    Interoperability'' report

    67_____________________________________________________________________

    Taped telephone conversation

    34_____________________________________________________________________

    Terrorism, domestic

    24_____________________________________________________________________

    Training facilities

    37_____________________________________________________________________

    Women, violence against

    9______________________________________________________________________

    Youth violence grant programs

    8______________________________________________________________________

    ``Winstar''

    71_____________________________________________________________________

    DEPARTMENT OF STATE

    Secretary of State

    Activity costs, measuring

    119____________________________________________________________________

    Additional committee questions

    114____________________________________________________________________

    Aid

    108____________________________________________________________________

    Algeria

    148____________________________________________________________________

    American leadership around the world

    92_____________________________________________________________________

    Anticorruption: Ukraine

    125____________________________________________________________________

    Bosnia funding

    123____________________________________________________________________

    Bosnian Serb issues

    145____________________________________________________________________

    Budget request, overall

    122____________________________________________________________________

    Certification:

    Decisions

    120____________________________________________________________________

    Process, improving the

    121____________________________________________________________________

    Chiapas, Mexico, massacre in

    131 and Local Law Enforcement Wireless Communications
    and Interoperability'' report__________________________________________
    67_____________________________________________________________________

    Taped telephone conversation

    34_____________________________________________________________________

    Terrorism, domestic

    24_____________________________________________________________________

    Training facilities

    37_____________________________________________________________________

    Women, violence against

    9______________________________________________________________________

    Youth violence grant programs

    8______________________________________________________________________

    ``Winstar''

    71_____________________________________________________________________

    DEPARTMENT OF STATE

    Secretary of State

    Activity costs, measuring

    119____________________________________________________________________

    Additional committee questions

    114____________________________________________________________________

    Aid

    108____________________________________________________________________

    Algeria

    148____________________________________________________________________

    American leadership around the world

    92_____________________________________________________________________

    Anticorruption: Ukraine

    125____________________________________________________________________

    Bosnia funding

    123____________________________________________________________________

    Bosnian Serb issues

    145____________________________________________________________________

    Budget request, overall

    122____________________________________________________________________

    Certification:

    Decisions

    120____________________________________________________________________

    Process, improving the

    121____________________________________________________________________

    Chiapas, Mexico, massacre in

    131one conversation__________________________________
    34_____________________________________________________________________

    Terrorism, domestic

    24_____________________________________________________________________

    Training facilities

    37_____________________________________________________________________

    Women, violence against

    9______________________________________________________________________

    Youth violence grant programs

    8______________________________________________________________________

    ``Winstar''

    71_____________________________________________________________________

    DEPARTMENT OF STATE

    Secretary of State

    Activity costs, measuring

    119____________________________________________________________________

    Additional committee questions

    114____________________________________________________________________

    Aid

    108____________________________________________________________________

    Algeria

    148____________________________________________________________________

    American leadership around the world

    92_____________________________________________________________________

    Anticorruption: Ukraine

    125____________________________________________________________________

    Bosnia funding

    123____________________________________________________________________

    Bosnian Serb issues

    145____________________________________________________________________

    Budget request, overall

    122____________________________________________________________________

    Certification:

    Decisions

    120____________________________________________________________________

    Process, improving the

    121____________________________________________________________________

    Chiapas, Mexico, massacre in

    131 and Local Law Enforcement Wireless Communications
    and Interoperability'' report__________________________________________
    67_____________________________________________________________________

    Taped telephone conversation

    34_____________________________________________________________________

    Terrorism, domestic

    24_____________________________________________________________________

    Training facilities

    37_____________________________________________________________________

    Women, violence against

    9______________________________________________________________________

    Youth violence grant programs

    8______________________________________________________________________

    ``Winstar''

    71_____________________________________________________________________

    DEPARTMENT OF STATE

    Secretary of State

    Activity costs, measuring

    119____________________________________________________________________

    Additional committee questions

    114____________________________________________________________________

    Aid

    108____________________________________________________________________

    Algeria

    148____________________________________________________________________

    American leadership around the world

    92_____________________________________________________________________

    Anticorruption: Ukraine

    125____________________________________________________________________

    Bosnia funding

    123____________________________________________________________________

    Bosnian Serb issues

    145____________________________________________________________________

    Budget request, overall

    122____________________________________________________________________

    Certification:

    Decisions

    120____________________________________________________________________

    Process, improving the

    121____________________________________________________________________

    Chiapas, Mexico, massacre in

    131Terrorist
    threat................................................. 181Title V
    exemption................................................ 228
    Immigration and Naturalization ServiceAdditional committee
    questions................................... 229Aliens, removal of
    illegal....................................... 171Antismuggling,
    antiterrorism, and overseas deterrence............ 173Automation and
    technology improvements........................... 172Border:
    Control...................................................... 194
    Enforcement.................................................. 170Border
    Patrol: Growth.......................................................
    235 In Texas.....................................................
    208Budget, fiscal year 1999.........................................
    176Catch and release................................................
    232Commission on Immigration Reform, report of the..................
    198Fingerprint machines.............................................
    219Fingerprint submissions to FBI...................................
    218Immigrant Investor Program nforcement Wireless Communications
    and Interoperability'' report__________________________________________
    67_____________________________________________________________________

    Taped telephone conversation

    34_____________________________________________________________________

    Terrorism, domestic

    24_____________________________________________________________________

    Training facilities

    37_____________________________________________________________________

    Women, violence against

    9______________________________________________________________________

    Youth violence grant programs

    8______________________________________________________________________

    ``Winstar''

    71_____________________________________________________________________

    DEPARTMENT OF STATE

    Secretary of State

    Activity costs, measuring

    119____________________________________________________________________

    Additional committee questions

    114____________________________________________________________________

    Aid

    108____________________________________________________________________

    Algeria

    148____________________________________________________________________

    American leadership around the world

    92_____________________________________________________________________

    Anticorruption: Ukraine

    125____________________________________________________________________

    Bosnia funding

    123____________________________________________________________________

    Bosnian Serb issues

    145____________________________________________________________________

    Budget request, overall

    122____________________________________________________________________

    Certification:

    Decisions

    120____________________________________________________________________

    Process, improving the

    121____________________________________________________________________

    Chiapas, Mexico, massacre in

    131ess Communications and Interoperability'' report__
    67_____________________________________________________________________

    Taped telephone conversation

    34_____________________________________________________________________

    Terrorism, domestic

    24_____________________________________________________________________

    Training facilities

    37_____________________________________________________________________

    Women, violence against

    9______________________________________________________________________

    Youth violence grant programs

    8______________________________________________________________________

    ``Winstar''

    71_____________________________________________________________________

    DEPARTMENT OF STATE

    Secretary of State

    Activity costs, measuring

    119____________________________________________________________________

    Additional committee questions

    114____________________________________________________________________

    Aid

    108____________________________________________________________________

    Algeria

    148____________________________________________________________________

    American leadership around the world

    92_____________________________________________________________________

    Anticorruption: Ukraine

    125____________________________________________________________________

    Bosnia funding

    123____________________________________________________________________

    Bosnian Serb issues

    145____________________________________________________________________

    Budget request, overall

    122____________________________________________________________________

    Certification:

    Decisions

    120____________________________________________________________________

    Process, improving the

    121____________________________________________________________________

    Chiapas, Mexico, massacre in

    131__________________________________________________
    67_____________________________________________________________________

    Taped telephone conversation

    34_____________________________________________________________________

    Terrorism, domestic

    24_____________________________________________________________________

    Training facilities

    37_____________________________________________________________________

    Women, violence against

    9______________________________________________________________________

    Youth violence grant programs

    8______________________________________________________________________

    ``Winstar''

    71_____________________________________________________________________

    DEPARTMENT OF STATE

    Secretary of State

    Activity costs, measuring

    119____________________________________________________________________

    Additional committee questions

    114____________________________________________________________________

    Aid

    108____________________________________________________________________

    Algeria

    148____________________________________________________________________

    American leadership around the world

    92_____________________________________________________________________

    Anticorruption: Ukraine

    125____________________________________________________________________

    Bosnia funding

    123____________________________________________________________________

    Bosnian Serb issues

    145____________________________________________________________________

    Budget request, overall

    122____________________________________________________________________

    Certification:

    Decisions

    120____________________________________________________________________

    Process, improving the

    121____________________________________________________________________

    Chiapas, Mexico, massacre in

    131DNM/Special immigrant juvenile status__________________
    55_____________________________________________________________________

    ``State and Local Law Enforcement Wireless Communications and
    Interoperability'' report

    67_____________________________________________________________________

    Taped telephone conversation

    34_____________________________________________________________________

    Terrorism, domestic

    24_____________________________________________________________________

    Training facilities

    37_____________________________________________________________________

    Women, violence against

    9______________________________________________________________________

    Youth violence grant programs

    8______________________________________________________________________

    ``Winstar''

    71_____________________________________________________________________

    DEPARTMENT OF STATE

    Secretary of State

    Activity costs, measuring

    119____________________________________________________________________

    Additional committee questions

    114____________________________________________________________________

    Aid

    108____________________________________________________________________

    Algeria

    148____________________________________________________________________

    American leadership around the world

    92_____________________________________________________________________

    Anticorruption: Ukraine

    125____________________________________________________________________

    Bosnia funding

    123____________________________________________________________________

    Bosnian Serb issues

    145____________________________________________________________________

    Budget request, overall

    122____________________________________________________________________

    Certification:

    Decisions

    120____________________________________________________________________

    Process, improving the

    121____________________________________________________________________

    Chiapas, Mexico, massacre in

    131MDUL/_______________________________________________________

    Radiation exposure compensation

    62_____________________________________________________________________

    Rural drug enforcement

    45_____________________________________________________________________

    Special agent hiring

    14_____________________________________________________________________

    Special immigrant juvenile status

    55_____________________________________________________________________

    ``State and Local Law Enforcement Wireless Communications and
    Interoperability'' report

    67_____________________________________________________________________

    Taped telephone conversation

    34_____________________________________________________________________

    Terrorism, domestic

    24_____________________________________________________________________

    Training facilities

    37_____________________________________________________________________

    Women, violence against

    9______________________________________________________________________

    Youth violence grant programs

    8______________________________________________________________________

    ``Winstar''

    71_____________________________________________________________________

    DEPARTMENT OF STATE

    Secretary of State

    Activity costs, measuring

    119____________________________________________________________________

    Additional committee questions

    114____________________________________________________________________

    Aid

    108____________________________________________________________________

    Algeria

    148____________________________________________________________________

    American leadership around the world

    92_____________________________________________________________________

    Anticorruption: Ukraine

    125____________________________________________________________________

    Bosnia funding

    123____________________________________________________________________

    Bosnian Serb issues

    145____________________________________________________________________

    Budget request, overall

    122____________________________________________________________________

    Certification:

    Decisions

    120____________________________________________________________________

    Process, improving the

    121____________________________________________________________________

    Chiapas, Mexico, massacre in

    131nforcement Wireless Communications and
    Interoperability'' report______________________________________________
    67_____________________________________________________________________

    Taped telephone conversation

    34_____________________________________________________________________

    Terrorism, domestic

    24_____________________________________________________________________

    Training facilities

    37_____________________________________________________________________

    Women, violence against

    9______________________________________________________________________

    Youth violence grant programs

    8______________________________________________________________________

    ``Winstar''

    71_____________________________________________________________________

    DEPARTMENT OF STATE

    Secretary of State

    Activity costs, measuring

    119____________________________________________________________________

    Additional committee questions

    114____________________________________________________________________

    Aid

    108____________________________________________________________________

    Algeria

    148____________________________________________________________________

    American leadership around the world

    92_____________________________________________________________________

    Anticorruption: Ukraine

    125____________________________________________________________________

    Bosnia funding

    123____________________________________________________________________

    Bosnian Serb issues

    145____________________________________________________________________

    Budget request, overall

    122____________________________________________________________________

    Certification:

    Decisions

    120____________________________________________________________________

    Process, improving the

    121____________________________________________________________________

    Chiapas, Mexico, massacre in

    131ess Communications and Interoperability'' report__
    67_____________________________________________________________________

    Taped telephone conversation

    34_____________________________________________________________________

    Terrorism, domestic

    24_____________________________________________________________________

    Training facilities

    37_____________________________________________________________________

    Women, violence against

    9______________________________________________________________________

    Youth violence grant programs

    8______________________________________________________________________

    ``Winstar''

    71_____________________________________________________________________

    DEPARTMENT OF STATE

    Secretary of State

    Activity costs, measuring

    119____________________________________________________________________

    Additional committee questions

    114____________________________________________________________________

    Aid

    108____________________________________________________________________

    Algeria

    148____________________________________________________________________

    American leadership around the world

    92_____________________________________________________________________

    Anticorruption: Ukraine

    125____________________________________________________________________

    Bosnia funding

    123____________________________________________________________________

    Bosnian Serb issues

    145____________________________________________________________________

    Budget request, overall

    122____________________________________________________________________

    Certification:

    Decisions

    120____________________________________________________________________

    Process, improving the

    121____________________________________________________________________

    Chiapas, Mexico, massacre in

    13167_____________________________________________________

    Taped telephone conversation

    34_____________________________________________________________________

    Terrorism, domestic

    24_____________________________________________________________________

    Training facilities

    37_____________________________________________________________________

    Women, violence against

    9______________________________________________________________________

    Youth violence grant programs

    8______________________________________________________________________

    ``Winstar''

    71_____________________________________________________________________

    DEPARTMENT OF STATE

    Secretary of State

    Activity costs, measuring

    119____________________________________________________________________

    Additional committee questions

    114____________________________________________________________________

    Aid

    108____________________________________________________________________

    Algeria

    148____________________________________________________________________

    American leadership around the world

    92_____________________________________________________________________

    Anticorruption: Ukraine

    125____________________________________________________________________

    Bosnia funding

    123____________________________________________________________________

    Bosnian Serb issues

    145____________________________________________________________________

    Budget request, overall

    122____________________________________________________________________

    Certification:

    Decisions

    120____________________________________________________________________

    Process, improving the

    121____________________________________________________________________

    Chiapas, Mexico, massacre in

    131Immigration agency, need for
    separate............................
    206Integrity........................................................
    174Interior enforcement  and Local Law Enforcement Wireless
    Communications and Interoperability'' report___________________________
    67_____________________________________________________________________

    Taped telephone conversation

    34_____________________________________________________________________

    Terrorism, domestic

    24_____________________________________________________________________

    Training facilities

    37_____________________________________________________________________

    Women, violence against

    9______________________________________________________________________

    Youth violence grant programs

    8______________________________________________________________________

    ``Winstar''

    71_____________________________________________________________________

    DEPARTMENT OF STATE

    Secretary of State

    Activity costs, measuring

    119____________________________________________________________________

    Additional committee questions

    114____________________________________________________________________

    Aid

    108____________________________________________________________________

    Algeria

    148____________________________________________________________________

    American leadership around the world

    92_____________________________________________________________________

    Anticorruption: Ukraine

    125____________________________________________________________________

    Bosnia funding

    123____________________________________________________________________

    Bosnian Serb issues

    145____________________________________________________________________

    Budget request, overall

    122____________________________________________________________________

    Certification:

    Decisions

    120____________________________________________________________________

    Process, improving the

    121____________________________________________________________________

    Chiapas, Mexico, massacre in

    13167_____________________________________________________

    Taped telephone conversation

    34_____________________________________________________________________

    Terrorism, domestic

    24_____________________________________________________________________

    Training facilities

    37_____________________________________________________________________

    Women, violence against

    9______________________________________________________________________

    Youth violence grant programs

    8______________________________________________________________________

    ``Winstar''

    71_____________________________________________________________________

    DEPARTMENT OF STATE

    Secretary of State

    Activity costs, measuring

    119____________________________________________________________________

    Additional committee questions

    114____________________________________________________________________

    Aid

    108____________________________________________________________________

    Algeria

    148____________________________________________________________________

    American leadership around the world

    92_____________________________________________________________________

    Anticorruption: Ukraine

    125____________________________________________________________________

    Bosnia funding

    123____________________________________________________________________

    Bosnian Serb issues

    145____________________________________________________________________

    Budget request, overall

    122____________________________________________________________________

    Certification:

    Decisions

    120____________________________________________________________________

    Process, improving the

    121____________________________________________________________________

    Chiapas, Mexico, massacre in

    131ess Communications and Interoperability'' report__
    67_____________________________________________________________________

    Taped telephone conversation

    34_____________________________________________________________________

    Terrorism, domestic

    24_____________________________________________________________________

    Training facilities

    37_____________________________________________________________________

    Women, violence against

    9______________________________________________________________________

    Youth violence grant programs

    8______________________________________________________________________

    ``Winstar''

    71_____________________________________________________________________

    DEPARTMENT OF STATE

    Secretary of State

    Activity costs, measuring

    119____________________________________________________________________

    Additional committee questions

    114____________________________________________________________________

    Aid

    108____________________________________________________________________

    Algeria

    148____________________________________________________________________

    American leadership around the world

    92_____________________________________________________________________

    Anticorruption: Ukraine

    125____________________________________________________________________

    Bosnia funding

    123____________________________________________________________________

    Bosnian Serb issues

    145____________________________________________________________________

    Budget request, overall

    122____________________________________________________________________

    Certification:

    Decisions

    120____________________________________________________________________

    Process, improving the

    121____________________________________________________________________

    Chiapas, Mexico, massacre in

    131DNM/Special immigrant juvenile status__________________
    55_____________________________________________________________________

    ``State and Local Law Enforcement Wireless Communications and
    Interoperability'' report

    67_____________________________________________________________________

    Taped telephone conversation

    34_____________________________________________________________________

    Terrorism, domestic

    24_____________________________________________________________________

    Training facilities

    37_____________________________________________________________________

    Women, violence against

    9______________________________________________________________________

    Youth violence grant programs

    8______________________________________________________________________

    ``Winstar''

    71_____________________________________________________________________

    DEPARTMENT OF STATE

    Secretary of State

    Activity costs, measuring

    119____________________________________________________________________

    Additional committee questions

    114____________________________________________________________________

    Aid

    108____________________________________________________________________

    Algeria

    148____________________________________________________________________

    American leadership around the world

    92_____________________________________________________________________

    Anticorruption: Ukraine

    125____________________________________________________________________

    Bosnia funding

    123____________________________________________________________________

    Bosnian Serb issues

    145____________________________________________________________________

    Budget request, overall

    122____________________________________________________________________

    Certification:

    Decisions

    120____________________________________________________________________

    Process, improving the

    121____________________________________________________________________

    Chiapas, Mexico, massacre in

    131MDUL/_______________________________________________________

    Radiation exposure compensation

    62_____________________________________________________________________

    Rural drug enforcement

    45_____________________________________________________________________

    Special agent hiring

    14_____________________________________________________________________

    Special immigrant juvenile status

    55_____________________________________________________________________

    ``State and Local Law Enforcement Wireless Communications and
    Interoperability'' report

    67_____________________________________________________________________

    Taped telephone conversation

    34_____________________________________________________________________

    Terrorism, domestic

    24_____________________________________________________________________

    Training facilities

    37_____________________________________________________________________

    Women, violence against

    9______________________________________________________________________

    Youth violence grant programs

    8______________________________________________________________________

    ``Winstar''

    71_____________________________________________________________________

    DEPARTMENT OF STATE

    Secretary of State

    Activity costs, measuring

    119____________________________________________________________________

    Additional committee questions

    114____________________________________________________________________

    Aid

    108____________________________________________________________________

    Algeria

    148____________________________________________________________________

    American leadership around the world

    92_____________________________________________________________________

    Anticorruption: Ukraine

    125____________________________________________________________________

    Bosnia funding

    123____________________________________________________________________

    Bosnian Serb issues

    145____________________________________________________________________

    Budget request, overall

    122____________________________________________________________________

    Certification:

    Decisions

    120____________________________________________________________________

    Process, improving the

    121____________________________________________________________________

    Chiapas, Mexico, massacre in

    131nforcement Wireless Communications and
    Interoperability'' report______________________________________________
    67_____________________________________________________________________

    Taped telephone conversation

    34_____________________________________________________________________

    Terrorism, domestic

    24_____________________________________________________________________

    Training facilities

    37_____________________________________________________________________

    Women, violence against

    9______________________________________________________________________

    Youth violence grant programs

    8______________________________________________________________________

    ``Winstar''

    71_____________________________________________________________________

    DEPARTMENT OF STATE

    Secretary of State

    Activity costs, measuring

    119____________________________________________________________________

    Additional committee questions

    114____________________________________________________________________

    Aid

    108____________________________________________________________________

    Algeria

    148____________________________________________________________________

    American leadership around the world

    92_____________________________________________________________________

    Anticorruption: Ukraine

    125____________________________________________________________________

    Bosnia funding

    123____________________________________________________________________

    Bosnian Serb issues

    145____________________________________________________________________

    Budget request, overall

    122____________________________________________________________________

    Certification:

    Decisions

    120____________________________________________________________________

    Process, improving the

    121____________________________________________________________________

    Chiapas, Mexico, massacre in

    131ess Communications and Interoperability'' report__
    67_____________________________________________________________________

    Taped telephone conversation

    34_____________________________________________________________________

    Terrorism, domestic

    24_____________________________________________________________________

    Training facilities

    37_____________________________________________________________________

    Women, violence against

    9______________________________________________________________________

    Youth violence grant programs

    8______________________________________________________________________

    ``Winstar''

    71_____________________________________________________________________

    DEPARTMENT OF STATE

    Secretary of State

    Activity costs, measuring

    119____________________________________________________________________

    Additional committee questions

    114____________________________________________________________________

    Aid

    108____________________________________________________________________

    Algeria

    148____________________________________________________________________

    American leadership around the world

    92_____________________________________________________________________

    Anticorruption: Ukraine

    125____________________________________________________________________

    Bosnia funding

    123____________________________________________________________________

    Bosnian Serb issues

    145____________________________________________________________________

    Budget request, overall

    122____________________________________________________________________

    Certification:

    Decisions

    120____________________________________________________________________

    Process, improving the

    121____________________________________________________________________

    Chiapas, Mexico, massacre in

    131ability'' report__________________________________
    67_____________________________________________________________________

    Taped telephone conversation

    34_____________________________________________________________________

    Terrorism, domestic

    24_____________________________________________________________________

    Training facilities

    37_____________________________________________________________________

    Women, violence against

    9______________________________________________________________________

    Youth violence grant programs

    8______________________________________________________________________

    ``Winstar''

    71_____________________________________________________________________

    DEPARTMENT OF STATE

    Secretary of State

    Activity costs, measuring

    119____________________________________________________________________

    Additional committee questions

    114____________________________________________________________________

    Aid

    108____________________________________________________________________

    Algeria

    148____________________________________________________________________

    American leadership around the world

    92_____________________________________________________________________

    Anticorruption: Ukraine

    125____________________________________________________________________

    Bosnia funding

    123____________________________________________________________________

    Bosnian Serb issues

    145____________________________________________________________________

    Budget request, overall

    122____________________________________________________________________

    Certification:

    Decisions

    120____________________________________________________________________

    Process, improving the

    121____________________________________________________________________

    Chiapas, Mexico, massacre in

    131Investor Immigration Visa
    Program................................ 199Law enforcement--INS, use of
    technology in.......................
    229Mission..........................................................
    197Naturalization process, audits of the............................
    227New Mexico, resources in.........................................
    206Operation Rio Grande, impact of on Brownsville, TX...............
    209Oversight audits.................................................
    227Reorganization of................................................
    197Restructuring....................................................
    232State and local law enforcement and communities, cooperation with
    174Technology Breakthroughs.........................................
    221Technology, use of INS funds for new.............................
    220 Office of the Attorney GeneralAdditional committee
    questions................................... 39Alaska and Asia,
    immigrant traffic between....................... 44Border Patrol:
    Agents, redeployment of...................................... 58
    Deployment plan..............................................
    55Borders, protecting our and providing better service.............
    5Bureau of Prisons prison population breakdown....................
    33Caribbean........................................................
    13Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act [CALEA] 67____

    Taped telephone conversation

    34_____________________________________________________________________

    Terrorism, domestic

    24_____________________________________________________________________

    Training facilities

    37_____________________________________________________________________

    Women, violence against

    9______________________________________________________________________

    Youth violence grant programs

    8______________________________________________________________________

    ``Winstar''

    71_____________________________________________________________________

    DEPARTMENT OF STATE

    Secretary of State

    Activity costs, measuring

    119____________________________________________________________________

    Additional committee questions

    114____________________________________________________________________

    Aid

    108____________________________________________________________________

    Algeria

    148____________________________________________________________________

    American leadership around the world

    92_____________________________________________________________________

    Anticorruption: Ukraine

    125____________________________________________________________________

    Bosnia funding

    123____________________________________________________________________

    Bosnian Serb issues

    145____________________________________________________________________

    Budget request, overall

    122____________________________________________________________________

    Certification:

    Decisions

    120____________________________________________________________________

    Process, improving the

    121____________________________________________________________________

    Chiapas, Mexico, massacre in

    131one conversation__________________________________
    34_____________________________________________________________________

    Terrorism, domestic

    24_____________________________________________________________________

    Training facilities

    37_____________________________________________________________________

    Women, violence against

    9______________________________________________________________________

    Youth violence grant programs

    8______________________________________________________________________

    ``Winstar''

    71_____________________________________________________________________

    DEPARTMENT OF STATE

    Secretary of State

    Activity costs, measuring

    119____________________________________________________________________

    Additional committee questions

    114____________________________________________________________________

    Aid

    108____________________________________________________________________

    Algeria

    148____________________________________________________________________

    American leadership around the world

    92_____________________________________________________________________

    Anticorruption: Ukraine

    125____________________________________________________________________

    Bosnia funding

    123____________________________________________________________________

    Bosnian Serb issues

    145____________________________________________________________________

    Budget request, overall

    122____________________________________________________________________

    Certification:

    Decisions

    120____________________________________________________________________

    Process, improving the

    121____________________________________________________________________

    Chiapas, Mexico, massacre in

    131DNM/Special immigrant juvenile status__________________
    55_____________________________________________________________________

    ``State and Local Law Enforcement Wireless Communications and
    Interoperability'' report

    67_____________________________________________________________________

    Taped telephone conversation

    34_____________________________________________________________________

    Terrorism, domestic

    24_____________________________________________________________________

    Training facilities

    37_____________________________________________________________________

    Women, violence against

    9______________________________________________________________________

    Youth violence grant programs

    8______________________________________________________________________

    ``Winstar''

    71_____________________________________________________________________

    DEPARTMENT OF STATE

    Secretary of State

    Activity costs, measuring

    119____________________________________________________________________

    Additional committee questions

    114____________________________________________________________________

    Aid

    108____________________________________________________________________

    Algeria

    148____________________________________________________________________

    American leadership around the world

    92_____________________________________________________________________

    Anticorruption: Ukraine

    125____________________________________________________________________

    Bosnia funding

    123____________________________________________________________________

    Bosnian Serb issues

    145____________________________________________________________________

    Budget request, overall

    122____________________________________________________________________

    Certification:

    Decisions

    120____________________________________________________________________

    Process, improving the

    121____________________________________________________________________

    Chiapas, Mexico, massacre in

    131MDUL/_______________________________________________________

    Radiation exposure compensation

    62_____________________________________________________________________

    Rural drug enforcement

    45_____________________________________________________________________

    Special agent hiring

    14_____________________________________________________________________

    Special immigrant juvenile status

    55_____________________________________________________________________

    ``State and Local Law Enforcement Wireless Communications and
    Interoperability'' report

    67_____________________________________________________________________

    Taped telephone conversation

    34_____________________________________________________________________

    Terrorism, domestic

    24_____________________________________________________________________

    Training facilities

    37_____________________________________________________________________

    Women, violence against

    9______________________________________________________________________

    Youth violence grant programs

    8______________________________________________________________________

    ``Winstar''

    71_____________________________________________________________________

    DEPARTMENT OF STATE

    Secretary of State

    Activity costs, measuring

    119____________________________________________________________________

    Additional committee questions

    114____________________________________________________________________

    Aid

    108____________________________________________________________________

    Algeria

    148____________________________________________________________________

    American leadership around the world

    92_____________________________________________________________________

    Anticorruption: Ukraine

    125____________________________________________________________________

    Bosnia funding

    123____________________________________________________________________

    Bosnian Serb issues

    145____________________________________________________________________

    Budget request, overall

    122____________________________________________________________________

    Certification:

    Decisions

    120____________________________________________________________________

    Process, improving the

    121____________________________________________________________________

    Chiapas, Mexico, massacre in

    131DNM/Taped telephone conversation____________________________
    34_____________________________________________________________________

    Terrorism, domestic

    24_____________________________________________________________________

    Training facilities

    37_____________________________________________________________________

    Women, violence against

    9______________________________________________________________________

    Youth violence grant programs

    8______________________________________________________________________

    ``Winstar''

    71_____________________________________________________________________

    DEPARTMENT OF STATE

    Secretary of State

    Activity costs, measuring

    119____________________________________________________________________

    Additional committee questions

    114____________________________________________________________________

    Aid

    108____________________________________________________________________

    Algeria

    148____________________________________________________________________

    American leadership around the world

    92_____________________________________________________________________

    Anticorruption: Ukraine

    125____________________________________________________________________

    Bosnia funding

    123____________________________________________________________________

    Bosnian Serb issues

    145____________________________________________________________________

    Budget request, overall

    122____________________________________________________________________

    Certification:

    Decisions

    120____________________________________________________________________

    Process, improving the

    121____________________________________________________________________

    Chiapas, Mexico, massacre in

    131I21``State and Local Law Enforcement Wireless
    Communications and Interoperability'' report___________________________
    67_____________________________________________________________________

    Taped telephone conversation

    34_____________________________________________________________________

    Terrorism, domestic

    24_____________________________________________________________________

    Training facilities

    37_____________________________________________________________________

    Women, violence against

    9______________________________________________________________________

    Youth violence grant programs

    8______________________________________________________________________

    ``Winstar''

    71_____________________________________________________________________

    DEPARTMENT OF STATE

    Secretary of State

    Activity costs, measuring

    119____________________________________________________________________

    Additional committee questions

    114____________________________________________________________________

    Aid

    108____________________________________________________________________

    Algeria

    148____________________________________________________________________

    American leadership around the world

    92_____________________________________________________________________

    Anticorruption: Ukraine

    125____________________________________________________________________

    Bosnia funding

    123____________________________________________________________________

    Bosnian Serb issues

    145____________________________________________________________________

    Budget request, overall

    122____________________________________________________________________

    Certification:

    Decisions

    120____________________________________________________________________

    Process, improving the

    121____________________________________________________________________

    Chiapas, Mexico, massacre in

    131____________________________________________________________

    Community prosecuting............................................    78
    Community prosecution............................................     8
    COPS:
        Funded officers, attrition rate for..........................    11
        Program......................................................    10
    Counterdrug initiatives--methamphetamine.........................    73
    Counterterrorism technology R&D..................................    47
    Crime, fighting..................................................     8
    Cybercrime.......................................................     9
    DEA agents, additional...........................................    14
    Defensive civil litigation, providing effective..................     6
    Detention facilities--geographical locations.....................    19
    Domestic violence bill...........................................    30
    Drug:
        Fighting strategy............................................    15
        Initiative...................................................     9
        Interdiction.................................................    12
        Trafficking and abuse, curbing...............................     5
    FBI cargo theft task force.......................................    27
    Federal and State law enforcement communities....................    36
    Federalizing Lorton..............................................    70
    Fighting:
        Crime and youth violence.....................................     3
        Cybercrime and protecting our critical infrastructure........     4
        Hate crimes..................................................     6
    Fingerprint issue................................................    37
    Firearms.........................................................    65
    First responder training.........................................    54
    Government Performance and Results Act...........................    39
    High-intensity drug trafficking areas [HIDTA]....................    23
    Immigration and Naturalization Service...........................     9
        And Border Patrol............................................    20
        Reorganizing.................................................    77
    Independent counsel budget.......................................    31
    Indian country:
        In Alaska....................................................    44
        Initiative...................................................    18
        Law enforcement in...........................................    58
        Targeting crime in...........................................     6
    Infrastructure...................................................    10
    International crime..............................................    66
    Justice Department initiatives, supporting other.................     6
    Juvenile:
        Crime........................................................    61
        Drug courts
    and Local Law Enforcement Wireless Communications and Interoperability'' report
    67_____________________________________________________________________

    Taped telephone conversation

    34_____________________________________________________________________

    Terrorism, domestic

    24_____________________________________________________________________

    Training facilities

    37_____________________________________________________________________

    Women, violence against

    9______________________________________________________________________

    Youth violence grant programs

    8______________________________________________________________________

    ``Winstar''

    71_____________________________________________________________________

    DEPARTMENT OF STATE

    Secretary of State

    Activity costs, measuring

    119____________________________________________________________________

    Additional committee questions

    114____________________________________________________________________

    Aid

    108____________________________________________________________________

    Algeria

    148____________________________________________________________________

    American leadership around the world

    92_____________________________________________________________________

    Anticorruption: Ukraine

    125____________________________________________________________________

    Bosnia funding

    123____________________________________________________________________

    Bosnian Serb issues

    145____________________________________________________________________

    Budget request, overall

    122____________________________________________________________________

    Certification:

    Decisions

    120____________________________________________________________________

    Process, improving the

    121____________________________________________________________________

    Chiapas, Mexico, massacre in

    131__________________________________________________
    67_____________________________________________________________________

    Taped telephone conversation

    34_____________________________________________________________________

    Terrorism, domestic

    24_____________________________________________________________________

    Training facilities

    37_____________________________________________________________________

    Women, violence against

    9______________________________________________________________________

    Youth violence grant programs

    8______________________________________________________________________

    ``Winstar''

    71_____________________________________________________________________

    DEPARTMENT OF STATE

    Secretary of State

    Activity costs, measuring

    119____________________________________________________________________

    Additional committee questions

    114____________________________________________________________________

    Aid

    108____________________________________________________________________

    Algeria

    148____________________________________________________________________

    American leadership around the world

    92_____________________________________________________________________

    Anticorruption: Ukraine

    125____________________________________________________________________

    Bosnia funding

    123____________________________________________________________________

    Bosnian Serb issues

    145____________________________________________________________________

    Budget request, overall

    122____________________________________________________________________

    Certification:

    Decisions

    120____________________________________________________________________

    Process, improving the

    121____________________________________________________________________

    Chiapas, Mexico, massacre in

    131DNM/Special immigrant juvenile status__________________
    55_____________________________________________________________________

    ``State and Local Law Enforcement Wireless Communications and
    Interoperability'' report

    67_____________________________________________________________________

    Taped telephone conversation

    34_____________________________________________________________________

    Terrorism, domestic

    24_____________________________________________________________________

    Training facilities

    37_____________________________________________________________________

    Women, violence against

    9______________________________________________________________________

    Youth violence grant programs

    8______________________________________________________________________

    ``Winstar''

    71_____________________________________________________________________

    DEPARTMENT OF STATE

    Secretary of State

    Activity costs, measuring

    119____________________________________________________________________

    Additional committee questions

    114____________________________________________________________________

    Aid

    108____________________________________________________________________

    Algeria

    148____________________________________________________________________

    American leadership around the world

    92_____________________________________________________________________

    Anticorruption: Ukraine

    125____________________________________________________________________

    Bosnia funding

    123____________________________________________________________________

    Bosnian Serb issues

    145____________________________________________________________________

    Budget request, overall

    122____________________________________________________________________

    Certification:

    Decisions

    120____________________________________________________________________

    Process, improving the

    121____________________________________________________________________

    Chiapas, Mexico, massacre in

    131MDUL/_______________________________________________________

    Radiation exposure compensation

    62_____________________________________________________________________

    Rural drug enforcement

    45_____________________________________________________________________

    Special agent hiring

    14_____________________________________________________________________

    Special immigrant juvenile status

    55_____________________________________________________________________

    ``State and Local Law Enforcement Wireless Communications and
    Interoperability'' report

    67_____________________________________________________________________

    Taped telephone conversation

    34_____________________________________________________________________

    Terrorism, domestic

    24_____________________________________________________________________

    Training facilities

    37_____________________________________________________________________

    Women, violence against

    9______________________________________________________________________

    Youth violence grant programs

    8______________________________________________________________________

    ``Winstar''

    71_____________________________________________________________________

    DEPARTMENT OF STATE

    Secretary of State

    Activity costs, measuring

    119____________________________________________________________________

    Additional committee questions

    114____________________________________________________________________

    Aid

    108____________________________________________________________________

    Algeria

    148____________________________________________________________________

    American leadership around the world

    92_____________________________________________________________________

    Anticorruption: Ukraine

    125____________________________________________________________________

    Bosnia funding

    123____________________________________________________________________

    Bosnian Serb issues

    145____________________________________________________________________

    Budget request, overall

    122____________________________________________________________________

    Certification:

    Decisions

    120____________________________________________________________________

    Process, improving the

    121____________________________________________________________________

    Chiapas, Mexico, massacre in

    131 and Local Law Enforcement Wireless Communications
    and Interoperability'' report__________________________________________
    67_____________________________________________________________________

    Taped telephone conversation

    34_____________________________________________________________________

    Terrorism, domestic

    24_____________________________________________________________________

    Training facilities

    37_____________________________________________________________________

    Women, violence against

    9______________________________________________________________________

    Youth violence grant programs

    8______________________________________________________________________

    ``Winstar''

    71_____________________________________________________________________

    DEPARTMENT OF STATE

    Secretary of State

    Activity costs, measuring

    119____________________________________________________________________

    Additional committee questions

    114____________________________________________________________________

    Aid

    108____________________________________________________________________

    Algeria

    148____________________________________________________________________

    American leadership around the world

    92_____________________________________________________________________

    Anticorruption: Ukraine

    125____________________________________________________________________

    Bosnia funding

    123____________________________________________________________________

    Bosnian Serb issues

    145____________________________________________________________________

    Budget request, overall

    122____________________________________________________________________

    Certification:

    Decisions

    120____________________________________________________________________

    Process, improving the

    121____________________________________________________________________

    Chiapas, Mexico, massacre in

    13167_____________________________________________________

    Taped telephone conversation

    34_____________________________________________________________________

    Terrorism, domestic

    24_____________________________________________________________________

    Training facilities

    37_____________________________________________________________________

    Women, violence against

    9______________________________________________________________________

    Youth violence grant programs

    8______________________________________________________________________

    ``Winstar''

    71_____________________________________________________________________

    DEPARTMENT OF STATE

    Secretary of State

    Activity costs, measuring

    119____________________________________________________________________

    Additional committee questions

    114____________________________________________________________________

    Aid

    108____________________________________________________________________

    Algeria

    148____________________________________________________________________

    American leadership around the world

    92_____________________________________________________________________

    Anticorruption: Ukraine

    125____________________________________________________________________

    Bosnia funding

    123____________________________________________________________________

    Bosnian Serb issues

    145____________________________________________________________________

    Budget request, overall

    122____________________________________________________________________

    Certification:

    Decisions

    120____________________________________________________________________

    Process, improving the

    121____________________________________________________________________

    Chiapas, Mexico, massacre in

    131 Mentoring program [JUMP] nforcement Wireless
    Communications and Interoperability'' report___________________________
    67_____________________________________________________________________

    Taped telephone conversation

    34_____________________________________________________________________

    Terrorism, domestic

    24_____________________________________________________________________

    Training facilities

    37_____________________________________________________________________

    Women, violence against

    9______________________________________________________________________

    Youth violence grant programs

    8______________________________________________________________________

    ``Winstar''

    71_____________________________________________________________________

    DEPARTMENT OF STATE

    Secretary of State

    Activity costs, measuring

    119____________________________________________________________________

    Additional committee questions

    114____________________________________________________________________

    Aid

    108____________________________________________________________________

    Algeria

    148____________________________________________________________________

    American leadership around the world

    92_____________________________________________________________________

    Anticorruption: Ukraine

    125____________________________________________________________________

    Bosnia funding

    123____________________________________________________________________

    Bosnian Serb issues

    145____________________________________________________________________

    Budget request, overall

    122____________________________________________________________________

    Certification:

    Decisions

    120____________________________________________________________________

    Process, improving the

    121____________________________________________________________________

    Chiapas, Mexico, massacre in

    131ability'' report__________________________________
    67_____________________________________________________________________

    Taped telephone conversation

    34_____________________________________________________________________

    Terrorism, domestic

    24_____________________________________________________________________

    Training facilities

    37_____________________________________________________________________

    Women, violence against

    9______________________________________________________________________

    Youth violence grant programs

    8______________________________________________________________________

    ``Winstar''

    71_____________________________________________________________________

    DEPARTMENT OF STATE

    Secretary of State

    Activity costs, measuring

    119____________________________________________________________________

    Additional committee questions

    114____________________________________________________________________

    Aid

    108____________________________________________________________________

    Algeria

    148____________________________________________________________________

    American leadership around the world

    92_____________________________________________________________________

    Anticorruption: Ukraine

    125____________________________________________________________________

    Bosnia funding

    123____________________________________________________________________

    Bosnian Serb issues

    145____________________________________________________________________

    Budget request, overall

    122____________________________________________________________________

    Certification:

    Decisions

    120____________________________________________________________________

    Process, improving the

    121____________________________________________________________________

    Chiapas, Mexico, massacre in

    131DNM/Special immigrant juvenile status__________________
    55_____________________________________________________________________

    ``State and Local Law Enforcement Wireless Communications and
    Interoperability'' report

    67_____________________________________________________________________

    Taped telephone conversation

    34_____________________________________________________________________

    Terrorism, domestic

    24_____________________________________________________________________

    Training facilities

    37_____________________________________________________________________

    Women, violence against

    9______________________________________________________________________

    Youth violence grant programs

    8______________________________________________________________________

    ``Winstar''

    71_____________________________________________________________________

    DEPARTMENT OF STATE

    Secretary of State

    Activity costs, measuring

    119____________________________________________________________________

    Additional committee questions

    114____________________________________________________________________

    Aid

    108____________________________________________________________________

    Algeria

    148____________________________________________________________________

    American leadership around the world

    92_____________________________________________________________________

    Anticorruption: Ukraine

    125____________________________________________________________________

    Bosnia funding

    123____________________________________________________________________

    Bosnian Serb issues

    145____________________________________________________________________

    Budget request, overall

    122____________________________________________________________________

    Certification:

    Decisions

    120____________________________________________________________________

    Process, improving the

    121____________________________________________________________________

    Chiapas, Mexico, massacre in

    131MDUL/_______________________________________________________

    Radiation exposure compensation

    62_____________________________________________________________________

    Rural drug enforcement

    45_____________________________________________________________________

    Special agent hiring

    14_____________________________________________________________________

    Special immigrant juvenile status

    55_____________________________________________________________________

    ``State and Local Law Enforcement Wireless Communications and
    Interoperability'' report

    67_____________________________________________________________________

    Taped telephone conversation

    34_____________________________________________________________________

    Terrorism, domestic

    24_____________________________________________________________________

    Training facilities

    37_____________________________________________________________________

    Women, violence against

    9______________________________________________________________________

    Youth violence grant programs

    8______________________________________________________________________

    ``Winstar''

    71_____________________________________________________________________

    DEPARTMENT OF STATE

    Secretary of State

    Activity costs, measuring

    119____________________________________________________________________

    Additional committee questions

    114____________________________________________________________________

    Aid

    108____________________________________________________________________

    Algeria

    148____________________________________________________________________

    American leadership around the world

    92_____________________________________________________________________

    Anticorruption: Ukraine

    125____________________________________________________________________

    Bosnia funding

    123____________________________________________________________________

    Bosnian Serb issues

    145____________________________________________________________________

    Budget request, overall

    122____________________________________________________________________

    Certification:

    Decisions

    120____________________________________________________________________

    Process, improving the

    121____________________________________________________________________

    Chiapas, Mexico, massacre in

    131nforcement Wireless Communications and
    Interoperability'' report______________________________________________
    67_____________________________________________________________________

    Taped telephone conversation

    34_____________________________________________________________________

    Terrorism, domestic

    24_____________________________________________________________________

    Training facilities

    37_____________________________________________________________________

    Women, violence against

    9______________________________________________________________________

    Youth violence grant programs

    8______________________________________________________________________

    ``Winstar''

    71_____________________________________________________________________

    DEPARTMENT OF STATE

    Secretary of State

    Activity costs, measuring

    119____________________________________________________________________

    Additional committee questions

    114____________________________________________________________________

    Aid

    108____________________________________________________________________

    Algeria

    148____________________________________________________________________

    American leadership around the world

    92_____________________________________________________________________

    Anticorruption: Ukraine

    125____________________________________________________________________

    Bosnia funding

    123____________________________________________________________________

    Bosnian Serb issues

    145____________________________________________________________________

    Budget request, overall

    122____________________________________________________________________

    Certification:

    Decisions

    120____________________________________________________________________

    Process, improving the

    121____________________________________________________________________

    Chiapas, Mexico, massacre in

    13167_____________________________________________________

    Taped telephone conversation

    34_____________________________________________________________________

    Terrorism, domestic

    24_____________________________________________________________________

    Training facilities

    37_____________________________________________________________________

    Women, violence against

    9______________________________________________________________________

    Youth violence grant programs

    8______________________________________________________________________

    ``Winstar''

    71_____________________________________________________________________

    DEPARTMENT OF STATE

    Secretary of State

    Activity costs, measuring

    119____________________________________________________________________

    Additional committee questions

    114____________________________________________________________________

    Aid

    108____________________________________________________________________

    Algeria

    148____________________________________________________________________

    American leadership around the world

    92_____________________________________________________________________

    Anticorruption: Ukraine

    125____________________________________________________________________

    Bosnia funding

    123____________________________________________________________________

    Bosnian Serb issues

    145____________________________________________________________________

    Budget request, overall

    122____________________________________________________________________

    Certification:

    Decisions

    120____________________________________________________________________

    Process, improving the

    121____________________________________________________________________

    Chiapas, Mexico, massacre in

    131____________________________________________________________________

    Law enforcement infrastructure, building our.....................     7
    Line item veto case, district court ruling in the................    64
    Medicare fraud...................................................    20
    Methamphetamine use..............................................    14
    Methamphetamine-related special agent positions..................    16
    Mexico...........................................................    22
        Certification of.............................................    13
        Drug certification process...................................    46
    Narrowband issue.................................................    35
    National Advocacy Center.........................................    79
    Northeast cargo theft task force.................................    27
    Prison population................................................    32
    Radiation exposure compensation..................................    62
    Rural drug enforcement...........................................    45
    Special agent hiring.............................................    14
    Special immigrant juvenile status................................    55
    ``State and Local Law Enforcement Wireless Communications and
      Interoperability'' report......................................    67
    Taped telephone conversation.....................................    34
    Terrorism, domestic..............................................    24
    Training facilities..............................................    37
    Women, violence against..........................................     9
    Youth violence grant programs....................................     8
    ``Winstar''......................................................    71

                              DEPARTMENT OF STATE

                               Secretary of State

    Activity costs, measuring........................................   119
    Additional committee questions...................................   114
    Aid..............................................................   108
    Algeria..........................................................   148
    American leadership around the world.............................    92
    Anticorruption: Ukraine..........................................   125
    Bosnia funding...................................................   123
    Bosnian Serb issues..............................................   145
    Budget request, overall..........................................   122
    Certification:
        Decisions....................................................   120
        Process, improving the.......................................   121
    Chiapas, Mexico, massacre in.....................................   131
    China facilities:
        Housing......................................................   136
            Renovations..............................................   136
        New Embassy building schedule................................   136
    East-West Center.................................................   108
        Funding......................................................   141
    Firearms, U.N. studies/projects on...............................   115
    Foreign affairs agencies, planning for consolidation of the......   138
    Government Performance and Results Act

    U.S. Courts

    Additional committee questions

    425____________________________________________________________________

    Administrative Office:

    Compares favorably to other justice system agencies, efficiency within the

    417____________________________________________________________________

    Contributions of the

    409____________________________________________________________________

    Funding

    414____________________________________________________________________

    Promotes efficiency throughout the judiciary

    415____________________________________________________________________

    Responsibilities of the

    413____________________________________________________________________

    Staffing

    414____________________________________________________________________

    Budget:

    Judiciary's contribution to balancing the

    405____________________________________________________________________

    Request, restrained

    405____________________________________________________________________

    Cost-of-living adjustment

    424____________________________________________________________________

    Court security

    422____________________________________________________________________

    Courtroom sharing policy

    428____________________________________________________________________

    Defender services

    425____________________________________________________________________

    Costs

    423____________________________________________________________________
                                   Containing
    406____________________________________________________________________

    Federal Judicial Center support

    409____________________________________________________________________

    Funding priorities

    421____________________________________________________________________

    Government Performance and Results Act [GPRA]

    /______________________________________________________________

    U.S. Courts

    Additional committee questions

    425____________________________________________________________________

    Administrative Office:

    Compares favorably to other justice system agencies, efficiency within the

    417____________________________________________________________________

    Contributions of the

    409____________________________________________________________________

    Funding

    414____________________________________________________________________

    Promotes efficiency throughout the judiciary

    415____________________________________________________________________

    Responsibilities of the

    413____________________________________________________________________

    Staffing

    414____________________________________________________________________

    Budget:

    Judiciary's contribution to balancing the

    405____________________________________________________________________

    Request, restrained

    405____________________________________________________________________

    Cost-of-living adjustment

    424____________________________________________________________________

    Court security

    422____________________________________________________________________

    Courtroom sharing policy

    428____________________________________________________________________

    Defender services

    425____________________________________________________________________

    Costs

    423____________________________________________________________________
                                   Containing
    406____________________________________________________________________

    Federal Judicial Center support

    409____________________________________________________________________

    Funding priorities

    421____________________________________________________________________

    Government Performance and Results Act [GPRA]

    NM/Administrative Office:_________________________________

    Compares favorably to other justice system agencies, efficiency within the

    417____________________________________________________________________

    Contributions of the

    409____________________________________________________________________

    Funding

    414____________________________________________________________________

    Promotes efficiency throughout the judiciary

    415____________________________________________________________________

    Responsibilities of the

    413____________________________________________________________________

    Staffing

    414____________________________________________________________________

    Budget:

    Judiciary's contribution to balancing the

    405____________________________________________________________________

    Request, restrained

    405____________________________________________________________________

    Cost-of-living adjustment

    424____________________________________________________________________

    Court security

    422____________________________________________________________________

    Courtroom sharing policy

    428____________________________________________________________________

    Defender services

    425____________________________________________________________________

    Costs

    423____________________________________________________________________
                                   Containing
    406____________________________________________________________________

    Federal Judicial Center support

    409____________________________________________________________________

    Funding priorities

    421____________________________________________________________________

    Government Performance and Results Act [GPRA]

    UL/____________________________________________________________
    398____________________________________________________________________

    Technology needs

    399____________________________________________________________________

    U.S. Courts

    Additional committee questions

    425____________________________________________________________________

    Administrative Office:

    Compares favorably to other justice system agencies, efficiency within the

    417____________________________________________________________________

    Contributions of the

    409____________________________________________________________________

    Funding

    414____________________________________________________________________

    Promotes efficiency throughout the judiciary

    415____________________________________________________________________

    Responsibilities of the

    413____________________________________________________________________

    Staffing

    414____________________________________________________________________

    Budget:

    Judiciary's contribution to balancing the

    405____________________________________________________________________

    Request, restrained

    405____________________________________________________________________

    Cost-of-living adjustment

    424____________________________________________________________________

    Court security

    422____________________________________________________________________

    Courtroom sharing policy

    428____________________________________________________________________

    Defender services

    425____________________________________________________________________

    Costs

    423____________________________________________________________________
                                   Containing
    406____________________________________________________________________

    Federal Judicial Center support

    409____________________________________________________________________

    Funding priorities

    421____________________________________________________________________

    Government Performance and Results Act [GPRA]

    uestions_______________________________________________________
    398____________________________________________________________________

    Domestic spending freeze

    397____________________________________________________________________

    Police radio system enhancements

    399____________________________________________________________________

    Security needs

    398____________________________________________________________________

    Technology needs

    399____________________________________________________________________

    U.S. Courts

    Additional committee questions

    425____________________________________________________________________

    Administrative Office:

    Compares favorably to other justice system agencies, efficiency within the

    417____________________________________________________________________

    Contributions of the

    409____________________________________________________________________

    Funding

    414____________________________________________________________________

    Promotes efficiency throughout the judiciary

    415____________________________________________________________________

    Responsibilities of the

    413____________________________________________________________________

    Staffing

    414____________________________________________________________________

    Budget:

    Judiciary's contribution to balancing the

    405____________________________________________________________________

    Request, restrained

    405____________________________________________________________________

    Cost-of-living adjustment

    424____________________________________________________________________

    Court security

    422____________________________________________________________________

    Courtroom sharing policy

    428____________________________________________________________________

    Defender services

    425____________________________________________________________________

    Costs

    423____________________________________________________________________
                                   Containing
    406____________________________________________________________________

    Federal Judicial Center support

    409____________________________________________________________________

    Funding priorities

    421____________________________________________________________________

    Government Performance and Results Act [GPRA]

    /_________________________________________________________

    U.S. Courts

    Additional committee questions

    425____________________________________________________________________

    Administrative Office:

    Compares favorably to other justice system agencies, efficiency within the

    417____________________________________________________________________

    Contributions of the

    409____________________________________________________________________

    Funding

    414____________________________________________________________________

    Promotes efficiency throughout the judiciary

    415____________________________________________________________________

    Responsibilities of the

    413____________________________________________________________________

    Staffing

    414____________________________________________________________________

    Budget:

    Judiciary's contribution to balancing the

    405____________________________________________________________________

    Request, restrained

    405____________________________________________________________________

    Cost-of-living adjustment

    424____________________________________________________________________

    Court security

    422____________________________________________________________________

    Courtroom sharing policy

    428____________________________________________________________________

    Defender services

    425____________________________________________________________________

    Costs

    423____________________________________________________________________
                                   Containing
    406____________________________________________________________________

    Federal Judicial Center support

    409____________________________________________________________________

    Funding priorities

    421____________________________________________________________________

    Government Performance and Results Act [GPRA]

    /U.S. Courts______________________________________________

    Additional committee questions

    425____________________________________________________________________

    Administrative Office:

    Compares favorably to other justice system agencies, efficiency within the

    417____________________________________________________________________

    Contributions of the

    409____________________________________________________________________

    Funding

    414____________________________________________________________________

    Promotes efficiency throughout the judiciary

    415____________________________________________________________________

    Responsibilities of the

    413____________________________________________________________________

    Staffing

    414____________________________________________________________________

    Budget:

    Judiciary's contribution to balancing the

    405____________________________________________________________________

    Request, restrained

    405____________________________________________________________________

    Cost-of-living adjustment

    424____________________________________________________________________

    Court security

    422____________________________________________________________________

    Courtroom sharing policy

    428____________________________________________________________________

    Defender services

    425____________________________________________________________________

    Costs

    423____________________________________________________________________
                                   Containing
    406____________________________________________________________________

    Federal Judicial Center support

    409____________________________________________________________________

    Funding priorities

    421____________________________________________________________________

    Government Performance and Results Act [GPRA]

    M/399_____________________________________________________

    U.S. Courts

    Additional committee questions

    425____________________________________________________________________

    Administrative Office:

    Compares favorably to other justice system agencies, efficiency within the

    417____________________________________________________________________

    Contributions of the

    409____________________________________________________________________

    Funding

    414____________________________________________________________________

    Promotes efficiency throughout the judiciary

    415____________________________________________________________________

    Responsibilities of the

    413____________________________________________________________________

    Staffing

    414____________________________________________________________________

    Budget:

    Judiciary's contribution to balancing the

    405____________________________________________________________________

    Request, restrained

    405____________________________________________________________________

    Cost-of-living adjustment

    424____________________________________________________________________

    Court security

    422____________________________________________________________________

    Courtroom sharing policy

    428____________________________________________________________________

    Defender services

    425____________________________________________________________________

    Costs

    423____________________________________________________________________
                                   Containing
    406____________________________________________________________________

    Federal Judicial Center support

    409____________________________________________________________________

    Funding priorities

    421____________________________________________________________________

    Government Performance and Results Act [GPRA]

    _______________________________________________________________

    IMF/U.N. arrears/population assistance...........................   147
    Immigration......................................................   110
    International Affairs Agency reorganization......................   138
    International cooperative administrative support services [ICASS]   139
    International copper study, arrearages to........................   123
    International crime:
        Initiative...................................................   128
        New steps to fight...........................................   129
    International exchanges programs.................................   132
    International rubber organization................................   139
    Introduction: Promoting American interests and universal values..    91
    Iran weapons technology acquisition..............................   130
    Iraq.............................................................   103
        Goals of military strike against.............................   124
        Inspection process in........................................   104
        Long-term plans..............................................   145
        New agreement with on weapons inspections....................   145
        Situation....................................................   101
    Iraqi violations, response to....................................   145
    Israel:
        Aid to.......................................................   143
        United States role in assisting..............................   126
    Israeli WEOG membership at the United Nations....................   143
    Jerusalem........................................................   108
        Architectural designs for an Embassy in......................   142
        Embassy Act implementation, status of........................   136
        Embassy move.................................................   107
        In U.S. passports, noting birthplace of......................   142
        Plans for moving the U.S. Embassy from Tel Aviv to...........   142
        Selecting an architect for design of Embassy in..............   137
    Leadership through international organizations...................    95
    Managerial cost accounting.......................................   119
    Mexico drug certification........................................   121
    Microcredit......................................................   132
    Middle East peace process

    U.S. Courts

    Additional committee questions

    425____________________________________________________________________

    Administrative Office:

    Compares favorably to other justice system agencies, efficiency within the

    417____________________________________________________________________

    Contributions of the

    409____________________________________________________________________

    Funding

    414____________________________________________________________________

    Promotes efficiency throughout the judiciary

    415____________________________________________________________________

    Responsibilities of the

    413____________________________________________________________________

    Staffing

    414____________________________________________________________________

    Budget:

    Judiciary's contribution to balancing the

    405____________________________________________________________________

    Request, restrained

    405____________________________________________________________________

    Cost-of-living adjustment

    424____________________________________________________________________

    Court security

    422____________________________________________________________________

    Courtroom sharing policy

    428____________________________________________________________________

    Defender services

    425____________________________________________________________________

    Costs

    423____________________________________________________________________
                                   Containing
    406____________________________________________________________________

    Federal Judicial Center support

    409____________________________________________________________________

    Funding priorities

    421____________________________________________________________________

    Government Performance and Results Act [GPRA]

    M/399_____________________________________________________

    U.S. Courts

    Additional committee questions

    425____________________________________________________________________

    Administrative Office:

    Compares favorably to other justice system agencies, efficiency within the

    417____________________________________________________________________

    Contributions of the

    409____________________________________________________________________

    Funding

    414____________________________________________________________________

    Promotes efficiency throughout the judiciary

    415____________________________________________________________________

    Responsibilities of the

    413____________________________________________________________________

    Staffing

    414____________________________________________________________________

    Budget:

    Judiciary's contribution to balancing the

    405____________________________________________________________________

    Request, restrained

    405____________________________________________________________________

    Cost-of-living adjustment

    424____________________________________________________________________

    Court security

    422____________________________________________________________________

    Courtroom sharing policy

    428____________________________________________________________________

    Defender services

    425____________________________________________________________________

    Costs

    423____________________________________________________________________
                                   Containing
    406____________________________________________________________________

    Federal Judicial Center support

    409____________________________________________________________________

    Funding priorities

    421____________________________________________________________________

    Government Performance and Results Act [GPRA]

    NM/Administrative Office:_________________________________

    Compares favorably to other justice system agencies, efficiency within the

    417____________________________________________________________________

    Contributions of the

    409____________________________________________________________________

    Funding

    414____________________________________________________________________

    Promotes efficiency throughout the judiciary

    415____________________________________________________________________

    Responsibilities of the

    413____________________________________________________________________

    Staffing

    414____________________________________________________________________

    Budget:

    Judiciary's contribution to balancing the

    405____________________________________________________________________

    Request, restrained

    405____________________________________________________________________

    Cost-of-living adjustment

    424____________________________________________________________________

    Court security

    422____________________________________________________________________

    Courtroom sharing policy

    428____________________________________________________________________

    Defender services

    425____________________________________________________________________

    Costs

    423____________________________________________________________________
                                   Containing
    406____________________________________________________________________

    Federal Judicial Center support

    409____________________________________________________________________

    Funding priorities

    421____________________________________________________________________

    Government Performance and Results Act [GPRA]

    UL/____________________________________________________________
    398____________________________________________________________________

    Technology needs

    399____________________________________________________________________

    U.S. Courts

    Additional committee questions

    425____________________________________________________________________

    Administrative Office:

    Compares favorably to other justice system agencies, efficiency within the

    417____________________________________________________________________

    Contributions of the

    409____________________________________________________________________

    Funding

    414____________________________________________________________________

    Promotes efficiency throughout the judiciary

    415____________________________________________________________________

    Responsibilities of the

    413____________________________________________________________________

    Staffing

    414____________________________________________________________________

    Budget:

    Judiciary's contribution to balancing the

    405____________________________________________________________________

    Request, restrained

    405____________________________________________________________________

    Cost-of-living adjustment

    424____________________________________________________________________

    Court security

    422____________________________________________________________________

    Courtroom sharing policy

    428____________________________________________________________________

    Defender services

    425____________________________________________________________________

    Costs

    423____________________________________________________________________
                                   Containing
    406____________________________________________________________________

    Federal Judicial Center support

    409____________________________________________________________________

    Funding priorities

    421____________________________________________________________________

    Government Performance and Results Act [GPRA]

    uestions_______________________________________________________
    398____________________________________________________________________

    Domestic spending freeze

    397____________________________________________________________________

    Police radio system enhancements

    399____________________________________________________________________

    Security needs

    398____________________________________________________________________

    Technology needs

    399____________________________________________________________________

    U.S. Courts

    Additional committee questions

    425____________________________________________________________________

    Administrative Office:

    Compares favorably to other justice system agencies, efficiency within the

    417____________________________________________________________________

    Contributions of the

    409____________________________________________________________________

    Funding

    414____________________________________________________________________

    Promotes efficiency throughout the judiciary

    415____________________________________________________________________

    Responsibilities of the

    413____________________________________________________________________

    Staffing

    414____________________________________________________________________

    Budget:

    Judiciary's contribution to balancing the

    405____________________________________________________________________

    Request, restrained

    405____________________________________________________________________

    Cost-of-living adjustment

    424____________________________________________________________________

    Court security

    422____________________________________________________________________

    Courtroom sharing policy

    428____________________________________________________________________

    Defender services

    425____________________________________________________________________

    Costs

    423____________________________________________________________________
                                   Containing
    406____________________________________________________________________

    Federal Judicial Center support

    409____________________________________________________________________

    Funding priorities

    421____________________________________________________________________

    Government Performance and Results Act [GPRA]

    /_________________________________________________________

    U.S. Courts

    Additional committee questions

    425____________________________________________________________________

    Administrative Office:

    Compares favorably to other justice system agencies, efficiency within the

    417____________________________________________________________________

    Contributions of the

    409____________________________________________________________________

    Funding

    414____________________________________________________________________

    Promotes efficiency throughout the judiciary

    415____________________________________________________________________

    Responsibilities of the

    413____________________________________________________________________

    Staffing

    414____________________________________________________________________

    Budget:

    Judiciary's contribution to balancing the

    405____________________________________________________________________

    Request, restrained

    405____________________________________________________________________

    Cost-of-living adjustment

    424____________________________________________________________________

    Court security

    422____________________________________________________________________

    Courtroom sharing policy

    428____________________________________________________________________

    Defender services

    425____________________________________________________________________

    Costs

    423____________________________________________________________________
                                   Containing
    406____________________________________________________________________

    Federal Judicial Center support

    409____________________________________________________________________

    Funding priorities

    421____________________________________________________________________

    Government Performance and Results Act [GPRA]

    /U.S. Courts______________________________________________

    Additional committee questions

    425____________________________________________________________________

    Administrative Office:

    Compares favorably to other justice system agencies, efficiency within the

    417____________________________________________________________________

    Contributions of the

    409____________________________________________________________________

    Funding

    414____________________________________________________________________

    Promotes efficiency throughout the judiciary

    415____________________________________________________________________

    Responsibilities of the

    413____________________________________________________________________

    Staffing

    414____________________________________________________________________

    Budget:

    Judiciary's contribution to balancing the

    405____________________________________________________________________

    Request, restrained

    405____________________________________________________________________

    Cost-of-living adjustment

    424____________________________________________________________________

    Court security

    422____________________________________________________________________

    Courtroom sharing policy

    428____________________________________________________________________

    Defender services

    425____________________________________________________________________

    Costs

    423____________________________________________________________________
                                   Containing
    406____________________________________________________________________

    Federal Judicial Center support

    409____________________________________________________________________

    Funding priorities

    421____________________________________________________________________

    Government Performance and Results Act [GPRA]

    Additional committee questions____________________________
    425____________________________________________________________________

    Administrative Office:

    Compares favorably to other justice system agencies, efficiency within the

    417____________________________________________________________________

    Contributions of the

    409____________________________________________________________________

    Funding

    414____________________________________________________________________

    Promotes efficiency throughout the judiciary

    415____________________________________________________________________

    Responsibilities of the

    413____________________________________________________________________

    Staffing

    414____________________________________________________________________

    Budget:

    Judiciary's contribution to balancing the

    405____________________________________________________________________

    Request, restrained

    405____________________________________________________________________

    Cost-of-living adjustment

    424____________________________________________________________________

    Court security

    422____________________________________________________________________

    Courtroom sharing policy

    428____________________________________________________________________

    Defender services

    425____________________________________________________________________

    Costs

    423____________________________________________________________________
                                   Containing
    406____________________________________________________________________

    Federal Judicial Center support

    409____________________________________________________________________

    Funding priorities

    421____________________________________________________________________

    Government Performance and Results Act [GPRA]

    UL/_______________________________________________________
    398____________________________________________________________________

    Technology needs

    399____________________________________________________________________

    U.S. Courts

    Additional committee questions

    425____________________________________________________________________

    Administrative Office:

    Compares favorably to other justice system agencies, efficiency within the

    417____________________________________________________________________

    Contributions of the

    409____________________________________________________________________

    Funding

    414____________________________________________________________________

    Promotes efficiency throughout the judiciary

    415____________________________________________________________________

    Responsibilities of the

    413____________________________________________________________________

    Staffing

    414____________________________________________________________________

    Budget:

    Judiciary's contribution to balancing the

    405____________________________________________________________________

    Request, restrained

    405____________________________________________________________________

    Cost-of-living adjustment

    424____________________________________________________________________

    Court security

    422____________________________________________________________________

    Courtroom sharing policy

    428____________________________________________________________________

    Defender services

    425____________________________________________________________________

    Costs

    423____________________________________________________________________
                                   Containing
    406____________________________________________________________________

    Federal Judicial Center support

    409____________________________________________________________________

    Funding priorities

    421____________________________________________________________________

    Government Performance and Results Act [GPRA]

    uestions_______________________________________________________
    398____________________________________________________________________

    Domestic spending freeze

    397____________________________________________________________________

    Police radio system enhancements

    399____________________________________________________________________

    Security needs

    398____________________________________________________________________

    Technology needs

    399____________________________________________________________________

    U.S. Courts

    Additional committee questions

    425____________________________________________________________________

    Administrative Office:

    Compares favorably to other justice system agencies, efficiency within the

    417____________________________________________________________________

    Contributions of the

    409____________________________________________________________________

    Funding

    414____________________________________________________________________

    Promotes efficiency throughout the judiciary

    415____________________________________________________________________

    Responsibilities of the

    413____________________________________________________________________

    Staffing

    414____________________________________________________________________

    Budget:

    Judiciary's contribution to balancing the

    405____________________________________________________________________

    Request, restrained

    405____________________________________________________________________

    Cost-of-living adjustment

    424____________________________________________________________________

    Court security

    422____________________________________________________________________

    Courtroom sharing policy

    428____________________________________________________________________

    Defender services

    425____________________________________________________________________

    Costs

    423____________________________________________________________________
                                   Containing
    406____________________________________________________________________

    Federal Judicial Center support

    409____________________________________________________________________

    Funding priorities

    421____________________________________________________________________

    Government Performance and Results Act [GPRA]

    /_________________________________________________________

    U.S. Courts

    Additional committee questions

    425____________________________________________________________________

    Administrative Office:

    Compares favorably to other justice system agencies, efficiency within the

    417____________________________________________________________________

    Contributions of the

    409____________________________________________________________________

    Funding

    414____________________________________________________________________

    Promotes efficiency throughout the judiciary

    415____________________________________________________________________

    Responsibilities of the

    413____________________________________________________________________

    Staffing

    414____________________________________________________________________

    Budget:

    Judiciary's contribution to balancing the

    405____________________________________________________________________

    Request, restrained

    405____________________________________________________________________

    Cost-of-living adjustment

    424____________________________________________________________________

    Court security

    422____________________________________________________________________

    Courtroom sharing policy

    428____________________________________________________________________

    Defender services

    425____________________________________________________________________

    Costs

    423____________________________________________________________________
                                   Containing
    406____________________________________________________________________

    Federal Judicial Center support

    409____________________________________________________________________

    Funding priorities

    421____________________________________________________________________

    Government Performance and Results Act [GPRA]

    /U.S. Courts______________________________________________

    Additional committee questions

    425____________________________________________________________________

    Administrative Office:

    Compares favorably to other justice system agencies, efficiency within the

    417____________________________________________________________________

    Contributions of the

    409____________________________________________________________________

    Funding

    414____________________________________________________________________

    Promotes efficiency throughout the judiciary

    415____________________________________________________________________

    Responsibilities of the

    413____________________________________________________________________

    Staffing

    414____________________________________________________________________

    Budget:

    Judiciary's contribution to balancing the

    405____________________________________________________________________

    Request, restrained

    405____________________________________________________________________

    Cost-of-living adjustment

    424____________________________________________________________________

    Court security

    422____________________________________________________________________

    Courtroom sharing policy

    428____________________________________________________________________

    Defender services

    425____________________________________________________________________

    Costs

    423____________________________________________________________________
                                   Containing
    406____________________________________________________________________

    Federal Judicial Center support

    409____________________________________________________________________

    Funding priorities

    421____________________________________________________________________

    Government Performance and Results Act [GPRA]

    5_________________________________________________________

    Administrative Office:

    Compares favorably to other justice system agencies, efficiency within the

    417____________________________________________________________________

    Contributions of the

    409____________________________________________________________________

    Funding

    414____________________________________________________________________

    Promotes efficiency throughout the judiciary

    415____________________________________________________________________

    Responsibilities of the

    413____________________________________________________________________

    Staffing

    414____________________________________________________________________

    Budget:

    Judiciary's contribution to balancing the

    405____________________________________________________________________

    Request, restrained

    405____________________________________________________________________

    Cost-of-living adjustment

    424____________________________________________________________________

    Court security

    422____________________________________________________________________

    Courtroom sharing policy

    428____________________________________________________________________

    Defender services

    425____________________________________________________________________

    Costs

    423____________________________________________________________________
                                   Containing
    406____________________________________________________________________

    Federal Judicial Center support

    409____________________________________________________________________

    Funding priorities

    421____________________________________________________________________

    Government Performance and Results Act [GPRA]

    _______________________________________________________________

    Multilateral drug treaty.........................................   121
    NAFTA............................................................   140
    NATO expansion...................................................   127
    Oceans and atmosphere............................................   137
    Peace process....................................................   108
    Preliminary findings.............................................   129
    Program performance, measuring...................................   119
    Russian:
        Missile technology specialists...............................   113
        Scientific community relationship............................   113
    Security cooperation and peace...................................   141
    State's performance goals

    U.S. Courts

    Additional committee questions

    425____________________________________________________________________

    Administrative Office:

    Compares favorably to other justice system agencies, efficiency within the

    417____________________________________________________________________

    Contributions of the

    409____________________________________________________________________

    Funding

    414____________________________________________________________________

    Promotes efficiency throughout the judiciary

    415____________________________________________________________________

    Responsibilities of the

    413____________________________________________________________________

    Staffing

    414____________________________________________________________________

    Budget:

    Judiciary's contribution to balancing the

    405____________________________________________________________________

    Request, restrained

    405____________________________________________________________________

    Cost-of-living adjustment

    424____________________________________________________________________

    Court security

    422____________________________________________________________________

    Courtroom sharing policy

    428____________________________________________________________________

    Defender services

    425____________________________________________________________________

    Costs

    423____________________________________________________________________
                                   Containing
    406____________________________________________________________________

    Federal Judicial Center support

    409____________________________________________________________________

    Funding priorities

    421____________________________________________________________________

    Government Performance and Results Act [GPRA]

    /______________________________________________________________

    U.S. Courts

    Additional committee questions

    425____________________________________________________________________

    Administrative Office:

    Compares favorably to other justice system agencies, efficiency within the

    417____________________________________________________________________

    Contributions of the

    409____________________________________________________________________

    Funding

    414____________________________________________________________________

    Promotes efficiency throughout the judiciary

    415____________________________________________________________________

    Responsibilities of the

    413____________________________________________________________________

    Staffing

    414____________________________________________________________________

    Budget:

    Judiciary's contribution to balancing the

    405____________________________________________________________________

    Request, restrained

    405____________________________________________________________________

    Cost-of-living adjustment

    424____________________________________________________________________

    Court security

    422____________________________________________________________________

    Courtroom sharing policy

    428____________________________________________________________________

    Defender services

    425____________________________________________________________________

    Costs

    423____________________________________________________________________
                                   Containing
    406____________________________________________________________________

    Federal Judicial Center support

    409____________________________________________________________________

    Funding priorities

    421____________________________________________________________________

    Government Performance and Results Act [GPRA]

    5_________________________________________________________

    Administrative Office:

    Compares favorably to other justice system agencies, efficiency within the

    417____________________________________________________________________

    Contributions of the

    409____________________________________________________________________

    Funding

    414____________________________________________________________________

    Promotes efficiency throughout the judiciary

    415____________________________________________________________________

    Responsibilities of the

    413____________________________________________________________________

    Staffing

    414____________________________________________________________________

    Budget:

    Judiciary's contribution to balancing the

    405____________________________________________________________________

    Request, restrained

    405____________________________________________________________________

    Cost-of-living adjustment

    424____________________________________________________________________

    Court security

    422____________________________________________________________________

    Courtroom sharing policy

    428____________________________________________________________________

    Defender services

    425____________________________________________________________________

    Costs

    423____________________________________________________________________
                                   Containing
    406____________________________________________________________________

    Federal Judicial Center support

    409____________________________________________________________________

    Funding priorities

    421____________________________________________________________________

    Government Performance and Results Act [GPRA]

    UL/_______________________________________________________
    398____________________________________________________________________

    Technology needs

    399____________________________________________________________________

    U.S. Courts

    Additional committee questions

    425____________________________________________________________________

    Administrative Office:

    Compares favorably to other justice system agencies, efficiency within the

    417____________________________________________________________________

    Contributions of the

    409____________________________________________________________________

    Funding

    414____________________________________________________________________

    Promotes efficiency throughout the judiciary

    415____________________________________________________________________

    Responsibilities of the

    413____________________________________________________________________

    Staffing

    414____________________________________________________________________

    Budget:

    Judiciary's contribution to balancing the

    405____________________________________________________________________

    Request, restrained

    405____________________________________________________________________

    Cost-of-living adjustment

    424____________________________________________________________________

    Court security

    422____________________________________________________________________

    Courtroom sharing policy

    428____________________________________________________________________

    Defender services

    425____________________________________________________________________

    Costs

    423____________________________________________________________________
                                   Containing
    406____________________________________________________________________

    Federal Judicial Center support

    409____________________________________________________________________

    Funding priorities

    421____________________________________________________________________

    Government Performance and Results Act [GPRA]

    uestions_______________________________________________________
    398____________________________________________________________________

    Domestic spending freeze

    397____________________________________________________________________

    Police radio system enhancements

    399____________________________________________________________________

    Security needs

    398____________________________________________________________________

    Technology needs

    399____________________________________________________________________

    U.S. Courts

    Additional committee questions

    425____________________________________________________________________

    Administrative Office:

    Compares favorably to other justice system agencies, efficiency within the

    417____________________________________________________________________

    Contributions of the

    409____________________________________________________________________

    Funding

    414____________________________________________________________________

    Promotes efficiency throughout the judiciary

    415____________________________________________________________________

    Responsibilities of the

    413____________________________________________________________________

    Staffing

    414____________________________________________________________________

    Budget:

    Judiciary's contribution to balancing the

    405____________________________________________________________________

    Request, restrained

    405____________________________________________________________________

    Cost-of-living adjustment

    424____________________________________________________________________

    Court security

    422____________________________________________________________________

    Courtroom sharing policy

    428____________________________________________________________________

    Defender services

    425____________________________________________________________________

    Costs

    423____________________________________________________________________
                                   Containing
    406____________________________________________________________________

    Federal Judicial Center support

    409____________________________________________________________________

    Funding priorities

    421____________________________________________________________________

    Government Performance and Results Act [GPRA]

    /_________________________________________________________

    U.S. Courts

    Additional committee questions

    425____________________________________________________________________

    Administrative Office:

    Compares favorably to other justice system agencies, efficiency within the

    417____________________________________________________________________

    Contributions of the

    409____________________________________________________________________

    Funding

    414____________________________________________________________________

    Promotes efficiency throughout the judiciary

    415____________________________________________________________________

    Responsibilities of the

    413____________________________________________________________________

    Staffing

    414____________________________________________________________________

    Budget:

    Judiciary's contribution to balancing the

    405____________________________________________________________________

    Request, restrained

    405____________________________________________________________________

    Cost-of-living adjustment

    424____________________________________________________________________

    Court security

    422____________________________________________________________________

    Courtroom sharing policy

    428____________________________________________________________________

    Defender services

    425____________________________________________________________________

    Costs

    423____________________________________________________________________
                                   Containing
    406____________________________________________________________________

    Federal Judicial Center support

    409____________________________________________________________________

    Funding priorities

    421____________________________________________________________________

    Government Performance and Results Act [GPRA]

    /U.S. Courts______________________________________________

    Additional committee questions

    425____________________________________________________________________

    Administrative Office:

    Compares favorably to other justice system agencies, efficiency within the

    417____________________________________________________________________

    Contributions of the

    409____________________________________________________________________

    Funding

    414____________________________________________________________________

    Promotes efficiency throughout the judiciary

    415____________________________________________________________________

    Responsibilities of the

    413____________________________________________________________________

    Staffing

    414____________________________________________________________________

    Budget:

    Judiciary's contribution to balancing the

    405____________________________________________________________________

    Request, restrained

    405____________________________________________________________________

    Cost-of-living adjustment

    424____________________________________________________________________

    Court security

    422____________________________________________________________________

    Courtroom sharing policy

    428____________________________________________________________________

    Defender services

    425____________________________________________________________________

    Costs

    423____________________________________________________________________
                                   Containing
    406____________________________________________________________________

    Federal Judicial Center support

    409____________________________________________________________________

    Funding priorities

    421____________________________________________________________________

    Government Performance and Results Act [GPRA]

    M/399_____________________________________________________

    U.S. Courts

    Additional committee questions

    425____________________________________________________________________

    Administrative Office:

    Compares favorably to other justice system agencies, efficiency within the

    417____________________________________________________________________

    Contributions of the

    409____________________________________________________________________

    Funding

    414____________________________________________________________________

    Promotes efficiency throughout the judiciary

    415____________________________________________________________________

    Responsibilities of the

    413____________________________________________________________________

    Staffing

    414____________________________________________________________________

    Budget:

    Judiciary's contribution to balancing the

    405____________________________________________________________________

    Request, restrained

    405____________________________________________________________________

    Cost-of-living adjustment

    424____________________________________________________________________

    Court security

    422____________________________________________________________________

    Courtroom sharing policy

    428____________________________________________________________________

    Defender services

    425____________________________________________________________________

    Costs

    423____________________________________________________________________
                                   Containing
    406____________________________________________________________________

    Federal Judicial Center support

    409____________________________________________________________________

    Funding priorities

    421____________________________________________________________________

    Government Performance and Results Act [GPRA]

    Summary
    statement................................................
    87Terrorism........................................................ 106
    Palestinian effort against...................................
    141Twenty-first century, managing for the...........................
    97U.N. arrearage /________________________________________________

    U.S. Courts

    Additional committee questions

    425____________________________________________________________________

    Administrative Office:

    Compares favorably to other justice system agencies, efficiency within the

    417____________________________________________________________________

    Contributions of the

    409____________________________________________________________________

    Funding

    414____________________________________________________________________

    Promotes efficiency throughout the judiciary

    415____________________________________________________________________

    Responsibilities of the

    413____________________________________________________________________

    Staffing

    414____________________________________________________________________

    Budget:

    Judiciary's contribution to balancing the

    405____________________________________________________________________

    Request, restrained

    405____________________________________________________________________

    Cost-of-living adjustment

    424____________________________________________________________________

    Court security

    422____________________________________________________________________

    Courtroom sharing policy

    428____________________________________________________________________

    Defender services

    425____________________________________________________________________

    Costs

    423____________________________________________________________________
                                   Containing
    406____________________________________________________________________

    Federal Judicial Center support

    409____________________________________________________________________

    Funding priorities

    421____________________________________________________________________

    Government Performance and Results Act [GPRA]

    /______________________________________________________________

    U.S. Courts

    Additional committee questions

    425____________________________________________________________________

    Administrative Office:

    Compares favorably to other justice system agencies, efficiency within the

    417____________________________________________________________________

    Contributions of the

    409____________________________________________________________________

    Funding

    414____________________________________________________________________

    Promotes efficiency throughout the judiciary

    415____________________________________________________________________

    Responsibilities of the

    413____________________________________________________________________

    Staffing

    414____________________________________________________________________

    Budget:

    Judiciary's contribution to balancing the

    405____________________________________________________________________

    Request, restrained

    405____________________________________________________________________

    Cost-of-living adjustment

    424____________________________________________________________________

    Court security

    422____________________________________________________________________

    Courtroom sharing policy

    428____________________________________________________________________

    Defender services

    425____________________________________________________________________

    Costs

    423____________________________________________________________________
                                   Containing
    406____________________________________________________________________

    Federal Judicial Center support

    409____________________________________________________________________

    Funding priorities

    421____________________________________________________________________

    Government Performance and Results Act [GPRA]

    /______________________________________________________________

    U.S. Courts

    Additional committee questions

    425____________________________________________________________________

    Administrative Office:

    Compares favorably to other justice system agencies, efficiency within the

    417____________________________________________________________________

    Contributions of the

    409____________________________________________________________________

    Funding

    414____________________________________________________________________

    Promotes efficiency throughout the judiciary

    415____________________________________________________________________

    Responsibilities of the

    413____________________________________________________________________

    Staffing

    414____________________________________________________________________

    Budget:

    Judiciary's contribution to balancing the

    405____________________________________________________________________

    Request, restrained

    405____________________________________________________________________

    Cost-of-living adjustment

    424____________________________________________________________________

    Court security

    422____________________________________________________________________

    Courtroom sharing policy

    428____________________________________________________________________

    Defender services

    425____________________________________________________________________

    Costs

    423____________________________________________________________________
                                   Containing
    406____________________________________________________________________

    Federal Judicial Center support

    409____________________________________________________________________

    Funding priorities

    421____________________________________________________________________

    Government Performance and Results Act [GPRA]

    UL/_______________________________________________________
    398____________________________________________________________________

    Technology needs

    399____________________________________________________________________

    U.S. Courts

    Additional committee questions

    425____________________________________________________________________

    Administrative Office:

    Compares favorably to other justice system agencies, efficiency within the

    417____________________________________________________________________

    Contributions of the

    409____________________________________________________________________

    Funding

    414____________________________________________________________________

    Promotes efficiency throughout the judiciary

    415____________________________________________________________________

    Responsibilities of the

    413____________________________________________________________________

    Staffing

    414____________________________________________________________________

    Budget:

    Judiciary's contribution to balancing the

    405____________________________________________________________________

    Request, restrained

    405____________________________________________________________________

    Cost-of-living adjustment

    424____________________________________________________________________

    Court security

    422____________________________________________________________________

    Courtroom sharing policy

    428____________________________________________________________________

    Defender services

    425____________________________________________________________________

    Costs

    423____________________________________________________________________
                                   Containing
    406____________________________________________________________________

    Federal Judicial Center support

    409____________________________________________________________________

    Funding priorities

    421____________________________________________________________________

    Government Performance and Results Act [GPRA]

    uestions_______________________________________________________
    398____________________________________________________________________

    Domestic spending freeze

    397____________________________________________________________________

    Police radio system enhancements

    399____________________________________________________________________

    Security needs

    398____________________________________________________________________

    Technology needs

    399____________________________________________________________________

    U.S. Courts

    Additional committee questions

    425____________________________________________________________________

    Administrative Office:

    Compares favorably to other justice system agencies, efficiency within the

    417____________________________________________________________________

    Contributions of the

    409____________________________________________________________________

    Funding

    414____________________________________________________________________

    Promotes efficiency throughout the judiciary

    415____________________________________________________________________

    Responsibilities of the

    413____________________________________________________________________

    Staffing

    414____________________________________________________________________

    Budget:

    Judiciary's contribution to balancing the

    405____________________________________________________________________

    Request, restrained

    405____________________________________________________________________

    Cost-of-living adjustment

    424____________________________________________________________________

    Court security

    422____________________________________________________________________

    Courtroom sharing policy

    428____________________________________________________________________

    Defender services

    425____________________________________________________________________

    Costs

    423____________________________________________________________________
                                   Containing
    406____________________________________________________________________

    Federal Judicial Center support

    409____________________________________________________________________

    Funding priorities

    421____________________________________________________________________

    Government Performance and Results Act [GPRA]

    /_________________________________________________________

    U.S. Courts

    Additional committee questions

    425____________________________________________________________________

    Administrative Office:

    Compares favorably to other justice system agencies, efficiency within the

    417____________________________________________________________________

    Contributions of the

    409____________________________________________________________________

    Funding

    414____________________________________________________________________

    Promotes efficiency throughout the judiciary

    415____________________________________________________________________

    Responsibilities of the

    413____________________________________________________________________

    Staffing

    414____________________________________________________________________

    Budget:

    Judiciary's contribution to balancing the

    405____________________________________________________________________

    Request, restrained

    405____________________________________________________________________

    Cost-of-living adjustment

    424____________________________________________________________________

    Court security

    422____________________________________________________________________

    Courtroom sharing policy

    428____________________________________________________________________

    Defender services

    425____________________________________________________________________

    Costs

    423____________________________________________________________________
                                   Containing
    406____________________________________________________________________

    Federal Judicial Center support

    409____________________________________________________________________

    Funding priorities

    421____________________________________________________________________

    Government Performance and Results Act [GPRA]

    _______________________________________________________________

    Additional committee questions

    425____________________________________________________________________

    Administrative Office:

    Compares favorably to other justice system agencies, efficiency within the

    417____________________________________________________________________

    Contributions of the

    409____________________________________________________________________

    Funding

    414____________________________________________________________________

    Promotes efficiency throughout the judiciary

    415____________________________________________________________________

    Responsibilities of the

    413____________________________________________________________________

    Staffing

    414____________________________________________________________________

    Budget:

    Judiciary's contribution to balancing the

    405____________________________________________________________________

    Request, restrained

    405____________________________________________________________________

    Cost-of-living adjustment

    424____________________________________________________________________

    Court security

    422____________________________________________________________________

    Courtroom sharing policy

    428____________________________________________________________________

    Defender services

    425____________________________________________________________________

    Costs

    423____________________________________________________________________
                                   Containing
    406____________________________________________________________________

    Federal Judicial Center support

    409____________________________________________________________________

    Funding priorities

    421____________________________________________________________________

    Government Performance and Results Act [GPRA]

    NM/Administrative Office:_________________________________

    Compares favorably to other justice system agencies, efficiency within the

    417____________________________________________________________________

    Contributions of the

    409____________________________________________________________________

    Funding

    414____________________________________________________________________

    Promotes efficiency throughout the judiciary

    415____________________________________________________________________

    Responsibilities of the

    413____________________________________________________________________

    Staffing

    414____________________________________________________________________

    Budget:

    Judiciary's contribution to balancing the

    405____________________________________________________________________

    Request, restrained

    405____________________________________________________________________

    Cost-of-living adjustment

    424____________________________________________________________________

    Court security

    422____________________________________________________________________

    Courtroom sharing policy

    428____________________________________________________________________

    Defender services

    425____________________________________________________________________

    Costs

    423____________________________________________________________________
                                   Containing
    406____________________________________________________________________

    Federal Judicial Center support

    409____________________________________________________________________

    Funding priorities

    421____________________________________________________________________

    Government Performance and Results Act [GPRA]

    U.S. law enforcement agencies and
    certification..................
    121Ukraine..........................................................
    116 Minimum customs values.......................................
    116United Nations...................................................
    108 Conference on the Law of the Sea [UNCLOS]....................
    114UNSCOM observers.................................................
    112War crimes tribunals, funding for /____________________________

    U.S. Courts

    Additional committee questions

    425____________________________________________________________________

    Administrative Office:

    Compares favorably to other justice system agencies, efficiency within the

    417____________________________________________________________________

    Contributions of the

    409____________________________________________________________________

    Funding

    414____________________________________________________________________

    Promotes efficiency throughout the judiciary

    415____________________________________________________________________

    Responsibilities of the

    413____________________________________________________________________

    Staffing

    414____________________________________________________________________

    Budget:

    Judiciary's contribution to balancing the

    405____________________________________________________________________

    Request, restrained

    405____________________________________________________________________

    Cost-of-living adjustment

    424____________________________________________________________________

    Court security

    422____________________________________________________________________

    Courtroom sharing policy

    428____________________________________________________________________

    Defender services

    425____________________________________________________________________

    Costs

    423____________________________________________________________________
                                   Containing
    406____________________________________________________________________

    Federal Judicial Center support

    409____________________________________________________________________

    Funding priorities

    421____________________________________________________________________

    Government Performance and Results Act [GPRA]

    _______________________________________________________________

    Additional committee questions

    425____________________________________________________________________

    Administrative Office:

    Compares favorably to other justice system agencies, efficiency within the

    417____________________________________________________________________

    Contributions of the

    409____________________________________________________________________

    Funding

    414____________________________________________________________________

    Promotes efficiency throughout the judiciary

    415____________________________________________________________________

    Responsibilities of the

    413____________________________________________________________________

    Staffing

    414____________________________________________________________________

    Budget:

    Judiciary's contribution to balancing the

    405____________________________________________________________________

    Request, restrained

    405____________________________________________________________________

    Cost-of-living adjustment

    424____________________________________________________________________

    Court security

    422____________________________________________________________________

    Courtroom sharing policy

    428____________________________________________________________________

    Defender services

    425____________________________________________________________________

    Costs

    423____________________________________________________________________
                                   Containing
    406____________________________________________________________________

    Federal Judicial Center support

    409____________________________________________________________________

    Funding priorities

    421____________________________________________________________________

    Government Performance and Results Act [GPRA]

    _______________________________________________________________

    Additional committee questions

    425____________________________________________________________________

    Administrative Office:

    Compares favorably to other justice system agencies, efficiency within the

    417____________________________________________________________________

    Contributions of the

    409____________________________________________________________________

    Funding

    414____________________________________________________________________

    Promotes efficiency throughout the judiciary

    415____________________________________________________________________

    Responsibilities of the

    413____________________________________________________________________

    Staffing

    414____________________________________________________________________

    Budget:

    Judiciary's contribution to balancing the

    405____________________________________________________________________

    Request, restrained

    405____________________________________________________________________

    Cost-of-living adjustment

    424____________________________________________________________________

    Court security

    422____________________________________________________________________

    Courtroom sharing policy

    428____________________________________________________________________

    Defender services

    425____________________________________________________________________

    Costs

    423____________________________________________________________________
                                   Containing
    406____________________________________________________________________

    Federal Judicial Center support

    409____________________________________________________________________

    Funding priorities

    421____________________________________________________________________

    Government Performance and Results Act [GPRA]

    UL/_______________________________________________________
    398____________________________________________________________________

    Technology needs

    399____________________________________________________________________

    U.S. Courts

    Additional committee questions

    425____________________________________________________________________

    Administrative Office:

    Compares favorably to other justice system agencies, efficiency within the

    417____________________________________________________________________

    Contributions of the

    409____________________________________________________________________

    Funding

    414____________________________________________________________________

    Promotes efficiency throughout the judiciary

    415____________________________________________________________________

    Responsibilities of the

    413____________________________________________________________________

    Staffing

    414____________________________________________________________________

    Budget:

    Judiciary's contribution to balancing the

    405____________________________________________________________________

    Request, restrained

    405____________________________________________________________________

    Cost-of-living adjustment

    424____________________________________________________________________

    Court security

    422____________________________________________________________________

    Courtroom sharing policy

    428____________________________________________________________________

    Defender services

    425____________________________________________________________________

    Costs

    423____________________________________________________________________
                                   Containing
    406____________________________________________________________________

    Federal Judicial Center support

    409____________________________________________________________________

    Funding priorities

    421____________________________________________________________________

    Government Performance and Results Act [GPRA]

    uestions_______________________________________________________
    398____________________________________________________________________

    Domestic spending freeze

    397____________________________________________________________________

    Police radio system enhancements

    399____________________________________________________________________

    Security needs

    398____________________________________________________________________

    Technology needs

    399____________________________________________________________________

    U.S. Courts

    Additional committee questions

    425____________________________________________________________________

    Administrative Office:

    Compares favorably to other justice system agencies, efficiency within the

    417____________________________________________________________________

    Contributions of the

    409____________________________________________________________________

    Funding

    414____________________________________________________________________

    Promotes efficiency throughout the judiciary

    415____________________________________________________________________

    Responsibilities of the

    413____________________________________________________________________

    Staffing

    414____________________________________________________________________

    Budget:

    Judiciary's contribution to balancing the

    405____________________________________________________________________

    Request, restrained

    405____________________________________________________________________

    Cost-of-living adjustment

    424____________________________________________________________________

    Court security

    422____________________________________________________________________

    Courtroom sharing policy

    428____________________________________________________________________

    Defender services

    425____________________________________________________________________

    Costs

    423____________________________________________________________________
                                   Containing
    406____________________________________________________________________

    Federal Judicial Center support

    409____________________________________________________________________

    Funding priorities

    421____________________________________________________________________

    Government Performance and Results Act [GPRA]

    /_________________________________________________________

    U.S. Courts

    Additional committee questions

    425____________________________________________________________________

    Administrative Office:

    Compares favorably to other justice system agencies, efficiency within the

    417____________________________________________________________________

    Contributions of the

    409____________________________________________________________________

    Funding

    414____________________________________________________________________

    Promotes efficiency throughout the judiciary

    415____________________________________________________________________

    Responsibilities of the

    413____________________________________________________________________

    Staffing

    414____________________________________________________________________

    Budget:

    Judiciary's contribution to balancing the

    405____________________________________________________________________

    Request, restrained

    405____________________________________________________________________

    Cost-of-living adjustment

    424____________________________________________________________________

    Court security

    422____________________________________________________________________

    Courtroom sharing policy

    428____________________________________________________________________

    Defender services

    425____________________________________________________________________

    Costs

    423____________________________________________________________________
                                   Containing
    406____________________________________________________________________

    Federal Judicial Center support

    409____________________________________________________________________

    Funding priorities

    421____________________________________________________________________

    Government Performance and Results Act [GPRA]

    Additional committee questions____________________________
    425____________________________________________________________________

    Administrative Office:

    Compares favorably to other justice system agencies, efficiency within the

    417____________________________________________________________________

    Contributions of the

    409____________________________________________________________________

    Funding

    414____________________________________________________________________

    Promotes efficiency throughout the judiciary

    415____________________________________________________________________

    Responsibilities of the

    413____________________________________________________________________

    Staffing

    414____________________________________________________________________

    Budget:

    Judiciary's contribution to balancing the

    405____________________________________________________________________

    Request, restrained

    405____________________________________________________________________

    Cost-of-living adjustment

    424____________________________________________________________________

    Court security

    422____________________________________________________________________

    Courtroom sharing policy

    428____________________________________________________________________

    Defender services

    425____________________________________________________________________

    Costs

    423____________________________________________________________________
                                   Containing
    406____________________________________________________________________

    Federal Judicial Center support

    409____________________________________________________________________

    Funding priorities

    421____________________________________________________________________

    Government Performance and Results Act [GPRA]

    5_________________________________________________________

    Administrative Office:

    Compares favorably to other justice system agencies, efficiency within the

    417____________________________________________________________________

    Contributions of the

    409____________________________________________________________________

    Funding

    414____________________________________________________________________

    Promotes efficiency throughout the judiciary

    415____________________________________________________________________

    Responsibilities of the

    413____________________________________________________________________

    Staffing

    414____________________________________________________________________

    Budget:

    Judiciary's contribution to balancing the

    405____________________________________________________________________

    Request, restrained

    405____________________________________________________________________

    Cost-of-living adjustment

    424____________________________________________________________________

    Court security

    422____________________________________________________________________

    Courtroom sharing policy

    428____________________________________________________________________

    Defender services

    425____________________________________________________________________

    Costs

    423____________________________________________________________________
                                   Containing
    406____________________________________________________________________

    Federal Judicial Center support

    409____________________________________________________________________

    Funding priorities

    421____________________________________________________________________

    Government Performance and Results Act [GPRA]

    Weather
    satellites............................................... 140Women,
    trafficking in............................................ 148World's
    security needs, funding the.............................. 124Yugoslavia
    war crimes tribunal, funding requested for............ 146 FEDERAL
    COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSIONAdditional committee
    questions................................... 459C block
    licenses................................................. 466Cable
    regulations................................................
    458Corporation and Board members, selection of......................
    455Government Performance and Results Act [GPRA]....................
    459High-speed Internet access for rural communities--706 petitions..
    468Payphone calls...................................................
    473Political candidates, free air time for Additional committee
    questions______________________________________________________________
    425____________________________________________________________________

    Administrative Office:

    Compares favorably to other justice system agencies, efficiency within the

    417____________________________________________________________________

    Contributions of the

    409____________________________________________________________________

    Funding

    414____________________________________________________________________

    Promotes efficiency throughout the judiciary

    415____________________________________________________________________

    Responsibilities of the

    413____________________________________________________________________

    Staffing

    414____________________________________________________________________

    Budget:

    Judiciary's contribution to balancing the

    405____________________________________________________________________

    Request, restrained

    405____________________________________________________________________

    Cost-of-living adjustment

    424____________________________________________________________________

    Court security

    422____________________________________________________________________

    Courtroom sharing policy

    428____________________________________________________________________

    Defender services

    425____________________________________________________________________

    Costs

    423____________________________________________________________________
                                   Containing
    406____________________________________________________________________

    Federal Judicial Center support

    409____________________________________________________________________

    Funding priorities

    421____________________________________________________________________

    Government Performance and Results Act [GPRA]

    Additional committee questions_________________________________
    425____________________________________________________________________

    Administrative Office:

    Compares favorably to other justice system agencies, efficiency within the

    417____________________________________________________________________

    Contributions of the

    409____________________________________________________________________

    Funding

    414____________________________________________________________________

    Promotes efficiency throughout the judiciary

    415____________________________________________________________________

    Responsibilities of the

    413____________________________________________________________________

    Staffing

    414____________________________________________________________________

    Budget:

    Judiciary's contribution to balancing the

    405____________________________________________________________________

    Request, restrained

    405____________________________________________________________________

    Cost-of-living adjustment

    424____________________________________________________________________

    Court security

    422____________________________________________________________________

    Courtroom sharing policy

    428____________________________________________________________________

    Defender services

    425____________________________________________________________________

    Costs

    423____________________________________________________________________
                                   Containing
    406____________________________________________________________________

    Federal Judicial Center support

    409____________________________________________________________________

    Funding priorities

    421____________________________________________________________________

    Government Performance and Results Act [GPRA]

    NM/Administrative Office:_________________________________

    Compares favorably to other justice system agencies, efficiency within the

    417____________________________________________________________________

    Contributions of the

    409____________________________________________________________________

    Funding

    414____________________________________________________________________

    Promotes efficiency throughout the judiciary

    415____________________________________________________________________

    Responsibilities of the

    413____________________________________________________________________

    Staffing

    414____________________________________________________________________

    Budget:

    Judiciary's contribution to balancing the

    405____________________________________________________________________

    Request, restrained

    405____________________________________________________________________

    Cost-of-living adjustment

    424____________________________________________________________________

    Court security

    422____________________________________________________________________

    Courtroom sharing policy

    428____________________________________________________________________

    Defender services

    425____________________________________________________________________

    Costs

    423____________________________________________________________________
                                   Containing
    406____________________________________________________________________

    Federal Judicial Center support

    409____________________________________________________________________

    Funding priorities

    421____________________________________________________________________

    Government Performance and Results Act [GPRA]

    UL/____________________________________________________________
    398____________________________________________________________________

    Technology needs

    399____________________________________________________________________

    U.S. Courts

    Additional committee questions

    425____________________________________________________________________

    Administrative Office:

    Compares favorably to other justice system agencies, efficiency within the

    417____________________________________________________________________

    Contributions of the

    409____________________________________________________________________

    Funding

    414____________________________________________________________________

    Promotes efficiency throughout the judiciary

    415____________________________________________________________________

    Responsibilities of the

    413____________________________________________________________________

    Staffing

    414____________________________________________________________________

    Budget:

    Judiciary's contribution to balancing the

    405____________________________________________________________________

    Request, restrained

    405____________________________________________________________________

    Cost-of-living adjustment

    424____________________________________________________________________

    Court security

    422____________________________________________________________________

    Courtroom sharing policy

    428____________________________________________________________________

    Defender services

    425____________________________________________________________________

    Costs

    423____________________________________________________________________
                                   Containing
    406____________________________________________________________________

    Federal Judicial Center support

    409____________________________________________________________________

    Funding priorities

    421____________________________________________________________________

    Government Performance and Results Act [GPRA]

    uestions_______________________________________________________
    398____________________________________________________________________

    Domestic spending freeze

    397____________________________________________________________________

    Police radio system enhancements

    399____________________________________________________________________

    Security needs

    398____________________________________________________________________

    Technology needs

    399____________________________________________________________________

    U.S. Courts

    Additional committee questions

    425____________________________________________________________________

    Administrative Office:

    Compares favorably to other justice system agencies, efficiency within the

    417____________________________________________________________________

    Contributions of the

    409____________________________________________________________________

    Funding

    414____________________________________________________________________

    Promotes efficiency throughout the judiciary

    415____________________________________________________________________

    Responsibilities of the

    413____________________________________________________________________

    Staffing

    414____________________________________________________________________

    Budget:

    Judiciary's contribution to balancing the

    405____________________________________________________________________

    Request, restrained

    405____________________________________________________________________

    Cost-of-living adjustment

    424____________________________________________________________________

    Court security

    422____________________________________________________________________

    Courtroom sharing policy

    428____________________________________________________________________

    Defender services

    425____________________________________________________________________

    Costs

    423____________________________________________________________________
                                   Containing
    406____________________________________________________________________

    Federal Judicial Center support

    409____________________________________________________________________

    Funding priorities

    421____________________________________________________________________

    Government Performance and Results Act [GPRA]

    Additional committee questions____________________________
    425____________________________________________________________________

    Administrative Office:

    Compares favorably to other justice system agencies, efficiency within the

    417____________________________________________________________________

    Contributions of the

    409____________________________________________________________________

    Funding

    414____________________________________________________________________

    Promotes efficiency throughout the judiciary

    415____________________________________________________________________

    Responsibilities of the

    413____________________________________________________________________

    Staffing

    414____________________________________________________________________

    Budget:

    Judiciary's contribution to balancing the

    405____________________________________________________________________

    Request, restrained

    405____________________________________________________________________

    Cost-of-living adjustment

    424____________________________________________________________________

    Court security

    422____________________________________________________________________

    Courtroom sharing policy

    428____________________________________________________________________

    Defender services

    425____________________________________________________________________

    Costs

    423____________________________________________________________________
                                   Containing
    406____________________________________________________________________

    Federal Judicial Center support

    409____________________________________________________________________

    Funding priorities

    421____________________________________________________________________

    Government Performance and Results Act [GPRA]

    ttee questions_______________________________________
    425____________________________________________________________________

    Administrative Office:

    Compares favorably to other justice system agencies, efficiency within the

    417____________________________________________________________________

    Contributions of the

    409____________________________________________________________________

    Funding

    414____________________________________________________________________

    Promotes efficiency throughout the judiciary

    415____________________________________________________________________

    Responsibilities of the

    413____________________________________________________________________

    Staffing

    414____________________________________________________________________

    Budget:

    Judiciary's contribution to balancing the

    405____________________________________________________________________

    Request, restrained

    405____________________________________________________________________

    Cost-of-living adjustment

    424____________________________________________________________________

    Court security

    422____________________________________________________________________

    Courtroom sharing policy

    428____________________________________________________________________

    Defender services

    425____________________________________________________________________

    Costs

    423____________________________________________________________________
                                   Containing
    406____________________________________________________________________

    Federal Judicial Center support

    409____________________________________________________________________

    Funding priorities

    421____________________________________________________________________

    Government Performance and Results Act [GPRA]

    M/399_____________________________________________________

    U.S. Courts

    Additional committee questions

    425____________________________________________________________________

    Administrative Office:

    Compares favorably to other justice system agencies, efficiency within the

    417____________________________________________________________________

    Contributions of the

    409____________________________________________________________________

    Funding

    414____________________________________________________________________

    Promotes efficiency throughout the judiciary

    415____________________________________________________________________

    Responsibilities of the

    413____________________________________________________________________

    Staffing

    414____________________________________________________________________

    Budget:

    Judiciary's contribution to balancing the

    405____________________________________________________________________

    Request, restrained

    405____________________________________________________________________

    Cost-of-living adjustment

    424____________________________________________________________________

    Court security

    422____________________________________________________________________

    Courtroom sharing policy

    428____________________________________________________________________

    Defender services

    425____________________________________________________________________

    Costs

    423____________________________________________________________________
                                   Containing
    406____________________________________________________________________

    Federal Judicial Center support

    409____________________________________________________________________

    Funding priorities

    421____________________________________________________________________

    Government Performance and Results Act [GPRA]

    Portals.........................................................
    . 456 Relocation funding...........................................
    449Public safety spectrum application...............................
    457Rate integration and geographic rate averaging...................
    474Section 271......................................................
    476706 petitions....................................................
    469Slamming Additional committee questions________________________
    425____________________________________________________________________

    Administrative Office:

    Compares favorably to other justice system agencies, efficiency within the

    417____________________________________________________________________

    Contributions of the

    409____________________________________________________________________

    Funding

    414____________________________________________________________________

    Promotes efficiency throughout the judiciary

    415____________________________________________________________________

    Responsibilities of the

    413____________________________________________________________________

    Staffing

    414____________________________________________________________________

    Budget:

    Judiciary's contribution to balancing the

    405____________________________________________________________________

    Request, restrained

    405____________________________________________________________________

    Cost-of-living adjustment

    424____________________________________________________________________

    Court security

    422____________________________________________________________________

    Courtroom sharing policy

    428____________________________________________________________________

    Defender services

    425____________________________________________________________________

    Costs

    423____________________________________________________________________
                                   Containing
    406____________________________________________________________________

    Federal Judicial Center support

    409____________________________________________________________________

    Funding priorities

    421____________________________________________________________________

    Government Performance and Results Act [GPRA]

    ttee questions_______________________________________
    425____________________________________________________________________

    Administrative Office:

    Compares favorably to other justice system agencies, efficiency within the

    417____________________________________________________________________

    Contributions of the

    409____________________________________________________________________

    Funding

    414____________________________________________________________________

    Promotes efficiency throughout the judiciary

    415____________________________________________________________________

    Responsibilities of the

    413____________________________________________________________________

    Staffing

    414____________________________________________________________________

    Budget:

    Judiciary's contribution to balancing the

    405____________________________________________________________________

    Request, restrained

    405____________________________________________________________________

    Cost-of-living adjustment

    424____________________________________________________________________

    Court security

    422____________________________________________________________________

    Courtroom sharing policy

    428____________________________________________________________________

    Defender services

    425____________________________________________________________________

    Costs

    423____________________________________________________________________
                                   Containing
    406____________________________________________________________________

    Federal Judicial Center support

    409____________________________________________________________________

    Funding priorities

    421____________________________________________________________________

    Government Performance and Results Act [GPRA]

    /_________________________________________________________

    U.S. Courts

    Additional committee questions

    425____________________________________________________________________

    Administrative Office:

    Compares favorably to other justice system agencies, efficiency within the

    417____________________________________________________________________

    Contributions of the

    409____________________________________________________________________

    Funding

    414____________________________________________________________________

    Promotes efficiency throughout the judiciary

    415____________________________________________________________________

    Responsibilities of the

    413____________________________________________________________________

    Staffing

    414____________________________________________________________________

    Budget:

    Judiciary's contribution to balancing the

    405____________________________________________________________________

    Request, restrained

    405____________________________________________________________________

    Cost-of-living adjustment

    424____________________________________________________________________

    Court security

    422____________________________________________________________________

    Courtroom sharing policy

    428____________________________________________________________________

    Defender services

    425____________________________________________________________________

    Costs

    423____________________________________________________________________
                                   Containing
    406____________________________________________________________________

    Federal Judicial Center support

    409____________________________________________________________________

    Funding priorities

    421____________________________________________________________________

    Government Performance and Results Act [GPRA]

    UL/_______________________________________________________
    398____________________________________________________________________

    Technology needs

    399____________________________________________________________________

    U.S. Courts

    Additional committee questions

    425____________________________________________________________________

    Administrative Office:

    Compares favorably to other justice system agencies, efficiency within the

    417____________________________________________________________________

    Contributions of the

    409____________________________________________________________________

    Funding

    414____________________________________________________________________

    Promotes efficiency throughout the judiciary

    415____________________________________________________________________

    Responsibilities of the

    413____________________________________________________________________

    Staffing

    414____________________________________________________________________

    Budget:

    Judiciary's contribution to balancing the

    405____________________________________________________________________

    Request, restrained

    405____________________________________________________________________

    Cost-of-living adjustment

    424____________________________________________________________________

    Court security

    422____________________________________________________________________

    Courtroom sharing policy

    428____________________________________________________________________

    Defender services

    425____________________________________________________________________

    Costs

    423____________________________________________________________________
                                   Containing
    406____________________________________________________________________

    Federal Judicial Center support

    409____________________________________________________________________

    Funding priorities

    421____________________________________________________________________

    Government Performance and Results Act [GPRA]

    uestions_______________________________________________________
    398____________________________________________________________________

    Domestic spending freeze

    397____________________________________________________________________

    Police radio system enhancements

    399____________________________________________________________________

    Security needs

    398____________________________________________________________________

    Technology needs

    399____________________________________________________________________

    U.S. Courts

    Additional committee questions

    425____________________________________________________________________

    Administrative Office:

    Compares favorably to other justice system agencies, efficiency within the

    417____________________________________________________________________

    Contributions of the

    409____________________________________________________________________

    Funding

    414____________________________________________________________________

    Promotes efficiency throughout the judiciary

    415____________________________________________________________________

    Responsibilities of the

    413____________________________________________________________________

    Staffing

    414____________________________________________________________________

    Budget:

    Judiciary's contribution to balancing the

    405____________________________________________________________________

    Request, restrained

    405____________________________________________________________________

    Cost-of-living adjustment

    424____________________________________________________________________

    Court security

    422____________________________________________________________________

    Courtroom sharing policy

    428____________________________________________________________________

    Defender services

    425____________________________________________________________________

    Costs

    423____________________________________________________________________
                                   Containing
    406____________________________________________________________________

    Federal Judicial Center support

    409____________________________________________________________________

    Funding priorities

    421____________________________________________________________________

    Government Performance and Results Act [GPRA]

    Additional committee questions____________________________
    425____________________________________________________________________

    Administrative Office:

    Compares favorably to other justice system agencies, efficiency within the

    417____________________________________________________________________

    Contributions of the

    409____________________________________________________________________

    Funding

    414____________________________________________________________________

    Promotes efficiency throughout the judiciary

    415____________________________________________________________________

    Responsibilities of the

    413____________________________________________________________________

    Staffing

    414____________________________________________________________________

    Budget:

    Judiciary's contribution to balancing the

    405____________________________________________________________________

    Request, restrained

    405____________________________________________________________________

    Cost-of-living adjustment

    424____________________________________________________________________

    Court security

    422____________________________________________________________________

    Courtroom sharing policy

    428____________________________________________________________________

    Defender services

    425____________________________________________________________________

    Costs

    423____________________________________________________________________
                                   Containing
    406____________________________________________________________________

    Federal Judicial Center support

    409____________________________________________________________________

    Funding priorities

    421____________________________________________________________________

    Government Performance and Results Act [GPRA]

    5_________________________________________________________

    Administrative Office:

    Compares favorably to other justice system agencies, efficiency within the

    417____________________________________________________________________

    Contributions of the

    409____________________________________________________________________

    Funding

    414____________________________________________________________________

    Promotes efficiency throughout the judiciary

    415____________________________________________________________________

    Responsibilities of the

    413____________________________________________________________________

    Staffing

    414____________________________________________________________________

    Budget:

    Judiciary's contribution to balancing the

    405____________________________________________________________________

    Request, restrained

    405____________________________________________________________________

    Cost-of-living adjustment

    424____________________________________________________________________

    Court security

    422____________________________________________________________________

    Courtroom sharing policy

    428____________________________________________________________________

    Defender services

    425____________________________________________________________________

    Costs

    423____________________________________________________________________
                                   Containing
    406____________________________________________________________________

    Federal Judicial Center support

    409____________________________________________________________________

    Funding priorities

    421____________________________________________________________________

    Government Performance and Results Act [GPRA]

    M/399_____________________________________________________

    U.S. Courts

    Additional committee questions

    425____________________________________________________________________

    Administrative Office:

    Compares favorably to other justice system agencies, efficiency within the

    417____________________________________________________________________

    Contributions of the

    409____________________________________________________________________

    Funding

    414____________________________________________________________________

    Promotes efficiency throughout the judiciary

    415____________________________________________________________________

    Responsibilities of the

    413____________________________________________________________________

    Staffing

    414____________________________________________________________________

    Budget:

    Judiciary's contribution to balancing the

    405____________________________________________________________________

    Request, restrained

    405____________________________________________________________________

    Cost-of-living adjustment

    424____________________________________________________________________

    Court security

    422____________________________________________________________________

    Courtroom sharing policy

    428____________________________________________________________________

    Defender services

    425____________________________________________________________________

    Costs

    423____________________________________________________________________
                                   Containing
    406____________________________________________________________________

    Federal Judicial Center support

    409____________________________________________________________________

    Funding priorities

    421____________________________________________________________________

    Government Performance and Results Act [GPRA]

    Universal
    service................................................ 471 Fund
    Additional committee questions____________________________________
    425____________________________________________________________________

    Administrative Office:

    Compares favorably to other justice system agencies, efficiency within the

    417____________________________________________________________________

    Contributions of the

    409____________________________________________________________________

    Funding

    414____________________________________________________________________

    Promotes efficiency throughout the judiciary

    415____________________________________________________________________

    Responsibilities of the

    413____________________________________________________________________

    Staffing

    414____________________________________________________________________

    Budget:

    Judiciary's contribution to balancing the

    405____________________________________________________________________

    Request, restrained

    405____________________________________________________________________

    Cost-of-living adjustment

    424____________________________________________________________________

    Court security

    422____________________________________________________________________

    Courtroom sharing policy

    428____________________________________________________________________

    Defender services

    425____________________________________________________________________

    Costs

    423____________________________________________________________________
                                   Containing
    406____________________________________________________________________

    Federal Judicial Center support

    409____________________________________________________________________

    Funding priorities

    421____________________________________________________________________

    Government Performance and Results Act [GPRA]

    ttee questions_______________________________________
    425____________________________________________________________________

    Administrative Office:

    Compares favorably to other justice system agencies, efficiency within the

    417____________________________________________________________________

    Contributions of the

    409____________________________________________________________________

    Funding

    414____________________________________________________________________

    Promotes efficiency throughout the judiciary

    415____________________________________________________________________

    Responsibilities of the

    413____________________________________________________________________

    Staffing

    414____________________________________________________________________

    Budget:

    Judiciary's contribution to balancing the

    405____________________________________________________________________

    Request, restrained

    405____________________________________________________________________

    Cost-of-living adjustment

    424____________________________________________________________________

    Court security

    422____________________________________________________________________

    Courtroom sharing policy

    428____________________________________________________________________

    Defender services

    425____________________________________________________________________

    Costs

    423____________________________________________________________________
                                   Containing
    406____________________________________________________________________

    Federal Judicial Center support

    409____________________________________________________________________

    Funding priorities

    421____________________________________________________________________

    Government Performance and Results Act [GPRA]

    M/399_____________________________________________________

    U.S. Courts

    Additional committee questions

    425____________________________________________________________________

    Administrative Office:

    Compares favorably to other justice system agencies, efficiency within the

    417____________________________________________________________________

    Contributions of the

    409____________________________________________________________________

    Funding

    414____________________________________________________________________

    Promotes efficiency throughout the judiciary

    415____________________________________________________________________

    Responsibilities of the

    413____________________________________________________________________

    Staffing

    414____________________________________________________________________

    Budget:

    Judiciary's contribution to balancing the

    405____________________________________________________________________

    Request, restrained

    405____________________________________________________________________

    Cost-of-living adjustment

    424____________________________________________________________________

    Court security

    422____________________________________________________________________

    Courtroom sharing policy

    428____________________________________________________________________

    Defender services

    425____________________________________________________________________

    Costs

    423____________________________________________________________________
                                   Containing
    406____________________________________________________________________

    Federal Judicial Center support

    409____________________________________________________________________

    Funding priorities

    421____________________________________________________________________

    Government Performance and Results Act [GPRA]

    UL/_______________________________________________________
    398____________________________________________________________________

    Technology needs

    399____________________________________________________________________

    U.S. Courts

    Additional committee questions

    425____________________________________________________________________

    Administrative Office:

    Compares favorably to other justice system agencies, efficiency within the

    417____________________________________________________________________

    Contributions of the

    409____________________________________________________________________

    Funding

    414____________________________________________________________________

    Promotes efficiency throughout the judiciary

    415____________________________________________________________________

    Responsibilities of the

    413____________________________________________________________________

    Staffing

    414____________________________________________________________________

    Budget:

    Judiciary's contribution to balancing the

    405____________________________________________________________________

    Request, restrained

    405____________________________________________________________________

    Cost-of-living adjustment

    424____________________________________________________________________

    Court security

    422____________________________________________________________________

    Courtroom sharing policy

    428____________________________________________________________________

    Defender services

    425____________________________________________________________________

    Costs

    423____________________________________________________________________
                                   Containing
    406____________________________________________________________________

    Federal Judicial Center support

    409____________________________________________________________________

    Funding priorities

    421____________________________________________________________________

    Government Performance and Results Act [GPRA]

    uestions_______________________________________________________
    398____________________________________________________________________

    Domestic spending freeze

    397____________________________________________________________________

    Police radio system enhancements

    399____________________________________________________________________

    Security needs

    398____________________________________________________________________

    Technology needs

    399____________________________________________________________________

    U.S. Courts

    Additional committee questions

    425____________________________________________________________________

    Administrative Office:

    Compares favorably to other justice system agencies, efficiency within the

    417____________________________________________________________________

    Contributions of the

    409____________________________________________________________________

    Funding

    414____________________________________________________________________

    Promotes efficiency throughout the judiciary

    415____________________________________________________________________

    Responsibilities of the

    413____________________________________________________________________

    Staffing

    414____________________________________________________________________

    Budget:

    Judiciary's contribution to balancing the

    405____________________________________________________________________

    Request, restrained

    405____________________________________________________________________

    Cost-of-living adjustment

    424____________________________________________________________________

    Court security

    422____________________________________________________________________

    Courtroom sharing policy

    428____________________________________________________________________

    Defender services

    425____________________________________________________________________

    Costs

    423____________________________________________________________________
                                   Containing
    406____________________________________________________________________

    Federal Judicial Center support

    409____________________________________________________________________

    Funding priorities

    421____________________________________________________________________

    Government Performance and Results Act [GPRA]

    Additional committee questions____________________________
    425____________________________________________________________________

    Administrative Office:

    Compares favorably to other justice system agencies, efficiency within the

    417____________________________________________________________________

    Contributions of the

    409____________________________________________________________________

    Funding

    414____________________________________________________________________

    Promotes efficiency throughout the judiciary

    415____________________________________________________________________

    Responsibilities of the

    413____________________________________________________________________

    Staffing

    414____________________________________________________________________

    Budget:

    Judiciary's contribution to balancing the

    405____________________________________________________________________

    Request, restrained

    405____________________________________________________________________

    Cost-of-living adjustment

    424____________________________________________________________________

    Court security

    422____________________________________________________________________

    Courtroom sharing policy

    428____________________________________________________________________

    Defender services

    425____________________________________________________________________

    Costs

    423____________________________________________________________________
                                   Containing
    406____________________________________________________________________

    Federal Judicial Center support

    409____________________________________________________________________

    Funding priorities

    421____________________________________________________________________

    Government Performance and Results Act [GPRA]

    ttee questions_______________________________________
    425____________________________________________________________________

    Administrative Office:

    Compares favorably to other justice system agencies, efficiency within the

    417____________________________________________________________________

    Contributions of the

    409____________________________________________________________________

    Funding

    414____________________________________________________________________

    Promotes efficiency throughout the judiciary

    415____________________________________________________________________

    Responsibilities of the

    413____________________________________________________________________

    Staffing

    414____________________________________________________________________

    Budget:

    Judiciary's contribution to balancing the

    405____________________________________________________________________

    Request, restrained

    405____________________________________________________________________

    Cost-of-living adjustment

    424____________________________________________________________________

    Court security

    422____________________________________________________________________

    Courtroom sharing policy

    428____________________________________________________________________

    Defender services

    425____________________________________________________________________

    Costs

    423____________________________________________________________________
                                   Containing
    406____________________________________________________________________

    Federal Judicial Center support

    409____________________________________________________________________

    Funding priorities

    421____________________________________________________________________

    Government Performance and Results Act [GPRA]

    /U.S. Courts______________________________________________

    Additional committee questions

    425____________________________________________________________________

    Administrative Office:

    Compares favorably to other justice system agencies, efficiency within the

    417____________________________________________________________________

    Contributions of the

    409____________________________________________________________________

    Funding

    414____________________________________________________________________

    Promotes efficiency throughout the judiciary

    415____________________________________________________________________

    Responsibilities of the

    413____________________________________________________________________

    Staffing

    414____________________________________________________________________

    Budget:

    Judiciary's contribution to balancing the

    405____________________________________________________________________

    Request, restrained

    405____________________________________________________________________

    Cost-of-living adjustment

    424____________________________________________________________________

    Court security

    422____________________________________________________________________

    Courtroom sharing policy

    428____________________________________________________________________

    Defender services

    425____________________________________________________________________

    Costs

    423____________________________________________________________________
                                   Containing
    406____________________________________________________________________

    Federal Judicial Center support

    409____________________________________________________________________

    Funding priorities

    421____________________________________________________________________

    Government Performance and Results Act [GPRA]

    UL/_______________________________________________________
    398____________________________________________________________________

    Technology needs

    399____________________________________________________________________

    U.S. Courts

    Additional committee questions

    425____________________________________________________________________

    Administrative Office:

    Compares favorably to other justice system agencies, efficiency within the

    417____________________________________________________________________

    Contributions of the

    409____________________________________________________________________

    Funding

    414____________________________________________________________________

    Promotes efficiency throughout the judiciary

    415____________________________________________________________________

    Responsibilities of the

    413____________________________________________________________________

    Staffing

    414____________________________________________________________________

    Budget:

    Judiciary's contribution to balancing the

    405____________________________________________________________________

    Request, restrained

    405____________________________________________________________________

    Cost-of-living adjustment

    424____________________________________________________________________

    Court security

    422____________________________________________________________________

    Courtroom sharing policy

    428____________________________________________________________________

    Defender services

    425____________________________________________________________________

    Costs

    423____________________________________________________________________
                                   Containing
    406____________________________________________________________________

    Federal Judicial Center support

    409____________________________________________________________________

    Funding priorities

    421____________________________________________________________________

    Government Performance and Results Act [GPRA]

    uestions_______________________________________________________
    398____________________________________________________________________

    Domestic spending freeze

    397____________________________________________________________________

    Police radio system enhancements

    399____________________________________________________________________

    Security needs

    398____________________________________________________________________

    Technology needs

    399____________________________________________________________________

    U.S. Courts

    Additional committee questions

    425____________________________________________________________________

    Administrative Office:

    Compares favorably to other justice system agencies, efficiency within the

    417____________________________________________________________________

    Contributions of the

    409____________________________________________________________________

    Funding

    414____________________________________________________________________

    Promotes efficiency throughout the judiciary

    415____________________________________________________________________

    Responsibilities of the

    413____________________________________________________________________

    Staffing

    414____________________________________________________________________

    Budget:

    Judiciary's contribution to balancing the

    405____________________________________________________________________

    Request, restrained

    405____________________________________________________________________

    Cost-of-living adjustment

    424____________________________________________________________________

    Court security

    422____________________________________________________________________

    Courtroom sharing policy

    428____________________________________________________________________

    Defender services

    425____________________________________________________________________

    Costs

    423____________________________________________________________________
                                   Containing
    406____________________________________________________________________

    Federal Judicial Center support

    409____________________________________________________________________

    Funding priorities

    421____________________________________________________________________

    Government Performance and Results Act [GPRA]

    Additional committee questions____________________________
    425____________________________________________________________________

    Administrative Office:

    Compares favorably to other justice system agencies, efficiency within the

    417____________________________________________________________________

    Contributions of the

    409____________________________________________________________________

    Funding

    414____________________________________________________________________

    Promotes efficiency throughout the judiciary

    415____________________________________________________________________

    Responsibilities of the

    413____________________________________________________________________

    Staffing

    414____________________________________________________________________

    Budget:

    Judiciary's contribution to balancing the

    405____________________________________________________________________

    Request, restrained

    405____________________________________________________________________

    Cost-of-living adjustment

    424____________________________________________________________________

    Court security

    422____________________________________________________________________

    Courtroom sharing policy

    428____________________________________________________________________

    Defender services

    425____________________________________________________________________

    Costs

    423____________________________________________________________________
                                   Containing
    406____________________________________________________________________

    Federal Judicial Center support

    409____________________________________________________________________

    Funding priorities

    421____________________________________________________________________

    Government Performance and Results Act [GPRA]

    ttee questions_______________________________________
    425____________________________________________________________________

    Administrative Office:

    Compares favorably to other justice system agencies, efficiency within the

    417____________________________________________________________________

    Contributions of the

    409____________________________________________________________________

    Funding

    414____________________________________________________________________

    Promotes efficiency throughout the judiciary

    415____________________________________________________________________

    Responsibilities of the

    413____________________________________________________________________

    Staffing

    414____________________________________________________________________

    Budget:

    Judiciary's contribution to balancing the

    405____________________________________________________________________

    Request, restrained

    405____________________________________________________________________

    Cost-of-living adjustment

    424____________________________________________________________________

    Court security

    422____________________________________________________________________

    Courtroom sharing policy

    428____________________________________________________________________

    Defender services

    425____________________________________________________________________

    Costs

    423____________________________________________________________________
                                   Containing
    406____________________________________________________________________

    Federal Judicial Center support

    409____________________________________________________________________

    Funding priorities

    421____________________________________________________________________

    Government Performance and Results Act [GPRA]

    5_________________________________________________________

    Administrative Office:

    Compares favorably to other justice system agencies, efficiency within the

    417____________________________________________________________________

    Contributions of the

    409____________________________________________________________________

    Funding

    414____________________________________________________________________

    Promotes efficiency throughout the judiciary

    415____________________________________________________________________

    Responsibilities of the

    413____________________________________________________________________

    Staffing

    414____________________________________________________________________

    Budget:

    Judiciary's contribution to balancing the

    405____________________________________________________________________

    Request, restrained

    405____________________________________________________________________

    Cost-of-living adjustment

    424____________________________________________________________________

    Court security

    422____________________________________________________________________

    Courtroom sharing policy

    428____________________________________________________________________

    Defender services

    425____________________________________________________________________

    Costs

    423____________________________________________________________________
                                   Containing
    406____________________________________________________________________

    Federal Judicial Center support

    409____________________________________________________________________

    Funding priorities

    421____________________________________________________________________

    Government Performance and Results Act [GPRA]

    _______________________________________________________________

                       SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

    Current challenges facing the SEC................................   497
    Fees, registration and transaction...............................   504
    Funding structure................................................   501
    Internet fraud...................................................   503
    Priorities and allocation of additional resources................   499
    Retention allowance..............................................   502
    Role of the SEC..................................................   496
    Staff, additional funding for retention of.......................   501
    Summary statement................................................   495

                         SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

    Accomplishments, fiscal year 1997................................   370
    Additional committee questions...................................   383
    African-American loans...........................................   374
    Budget:
        Overview, fiscal year 1999...................................   370
        Request......................................................   367
    Capital and credit, increasing small business access to..........   371
    Disaster program.................................................   378
    Disasters, helping small businesses and families recover from....   372
    Distressed communities, bringing enterprise to...................   372
    El Nino..........................................................   383
    Entrepreneurial development services, enhancing..................   371
    Government Performance and Results Act [GPRA]....................   383
    Native American and Alaskan issues...............................   375
    Procurement opportunities, expanding small business access to....   371
    Small business:
        Other initiatives in the President's budget for..............   373
        Serving as a voice for America's.............................   373
    Subsidy rate.....................................................   377
    21st century:
        Preparing SBA and small business for the.....................   369
        Transforming the SBA into a leading edge financial
          institution................................................   372
    Welfare-to-work, leading small business participation in.........   372
    Women's business ownership fiscal year 1999 budget...............   388

                                 THE JUDICIARY

                       Supreme Court of the United States

    Additional committee questions...................................   398
    Domestic spending freeze.........................................   397
    Police radio system enhancements.................................   399
    Security needs...................................................   398
    Technology needs.................................................   399

                                  U.S. Courts

    Additional committee questions...................................   425
    Administrative Office:
        Compares favorably to other justice system agencies,
          efficiency within the......................................   417
        Contributions of the.........................................   409
        Funding......................................................   414
        Promotes efficiency throughout the judiciary.................   415
        Responsibilities of the......................................   413
        Staffing.....................................................   414
    Budget:
        Judiciary's contribution to balancing the....................   405
        Request, restrained..........................................   405
    Cost-of-living adjustment........................................   424
    Court security...................................................   422
    Courtroom sharing policy.........................................   428
    Defender services................................................   425
        Costs........................................................   423
            Containing...............................................   406
    Federal Judicial Center support..................................   409
    Funding priorities...............................................   421
    Government Performance and Results Act [GPRA]....................   429
    Judiciary, a fair and independent................................   408
    Next century, preparing for the..................................   408
    Private attorney costs...........................................   420
    Technologies, new................................................   424

                                       -