[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

                                   -