    [House Hearing, 106 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

     DEPARTMENTS OF COMMERCE, JUSTICE, AND STATE, THE JUDICIARY, AND RELATED
                        AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR 2000

    _______________________________________________________________________

                                    HEARINGS

                                    BEFORE A

                               SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE

                           COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

                             HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS
                                  FIRST SESSION
                                    ________

      SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE DEPARTMENTS OF COMMERCE, JUSTICE, AND STATE, THE
                        JUDICIARY, AND RELATED AGENCIES

                        HAROLD ROGERS, Kentucky, Chairman
     JIM KOLBE, Arizona                 JOSE E. SERRANO, New York
     CHARLES H. TAYLOR, North Carolina  JULIAN C. DIXON, California
     RALPH REGULA, Ohio                 ALAN B. MOLLOHAN, West Virginia
     TOM LATHAM, Iowa                   LUCILLE ROYBAL-ALLARD, California
     DAN MILLER, Florida
     ZACH WAMP, Tennessee

     NOTE: Under Committee Rules, Mr. Young, as Chairman of the Full
    Committee, and Mr. Obey, as Ranking Minority Member of the Full
    Committee, are authorized to sit as Members of all Subcommittees.
        Jim Kulikowski, Jennifer Miller, Mike Ringler, and Cordia Strom,
                               Subcommittee Staff
                                    ________

                                     PART 6
                              DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
                                                                       Page
     Attorney General.................................................    1
     Federal Bureau of Investigation..................................  275
     Drug Enforcement Programs........................................  347
     State and Local Law Enforcement..................................  469
     Immigration and Naturalization Service...........................  561
     Bureau of Prisons................................................  651

                                    ________

             Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations
                                    ________

                         U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
     57-614                     WASHINGTON : 1999

                            COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

                       C. W. BILL YOUNG, Florida, Chairman

     RALPH REGULA, Ohio                     DAVID R. OBEY, Wisconsin
     JERRY LEWIS, California                JOHN P. MURTHA, Pennsylvania
     JOHN EDWARD PORTER, Illinois           NORMAN D. DICKS, Washington
     HAROLD ROGERS, Kentucky                MARTIN OLAV SABO, Minnesota
     JOE SKEEN, New Mexico                  JULIAN C. DIXON, California
     FRANK R. WOLF, Virginia                STENY H. HOYER, Maryland
     TOM DeLAY, Texas                       ALAN B. MOLLOHAN, West Virginia
     JIM KOLBE, Arizona                     MARCY KAPTUR, Ohio
     RON PACKARD, California                NANCY PELOSI, California
     SONNY CALLAHAN, Alabama                PETER J. VISCLOSKY, Indiana
     JAMES T. WALSH, New York               NITA M. LOWEY, New York
     CHARLES H. TAYLOR, North Carolina      JOSE E. SERRANO, New York
     DAVID L. HOBSON, Ohio                  ROSA L. DeLAURO, Connecticut
     ERNEST J. ISTOOK, Jr., Oklahoma        JAMES P. MORAN, Virginia
     HENRY BONILLA, Texas                   JOHN W. OLVER, Massachusetts
     JOE KNOLLENBERG, Michigan              ED PASTOR, Arizona
     DAN MILLER, Florida                    CARRIE P. MEEK, Florida
     JAY DICKEY, Arkansas                   DAVID E. PRICE, North Carolina
     JACK KINGSTON, Georgia                 CHET EDWARDS, Texas
     RODNEY P. FRELINGHUYSEN, New Jersey    ROBERT E. ``BUD'' CRAMER, Jr.,
     ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi              Alabama
     MICHAEL P. FORBES, New York            JAMES E. CLYBURN, South Carolina
     GEORGE R. NETHERCUTT, Jr.,             MAURICE D. HINCHEY, New York
    Washington                              LUCILLE ROYBAL-ALLARD, California
     RANDY ``DUKE'' CUNNINGHAM,             SAM FARR, California
    California                              JESSE L. JACKSON, Jr., Illinois
     TODD TIAHRT, Kansas                    CAROLYN C. KILPATRICK, Michigan
     ZACH WAMP, Tennessee                   ALLEN BOYD, Florida
     TOM LATHAM, Iowa
     ANNE M. NORTHUP, Kentucky
     ROBERT B. ADERHOLT, Alabama
     JO ANN EMERSON, Missouri
     JOHN E. SUNUNU, New Hampshire
     KAY GRANGER, Texas
     JOHN E. PETERSON, Pennsylvania

                     James W. Dyer, Clerk and Staff Director

                                      (ii)

    DEPARTMENTS OF COMMERCE, JUSTICE, AND STATE, THE JUDICIARY, AND RELATED
                        AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR 2000

                                  ----------

                                              Thursday, March 11, 1999.

                             DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

                                    WITNESS

    JANET RENO, ATTORNEY GENERAL

                                Opening Remarks

        Mr. Rogers. The Committee will come to order. I apologize
    for being tardy, Madam Attorney General. I will not let that
    happen again.
        This morning, we would like to welcome Attorney General
    Janet Reno to appear before the Committee on behalf of the
    Department of Justice's fiscal year 2000 budget request.
        You are seeking $18.5 billion from this Committee for the
    Department, which represents an increase of $305 million, 1.7
    percent, over fiscal year 1999. It is a modest increase for the
    Department, but does not tell the real story.
        Your budget proposes to eliminate over $1.4 billion in
    existing programs, primarily those to assist state and local
    law enforcement, which has the potential to decimate the
    significant Federal/State partnership in reducing crime.
    Clearly, this will present tremendous problems and challenges
    for this Committee.
        The Subcommittee, and I personally, continue to be one of
    the strongest supporters of the Department of Justice and its
    law enforcement agencies. We have provided increases totaling
    almost $6 billion since 1995, a 48-percent increase, to give
    Federal, State and local law enforcement agencies the tools
    they critically need to fight crime, and at a time when we are
    also trying to balance the budget.
        I am pleased to see that some of this investment is paying
    off. Serious crime has fallen by 20 percent in the last 6
    years. But our work is far from done.
        We must remain vigilant in our efforts to ensure that this
    trend continues. We must redouble our efforts in the war on
    drugs. And we must adapt to a changing world, to protect our
    communities and nation from increasing threats from domestic
    and global sources.
        This Subcommittee and the Congress will do our part by
    providing the services that you need to meet these challenges.
    While we continue to support law enforcement, we will also hold
    you accountable. There are still some serious mismanagement
    problems that need to be addressed if the taxpayers are going
    to get the most out of their investment in the Department of
    Justice.
        We can no longer continue to provide resources to INS, for
    example, without some fundamental change in its structure. It
    cannot handle its responsibilities. It has botched its mission
    over the past years, and it cannot continue.
        Madam Attorney General, as always, this Committee will
    continue to work with you to ensure that law enforcement has
    what it needs to fight crime. We appreciate your being here
    with us today.
        Before recognizing you, I will recognize my colleague, Mr.
    Serrano.
        Mr. Serrano. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just want to take
    this opportunity to join you in welcoming the Attorney General.
    I will have some questions regarding some very serious issues
    close to me at home.
        But in general terms, I come to this Committee for the
    first time in this position, and I want to be helpful in any
    way possible, for you to carry out your mission.
        Mr. Rogers. Madam Attorney General, we will insert your
    written testimony in the record, and we would hope that you
    could summarize briefly.

                    Attorney General Reno's Opening Remarks

        Attorney General Reno. Yes. I would just like to thank you,
    Mr. Chairman, because you are very correct. You and this
    Subcommittee have done so much to support law enforcement in
    the issues that the Justice Department confronts.
        I have been privileged to work with you. Congressman
    Serrano, I look forward to the opportunity to work with you and
    your colleagues, as well. It has been, to me, an excellent
    working relationship.
        In 1994, with the full support of this Subcommittee, the
    Administration attacked the crime problem by forming what you
    recognized, Mr. Chairman, as a partnership with State and local
    law enforcement, and by making significant new resources
    available for State and local law enforcement assistance.
        With police officers and prison construction, we have
    provided resources to fight crime in communities across
    America. And because of a joint effort by Congress and the
    Administration, I think, and the effort of so many people
    across the country, the nation's violent crime rate has dropped
    by more than 20 percent over the last six years, and the murder
    rate is at the lowest level in three decades.
        I think we have a choice, an exciting choice. I have seen
    America become complacent when crime rates have fallen before.
    And they just sit back, and then we watch the crime rates go up
    again.
        I think we have a choice now, to do our job in Federal law
    enforcement, to prepare ourselves for new challenges, to focus
    strategically on crime, and to help communities build strong,
    self-sufficient communities that have a lasting capability to
    effectively deal with crime and end the culture of violence in
    this nation.
        My first responsibility has to be to Federal law
    enforcement, to make sure that we have sufficient prison space,
    and that we have the tools that are needed to do the job. Then
    I think it is important to use the limited dollars that we
    have, in the wisest way possible, to help communities become
    self-sufficient.
        For fiscal year 2000, we are requesting $21 billion for the
    Department of Justice to provide a more focused approach to
    fighting crime at the state and local level, to be prepared to
    combat cybercrime and terrorism, to curb drug abuse, to enforce
    our immigration laws, to improve Federal law enforcement
    efforts in Indian country, and to be prepared for the rise in
    our prison population.
        Mr. Chairman, I look forward to working with you. There are
    difficult issues. We sometimes disagree on what law enforcement
    needs. But I know that we agree, totally, that it is important
    that we work together to support them in every way that we can.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        [The information follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Rogers. Thank you, Madam Attorney General, and you are
    correct. You are a pleasure to work with. And although we
    differ occasionally, we are on the same highway.
        Attorney General Reno. Mr. Chairman, if I could solve some
    of our mutual problems faster, it would probably be easier for
    you to work with me.
        Mr. Rogers. Well, you got that right. You are starting off
    well. [Laughter.]

                                     calea

        Mr. Rogers. I want to talk to you about a special topic
    here.
        Last year, I expressed to you our continued frustration and
    concern over the lack of progress in implementing CALEA. As I
    have said before, for me, there are two fundamental principles
    that both the Federal Government and the industry must work
    together to ensure are met.
        One, CALEA must happen. Law enforcement has to have it. The
    nation needs it. And continued impasse is unacceptable.
        Two, CALEA can and will be done without costing the Federal
    Government more than the $500 million that has been authorized
    for it. This is what law enforcement, the industry, and the
    Congress agreed to back in 1994. It has been four years of
    stalemate, now. It is time to settle this issue and get on with
    it.
        First, as I understand it, the FCC will soon rule on what
    final capabilities are required under CALEA--the technical
    standard. Can you tell us the status of the FCC's action, and
    when you might expect a final ruling on that?
        Attorney General Reno. As you may know, the FCC has
    tentatively concluded that five of the nine missing
    capabilities in dispute are indeed required by CALEA. The
    Department is pleased with this ruling and believes it goes a
    long way towards addressing law enforcement needs.
        We hope that the FCC will issue a final decision in early
    May. And we hope that everyone will do whatever is right and
    appropriate to press the FCC for a continued expedited review
    of this matter.
        Mr. Rogers. I think I hear you. And we will. This
    Subcommittee, of course, has oversight of the FCC, as well. We
    would have heard their testimony Tuesday, but the weather
    prevented that. So we will be hearing from them soon. And we
    will again urge them, as you have, to act fairly but quickly.
        Industry has raised concerns that these capabilities
    insisted by on law enforcement, the so-called punchlist, will
    drive the costs of CALEA up to as much as $5 billion. How do
    you respond to that concern that they have?
        Attorney General Reno. Over the course of the past several
    months, the Department and the FBI have been involved in
    discussions with manufacturers of telecommunications equipment.
    It is these manufacturers that are developing solutions. And
    these manufacturers know what the cost of CALEA will really end
    up being.
        While the information shared by manufacturers is sensitive
    and subject to non-disclosure, I can tell you that for some
    manufacturers, the level of effort associated with the
    development of these capabilities represents less than 20
    percent of their total effort.
        Mr. Rogers. Last year, you told me that once the standard
    was decided on--that is, by the FCC--we would have a green
    light to move forward to implement CALEA. We have already given
    $100 million in the pot for this.
        But as you know, there are serious concerns over the costs
    of implementing CALEA. Do you have a plan to spend the money,
    and how will it address those concerns?
        Attorney General Reno. Mr. Chairman, it has taken me four
    years to bring you some really good news on this subject. But
    today, I can finally say we are very close to an initial deal
    with a major manufacturer that will set implementation in
    motion.
        This manufacturer has recently given the FBI a best and
    final offer for the government to acquire, through carrier
    partners, a right-to-use license for its CALEA solution. The
    FBI and the manufacturer have entered into a letter of intent,
    setting the parameters for upcoming contract negotiations.
    Under this letter of intent, the manufacturer would provide its
    software at no charge to any carrier using its platforms, now
    and in the future.
        We hope to close this deal within the next 60 days. Once we
    have closed the deal, we are going to take a flexible approach
    to deployment, so that law enforcement's highest priority areas
    are upgraded first, allowing all other areas to defer
    deployment, consistent with a carrier's normal software upgrade
    and deployment cycles. We will permit sitting down with
    industry to ensure complete understanding of this proposed
    rollout.
        Mr. Rogers. Can you move forward with your plans without
    final FCC action?
        Attorney General Reno. We intend to proceed with our
    discussions with the industry, whether or not there is a timely
    decision by the FCC.
        Many manufacturers have informed us that in order to meet
    the June 30, 2000 compliance date, they began serious
    development efforts months ago. In doing so, they have
    incorporated the ability to turn on or off any of the
    capabilities determined by the FCC not to be within the scope
    of CALEA.
        Mr. Rogers. Can you assure us that these actions will
    reduce the financial burden on both the government and the
    industry?
        Attorney General Reno. Yes, we think these steps will
    address several concerns raised by the industry in our shared
    goal of keeping the Federal Government's cost within the $500
    million authorization. First, we believe we will be saving
    carriers significant costs they would otherwise bear, because
    we are providing the solution for free for all of their
    switches.
        Also, by negotiating with manufacturers on large-scale
    reimbursement of their development efforts, we are taking
    advantage of the economies of scale. Each manufacturer with
    which we have detailed discussions has assured us that their
    prices are the lowest possible, and represent a price far less
    than what they would be charging individual carriers if
    carriers had to purchase the solution directly from them.
        Mr. Rogers. Do you believe that this proposal will finally
    break the logjam on CALEA?
        Attorney General Reno. We are hopeful that this will break
    the logjam. Our efforts, to date, in pursuing a solution with
    one manufacturer have precipitated increased interest by
    others. By continuing our dialogue with carriers on flexible
    deployment, we hope we can address their concerns on the June
    30, 2000, compliance date.
        I would add, with respect to the earlier question, that we
    will also be deferring deployment until normal upgrade cycles
    should significantly reduce the financial burden on the
    carriers.
        For example, one major carrier has told us that this would
    reduce their deployment costs by a factor of 20. Another RBOC
    has said it will reduce their costs by three times. So I think
    that will be encouraging.
        Mr. Rogers. So you are building some flexibility then into
    the implementation of CALEA, within some degree of reason?
        Attorney General Reno. That is correct, sir.

                            calea and rural carriers

        Mr. Rogers. Now one of the foremost concerns with CALEA
    that we have confronted has been the problem facing small,
    rural carriers, who should not be burdened with CALEA, because
    they either lack the resources to become CALEA-compliant by the
    deadline, or they do not represent a real law enforcement
    priority. Very few taps are made in certain regions.
        Unless the Department of Justice recognizes those facts,
    many small carriers could be faced with tremendous costs, with
    little gain for the law enforcement community.
        What assurance can you give us that you intend to relieve
    the burden on these small rural carriers?
        Attorney General Reno. We recognize that the small carriers
    of the telecommunication industry may have difficulty in
    meeting CALEA's June 30, 2000, compliance date. I believe these
    concerns can be addressed in the following manner.
        First, the vast majority of small rural carriers' switches
    were installed prior to January 1, 1995. Under CALEA, these
    switches are grandfathered in until the government agrees to
    reimburse the carrier for the cost of implementing CALEA, or
    the carrier makes the business decision to significantly
    upgrade the switch.
        I know there is a tremendous amount of concern over how we
    will define the term ``significant upgrade.'' When we issue the
    rule on significant upgrade, we plan to take a very liberal
    approach to the definition. And in most cases, the impact to
    the majority of carriers would be that they would not be
    considered to have undergone a significant upgrade until after
    June 30, 2000.
        What that means for small, rural carriers is that they
    would have to virtually replace their entire switch to trigger
    the significant upgrade bar. For example, the Y2K computer
    problem, under this approach, would not be considered a
    significant upgrade.
        Secondly, under our flexible deployment concept, and
    focusing on high-intercept areas, many small, rural carriers
    will be able to defer deployment to coincide with normal
    business cycles, which will lower the overall cost.
        And finally, the Department is willing to work with the FCC
    to structure a conditional reasonably achievable exemption for
    small, rural carriers, based on factors such as: cost, size,
    and market share. We hope to sit down with industry to go over
    the precise language that will provide this exemption to small,
    rural carriers.
        Mr. Rogers. Well, Madam Attorney General, I am very pleased
    with the progress that is being made. You know, this has been
    one of the most perplexing problems that we have faced, since
    the act came into being, and actually, since the digitalization
    of the lines took place, a few years ago.
        Very few people, I think, would understand what we are
    doing here, because it is a highly technical matter. But what
    we are talking about is the capability of law enforcement to be
    able to, under appropriate court order, wiretap, and listen in,
    legally, to try to catch the crooks and the bad guys--be they
    terrorists, organized crime figures, or other criminals.
        So it is terribly important that this be completed. And I
    commend you for your progress so far. I want us to move
    expeditiously to implement these plans so that we can, at the
    very first moment, realize for law enforcement, and for the
    community, the benefits that it portends.
        Attorney General Reno. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Rogers. I will have other questions.
        We have a single vote on the floor, I will inform Members.
    And I am told there will be about a 10 to 15 minute interlude
    before a recommital vote. So we will have to bear with the
    schedule this morning. And I think there is only five minutes
    left on this vote. So we will have to recess briefly and
    return.
        Attorney General Reno. That is fine.
        Mr. Rogers. When Mr. Taylor returns from the vote--we sent
    him over early--he will resume the hearing. And then we will be
    back very briefly. Thank you.
        [Whereupon, at 10:34 a.m., the Subcommittee recessed, to
    reconvene at 10:40 a.m., the same day.]
        Mr. Taylor [presiding]. Madam Attorney General, I
    apologize, we are going to have a series of votes, in about 10
    minutes. So Mr. Rogers wanted me to go ahead with the
    questioning.
        Since you and I are here alone----
        [Laughter.]

                               tobacco litigation

        Mr. Taylor. I would like to ask a couple of questions for
    myself. In going over the budget, I am somewhat concerned about
    the request, I believe, for $15 million for the Department of
    Justice to sue the tobacco companies. And I guess I would ask a
    series of questions, and let you expand on them, rather than
    just one at a time.
        Tobacco is a legal product. And I am not sure what the
    Federal Government is doing entering a suit such as this. I am
    not sure that they have the statutory authority. And I would
    like for you to speak to that.
        I am also concerned about the priority. I know I may
    disagree with the Administration about certain priorities. That
    is common.
        But we have not asked for this kind of money in a number of
    areas that I thought would be very important. For instance, I
    was very upset, on this Committee, a few years ago when we
    learned that we had millions of immigrants brought in, some
    10,000 or more, that were serious felons, that were let in on
    the basis of being able to vote quickly. And I wondered if we
    ever looked into that, or put any money toward that. I know we
    have the whole question of the China matter. I know the nation
    wants to get to the bottom of that, and I have not seen any
    large amount of money requested for that.
        And then in my district we have, probably all across
    America, the question of school mascot names. Regarding Erwin
    High School, in Buncombe County, North Carolina someone in the
    Justice Department said that they did not like their team name,
    and it was going to cost the school board a half a million
    dollars to defend that name. And I assume it would cost the
    same thing for the Attorney General's office.
        And so if you put that times the literally thousands of
    team's names that maybe the Justice Department is concerned
    about, that would be millions of dollars of the taypayers'
    money that would be suing Boards of Education because they used
    the words ``American Indians'' or ``Native Americans'' to
    describe the names.
        Now I have the Eastern Band of Cherokees Reservation in my
    district. They, in fact, have some of the same team names, and
    no one has objected. Buncombe County finally struck an
    agreement on what type names they should have.
        But it seemed like a very low priority for millions of
    dollars to be gathered from the taxpayers to sue, and costing
    the taxpayers in those counties millions of dollars to settle
    this situation. Whereas, it could be settled without the United
    States Justice Department getting involved.
        And then, of course, looking at the many areas that we are
    talking about here that I think are very serious, but no action
    being taken on them.
        Could you talk to me, primarily, about the tobacco
    question, do we need $15 million for the Justice Department to
    get involved in the civil actions?
        By the way, I think the Federal Government in this
    Administration looks for somewhere around $13 billion in tax
    revenue from the tobacco products, to carry out its spending
    programs.
        And so if it is evil to sell tobacco and worthy of the
    Attorney General to spend $15 million attacking it, should we
    be attacking ourselves for spending that money? Are we
    coconspirators in this?
        Maybe I should file an amicus brief on the basis of
    redirecting the suit for all of us. That's a real concern of
    mine. I suspect the general question is, what is the Attorney
    General needing $15 million to do?

                                   team names

        Attorney General Reno. I would be happy to address that and
    the priorities that you described. You described a matter that
    involved the school board of a North Carolina county.
        The department became involved in that not because somebody
    in the Civil Rights Division thought it up, but because a
    parent wrote, saying that the issue was offensive, and created
    a hostile environment.
        We did not spend millions. Staff from the Civil Rights
    Division worked with the community and the board, and the
    result was a voluntary decision. I think it is a good example
    of how things can be worked out. And we try to do that in every
    way that we can.

                               tobacco litigation

        We try to establish priorities that reflect just what the
    issues are. According to the Centers for Disease Control (CDC),
    tobacco-related health care expenditures exceed $50 billion, a
    year. Of that, more than 20 percent, more than $10 billion, are
    Medicare expenditures.
        This does not include the expenditures of other Federal
    care programs, such as those run by the Veterans Administration
    and the Department of Defense.
        Thus, I think it is a very critical issue for all
    Americans; both those who expend the money and the Federal
    Government who expends the Medicare dollars.
        In December of 1998, I decided that we had viable grounds
    on which to pursue recovery of tobacco-related health
    expenditures. Because the Department had already submitted its
    budget request for fiscal year 2000, it was clear that an
    additional sum would be needed to handle this extremely
    important, large-scale litigation.
        Accordingly, the Civil Division developed a proposal to
    prepare to litigate, to recover tobacco-related health care
    expenditures.
        We are, indeed, asking for $15 million to fund 50 positions
    and the cost of gathering, organizing, and computerizing
    evidentiary materials, providing contractor paralegal support,
    and consulting services.
        We know that our lawyers will need to master an enormous
    evidentiary record of millions of pages of documents that have
    already been produced as a result of the State litigation, to
    conduct further discovery designed to uncover many more
    documents still held by the industry, and to identify and
    master the government's own relevant documents.
        We are asking for an additional $5 million for expert
    witness costs, based on our extensive experience with
    litigation in cases involving significant potential damages.
        We believe we have taken a responsible approach to the cost
    of litigation in this matter. The State lawsuits were
    characterized by two different approaches. Most States engage
    private counsel on contingency fee arrangements. This resulted
    in unprecedented attorney's fees.
        In that context and in the context of the more than $20
    million in medical costs, the Federal Government is estimated
    to spend each year on tobacco-related diseases, the $20 million
    request for fiscal year of 2000 seems modest, indeed.
        Now, how did we determine that? The State of California
    provides a useful analogy. Like the Department of Justice, the
    State decided not to engage private counsel, but to litigate
    the case itself.
        Very much in line with our present request, the State
    legislature approved litigation budgets for that single State's
    lawsuit against the companies of $11.4 million for fiscal year
    1998, and $14 million for fiscal year 1999.
        According to the State Attorney General's Office, this
    funded 34 attorneys, 40 paralegals, and 47 secretaries. Using
    this approach, California recovered approximately $25 million.
        Our request, I believe, is very much in keeping with that
    experience.
        Mr. Taylor. Of course, I would disagree. I know there are a
    number of suits pending in the States. In fact, tobacco
    companies are settling and providing billions of dollars in
    many of those suits. And that is why I was concerned why the
    taxpayer needs to be involved.
        Of course, I think the person who smokes has a substantial
    amount of responsibility for what is happening, especially
    since the warnings since 1964 have been pretty clear. I raise
    the question of, again, why we need to be involved.

                                   team names

        In the Erwin High School situation, I did not indicate that
    you had spent millions of dollars. I know there was a
    complaint. Of course, we get, in our office, complaints like
    this many times. And where it is possible, we refer the people
    to work out the problems with their local officials.
        According to the press in our area, the Justice Department
    advised the school board that it was a violation of civil
    rights, that they would pursue it legally. And the school
    board, in discussing it with attorneys, determined it would
    take about a half million dollars to defend the name.
        And as I say, if the Justice Department is going to take
    that on as a civil rights violation, I assume it would cost the
    same thing to pursue.
        If you do that all across the nation, then you are talking
    about millions of dollars in Justice expenditure, not millions
    of dollars at the Erwin School.
        Do you consider that a civil rights violation?
        Attorney General Reno. Under the facts that were alleged,
    it was a civil rights violation. But as we pointed out, there
    is a vast difference. The community worked that out.
        You asked what interests the Federal Government has in
    tobacco litigation. The American people have spent more than
    $50 billion per year. Of that, more than 20 percent, more than
    $10 billion are Medicare expenditures.

                         rationale for tabacco lawsuits

        Mr. Taylor. Your argument sounds persuasive. If we could
    tell you, look at all the other products--have you analyzed the
    fat and so forth that is in a Whopper?
        Attorney General Reno. No, I do not eat Whoppers.
    [Laughter.]
        Mr. Taylor. I do not, either. And I do not smoke, either.
    But I assume that following your logic, we will be seeing a $20
    million request next year to go after McDonalds, because there
    is probable disease being caused by them. Hodgkin's disease is
    a very serious problem. And as medical authorities will tell
    you, a large portion of it is based on the diet that we have.
        And so we have commercials on television right at the time
    when I am the most hungry----
        [Laughter.]
        Mr. Taylor [continuing]. Coming out with a layer of cheese,
    two fat burgers, bacon, and bread--all of that, about 1,500
    calories, or something like that, of solid fat, and my
    cholesterol is moving up, just by looking at it.
        Can we devise at least a $20 million suit against those
    people for the contribution that they are making to Medicare
    and hospitals and the veterans and so forth, the cost of that?
        You see what I am saying? We go on and on and on. And, yet,
    there is not even a warning label there.
        And alcohol: we know how tragic alcohol is, and we can
    point to close to 25,000 deaths a year due to alcohol. Why are
    we not suing all the wine, beer, and liquor companies?
        You see, carried it to its logical conclusion, you will
    have the Justice Department involved in every facet of life.
    Why did we pick tobacco, which is somewhere, as far as health
    is concerned, in the middle?
        I mean, you could make a debate on which one is the worst:
    alcohol, fat, tobacco. And, yet, we have chosen to attack only
    tobacco, even though we have warned and tried to steer people
    away from it for some time.
        Attorney General Reno. I can not discuss the theory of our
    case. But if you have evidence that suggests that we should
    pursue other areas, we would be happy to review it.
        Mr. Taylor. Well, I will be happy to do that. By the way,
    the President and I both smoke cigars. And we could be put in
    the position here where we have to be a defendant in this case.
    I do not know if we will spread it that wide.
        But I think that the government has an obligation to
    educate. I think the government has an opportunity to warn,
    which it has done. I think the individual has the right to sue.
    But I am not sure about this $15 million request.
        I would like to yield to Mr. Miller for just a moment,
    before we have to recess.
        Mr. Miller.

                            extradition of del toro

        Mr. Miller. Madam Attorney General, I think you probably
    know the subject I am bringing up. It is unfortunate that I am
    having to bring it up again, because I think both of us would
    have thought that it would have been resolved by now.
        And it is very disappointing that such a horrible, horrible
    heinous crime was committed in Sarasota like the murder of
    Sheila Bellush, back in October of 1997. The accused, Mr. Del
    Toro, fled to Mexico, and remains in Mexico.
        But if you do want to go get your vote in--did you plan to
    recess?
        Mr. Taylor. Yes. Well, there are going to be about five
    more.
        Mr. Miller [presiding]. Five more votes?
        I know you have been involved in this case. I know you have
    talked to the Attorney General of Mexico. I know you have
    talked to Earl Moreland, who is the State's Attorney for our
    area of Florida.
        First of all, my community has been so upset about this
    issue, from day one. And I know you are upset. And I know
    people at the Justice Department are outraged by this horrible
    crime. I find it amazing that it is still going on.
        Can you give me any updates right now?
        Attorney General Reno. Well, as you may know, the
    government of Mexico has approved the extradition. Del Toro has
    appealed that decision, and will remain in custody in a Mexican
    prison until the appeal is resolved.
        Appeals in Mexican courts, as some appeals in this country,
    can be lengthy, because their judicial system affords many
    opportunities for procedural challenges.
        That is one of the frustrations we all feel in a number of
    instances. A country can feel somewhat frustrated at our
    extradition process. The government of Mexico has been
    supportive in this area, and we are now pending the appeal.
        Mr. Miller. I am sure you can understand the frustration of
    our community, because of the nature of the type of crime.
        Attorney General Reno. One of the great challenges I think
    we face here and around the world is how do we make justice
    thorough, fair, firm, and speedy? And we have got some doing to
    do ourselves.
        Mr. Miller. Well, this is the first case that I have been
    involved in where the Federal Government need to get involved.
    There has been good police action, all the way through, from
    the state and local to the federal people to locate Mr. Del
    Toro so quickly.
        Originally, the intent of the Mexican Government was to
    deport Mr. Del Toro. And apparently, they do deport people
    frequently. You know, it has been hard to get all the
    information pertaining to such cases. You just pick them out
    from news articles.
        There was a case last December of a person who was accused
    of murder in Arkansas, who was arrested by Mexican police, and
    was deported to Texas authorities.
        You know, Mexico made a conscious decision not to deport
    Mr. Del Toro. I do not know why. Deportation moves more
    quickly. And justice delayed is justice denied. And that is
    very unfortunate.
        So do you know anything about this situation of deportation
    versus extradition, or if more can be done to encourage in the
    deportation route, since he was there illegally?
        Attorney General Reno. I would be happy to check on it,
    sir. I do not know the details.

                          criminals fleeing to mexico

        Mr. Miller. The more we can encourage Mexico to deport, the
    better--you know, it would avoid this type of problem.
        Is there anything, any other incentives we can have to get
    these people back quicker? We had a trial in Sarasota a couple
    of months ago for one of the accused in this case. Another one
    pled guilty. They need Mr. Del Toro back. His absence has
    complicated the other trials.
        You know, Del Toro is the key. He was the one that actually
    slit her throat and shot the gun.
        Is there anything that we can do? Because this is not just
    one case in Sarasota. In searching the Internet, we found an
    article from--what city is this--San Antonio.
        In Texas City, they published a list of the 12 most wanted
    people in their community. And eight of them, all the way down
    the page, it says, thought to have fled to Mexico, thought to
    have fled to Mexico, thought to have fled to Mexico, believed
    to be in Mexico, believed to have fled to Mexico.
        This is a growing problem, because of the large border. And
    now there is the well-publicized case of the person who escaped
    from death row in Texas here, a few months ago.
        The article that was in the paper said that they thought
    the person was going to immediately leave for Mexico.
        And so the problem is a growing concern. And it is a
    growing concern for you, because it brings the Federal
    Government into play.
        What can we do? Are there any ideas as to how to avoid the
    problems like we have with Mr. Del Toro?
        Attorney General Reno. Well, for me, it has not been a
    growing concern. It has always been a concern because I have
    had as a local prosecutor in Dade County, people flee, and I
    have understood the frustration.
        I think one of the first steps we take is to make our
    justice system as speedy as possible, so that we show people
    what can be done.
        One of the cases that I think back to that does not involve
    extradition, it just involved us. It was a case involving the
    shooting of a police officer. It happened in April of 1978.
    Thirteen years later, I walked into an office, and there was a
    13-year-old girl who had just been born when her father was
    shot. And this person still had not been finally sentenced. So
    I think we can show the world what we can do by providing more
    effective, speedier, fairer justice.
        But then I think the next step, and one that I have been
    deeply involved in, is to let the world know by the systems we
    develop that there is no safe place for a criminal to hide.
        I have spent a great deal of time with the Ministers of
    Justice, particularly in this hemisphere, and around the world,
    trying to stress that; trying to ensure the extradition of
    nationals, so that the person can be tried where the crime was
    committed; trying to ensure that the processes between
    countries are clearly understood.
        My dream is to develop a system where all the extradition
    processes and papers are computerized. We push a button, and we
    know exactly what Mexico needs, or exactly what Brazil needs;
    and that we have a line of communication that provides for
    immediate prosecution, consistent with due process, and
    immediate extradition, wherever appropriate.
        I think we have made significant progress, but it is not
    sufficient. I am going to continue to try to do my best to make
    sure that the Del Toros of the world and others know there is
    no safe place to hide.

                        solutions to extradition delays

        Mr. Miller. Mexico is sort of a unique case, because of the
    large border.
        I had a resolution on the floor of the House about this
    situation last October. And, all of a sudden, people came out
    of the woodwork, members of Congress, and said, I had this
    problem in my home State of Texas or California.
        You know, this happened to be a particularly heinous crime.
    And so it got attention, and maybe this has publicized the fact
    that Mexico is a haven for murderers.
        This is difficult for me because, I have supported trade
    with Mexico. And my people back home said, Mexico is our
    friend. Why are they doing this?
        Attorney General Reno. Mexico, as I indicated to you, has
    approved the extradition.
        Mr. Miller. But the bottom line is, he is still not in
    Sarasota County Jail, and has not been to trial. And it has
    affected the other trials.
        Attorney General Reno. One of the things that I can not do,
    and neither one of us has figured out a way to do it, is to
    make courts do things when we want them to do things.
        Mr. Miller. Are there any other disincentives that we can
    create to keep this from happening?
        Attorney General Reno. I think the first step that we can
    do is to make sure that our processes are as expedited and as
    clean as possible, so that we show the world what can be done.
        And we are in the process of doing that. We are working
    with the ministers of justice to streamline the process, and to
    share information about how the process occurs and takes place,
    so that people will know that it is speedy.
        Mr. Miller. Deportation is a quicker process. That is my
    understanding. Can that be encouraged more?
        Attorney General Reno. I will be happy to, as I said, check
    on the deportation issue, and get back to you on it.
        Mr. Miller. Mexico has used it in kind of an arbitrary
    fashion. We have found at least four cases where people were
    deported--arrested by Mexican authorities and deported back to
    the States.
        Attorney General Reno. I will be happy to check on that for
    you.
        [Clerk's note.--The following information was provided
    subsequent to the hearing:]

        In the case of United States citizens who flee to Mexico after
    committing crimes, deportation or expulsion by Mexican authorities is
    often a faster and simpler means than extradition, of securing their
    return to face criminal charges in our country. The Department of
    Justice pursues this option through INS and U.S. Marshals Service
    officials based at the U.S. Embassy in Mexico City. When Mexican
    authorities choose not to deport or expel, the Department pursues the
    remedy of extradition. This takes a little more time to accomplish, but
    in most cases it results in the return of the fugitive to the United
    States.
        In the case of nationals of Mexico who commit crimes in the United
    States and return to Mexico, deportation is not an option at all and
    the only remedy available is extradition. Although Mexican law and
    practice has made it rare for them to extradite their nationals, there
    have been recent cases in which Mexico has extradited, and the
    Department hopes to see this trend continue. When Mexico does not
    extradite based on Mexican nationality, it is obligated by treaty with
    the United States to prosecute that person in Mexico for the crimes
    committed in the United States. The Department is working with Mexico
    to make sure this obligation leads to more, and more successful,
    prosecutions in the future.

        Mr. Miller. Anything that we can do to encourage
    deportation would be very beneficial.
        I hope we do not have to talk about this again. I know you
    do not want to talk about it again.
        Attorney General Reno. Well, I will tell you that you are
    going to be talking about it again. Because the next time, you
    are going to be there, and it is going to be a case in the
    Eleventh Judicial Circuit. Earl is going to be complaining,
    because the appeal is taking too long, and the collateral
    attack on his death penalty is taking too long.
        I think it is something that we have got to look at as an
    overall picture. Because the time it takes for Earl Moreland to
    see a death penalty finally executed, many people will think is
    too long. I think we have got to devise procedures so that we
    can do it promptly, fairly, and thoroughly.
        Mr. Miller. Can you identify what you have done on this
    case? I know you have had some conversations. I do not know if
    you want to discuss what you have done.
        Attorney General Reno. I have discussed with the Mexican
    Attorney General how important the case is. I have talked to
    Earl. And as I have indicated, the Mexican government, the
    Mexican Attorney General, has agreed to the extradition.
        Mr. Miller. Anything more you can do, well----
        Attorney General Reno. Well, what I am going to do when I
    leave here is check on deportation, and call you back.
        Mr. Miller. Thank you very much.
        And I think the Committee now will stand in recess. Thank
    you very much, Madam Attorney General.
        Attorney General Reno. Thank you.

                              border patrol agents

        Mr. Rogers [presiding]. The Committee will come to order.
    Madam Attorney General, I apologize for inconvenience the votes
    on the Floor have caused your hearing this morning. Somehow,
    those scheduling votes do not understand the important things
    that are taking place off the floor.
        Let me ask you now, and we will try to be as brief as we
    can, INS's budget does not add one more Border Patrol agent for
    fiscal year 2000. In addition, it does not appear that INS is
    likely to hire all of the 1,000 Border Patrol agents provided
    for in the fiscal year 1999 bill.
        Six Border Patrol training classes have been canceled. Less
    than 400 agents are currently in training. Even if the INS were
    to fill every remaining class to capacity, they would probably
    still fall short of 1,000.
        What are you and Commissioner Meissner doing to ensure that
    all 1,000 agents are on board by the end of fiscal year 1999?
        Attorney General Reno. Let me describe the issue to you,
    because this has been something that I have followed. This is
    something that may be beyond INS' control right now and I would
    like to go through it with you carefully.
        I have worked with INS in the past to speed up recruitment,
    to bring in good people, to make sure that we did not sacrifice
    quality for quantity, and to meet hiring goals.
        There is no doubt that INS is experiencing pipeline
    problems. It is receiving a considerable level of applicants.
    But the screening process, including background, medical, and
    drug testing screens--the considerable lapse of time from
    initial application to testing--and a very competitive job
    market, all contribute to the loss of candidates.
        For example, in fiscal year 1998, only four percent of
    those who applied were actually hired. Other factors, such as
    language requirements, salary and promotion potential, the
    nature of the work, and the job location, also contribute to
    the recruitment and hiring difficulties.
        The language requirement, as you know, is to possess or
    develop a significant facility in Spanish, and it is unique to
    the Border Patrol. While some assignments in other non-
    Immigration and Naturalization law enforcement occupations may
    require facility in a second language, none require it to this
    extent.
        There are also pay issues. The full performance, or
    journeyman level, for the Border Patrol is GS-9. Other INS law
    enforcement positions, such as investigators, have full
    performance levels of GS-12 or 13, and other law enforcement
    agencies are also recruiting, and are more competitive in
    certain situations.
        To fix this problem, we are doing everything that we can.
    The military, as you know, is suffering the same problem with
    respect to lack of people in the pipeline. One of the things
    that we are focused on is how we reduce the time from the
    receipt of the application to the testing, and that we combine
    and try to make as efficient as possible the time taken to
    complete all the tests and all the screening mechanisms.
        We are examining the feasibility of enlisting the
    recruiting assistance of all INS employees by offering a hiring
    award. We are initiating a contract to survey why candidates
    who were initially interested failed to take the test. And we
    will use the findings to improve the process.
        We are studying the applicant pool, those who pass the
    Border Patrol tests, and actual hires. And we are exploring
    more focused, local recruitment and examination procedures.
        These are some of the steps that we are taking. And I will
    be happy to provide your staff with the complete report on
    this, and what we are trying to do.
        I know you do not want to take too much time on the
    details. And I think we can provide you a written statement of
    just the steps that have been taken.

                           ins application processing

        Mr. Rogers. In fiscal year 1998, we provided INS with over
    $163 million; and in fiscal year 1999, another $176 million in
    program increases to address the naturalization caseload, and
    to improve the integrity of the naturalization process, a total
    of $339 million in two years.
        We provided the money. INS said they would process a
    million and-a-half applicants this year. Now it is down to 1.2
    million. INS also promised that application processing time
    would be cut to 12 months.
        Is INS on target to process 1.2 million naturalization
    applications this year? And if not, why?
        Attorney General Reno. I can not represent to you that they
    are. They feel that they will be able to achieve it. I do not
    think that they feel they will be able to achieve a processing
    time of less than 12 months for every one.
        But the reason I can not give you assurances is that in the
    first two months of October and November, we were below the
    goals that had been set for the 1.2 million. In December, we
    reached the goals, Mr. Chairman, which gave us all cause to
    believe that we were beginning to be on target. But in January
    and February, as I hope your staff has advised you, because we
    have tried to make sure that they have the information, we are
    now behind in the naturalization process by approximately
    25,000.
        Here is my analysis of why it happened. We know the
    history, and our first effort, after we discovered the process,
    and made an absolute commitment to zero tolerance for
    naturalization of anyone unqualified and took steps to develop
    a system that was based on sound principles of management, and
    provided the integrity necessary to do the job.
        KPMG, who did the quality assurance and reviewed and
    validated our integrity procedures, early on gave us a ``C.''
    By October of 1998, they had given us an ``A.'' And that was
    our first goal, to make sure that the system was done the right
    way.
        There apparently have been systems problems in implementing
    the Claims IV system. We have now identified one jurisdiction,
    the largest in Los Angeles, that has worked out the issues with
    respect to the processes and the systems problems that exist,
    and we are now trying to share that in the other five major
    cities.
        I think the other problem is--and it is not an
    explanation--but I think people are having problems
    understanding how to operate a de-centralized system. And this
    is something that I think is an issue that INS has got to face
    on a regular basis.
        We also had problems recruiting and retaining temporary and
    term employees during this period of strong economic growth. We
    have now taken steps to convert the term employees so we can
    attract people who will stay, so we will not see the high
    turnover.
        Our benefits systems branch is providing training and
    problem resolution support for field offices on the computer
    systems problems. Backlog reduction experts are working with
    key cities in implementing efficient production management
    techniques. Quality and production standards are being
    incorporated into the performance work. Additional managers are
    being assigned to field offices. We are developing a request to
    convert 300 term adjudication officer positions to permanent
    positions.
        Mr. Rogers. Will INS be able to process applications for
    naturalization, no matter where they file them in the U.S.,
    within 12 months?
        Attorney General Reno. I do not think that by the end of
    this fiscal year they will have achieved that, Mr. Chairman.
    They have concluded--they understood that it would be an
    average. I do not think that they will meet a goal of 12 months
    or less.
        I have asked and expect a suggestion as to what they
    realistically can do. And as soon as I have that, I will share
    it with you.

                                   detention

        Mr. Rogers. You know, it is just broken promise after
    broken promise with INS. They promised us, when we gave them
    the money, that they would cut the case load--that they would
    process a million and-a-half applications a year. They can not
    do that now.
        They promised us they would cut the application processing
    time down to 12 months. Now that is by the boards. They have
    still got the money. They just will not live up to their
    promises.
        Let me ask you about detention. And what I am doing here, I
    am asking you a series of questions about problems within INS
    for a purpose.
        Now, detention--INS has asked for $80 million in emergency
    supplemental funding for 3,000 additional beds to detain
    criminal aliens from Central America, and illegal aliens from
    Central America.
        If we do not provide the funds, criminal aliens could be
    released into the community while awaiting deportation, and
    waves of new illegal aliens may reach our southwest border on
    the hopes of being released, for lack of detention space.
        The need for emergency detention space is, in large part, a
    direct result of INS' failure to plan for and request, in a
    timely fashion, sufficient detention space to meet its
    statutory requirements. And it represents the latest in the
    long and continuing series of mismanagement failures by the
    INS.
        In spite of having two years to prepare for the mandatory
    detention of criminal aliens--criminal aliens--INS failed to
    request the necessary funds to prevent criminal aliens from
    being released into our communities.
        This is not the first time that INS has failed to request
    sufficient detention space to house criminal and illegal
    aliens. In fiscal year 1997, Congress provided program
    increases of over $114 million--$70 million over what was
    requested--for detention, due to the then shortage of space,
    which resulted in INS releasing criminal and illegal aliens.
        In fiscal year 1998, we provided over $178 million for
    detention and related costs, including construction funds for
    expanding INS detention facilities, the full amount that the
    Administration requested for such costs.
        In fiscal year 1999, the first year that the mandatory
    criminal alien detention rules became fully effective, the INS
    request fell far short of its needs for immediate space.
        Madam Attorney General, knowing that INS did not have
    enough detention space to detain all the criminal aliens
    required by law, why did they not request funds for contract
    space earlier?
        Attorney General Reno. I think one of the major reasons is
    that INS was hoping that the TPCR would be extended, and then
    informally approached the Immigration Subcommittee to seek the
    extension. These discussions were ultimately unsuccessful.
        I think it, in retrospect, was a mistake not to include a
    request for additional detention resources in fiscal year 1999,
    and much the same can be said of the request for fiscal year
    2000. In hindsight, both budgets should have included requests
    for much greater detention resources.
        Mr. Rogers. INS knew they did not have the space. What
    happened? Why are we, once again--every year, we are called
    upon to bail out some massive mistake that the INS has made, in
    spite of the fact that you have told us now for, I think, four
    or five years running, that you are going to personally oversee
    the problems at the INS? Help me out.
        Attorney General Reno. I think that INS, again is--I think
    I described to you what happened. I would like to work with you
    to address the projected shortfall to that end.
        I have written to OMB Director Lew to develop a
    comprehensive solution to the problem. It is uncertain what the
    funding implications are for fiscal year 2000, because we are
    working on a comprehensive package.
        But among the options I want to explore with OMB and the
    Congress are, in addition to the funding and legislative
    amendments, to restore some measure of discretion to release
    lawful, permanent residents who do not present a danger to the
    country.
        Somebody who has been here for 30 years as a lawful,
    permanent resident, and had a burglary conviction when he first
    got here, and has his family and everyone here, and is
    established in business, I don't think should be detained. But
    that is a small number, relatively speaking.
        We need to take further steps to improve the management of
    detention resources, including improvements to INS efforts to
    expeditiously identify and remove criminal aliens from Federal,
    State and local prisons. We will need to work together on
    amendments to the Fiscal Year 2000 budget.

                        disciplinary action of ins staff

        Mr. Rogers. No matter how many problems or catastrophes INS
    has, and there have been tons, no one is ever held accountable
    over there.
        After the Citizenship USA catastrophe, absolutely one of
    the lowest points in American history, in my opinion, selling
    of American citizenship, and then the deception--deliberate
    deception--by INS agents of a congressional task force, during
    a visit to Miami, we gave you, in 1998 and 1999, the direction
    and authority ``to impose disciplinary action, including
    termination of employment, for any employee of the INS who
    violates policy set forth by the Department, relative to the
    granting of citizenship, or who willfully deceives the Congress
    or Department leadership on any matter.'' And we directed you
    to take appropriate disciplinary action.
        How many INS employees have been disciplined or fired as a
    result of what happened and the authority we gave you?
        Attorney General Reno. First of all, let me clarify
    something. You spoke of the situation in Miami. That occurred
    before Citizenship USA. And as you know, the Department took
    firm action.
        As I suggested to you in previous years, I look forward to
    working with you in reviewing the processes and procedures of
    the Merit Systems Protection Board to ensure that these
    disciplinary actions are properly processed. With respect to
    this issue, no one has been fired. The Inspector General is
    reviewing the issue.
        However, I can tell you that in fiscal year 1999, the
    following actions were taken. Three district directors received
    letters of concern and strong management counseling from the
    Executive Associate Commissioner, the field operations relating
    to their respective district's performance under the KPMG audit
    of naturalization quality procedures. One regional director
    received a letter of concern and management counseling. The
    head of a district sub-office was reassigned to lesser duties,
    after it was determined that performance in adjudication
    processing was subpar. Three large districts' project managers
    for naturalization had been superimposed over the current
    management structure, in order to focus attention of needed
    production management.
        Mr. Rogers. Well, I am sure they are all quaking in their
    boots, now that they have gotten a letter saying, do not ever
    do that again.
        You have the authority to override the Merit Systems
    Protection Board in this specific matter. Here we had evidence
    of the selling of American citizenship. We had deliberate lying
    to the U.S. Congress. And no one has been punished.
        Attorney General Reno. Are you referring, by the lying to
    the United States Congress, to the issue that arose in Miami?
        Mr. Rogers. I am.
        Attorney General Reno. I will be happy to review that with
    you, to the extent that the matter is not subject to the
    Privacy Act, and show you, Mr. Chairman, exactly what was done,
    the steps that were taken, and what the result has been.
        I am unaware of any authority I have to overrule the Board.
    But I would like very much to sit down with you, because this
    is the second year in a row that we have discussed this. It is
    as frustrating for me as it is for you.
        With respect to the second matter, if I can find, or if the
    Inspector General, at the conclusion of the investigation,
    gives me anyone who has sold citizenships, I will pursue them
    as vigorously as I possibly can.
        Mr. Rogers. You are the prosecutor. When you were a
    prosecutor in Miami, and when I was a prosecutor in Kentucky,
    no one had to ask me to prosecute somebody when I found
    evidence of committing a murder, or robbing a bank, or
    something. That is your job.
        And, we have got tons, wheelbarrels full of evidence of
    crimes in the INS that are just going unpunished.
        Attorney General Reno. I will be happy to sit down with you
    and review the wheelbarrow full of evidence that you have, and
    tell you exactly what steps we have taken.
        Mr. Rogers. I do not have it. You have it. I do not want
    it. It is your job to prosecute. It is your job to oversee.
        Attorney General Reno. I will be happy to----
        Mr. Rogers. In this agency, it seems like they have a badge
    of innocence that no one can penetrate. I do not know what it
    is about the INS that carries, it seems like, a shield around
    them, that no one can penetrate, even the Attorney General.
        Attorney General Reno. Let me go back over it again, Mr.
    Chairman, so there is no doubt about it.
        The Miami situation, which you lump with Citizenship USA,
    arose some time before. The act that you referred to had not
    come into effect. The INS and the Justice Department took
    action.
        Mr. Rogers. You wrote some letters.
        Attorney General Reno. No, sir, we did not write some
    letters.
        Mr. Rogers. Transfers.
        Attorney General Reno. We have been through it before. We
    disciplined people, demoted people, terminated one person, as I
    recall. We went through this at this last hearing, where you
    were so emphatic, and I would like to be as emphatic back.
        Now the process through the Merit Systems Protection Board
    did not sustain those issues. I would like to really sit down
    and go over it with you, so we can see what can be done.
        Now with respect to the Citizenship USA matter, the
    Inspector General is reviewing and investigating. You, as a
    prosecutor, know that the prosecutor does not go out and file
    the charges before the investigator has completed the work.
        We are determined to pursue any wrongdoing here. I am the
    one that is ultimately responsible for it. I am going to be
    responsible to you.
        Mr. Rogers. There has been nothing done about Citizenship
    USA.
        Attorney General Reno. The Inspector General is completing
    his investigation.
        Mr. Rogers. It is not the Inspector General's purpose to
    prosecute. It is the Attorney General.
        Attorney General Reno. I cannot prosecute until the
    investigation is complete and I have the evidence, Mr.
    Chairman, and you know that.
        If your sheriff in Kentucky had said, I have not finished
    my investigation, and you went out and filed charges without
    the investigation being complete, you would not think much of
    what you had done.
        Mr. Rogers. But you are not relying on the Inspector
    General to furnish you evidence of the crimes or other
    misdoings in the Citizenship USA matter, are you?
        Attorney General Reno. I have asked the Inspector General
    to review all of this, and to develop any evidence that he can.
        Mr. Rogers. Is he the only person looking into this?
        Attorney General Reno. No, he has a considerable staff that
    is looking into it.
        Mr. Rogers. But who else is looking into it?
        Attorney General Reno. The Inspector General is looking
    into it.
        Mr. Rogers. Is that the only agency that is investigating
    Citizenship USA?
        Attorney General Reno. It is usual practice in the
    Department of Justice for the Inspector General to review
    matters that relate to misconduct on the part of INS. And the
    Inspector General is doing it.
        And I will be happy to keep you advised, consistent with
    what I can release, about the steps that are being taken.

                                  ins problems

        Mr. Rogers. I would like to share with you a list of INS
    shortcomings, failures, even negligence:
        Failure to include in the fiscal year 2000 request one
    single Border Patrol agent, in spite of an authorization for
    1,000; failure to plan for adequate and immediate detention
    space, putting Congress in the position of either granting an
    emergency supplemental request or releasing criminal aliens
    back onto our streets, and then blaming the Appropriations
    Committee for inadequate funding in testimony before the House
    Judiciary Committee on the subject, when INS failed to request
    adequate funds for four years, 1997 through 1999, and now 2000;
    failure to get the Institutional Removal Program running
    effectively, to swiftly but fairly remove criminal aliens, with
    the benefit of saving detention space, costs, and money;
    requesting funds for interior enforcement in 1999, without a
    strategy, and producing a strategy nine months late;
    Citizenship USA, whereby criminals were naturalized by
    sidestepping or ignoring FBI criminal background checks;
    representation to Congress, the press, and the American people
    that naturalization application processing times would decrease
    to 12 months by the end of Fiscal Year 1999, as a result of new
    resources, and then not abiding by that promise; an over two
    million application backlog in benefits, other than
    naturalization, primarily because INS is placing most of its
    service resources into making the naturalization process work,
    and still falling short; serious financial management problems;
    audits in 1997 and 1998, which state that INS does not have
    sufficient internal controls to ensure that accounting records
    and relevant documentation support balances in their financial
    statements; an outside organization report in 1999, which gives
    INS a ``D'' in financial management; a $300 million shortfall
    in base fiscal year 1999 funds; an apparent failure to manage
    its automation program, evidenced by a March 1998 Inspector
    General report, which has predicted unnecessary cost increases;
    failure to meet even an extension in deadlines for reports
    requested by this Committee; misrepresentation of the fiscal
    year 2000 budget to the Congress, the press, and the public by
    stating that INS was proposing additional funds for
    naturalization backlogs and improvements, when it was not
    proposing any additional funds; refusal to postpone a press
    conference, so that Members could be given adequate notice that
    they were about to receive new INS resources in their
    districts; the release of Committee reports by a high-ranking
    INS official to the public over the express objection of this
    Committee--even the Commissioner was aware of that request not
    to release those reports; and finally, no accountability for
    any of those problems.
        Madam Attorney General, what will you do about the INS, an
    out-of-control agency that we have discussed now for these many
    years? The problem just gets worse and worse and worse. And I
    am at the end of my rope.
        Attorney General Reno. As I told you at the outset, and you
    said it was a fairly good beginning, there are problems that we
    have; that are my problems, that I am responsible for, that I
    wish I could get solved faster than I have.
        But you have given us a litany of the wrongs. I would like
    to tell you why it is a better agency, and what we can do to
    make it an even better agency.
        When I took office and went to the border, people came
    across the border with impunity. There was, in effect, no
    Border Patrol capable of even beginning to stem the tide. They
    did not have the equipment, the technology, or even the
    beginnings of sophisticated automation. They had papers stacked
    in boxes and no plans.
        After that, almost immediately came the Peso crisis. Now we
    see a fragile economy throughout the hemisphere. We see one of
    the worst hurricanes of this century, and the impact it has
    had.
        But nonetheless, we have an enhanced control of the border.
    We have doubled the size of the Border Patrol. We have provided
    an effort focused on alien smuggling, which has now become the
    concern of everyone, whether it be along the southwest border,
    or along the Florida Straits. INS announced in November the
    dismantling of the largest, most sophisticated alien smuggling
    operation in U.S. history. Some three weeks later, it announced
    another example of what it was doing to interrupt this
    trafficking in human misery.
        In addition, they had to be responsible for becoming
    lifesavers along the border. As they increased their number
    along the border, they became ever more responsible for dealing
    with the drug traffickers.
        At the same time, when I first went to the border, there
    were lines everywhere. INS, working with Customs, has now
    streamlined many of the ports of entry, and will continue to do
    more along the border. In technology and in efforts at the
    airports, 97 percent of the time INS is completing its check
    within the 45 minutes that Congress mandated.
        In asylum, when I took office, the enforcement of the
    asylum laws made a mockery of our immigration laws. Now, we
    have confidence in the system. Petitions numbered 124,000 when
    I took office. They number 35,000 now. There were new laws to
    deal with that were massive in implication: the 1996 Act and
    the Welfare Reform Act.
        With regard to naturalization, Mr. Chairman, INS inherited
    a system that was slap-dash, that had processes that were
    archaic. They have reformed that system and developed a zero
    tolerance for mistakes and a system that ensures the integrity
    of the system, and it does not rely just on itself to say so.
    It has gone to KPMG to make sure that we see results and that
    when we check, we can be sure that these results are validated.
        In 1998, they naturalized some 610,000 people. In 1999, in
    the first four months, they naturalized 307,481 people. Yes,
    Mr. Chairman, it is too slow. But considering all that this
    agency has had to deal with, where it began, and the
    responsibilities that continue to be placed upon it, in many
    instances through forces that INS has no control over, they
    have done, I think, not a job I would like to see them do, but
    a job that indicates that they can solve problems, just not
    fast enough.
        They are one of the fastest-growing agencies in government.
    Their numbers have increased from 18,000 to 32,000 employees
    since I took office. As you know, managing growth, along with
    managing the other issues that they have faced, is a very
    daunting task. What we are going to do is continue to address
    the detention issue closely.
        I would like to work with you on the issue and get that
    addressed. One of the things that I have asked Commissioner
    Meissner to do is to talk with the Director of the Bureau of
    Prisons to see if we can identify somebody who is an expert in
    detention who can deal with some of the issues that we are
    confronting in the detention process.
        I have directed steps be taken to immediately speed up the
    process with respect to the Institutional Hearing Program, and
    to reach out to the State Department to ensure that we have
    appropriate papers and that we address the issue of necessary
    travel documents. I have discovered that one of the causes for
    people not immediately being sent back to the country of origin
    is the lack of necessary travel documents. These are some of
    the steps that we are taking in that regard.
        With respect to Border Patrol, let me take issue with you
    there. It was not negligence. It was not sloppiness. It was not
    malice or evilness or badness or dumbness that made the
    Commissioner and myself determine that we should not ask for
    additional Border Patrol agents in this budget. It was
    representation by law enforcement officials over a long period
    of time who said that when 30 percent of the people in a police
    force have limited experience, you are beginning to run a risk.
    We now have about 40 percent or more of the people in INS who
    have three years experience or less on the Border Patrol. That
    creates a situation that police chiefs will tell you is not in
    the interest of the organization.
        We made this budget request based on the desire to make
    sure that these agents were assimilated with appropriate field-
    training officers with enough experience who could guide them
    as they came to the field. We wanted to make sure that we had
    technology in place that maximized their use in every way
    possible. This was a conscious decision. You may disagree with
    it, but please do not ascribe bad motives to it.

                               restructuring ins

        Mr. Rogers. I would not do that. I do not think I have. If
    I have, I withdraw that. But what I am saying to you is that
    this is an agency that cannot handle the problems it is charged
    with handling as presently organized. Money is not the answer.
    We have proved that. We have thrown money at INS that they
    cannot spend. This is evidence of that.
        We have given them huge budget increases. We have
    quadrupled this agency's budget in a short span of time. It is
    an agency that is not organized properly. I do not know what
    the problem is with changing it around. It needs to be
    reorganized and streamlined, it seems to me, and a lot of other
    people, including Barbara Jordan's Commission, which
    recommended that the agency be reorganized to get away from
    this inherent conflict in its missions--at once punishing
    immigrants and also granting them their rights.
        It is an inherent problem in the makeup of that agency. You
    and I have talked about this at great length. In fact, there is
    one recommendation of your Department that the INS be
    reorganized in a certain fashion, and I agreed with a lot of
    that, but I did not think it went quite far enough.
        Do not you agree that there should be some degree of
    reorganization of this agency to try to accommodate the huge
    problems that they are faced with?
        Attorney General Reno. We have been working on
    restructuring issues, and we would like very much to work with
    you to address these problems. I do not agree necessarily with
    your suggestion that there is an inherent conflict between the
    two missions. I think they go together, and I think it is
    important that we work together to address them. You may not
    think we go far enough, but we, I think, can both work together
    in a spirit of cooperation. I pledge to you to do that.
        Mr. Rogers. I thank you. My frustration with INS continues.
    I have to tell you, it is the most frustrating agency of all
    the ones that we deal with, and we deal with many, from the
    Supreme Court to the embassy in Moscow.
        Attorney General Reno. It is the most frustrating problem
    that I deal with.
        Mr. Rogers. And, well, I am glad to hear that. I mean, it
    is good news, and it is bad news.
        Attorney General Reno. Mr. Chairman, the most important
    thing that we can do right now, and I would like to make a plea
    for it; we have got to make sure we can restructure, and we
    will work with you in every way that we can. There are so many
    dedicated people in that agency that do a tremendous job for
    the American people.
        Mr. Rogers. I agree.
        Attorney General Reno. We have got to make sure that when
    they hear us talking, they know that we are supporting them
    when they do their job. I know you feel that way, but it is an
    agency that picks up the paper, and goes, oh, my goodness. I
    want them to know that they do a great job, those Border Patrol
    agents, the inspectors, the investigators, the detention
    people. They make me very proud, and we have got to give them
    not just money, as you point out, but a structure and a
    function that can enable them to do their jobs.
        Mr. Rogers. You and I are in perfect agreement on your last
    statement. You have got some wonderful, dedicated people out
    there trying their best to give the American people good
    service. But you and I have got to give them an agency that is
    structured in a way that does not cause them to fail, and I
    think that is what is happening. Those dedicated people are
    being let down by you and me because we are not organizing this
    agency to accommodate their talents.
        Attorney General Reno. Well, I look forward to working with
    you to do it.
        Mr. Rogers. It has been a long time.
        Attorney General Reno. Well, sometimes things take a long
    time, Mr. Chairman. But this has taken longer than I would
    like. But every time I think that we have turned the corner,
    there is a new crisis, or a new hurricane, or a new something
    that is impacting the agency. So, we just take it from one day
    to the next and keep trying to build something that will have
    lasting effectiveness.
        Mr. Rogers. Could we set a timeline for restructuring? Can
    you and I agree on some timeline, any timeline, for
    reorganizing this agency to some degree. I think we both know
    where the major problems are.
        Attorney General Reno. Here is what I would like to do,
    because I said that we could agree on it. I am sure that we
    could agree on an ultimate timeline. Rather than make a blithe
    promise, could Mr. Colgate and I come see you and talk to you,
    at your convenience, about how we would work together on this
    issue?
        Mr. Rogers. Would you charge him with the responsibility of
    making this reorganization take place? He would love that.
        Attorney General Reno. Yes, but he might not like all that
    you want done. We have got to work together. I have an open
    mind and a commitment to trying to build something that you
    will have confidence in, that will serve the purposes of INS
    and that will give the people, who are doing such a wonderful
    job for this country, the knowledge that they have the most
    efficient way of doing it.
        Mr. Rogers. Well, I am at the end of my rope.
        Attorney General Reno. Do not give up yet, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Rogers. Well, I am just about ready to. In fact, I have
    been wanting to abolish this agency now for a year or two.
        Attorney General Reno. I know.
        Mr. Rogers. I think we are not serving the American people,
    and we are wasting and spoiling the work of the people in the
    INS, those talented people, because the structure is so
    botched. It is built for the 18th century, and we are into
    almost the 21st now. And I think you and I are going to suffer
    in history because we did not do anything about it.
        Attorney General Reno. I am going to get in my truck and
    drive off and not worry about what history thinks of me.
        Mr. Rogers. Okay. Will you help me out, then?
        Attorney General Reno. I just want to try to do my job now,
    Mr. Chairman, and I am going to try to do my best. That
    includes trying to do everything I can to work with you to
    address this problem.
        Mr. Rogers. Mr. Latham has not had a chance, I do not
    think, have you? I am sorry. Mr. Serrano has not had a
    question. I am sorry. Mr. Serrano.

                       additional comments on immigration

        Mr. Serrano. That is okay, Mr. Chairman. It is that kind of
    a day.
        Let me first apologize for the scheduling today, which both
    parties are probably somewhat responsible for.
        Attorney General Reno. Please do not worry about that. I
    just have to tell you, I do not see how you all do it; go home,
    run for office every two years, go back and forth, handle a
    budget that staggers the imagination and keep up with the
    votes.
        Mr. Serrano. Thank you.
        Attorney General Reno. I'm proud to be a part of a
    government that has people willing to do that.
        Mr. Serrano. And somehow manage to make baseball and soccer
    games, too.
        You know, one of the difficulties in this kind of a
    relationship is that you make a new friend. Mr. Rogers and I
    have quickly struck a bond here that I think will work well,
    but we also, because we come from two different political
    philosophies, at times we do what many human beings do and look
    at things differently.
        I think when Mr. Rogers shows his frustration some of it is
    well based. Some of it is the aftermath of a very important
    turning point, I think that took place here a few years ago. We
    see on TV, and we read in the newspapers about the meanness in
    American politics. That seems to be the subject. I think that
    meanness, in all honesty, started when some people went to the
    House floor and made targets of immigrants and began hitting
    immigrants really hard. And I think that that created a feeling
    then that the agency that was in charge of dealing with these
    immigrants was a bad agency.
        Now, had you been present, and I was not, at the 11 o'clock
    Congressional Hispanic Caucus meeting this morning, I am sure
    if INS had come up, the issues would have been totally
    different from the ones we have discussed here, and most of
    them probably not favorable to INS. But we do understand two
    things, that they have a lot of good people--this has been said
    here--who are trying to do a very difficult job, and that you
    have made a gigantic effort to try to get this agency under
    control and to help them out in dealing with the issues.
        And so, in my district office you will hear the complaint
    that I am waiting too long to become a citizen, and I have done
    everything the right way, and in another district office in a
    different part of the country you might hear that INS is
    allowing all of these people to come into the country and
    nothing is being done. It is the same agency, and you wonder
    how could they be accused of doing all of these different
    things at the same time.
        Now, you will hear people throughout these debates talk,
    for instance, about the Border Patrol. But some of those folks
    were the same ones, and not the Chairman--I never heard him say
    it--who wanted the Army at the border, which is another issue
    altogether.
        And so all that is to say that I know, and I think a lot of
    people know, the effort that you have undertaken. I know that I
    will try to work very closely with the Chairman to make sure
    that the concerns we both have about INS are dealt with and
    that we can begin to solve some of these problems. But we do
    have to be careful, as you have said, that we do not send the
    wrong message to the people who day after day do this kind of
    work.
        And I am careful, incidentally, in moving on to another
    subject, to ask questions that deal with things that you have
    undertaken or are intending to undertake. I respect the work
    you do, and I respect the office that you represent. With that
    in mind, let me publicly thank the Department of Justice for
    joining EPA in my congressional district in undertaking the
    first ever environmental civil rights investigation in New York
    State.
        I think that will set a tone for behavior in this country.
    The question is, why did my congressional district get singled
    out for 73 waste-transfer stations in an area with two schools
    and the Hunts Point Produce Market, which handles 80 percent of
    fruits and vegetables throughout the Northeast. And I want to
    thank you for that.
        On the other hand, I do have a question. And let me quickly
    preface my question, Madam Attorney General, by saying, that I
    realize that my role here, especially this new role I have, is
    to look at all the issues, national and international, that all
    of our agencies deal with, and I try to do that. But you happen
    to be involved, or could be involved, in some issues that
    affect a lot of people in this country. One of them, which has
    gotten national attention happened just a few blocks from where
    I live and where I have been all my life.

                     ``PATTERN OR PRACTICE'' INVESTIGATION

        And as you know, on February 4, 1999, an unarmed West-
    African immigrant with no criminal record was killed during the
    morning hours by four New York City police officers who fired
    41 shots at him in the doorway of his Bronx apartment building.
    It is unclear why the police officers opened fire. The man,
    Amadou Diallo, 22 years old, is a gentleman who came here to
    America more than two years ago from Guinea and worked as a
    street peddler in Manhattan. Diallo died at the scene. The
    Bronx District Attorney's Office is investigating the shooting,
    the details of which are still murky.
        Now, I have been in constant contact with the Civil Rights
    Division of the Department of Justice, and I have requested
    that an investigation of ``pattern or practice'' of the New
    York City Police Department be made public and broader in its
    scope. And I would like in a few seconds for you to comment, if
    you can, on my request that that investigation be a public one
    so that the public will feel good about it.
        And let me tell you where I think I can single out the
    difference between the relationship between the police and the
    people in New York City today and how it used to be in the
    past. I grew up in a Puerto Rican and African-American
    community, and if there was one thing about the police
    department you always knew, it was that you had a few young
    people complaining about the police, and then all of the older
    Hispanic and Blacks telling the younger people they are here to
    help us. They are our friends. You guys have to stop doing
    this, stop picketing, stop complaining. They are our friends.
        Now, Madam Attorney General, when I go to a street
    demonstration, or when I see a rally in my district in New York
    City, it is senior citizens, Blacks and Hispanics, on the
    picket lines and the demonstration lines saying, we do not feel
    safe, we do not feel safe for our children, and we do not feel
    safe for our grandchildren.
        If that does not worry people in this country and in that
    city, I do not know what should. When you begin to lose the
    respect and the support of the very people who have supported
    you throughout history, you have got a problem. It is in some
    ways, similiar to the situation that happened in China where,
    the Chinese people always saw the army as their strongest
    supporter, and when the army took to street the against the
    people, something broke that will never be the same.
        The people in New York City, the older folks, the ones who
    are retired, the ones who used to support the police, are
    asking for help, and we need your help. We need you to do what
    you do best, which is to come in and take a look, take a
    serious look and find out, indeed, if there is a pattern of
    abuse.
        Let me just close with this. We know crime numbers are down
    throughout the country. We even had some people suggest in the
    city that the war against crime is like any other war, that
    there are innocent casualties. But that is not the sense of the
    people that I represent. The sense is that there is no respect
    any longer, and they ask do you feel more threatened at times
    by the police than you do by the local mugger?
        You know how to deal with the local mugger. You really do.
    You know what street to stay away from, what corner. It sounds
    terrible that you have to do that in this society, but you know
    how to do that. I can show you how to avoid trouble in the
    South Bronx, but I cannot show you how to avoid trouble from
    the police. And I would hope you would comment on whether this
    investigation will be made public and what the extent will be
    of your Department in bringing about justice, because everybody
    is waiting.
        Attorney General Reno. Mr. Serrano, I just appreciate your
    comments very, very much, and I can assure you that we are
    actively investigating the Diallo case. On the criminal side,
    the FBI opened an investigation into this shooting the day
    after it occurred. The FBI, the U.S. Attorney for the Southern
    District of New York, and the Civil Rights Division have been
    working closely and actively with the Bronx District Attorney's
    Office on the investigation.
        We are not just monitoring this case while the district
    attorney handles the investigation. Mary Jo White, the U.S.
    Attorney of the Southern District, is personally involved in
    supervising the federal role in the investigation.
        We take the matter of police misconduct very seriously.
    When these incidents occur, the entire community, as you point
    out, are the victims. Since 1993, we have prosecuted over 300
    law enforcement officers who have engaged in misconduct,
    resulting in over 200 convictions. Since 1994, we also have the
    authority to file civil suits against police departments that
    engage in patterns or practices of police misconduct.
        These investigations can result in court orders or
    settlements requiring police departments to change the way they
    operate so the problems of the past are not repeated in the
    future. We have used this authority effectively in addressing
    systemic problems. We reached consent decrees with two police
    departments, Pittsburgh, and Steubenville, Ohio, and we have
    several other pattern-and-practice investigations under way.
        After the incident involving the beating of Adler Louima,
    the United States Attorney for the Eastern District of New
    York, Zachary Carter, began a preliminary inquiry to determine
    whether the Department should invoke its pattern-of-practice
    authority against the New York Police Department. This inquiry
    is ongoing, and the Department is now coordinating its efforts
    with the Civil Rights Division, the two United States
    Attorneys' Offices for the Eastern District and the Southern
    District, to examine other aspects of the New York Police
    Department in light of the issues raised by the Diallo
    shooting.
        Also, as you probably know, the U.S. Civil Rights
    Commission press reports indicate it will hold a hearing
    concerning police practices in New York City and will also
    undertake a review in other cities.
        I think that the issue you raise is one that is critical to
    this country--how we reduce crime and make people feel safe
    while at the same time having confidence in their police. I
    think one of the most gratifying things that I have seen is
    that because of community policing, because of police officers
    who made that elderly lady feel safe enough to come out from
    behind her door and go to the local community center and voice
    her opinion, because of the efforts of community police
    officers who become the mentor rather than the enemy of the
    young people in their neighborhood, we have seen a new attitude
    about policing in many communities across this nation. I think
    that it has not only helped, but this attitude has helped
    reduce crime because people want to help their police officers.
        To that end, we had a program last year, approximately six
    months ago, as I recall, where the National Institute of
    Justice and our COPS Office held a conference on police
    integrity and the use of force. I think we can do so much, in
    addition to our enforcement responsibilities in terms of
    training and encouraging and recruiting people into policing
    who see it for the remarkable role that it can be, not just of
    a sword or a shield, but also of the peacemaker and the problem
    solver in the community.

                               COMMUNITY POLICING

        Mr. Serrano. Thank you. One of my concerns, you know, is
    what happens when one of these issues comes forth, and it is
    been happening too often in New York recently. Right away
    people speak about a residency requirement, to have police
    officers live in the city, or changing the 48-hour rule which
    says that a police officer involved in a shooting does not have
    to speak to anyone for 48 hours, which always gives the
    impression that somehow the story is being ironed out for the
    press and for the investigation.
        But, you know, I am wondering if your Department, in its
    oversight and investigations in the future, can begin to deal
    with suggestions to the New York City Department on how to
    prepare its officers, because I have a feeling that the answer
    may not be residency, although it is tied to where you come
    from to be a police officer. I really think that one of the
    major problems is the following, and in all honesty, not too
    many people are paying attention to this.
        Most of the police officers in New York City, according to
    statistics, are young people who come from the suburbs of New
    York. And I have to say this very carefully, Madam Attorney
    General, but I think it is a reality of life. If you grow up
    white, in a middle-class neighborhood, in a suburban
    neighborhood, chances are you might hear some people in your
    neighborhood speak about other groups as either being anything
    from lazy to criminal, from violent to scary.
        And I wonder if you grow up that way if there is any way
    before you become a police officer and are given a gun and X
    amount of rounds, bullets, a way to find out if you fear these
    folks that you are going to police.
        Now, that may not sound dramatic to some people, but I
    think at the heart of the problem in New York City is
    individuals who have no knowledge of the people they are
    policing and who, from the time they look at them, fear them.
    And so if you fear, you may reach for the equalizer, which is
    your weapon, when the weapon should be the last thing you use.
        And I am suggesting that maybe in the conversations, in the
    investigations and the consent decrees and whatever, is a
    suggestion to New York City--You know, there are some people--I
    could not be a police officer. That is why I admire 98 percent
    of police officers in New York City because I could not do that
    job. But if you fear people, if you have a preconceived feeling
    that these people are going to hurt you the minute you look at
    them, you should not be allowed to be a police officer. If you
    hate children, you should not be a teacher.
        Attorney General Reno. I think these are the issues that
    are addressed in pattern-and-practice investigations relying on
    people who have expertise in the area, and I will share your
    thoughts when I return to the Department of Justice.
        I think being a police officer is probably the single most
    difficult job I know to do. You have got to make legal
    decisions without going to law school. You have got to make
    medical decisions without going to medical school. You have got
    to quell an angry crowd. You have got to solve crimes, protect
    the communities, build trust. But there are an awful lot of
    great policemen and policewomen, and we have got to make sure
    that they are surrounded by others.
        Mr. Serrano. And let me close by saying that it is for
    their protection, too, that we make sure that we do not allow
    other people to misbehave.
        Attorney General Reno. I have already told the Chairman, I
    think he does a good job. I think you do a good job, too, no
    matter what you say.
        Mr. Serrano. Thank you.
        Mr. Latham. Thank you very much. I hope after I am done you
    will say the same thing about me. Thank you.
        Attorney General Reno. Yes.

                        competition in the pork industry

        Mr. Latham. The reason I am staying around, I know we have
    a markup at 1 o'clock and have to get done, and I want to
    submit some questions for the record later, but as you may be
    aware of and may be not, in the Midwest in agriculture we have
    tremendous problems today. We had a situation in the livestock,
    particularly in pork in December where prices went to historic
    lows.
        And I have had 25 town meetings since the first of the
    year, and the thing that I hear all the time is that if, in
    fact, the Justice Department were doing its job, they would be
    looking at the issue of the packer concentration, the lack of
    competition, problems with contracts that are questionable to a
    lot of producers right now. And I guess I understand you have
    got--you know, the Department monitors the meat-packing
    industry, and you have got some attorneys and economists that
    focus your attention on the industry. I just wonder, has the
    Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration
    referred any matters to you as far as competition?
        Attorney General Reno. I am not sure whether they have
    referred any matter formally. Obviously, this matter has come
    to our attention, and we have focused on it. The Antitrust
    Division has spent lot of time trying to determine whether it
    has authority in this area.
        What I would like to do, if I may, is, since I have not had
    a chance to talk directly to Joel Klein, the head of the
    Division, is talk with him. Then if it would be okay with you,
    call you and go over it in detail so that we give you not just
    talking points, but something where I have really had a chance
    to talk with Joel and give you the best opinion we can. Because
    apparently, from what I see, there is concern that there is not
    Antitrust authority, because there is not a restraint of trade.
    Let me go over it with him, understand what the situation is,
    and make sure we give you the best opinion we can.
        Mr. Latham. I would suggest that the vast majority of
    producers out there would disagree, and you are probably well
    aware of the reason of the collapse of the market was because
    of the over 80 percent of the hogs are captive on contract to
    packers, and the capacity was not there. The ones with the
    contract have the ticket in the door. The rest of them, if they
    cannot be killed when they are ready, they are not worth
    anything, and that is what happened.
        Attorney General Reno. I would like to make sure that we
    have the exact facts, and that I go over it and I understand
    it, so that when I come back to you, I give you both the
    informed and expert opinion of the Antitrust Division, plus my
    limited antitrust overlay of it.
        Mr. Latham. I just want to emphasize how important this is
    in agriculture today in the entire Midwest, and I think it begs
    a lot of questions. Vertical integration has been brought to my
    attention. You know, look at the track record in the Justice
    Department. All kinds of mergers and consolidations. Nothing
    seems to be beyond stopping, whether it is in the financial or
    the oil industry or grain or whatever, communications. But that
    is what I hear all the time.
        Attorney General Reno. Let me review it very, very
    carefully for you.
        Mr. Latham. Okay. The reason I stated it was to bring pork
    to your attention today.
        Attorney General Reno. Well, let me tell you why I have a
    particular sensitivity to it. We had cows, and we had a dairy
    down the street from us. It was profitable for the dairyman to
    sell me a small calf, and I would take it home and raise the
    calf and make some money on it. Then, the bottom dropped out of
    the calf market, and that was the most terrible day of my life,
    I thought, at that point. So from a very narrow, very limited
    point of view, I just remember the feeling, and I will pursue
    this as thoroughly as I can.
        Mr. Latham. And we have tens of thousands of pork producers
    in Iowa who are on the verge of going into bankruptcy and out
    of business, and it is a huge issue. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        [Clerk's note.--The following information was provided
    subsequent to the hearing:]

        At the Attorney General's appropriation hearing, Congressman Latham
    asked the Attorney General about the Justice Department's involvement
    in investigating the meat packing industry for possible antitrust
    violations, and whether the Department of Agriculture's Grain
    Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration (GIPSA) had referred
    matters to the Justice Department.
        Following the hearing, an attorney in the Antitrust Division
    contacted Congressman Latham's legislative assistant. After describing
    the Antitrust Division's enforcement authority and recent enforcement
    activity with respect to meat packing, the attorney sent the
    legislative assistant a copy of congressional testimony given by Deputy
    Assistant Attorney General David Turetsky, in June 1996 describing in
    more detail, in the context of the livestock and meat industry, the
    types of conduct that the antitrust laws prohibit. The attorney invited
    the legislative assistant to call back if there were further questions
    or concerns.
        In most respects, the Justice Department has the same antitrust
    enforcement authority in the livestock/meat packing sector as in other
    sectors. One exception is that the Capper-Volstead Act provides limited
    antitrust immunity for cooperative associations of agricultural
    producers, including livestock producers. The Department has conducted
    a number of investigations in the agricultural sector in recent years,
    leading to a number of enforcement actions, including the criminal
    prosecution of Archer Daniels Midland and others for fixing the price
    of the feed additive lysine, and the merger challenge resulting in the
    divestiture by Monsanto of certain corn seed biotechnology assets,
    among others.
        The Antitrust Division has a good working relationship with GIPSA;
    for example, an investigation conducted with GIPSA's assistance led to
    the criminal indictment of two cattle buyers in December 1997 for bid
    rigging.
        The antitrust laws prohibit specified kinds of conduct: collusion
    among two or more firms to restrain competition, exclusionary conduct
    on the part of a firm to acquire or maintain a monopoly, and anti-
    competitive mergers. These are the kinds of activities against which
    the Antitrust Division has enforcement authority.
        The Antitrust Division has conducted extensive outreach in recent
    years in the livestock industry, and is familiar with the issues of
    concentration and vertical arrangements about which Congressman
    Latham's constituents and others have expressed concern. Neither
    concentration nor vertical contracting in and of themselves violate the
    antitrust laws. These factors can be important, however, in determining
    whether a proposed merger is likely to substantially lessen
    competition. These factors can also be a helpful backdrop, along with
    other market information, against which to assess allegations of
    collusion or monopolization.
        The Department opens antitrust investigations only when there is
    information giving a reasonable basis for believing there may be an
    antitrust violation. The Department is always on the lookout for such
    information, and asks anyone who believes they may have such
    information to contact the Antitrust Division.

        Mr. Rogers. Thank you. Who says this Committee does not
    deal in pork?

                            DEA Financial Management

        Madam Attorney General, as you know, this Committee has
    been very supportive of the DEA. In fact, we have provided
    enormous budget increases over the last three years for DEA,
    over and above your budget requests. But I am disturbed and
    appalled by the fact that, despite these efforts, DEA has not
    been spending their money the way we provided it.
        In fact, it is come to this Committee's attention that
    other than the last two years the DEA has shifted over $200
    million within its budget without any notification, not to
    mention approval, from this Committee, which has jurisdiction
    over those changes, changes which would be subject to approval
    by this Subcommittee. What do you have to say about that?
        Attorney General Reno. Well, I was as upset as you were
    when I first learned of it. I tried to figure out how we would
    not have found out about it. Apparently, it was a practice that
    had been engaged in for some time. And I wondered, since we
    provide for financial audits each year, why we had not picked
    it up. As soon as we picked it up, we advised the Committee and
    advised the Senate as well.
        One of the things that I am exploring with Mr. Colgate now,
    having realized that the audit cannot catch it, is whether
    there is some programmatic procedure or audit that we can use
    to address the problem? I would like to come back to you on
    that. We are looking at the implementation of a connection of a
    financial management system that provides control and would
    review the programs, as well as the expenditures.
        We have contracted with Price Waterhouse Cooper to review
    DEA's centralized payment process. The January 1999 report
    acknowledges the work DEA has done in an internal control and
    makes recommendations for further improvement. We are looking
    at the allocation of resources to make sure that they have the
    financial capability of doing it.
        The other thing, Mr. Chairman, I asked Mr. Colgate: how do
    we know that the others are not doing it as well? We need to
    take steps to make sure that they are not. I am going to have a
    meeting of component heads, law enforcement component heads, to
    make sure that we address the issues, that we address a number
    of issues, with respect to making sure that we have properly
    supervised this.
        Mr. Rogers. Well, I wish it were just an accounting glitch,
    but it is not. I mean, you have got some officials over there
    that cannot even tell you where $30 million went, for example.
    But there seems to be a pattern. In 1997, they shifted around
    $68 million without notifying us or getting our approval. In
    1998, they shifted $124 million without notifying us or getting
    our approval.
        We only discovered it when they confessed about it at the
    end of 1998. But the pattern seems to be they are taking money
    from the foreign program, large amounts of monies, the very
    areas that the Congress provided additional money for over the
    request, for the foreign operations. But they are shifting that
    money back into management and administration--headquarters--
    and domestic programs and task forces, which need money, but
    these are the monies that we wanted to go to foreign
    operations.
        And this seems to fit the disturbing policy of the
    Administration to withdraw from the international drug war to
    concentrate everything here, which we, the Congress, have
    disagreed with. So we put additional monies into the foreign
    program. We also gave you all of the monies you asked for and
    more for domestic operations. But we also believe the foreign
    operations of DEA are terribly important, we put extra monies
    in for that, too. Now that money is being siphoned back away
    from that very purpose. We will not stand for that. This is not
    an accounting glitch or some small error. This is a policy
    shift of $200 million contrary to the Congress's desire, and we
    want it stopped.
        Attorney General Reno. Well, I want it stopped, too. Let me
    explain, because I am delighted to hear you talk about the
    international consequences.
        I sometimes worry when I deal with some Members of Congress
    that they do not understand or appreciate our concentration
    around the world in terms of effective efforts in law
    enforcement, prosecution, money laundering, and other
    initiatives. I have recently had the opportunity to visit in
    Bogota and in Lima to see the DEA in action in both cities, in
    both countries, and to see the respect and regard that law
    enforcement in those countries have for DEA and for the agents.
    So let me second your motion.
        [Clerks note.--Subsequent to the hearing, the following
    information was provided:]
                         DEA Foreign Program Allocation
        Thanks to the efforts of this committee, Drug Enforcement
    Administration (DEA) has received many new agents for its foreign
    offices in the past few years. DEA is grateful for these increases, and
    has placed priority on allocating positions and filling vacancies.
        As of April 1999, DEA had 61 more agents on board in the Source
    Countries of Bolivia, Burma, Colombia, Mexico, Peru, Thailand, and
    Pakistan than it had in 1996. To address the specific concerns about
    Bolivia and Colombia, I can provide you with the following: (1) in
    Bolivia, there were 40 agents on board, an increase of 13 over 1996 and
    (2) in Colombia, there were 38 agents on board, an increase of 21 over
    1996.
        I don't know why you are hearing information that differs from what
    I have been provided. We will follow up on this to resolve the
    discrepancy and to reassure you that these resources have been
    allocated and deployed as I have described.
        As of April 1999, the total allocation of agents for the 7 Source
    Countries was 208. On board, also as of February 1999, was 183.
    Therefore, there were 25 vacancies, which means that 88 percent of the
    agents allocated were at post. A total 17 agents have been selected to
    fill these vacancies, 5 are awaiting transfer documents, 8 are in
    language training, and 4 are awaiting medical clearances.

        Mr. Rogers. So will you get to the bottom of it and let us
    know what happened, get the money back and stop it in the
    future?
        Attorney General Reno. I cannot tell you that I can stop
    everything, but I am going to do everything I know how to do to
    stop it in the future.
        Mr. Rogers. Do you want us to do it, or do you want to do
    it?
        Attorney General Reno. Well, we are not all going to be
    around for ever and ever and ever, Mr. Chairman, so I cannot
    give you the total future. I can give you what I am here to do
    and the steps that I am taking. Now, with respect to finding
    the money, I think, and I will ask Ms. McAuliffe to work with
    you all to make sure that we have identified it, know where it
    is and know where the people are.
        I am told that the agents are not in all of the countries
    and not in all the numbers identified by Congress. There has
    been an allocation of the agents, and we will make sure that
    you have the full information, that we get to the bottom of it,
    and that you are satisfied that we have done everything that we
    can.
        Mr. Rogers. All right. I want to know where every dollar
    that we allocated was shifted to go where it should not have
    gone. I want to know why it was shifted, that it is back in its
    place, and who caused that shift.
        [Clerk's note.--Subsequent to the hearing the following
    information was provided:]
                               DEA Reprogramming
        DEA is working hand-in-hand with staff from the Department of
    Justice (DOJ) and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to provide
    the House Appropriations Committee with the following:
        A complete accounting of all unreported reprogramming activity that
    occurred in Fiscal Years (FY) 1996-1998.
        A full explanation of how this unreported movement of funds
    occurred.
        DEA's plan to rectify the situation through significant changes in
    management oversight, procedures and policies. Once these procedures
    are in place, DEA is confident that all reprogramming activity will be
    fully reported to Congress.
        DEA will submit a revised FY 2000 base budget for Congressional
    review. This new budget will be thoroughly reviewed by DOJ and OMB
    staff. Any and all changes that take place as a result of this base
    `scrub' will be fully documented to ensure congressional understanding
    of any changes implemented by DEA to better manage and track its
    resources by program.
        DEA and DOJ are in active communication with House Appropriations
    Committee staff on this project and will provide supplemental
    information to this report upon request. This report is scheduled to be
    provided to Congress in May, 1999.

        Attorney General Reno. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Rogers. And when can I have that report?
        Attorney General Reno. Within 30 days, Mr. Colgate says.
        Mr. Rogers. And I want names, addresses, and telephone
    numbers.
        Attorney General Reno. To the extent that I can under the
    law, I will give you what I can.
        Mr. Rogers. And I want the assurance that if they do this
    again, that it will not be fun.
        Attorney General Reno. That it will not be fun?
        Mr. Rogers. Any fun.
        Attorney General Reno. It will not be any fun if they do it
    again, but I think I could say something firmer.
        Mr. Rogers. Well, we will not stand in your way.
        Attorney General Reno. Thank you.
        Mr. Rogers. We are going to get you out of here very soon.
        Attorney General Reno. I am fine.
        Mr. Rogers. I know we are going over.
        Attorney General Reno. I do not mind at all.

                           ojp grant program requests

        Mr. Rogers. I apologize for keeping you here beyond the
    appointed hour, but we will be as brief as we can.
        Now, not only does the Administration's budget request once
    again propose to eliminate the Local Law Enforcement Block
    Grant--you zeroed that out--and the Juvenile Accountability
    Block Grant, zero. But most surprising is that you are asking
    us to eliminate the State prison grant program as well. Now, I
    am curious. Is this something OMB did, or is this something
    that you did?
        Attorney General Reno. Well, I did ask to fund the Local
    Law Enforcement Block Grant, the State prison grant program,
    and the Byrne grant program. I did not ask for the Juvenile
    Justice Block Grant program.
        Mr. Rogers. But OMB said no.
        Attorney General Reno. Yes.
        Mr. Rogers. Well, have those programs been so unsuccessful
    that they warrant elimination?
        Attorney General Reno. First of all, with respect to the
    Byrne grant, we did not ask for the 1999 level. It has been
    successful, and it will continue to be successful. But, Mr.
    Chairman, you are in the same situation that I am in. You were
    a local prosecutor. You understand that local prosecutors and
    local law enforcement are on the front line. You also
    understand that they need certain independence.
        We made a decision when we took office that crime was of
    such magnitude in the United States that we had to forge strong
    partnerships, and we had to provide some assistance to
    communities to give them the chances Congressman Serrano has
    pointed out: to build trust, to get people out from behind
    their doors, and to get communities working again.
        Because of your efforts, this Subcommittee's efforts, the
    Administration's efforts, and a lot of dedicated people around
    this country, crime is down six years in a row. Juvenile crime
    is now down three years in a row. When we passed the Violent
    Crime Act, I think we realized that the amount of money spent
    for State and local law enforcement and corrections was not an
    unlimited pot. It could not go on forever and still forge the
    principles of federalism that we hold dear. At some point there
    would not be the necessity for it.
        We made a decision that with crime down so significantly,
    with our responsibility in terms of Federal prisons, we should
    put our money where our prime responsibility was and recognize
    that States had to be able to assume, on their own, the
    responsibilities for their correctional systems. At the same
    time, the Government would provide initiative monies that could
    help them forge new plans and new programs.
        That is what we have tried to do here; come up with a
    focused effort that supports community building and supports
    community self-sufficiency as effectively as possible.

                              cops budget request

        Mr. Rogers. And on the COPS program, how much was your
    request to OMB?
        Attorney General Reno. What I did with the COPS program, is
    ask for $697 million for programs that ended up under the 21st
    Century Community Policing Initiative. When it became clear
    that the Administration did not have enough discretionary
    budget authority under the caps to meet the resources, we sat
    down, and put our heads together to develop a responsible State
    and local financial assistance package, within the caps, that
    provides resources where we felt they were most needed.
        Mr. Rogers. Specifically, on COPS, how much did you ask
    just for the COPS program?
        Attorney General Reno. Approximately $300 million.
        Mr. Rogers. And OMB, I mean, the budget request we got says
    $1.3 billion. You only asked for $300 million.
        Attorney General Reno. You are talking just about the
    COPS--
        Mr. Rogers. Just about COPS.
        Attorney General Reno. The $300 million. What about
    technology? The $300 million was for COPS----
        Mr. Rogers. Right.
        Attorney General Reno. The $300 million was for COPS as we
    have known it, and then the balance of about $400 million was
    for technology.
        Mr. Rogers. OMB increased your request for the COPS program
    from $300 million to $1.3 billion. Correct?
        Attorney General Reno. Not to $1.3 billion. I did ask for
    $697 million, that was approximately $300 million for COPS for
    bodies and re-deployment, and the balance of about $397 million
    for technology.
        Mr. Chairman, what police agencies are telling me these
    days is what they need more than anything else is the capacity
    to develop the technology, understanding that they will not be
    dependent upon us forever, but rather, trying to develop a
    partnership. If there is technology that we can share, we want
    to try to do that. If we have an expensive piece of equipment
    that is necessary in terms of investigation of cybercrime, we
    want to be able to share that. In other instances, we have got
    to be able to develop the capability in local law enforcement.
        We also have to address the communication needs and the
    wireless needs of local law enforcement. So what we tried to do
    was to fashion, with OMB, a package that addressed local law
    enforcement needs.
        Mr. Rogers. Mr. Serrano, anything?
        Mr. Serrano. No.
        Mr. Rogers. I have some questions that I can submit for the
    record, I think----
        Attorney General Reno. Okay.
        Mr. Rogers. That could be answered as easily for the record
    without your testimony.
        Madam Attorney General, we especially thank you for staying
    late, but more importantly, we thank you for being here, and we
    thank you for your service to your country.
        You and I and all of us here, we will disagree on some
    things, but I do not disagree or take away from your intent,
    your motives, which I think are pure and patriotic, and I
    appreciate your sacrifice in serving your country.
        It is a sacrifice. You have made reference to our
    schedules, but I think we could also make reference to your
    schedule and the complexity of the issues that you are faced
    with, which are staggering to us and to everyone else.
        So we appreciate your service. We thank you for your
    testimony here today and for your presence and the followup
    information that we look forward to receiving.
        Attorney General Reno. Thank you, sir.
        Mr. Rogers. Thank you very much. The hearing is adjourned.

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                             Wednesday, March 17, 1999.

                        FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

                                    WITNESS

    LOUIS J. FREEH, DIRECTOR, FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION;

                                Opening Remarks

        Mr. Rogers. The Committee will come to order.
        This morning we would like to welcome the Director of the
    FBI, Louis Freeh, appearing before the Committee on behalf of
    the FBI's budget request for fiscal year 2000.
        You are seeking $3.293 billion from this Committee for the
    FBI, which represents a net increase of $210 million, 7 percent
    over the total comparable amounts available to the FBI in
    fiscal year 1999.
        We have tried to respond to your resource needs so that the
    United States is better protected, better prepared to respond,
    and better informed on the threat of terrorism, violent crime
    and other violations of Federal criminal law. In the last four
    years, we have increased funding for the FBI by almost one-
    third, including $700 million in new resources to assist you in
    responding to the increasing terrorist threats that we face
    both at home and abroad. The FBI's mission is to perform these
    responsibilities in a manner that is responsive to the needs of
    the public and is faithful to the Constitution of the United
    States.
        In 1999, law enforcement all over the country will have new
    tools to fight crime, as we will finally witness our large
    investments in IAFIS and NCIC 2000 come to completion.
    Investments in a new crime laboratory, DNA identification
    systems, command and control centers and training will also
    allow for a better response to the crime problems facing the
    nation.
        This will be an extremely difficult budget year for this
    Committee, and I guess all of the others. The FBI will be given
    no exception to having to justify every dime that it needs and
    to demonstrate to us that the additional resources will make a
    difference. Hopefully, this hearing will provide you one
    opportunity to do that today, and we appreciate your being
    here.

                            recognition of wade houk

        Before we proceed, Mr. Director, I would like to take a
    moment to inform the Committee about a tremendous loss this
    Subcommittee and the Bureau will soon face. As you know,
    Director Freeh, this will be the last appropriations hearing
    for your Assistant Director and Chief Financial Officer, Wade
    Houk, who is retiring next month after 33 years of service to
    this country.
        Wade has probably spent more time working on issues
    affecting this Subcommittee than any person that I know of,
    starting with the USIA in 1966, later moving to the Department
    of Justice, the Bureau of Prisons and, finally, for the last
    two years, at the Bureau. Wade has always been responsive and
    candid to this Committee, and in doing so, he has earned our
    trust and our high regard. He will be missed, but we wish him
    well in his new endeavors.
        Wade, thank you very much for your service.
        Mr. Houk. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate that very
    much.
        Mr. Rogers. Mr. Serrano?
        Mr. Serrano. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Chairman, I also want to welcome the director to this
    hearing and thank all of the people that are here with him. I
    had the opportunity, for the first time, with the chairman to
    go to the FBI offices here in Washington last week. As you
    know, on many occasions I have introduced my political
    philosophy here by making the statement, ``I am a child of the
    sixties.'' So it was quite an experience for me to go to the
    FBI office. It was a great meeting, and I learned a lot, and I
    found out a lot about the FBI's needs.
        I am looking forward to the director's testimony and I
    thank him in advance for the service he renders our country and
    the service the whole Bureau renders our country.
        I look forward to this hearing today, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Rogers. Thank you.
        Director Freeh, if you would like to open with your
    comments summarizing your written statement, which we will make
    a part of the record.

                        FBI Director's Opening Statement

        Mr. Freeh. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and members of
    the Subcommittee. It is a pleasure to be before you again.
        Let me just add my thanks and appreciation to you, Mr.
    Chairman, and members of the Committee for outstanding support
    of public safety in the United States and national security,
    which is reflected in the budget history which you just
    recounted for us.
        The country, I believe, and the people that we protect are
    better today, because of the time, attention, care and
    resources that have been furnished not just at the FBI, but to
    all Federal, State and local law enforcement agencies.
        I also want to add my appreciation to Wade Houk for his
    tremendous service to the country, and only most recently to
    the FBI. I have not begun to deal with the issue of how I will
    replace him. He has been a tremendous asset to us. And the
    credibility that he has not just within the Bureau, but as you
    expressed very generously, with the Committee, has been a great
    asset for all of us.
        I thought I would just summarize, very briefly, my written
    testimony, and highlight some of the initiatives and planning
    that we have incorporated into our budget process and a few of
    the particular items which we feel are worthy of some attention
    and which, as always, this committee will carefully consider.

                           challenges facing the fbi

        We recently celebrated, as you know, the 90th anniversary
    of the FBI. I am a little bit past my midpoint in terms of my
    term of service, and I want to ensure that both the resources
    which we already have utilized, but more importantly, the
    planning, particularly in areas of infrastructure, technical
    ability and capabilities that will give us the ability to work
    in the next century. In a new environment and in a world where
    technology has impacted directly on what we do, which is the
    gathering, use, analysis and dissemination of information. I
    want to make sure that, as we enter the next century, the FBI
    and the American people have the tools to deal with this
    technology.
        With respect to some of the overall problems and
    transcending issues that we deal with, we see more and more now
    the integration of different programs represented in various
    initiatives by the FBI. For example, the Southwest Border
    initiative. It is a multi-agency counterdrug effort,
    principally led by the DEA, the FBI and Customs who are working
    better together than ever before in the history of those
    agencies--but it not only represents counterdrug programs, it
    represents white-collar crime programs, in terms of corruption.
        We deal not only with Mexican cartels, but with gangs in
    Logan Heights that work directly for some of those
    organizations. We deal with a broad array of different crime
    problems integrated into one large initiative, and that is
    becoming more and more the trend of enforcement activities.
        Another challenge, in terms of dealing with what we do, is
    the internationalization of crime, which continues on a rapid
    basis to change the way we investigate crime and also prevent
    crime, including terrorism. I think the example of the very
    tragic East-African bombings in August highlights not only the
    internationalization of what we do, but the necessity to plan
    and prepare for those types of incidents. So I want to
    particularly thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the
    Committee for preparing the FBI to deal with that situation as
    well as I believe we did.
        As I noted before to you, the first agents on the scene of
    those tragic bombings in both cities were newly established
    legats, FBI legal attaches, one from Cairo and one from
    Pretoria. Had they not been in their newly established legats
    it would have been perhaps a day, instead of hours, before they
    were at the crime scene and talking to the leadership of that
    country. As a result we were able to get two of these
    defendants brought back to the United States within 20 days of
    the bombing.
        Another broad challenge we need to continue to deal with is
    the demographics of our FBI workforce. Thirty-one percent of
    our Special Agents have under five years of service. This is a
    dramatic change over just the last few years. In 1995, for
    instance, 9 percent of our agents were GS-10--that is the entry
    grade level. Today, it is about 17 percent.
        On the other end, in terms of experience, in 1995, 74
    percent of our agents were GS-13s. That is the journeyperson
    position, or a senior investigator. Now it is down to about 61
    percent. The training, not just the basic training, but the in-
    service training of these agents is a very important issue for
    us to deal with.
        The increasing pace of technology, as I mentioned, is
    presenting challenges to our very method of doing business;
    gathering information, analyzing it, and then disseminating it
    promptly and in a timely fashion, not just to FBI consumers,
    but to the other agencies who need information in that regard.
        The Title V exemption, which you granted us on a trial
    basis, has been very successful in helping us to meet that
    challenge. Some of the people who are being hired in the FBI
    are of extraordinary talents. We are hiring Ph.D.s in computer
    sciences and Ph.D.s who ran chemical programs in major private
    industry companies. They are coming into the FBI because of the
    flexibility and the expanded authority which that exemption has
    given us.
        With respect to our necessity to keep upgrading the science
    and capability of our laboratory, our National Infrastructure
    Protection Center dealing with cyber crime, these are very,
    very good investments and very successful initiatives.

                            fbi national priorities

        With respect to our strategic plan, we have identified a
    number of different national priorities. All of those
    priorities are predicated by our assertion and restatement of
    our FBI core values. Our FBI core values are not just
    highlighted by our 90th anniversary ceremony, but really in
    everything we do. They are an important part of our mission
    around which we want to assemble the tools and skills to
    perform it, and that is the obligation to rigorously obey our
    Constitution, to respect the dignity of those that we protect,
    compassion, fairness and uncompromising personal, as well as
    institutional, integrity. We feel that with all of the other
    changes going on, in terms of our mission, technology,
    demography, these essential core values have to be protected.
        Our three national priorities in our five-year strategic
    plan are: first, national and economic security; second,
    criminal enterprises and public integrity which affect not just
    institutions of Government, but the entire level of crime and
    safety in our country; and third, crimes with respect to
    individuals and property.
        Our five operational support strategies to perform these
    priority missions have to deal with intelligence, information
    technology; applied science and engineering; management; and
    assistance to our State, local and international partners--that
    latter strategy becoming more and more important not just in
    terms of the programs which you mentioned, Mr. Chairman, IAFIS,
    NCIC 2000, NICS, and our laboratory upgrading. We have become
    much more of a participant, and much more supportive of the
    State and local police communities and the integration between
    the FBI and that community, which represents 14,000 police
    chiefs around the country.
        I met yesterday in Alexandria with the IACP leadership, in
    terms of the State and provincial chiefs, which is the largest
    component of the IACP. The relationships and support between
    the FBI and those State and local chiefs has never been better.
    I was very proud to see them yesterday.

                             information collection

        Quickly, with respect to the overview of the 2000 budget,
    we have summarized exactly what it is that we have asked for.
    We have broken that down into a number of specific areas where
    we sought some increases. One has to do with the information,
    collection, and analysis of what FBI agents and support
    personnel do on a daily basis, which is acquire and access
    information and evidence. We have asked for 56 positions, $48.9
    million with respect to that.
        We are finding, as Assistant U.S. Attorneys around the
    country are finding, that as important as FBI special agents
    are to perform our work, the skilled analysis and collection of
    information by expert support personnel, which form the
    products that guide and direct our investigators, as well as
    solve cases, is a very, very important area and one where we
    need to strengthen ourselves.
        With respect to information sharing, we have highlighted
    this project as a five-year upgrade, with the basic ability to
    acquire information, understand it and then share it with our
    State and local partners, as well as FBI consumers.
        This initiative, which is broken down into three phases, is
    not the invention of new software and new systems. This is to
    put us in the same position as every major corporation in the
    United States where electronic management of information, its
    analysis and dissemination, can be done efficiently and
    according to the state of the current art, which we do not
    have.
        With respect to collection management, again, we have asked
    for some resources to give us information specialists in all of
    our 56 offices to help the information sharing initiative get
    online and become effective and efficient.
        With respect to investigative information services, we have
    asked for the continuation of support to use currently
    available and publicly available databases which help us
    conduct searches and collect law information in furtherance of
    our investigations.

                           technology and cyber crime

        In the area of technology and cyber crime, as you know, Mr.
    Chairman and other members of the Committee, for the last three
    years I have tried to highlight this particular program
    increase area. And the reason for that is, as we do enter the
    new century, we do need the basic tools of information
    technology to conduct our job. We deal with people sitting in
    Russia who use laptop computers to break into New York City
    banks and steal millions of dollars. We deal with pedophiles
    using Internet technology to come into someone's home and make
    an arrangement to meet a minor someplace, and with people who
    break into other information systems, sometimes Government,
    sometimes private.
        Criminals, are using computer technology and cyber tools to
    commit crimes such as extortion. There is also the potential
    for terrorism which this now brings to bear.
        So we have asked for continuing support to expand what we
    call our computer squads. We have, as you know, ten computer
    squads around the country now. We are asking to expand that and
    to procure equipment which will allow us to work in every
    division with computer tools that cross-cut throughout our
    programs.
        We, generally and historically, have built up our offices
    by program. We have a bank robbery squad, we have a terrorism
    squad. We are finding that we need an interdisciplinary squad
    with the computer tools to not just investigate computer crimes
    forensically, but to also detect and, in some cases, prevent
    crime. We also set up fire walls and work with industry, as we
    have been doing very actively, to ensure that private
    information systems are protected.
        And that takes us into the increase that we have asked for
    with respect to the National Infrastructure Protection Center
    which we stood up in the FBI several years ago. This is the
    center of learning, as well as operational tools and skills,
    that gives not just the FBI, but all of our Federal, and State
    and local partners the ability to investigate crimes in a cyber
    environment, to set up warning systems when it is necessary to
    disseminate information that is relevant to the protection of
    information systems, and to really be equipped to deal with
    what we believe is just now the tip of the iceberg.
        We think that in several years, and perhaps only a few
    years, the incidence of not just computer crime, but the
    necessity to use computer tools to investigate crimes, will
    grow astronomically. FBI agents who go out now and conduct
    searches come back more and more frequently with hard drives as
    opposed to boxes of records. And this is going to
    revolutionize, in many ways, the manner by which we conduct
    investigations, and use information and, of course, prevent
    crime in that particular environment.
        We have asked for, in that regard, continued and increased
    assistance for our Computer Analysis Response Teams. These are
    teams of FBI agents who are expert in the use of computers,
    forensic detection. We have approximately 2,600 exams which
    were conducted in 1998 relevant to computer investigations. We
    expect that to double in the year 2000. We have currently 95
    field agents on a part-time basis who conduct these exams and
    26 permanent positions in Headquarters. And we think that,
    again, this is an area of exponential growth that we need to be
    prepared for.
        We also render, with our CART teams, assistance to many
    State and local departments around the country who are faced
    with problems of investigative complexity involving computers.
    This is a technology that we want to share and tools that we
    want to make available to everyone.
        In that regard, we are setting up, with our State and local
    partners in San Diego, a forensic computer laboratory, which
    will be a pilot project for us. The notion there is to work
    directly with our State and local partners and make this a
    center of expertise and operational assistance to all of the
    State and local police departments in that area. We think we
    can do this around the country in a manner that will allow
    these tools to get directly to the State and local detective
    squads who need them, as much as we do, whether it is a
    kidnapping case or an extortion case or even a robbery case.
        With respect to technical support for investigations, we
    have asked for continued assistance in the control and lawful
    use of digital telecommunications interception technologies and
    the ability to continue to work in a digital world while still
    protecting all of the privacy values and constitutional
    protections which these techniques do not compromise. We are
    not asking for any expansion of our authority. Everything that
    we do in the area of interception will still be strictly
    limited, as it has always been, by court order. But we are
    looking for increased ability to work in a digital environment,
    where the switches are no longer at the end of a copper wire on
    a lug nut, but actually in software, which require new access
    and new tools. As I have said before, many times, Mr. Chairman,
    we certainly appreciate your leadership in this area going back
    several years now.
        In the area of digital communications and the enforcement
    of the 1994 CALEA statute, you have truly been a leader in
    terms of law enforcement concerns, balanced very properly
    against commercial and privacy concerns, and we thank you very
    much for that leadership.

                            law enforcement services

        With respect to law enforcement services, we have asked for
    some funding to put into place the Federal Criminal Offenders
    DNA database. The Congress has given us the authority in
    several categories with respect to collecting DNA samples from
    Federal-convicted prisoners. With respect to crimes against
    minors and violent sexual crimes, we want to get that sampling
    process underway. Some legislation will be needed to do that.
    But the funding that we ask for will stand up the Federal DNA
    database, which will then supplement what we have currently
    been operating for several years, under your authority, which
    is the CODIS system. CODIS allows State and local police
    departments, according to their own statutes, to submit DNA
    samples to a database which is then interfaced and usable for
    identification purposes. Many, many crimes have been solved, in
    particular, many violent sexual crimes have been solved by the
    use of CODIS. We believe, in many cases, crimes have been
    prevented and lives have been saved by this technology. So our
    increase, our request has to do now with the implementation of
    the Federal authority which the FBI has.

                                 fbi laboratory

        With respect to our FBI laboratory, we are very proud of
    the accreditation which has been achieved since we last met. We
    are in the process now of finalizing the construction bids. We
    hope to do that in the next several weeks, and the laboratory
    should be open for business in 2001. This will be a state-of-
    the-art laboratory, which will not only serve the FBI and other
    Federal agencies, but continue to serve all of our State and
    local partners around the country.
        We are constructing it, and formatting it as a teaching
    laboratory. So beyond forensic examinations, this will become a
    scientific center of excellence where we can teach and also
    conduct research and development, as so many new technologies
    are necessary to perform our job.

                    national instant background check system

        With respect to the NICS System, the National Instant
    Criminal Background Check System, we are pleased with the
    success of that program as it has been operated since November
    30th out of our West Virginia CJIS Headquarters. We have done
    approximately two million background checks. Seventy-one
    percent of those were allowed to proceed within three minutes.
    We have probably disqualified over 22,000 people, most of whom
    were convicted felons. In some cases, people coming in
    purchasing these weapons have been identified quickly enough to
    be arrested, actually, in the store. We had an individual
    recently in West Virginia arrested by the West Virginia police.
    As he waited for his information to come back, the FBI examiner
    was able to determine an outstanding warrant for a gun charge
    in Indiana, and he was arrested as he was waiting in the store
    for his gun application to be approved.
        This is a program which, as you well know, needs to be
    funded in some manner if it is to continue. We understand the
    issues involved with respect to how that funding is achieved,
    but I do report to you that we believe the program has been
    successful and that the necessity to continue it in some
    fashion with respect to the funding is important.

                       departmental funding requirements

        Some other, just very briefly, departmental funding
    requests with which we are very interested, of course. The $15
    million request for additional reimbursements for CALEAs
    implementation is very, very essential and will build on the
    recent successes that we have achieved in our negotiations with
    the industry to finally implement, with some success, we
    believe, the 1994 statute.
        A request for narrowband communication resources, a lot of
    which, $32 million of the $45 million will have to do with the
    replacement of FBI radios which are obsolete. We have about
    23,000 radios which have to be replaced over the next few
    years, and a large portion of that appropriation would deal
    with that problem.
        We have asked for $45 million for State and local bomb
    technician equipment which, again, is part of the Department's
    request, but these monies, which will be disseminated by the
    FBI is also very essential, we believe.

                                   danger pay

        And, finally, in terms of some legislative proposals, we
    have asked the Committee once again to consider giving me
    danger pay authority for our agents assigned overseas in high-
    risk locations. The DEA agents have it. They have had it for
    years. It is appropriate, as far as I am concerned. The FBI
    agents who, in many cases, serve in the same office, do not
    have that, and we just ask you, once more, for your
    consideration of that and some other matters which I will not
    take your time to discuss right now.
        Again, thank you for the opportunity to present these
    matters to you, and thank you more importantly for the support
    that you have given to the FBI. I believe the country is better
    protected because of your leadership in that area.
        Thank you.
        [The information follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                         chinese espionage allegations

        Mr. Rogers. Thank you, Mr. Director. Now, as you know,
    there has been a great deal of controversy and concern in these
    last few days here surrounding the recent revelations about
    Chinese espionage in the Department of Energy.
        According to the information that we have, to date, mostly
    from press accounts, it appears that U.S. national security
    interests may have been seriously compromised. Would you agree
    with that assessment?
        Mr. Freeh. That is the assessment that the President's
    national security adviser made over the weekend, and I believe
    that is accurate.
        Mr. Rogers. Do you believe that the Administration took
    swift and appropriate action when they were informed of the
    problems in the summer of 1997?
        Mr. Freeh. The problems go back, unfortunately, many, many
    years. In fact, back in 1988, the Congress, through Senator
    John Glenn, held some hearings before his committee that
    pointed out the serious deficiency with respect to security and
    the potential that that had on counterintelligence in the
    national laboratories.
        Since his hearings and report in 1988, there have been six
    others. The FBI did some of them, the Director of Central
    Intelligence did others. There have been GAO reports. So,
    unfortunately, this situation has been well documented for over
    ten years, and the changes, particularly the change with
    respect to the implementation of the new counterintelligence
    hierarchy at the Department of Energy, which was the result of
    an FBI recommendation in April of 1997, have now been put in
    place. It took some time to do that. But given the history of
    this problem, it was done, perhaps, after too long a period of
    exposure, but at least, finally, done after many, many years of
    criticism.
        Mr. Rogers. But an actual breach was discovered in 1997? Is
    that correct? It came to light, it came to your knowledge in
    April of 1997 or the summer of 1997?
        Mr. Freeh. Actually, a little bit before that.
        Mr. Rogers. But in 1997.
        Mr. Freeh. Yes. Certainly, by 1997 we were aware of this.
        Mr. Rogers. You became aware of it.
        Mr. Freeh. Yes.

                fbi recommendations to the department of energy

        Mr. Rogers. And then the FBI made, as you say, certain
    recommendations to the Department of Energy relative to
    security at the labs, correct?
        Mr. Freeh. That is correct.
        Mr. Rogers. Could you summarize what they were?
        Mr. Freeh. Yes. In April of 1997, we completed an
    assessment and reported not just to the Department of Energy,
    but also to the Senate Intelligence Committee who had asked for
    the report in the 1996 authorization language, a study on the
    counterintelligence vulnerability of the laboratories.
        Our findings were that there was no centralized
    counterintelligence structure; that the regional laboratories
    were performing counterintelligence on a contract basis and, in
    some cases, a sporadic basis; that there was no control over
    foreign visitors in the laboratory, and this was a situation
    which had been going on for many years, but also was one of
    great vulnerability. And we made very specific recommendations,
    16 of them, including for the establishment of a centralized
    counterintelligence office reporting directly to the Secretary,
    training, education, and checks in terms of backgrounds of
    visitors who come to the laboratory. Over 20,000 visitors come
    to the laboratories every year from foreign countries, many
    from threat countries. A whole series of other recommendations,
    including the necessity for resources to deal with that
    problem. It is a very comprehensive set of recommendations.
        Mr. Rogers. And what was Energy's response to your
    suggestion?
        Mr. Freeh. The response was the signing, in February of
    1998, of a Presidential Decision Directive, which incorporated
    those recommendations. I sent over to the Department of Energy
    one of my top counterintelligence officers, Ed Curran, who
    became, and now is, the director of counterintelligence at that
    department laboratory.

                          response to recommendations

        Mr. Rogers. When did they respond to you? Your
    recommendations were made in April of 1997, correct?
        Mr. Freeh. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Rogers. And when did they take action on your
    recommendations?
        Mr. Freeh. The directive was signed in February of 1998. It
    began to be implemented over the next 90 days.
        Mr. Rogers. That is almost a year after your
    recommendations, correct?
        Mr. Freeh. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Rogers. What happened during that period of time? You
    warned the Department of Energy, the Secretary of Energy, that
    there was a real problem there, correct?
        Mr. Freeh. That is correct.
        Mr. Rogers. And they did nothing about that for almost one
    whole year?
        Mr. Freeh. Well, I would not say they did nothing about it.
    What they had to do, in effect, was create a whole new
    structure that was created in a vacuum. It is like trying to
    turn a battleship 180 degrees.
        Mr. Rogers. But in the meantime, the exposure was laying
    there, was it not? The personnel that presumably were suspected
    were still on board, correct?
        Mr. Freeh. The overall exposure to the laboratories was
    extreme and continued after our report.
        Mr. Rogers. And continued for almost a year after you told
    them, ``You have got a hellacious problem there,'' correct?
        Mr. Freeh. It continued actually since 1988. I mean, it was
    a longstanding problem.
        Mr. Rogers. I know that. But when you informed them of the
    problem in April of 1997, they did nothing for almost one whole
    year knowing that they were exposed to serious deterioration of
    America's national interest, correct?
        Mr. Freeh. They did do some things in terms of implementing
    the presidential order, even before it was signed. Let me give
    you a couple of for instances. What they did in March of 1998,
    at the request of myself and George Tenet, was to bring in all
    of the laboratory directors, and we met with them at FBI
    Headquarters and basically presented to them the necessity, as
    well as the vulnerability, that the laboratories were absorbing
    because of a lack of a counterintelligence program.
        Mr. Curran, who was my deputy that I sent over there, was
    on station in early January. He started to organize a
    counterintelligence office. He started to centralize their
    investigations. He started to hire mostly former FBI agents as
    individual laboratory directors. They began to do some vetting
    and background checks. So they got underway. But as I said, it
    was like turning a big ship at high speed. The change of not
    just the structures, but the culture, a culture which is more
    of an academic culture than a security culture, had to be done
    and worked on very hard.
        Mr. Rogers. But when you informed them in April of 1997 of
    the problem, did you specifically tell them that they were
    exposed to an espionage matter that dealt with one of America's
    most valuable secrets, and that is how to miniaturize atomic
    weapons? Was that a part of what you warned them of?
        Mr. Freeh. Yes. The 1997 report, which I gave to the
    Secretary on April 7th, clearly described the specific, as well
    as the general and structural, counterintelligence
    vulnerability. We emphasized it was very high and had been
    continuing for a long period of time and had to be addressed
    forthwith.
        Mr. Rogers. But why would they wait almost a year to sign
    an order saying let us clean this up and stop the leaking of
    this most valuable information vital to our national security?
        Mr. Freeh. Well, I think they reacted to it, and perhaps
    they could have done it quicker. It is an area of extreme
    importance and vulnerability.
        Mr. Rogers. Do you believe that the DoE's delays further
    jeopardized our national security interests?
        Mr. Freeh. I cannot say that they did. I do not know of any
    specific cases in that interim which would have been----
        Mr. Rogers. But you cannot be sure. You cannot be sure it
    did not.
        Mr. Freeh. The vulnerability was as great in April of 1997
    as it had been for many years and as it continued to be until
    these changes were made. So this was a very bad situation.

                         adequacy of the fbi's response

        Mr. Rogers. I have to ask you this. There have been some
    questions raised about whether the FBI aggressively pursued the
    investigation into the Los Alamos matter. A March 6th story in
    the New York Times, in late 1996, DoE officials complained that
    ``the Bureau had assigned few resources to the case.'' How do
    you respond to that?
        Mr. Freeh. We believe we pursued this case very efficiently
    and very aggressively. We began working on it with the
    Department of Energy in September of 1995. It was an area of
    extreme importance, as is reflected in the number of people who
    worked on it at Headquarters, in particular. We were asked to
    come into a case, just to give you the perspective, we were
    asked in 1995 to come into a case and investigate an incident
    that happened, they thought, between 1984 and 1988. There are
    no witnesses. There are no informants. There is nothing which
    gives us anything except an historical view of a case where
    somebody did not take something and leave their fingerprints on
    it. But in the field of things like computational fluid
    dynamics, some information had to be evaluated for whether it
    was transferred or not.
        So the difficulties of this case were great, compounded by
    a counterintelligence structure which did not work. So it was
    hard to find records of travel. It was hard to find records of
    assignments, in part, because of that problem. But I believe we
    worked on the case very hard given what we had and continue to
    work on it.
        Mr. Rogers. Now, what prompted you, in April of 1997, to
    say to DoE, ``You have got a problem. Here is what we suggest
    you do''? What prompted that?
        Mr. Freeh. It was the review of the history of the
    situation with respect to counterintelligence or the lack
    thereof in the laboratories. And we took our 1988 records,
    which were the records Senator John Glenn had during his
    hearings. There was a 1989 study that the FBI did, a 1990
    study, a 1992 study that we did. There were several GAO
    studies. Every study said exactly the same thing. There is an
    extreme counterintelligence deficiency. There is no control
    over the foreign visitors, and something has to be done. So
    this was something which became highlighted by the particular
    case that we were asked to investigate, but a situation which,
    nonetheless, was severe from its inception back in 1988.
        Mr. Rogers. Did your investigation and/or your report or
    your suggestions to DoE in April of 1997, did it deal with any
    specific individual employees or personnel?
        Mr. Freeh. No, not that report, sir.
        Mr. Rogers. Did a later one indicate individuals?
        Mr. Freeh. No, not in terms of a report. We have had
    discussions over the period of the investigation about
    particular individuals, but that was specific to the case we
    were looking at.
        Mr. Rogers. But all of those individuals that you may have
    mentioned to them continued to work there, did they not, or
    have access to the facility?
        Mr. Freeh. Some of them did, yes. In some cases, they did.
    In some cases, we asked that they remain in a particular
    position so we could conduct what was historical, but also a
    clandestine investigation, and that is a standard operating
    procedure.
        Mr. Rogers. But the gentleman who was fired only a few days
    ago, I do not recollect his name----
        Mr. Serrano. Mr. Lee.
        Mr. Rogers. Mr. Lee, he continued to work there all the
    while, did he not?
        Mr. Freeh. Yes. I would rather not talk about a specific
    case, at least in this forum. This is--I know everyone else
    has--in New York papers and all of the other papers--has done a
    summation of the evidence, or lack thereof, in the case. I
    cannot really do that. What I can tell you is that this is an
    active investigation. We have not made charges against anybody.
    So nobody should be accused of anything, certainly not by me in
    public. This is a very important case. It is a very difficult
    investigation not only given the time frame, but given the
    leaks and the publicity which it has received.
        I would be happy, in executive session, to go into
    specifics that I can go into on the case, but I would prefer
    not to do that here.
        Mr. Rogers. Well, I appreciate that. We do know this,
    though, from public accounts: The W-88 warhead, which this
    country spent decades and millions of dollars developing in our
    laboratories, which allows this country to be able to mount
    small atomic weapons atop rockets for delivery anywhere in the
    world, a secret that is of invaluable, incalculable importance
    to our national security, was leaked out of that laboratory. It
    was stolen, obviously, by the Chinese.
        And now they are able to use that knowledge, gained not by
    study, experience, and decades of time and millions of dollars
    of their own money, but by stealing it from us, from that
    laboratory. They are able to mount those warheads on top of
    rockets and deliver them to our shores, when before they could
    not. That is a serious matter, and it has been three years
    since the investigation at Los Alamos began. There have been no
    arrests, to my knowledge, only the firing or removal of one
    person from the premises out there. In the meantime, other
    people from other nations are swarming all over the secret
    documents and material at Los Alamos and other places.

                   punishing individuals committing espionage

        I have to ask you what confidence does all of this give the
    American public that we have the ability to identify and punish
    people responsible for those types of very serious espionage,
    treasonous acts?
        Mr. Freeh. Well, I think there are two parts to that
    answer. One part is there is no more important priority, in
    terms of investigations, that we could conduct. And we do
    successfully deal with that problem.
        We convicted, in December of 1997, a scientist in another
    laboratory, the Lawrence Livermore laboratory, who actually had
    worked previously in Los Alamos. He was convicted of giving
    classified information to a foreign country. That was the
    result of a seven-year investigation by the FBI, which gives
    you some idea of the complexity.
        Again, it was an historical investigation, where we were
    asked to come in and look at something that had happened years
    before. We took seven years to conduct our investigation. We
    used all of our techniques. We finally successfully interviewed
    the individual and received the admissions from him, which
    formed the basis of his guilty plea.
        We can go back much further to other cases, even back to
    the Rosenberg case. We do treat these cases with enormous
    importance and priority. Some of them are solved. Some
    allegations are not solved. Some cases, because of the
    complexity or the lack of evidence or witnesses, become much
    more difficult. But there is no more important case for the FBI
    or for the Department of Justice or for the Congress to
    investigate.
        What we should not do is make--what I should not do, and I
    cannot do--is make conclusions about any particular case,
    particularly one that is under investigation. I am aware of all
    of the allegations with respect to this case. We are looking at
    them. We have been looking at them since 1995. We will take as
    long as necessary with whatever resources to resolve them. We
    will, hopefully, resolve them. But we have not made any
    conclusions, and we have not charged anybody in this particular
    matter, although we have in many others.
        Mr. Rogers. Mr. Serrano?

                     complexity of espionage investigations

        Mr. Serrano. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Director, you have very clearly stated that a lot of
    these problems started in the nineteen eighties and that we
    know that there were, in fact, or we have been informed that
    there were, in fact, ongoing investigations all through this
    period of time. What we are reading about now is not
    necessarily something new. This problem has been around for a
    while.
        Is it not true that the FBI, while they had ongoing
    counterintelligence investigations at the time these reports
    were being developed, investigations may have been compromised
    if the process had been handled in a less careful matter. In
    other words, is it not true that part of what was going on was
    that we hear about people who were on the job and who stayed on
    the job, that those people might have been, at that time,
    targets of investigation, and removing them or suggesting that
    they be removed would have just compromised the whole
    investigation?
        Mr. Freeh. Well, that is correct. I mean, one of the
    essential ingredients to a successful counterintelligence
    investigation--because they are very hard to make historically.
    I mean, you can do them historically, but they are very hard.
    The way we solve most of these cases--and you can look at the
    Ames case or the Nicholson case, the Pitts case, who was an FBI
    agent--are usually solved by leaving the subject in place to
    commit acts of espionage or intelligence activities, that then
    become the basis for our proof.
        The historical cases are very hard. So Mr. Ames was left in
    place in a very a sensitive position at the CIA, as was Mr.
    Nicholson, and Mr. Pitts, less so, in the FBI. But in terms of
    an espionage investigation, probably the last thing I want to
    do initially is remove that person from where they are because
    it alerts them to the investigation and makes the case very
    difficult.
        But by the same token, that has got to be balanced against
    the potential damage to the national security. We would not
    leave someone there and investigate them if, on a daily basis,
    unbeknownst to us or undetected by us, but within our
    contemplation, they were sending top secret material to another
    country, and that was seriously damaging the national security.
    Then we would intervene and stop that case. And those are
    judgments that go case-by-case.
        But the classic mode of investigating one of these cases is
    to leave the subject in place and hope, through electronic
    surveillance, trash covers, bank account reviews, we find
    evidence of the espionage.
        Mr. Serrano. And that was what was going on. I am sure that
    it must be frustrating to the Bureau to know that this is the
    kind of information that never gets published. You know, the
    big question is always, ``Well, why wasn't that person let go
    immediately?''
        And it must be incredibly frustrating to you, sir, to know
    that this is the way you have to handle something. This is the
    way your predecessors handled it. And all of a sudden this
    becomes an issue, why are we leaving people in some places?
    Well, if we do not leave them there, we are not going to find
    out what they are doing, and we are not going to find who they
    are doing it with, or how extensive their behavior is. Am I
    correct?
        Mr. Freeh. You are absolutely correct, but it is a valid
    question to also ask is the risk of leaving the person in
    place, does that outweigh the value of making the case. Again,
    it is an individual decision on a case-by-case basis.
        Ames was left in place for about seven years. Many, many
    other cases people were left in place many, many years after
    the suspicions first arose.
        Mr. Serrano. There is also a lot of emphasis, and
    rightfully so, made on the facilities where supposedly the
    information was taken from. Without, obviously, and I do not
    have to preface my comments by telling you without telling me
    what you cannot tell me. You are not going to tell me what you
    cannot tell me anyway, but we will do one blanket, without
    telling me what you cannot tell me, for the day.
        My understanding of some of what has been rumored or even
    reported is that some of these contacts and some of this
    information was gathered outside those facilities in foreign
    countries. So it is not the fact that people were staying at
    these facilities, it was also the fact that people were
    available to go to other places. And couple that with the fact
    that, as you so aptly put it, it is an academic culture. I
    think what you called it, at Energy rather than a security
    culture, which obviously now is becoming both, and it has to
    be, so I guess it would be unfair to say that everything
    happened there. Some things happened elsewhere.
        Mr. Freeh. You are correct, and I could talk about the case
    that I referred to before, which was the December 1997 guilty
    plea of another scientist who admitted giving information to a
    foreign country. He did that, however, not by sneaking formulae
    out of the laboratory or using dead drops or meeting
    intelligence officers at the bus stop. He did that by going to
    that country and giving the information over in terms of
    discussions in the briefings.
        And that is one of the problems with these cases, not
    problems, but realities. Our classic espionage cases are set up
    to find the spy who is going to the dead drop, who is meeting
    the intelligence officer on the subway platform. That does not
    happen here. What happens here is someone has in their brain,
    and sometimes they have been the person who has invented it, a
    code or an algorithm or a dynamic protocol, which is the top
    secret information, per se. So they do not have to sneak a
    record out. They do not have to break into a vault. They do not
    have to go to a dead drop. They have to sit down at dinner with
    another scientist and have a discussion that, if I had an FBI
    agent sitting there, we would not know what they were talking
    about.
        So that is the kind of espionage that we are looking at,
    and it is very complex, which is why cases are long term. Some
    are made, some are not made, but we work as hard as we can to
    solve them.
        Mr. Serrano. Director, are you at liberty to tell me if
    this started in eighties. Have there been ongoing
    investigations since the eighties, when in the eighties, how
    far back?
        Mr. Freeh. In terms of the overall counterintelligence
    deficiencies in the national laboratories, as I mentioned,
    Senator Glenn first highlighted this, at least in terms of our
    search, in 1988. He had hearings. He wrote a report, and there
    were a series of other reports, six of them, between 1988 and
    1997--actually, our April 1997 report--where this was
    catalogued, this was described, this was laid out in very
    expansive fashion.
        So the problem, in terms of a problem, has been around for
    a long time. I am not saying that is good. I am saying the
    problem has been out there. It has not been addressed, and I
    believe it is addressed by the current structure which is at
    work in the Department of Energy.

                      Progress at the Department of Energy

        Mr. Serrano. Which leads me to this question: I know that--
    we all know--that Secretary Richardson has been working with
    the FBI to put new security measures in place. Is the FBI
    satisfied with the progress and direction of the
    counterintelligence efforts being made at Energy?
        Mr. Freeh. Yes, I am very satisfied with it, and
    particularly with Secretary Richardson. I met with him, in
    fact, before he was sworn in. George Tenet and I met with him
    and told him about the seriousness of the problem. He
    immediately comprehended it, reacted to it, and has been very,
    very vigorous, extremely vigorous and efficient in getting the
    things done at the Department of Energy which need to be done,
    should have been done a while ago, and he has been an extremely
    aggressive leader.
        I think part of it is his own intelligence background,
    having served, I think, on one of the intelligence committees
    in the House. But he also has the will and the leadership to
    get that done. So I could not say more about his work in that
    regard. It has been very successful.
        Mr. Serrano. I have no further questions.
        Mr. Rogers. Correct me on this. The New York Times ran a
    story that says that the FBI investigation was stalled when, in
    September of 1997, there was a meeting between FBI and Energy
    Department officials and you concluded that the Bureau did not
    have enough evidence to arrest a suspect. The story goes on to
    say that even if the Bureau could not build a case, the Energy
    Department could still take some action against an individual
    holding a security clearance. The story also says that you told
    DoE officials that there was no longer an investigative reason
    to allow the suspect to remain in his sensitive position. Is
    that story generally accurate?
        Mr. Freeh. It is generally accurate. The meeting was
    actually in August of 1997. And what I presented, at that time,
    was--it is generally accurate.
        What I said to them is, look, we have an investigation with
    respect to a subject, which, of course, they were well aware
    of, and we were not in the position at that point to make an
    arrest. There was not sufficient evidence to make an arrest.
    And what I said to them is that case, in itself, although
    important, was not as important as the protection of the
    information that he might have access to and, more importantly,
    the need to address the larger institutional CI deficiencies in
    the laboratory. So what I said is forget about our case, take
    it off the table. If it is a question of protecting information
    or fixing the bigger problem, the case should be deferred to
    that larger concern. And that was my communication.
        Mr. Rogers. Did you tell them that there was no longer any
    investigative reason to allow that suspect to remain in his
    position?
        Mr. Freeh. I did not use those terms. But what I said to
    them is the case was not as important as what damage he may
    continue to do by accessing information, and they could forget
    about the case.
        Mr. Rogers. I see. And that was in August of 1997.
        Mr. Freeh. August 12th of 1997.
        Mr. Rogers. And that person remained in that sensitive
    position with a security clearance until a couple of weeks ago?
        Mr. Freeh. He was fired a week ago, yes, sir.
        Mr. Rogers. A week ago.
        Mr. Taylor?
        Mr. Taylor. Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Director, how many agents, approximately, did you have
    in 1988 at the Bureau, do you know?
        Mr. Freeh. In 1988?
        Mr. Taylor. Yes.
        Mr. Freeh. I would have to get those for you.
        Mr. Taylor. Any idea?
        Mr. Freeh. I would say probably around 8- to 9,000.
        Mr. Taylor. And how about in 1997?
        Mr. Freeh. In 1997, closer to 10,000, maybe 10,500. I am
    just guessing.
        [Clerk's note.--Subsequent to the hearing, the following
    information was submitted for the record:]

        In 1998, the FBI was authorized a total of 9,730 agent positions.
    For 1997, the FBI was authorized a total of 11,179 agent positions.

        Mr. Taylor. As I recall, as a member of this committee for
    five years, I think, Mr. Chairman, the President's first budget
    actually proposed to cut FBI agents, several hundred agents in
    that first budget.
        Could you answer another question for me? How long does it
    take for the employees in the White House to receive their
    background investigations for handling sensitive materials, for
    all of those people who handle our Nation's secrets to get
    clearance, investigated, that sort of thing?
        Mr. Freeh. I do not honestly know the answer to that. We do
    not do the backgrounds for the people in the White House,
    except the presidential appointees in some cases.
        Mr. Taylor. Is it not true that some employees never got
    them and some were employed for years before those types of
    efforts were allowed to be made at the instruction of the White
    House?
        Mr. Freeh. Again, I do not know. We never were involved in
    that.

                           ERIC Rudolph Investigation

        Mr. Taylor. As you know, I represent Western North
    Carolina, where Mr. Eric Rudolph is said to be located, I
    believe, by the FBI. How many agents do you have in the Andrews
    area, generally, can you say? There are ATF and FBI, and I know
    they are not all yours.
        Mr. Freeh. We do have, in addition, of course, to the FBI
    and ATF agents, we have some officers from the local sheriff's
    departments, we have some Georgia as well as Alabama officers
    who come there from time to time. I think it fluctuates between
    50 and 100 investigative agents, and there is other support
    personnel.
        Mr. Taylor. Approximately, then, the Federal agents, ATF
    and FBI, would be somewhere in the range of 100, more or less?
        Mr. Freeh. It would be less than 100, but over 50, I would
    expect.
        Mr. Taylor. And that has been since the beginning of 1998.
    We are going into our second year there. I would say, for
    myself and most of the people that I have talked with,
    certainly anyone who has committed the murder of an officer--
    and I am not making any judgments because there has been no
    arrest and there is no trial--but that is a very serious crime
    and should be prosecuted.
        For the benefit of the chairman and others, the Andrews
    community is not much larger than the staff that the FBI
    brought here today. When you have that few people, you know, my
    office gets complaints about helicopters flying over the
    churches and so forth, and individuals being stopped by
    uniformed officers and that sort of thing. NAFTA has done a
    hard job out there, and they certainly appreciate the economic
    benefits of the FBI's presence, but they wondered how long the
    FBI is going to be there.
        There has not been any trace of Mr. Rudolph found, has
    there?
        Mr. Freeh. There has not been a live sighting since July of
    the year before. So you are right. It is a very good question.
    It is a very important case, as you mentioned. I cannot think
    of a more important case, and I am just looking here at the----
        Mr. Taylor. I can think of a more important one--we just
    talked about it--in New Mexico, I mean, a lot more important.
    But it is----
        Mr. Freeh. In terms of the criminal program that we have
    there.
        I am looking at an editorial in the Asheville Citizen
    Times, which I would be happy to give you. And what they say
    there, actually summing it up probably better than I could, is,
    ``It can be said that if anything positive has emerged from the
    Rudolph search, it is while the man hunt has been going on, he
    has been unable to do an additional bombing.''
        We actually think that the pressure that we have maintained
    on him has prevented more bombings. This is clearly someone
    charged now in five different bombings who, over time, has
    evidenced the ability, as well as the will, to commit very
    destructive and life-threatening attacks.
        We are looking to modify those resources in some degree, in
    terms of downsizing. We have been very sensitive to the
    community. We work, as you probably have heard from your local
    sheriff and police chiefs, very carefully with them. We try to
    be as low profile as you can be conducting a search like this.
        The citizens of those communities, I will say, have been
    outstanding, in terms of their support and cooperation, in many
    cases. But we do feel that our presence there and the search
    has prevented him from committing additional crimes.
        Mr. Taylor. When was that Asheville editorial written?
        Mr. Freeh. I have got everything but the date on here. I am
    sorry. I will get you the date.
        [Clerk's note.--Subsequent to the hearing, the following
    information was provided:]

        The Asheville Citizen Times editorial referred to by Director Freeh
    was published on January 31, 1999.

        Mr. Taylor. It has been several days ago. And yet this
    weekend there was a bombing of an abortion clinic in Asheville.
    And according to the press, the AP, says, ``The fugitive, Eric
    Rudolph, not ruled out as a suspect.'' Maybe he read that
    editorial, I do not know. Maybe they should not be writing the
    editorial. But this bombing was not as serious as some of the
    others. There was a limited amount of property and no
    individuals involved, and that is a blessing.
        Mr. Chairman, I will ask further questions later.
        Mr. Rogers. Mr. Dixon?

                    responsibility for preventing espionage

        Mr. Dixon. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I join in
    welcoming you, Director Freeh, to the committee. You may not
    know that the chairman and I are very good friends, and I
    admire your restraint and soft-peddling of your answers. So my
    questions to you may be repetitive of what the chairman talked
    about. I just would like you to yell them a little bit louder.
        There seems to be a focus in this dialogue on blame. Would
    you agree that ultimately the labs are responsible for what we
    believe has been an exchange of information with the Chinese?
        Mr. Freeh. They are initially responsible for protecting
    that information, yes, sir.
        Mr. Dixon. The problem, as described to me, and you may
    disagree, is that there has been a lack of strong
    counterintelligence programs at those labs; is that correct?
        Mr. Freeh. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Dixon. And that goes back to the beginning of those
    labs, reaching back as far as the Atomic Energy Commission; is
    that right?
        Mr. Freeh. I would agree with that.
        Mr. Dixon. And there have been reports by the Senate, by
    your agency, and by the GAO over an extended period of time
    about the inadequacy of the security of those labs. And when I
    say an extended period of time, it reaches back past the
    Clinton Administration and past the Bush Administration; is
    that correct?
        Mr. Freeh. That is correct. As I said, my own documentation
    goes back to 1988, but I have not done the research before
    that.
        Mr. Dixon. And this taking--or exchange--we are not sure
    whether there was a taking of some physical documents, or a
    transfer of some intellectual or scientific material that one
    may keep in his head; is that correct?
        Mr. Freeh. Our investigation is trying to answer that
    question.
        Mr. Dixon. And the best evidence is that it was taken,
    whatever it was, between 1984 and 1988.
        Mr. Freeh. That is the hypothesis, yes.
        Mr. Dixon. And it only came to the FBI's attention most
    recently in 1997.
        Mr. Freeh. 1995, yes, 1997.
        [Clerk's note.--Subsequent to the hearing, the following
    information was provided:]

                                 Clarification

        ``1995'' refers to the investigation initiated by the FBI
    in September 1995, of suspected national security violations at
    the Los Alamos National Laboratory. ``1997'' refers to the
    assessment of the Department of Energy's counterintelligence
    program that was issued by the FBI in April 1997, pursuant to a
    request from the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence.

        Mr. Dixon. Right.
        And it came to your attention through the Department of
    Energy, but indirectly from the Central Intelligence Agency, is
    that correct?
        Mr. Freeh. Yes, a combination of both sources.
        Mr. Dixon. Right.
        And thereafter an assessment was made by the FBI as to
    something that you were well aware of long before and that is
    the counterintelligence of the three labs?
        Mr. Freeh. In terms of the vulnerability, yes.
        Mr. Dixon. In terms of the vulnerability.
        Mr. Freeh. Yes. No, clearly.
        Mr. Dixon. Right. And then Secretary Pena began to
    implement some of the recommendations that you made to him, is
    that correct?
        Mr. Freeh. Yes, he surely did.
        Mr. Dixon. I assume one of the recommendations that you
    made was to put in place a counterintelligence person who was
    the top of the field and in this case, you cited Ed Curran, is
    that correct?
        Mr. Freeh. Yes, we did.
        Mr. Dixon. So, there has been, during this administration
    an effort to modify a program that had existed for years and
    basically the difficulty is that scientists are very reluctant
    to adhere to very rigid programs because of what is called some
    academic or scientific freedom, is that your understanding of
    it?
        Mr. Freeh. Yes, that is correct.
        Mr. Dixon. Now, is it true that over the period of your
    investigation that you have, in fact, applied to courts for
    additional techniques to follow-up on the investigation?
        Mr. Freeh. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Dixon. And that, in fact, the court----
        Mr. Freeh. Well, in terms of this specific investigation or
    all our investigations?
        Mr. Dixon. All of the investigations.
        Mr. Freeh. Yes. We frequently do that and receive orders
    from courts.
        Mr. Dixon. Right. And that, as you stated very softly, the
    problem is, in fact, that in the new world that
    counterintelligence programs are very difficult to investigate.
    And one of the reasons is because normally you are looking for
    some transfer of money or some motive that is tangible.
        Mr. Freeh. Yes. That is what I said. I did not mean to say
    it softly at all.
        Mr. Dixon. Right. But I just want to go over these things
    again.
        Mr. Freeh. No. As I said, we generally have looked for, in
    these cases as you well know from your experience, dead drops
    and bank accounts and travel and----
        Mr. Dixon. Right.
        Mr. Freeh [continuing]. And Intelligence Officers (IO's).
        Mr. Dixon. Bank accounts, some physical evidence or some
    record representing some physical evidence.
        Mr. Freeh. Those are our basic tools. Yes.
        Mr. Dixon. So, a combination of two things: The staleness
    of the case when you originally got it, and the fact that it
    probably did not follow that method of operation has made it
    very difficult for your agency to come to a conclusion, is that
    correct?
        Mr. Freeh. That is correct.
        Mr. Dixon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Rogers. I almost feel like objecting to the leading
    questions in here. [Laughter.]
        Mr. Dixon. I indicated, Mr. Chairman, that I wanted to
    amplify that but when you start by saying something about this
    administration, I think it is fair to lead the witness.
        Mr. Serrano. Do you know how it feels to sit between two
    prosecutors? [Laughter.]
        Mr. Rogers. I am not going to answer that.
        Mr. Latham.

                      Need For Security Conscious Culture

        Mr. Latham. I guess I have some concern. First of all,
    welcome, Mr. Director. But it would seem to me that maybe the
    Department of Energy is different but for anyone who is brought
    into that culture, security should be the first part of that
    culture.
        And you talked about being from academia or whatever, but
    in reality the Department of Defense also does a lot of
    research, and security is first. That is the culture. I mean is
    it a cultural problem at Energy or what? Has security never
    been a priority or what?
        Mr. Freeh. I would not say security has never been a
    priority but the culture has not been security conscious or
    certainly counterintelligence security conscious. I think part
    of that is because the laboratory directors who are under
    contract to the Secretary in turn subcontract with
    universities. Some of the scientists in these laboratories are
    not DOE employees, they are actually employees of universities,
    and in some cases, foreign nationals, who are resident in the
    laboratory but do not really work except by contract to the
    Department of Energy.
        There is a great deal of scientific benefit, I am told--I
    am not a scientist--that the laboratories obtain by having, as
    in 1996, 8,000 foreign visitors come into the laboratory and
    foreign national scientists residing in those laboratories.
        Conversely we have a lot of American scientists resident
    all over the world in other countries' national laboratories.
    So, there is some benefit to be taken out of that. But the
    answer to your question is, the culture as it has developed
    over the years has not been a security-conscious culture. It
    has not been a counterintelligence-aware culture. And that has
    been the greatest vulnerability in the laboratories.
        Mr. Latham. And they have been aware of the problem since
    at least 1988. I mean we are talking about research going back
    to the Second World War.
        Mr. Freeh. Yes. This was not a secret to anyone. This was
    not a newly discovered fact in 1996. No.

                             Bank Robberies In Iowa

        Mr. Latham. Incredible. To get more to issues, I guess, at
    home, in Iowa the FBI apparently saw a marked increase as far
    as bank robberies and the U.S. Attorney said they more than
    doubled. Can you give me any idea if there is anything special
    going on to address the problem? Is it related to drugs or what
    is happening?
        Mr. Freeh. There is a series of different initiatives
    around the State that I know you are aware of. Let me just
    highlight them for you.
        There is, for instance, a methamphetamine problem in terms
    of trafficking as well as some production which has resulted in
    the formation of a tri-State drug task force. DEA leads it. We
    are a participant on it, as well as some State and local police
    officers.
        We have in terms of our FBI programs, 24 cases being worked
    at this time in the organized crime and drug area, ten in the
    violent gang area, which is probably related to those cases. We
    have got task forces in Davenport, Cedar Rapids, Des Moines,
    Waterloo. We are not a participant in all of them but we do
    work on a few of them.
        As we have, unfortunately, in many States, particularly in
    the Midwest, a growing incidence of methamphetamine
    trafficking, and the appearance of drug traffickers who come
    from out of State to set up distribution networks which taxes
    any community but particularly a place like Sioux City that is
    not equipped for the interstate characteristics of this type of
    violation.

                            Indian Reservation Crime

        Mr. Latham. According to the Bureau, for the resident agent
    in Sioux City, the primary responsibilities are crimes
    associated with the Indian reservation. Can you tie anything at
    the reservations with meth or is there infiltration now in
    those areas? Why the concentration there?
        Mr. Freeh. Yes. With respect to, of course, the
    concentration of the Indian reservations in that State, as you
    know, is very, very high. Because we are the only law
    enforcement authority that has jurisdiction there, it is the
    number one focus. A lot of the crimes on the reservations are
    related to drugs, increasingly with respect to gangs, also,
    some of the other violent type offenses. So, it is an area
    where I guess you are seeing a little bit of everything
    including, although I do not have the numbers or the
    information, I will get that for you, probably also in the
    public corruption type of area.
        [Clerk's note.--Subsequent to the hearing, the following
    information was provided:]
                        Crime Problems in Northwest Iowa
        The FBI's Sioux City Resident Agency (RA) is staffed by three
    special agents and a secretary/typist. The Sioux City (RA) encompasses
    18 counties in northwest Iowa and 12 counties in northeast Nebraska, a
    territory comparable to the size of Vermont and New Hampshire combined.
    The population of the area covered by the Sioux City (RA) is about
    500,000.
        Sioux City (RA) considers its primary crime problems to be those
    associated with the Winnebago, Omaha and Santee Sioux Indian
    Reservations. Portions of the Winnebago and Omaha Reservations, which
    both contain gaming casinos, are located in Iowa. Crimes of violence
    and child physical/sexual abuse predominate, but arsons, thefts,
    embezzlements and casino-related crimes are common. Gangs on the
    reservations are growing in popularity. The Sioux City (RA) assigns one
    agent on a full-time basis to investigations of Indian Country crimes.
        Other investigative priorities of the Sioux City (RA) are Violent
    Crimes and White Collar Crimes.
        Violent Crimes cases in the Sioux City (RA) primarily involve bank
    robberies, extortions, and interstate-related theft matters. A recent
    significant Violent Crime case in Iowa involved the kidnap and murder
    of Gregory ``Sky'' Erickson in June 1997. After failing to pay a drug
    debt, Erickson, a 15-year-old, was kidnaped from an apartment in
    Spencer, Iowa, placed in the trunk of a car, beaten, and then driven
    into Minnesota where he was shot and killed. A multi-agency task force,
    including the FBI, charged 10 people with kidnaping. Nine individuals
    have been convicted, with three serving life terms.
        White Collar investigations in the Sioux City (RA) include
    financial institution fraud, public corruption and bankruptcy fraud. A
    recent joint investigation resulted in the conviction of Dan Tritle,
    the patriarch of a prominent Spirit Lake-area family, and several of
    his family members on charges related to a bank fraud scheme. This
    scheme included providing false documentation to banks and other
    investors, which led his cattle-feeding business to sustain losses of
    $2 million. Three banks suffered the bulk of this loss and one was
    forced into receivership. Seventy other businesses and individuals
    suffered losses as a result of dealing with Tritle.
        Drugs, particularly the trafficking of Mexican methamphetamine, is
    a growing problem in northwest Iowa, particularly in the Sioux City
    area. Drug investigations in this part of the territory are primarily
    handled by the Tri-State Drug Task Force, an eight-agency task force
    headed by Drug Enforcement Administration. While the Sioux City (RA) is
    not a regular participant in this task force, the office does regularly
    exchange intelligence with it and provides operational assistance when
    requested.

                          Southwest Border Initiative

        Mr. Latham. Over the past few years we have provided a lot
    of resources for the Southwest Border Initiative, and we talked
    about this last year a little bit, to investigate major drug
    organizations and public corruption along the U.S./Mexican
    border. You were talking about the problem in Iowa and there is
    a direct tie, pipeline up to our area.
        Can you give us an update as to what is happening with the
    initiative and maybe talk a little bit about cooperation with
    Mexico and your counterparts across the border?
        Mr. Freeh. The Southwest Border Initiative has been, at
    least as a United States operation, we think very successful.
    As I mentioned before, it is really a integration of agencies
    that historically have not worked to the degree of efficiency
    together as they have here; Customs particularly, DEA and the
    Federal Bureau of Investigation.
        We are spinning off many cases from the Southwest border
    strategy which is not localized to just the borders but we have
    spun off major drug investigations, including court authorized
    wire taps, into places like California and Chicago, even New
    York City and Florida.
        We have a very active and we think successful intelligence
    operation that gathers information from the Southwest Border
    Initiative and then formats it into actual cases being opened
    and targets being selected. Money laundering activities. And
    corruption activities along the border is one of the FBI's key
    roles in the initiative is to work corruption cases with
    respect to U.S. officials. So, we are very pleased with that.
        You know, the bilateral cooperation is an issue of great
    importance to us, as well as to the Mexicans. We work on more
    than one program with our counterparts there, including violent
    crime and fugitive cases, kidnapping cases, white collar cases
    and it is an area that certainly needs a lot more attention and
    development.

                         Motivation In Espionage Cases

        Mr. Latham. Just to get back to the espionage, you say you
    have not been able to follow leads because there are no leads
    as far as money drops or those type of contacts with the other
    folks, but so what benefit is there for the exchange of the
    information? Is this just an intellectual thing that they like
    to sit and talk about secrets back and forth with people?
        Mr. Freeh. You know, I think that in some cases that may
    actually be what is happening. I do not think it is happening
    in every case. But it may happen in some cases. It is a very
    different kind of espionage. There is a great Alfred Hitchcock
    movie called, ``The Torn Curtain.'' I do not know if any of you
    have seen it. But it is a movie which exemplifies the issue
    that Mr. Dixon and I were talking about.
        And what it is, is the Americans want a piece of
    information that the Russians have developed, a scientific
    formula, in fact. So, they ask an American scientist if he
    would work as an intelligence agent to get that information. He
    goes over to the laboratory, actually the classroom of the
    Russian scientist, I think, and they start discussing formulas.
    Now, his objective is to get the formula. So, to get it, what
    he does is, he accuses the counterpart scientist of being
    stupid, that his counterpart cannot figure out a particular
    formula. His counterpart gets exasperated and writes the
    formula on the board correctly. And Paul Newman stands there
    for a minute and the other scientist realizes now he is
    memorizing what he has just written and that is the exchange.
        Now, that is an espionage operation. But I think in many
    cases we are dealing with an area of information exchange that
    may not be espionage in the sense that the person is not
    intending to transmit top secret information to the detriment
    of the United States, which by the way is a very high standard
    to prove. You may have in some cases--and I am not saying that
    this is the case here at all or in any other particular event--
    but you may have a case where top secret information gets
    transferred between two scientists and at least one of them,
    maybe the one furnishing it, has no intent at all to transfer
    top secret information, which just highlights the difficulty of
    getting a handle on these cases.
        Mr. Latham. So, it is merely intellectual property between
    them?
        Mr. Freeh. I do not think that is what we are dealing with,
    certainly not what the FBI's is dealing with.

                            Certification of Mexico

        Mr. Latham. Just one last question. And getting back to the
    relationship with Mexico. Did you recommend certification of
    Mexico to the administration and cooperation?
        Mr. Freeh. I did not. I actually had no role in that
    process whatsoever. The Drug Enforcement Administration, as you
    know, provides the factual reporting to the Administration and
    I was not active in that.
        Mr. Latham. You had no role or you had no input to the
    administration as to the question of certification or
    cooperation with your counterparts in Mexico?
        Mr. Freeh. What I furnished to them, no. I did not have any
    role in the certification process.
        Mr. Latham. Amazing.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Rogers. Mr. Mollohan.

                        FBI IAFIS and INS Ident Systems

        Mr. Mollohan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Freeh, welcome to the hearing today.
        Last year you and I engaged in dialogue regarding the FBI's
    premier fingerprint system IAFIS and INS' system IDENT. I was
    exploring the hypothesis, that there was duplication, excessive
    costs, and operational or law enforcement disadvantages to
    standing up these systems in stove pipe methods.
        I have not reviewed your responses from last year but I
    sense that there was at least some sympathy from you with
    regard to some of those concerns.
        The Justice Management Division, Management and Planning
    Staff, did a review, partially in response to my request. It
    issued a report in May of last year. I do not know that you had
    an opportunity to review this personally but I am sure your
    staff has. I would like to ask you a couple of questions with
    regard to the conclusions found in the report. I quite frankly
    do not agree with these.
        My sense is that the management division has done this
    study, and tried to accommodate the needs and wishes of both
    agencies. It has been sensitive to the territorial aspects of
    this issue to the detriment of a cogent analysis of the
    problem. That is my hypothesis. I now just want to explore a
    few of the questions with you.
        Mr. Freeh. Yes. I would be happy to. I have not read the
    report but I will try to answer your questions.
        Mr. Mollohan. I will read the pertinent part of the report
    to you.
        With regard to the issue of response time, the INS has
    asserted that it has developed the IDENT system for a fast
    response time. The report seems to be very sensitive to that
    concern.
        Sure, it is an operational requirement that it has a fast
    response time. The report, I think, I can fairly characterize
    as concluding that the IDENT system, with its two fingerprints,
    and with it being developed as a discreet data base, satisfies
    this operationally. Therefore, that conclusion allows the
    division to say that, there is no longer duplication.
        That unique operational requirement is justification for
    standing up the two systems. I do not agree with that because
    the response time is driven more by the size of the data base
    than it is with two fingerprints. Tell me if you agree or
    disagree. Indeed, if the FBI was to create, a subset data base
    in IAFIS, which I think could be easily done, and was to take
    ten fingerprints at the border and drew on that data base; if
    it was a contest between the two print search and a ten print
    search in similarly sized data bases, I would suspect that the
    ten print search would have the greater chance of winning and
    being accurate. Is that correct?
        Mr. Freeh. Yes. If the size of the data base were equal, I
    agree with that. I think that is right.
        Mr. Mollohan. All right. So, the issue about speed has a
    lot more to do with data base than it does the number of
    fingerprints. If fingerprints are a discriminating factor, ten
    will get you there faster, and more accurately than two. Will
    they not?
        Mr. Freeh. Certainly more accurately and I believe faster,
    too.
        Mr. Mollohan. Secondly, the contention by the INS, as it
    related its concerns to the people that did this report, was
    that taking a two print is so much faster than taking a ten
    print. We would have to spend millions of dollars, and INS
    would have to assert millions of dollars with holding
    facilities and additional personnel to take ten prints, instead
    of the system of taking two prints. So, operationally at the
    border the two print system is far superior to the ten print
    system. It just seems to me, that that is nuts.
        If you, at the beginning of this process, based this on a
    ten print system. You could have spent a tremendous amount of
    money that was spent in development on buying scanning
    machines, electronic scanning machines which would have made
    the time of the taking the two print fringerprint system or a
    ten print system about equal or comparable.
        I am wondering if you can personally comment on that issue?
        Mr. Freeh. Well, certainly if you are taking inked
    fingerprints, which I used to do a long time ago, it will take
    you much longer to do ten than two. If you are doing----
        Mr. Mollohan. Say that again?
        Mr. Freeh. If you are taking inked fingerprints it will
    certainly take you much more time, maybe five times as much,
    than to take two fingerprints. But if you are using a scanner,
    you know, a digital scanner, it is the same time process. I do
    not think it makes any difference whether you are taking two or
    ten.
        Mr. Mollohan. What method are we moving towards? Are we
    moving away from ink to electronic scanning?
        Mr. Freeh. Yes. I mean that is going to take some time
    because particularly because or the State and local needs, but
    I mean ideally that is where I think the discipline is moving
    to an electronic digital fingerprint.
        Mr. Mollohan. The technology is available.
        Mr. Freeh. The technology is available.
        Mr. Mollohan. So, it is a question of the respective
    jurisdictions having the money?
        Mr. Freeh. And interoperability.
        Mr. Mollohan. You are working on interoperability. So, you
    are moving toward a digital scanning system hopefully
    nationwide?
        Mr. Freeh. Sure. Well, of course, the IAFIS bedrock
    principle is the electronic transfer of fingerprint images
    which, although they are inked fingerprint cards, they are
    being sent electronically.
        Mr. Mollohan. Well, I am really not satisfied with this
    report. I think there are millions of dollars involved, and
    that the people who do these kinds of studies and come to these
    conclusions, without just going through the simple analysis I
    have gone through, do not do justice to the responsibility of
    reviewing programs of this nature and devising solutions that
    save money. These solutions are superior operationally.
        I understand territorially that INS is very proud of its
    IDENT system. Reading this report, however, just reinforces my
    thinking that INS has developed it for proprietary pride and
    not in a way that best serves the interest of law enforcement.
    I am not even going to ask you about the superiority of having
    a ten print system that is integrated. I think that is far
    superior to be able to do for law enforcement purposes.
        Okay. Well, thank you.

                         Update on IAFIS and NCIC 2000

        That gives me a little appreciation for this. Can you give
    us an update on the IAFIS and the NCIC 2000 systems?
        Mr. Freeh. Yes, certainly.
        With respect to both of them they will be fully on-line,
    within budget by July of this year. The IAFIS builds, as you
    know, have gone very successfully and they have all been pre-
    tested in terms of the integration. All of those services will
    be available as well as the NCIC in its separate components.
        We have done a lot of work over the last year, particularly
    with our State and local partners. In fact, I was there
    yesterday addressing the State and provincial chiefs making
    sure that their equipment both on a basis of the YK2 issues and
    also the interoperability and interface will be working. We
    have got a number of things that have been done by my advisory
    policy board to contact the State and local central officer to
    make sure that they have tested, that any YK2 problems that
    they have are being addressed, that we are looking at ``red
    teams'' to go out and help them if they need assistance, as
    some of them have asked for.
        So, we are very optimistic that these will be on-line and
    be working and really revolutionize the whole criminal
    identification process in the country.
        Mr. Mollohan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

                                     calea

        Mr. Rogers. Director Freeh, at the hearing last week, the
    Attorney General reported to us that we may be reaching a
    critical breakthrough in the four-year stalemate over CALEA.
    You mentioned or alluded to that in your opening statement. At
    that hearing she indicated significant progress on two fronts.
    CALEA intended to preserve, not expand, law enforcement's
    ability to intercept communications pursuant to court order, as
    telecommunications were advancing into new technologies.
        Law enforcement and the industry have been unable to come
    to an agreement over what capabilities are required under the
    CALEA statute that Congress passed in 1994. Last year, after
    three years of stalemate, we asked the Attorney General to
    petition the FCC to resolve the impasse over what technically
    is allowed or required under the law. And we expect the final
    FCC ruling this Spring.
        Do you agree that it is important to have that issue
    resolved once and for all and get it behind us?
        Mr. Freeh. Yes. Both industry and the Government believe
    that that has to be resolved and we think the FCC is well on
    its way to doing that. And the industry is, I think, preparing
    to respond whether or not the other additional four ``punch
    list'' items are approved or not.
        Mr. Rogers. In addition to disagreement over the technical
    standards which will be decided by the FCC, serious concerns
    have been raised over the cost of implementing CALEA. Last week
    the Attorney General outlined a plan which would set
    implementation of CALEA into motion. Key aspects included a
    buy-out of the CALEA solution for manufacturers, flexibility in
    deployment, and relief for small rural carriers.
        She indicated her belief that such an approach would
    minimize the costs to the industry, as well as ensure that the
    Federal Government's cost would not exceed the $500 million
    authorized, which is my interest.
        Do you support the proposal laid out by the Attorney
    General last week?
        Mr. Freeh. Yes, I do. Very completely, Mr. Chairman. The
    letter of intent the FBI has signed now with one manufacturer
    will, as she described to you, affect the buy-out of a CALEA
    solution which will be applied not just to a major set of
    platforms but that software will be made available really
    without charge to many of the common carriers.
        It also indicates that the cost, using the cost of this
    particular contract as a baseline, that the cost will be well
    achievable within the $500 million authorization. We are going
    to apply, as the Attorney General mentioned, a flexible
    standard with respect to reasonable achievability. We will
    also, with respect to the small carriers, both by priority of
    CALEA compliance but also by exemption, make sure that a
    company that has little or no occasion to be the subject of an
    interception platform will have to do in the extraordinary
    course that is not a normal upgrade, but an extraordinary
    manner, upgrading their whole system will not be required. And
    I think that will be a fair and equitable way to protect both
    their interests and the Government's interests.

                        importance of wiretap capability

        Mr. Rogers. How important is it that you have the
    capability to wire tap?
        Mr. Freeh. I think it is critical. And when I say that I do
    not say it just for the FBI, I say it for every law enforcement
    authority in the country, including 14,000 State and local
    police departments. They do about half of the court ordered
    implementation, the Federal Government does the other half.
    Without this tool, we cannot work drug cases, we cannot work
    terrorism cases, we cannot work counterintelligence cases, we
    cannot do anything that requires the timely and understandable
    interception of communications.

                           calea funding requirements

        Mr. Rogers. Now, to date, a total of a $100 million out of
    the $500 million that is authorized has been provided to you to
    fund the implementation of CALEA. Your fiscal 2000 budget
    request is for an additional $15 million. Given the progress
    that is being made to resolve the stalemate all of the sudden
    here, is that $15 million sufficient to meet your CALEA
    requirements in fiscal year 2000?
        Mr. Freeh. I do not believe that it is. We asked the Office
    of Management and Budget for $150 million. Particularly now,
    when a buy-out is being achieved, the economies of scale, as
    well as the baseline price which is being set which many of the
    other manufacturers are going to want to comply with, we
    believe, the lack of available resources to complete that buy-
    out I think is very disadvantageous at this point.
        Mr. Rogers. So, we should consider this increased funding
    for CALEA to be a high priority as we look at your fiscal year
    2000 budget request?
        Mr. Freeh. I would consider it a very high priority, sir.

                         information sharing initiative

        Mr. Rogers. Now, again, this year the largest single
    increase in your budget, $39 million, is for a multi-year
    project to improve the automation systems that you use for your
    case management and investigative databases. Last year, you
    told us you needed $400 million for the project, which is a
    very large sum of money. Given the FBI's track record on
    delivering major systems we were, pardon me, skeptical. But we
    gave you $60 million to begin the initiative, however, we asked
    you first to give us a plan before you spent the money. We have
    not yet received this plan.
        Why is it taking so long to develop the plan?
        Mr. Freeh. We have developed maybe not the four-year final
    plan but the incremental plan and I will make sure that we
    furnish that to you in the current form that it is.
        What I wanted to stress about this, and your skepticism is
    certainly a well-founded one, is two things. One is that we are
    not, as we were with IAFIS and NCIC, writing and acquiring a
    whole new software system, a whole new electronic system. This
    is equipment which is now currently available on the shelf
    which is being used by, as I mentioned, major companies. Each
    one of these purchases is beneficial in itself. In other words,
    if we do not get any more money than what you generously gave
    us last year, that will give us within the FBI a tremendously
    enhanced capacity to manage electronically our cases.
        So, it is not like it was, you know, with the IAFIS, where
    we build up to a final $640 million goal which then is going to
    rise and fall on the success of the integration. Each of these
    incremental builds, in itself, is very, very important. I will
    get to you a plan and a description as quickly as I can.
        Mr. Rogers. Well, we specifically wanted a comprehensive
    multi-year plan because this is a huge multi-year expenditure.
    Given the problems we have had with IAFIS, NCIC 2000 and
    others, I want to see your plan upfront.
        Mr. Freeh. The plan is sitting at OMB and we are told it is
    about to be approved. And should be here, my note says, quickly
    but let me go back and find out what that means. But I will get
    it out of there one way or the other for you.
        [Clerk's note.--Subsequent to the hearing, the following
    information was provided:]

        The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) cleared the Information
    Sharing Initiative Five-Year Implementation Plan on March 15, 1999. The
    Department of Justice transmitted the plan to the House and Senate
    Committees on Appropriations on April 5, 1999.

        Mr. Rogers. Well, we will need to see that before we markup
    this bill.
        Mr. Freeh. I understand that, sir.
        Mr. Rogers. Or else there is no money.
        I am not going to go down that road again----
        Mr. Freeh. I understand.
        Mr. Rogers [continuing]. Of giving money without seeing
    what we are doing upfront on something this large.
        Mr. Freeh. Okay.
        Mr. Rogers. I want you to have the tools you need, but we
    want that plan upfront before we mark up.
        Mr. Freeh. I understand, sir.
        Mr. Rogers. How much do you expect the project to cost?
        Mr. Freeh. I think our estimates were $432 million.
        Mr. Rogers. And when do you expect the system will be
    finished?
        Mr. Freeh. It will be four more years including this fiscal
    year.
        Mr. Rogers. Is this years in terms of IAFIS years?
    [Laughter.]
        Mr. Freeh. We hope not.
        We promise not.
        Mr. Rogers. How confident are you that you can deliver that
    project on time and within budget?
        Mr. Freeh. I am very confident and I am not a technician.
    The reason that I say that is when I visit my friends in the
    private industry they show me on their desks what they have.
    So, I know it has been invented and I know it is out there, and
    I just want to get it into the FBI.

                          fbi laboratory construction

        Mr. Rogers. Now, we previously provided a $130 million for
    your new FBI laboratory. You were set to begin that
    construction in January 1999. What is the status of
    construction?
        Mr. Freeh. We have the bids. We are prepared to award
    within the next couple of weeks. Some of the delays had to do
    with the restructuring of the laboratory because it is being
    built, as you know, on the Quantico facility and because of
    some of the training that goes on in that vicinity we had to go
    back and re-harden the infrastructure so it would not be
    affected in terms of instrumentation.
        We had an environmental issue that delayed us for some time
    but we are ready to award the contract to the appropriate
    bidder and start the construction. And I believe we can do it
    as efficiently as we did the CJIS project out in West Virginia.
        Mr. Rogers. When will you award the contract?
        Mr. Freeh. Within the next four weeks we believe we can do
    that.
        Mr. Rogers. And when are you scheduled to be finished with
    it?
        Mr. Freeh. At the end of 2001.
        Mr. Rogers. Are you still on target within the $130
    million?
        Mr. Freeh. Yes, we are.
        Mr. Rogers. That was agreed to, that figure was agreed to.
        Mr. Freeh. It was agreed to.
        Mr. Rogers. And we appropriated it.
        Mr. Freeh. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Rogers. You got the money.
        Mr. Freeh. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Rogers. And you will not ask for any more?
        Mr. Freeh. No. If we need any more, we will have to do it
    on our own and we will do it on our own with your permission.
    One of the things, let me just mention it, the Inspector
    General report, which was a very critical report of parts of
    our laboratory operation, and which was very, very helpful to
    us in restructuring things, was given to us after the
    laboratory price was estimated to you at $130 million. That
    report called for separate work spaces for every examiner for
    contamination purposes. And there have been some other things
    that will require some additions. But we will not, I am told
    that we will not be asking for more money. I certainly will not
    be asking for more money but we may ask for some reprogramming
    consideration if we need to look at those contamination issues.
        Mr. Rogers. Well, now, you are requesting an increase of $5
    million to begin purchasing equipment for the lab, which is not
    scheduled to be finished until late 2001.
        Mr. Freeh. Yes.
        Mr. Rogers. Why is that necessary this year?
        Mr. Freeh. A lot of this equipment I am told, like the gas
    spectrometers, has to be custom built. A lot of the
    instrumentation that we are asking for is not available off the
    shelf. You need to put orders in to have the equipment actually
    built and instrumented.
        Mr. Rogers. What do you estimate that the cost of new
    equipment to be in the new lab?
        Mr. Freeh. Beyond the $5 million?
        Mr. Rogers. Yes.
        Mr. Freeh. I am told that that is approximately $29
    million.
        Mr. Rogers. That is $29 million?
        Mr. Freeh. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Rogers. And what about relocation expenses?
        Mr. Freeh. We estimate about $4 million for that, Mr.
    Chairman.
        Mr. Rogers. Well, I just have to tell you that we are
    squeezed beyond belief this year for money. Anything that you
    can do to trim or delay the those costs within the parameters
    of getting the job done would be helpful because the caps are
    still binding on us and we have got inordinate demands this
    year.
        Mr. Freeh. Right. I will do that. Some of the $5 million,
    for instance, I know has to do with the instrumentation. Some
    of it is furnishings and let us take a look at that and see if
    we can delay some of those things.

                               title v exemption

        Mr. Rogers. Now, two years ago, you expressed a critical
    need for an exemption from the Federal pay system for
    recruitment of personnel for certain highly specialized or
    technical positions in the FBI. We gave you that authority for
    up to 3,000 positions as part of the fiscal year 1998 bill. But
    we also requested that you provide to the Committee an outline
    of the proposed new personnel system and a description of the
    problematic provisions of Title V.
        You failed to submit that report in a timely fashion. In
    fact, we got the draft of your plan a full six months after the
    statutory deadline. And because of that delay your budget now
    proposes that we give you a two-year extension on the program.
    Why were you late in providing the proposal for the new system?
        Mr. Freeh. Well, the delay is our responsibility and
    clearly my responsibility. We had a long series of discussions,
    I guess you could call them, with OMB, with some of the other
    Governmental personnel departments. A lot of objections had to
    be resolved over negotiations and there was a series of delays,
    but we do have a plan.
        We think it will be very, very beneficial to us. As I
    mentioned in my opening statement, some of these people we are
    hiring, we could not have hired without the Title V exemption
    categories. We are hiring major scientists and people who will
    make all these systems that are so important to us and which
    you have funded work and work efficiently.
        So, I think the program is still as vital as it was when we
    asked for it and we are simply asking for the full three-year
    period to perform this hiring operation.
        Mr. Rogers. How many people have you hired to date using
    that authority?
        Mr. Freeh. We have two on duty, we have nine who have been
    accepted for positions, and this is an initiative which I
    believe will move very, very quickly, now that we have the
    positions defined, advertised, and we are getting a very good
    response for them.
        Mr. Rogers. How many vacancies would you fill this year?
        Mr. Freeh. At least 59 to 60 and these would all be in the
    very senior technical classes.

                           infrastructure protection

        Mr. Rogers. Now, as you know, great concern has been
    expressed over the vulnerability of the nation's critical
    infrastructure. In fact, last year Presidential Decision
    Directive Number 63 was issued which outlined a Government-wide
    initiative to assess, prevent and respond to vulnerabilities in
    attacks on our nation's infrastructure. This Directive came as
    a result of the recommendations of the President's Commission
    on Critical Infrastructure-Protection.
        The FBI was given primary responsibility for warning and
    investigations of threats to our infrastructure and we provided
    you over $28 million in new resources in fiscal year 1999 to
    meet your responsibilities under that directive.
        Have you utilized those increases that we have provided and
    what are you requesting in the year 2000?
        Mr. Freeh. Mr. Chairman, the NIPC is nearly fully staffed
    and that has been, as I mentioned, we think a very, very
    successful endeavor. The participation there, as you know, is
    not just from FBI personnel but personnel from many different
    Federal agencies including some of the security agencies. We
    are now looking to incorporate into that some of the private
    industry participation that was contemplated when we set this
    up.
        This is a program, both in its headquarters capacity and
    now in its field representation, particularly the computer
    squads and the ones that we have asked for on enhancement, this
    is a capability that did not exist in the law enforcement
    community two years ago until this was set up.
        And the benefits from this will be phenomenal in terms of
    the capacity to do our job and protect people.
        Mr. Rogers. And what are you asking in 2000?
        Mr. Freeh. We are asking for a $1.6 million enhancement.

                           private sector cooperation

        Mr. Rogers. Now, have you made any progress in convincing
    the private sector to deal with the problem of computer and
    network intrusions? Many private companies have been reluctant
    to report intrusions to law enforcement due to fear that it
    would become public. Have you made any progress in that
    respect?
        Mr. Freeh. Yes, I believe we have. First of all, the number
    of reported intrusion cases has increased very markedly. We
    have a very active community liaison/industry liaison program
    that deals not just with the awareness of this issue but
    encourages them to come forward.
        A lot of the cases that are being developed now under the
    Economic Espionage Program, which is a statute that Congress
    passed three years ago, have been generated because industry's
    willingness to come to us. There is a case in Philadelphia
    involving the Bristol-Meyers company which has to do with a
    very, very sensitive and tremendously expensive trade secret
    which was the subject of the theft and the prosecution. They
    came forward, in part, I believe because of the awareness of
    the program.
        Secondly, the statute, as the Congress wisely wrote it,
    includes a provision to protect trade secrets through the
    course of discovery. So, I think that the program is growing
    very quickly and the number of cases I think is in part because
    of the industry's confidence that one, their trade secrets will
    be protected and, secondly, because we will respond to them
    quickly.

                    aircraft for terrorist incident response

        Mr. Rogers. Now, the fiscal year 1999 omnibus conference
    report included funding for the DoD to procure a new aircraft
    for dedicated use by the Federal Bureau of Investigation to
    respond to terrorist incidents among other things.
        Could you give us a status on that, and tell us what
    additional capabilities that might give you to respond to
    terrorist incidents?
        Mr. Freeh. The capability that would give us is really
    essential for us. If we were to have another major bombing
    within our jurisdiction, some place around the world, our
    current plan calls for sending an advance team of agents and
    communicators, within four hours, in the air, wheels up to the
    scene.
        That is only the first part of the deployment. The fast
    aircraft, and Congress contemplated a Gulfstream V in the
    legislation, gives us the theater capability to move witnesses,
    and perhaps pick up prisoners as we had to do in the African
    bombings. We had many countries who would not let us land the
    short-range aircraft to bring them back. We had to bring one of
    them back in this huge plane because we did not have a fast
    aircraft to get where we have to go.
        I also want the plane in theater for medical evacuations
    and for sending agents to places for leads. We had to put
    people, for instance, in the Comoro Islands within a couple of
    hours.
        That is the fast plane capacity that we need. Unfortunately
    we have not been able to resolve this yet with the Department
    of Defense and we have had a number of negotiations. I have
    been in touch with Secretary Cohen. We have another meeting
    scheduled this week. We have not been able to agree in a manner
    that meets those particular needs and specifications that I
    have. So, we are working to get that done now.
        Mr. Rogers. What is their hangup?
        Mr. Freeh. The dispute or the disagreement has been the
    aircraft furnished to the FBI for purposes of the deployment
    and then each time I have to do another redeployment. In other
    words, if I have to pick up a prisoner or a witness or move
    somebody out for medical, I have to go back through the White
    House Military Office and through the Department of Defense for
    a whole new authorization. And our theory of the emergency is
    that the emergency exists for purposes of conducting the case.
    You do not send a Delta Force over and then take their plane
    away.
        So, we need to work this out.
        Mr. Rogers. Yes, you do. And it absolutely flabbergasts me
    that the bureaucrats cannot get a simple thing like a small
    plane for the counterterrorism operation of the country to use
    to help stop terrorism. That is beyond me.
        I mean I have heard a lot of things but this one, it tops
    the bill.
        We have been working on this for a while. I have been
    working on this for a year or more. I want the name of the
    bureaucrat who is holding up the use of a small jet plane to
    transport the bombers of our embassies back to this country for
    trial.
        I want the name, address and telephone number of that
    bureaucrat. Will you get that for me?
        Mr. Freeh. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Rogers. Mr. Serrano.
        Mr. Serrano. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I thought the FBI did not give out that kind of
    information. [Laughter.]
        Mr. Freeh. That kind, we do. [Laughter.]
        Mr. Serrano. Remember, I am your friend. [Laughter.]

                         criminal use of new technology

        Mr. Serrano. Director Freeh, you stated well, very well,
    the challenges that the Bureau is meeting in dealing with cyber
    crime, if you will, criminals who are using the new technology.
    You also spoke about your challenges in the Bureau to be up to
    date in the use of these technologies. I suspect, if I prodded
    you, you would tell me that you are not where you want to be
    regarding technology within the Bureau. And, that some of the
    criminals may be better equipped to commit their crimes than
    you are maybe to understand what they are doing.
        How do you balance that? How do you balance the fact that
    if you are not up to par where you want to be, to know that
    someone out there is, in fact, committing a crime, because a
    lot of these crimes are not yet identified as such. A lot of
    what is happening out there that is misuse of the Internet and
    so it is not identified as a crime yet, I imagine.
        Mr. Freeh. Yes. You know, a lot of it has to do with, as we
    have done, thanks to your Committee and the other Committees
    here, coming to you with our problems and asking for the tools
    and the statutes to respond.
        For instance, the economic espionage statute, which the FBI
    requested several years ago is an incredibly important statute.
    With a computer you can break into a company and download a
    trade secret, perhaps worth millions and millions of dollars in
    terms of development and billions of dollars in terms of
    product, thousands of jobs perhaps involved. You can download
    that and ship it around the world in a couple of seconds.
        Now, until we had the economic espionage statute, there was
    a serious question whether that was a crime. We had a court in,
    I believe it was Massachusetts, who said that that was not the
    interstate transportation of stolen property because
    intellectual formula and property downloaded is not a good as
    the statute contemplated, so, therefore, it was not a crime.
    So, one response is to get those kinds of tools that we needed
    to do the crime.
        Pedophiles, you know, working on the Internet where they
    are not looking for your children on the street corner but
    actually coming into your home requires a whole different set
    of computer skills and capability which, you know, must be
    received and then used properly to deal with that particular
    crime.
        Bank robbers using, laptop computers to steal money out of
    banks as opposed to notes and guns requires a lot of different
    tools. So, if you look at the last couple of budgets that I
    have asked to be considered here--and you have considered them
    very generously and very prudently--I am talking about
    infrastructure, whether that be continued ability to use
    electronic surveillance without expanding our powers,
    computers, information infrastructure, these are things to get
    us into the game. Because as you point out, a lot of the people
    we are working against have these tools and are using them
    effectively against the people we protect.
        So, we always have a little bit of catching up to do. As we
    solve these technical problems I am sure we will see other
    ones. But I think the ability to come back here and present
    them and get the response we have gotten has been what is
    keeping us in the game.

                                privacy concerns

        Mr. Serrano. Well, that then brings me to another thought.
    While at times throughout the history of the Bureau, there have
    been some feelings by some folks that their rights and their
    privacy have been abused, there has always been an attempt, I
    think by Congress and by the Bureau, itself, to keep a check on
    that and to deal with law as it is and to protect and respect
    people's privacy.
        So, now, in the process of finding out about this whole new
    series of crimes and this approach to crime, how do we continue
    to balance the desire to get these folks with my rights to use
    the Internet and not have my rights violated as an innocent
    bystander?
        Mr. Freeh. Well, I think you have to insist, not only in
    your oversight but in our internal oversight and really the
    oversight ultimately of the people that we work for, that the
    advent of new crimes and new techniques does not mean that we
    abridge the Fourth Amendment or the First Amendment. That the
    same rights and constitutional protections have to apply.
        In fact, we have to be more conscious of them working in
    some of these environments. We need internal guidelines. We
    need oversight. As I have said before, probably we should be
    the most scrutinized agency in the country because of the
    enormous powers that we have and the impact that we have on
    people's rights and liberties.
        I think that is the case and I think that the oversight of
    not just this Committee but many others, and our internal
    guidelines, the Attorney General's oversight, our internal
    processes will, to the best we can, ensure compliance with the
    Constitution and statutory authorities that have to control and
    even limit the things that we can do.
        Nothing that we have asked for, even going back to CALEA in
    1994, expands in any way our statutory or constitutional
    authorities. Now, there are those that argue that and I have
    said many times publicly that that is really not a valid
    argument. We are not asking for new powers to do digital
    investigations, we are just asking for the powers that the
    Framers and the Fourth Amendment gave to the constable. The
    Fourth Amendment says that everyone should be protected in
    their homes and papers unless the Supreme Court says we can
    convince a magistrate, a neutral and detached magistrate, that
    someone is using their papers or homes to commit a crime.
        Mr. Serrano. And, that includes your computer?
        Mr. Freeh. Exactly. That has not changed. We are not trying
    to disturb the balance of the Fourth Amendment. But the Framers
    were not thinking about the Internet, obviously, they were not
    thinking about a computer environment. But the same requirement
    adheres. I have go to, the constable has to go, into the
    magistrate, neutral and detached, and make my case with
    probable cause, with reasonable suspicion, with whatever the
    standard might be, and then that magistrate has to approve or
    disapprove of that authority. That has not changed and should
    not change and we are not asking that it change. We are just
    saying that if we need a digital formula instead of a key to
    get into a place that a judge says we can get in, we have to
    have that new tool.
        Mr. Serrano. But the difference, it would seem to me, and
    where we have to be careful and where you have to become, the
    Bureau has to become a defender of the Constitution and
    constitutional rights is that my understanding usually when you
    want to find out what two people are saying you get a court
    order to find out what those two people are saying. And in the
    process you may listen to that person's laundry guy or grocery
    clerk or something coming in and talking to them, but you are
    not intending to listen to those folks because you are not
    reaching the whole neighborhood. You are not listening in on
    the whole neighborhood.
        But on the Internet it is possible that while listening or
    trying to find out what two people are doing or one person is
    doing, you run across a thousand people from throughout the
    world or at least throughout the country which is our concern
    here. And how do you protect against that, against those
    people, innocent people being involved in something that they,
    you know, or their information coming across or whatever?
        Mr. Freeh. Yes.
        Mr. Serrano. I mean you could be chasing a criminal who
    likes to chat and he is in a chat room with, you know,
    students, and lawyers and doctors and ministers who also like
    to chat. How do you protect them from the fact that you are
    trying to get him?
        Mr. Freeh. It is a great question and a valid question. We
    protect his rights and the rights of the people he may talk to
    the same way we do it now and the same way we have done it
    since 1968. When we get a order from a Federal judge that
    allows us to conduct electronic surveillance, the standard of
    proof and specificity in that application is higher than any
    other application that we make to a Federal judge.
        One of the provisions of that order that is required by the
    statute is what they call the minimization of innocent
    conversations. It is not just third parties, but the innocent
    conversations of the person who the judge has found by probable
    cause is probably committing a crime on that facility.
        So, when our agents now monitor a telephone line or a room
    where there are a lot of people sitting in a room and one
    subject is engaged in a conspiracy with another participant but
    the other people are innocent, our requirement--and this is a
    statutory requirement--and a court requirement is that we
    minimize all those innocent conversations. So, if the two
    subjects start talking about baseball, we minimize that and we
    turn that off.
        Now, we have the power, the physical power to keep that on
    and listen to everything and record everything. That would be a
    crime, first of all, and that would be something which in the
    suppression process and the discovery process would result not
    only in a dismissal but sanctions and charges against the
    people who violated, in this case, the statute.
        So, the law really has not changed. We are talking about
    the changing of the venue. We are going to the Internet as
    opposed to a wire room in a gambling operation. We are going
    onto a digital plane as opposed to an analog plane. So,
    everything has changed except the basic rules. The rules of the
    Constitution and the statute are clear. If we violate them we
    should be prosecuted as well as any other law enforcement. So,
    we still have to rely on the honesty and integrity of our
    police forces and the FBI, which I think is very, very high.
        If we fail in that, we should pay the price. But the same
    trust, and reliability is going to exist whether you are asking
    me to investigate a gambling case or look at a criminal who is
    committing pedophile offenses on the Internet.
        Mr. Serrano. Right. And, I guess if two criminals are
    discussing baseball that is okay. But, if one of them knocks
    the Yankees, let me know about it. [Laughter.]

                                 amadou diallo

        Mr. Serrano. Let me bring you--speaking of the Yankees and
    the Bronx--bring you back home to something, a question I have
    asked a lot of people that have come before this Committee. You
    are obviously aware of the incident that has brought national
    attention to this whole issue of how the police behave with
    certain folks and it is the incident of Amadou Diallo, who was
    shot 41 times by four police officers in the doorway of his
    home.
        He was an African immigrant who, by all accounts, was here
    just to learn computer science, incidentally, because that was
    the one thing his middle class family could not provide for him
    back home in terms of finding those studies.
        He was making his way through life and he was shot 41 times
    and there is no indication that there was any reason, other
    than a reaction or whatever. Reports from New York now say that
    the Justice Department and the FBI are more than monitoring
    that investigation. I am not going to ask you whether you are
    or not. That is improper. But I will ask you is there something
    that the Bureau can do to deal with this issue, this growing
    issue and this growing concern, whether it be obviously an
    investigation and information for prosecution or just helping
    police departments deal with this issue?
        Mr. Freeh. Yes, there is. And we do that as a matter of
    course. Part of our civil rights program is specifically
    dedicated, not just by program but by resource, to education,
    particularly of police departments on a weekly basis all over
    the country. We have our agents in the civil rights program
    going into police departments and presenting courses, seminars,
    materials, written and otherwise, on the importance and the
    critical need for police officers, those who enforce the law,
    to be within the law, particularly with respect to civil rights
    and due process and all those other things. So, that is an
    important part of our program.
        Because of resources, we probably do not do as much of that
    as is even requested by our state and local partners. A lot,
    most of the program has to do with criminal enforcement. In
    fact, the case you mentioned, because it is publicly known, we
    are very involved even at the crime scene. But a part of our
    program has to do with that education.
        It would probably be money well spent because of the impact
    that this problem has on communities to upgrade that and do it
    more as an FBI program. The Department of Justice does it much
    more expansively because they have resources for it. We do it
    as an adjunct to our enforcement program.
        Mr. Serrano. Well, I thank you. Mr. Chairman, I do not have
    any further questions and I suspect that there might not be, I
    suspect, another round. So, I just wanted to take this
    opportunity to thank the Director, not only for coming before
    us today, for the work he does and hope that he stays on top of
    all of these issues. And just in closing, I suspect that one of
    the challenges you are going to meet, different than when you
    listen in on a roomful of people, is that some of these guys
    who know how to use computers and girls who know how to use
    this equipment will not only be on line when you are
    investigating someone but they will probably let people know
    who you are listening, who you are looking at to the Internet.
    Because they will have that ability and that is a challenge
    that we all have to meet.
        Mr. Freeh. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Serrano. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Rogers. Is it possible in the Internet to go back to
    the beginning of time so to speak on the Internet and find out
    who invented the Internet? [Laughter.]
        Mr. Serrano. Well, probably this Committee, I think.
        Mr. Rogers. Mr. Dixon?

                           defensive arming proposal

        Mr. Dixon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Director Freeh, I notice in your proposed language, in
    Section 123, that you are asking for a demonstration project to
    arm up to 50 employees. Your justification indicates that they
    are non-agents.
        Mr. Freeh. Yes.
        Mr. Dixon. Could you talk a little bit about that?
        Mr. Freeh. Sure.
        Mr. Dixon. The necessity and the exposure to the
    Department?
        Mr. Freeh. Yes. These are non-agents. We call them our
    special SSG program. They have traditionally been involved and
    are involved in doing surveillance, particularly in the
    counterintelligence area. But they have also more recently
    become involved in the counter-terrorism area.
        And my request for the firearms pilot program--and this
    would be, by the way, done as we train all our people with
    firearms. They would get the full training, all the scrutiny,
    and all the selection. We would do it on a test pilot basis.
        My concern is to have it as a defensive position because we
    are sending these employees, in many cases, very young
    employees, into what I feel are very dangerous situations.
    Because the people that we are following are not just classic
    espionage agents, in some cases now they are terrorists. We
    would like to have in their group, not all of them but, some
    kind of defensive capacity. They would get all the training,
    the deadly force policy indoctrination and we would evaluate
    it.
        But they have made that request to me, personally. I have
    looked it. We have all looked at it, we think it is reasonable
    and would like to proceed with it.
        Mr. Dixon. Is there additional compensation involved here?
        Mr. Freeh. I do not believe so, no.
        Mr. Dixon. Would they just----
        Mr. Freeh. I am sorry, not for the demonstration project.
    Your question is, will they then become an 1811 officer? That
    is a good question. I do not know the answer to that.
        Mr. Dixon. Well, I suspect this is the first step.
        Mr. Freeh. Yes. Let me get back to you with the answer to
    that.
        [Clerk's note.--The following information was submitted
    subsequent to the hearing:]

        The legislative proposal for the Defensive Arming Demonstration
    Project includes language that ``personnel designated under this
    authority shall not be deemed law enforcement officers under Title 5,
    United States Code, for pay, retirement, or position classification
    purposes.''

        Mr. Dixon. Okay. Has any authorizing committee looked at
    this issue?
        Mr. Freeh. We submitted it last year. I do not know if it
    was reviewed.
        Mr. Dixon. Was it knocked out last year?
        Mr. Freeh. No. It was not knocked out.
        Mr. Dixon. Well, maybe we can, if it was not knocked out,
    is that the state of the law at the present time?
        Mr. Freeh. We have no such authority right now.

                                use of polygraph

        Mr. Dixon. Oh, okay. I suspect that is quite controversial.
        Let me ask you generally, and this is the last question I
    have, as I understand it, counterintelligence, in general,
    would be using and relying on polygraph more and more. Is that
    true?
        Mr. Freeh. I think it depends what facet of
    counterintelligence you are talking about. The Energy
    Department now is using it. They never have used it before. We
    have always used it selectively. The CIA has used it more
    expansively.
        Mr. Dixon. Right.
        Let me ask, would it be better--based on some past
    experiences--to have those kinds of examinations centralized? I
    am not suggesting that they be in your department, perhaps the
    FBI is the best one to do it. But we have the CIA doing their
    own polygraph. We are going to have more and more at Energy.
    And we have the FBI doing the same thing. Would it be better to
    centralize all polygraph in the same agency of Government? Has
    any thought been given to that?
        Mr. Freeh. I do not know of any. But it is certainly a good
    suggestion because many times, I will not say many times----
        Mr. Dixon. I do not know if it is good or bad. It just
    seems to me, with all these people running around they may get
    different results.
        Mr. Freeh. I know on, not an infrequent basis, because I
    can think of a couple of instances as I sit here, we have
    reviewed polygraph examinations of other agencies that have
    found no deception, and we have found deception very quickly.
    We've gone back to them and they have agreed. So, there is a
    degree of differences in terms of the expertise, I think.
        So, it may be well to consider something that you suggest.
    I do not know that we have ever done that.
        Mr. Dixon. Has there ever been any discussion about that?
        Mr. Freeh. Interestingly, not that I know of. Let me find
    out and I will get back to you.
        [Clerk's note.--The following information was submitted
    subsequent to the hearing:]

        The FBI is not aware of any previous proposals to centralize all
    polygraph examinations within a single agency.

        Mr. Dixon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Freeh. Thank you, sir.
        Mr. Rogers. Your job, Mr. Director, has become immensely
    more complicated given the technological marvels that are
    taking place in the world, which makes the information that you
    are seeking in criminal investigations harder to get.
        And the complexity of the crimes that you are investigating
    continues to grow. So, I think you and the Department are doing
    a good job keeping up with these changes.
        I know there are things that you need that you do not have,
    and cannot get perhaps at the moment.
        But this Committee wants to be there to try to help you do
    your job, and we want you to convey to your associates the
    thanks that the country has for the job you are doing.
        Mr. Freeh. I will do that.
        Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Rogers. It is good to see you.
        Thank you very much.
        Mr. Freeh. Thank you very much.

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                              Thursday, March 25, 1999.

                           DRUG ENFORCEMENT PROGRAMS

                                   WITNESSES

    THOMAS A. CONSTANTINE, ADMINISTRATOR, DRUG ENFORCEMENT ADMINISTRATION
    DONNA A. BUCELLA, DIRECTOR, EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR UNITED STATES
        ATTORNEYS
    JAMES K. ROBINSON, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, CRIMINAL DIVISION,
        DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

                         Mr. Rogers' Opening Statement

        Mr. Rogers. The Committee will be in order. We are pleased
    to welcome this afternoon Thomas Constantine, the Administrator
    of the Drug Enforcement Administration; Donna Bucella, the
    Director of the Executive Office for the United States
    Attorneys; and James Robinson, the Assistant Attorney General
    of the Criminal Division, to discuss the Department of
    Justice's law enforcement efforts in the war on drugs.
        Our Nation is being weakened by the prevalence of drugs and
    drug-related crime in our communities. Without investments in
    law enforcement to take down and punish drug traffickers and
    prevention programs that are aimed at stopping children from
    using drugs, we cannot and will not succeed in the war on
    drugs. Cocaine and heroin are cheaper and more plentiful than
    ever on the streets of America. Methamphetamine, which can be
    produced fairly simply in any kitchen in any community, is
    spreading fast to all areas of the country. To respond to these
    very serious problems, this Subcommittee has tried to give you
    the resources you need to fight the problem. We need all of us
    to work together. Law enforcement is a vital component, and
    this Committee will seek to ensure that adequate resources are
    provided to address the problem.
        Mr. Serrano.
        Mr. Serrano. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        This is probably the easiest issue for you and I to agree
    on. I, as you know, represent the South Bronx and the drug
    problem has always been a problem. I am here to welcome the
    three of you and to support you, Mr. Chairman, in anything the
    subcommittee can do to do the right thing. I would also, during
    the question and answer period, be paying some special
    attention to the other district that I represent, which is the
    Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and I would like to hear some of
    your thoughts about what is going on there.
        I thank you.
        Mr. Rogers. We will include all of your written statements
    in the record. We welcome your opening remarks, and
    Administrator Constantine, we will ask you to proceed.

                      Opening Statement of Mr. Constantine

        Mr. Constantine. Thank you, Congressman. I thank you and
    members of the subcommittee. In the numbers of times I have
    testified in Congress during the year, I have always felt that
    this is one of the most important presentations that I make,
    because it is an opportunity to act as an advocate for the
    thousands of DEA agents, task force officers and court
    personnel who do so much for all of us in this country.
        About an hour ago I just left a graduation of 47 new DEA
    agents and their families. I have been in law enforcement now
    almost 39 years and I have never seen such a quality of people
    who have decided to enter this profession, who are willing to
    dedicate their lives and, unfortunately, sometimes sacrifice
    their lives for all of us.
        So the first task that I do is to thank you and the
    Committee for the extraordinary support that you have given us
    over the last 5 years. The continued efforts to enhance DEA's
    resources have improved our ability to pursue and to bring to
    justice the leaders of the increasingly powerful drug
    syndicates throughout the world. We have tried to use these
    assets in an effective way to pursue the international
    organized crime syndicates that are responsible for trafficking
    within the United States. In fiscal year 1999 we achieved
    significant results in a series of investigations directed
    against major trafficking.

                           joint drug investigations

        To give you an example of one such investigation and why
    such cooperative investigations are important I would like to
    briefly discuss an investigation that was conducted by the DEA,
    the FBI, the Department of Justice, the Texas Department of
    Public Safety and the Michigan State Police. It was code named
    Operation Reciprocity, and dealt with one major organization
    operating out of Juarez, Mexico. We arrested 41 individuals
    during the course of that investigation and seized 7 tons of
    cocaine and $11 million in cash. More importantly, a
    cooperating witness in that same investigation has advised us
    that in the space of 18 months he delivered 90 tons of cocaine
    into the United States and returned $100 million in cash back
    to his leaders in Juarez. One of the key aspects of that
    investigation was a very, very observant pair of troopers in
    Tyler, Texas operating on a highway interdiction program. They
    seized $3 million in cash and about $4,000 in marijuana and the
    information on all of the traffickers in Michigan, New York and
    Texas.
        To give you a sense of the effectiveness of this highway
    interdiction program carried out by uniformed police officers
    and deputy sheriffs, in 10 years they have seized 116 tons of
    cocaine, 872 tons of marijuana, and $510 million in cash, and
    they have also given us key information. I have been around law
    enforcement long enough to know that the statistical
    accomplishments in and of themselves are not the true measure
    of success. However, when you couple that with the strategy of
    targeting the right groups and the right organizations, we can
    be and have been effective.
        From 1994 to 1998 we have almost doubled the numbers of DEA
    arrests that our agents make: 22,000 to over 39,000. From 1997
    to 1998, our cocaine seizures were up 21 percent, heroin 40
    percent, methamphetamine 70 percent, and laboratories 28
    percent. But probably the most successful program that we have
    had is attacking the violence that is occurring in the United
    States as a result of drug trafficking.

                            mobile enforcement teams

        In 1995, we embarked on a strategy of targeting drug
    trafficking groups that were responsible for a significant
    amount of community violence. We called them mobile enforcement
    teams. We have now deployed 250 of the new agent positions we
    have received over the last several years to form 24 such
    teams. Since 1995, we have deployed these teams to over 203
    cities, towns and counties throughout the United States. Often,
    these are the cities, towns and counties that are dealing with
    violent drug trafficking gangs, but at the same time have
    limited resources. We arrested over 8,000 individuals, most
    often people who were violent and arrested for other crimes in
    addition to drug trafficking.
        We have done a study of the 6-month pre-deployment and 6-
    month post deployment of 126 of those 223 assignments. We can
    only do 126 because some of them are ongoing as we speak. We
    have determined there were 127 less homicides in those
    communities, 3,644 less robberies, and 3,183 less assaults. It
    is easy to see how that number of homicides may reach 200 once
    the studies are completed, and if the community is able to
    continue that level of safety, we will have saved a number of
    lives over the years.

                         migration of the drug problem

        The one changing threat that I think is important for all
    of us to note is the continued migration of the drug problem,
    once thought to only be in the major urban centers of the
    United States and is now in the smaller cities, suburban areas
    and rural communities. This is a shift to communities that have
    limited resources.
        On February 23rd, 1999, we hosted a symposium for officials
    from almost 200 midsized communities throughout the United
    States. In a survey, before we brought them there, they told us
    in the last 5 years there has been a 70 percent increase in
    drug activity in their communities and a 50 percent increase in
    drug-related crime. They have also told us that the drug
    traffickers operating in their localities come from outside of
    their communities 95 percent of the time, and 70 percent of the
    time they come from outside of the United States. They have
    also asked for additional assistance. So now our strategy has
    become threefold. We have used the resources that we have been
    given over the last several years to establish the regional
    drug enforcement teams, including one for the Southeast region,
    which will be in Charlotte, North Carolina, one for the Midwest
    in Des Moines, Iowa. Second, we are trying to get as many of
    our new agent positions as possible into our district offices,
    resident offices and posts of duty, and third, we are
    formulating numbers of task forces to be able to deal with
    them.

                                 budget request

        In the budget request for this year there is $9 million for
    27 new positions to enhance our special operations division.
    This is a key element of our success. It will coordinate all of
    the major long-term investigations that target the most
    powerful organized crime systems that are dealing in the United
    States today. It depends to a great deal on the ability to
    interdict their communications and technology. Major criminal
    organizations based outside of the United States are sending
    thousands of people into the United States to carry out the
    drug trafficking and the collection of money. Communications
    becomes vital to them. The interdiction of their communications
    similarly becomes vital.
        We will use all of this money and equipment to enhance our
    positions as we are able to go through this, increase our
    FIREBIRD system, which is the spine of our whole information
    and internal communications system.
        I would close, and I have a written statement that is much
    longer, Congressman, by just saying that I thank you for the
    opportunity. I think we have been able to prove in the United
    States, without a doubt, over the last 5 years that law
    enforcement makes a significant difference. I watched in the
    early part of my career while spending 34 years, from 1960 to
    1990, with the State Police in New York as that State's crime
    rate was almost unbelievable for those of us who have lived
    there.
        Likewise, I now see substantial reductions in violent crime
    in virtually every major city throughout the United States. The
    dramatic drop is to a great degree the result of effective law
    enforcement strategy directed against violent drug gangs. We
    have played a major role in these improvements. We are now
    attempting to focus our assets on those midsized, suburban and
    rural communities that have now become the target of these drug
    organizations. I believe that a well-staffed and fully
    supported DEA can continue to reduce crime and continue to
    improve the quality of life in every community in the United
    States.
        Thank you very much for this opportunity.
        [The statement of Mr. Constantine follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Rogers. Thank you.
        General Robinson.

                        Mr. Robinson's Opening Statement

        Mr. Robinson. Chairman Rogers and Representative Serrano,
    members of the subcommittee, I want to thank you for the
    opportunity to speak in support of the fiscal year 2000 budget
    request from the Criminal Division and from the Organized Crime
    Drug Enforcement Task Force, the OCDETF, program. This is my
    first opportunity, since I am still relatively new in my
    position as Assistant Attorney General in charge of the
    Criminal Division. As you can see from the depth of my briefing
    book, I am delighted to have with me today Deputy Assistant
    Attorney General Mary Lee Warren, who has appeared before this
    committee, who will help me out if I can't answer all of your
    questions.

                                 Budget Request

        I would like to begin by expressing, as the Administrator
    did, the Department's appreciation to this Committee for the
    resources you have provided to the Department to fight the
    Nation's war on drugs over the past several years. This
    important and difficult work would be even a greater challenge
    without the support that law enforcement has received from this
    Committee. I believe that we have put these resources to good
    use and achieved impressive results. However, there is always
    more to do, and in this area we certainly have much more to do.
        For fiscal year 2000 the Criminal Division is requesting an
    increase $1,130,000 for 13 additional positions to support the
    division's overall narcotics program. Several programs within
    the Criminal Division are in need of additional resources to
    support the increase in workload associated with larger and
    increasingly more complex narcotics problems which face this
    country. For the Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Forces,
    the President's budget seeks $316,792,000, supporting 2,973
    workyears in the FBI, DEA, INS, Marshals Service, United States
    Attorneys offices, the Criminal Division, and the Tax Division
    of the Justice Department.
        This budget, Mr. Chairman, reflects the staffing levels
    which have been in place for the previous four fiscal years. My
    written statement, which I have submitted for the record,
    provides more details regarding both OCDETF's and the Criminal
    Division's fiscal year 2000 budget request.

                the department's national drug control strategy

        At this point I would like briefly to highlight the
    Department's effort with regard to the National Drug Control
    Strategy and the dramatic growth in the OCDETF program
    productivity during fiscal year 1998.
        The 1999 National Drug Control Strategy and the resources
    requested in our 2000 budget submission to implement that
    strategy are aimed at improving our ability to coordinate and
    facilitate national and international narcotics law
    enforcement, building on past successes, responding to new and
    emerging drug threats, and enhancing coordination in the law
    enforcement community. The Congress has established ambitious
    performance objectives for our National Drug Control effort,
    including substantial reductions by December 31, 2003, in the
    availability, use, and purity of illegal drugs, and the
    incidence of drug-related crime in the United States. With your
    continued generous support of law enforcement, the Criminal
    Division pledges to use our best efforts to contribute our
    share in achieving these very important objectives.
        Pursuant to this Committee's instructions, the Department
    of Justice submitted a Drug Control Strategic Plan in September
    of 1998. This strategic plan sets forth a framework to
    implement concrete action plans to combat illicit trafficking
    and use of drugs and establishes objectives to implement the
    policy goals of the 1999 National Drug Control Strategy.
        The development of a comprehensive DOJ strategy has been a
    collaborative effort. All of the DOJ law enforcement agencies,
    prosecutorial offices and program offices and the Office of
    Justice Programs have participated in this important process.
    We have drawn upon the expertise, experience and resources of
    the Department's numerous counter-drug components, particularly
    in the areas of enforcement, prevention, education, treatment,
    drug testing, data collection, research and evaluation,
    financial analyses, and international cooperation. This has not
    been an easy task, but it has been an important one and very
    productive. It is an evolving process, one which requires us to
    continue to evaluate what we do and to develop and refine
    meaningful measurements of our results.
        In that regard, during the past 4 months, we have been
    involved in developing a cross-organizational report that can
    be used as a basis for evaluating our efforts to achieve the
    stated objectives. The written statement that I have submitted
    describes this process and the challenges more fully.

                            Primary drug objectives

        The Department's primary objective is to identify, disrupt
    and dismantle drug trafficking organizations which are
    international, multi-jurisdictional, or which have an
    identified local impact. We also seek to assist State and local
    efforts to develop and implement programs and activities to
    reduce drug-related crime and violence. We counter the illegal
    activities of international drug trafficking organizations most
    effectively by collecting, integrating and distributing
    information, targeting organizations through the use of OCDETF,
    instituting financial sector approaches to their money
    laundering schemes, as well as working cooperatively with
    foreign governments to develop productive counter-drug
    relations.
        We have called upon the substantial expertise, experience
    and capabilities of our law enforcement components through the
    OCDETF program that targets the highest level traffickers and
    their organizations by coordinating the collaborative efforts
    of the 9 Federal law enforcement agencies working in
    conjunction with State and local law enforcement.

                             OCDETF accomplishments

        The task forces experienced a truly remarkable year in
    fiscal year 1998. There was a dramatic increase in the OCDETF
    program participation and, as the statistics which Ms. Bucella
    will reveal, show that FY 1998 was clearly the most single
    productive year in OCDETF's history. The extraordinary growth
    in the program, exemplified by the statistics which have been
    provided to this Committee in materials submitted in connection
    with this hearing demonstrates a total commitment to what we
    consider to be the Department's premier counter-drug effort.
        The OCDETF program, once thought to be diminishing in its
    importance, has been infused with the agency's determination to
    work together in a coordinated, focused fashion, and the
    program has seen an aggressive expansion indicative of the
    agency's belief that Federal, State and local partnerships are
    the most effective means of combating drug-related crime.
        The OCDETF model works in every district in the country,
    integrating investigators from a variety of agencies with their
    singular expertise, including State and local departments, and
    involving an Assistant United States Attorney from the
    inception of an OCDETF case. OCDETF cases target organizations
    responsible for the importation and distribution of all classes
    and categories of drugs, and target the major drug trafficking
    networks in virtually every region of the globe.
        OCDETF investigations initiated in fiscal year 1998 range
    from those coordinated by the Special Operations Division,
    which targets the national priority organizations identified by
    DEA, FBI, and Customs, from the Cali cartels, the Mexican Drug
    Federation, to street corner gangs, which bring homicides,
    shootings and fear to our cities and neighborhood.
        The country's most significant high-profile cases have
    typically been OCDETF cases, and fiscal year 1998 is no
    different. Recent successes illustrate the continued force and
    strength of our efforts to dismantle large drug organizations.
    The outstanding accomplishments of the OCDETF program are
    representative of the level of achievement attained during the
    three-year upward trend in the program, and reflects the law
    enforcement agencies' continued commitment to this centerpiece
    drug law enforcement effort.
        This sustained commitment by all agencies comes after
    OCDETF funding for Treasury agencies ATF, Customs and IRS--was
    split off from the Justice Department. This continued agency
    support in the face of separate funding sources satisfies the
    Department of Justice that the request in the President's
    fiscal year 2000 budget to provide OCDETF funds directly to
    individual DOJ OCDETF components; DEA, FBI, INS, the Marshals
    Service, United States Attorney's offices and the Criminal and
    Tax Divisions, will not diminish the effectiveness of the
    program.
        The change in the budget mechanism is consistent with
    efforts to comply with the Government Performance and Results
    Act and reinvention goals to simplify administrative processes.
    The Attorney General fully supports these goals and believes
    that this change will in no way alter the agencies' allegiance
    to OCDETF and its effective way of operating collectively. The
    Department is putting mechanisms in place, outlined in full in
    my submission for the record, to ensure that this budget shift
    does not alter the effectiveness of the OCDETF program in any
    way.

                     criminal division 2000 budget request

        Before I close, I would like to note also that in addition
    to the enhancements to the Criminal Division's counternarcotics
    programs, the fiscal year 2000 budget request includes an
    increase of $1,760,000 and 13 positions for the Criminal
    Division to maintain its leadership role in the Department's
    efforts to combat cybercrime and cyber terrorism. As a result
    of emerging computer technology over recent years, significant
    attention has been and continues to be focused on the
    vulnerability of the critical infrastructure as a result of
    cybercrime and cyber terrorist attacks.
        As the Department takes the lead in addressing the growing
    threat to the Nation's information infrastructure, the criminal
    Division has been directed to broaden its responsibilities in
    several areas. Approval of these resources for this initiative
    would permit the Division to meet its mission priorities and
    maintain its leadership role in the Department's effort to
    combat cybercrime and cyber terrorism.
        I would like to conclude by expressing the appreciation of
    the OCDETF program and the Criminal Division for the strong
    support this Committee has given to us in the past in this very
    important fight the narcotics problem that we face in this
    country. Stemming the drug trafficking and abuse in this
    country remains a top priority for the Department of Justice,
    and the Department will continue to follow a comprehensive,
    coordinated interagency approach to fighting drug trafficking
    and illicit drug abuse and their consequences for this country.
        I can say, having been the United States Attorney in
    Detroit, almost 20 years ago and coming back to the Department
    last year, I am really encouraged by the substantial increase
    in the interagency working process on this very important
    problem, and I look forward to working in the future, along
    with the Administrator and other Federal law enforcement in
    this area.
        [The statement of Mr. Robinson follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Rogers. Thank you.
        Just a reminder, your written statements are a part of the
    record if you would like to summarize them.
        We will hear from Director Bucella.

                        Opening Statement of Ms. Bucella

        Ms. Bucella. Chairman Rogers, Congressman Serrano, Members
    of the Subcommittee, I am pleased to be here today with my
    colleagues at the table. We are also joined by Joe Famularo,
    the United States Attorney from the Eastern District of
    Kentucky. With him, I represent the 10,000 men and women of the
    94 United States Attorney's offices nationwide, and thank you
    on their behalf for your continuing support of our critical law
    enforcement mission.
        To carry out our mission, in addition to our base
    appropriations request, we have asked for 352 new positions and
    $25.5 million, an increase in the five following initiatives:
    violence in Indian Country, counterterrorism and computer
    crime, civil defensive litigation, firearms prosecution, and
    child support enforcement.

                     united states attorney's drug program

        I address these needs in my longer statement which I have
    submitted for the record, but for my oral testimony I will
    focus on the work of the United States Attorneys in drug
    enforcement.
        The United States Attorneys' drug strategy continues to
    target and prosecute significant drug traffickers and complex
    drug organizations. The Organized Crime Drug Task Force--
    OCDETF--program is a very effective tool against criminal
    organizations responsible for the greatest volume of drugs and
    violence in our country. In 1998, it has been the most
    successful year for OCDETF investigations since the program
    began in 1982. We achieved an increase of 45 percent in the
    number of cases filed when compared to the prior year, with an
    88 percent conviction rate of the defendants whose cases were
    terminated in 1998. Ninety percent of all convicted defendants
    were sentenced to prison, and of those, 65 received life
    sentences. This reflects our commitment to the drug enforcement
    efforts.
        While the President's budget for fiscal year 2000 does not
    request additional narcotics resources for the United States
    Attorneys, we received additional narcotics resources from this
    Subcommittee each of the last three fiscal years, and we
    appreciate your strong, continued support. We have used these
    resources well. In addition to the OCDETF cases I mentioned a
    moment ago, the United States Attorney filed 12,795 cases
    against 20,641 non-OCDETF drug defendants during 1998, a 23-
    percent increase in the number of cases filed over 1997. The
    1997 case filings were 15 percent higher than 1996. Ninety
    percent of these defendants were convicted, and 90 percent of
    them went to prison.
        Also, the Assistant United States Attorneys have increased
    their productivity again this year. The average number of drug
    cases handled per attorney workyear rose from 28 in fiscal year
    1995 to 36 in fiscal year 1998, a 29-percent increase in
    productivity over the last three years. Taken together, the
    total number of narcotics cases filed by United States
    Attorneys in 1998 represented 32 percent of all criminal cases
    filed. Prosecuting drug offenders is clearly the biggest thing
    we do, but we can always do better.

                                drug convictions

        Violent gangs are frequently involved in drug trafficking
    activities, and firearms are the tools of their trade. Violent
    gangs destroy the fabric of our society, taking parts of our
    streets over, flooding the streets with drugs, guns,
    terrorizing and killing innocent bystanders. This past year,
    United States Attorneys dismantled violent criminal gangs,
    using Federal racketeering laws, Federal and state narcotics
    laws, and outstanding warrants to take these gang members off
    of our streets.
        Some recent examples include: In the Eastern District of
    Virginia, an individual was sentenced to 93 months in prison
    for carrying a firearm while committing drug offenses, which
    was part of the multiagency task force operation. In less than
    a year, by targeting individuals who use guns to commit crimes,
    it has resulted in 85 indictments, 50 convictions, and the
    removal of 113 firearms from the streets of Norfolk, Virginia.
        Last month, a Tampa grand jury indicted four members of the
    Clemente drug organization for drug conspiracy, distribution,
    murder and firearms used to murder the victims. Seventeen of
    the defendants had already had previous convictions.
        Earlier this month, in the Central District of California,
    an individual pled guilty to a conspiracy to distribute nine
    tons of marijuana as part of a large-scale drug trafficking
    cartel. Another member had previously pled guilty after
    involvement in a shoot-out with rival drug gang members.
        As noted, guns go hand-in-hand with drug trafficking.
    Although the focus of this hearing is on narcotics and our
    requested increases are in other desperately needed areas of
    the budget, we want you to know that any increases you give the
    United States Attorneys will be used wisely and well. In this
    area of tight budgets, finding and using resources effectively
    is a continuing challenge for all of us in law enforcement.
        Once again, I appreciate your continued support in helping
    the United States Attorneys offices, and I will be happy to
    answer any questions that you may have.
        [The statement of Ms. Bucella follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                              Mexico certification

        Mr. Rogers. Well, I thank all of you for your testimony.
        Now, Administrator Constantine, again this year, your
    statement speaks extensively on how Mexico is a major transit
    point for drugs into the United States and that the Mexican
    cartels are the most organized and dangerous organizations. The
    situation is not only getting worse, but it is also expanding.
    In fact, you publicly stated that quote, ``Mexico poses the
    greatest criminal threat to the United States that you have
    seen in your 40 years in law enforcement,'' end quote.
        Last year, a DEA intelligence report stated that every
    major investigation in Mexico,

        Uncovers significant corruption of law enforcement
    officials that continually frustrates our effort in building
    cases on and apprehending the most significant drug
    traffickers, and is the primary reason there has been no
    meaningful progress in drug law enforcement in Mexico.

        Now, from DEA's point of view, did Mexico deserve
    certification as fully cooperating in the war on drugs?
        Mr. Constantine. I think you know, Congressman, as I have
    said here before and before the rest of the committees, I have
    avoided certification----
        Mr. Rogers. You are not going to avoid it here. Do they
    deserve to be certified as fully cooperating on the war on
    drugs?
        Mr. Constantine. I just can't say whether they would be
    certified or not, Congressman, because there are a lot of
    other----
        Mr. Rogers. Did they deserve it?
        Mr. Constantine. I would not say they are fully
    cooperating, but I don't think that is the total----
        Mr. Rogers. Did they deserve certification as being fully
    cooperative on the war on drugs? You above everyone else knows
    whether or not they are cooperating with us.
        Mr. Constantine. I just don't think that is my decision,
    Congressman.
        Mr. Rogers. It is not your decision, but what is your
    recommendation?
        Mr. Constantine. I didn't even recommend. All I do is
    provide information on the criminal organizations, their
    impact, and the levels of corruption, and I have made it a
    point since I have been in Washington that a decision like
    that, a public policy, diplomatic decision is inappropriate for
    someone in my position.
        Mr. Rogers. What percentage of the drugs coming into the
    country are coming through Mexico?
        Mr. Constantine. Probably about 70 percent of all of the
    cocaine entering the United States today comes from Mexico.
        Mr. Rogers. And are you getting cooperation from your
    counterparts in Mexico?
        Mr. Constantine. My counterparts at the highest level are
    cooperating. The rest of the law enforcement system is just
    unable to contend with the problems they are faced with, either
    because of competency levels, corruption, or a lack of will.
        Mr. Rogers. If the government of Mexico, and I am talking
    about in the larger sense, the governments of Mexico, local,
    Federal, State, if they were fully cooperating with us and with
    you in the war on drugs, would we be able to make a significant
    dent in the 70 percent of the cocaine traffic that comes to us
    coming through Mexico?
        Mr. Constantine. I think we would have an impact--I think
    more importantly, Congressman, is if we could have arrested
    those key organized crime leaders who direct the activity
    within the United States who we have identified and made
    criminal cases against, arrested, and then extradited and
    brought to the United States, we would have a major impact on
    the power that we have seen growing for the last 5 years.
        Mr. Rogers. Last year at the hearing we discussed at length
    several issues regarding Mexico's cooperation, issues which I
    believe are critical measures in assessing the true level of
    Mexican cooperation. Here are three of them: whether we have
    strong, effective and uncorrupted joint U.S.-Mexican task
    forces operating to attack the drug problem.
        Mr. Constantine. Not presently, Congressman.
        Mr. Rogers. Whether the Mexican government is allowing DEA
    and other law enforcement to carry firearms for their own
    protection in Mexico?
        Mr. Constantine. Not presently.
        Mr. Rogers. Whether Mexico is committed to extradition of
    Mexican drug fugitives?
        Mr. Constantine. I am not involved in the extradition
    issues. That deals with the State Department and the Justice
    Department.
        Mr. Rogers. Well, has anybody been extradited?
        Mr. Constantine. It is my understanding reading this
    morning's paper that there is an individual who escaped from
    prison in California and went to Mexico and who has been
    extradited back to the United States. I don't know a lot about
    it. I read it in this morning's paper.
        Mr. Rogers. Is he a major player?
        Mr. Constantine. No, sir.

                    law enforcement cooperation with mexico

        Mr. Rogers. Two years ago we were told the Administration
    was going to work on those issues. Have any of those problems
    been solved?
        Mr. Constantine. There has been an attempt on the law
    enforcement issues, the people that I deal with, as I
    mentioned, the Attorney General and the Deputy Attorney General
    have been very hard-working and appear to me to be honest, and
    want to make a difference. The problem as far as I see it as a
    law enforcement professional is that all of the layers
    underneath them have been so severely impacted by corruption
    that the ability for them to be able to effect an arrest or to
    effect a serious incursion into their operations is very, very
    limited. Again and again when we do investigations we will find
    that uniformed municipal, State and Federal police officers in
    Mexico act as the uniformed, armed escort for the traffickers
    in the convoy of drugs headed for the United States. For them
    to be able to change that--as honest as they may be and as much
    as they would like to change it--at least from my present
    position of seeing it, they have a 15, 20, 30-year task ahead
    of them to be able to overcome the systemic corruption that
    they have there.
        Mr. Rogers. Well, you are not able to even share any sort
    of intelligence with them, are you?
        Mr. Constantine. We share sensitive information on a need-
    to-know basis with certain high-ranking individuals in the
    organization. We have been trying to build what we call vetted
    units, which are individuals in the law enforcement community
    in Mexico who have been hand-picked by the government, who have
    passed polygraph tests. We bring them to the United States
    where DEA, the FBI and the Department of Justice go through a
    5-week training program. Some of those individuals are very
    heroic and very honest. We received a very serious setback this
    year in which high-ranking individuals of that organization
    were determined to have connections to major traffickers and
    failed to pass polygraph tests. They have been removed from
    their positions, and a number of major investigations appear to
    have been compromised.
        Mr. Rogers. Well, until we solve these problems that we
    have talked about briefly here, will we ever be able to have an
    effective fight against the drug problem?
        Mr. Constantine. I think they have to be solved; I have
    seen them solved in other arenas. What I have told people, is
    that there is not an infinite number of drug traffickers, there
    is not an army of them. They are not held together by any
    religious or political philosophy, they are only held together
    by greed and corruption.
        We have been effective against organized crime in the
    United States over the last 30 years. Italy has been effective
    in changing a lot of the dynamics of their organized crime
    problem. I think Colombia, specifically the Colombian National
    Police and General Serrano have done an outstanding job. If you
    were to ask me 5 years ago whether that was possible in
    Colombia I would have questioned it, but I have been very
    impressed with what they have done. So I think it can be
    changed.
        Mr. Rogers. But has it changed for the better with respect
    to Mexico?
        Mr. Constantine. That is a----
        Mr. Rogers. It has gotten worse, has it not, since you were
    here last year?
        Mr. Constantine. The problem of organized criminals from
    Mexico trafficking drugs into the United States is worse than
    it was last year.
        Mr. Rogers. Were you asked your opinion about whether or
    not we ought to certify that Mexico is cooperating?
        Mr. Constantine. No, I was not, and I have taken pains to
    avoid that because I don't think a police official should be
    making those kinds of decisions. There are a lot of other
    issues involved, that I don't get involved in. I am much more
    comfortable just providing the facts of the situation in a very
    objective fashion.
        Mr. Rogers. Well, were you asked what is the situation with
    respect to drug trafficking through Mexico?
        Mr. Constantine. Yes, sir, I was.
        Mr. Rogers. Who asked you?
        Mr. Constantine. I provide my information to the Attorney
    General's office.
        Mr. Rogers. Did you tell her more or less what we have
    talked about here?
        Mr. Constantine. I just reviewed the present situation with
    drug trafficking, the present situation with the law
    enforcement components.
        Mr. Rogers. Did you pull any punches?
        Mr. Constantine. No, sir, I don't ever pull any punches.
        Mr. Rogers. Well, then tell us what you think.
        Mr. Constantine. I almost never pull any punches. But that
    is not my ring to be in, and I don't pull any punches in the
    ring that I am in.

                        extradition of mexican nationals

        Mr. Rogers. Now, Mr. Robinson, the Criminal Division is
    responsible for coordinating with foreign governments
    extradition of fugitives that have charges pending in the U.S.
    Last year, we were told that Mexico has never extradited a
    Mexican national on drug charges. In this morning's Washington
    Times there is a report that they have agreed to the first-ever
    extradition of a Mexican national on drug charges, but
    according to the story, the individual doesn't appear to be a
    major player.
        How many active extradition requests are currently pending?
        Mr. Robinson. Let's see. I am not----
        Ms. Warren. I don't think we know. We have filed a great
    number. We have perhaps 30 priority cases.
        Mr. Rogers. Identify yourself for the reporter.
        Ms. Warren. I am sorry. Mary Lee Warren from the Criminal
    Division, Deputy Assistant Attorney General.
        Mr. Rogers. You say 30. Thirty----
        Mr. Robinson. Priority.
        Mr. Rogers. What does that mean?
        Ms. Warren. Well, they are either the major traffickers
    that Administrator Constantine referred to, or are the major
    fugitives from the State governments, those who have caused
    enormous violence and harm within the State and local
    communities.
        Mr. Rogers. In the U.S.?
        Ms. Warren. In the U.S.
        Mr. Rogers. And none of those have been extradited,
    correct?
        Ms. Warren. They have not yet been extradited. The
    important thing this past year was the arrest of the two
    Amezcua brothers, the leaders of the methamphetamine
    organization out in Mexico. We look forward to the day they are
    surrendered to the United States.
        Mr. Rogers. Do you expect that to happen?
        Ms. Warren. The foreign minister has ruled that they should
    be extradited. Their cases are in court.
        Mr. Rogers. How long has that been pending?
        Ms. Warren. The Amezcua case has just been a year.
        Mr. Rogers. And the 30 major ones that you mentioned, how
    far back do they go?
        Ms. Warren. Some of them go back 5 or more years.
        Mr. Rogers. Is this one extradition we read about this
    morning, is that a major breakthrough?
        Mr. Robinson. I think it is important; it doesn't fall into
    the level that Deputy Assistant Attorney General Warren is
    talking about. I think we need to continue to work hard, and I
    think at virtually all of the meetings that we have been to,
    the subject of extradition has been a high priority. We push on
    it. It is important.
        I can say that I share the frustration that Administrator
    Constantine has about many of these issues. It is our feeling
    that our relationship with Attorney General Madrazo has been a
    good one. We think there are good people there working hard to
    try to help, but as the Administrator indicated, these are
    serious problems that the government of Mexico has, ingrained
    serious problems, and it has been our view that we need to work
    closely, and we have been trying obviously to continue a
    working relationship. We don't want to break that ability to
    continue the cooperation.
        I think the kind of issues that are raised by this
    Committee help keep visibility on the importance of making
    progress on extradition and other cooperative efforts. Many of
    these things have not been solved, and we need to keep working
    on it to get it solved, because this is a big problem with
    Mexico.
        Mr. Rogers. It seems to me like we are cooperating to no
    avail. I mean what can we point to that all of this cooperation
    with them has gained for us in terms of stopping the river of
    drugs killing our kids? I mean at some point in time, don't we
    have to stand up and say, look, no more.
        Mr. Robinson. Well, I think what we can't do, and what we
    shouldn't do, is close the lines of communication to try to
    make it better.
        Now, that is----
        Mr. Rogers. What good are the lines of communications doing
    us except to hear them say no, no, no, no, no?
        Mr. Robinson. I don't think we are seeing that at all
    levels. We are going to have to continue to work on it. We have
    seen improvements. I was privileged to attend the joint
    Mexican-U.S. law enforcement training program that we had
    together to develop the kind of relationships between Mexican
    law enforcement and U.S. law enforcement. It is a work in
    progress, it requires enormous effort, but I think that is
    obviously what we are expected to try to do. Those of us in law
    enforcement are expected to try to figure out who we can trust,
    try to share information, try to work cooperatively with them,
    and we are going to continue obviously to do that. I think the
    moment we sever the lines of communication and quit trying, the
    problem isn't going to get better, it will get even worse.

                               extradition cases

        Mr. Rogers. Well, now, you have 30 on the priority list of
    major Mexican drug traffickers who committed major crimes in
    this country whom they refused to extradite to us for justice.
    How many others are there besides the major players that we
    have pending?
        Mr. Robinson. We could get back with the specific number of
    outstanding extraditions.
        Mr. Rogers. Do you know now?
        Ms. Warren. No, and many are not active, but we can give
    you our best estimate of the numbers that are pending.
        Mr. Rogers. Well, just give me a raw figure today and then
    you can give us a rough estimate in your submissions.
        Ms. Warren. Um, I believe there are at least 20 more who
    are under arrest pursuant to our extradition request who have
    been ordered extradited but we don't have yet. Those cases are
    still in the courts. There are probably another 10 who have
    never been arrested, the leaders of the major organizations
    have never been arrested, although we have provisional arrest
    requests in.
        Mr. Rogers. Now, these 30, do they include the 20 that have
    been arrested?
        Ms. Warren. The 20 are within the 30 that I named before.
        Mr. Rogers. Have those 30 been arrested?
        Ms. Warren. Twenty of them or less are under arrest now.
        Mr. Rogers. And are being held in detention?
        Ms. Warren. On our extradition request.
        Mr. Rogers. They are in detention in Mexico?
        Ms. Warren. That is correct.
        Mr. Rogers. But they refuse to ship them to us?
        Ms. Warren. Their cases are still in their courts. The
    extradition process can sometimes take up to 4 and 5 years in
    Mexico, and sometimes in the United States it can take that
    long as well.
        [Clerk's note.--The following information was provided
    subsequent to the hearing:]

        Because of the limitations of our current database, it is
    not possible to determine the precise number of open cases in
    which provisional arrest or fully-documented extradition
    requests have actually been presented to the Government of
    Mexico. Even if we could, however, the number of open
    extradition cases is very fluid, and any number provided would
    not be accurate from one day to the next. Nevertheless, we
    estimate that, at any given time, there are over 300 open U.S.
    extradition cases in which provisional arrest or fully-
    documented extradition requests have been presented to the
    Government of Mexico. Of these 300+ cases, we estimate that
    approximately 100 to 150 are ``active'' cases. The remaining
    cases are considered ``inactive'' for various reasons, but
    often include those cases for which all current leads as to the
    fugitive's specific location in Mexico have been exhausted by
    Mexican authorities and the case has been placed on hold until
    new leads can be developed.

                             colombia certification

        Mr. Rogers. Now, Administrator Constantine, for the first
    year Colombia has been certified as fully cooperating in the
    war on drugs. Is that warranted?
        Mr. Constantine. Yes, sir, I think so. I think they really
    have been heroic in some of the issues they have faced. In
    1995, the major criminal organizations of Cali were so powerful
    that they controlled the telephone companies, and the taxi cab
    services; they had corrupted significant political leaders, and
    there were concerns about allegations that the President of the
    country might also be corrupt. And despite all of that
    environment, when provided with very, very sensitive
    information about the highest level traffickers, they were able
    to execute those warrants and to bring them to justice and hold
    them presently. They have gone even farther than that. They
    have become an effective law enforcement agency that does
    proactive investigations within Colombia and provides us with
    critical information about the shipment of drugs and the
    location of individuals. They have suffered greatly.
        The biggest problem right now is the guerilla movement that
    they are trying to address through the peace process. They have
    had hundreds of people killed or kidnapped and are being held
    hostage in the jungles, many times because of the fact that
    they were advanced bases like Miraflores, which is an
    eradication base. I have met General Serrano, Colonel Gallegos,
    Colonel Duronio, and I think that they are some of the highest
    quality law enforcement officials in this area in the world,
    Congressman. I am very impressed with them.

                          colombia compared to mexico

        Mr. Rogers. How do the successes in Colombia compare to
    Mexico, and are there any lessons to be learned about our
    efforts in Colombia that we can use with Mexico?
        Mr. Constantine. They are totally different cultures,
    totally different law enforcement institutions. In Colombia you
    have the police with a history of traditions and kind of a
    system of excellence that had become seriously corrupted. When
    General Serrano took over, he fired 9,000 policemen for being
    corrupt in his first year in office. In Mexico, you have the
    municipal police, and State police. Both of them allegedly have
    no narcotics enforcement responsibility, but they virtually act
    as emissaries of the traffickers. The Federal law enforcement
    institutions have been reconstituted three times during my
    tenure here as head of DEA trying to find some system that will
    work. So it is very difficult to transport the lessons and
    issues of Colombia to Mexico.
        Mr. Rogers. Did you say that the gentleman's name was
    Serrano?
        Mr. Serrano. I am Jose Serrano.
        Mr. Rogers. Which reminds me. I will yield.

                         increase in drug-related crime

        Mr. Serrano. My opening line should be, next time you see
    the General, tell him that this Jose Serrano is not one-one-
    hundredth as courageous as he is. I only have to deal with
    Republicans. That is not that difficult, sometimes, as long as
    I don't bring up the census issue.
        Sir, there is a confusion here about something. I want you
    to try to clear it up for me. We are told in this country that
    crime is down, and I believe that. I believe that. And you tell
    us that crime--drug-related crimes are up, and I believe that.
    But coming from the South Bronx, I always thought that the vast
    majority of crimes were related to drugs. So how can crime be
    down and drug crimes be up? Does that mean that my neighborhood
    didn't get any decrease in crime?
        Mr. Constantine. No. My comments here in the first part of
    my statement dealt with people from midsized rural and suburban
    communities throughout the United States that report an
    increase in drug use and drug crime. Drug usage was at a very
    low level in this country until the late 1960s. It was
    virtually a nonviolent criminal enterprise until the advent of
    crack cocaine, for the most part, in the early 1980's. With
    that drug we had a phenomenal amount of violence attached to
    the distribution, usage, and control of the drug markets. A
    decision was made that something had to be done about crime and
    it had reached a crescendo in the early 1990's. But to give you
    a sense of how large the problem was, in my State and your
    State, in 1960 there were 482 murders. By 1990, with no change
    in the population, we had gone to over 2,600 murders, of which
    2,252 were in the City of New York and the armed robberies in
    our State had gone from 7,000 to 120,000 in a 30-year period of
    time.
        I have since talked with all of the district attorneys in
    the five counties of New York, the special narcotics
    prosecutors and the law enforcement officials, and by targeting
    the violent drug gangs in New York City they were able to
    reduce crime, and everybody tells me that is the key. What once
    was 2,252 murders in that State were 629 murders last year. So
    in the last year alone, there are over 1,600 people who are
    alive, who would not be alive, in my opinion, if there had not
    been that interest in reducing crime. I had a long presentation
    from Marty O'Boyle, who is head of the Organized Crime Control
    Bureau in New York, and they can show from 1994 to 1998, drug
    arrests went from 64,000 to 130,000. The index crimes in the
    city--homicide, assault, robbery, burglary, and manslaughter--
    went from 400,000 in 1994 to under 200,000 in 1998. So by
    focusing in on violent drug trafficking groups, they have, in
    essence, over a 7- or 8-year period of time in that city,
    reduced the number of crime victims by 200,000.
        Now, the unfortunate part of this, on the other side, I
    don't think there is any real reduction in the drug usage or
    drug distribution. I think what has happened is that the drug
    trafficking and the attendant violence have been removed by
    very effective efforts by the people in that city. I think the
    next thing is to stabilize a community and you can stabilize a
    situation. The next issue for the next generation and of
    importance is the reduction of usage of drugs in our population
    which works with prevention programs. People in Congress have
    been very good with the Partnership for a Drug-Free America. I
    have spent an awful lot of time with Mr. Califano trying to do
    things with the Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at
    Columbia University.

                             drug shipment patterns

        Mr. Serrano. Well, that leads me, sir, to my next question.
    Is the United States used as a place from which drugs are then
    shipped elsewhere, or are other places used to ship drugs into
    the U.S.?
        Mr. Constantine. Very seldom are drugs produced within the
    United States. I can remember during the crack epidemic when I
    worked for Governor Cuomo, he said there are no opium poppy
    growers in the United States, there are no coca plants that
    grow here. Marijuana does, but the manufacture of these drugs
    takes place outside the United States and then the drugs are
    shipped to the United States. On occasion they could be
    transshipped further in almost kind of a drop-shift type of
    arrangement maybe to Canada, but it is very rare, Congressman.
        Mr. Serrano. So we are the consumers?
        Mr. Constantine. We are the target of the traffickers, the
    populace of the United States.
        Mr. Serrano. Are we the largest target in the world, or are
    we one of the smallest targets in the world?
        Mr. Constantine. Well, for South America and Mexico we are.
    The heroin problems which are almost of an equivalent nature in
    Europe are, for the most part, from Southwest Asia--Afghanistan
    and Pakistan, and they are directed by organizations out of
    Turkey into Central Europe and into the United Kingdom. They
    have a heroin problem that is equally as severe as ours.
        Mr. Serrano. Are there percentages on the drugs that come
    in from other countries, originate overseas, and what
    percentage of our drug use is that?
        Mr. Constantine. We estimate a lot of it, and we think the
    estimates are fairly valid. I always tell people you have to
    remember that they don't give us their bills of lading, so we
    are really operating in what we see for the most part.
        Our sense is that the cocaine traffic in the United States,
    probably at any given time, ranges between 60 and 75 percent
    coming across the southwest border with Mexico. About 80
    percent of the methamphetamine traffic in the United States is
    under the control of organizations in Mexico. Now,
    methamphetamine is either produced in Mexico and transported
    and smuggled into the United States, usually California, or
    they establish these big laboratories where they manufacture
    drugs and move it from there.
        Heroin on the East Coast of the United States--and people
    remember the movie ``The French Connection''--used to be
    primarily from Southeast Asia, Burma, Thailand, and to a lesser
    degree from Southwest Asia, Pakistan and Afghanistan.
        Now, our studies show about 75 percent of all of the heroin
    that we seize in the United States, and people have to remember
    we start with that as the platform, comes from Colombia. The
    other 15 percent from Mexico, and 10 percent is split between
    Southeast Asia and Southwest Asia. We have just had the ABT
    Associates from Harvard come in and do a study of what we think
    is a usage pattern based on those seizure statistics, and they
    indicate that about 29 percent of the heroin we use in the
    United States is from Mexico. About 50 to 55 percent of the
    heroin is from Colombia, and the remainder between Southeast
    and Southwest Asia.
        The marijuana available in the United States is a
    combination of marijuana smuggled into the United States or
    home-grown, but to give you a sense of the expansion of the
    marijuana traffic coming from Mexico in 1992, there were 105
    tons of marijuana seized along the border of the four border
    States. In 1998, there were 750 tons of marijuana seized along
    the border, and we know we only get a percentage of that. That
    is kind of a breakdown of the three major drugs.

                         impact of mexico certification

        Mr. Serrano. We are going to have, Mr. Chairman, more
    questions on that. Let me just give you one more here, a
    followup question.
        While you may not feel that it is your place to pass
    judgment, as you well stated to the chairman, on whether Mexico
    should be certified, can you comment on whether the granting of
    certification will have a positive impact on achieving more
    cooperation from Mexican law enforcement authorities?
        Mr. Constantine. No, I can't. I have only seen it occur
    once since I have been here, and it occurred with Colombia,
    which was decertified in 1995 or 1996. There was at that point
    in time, from a law enforcement perspective, a very positive
    response on the part of the law enforcement institutions in
    Colombia. They were virtually revolutionized in the space of a
    year. Whether that was in response to the decertification or a
    unilateral decision in the government of Colombia, I couldn't
    tell you.
        Mr. Serrano. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Rogers. Mr. Latham.

                         international drug trafficking

        Mr. Latham. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think I will kind of
    follow a little bit the same discussion as far as some
    international trafficking. You may be aware there was a recent
    story in the Times of London that claimed that the Kosovo
    Liberation Army is funded by international drug money, and
    apparently it is quite well-known in certain circles. According
    to the article, there were three Western European nations,
    including Sweden, who are looking into it, and I guess with our
    current involvement over there it is timely. At the end of the
    article it says ``the sudden ascendancy of the Kosovar
    Albanians and heroin trading in Switzerland, Germany and
    Scandinavia coincides with the sudden growth of the KLA from a
    ragamuffin peasant's army 2 years ago to a 30,000 strong force
    with grenade launchers, anti-tank weapons and AK-47s.''
        Can you give us any insight into that?
        Mr. Constantine. No. We have never, to my knowledge, had an
    investigation that involves any organizations that would be
    operating in that region of the world. My knowledge of it is
    limited to my international responsibilities of meeting with
    law enforcement officials from these other areas.
        The so-called Balkan route has always been the primary
    conduit for heroin trafficking from the sources of origin of
    Pakistan and Afghanistan to the major markets in Western Europe
    and now Eastern Europe. Several things happened, obviously,
    with the change between the Soviet Union and the Newly
    Independent States. A lot of the border controls that were in
    place, both in what was formerly the Soviet Union and what is
    now part of also the European Union changed the vulnerability
    along that Balkan route. I am far from expert in this area,
    Congressman; I have to look at a map every time somebody asks
    me these questions. But the various violence and disruption and
    civil insurrections all the way along those Balkan areas
    continue to disrupt the group and move back and forth.
        People in the law enforcement community in Europe always
    feel that those routes and the protection of those routes have
    been involved with organizations, criminal organizations in
    those areas. But I just read last night, I think it was, in a
    Time Magazine or U.S. News and World Report, I saw something
    like that and that is the first time I have ever heard that in
    my job.
        Mr. Latham. You are not aware then of a connection?
        Mr. Constantine. No, sir.

                         origination of methamphetamine

        Mr. Latham. Last year you stated that 90 to 95 percent of
    the meth in Iowa originated in Mexico and ended up in Iowa from
    California or Texas, and that only about 5 to 10 percent was
    home-grown in the labs. I shouldn't say--homemade, I guess, in
    the labs. Has that changed in the last year?
        Mr. Constantine. Not markedly, Congressman. The criminal
    organizations that we see controlling Iowa's methamphetamine
    are, for the most part, based in California and then are
    directed out of, usually out of, Guadalajara, Colima, and
    Sinaloa in Mexico. The reason for this is the ability to
    produce high-quality methamphetamine in bulk, in a price market
    for people who are addicted to methamphetamine. It always
    places them in a superior position. Obviously, there are people
    in all of these States who get an Internet message for what
    they call the Nazi method of how to manufacture methamphetamine
    using batteries and using hydrous ammonia out of farmer's
    fields and various precursor drugs, cold medicines and things
    that they could buy in the store which are now increasingly
    ephedrine or pseudoephedrine. But once a person is addicted, if
    you can buy it cheaper, rather than having to make it yourself
    and live with the risks of a laboratory, I believe users would
    prefer buying from those organizations. They will always be
    more powerful than the smaller ``mom and pop'' labs.
        Mr. Latham. If that is the case, I think what really sounds
    alarming is the fact that the number of arrests have doubled in
    the past year.
        Mr. Constantine. Ours have quintupled across the country.
    It is the big labs that produce about 90 percent of the
    methamphetamine, and many of the small labs that use the method
    I talked to you about may only produce 6 to 12 ounces at a
    time.
        Mr. Latham. I think you are aware of a case a couple of
    years ago where we made the arrest--where they literally turned
    the 11-year-old girl in Iowa over to the traffickers as a
    hostage for payment. The girl was driven as a hostage, out to
    California to deal with these organizations that then bought
    what they thought were large amounts of methamphetamine. They
    stored the methamphetamine in the platform sneakers of this 11-
    year-old girl who was then brought back by the traffickers.
        Last year we provided you with additional resources for the
    networks and labs. Did you give us any additional, I guess,
    update on progress and other funds requested in the 2000
    budget?
        Mr. Constantine. Yes. The cleanup of these laboratories
    have become a major environmental cost issue for local law
    enforcement. Ten percent of the money we used last year was
    used in Iowa. We are using another resource we received last
    year in the budget called regional teams. Two of those teams
    are being established to respond quickly to a drug problem
    until we can get more resources into an area. Sixteen agents
    will be in Des Moines, Iowa.
        Mr. Latham. Can you tell more about that? Will you be
    working with local law enforcement?
        Mr. Constantine. Certainly. When these huge drug problems
    exploded, we couldn't figure out what was happening in Iowa. It
    happened to us so quickly. It takes so long to spot the problem
    and then be able to educate everybody who is in a policy
    position or appropriate authorizing position to get resources.
    So we will set these teams up in various places in the country,
    and will be able to go to Marshalltown where we can deal with
    the sheriff there a great deal, or the chief in Des Moines or
    Ames or wherever it might be. If they have a major problem, we
    can move 6, 8, 12 agents in for a 3- or 4-month period of time,
    until the person in charge of our Midwest Division can start to
    fill up some of those regular offices on a permanent basis with
    these agents within Iowa. So we think these teams will be very
    effective in helping out.
        Last month DEA sponsored a conference where we brought 200
    people in, a number of them from Iowa by the way. The chief of
    Des Moines was one of the chief speakers there as was the
    sheriff from Marshalltown. They told us what their problems are
    in this area and what they need. So we are going to try to
    address those problems in the future. As soon as that report is
    available, we will make it available.

                      availability of qualified personnel

        Mr. Latham. Just kind of a followup for that. I think we
    talked about the availability of qualified personnel last year.
    Are you able to secure enough people?
        Mr. Constantine. I will tell you something. I never in my
    life have seen so many talented, bright people in this
    profession, as over the last few years. We have been able to
    hire many individuals because of retirements, and the help that
    we received from this Committee and the Senate allowed us to
    get caught up on staffing. Today, we probably only hire 1 out
    of every 20 people that come in. We just graduated a class this
    morning, about 47 young people. I will tell you what they look
    like. Probably 10 percent of them already have law degrees or
    advanced degrees. Most of them have significant law enforcement
    experience or military experience before they come in. They
    have thought about this. For some of them, it is their third
    time through a basic training. They have been through basic
    training in the military, basic training as a police officer,
    and then they have come down to Quantico for 17 weeks to redo
    it again. And I will tell you, this country is well served. I
    just stand in amazement.
        I meet with each of them, spend 5 or 10 minutes with them
    in my office, and then I meet with the next group to talk about
    ethics and integrity and issues like that. I think they are
    fantastic. And so we are getting the highest quality that you
    could possibly get. In one class there were four service
    academy graduates. I am amazed, having been in law enforcement
    this long, to see that quality level of entry.
        Mr. Latham. Sounds like you are recruiting in Iowa. Just
    one thing more--I really appreciate what you are doing with the
    Tristate Drug Task Force in Sioux City and your leadership in
    that, and I would hope you would consider that the task force
    is fully certified and eligible for overtime for those people.
    But also Chairman Rogers has really helped in the education of
    local law enforcement by the Regional Methamphetamine Training
    Center in Sioux City. We recently had DEA instruct some courses
    there and it is a tremendous success.
        I will tell you, just everywhere I go in the district, I
    have law enforcement come up and thank us for that program. It
    is fantastic, and I think it is making a real difference. I
    have not seen the number before, but in your testimony it says
    of the 4,000 babies in Iowa that were born being affected by
    drugs, 3,600 or 90 percent of them were affected with meth. It
    is a critical need and I and all Iowans really appreciate the
    cooperation.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Rogers. Ms. Roybal-Allard.

                       compromised agents and inspectors

        Ms. Roybal-Allard. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to
    preface my questions by saying that I went down to the San
    Diego area and I met with DEA officers, had a briefing, went
    down along the border, and watched you work. I was extremely
    impressed with the professionalism, the commitment of the
    personnel. I had an opportunity to talk to some of them, one on
    one, about different issues and problems, and it was really for
    that reason that I was surprised by some of the things that I
    have heard or have been brought to my attention. You know, just
    like any agency or any business or even Congress, we all have
    our problems.
        And so I would like to ask some questions and give you an
    opportunity to comment on some things that have been brought to
    my attention with the understanding of how I preface this,
    because I do agree with you, I think they are hardworking, very
    dedicated people. But I don't know if it was yesterday or the
    day before in my Treasury-Postal Subcommittee, there was a
    subject on Customs Service integrity and the Customs people
    produced a report for our committee which had said that--let me
    take a quote out of it.
        It said, quote, ``Most serious, however, is the belief that
    inspectors who are hired locally particularly along the
    Southwest border and assigned to local ports of entry could be
    at greater risk of being compromised by family members and
    friends who may exploit the relationship to facilitate criminal
    activities.'' And then the report went on to say that they had
    no solid evidence, no proof of that, but primarily they were
    talking about the Hispanic community that lives along the
    border.
        What surprised me was that during the line of questioning,
    that the person who wrote the report said to me that this was a
    common attitude that was not just an attitude that was shared
    by people in Customs, but that all the Federal law enforcement
    agencies had that same attitude about the Southwest border
    operations. And I would like to hear your comments on that.
    That was something that was said in the hearing.
        Mr. Constantine. I can only speak for DEA. The only caveat
    we have is we don't assign people to their hometown. If you
    come from New York City, we won't assign you to New York. You
    may go to Boston, you may go to Washington. We do look on the
    southwest border for people who have language skills. It is
    very helpful to them in carrying out their responsibilities.
    They may be born in McAllen, Texas and wind up being assigned
    to Tucson, Arizona. People have been police officers in a city
    or village someplace in New York, and they think it might be
    better for them to go back there. We feel it is better for them
    to be enforcing law in a neutral site where they don't have all
    those pressures and connections.
        Now, if later on, if money would be available--we have a
    voluntary transfer program, and what we have said is supposing
    a spouse is transferred with their position and the agent wants
    to get transferred at their own expense, because we just can't
    afford all of these transfers, we will go through with that.
    But it has never been an issue of a relationship to families on
    the border of Mexico and the United States. At least for us
    that has never been a significant problem.

                                   profiling

        Ms. Roybal-Allard. Also, I want to bring your attention to
    two articles. One was the one Esquire magazine has sent to me,
    and I believe it is going to be published next month. And what
    the article contends is that DEA's Operation Pipeline
    essentially has become perhaps the chief factor in the training
    of local law enforcement agencies, and that the emphasis is to
    use race-based or culture-based profiling for traffic stops, 95
    percent of which never result in any kind of arrests.
        The other article is one that came out in the Pittsburgh
    Post Gazette. And in this particular article, it says they have
    documented an array of unethical and sometimes illegal
    practices which are routinely practiced by prosecutors at the
    Department of Justice, again where they use profiling methods
    in order to stop people and then the statistics show that very
    little results from it.
        Let me just read you a quote from one of the California
    highway patrolmen who took the Operation Pipeline training;
    where he says, ``It is sheer numbers. Our guys make a lot of
    stops. You have got to kiss a lot of frogs before you find a
    prince.''
        California Highway Patrol canine units kissed 34,000 frogs
    in 1997. Only 2 percent of them were carrying drugs. In other
    States, up to 95 percent of the pipeline searches have been
    found to be dry holes. Now, the concern is that there are a lot
    of American citizens that are being stopped merely based on
    their experience, and obviously their rights are being
    violated, with very few results. I mean, it can't even be
    substantiated on the results, and I would like for you to
    perhaps comment on these.
        Mr. Constantine. It is difficult for me to comment on an
    article I have never read. It is my understanding--in fact is
    Gary Webb the author of that article?
        Ms. Roybal-Allard. Yes. This one is Gary Webb. This is the
    Pittsburgh Post Gazette.
        Mr. Constantine. Gary Webb is the one with San Jose Mercury
    News that said the CIA controlled all the distribution of crack
    cocaine in the United States. That was disproved by the
    Inspector General's Office of both the Department of Justice
    and the CIA. So the credibility of Gary Webb as a source of
    information on that I think is questionable.
        Let me get into Operation Pipeline. One thing we do know is
    that the traffickers will bring the drugs first to either
    Mexico or to the Caribbean; but someplace, once it hits the
    United States, somehow the drugs have to be moved from a major
    location, either along the border or in the continental
    southeastern part of the United States to get to the markets of
    Philadelphia, New York, Chicago, Milwaukee, or wherever it
    might be. That is always done by motor vehicle transport for
    the most part, usually large trucks.
        This became very obvious as we did the investigations.
    Informers would tell us how they transported the drugs. What
    happened over a period of time, officers started to develop
    significant skills. The significant skills include interview
    techniques where the bills of lading didn't match, or the truck
    driver said he was going to or coming from, the rental
    agreement didn't match, they had no license or registration
    themselves. The equipment was not working. You would interview
    the driver who would say they were going to Detroit. You would
    interview the passenger who would say they were going to
    Seattle. Something is wrong with the people in this cab. They
    don't know where they are going. Then there would very often be
    a consent search, and they would sign a written consent for the
    most part as they go forward. All of those external
    manifestations that drug traffickers unfortunately utilize were
    put together in a course of study.
        Now, I have to tell you two things. One, our own counsel's
    office reviews that curriculum to make sure it fits all the
    constitutional safeguards. We review that with the Department
    of Justice and we include it in the training of local
    prosecutors. Never once ever was racial profiling a part of the
    instruction. Just the opposite. We tell people that racial
    profiling is not part of the instruction because we never know
    who is going to be utilized by drug traffickers.
        I referred to a case here of an 11-year-old Iowa girl who
    had been kidnapped and held hostage by the traffickers. So you
    never really know exactly what is going to occur.
        Let me give you a sense of what are the results of some of
    these things. I hope I can find them because I had them
    earlier. What Operation Pipeline really means, in that program,
    is that over the last 10 years those officers have seized 116
    tons of cocaine. That is over $1,500,000,000 worth of cocaine.
    They seized 872 tons of marijuana and $510 million in currency.
    Unfortunately, much of that cocaine, marijuana, and heroin, is
    specifically directed at poor people. People who are the most
    vulnerable and suffer the most because they can't afford
    expensive rehabilitation programs. They can't afford private
    guards at their house. They are the individuals who are the
    victims of so much of this violence.
        So I think any time you can remove billions and billions of
    dollars' worth of drugs and take $5 million that these
    traffickers took off the backs of poor people, I think you are
    doing an outstanding job. And I think those statistics stand in
    contrast to what is written by Gary Webb, who is willing to
    publish information in this country claiming the CIA is
    involved in distribution of crack cocaine in the United States.
    I think Operation Pipeline is a very, very valid program.
        I can't speak for the Department of Justice's U.S.
    Attorneys issue. I have to say, as someone who has dealt with
    prosecutors all my life, I have the greatest respect for them.
    I mean, I work for Attorney General Reno and Eric Holder and
    Jim. These are ethical, decent, honorable people who do the
    best they possibly can. I know most U.S. Attorneys in this
    country. They are first class people who try to do the right
    thing. Do we make mistakes from time to time? Are we human
    beings? Yes. But I don't see people making intentional mistakes
    that hurt other people. But I think the attorneys' question
    might be better directed to Mr. Robinson.

                            prosecutorial practices

        Ms. Roybal-Allard. Would you like to respond?
        Mr. Robinson. I was a little confused--if that is the
    series that I think it is----
        Ms. Roybal-Allard. I can let you have it and then respond--
    --
        Mr. Robinson. Well, watch Dateline NBC tomorrow night
    because I talked about this on that. But my recollection,
    though, unless I am mistaken is that there isn't anything in
    those stories. Those stories pick out a number of cases in
    which the claim has been that there was prosecutorial abuse of
    power. I don't recall anything in there that involved this
    issue that you have raised which is a legitimate issue, and I
    think the Administrator and I both would say that some of those
    concerns may be State and local issues in terms of stops on the
    highway and things like that where some of those issues are
    raised, which obviously is not within our jurisdiction. But I
    don't recall anything in those articles that specifically
    relate to issues like racial profiling.
        Of course, once cases get to the investigative stage with
    the United States Attorneys and Federal prosecutors, obviously
    those issues are down the road; but I agree with the
    Administrator that I think that the Justice Department is very
    conscious about the need to avoid any inappropriate
    stereotypical targeting of individuals based upon race or
    ethnicity. I think that is a matter of concern that all the
    United States Attorneys throughout the country would be
    sensitive to.
        Ms. Roybal-Allard. Well, what was interesting--I know my
    time is up, Mr. Chairman--but in talking to the DEA agents,
    they were saying that the drug traffickers are catching on to--
    call it what you want, profiling, whatever--and as a result,
    they started noticing that now, instead of those who look like
    Saddam or me, look like you. So beware. They said they started
    to notice that change in who has been targeted to carry.

                           international extraditions

        Mr. Rogers. Mr. Miller.
        Mr. Miller. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Constantine, it is
    a pleasure to hear from you, I really have been impressed with
    the challenges that you face and agents that work with you, and
    we owe you all a great deal of gratitude for that. The best
    thing I heard so far is your comment about the ability to hire
    and recruit people. That makes me feel very good. Let me switch
    to an issue of extradition. I suddenly became interested in
    extradition issues a year and a half ago, but not through a
    drug-related issue. Do you do only drug-related extraditions?
        Mr. Robinson. No. Within the Office of International
    Affairs in the Criminal Division, we really serve nationally
    not only for Federal law enforcement but for State law
    enforcement as well, seeking extraditions. For example, some of
    the high-profile extraditions that we have been involved with
    include the Sheinbein case in Israel and the Ira Einhart case
    in Philadelphia. Those are issues that we work on. We are
    involved in negotiating extradition treaties as well as mutual
    legal assistance agreements, carrying the legal papers across,
    trying to make sure that we are working with our counterparts
    in other countries.
        Mr. Miller. I have a case in my Congressional district. Mr.
    Del Toro. Are you familiar with that case?
        Mr. Robinson. Vaguely familiar.
        Mr. Miller. This was a case of a horrible murder that took
    place in my district in Sarasota, Florida, in November of 1997.
    A man drove from San Antonio, and brutally murdered a young
    mother of six children including 2-year-old quadruplets,
    slashing her throat. The teenage daughter came home that
    afternoon and found her mother. The suspect drove back to San
    Antonio. He was born and raised in the United States. It was a
    conspiracy, a hired killer. The suspect fled to Mexico. Great
    law enforcement, local, State, Federal; the man is arrested.
    Mexico was going to deport him. They suddenly switched over to
    extradition. We are still waiting for his return. Shortly after
    his capture, the death penalty was waived, which was in January
    of last year. It is very frustrating to my community. Sarasota,
    Florida, is a nice area. We never experienced anything like
    this, not until this case came up. It is so maddening and
    frustrating. I don't understand how the system can work like
    this.
        You made the comment--that extradition can take 4 to 5
    years. We have been waiting over a year. I remember when we
    waived the death penalty back in January 1998. Now it is going
    to be May 1999. Then the fall. Now we have no idea when Del
    Toro will be returned. I'd like to know--how does deportation
    work in these cases?
        And I am going to ask about numbers, too, because Dateline
    NBC is doing a story on extradition.
        Mr. Robinson. I know that. I am going to be talking to them
    as well.
        Mr. Miller. They have talked to me already about Mr. Del
    Toro. Again, this was a U.S. citizen accused of a crime in the
    United States, against a U.S. citizen, and he is still over
    there. So explain to me what kind of statistics we're talking
    about, the process, and the length of time. You know, you talk
    about the corruption. You mentioned Mexico. Is corruption
    involved?
        Mr. Robinson. I wish I could give you one clear answer flat
    across the board. Unfortunately with each country, we have a
    different set of challenges, if we have an extradition treaty
    and have established a method of operation, then it helps us.
    We have some Criminal Division people located in various parts
    of the world who work with our embassies and can facilitate.
    The procedures vary from country to country and they do take a
    fair amount of time. And that is true in our system as well,
    because we facilitate handling extradition requests from
    foreign countries where we are seeking to have people in other
    parts of the world who committed crimes there extradited back
    to their countries. It is particularly challenging if we don't
    have an extradition treaty with a particular country. We do
    have a treaty with Mexico. And then we run into----
        Mr. Miller. We share a large border with Mexico. They have
    to be the biggest one we deal with.
        Mr. Robinson. Certainly a major customer of this kind of
    work. We also then run into sovereignty issues. With regard to
    many countries, as you know, in this particular case they will
    not extradite their nationals. Some will not extradite people
    who are going to face the death penalty because in their
    country they are opposed to the death penalty and they won't
    extradite them.
        So it takes more and more and more of the time of the
    Criminal Division. I think we are going to see in the future
    requests probably in this area, as the world shrinks, the need
    to make sure that there is a policy of no safe havens for
    fugitives who committed crimes. And our primary objective is to
    see to it that to the extent possible, people are returned to
    where the crimes have been committed to face the music, and
    that is our objective.

                         recordkeeping for extraditions

        Mr. Miller. In this case, this is a U.S. citizen. Another
    person in this case has been convicted and yet other one pled
    guilty in the case. There is a suspect, another person who
    hasn't been charged yet. But the actual person that committed
    the murders is the one sitting in a Mexican jail. And this
    ordeal goes on and on and on. My community is still irate about
    this issue. Do you keep a record of how many extraditions we
    request?
        Mr. Robinson. Sure. We certainly have----
        Mr. Miller. Dateline NBC is upset about this issue and is
    going to be quizzing you on why you don't keep the numbers.
        Mr. Robinson. Okay. I will be briefed on that tomorrow.
        Mr. Miller. Is there a record of the numbers for each
    extradition treaty? Do you have to file a specific request? Is
    that the way it works?
        Mr. Robinson. Well----
        Mr. Miller. Use in my case the sheriff in Sarasota County.
    Does he make a request through you?
        Mr. Robinson. One of the things we are trying to do is
    develop a network and get the information out to law
    enforcement, State and local law enforcement all around the
    country that the Department can facilitate sometimes.
    Occasionally you have local law enforcement trying to go
    directly to a foreign country, so we are trying to put together
    a manual for assistance of----
        Mr. Miller. Sometimes local law enforcement can go directly
    without going through you; is that right?
        Mr. Robinson. Ordinarily they are not going to get anywhere
    with a foreign country.
        Mr. Miller. You should have the statistics of extradition
    requests. Is it a formal written document when you make a
    request?
        Mr. Robinson. Well, we certainly keep records of the number
    of applications pending in our Office of International Affairs,
    in that there is a group of attorneys that basically have
    divided the world up and are responsible for processing these
    extradition requests.
        Mr. Miller. Get back to me on these statistics. But what
    type of records do you keep with regards to Mexico as far as
    the number of extradition requests and such? We have searched
    for information on the Internet. Amarillo had on the Internet
    the 12 most wanted people in their area, and 8 of them had fled
    to Mexico, they thought. Thought to have fled to Mexico. Well,
    we don't know. I guess you can't do an extradition if you don't
    have the person arrested.
        Mr. Robinson. When you are talking about numbers, we
    probably don't have the information when a formal request to
    the Department has not been made to seek the extradition of----
        Mr. Miller. Those who had formal requests, you should have
    those available?
        Mr. Robinson. There should be how many pending extradition
    requests we have made to Mexico and the status of those.
        Mr. Miller. There was an article in the Washington Times
    this morning, I don't know where these numbers come from; 150
    extradition requests have failed to be acted on by the Mexican
    Government. Is that accurate?
        Mr. Robinson. We will certainly check.
        [Clerk's note.--Subsequent to the hearing, additional
    information on U.S. extradition request to Mexico was provided
    to, and is on file at the Subcommittee.]
        Mr. Miller. Is 4 or 5 years an unusual amount of time? I
    hope that is not typical.
        Ms. Warren. That is the extreme. But there is a trial court
    proceeding and appeals, and then a similar process for habeas
    corpus. So then they can file a habeas corpus request and that
    can be appealed and they can drag it out. I believe the average
    time is probably closer to 2 years if it is litigated.
        Mr. Miller. How about the issue of corruption? Is there
    anything you can tell me about that? Is that a problem?
        Mr. Robinson. Corruption with regard to extradition?
        Mr. Miller. Yes.
        Mr. Robinson. Well, I think for many of these cases I think
    it is probably--it may not be a major issue but perhaps the
    Administrator has a view on that. I think undoubtedly judicial
    systems in various countries can be the subject of influence
    and a powerful individual in some countries certainly can
    present problems as a hypothetical matter.
        Mr. Miller. Not just when there are drugs involved. Del
    Toro is not a wealthy person, according to the newspaper.
    However, the ex-husband is tied into this whole thing, although
    he still hasn't been charged yet.
        Mr. Robinson. It is fair to say that in some situations
    around the country, the difficulty of actually securing a
    person's extradition who is in their legal system--the subject
    of influences could undoubtedly have an impact. It is an
    additional challenge.

                          alternatives to extradition

        Mr. Miller. One more question. Deportation. Mexico does
    deport people sometimes. I found a case recently where somebody
    was accused of murder in Arkansas and they quickly deported him
    and he was arrested in Mexico, and they deported him to Texas
    authorities. Is this an arbitrary decision?
        Mr. Robinson. I don't know that it is an arbitrary
    decision. It is an alternative avenue to the lengthy
    extradition in certain instances and something that we explore
    among many options. Our objective in these situations is
    obviously when we are seeking the return of an individual to
    face criminal charges in this country, the long hard way is
    extradition. Under certain circumstances, a person can be
    deported to us or a variety of other ways. Our objective is to
    get the person back here through legal channels, obviously you
    have to follow the law.
        Mr. Miller. This is going to be a bigger problem because of
    the people who escaped jail down in Texas. I remember reading
    the articles about their escape from death row. Authorities
    were afraid they were going to Mexico because Texas executes
    murderers. It takes years maybe to get them back. The more you
    publicize a case like the Del Toro case, the more people become
    aware, hey, go to Mexico. It is not a pleasant place to stay, I
    imagine, Mexican jails.
        Mr. Robinson. I think not, from what I know.
        Mr. Miller. But at least they are avoiding the death
    penalty in the United States if applied in that State. I think
    this is a serious problem in the United States. I didn't
    realize this but the more I read about it and talk about it, I
    hear from Members of Congress: Hey, I have a case like yours in
    my district. This is not a partisan issue at all. Anything you
    can do on this issue is appreciated.
        Mr. Robinson. I think, as I said going forward, there is no
    doubt in my mind that as the borders become less relevant,
    people can get on planes and travel. We will see the need for
    increased activity in terms of extradition and working out
    arrangements with the international community to meet this
    objective of providing no safe havens for people who have
    committed crimes.
        Mr. Miller. If you can provide that information, will you
    also give us the latest update on Mr. Del Toro? Did I talk to
    you on the phone that one time?
        Ms. Warren. Yes, we have spoken.
        [Clerk's note.--The following information was provided
    subsequent to the hearing:]

        The Government of Mexico has approved del Toro's
    extradition to the United States. Del Toro has appealed this
    decision, and the case is currently before the Mexican Supreme
    Court. Del Toro remains in custody in a Mexican prison pending
    final resolution of the appeal. Appeals in Mexican courts can
    be lengthy, sometimes taking two years or more, because the
    Mexican judicial system affords many opportunities for
    procedural challenges.

                            ocdetf funding mechanism

        Mr. Rogers. The fiscal year 2000 budget request proposes to
    eliminate the separate funding mechanism which has existed for
    over 18 years, which funds Organized Crime and Drug Task
    Forces. That mechanism was specifically created to ensure a
    coordinated and targeted effort against drugs. Mr. Robinson,
    your own statement highlights the importance these task forces
    have played in the drug war. The National Drug Control Strategy
    indicates that their effectiveness is going to be a key measure
    of our success in the drug war.
        Ms. Bucella, you have been genuinely quiet so I am going to
    ask you: How important do you view these task forces? And I
    want Mr. Robinson to respond as well.
        Ms. Bucella. The task forces have been very effective in
    actually having all of our agencies, law enforcement agencies,
    to include State and locals, and to include Treasury agencies
    with the U.S. Attorney's Office and all of our local
    prosecutors, to actually sit down and work together. So they
    have been very, very effective.
        Mr. Rogers. Mr. Robinson.
        Mr. Robinson. There is no question about the effectiveness
    of it. And I think that the Administrator probably, based upon
    his long experience, could speak more effectively to it than I
    could, but I think one thing is clear, I think Federal law
    enforcement these days have become believers in the need for
    interagency cooperation in this effort. I see significantly
    less sort of turf difficulties, than those that existed before.
    I think the kind of results that we get from the OCDETF
    approach of bringing together different law enforcement
    agencies and the task force effort and the kind of results we
    have had, have made everybody believe we have got to do this in
    order to maximize the use of our resources.
        So we are persuaded that the lesson has been learned;
    people are believers in the need for interagency cooperation.
    We are convinced that the experience that we have had thus far
    will continue to exist.
        Mr. Rogers. Administrator Constantine.
        Mr. Constantine. I agree. I believe when OCDETF was first
    proposed--and I was on the OCDETF Board in the Northern
    District of New York in the early 1980s--it served a purpose at
    that point in time of consolidating everybody's efforts. And
    the big thing that you need in law enforcement very often is
    the availability of resources and funds on a quick basis to
    accomplish some of these things. You get a big investigation
    and good target.
        Now things, you know, some people may think are
    inconsequential, rent for surveillance posts, undercover buy
    money, lease lines for a court-ordered wire tap, and of course
    overtime for some officers that you need. Those are the things
    that choke. Everybody wants to get along but you don't have any
    money. Everybody was strapped at that point, and I think that
    it served a purpose.
        But I have to say that the whole attitude of the law
    enforcement community in the United States today of working
    together on these issues is just revolutionary compared to what
    it was when I first started. We spend a lot of time in DEA at
    every meeting of our senior managers saying this is one of our
    primary areas. I mentioned to you those mobile enforcement
    teams that are effective in reducing violence. We are very
    specific with the instructions to our people that we take no
    credit for the accomplishments of these teams that a local
    chief or sheriff or prosecutor who asks for our help handles
    all of that. That makes them more willing to ask for assistance
    in the future.
        So that part of the whole OCDETF account that provides
    positions, I don't think you need that to force people together
    anymore, but those areas of OCDETF funding which help you with
    the incidentals, those are the things that impede us on a major
    investigation. So I think this will work out very well.
        Mr. Rogers. Since all of you have spoken so highly about
    OCDETF--and I agree with you--does anybody want to take
    responsibility for the fact that the budget requests no
    separate account for OCDETF funding.
        Mr. Robinson. It maintains a level that we have had and I
    think we feel that we can do the job with this, coupled with
    the contributions that are being made by the various agencies.
    There is a significant extra effort, as you can tell from the
    testimony, being put in by each of the agencies, and we
    understand that there are priorities and that this one isn't
    the only priority. But we feel that when you see the kind of
    progress that has been made, we believe that it will continue.
        Mr. Rogers. But the funding mechanism that you are talking
    about is what we did 18 years ago when we discovered it didn't
    work, funding Justice's share of these task forces within the
    individual Justice agencies' budgets, with no coordinated
    OCDETF funding. Eighteen years ago we created this umbrella and
    funded it so that there was coercion to bring the agencies
    together on common programs.
        That is what I am asking you--is it imperative that we have
    some sort of an umbrella OCDETF-funded effort to meld the
    various Justice organizations together?
        Mr. Robinson. There will continue to be that kind of
    coordination. I think what we are talking about is where the
    money goes and eliminating potential layers of bureaucracy in
    the process. But our OCDETF supervision and coordination in the
    Criminal Division is going to continue. I think it will require
    one less check to be written, and I think it is consistent with
    the notion of some efficiency. We didn't see that splitting it
    off to the Customs folks set us back, and we feel that we can
    do this and do it effectively.
        Mr. Rogers. Well, the FBI is the biggest component. What
    makes you think, for example, that they will continue to
    contribute to the OCDETF operation? We all know that money is
    the key, and the only reason that the OCDETF operation has been
    successful, in my opinion, is that it controls the money and
    all of you had to go to them. What makes you think you can turn
    back history and correct history and that this will continue as
    it is when it didn't work 18 years ago?
        Mr. Robinson. I was there 18 years ago, trying to do this.
    The point that I think people have learned is that the
    coordinated effort with the involvement early on of the United
    States Attorneys Office and a cooperative effort between the
    law enforcement agencies is producing results, cases, and
    convictions. People have understood that playing well with each
    other does produce results, and my sense is that people aren't
    going back to the old ways of business where they are guarding
    cases and competing with each other as opposed to cooperating.
        Mr. Rogers. You and I have a little bit of difference
    there. I don't think it will work. It didn't work before.
        Mr. Robinson. We are going to do the best we can to make it
    work, I assure you.
        Mr. Rogers. I don't want to see you tear up a good thing.
    We have a good thing going here.
        Mr. Robinson. We do.
        Mr. Rogers. You do have a good deal more optimism.
        Mr. Robinson. I haven't been in the job long enough to be--
    it is less than a year. I continue to be very optimistic.

                              role of intelligence

        Mr. Rogers. I run a little bit. It just seems to me that
    money talks, and OCDETF, I think, will be a thing of the past
    if it has no separate money.
        Now, as drug trafficking organizations become increasingly
    sophisticated, using advanced technologies to evade detection
    and expand their reach, good intelligence plays a more critical
    role in the drug war as we see it. As a result, governmentwide
    spending on drug intelligence has increased significantly to
    almost $285 million in 1999. That is a 189 percent increase
    since just 1992.
        This Subcommittee has tried to do its part in that effort
    by providing DEA more personnel, resources, all the other
    agencies that have to be added. In fact, we gave DEA $9 million
    over and above what was requested last year, to add more
    intelligence analysts and equipment.
        Now, in fiscal year 2000, additional funding is requested
    for both DEA and the Criminal Division in this area.
    Administrator Constantine, in your opinion, has this increased
    funding enhanced your efforts to successfully fight the war on
    drugs?
        Mr. Constantine. Absolutely. It may answer some of the
    questions on cooperation in OCDETF because the key to the
    cooperative venture is the intelligence and the sharing of
    intelligence. We have developed three systems based on enhanced
    resources that you have given to us, that I think over the next
    4 or 5 years will put us at a level in the sharing of narcotics
    intelligence information that I would have thought absolutely
    impossible.
        One is a program for electronic reporting rather than
    pencil-and-paper reports. If you look at the DEA and all of our
    task force personnel, we have over 1,200 people in our task
    forces in addition to our agents, the FBI and all of their task
    force personnel, Customs and all of their task force personnel.
    You are probably talking about the agencies that are
    responsible for about 80 percent of all of the major narcotics
    investigations in the United States, because they tend to be
    either international or certainly interstate.
        The secret now is to make sure all of these three agencies
    share information amongst each other as well as joint targets
    and coordinate them. We do that in the Special Operations
    Division. We have enhanced their assets, which is included in
    this year's budget. That is the Department of Justice, Customs,
    DEA, and the FBI, which acts as kind of an overseer of every
    major international and national organization going on in these
    particular groups.
        Second is with the electronic reporting systems, we are
    virtually on the brink of--I was going to say on top of a
    cliff, but that is not a good analogy because that means the
    results would be negative. When an agent in Newark finishes his
    day's or her day's tour and enters into their electronic report
    all of the license plate numbers, the individuals interviewed,
    telephone numbers analyzed, addresses, they all will go into a
    central data bank. When that agent comes to work the next
    morning, he or she will be advised that one of those addresses,
    one of those names, one of those telephone numbers, one of
    those license plates was part of an investigation conducted by
    an FBI agent in Sacramento, California, or Customs agent in New
    Orleans. That had been unheard of before. That then allows them
    to recognize a joint target and put that information together.
        Now, to do that, you need these intelligence analysts who
    can go over all of this factual information that is provided.
        The second program we have will include all of the rest of
    the law enforcement communities of the United States. We went
    to the State and local law enforcement agencies. They said, Do
    us a favor. Don't develop a new intelligence system. Make the
    ones that you now have work. So they devised an index system
    whereby we provide the service to every law enforcement agency
    in the United States so that they will then be able to use a
    similar system by names of targets and names of addresses.
        Another development is the opening of our new academy in
    Quantico in the spring of this year. I have dedicated 50 beds
    for that facility, for the training of narcotics intelligence
    experts not only in the United States, but from many places we
    will be able to get a faculty from several counties, States and
    local law enforcement, and we will have a joint advisory
    committee of the FBI, Customs, the CIA, the DEA, and ourselves
    to run that program. We will have a joint faculty from all of
    those agencies. I have already talked with some of the law
    enforcement officials from Europe and South America about who
    would be willing to offer visiting instructors for long periods
    of time. And we can take that from the basic intelligence
    analyst course up to a program at the University of Virginia
    for a masters degree. And we will at the same point in time
    reach out to State and local law enforcement, and if we run 50
    weeks a year, we can reach 2,500 people or maybe 2,000, and so
    every narcotics intelligence analyst in this country will be
    trained in the same systems, the same formats, the same
    technology and will be able to share information.
        All of these things, Congressman, would have been
    impossible 4 or 5 years ago without the help that you have
    given us. And when you say, How do you recreate the money of
    OCDETF if you have to share the intelligence data together and
    you are all part of it, that will act--and I hope and I believe
    it will--as the web that brings everybody into the same
    investigations.
        Mr. Rogers. Mr. Robinson, your budget also requests
    increases. How will that affect your current capabilities?
        Mr. Robinson. One of the most amazing things that I did was
    to go out and see the operations that we are doing in terms of
    intelligence gathering. I think the Administrator is exactly
    right. The notion of pulling together this information and
    making it work and being able to trace the organizations and
    the roots is absolutely essential for us to get ahead and stay
    on top of it.
        I think the support the Committee has given to law
    enforcement in providing these intelligence tools is absolutely
    essential, and I think that the only way we are going to get
    this done is to be able to make sure we get the information. As
    the Administrator said, share it throughout the Federal law
    enforcement agencies and work with our State and local
    counterparts in trying to get ahead of the curve on this.

                    wiretapping and electronic surveillance

        Mr. Rogers. One of the major challenges facing law
    enforcement has been to maintain wiretapping and other
    electronic surveillance capabilities as technology is changed,
    particularly telephones. We passed the CALEA statute almost 5
    years ago to ensure we could maintain those capabilities, but
    that statute has yet to be implemented. What percentage of your
    drug investigations, Mr. Administrator, have relied on court-
    order wiretaps?
        Mr. Constantine. The major investigations of the organized
    crime systems, I will say 90 to 95 percent of our
    investigations are dependent upon that because the trafficker's
    greatest vulnerability is that they have to communicate with
    one another. If they are living in Guadalajara or Cali or Peru,
    and the people they have sent to carry out their orders are in
    New York or Chicago or Houston, they can't meet with them and
    walk and give them instructions. They have to give them
    instructions on a daily basis.
        We know of one organization we are working on right now
    that is shipping five tons of cocaine every 2 weeks, into the
    United States. That is 130 tons of cocaine by one group. Their
    profit is about $1,800,000,000 a year. They invest a great deal
    of that money not only in corruption in their own grade; they
    invest that in technology. So they are constantly working----
        Mr. Rogers. Tell us some of your problems that you have had
    because of the advance in technologies that you are seeing out
    there.
        Mr. Constantine. Well, the switch from analog to digital
    became a major issue in developing technology at the switching
    stations. There are so many carriers in the service right now.
    There has to be entry access. We will do the surveillance, get
    the information, we will see some narcotics, and then we will
    be told that the traffickers are using a certain phone. We will
    go to the U.S. Attorneys. We get affidavits that thick. We will
    finally get a judge who will go over the material and say,
    ``You have exhausted every possible investigative remedy.
    Here's a court order. Go ahead with it''. And we will go to the
    carrier and find out they have not designed any ports or
    switching stations to work with it.
        The second area we have is the problem of encryption.
    Encryption of communications used to be something that was the
    domain of intelligence services and the military. Now it is
    available to every citizen in the United States.
        The third thing is calling cards. If you get off any
    airport in the United States if you get off at Dulles or
    National, you see a big vending machine for calling cards. That
    then allows them to make long distance telephone calls without
    any connection to a telephone number or an individual. Two-way
    pagers also have become very difficult. The combination of a
    cellular phone and a radio transmitter which exists between
    some major corporations, where you pick up a phone and then it
    starts as a phone conversation which would then be available to
    us to interdict an access port, and then switches halfway
    through the call to a radio transmission that is difficult for
    us to seize. Those are some of the areas that are confounding
    us and we are always racing to keep up with the traffickers.
        Mr. Rogers. In the event the industry does not upgrade its
    equipment so as to allow you to have court-ordered wiretaps,
    what effect will that have on your cases?
        Mr. Constantine. We will be out of business. The
    traffickers will have a sanctuary.

                            dea financial management

        Mr. Rogers. Thank you. Now, Mr. Administrator, I recently
    learned more troubling news about DEA's financial management.
    Last year we discovered there was a $6 million embezzlement of
    DEA funds by a DEA budget analyst, the second embezzlement in
    recent years. I was assured that was under control. But now we
    have discovered that over the past 3 years, DEA has shifted
    around over $330 million in funds that we provided, without
    ever notifying or seeking approval of this Committee, in direct
    violation of the law. More troubling, when questioned, the DEA
    couldn't provide a full accounting of how that money was
    actually spent. I am not alleging that the money was stolen.
    That is not the point here. The point is the money was spent in
    matters other than what we provided for, and that cannot be
    tolerated. You are the head of this agency. It is occurring on
    your watch, so I want to know how it happened, what you did
    about it. If you didn't know about it, why not?
        Mr. Constantine. Let me separate the two things. One is the
    embezzlement. During that investigation we uncovered an
    employee who had been embezzling funds since 1990. We were able
    to determine how he embezzled the money. We were able to indict
    him and were able to identify at least those assets that were
    left to be seized. We have been unable to bring him to trial
    because of his terminal illness, muscular dystrophy, but we
    have moved civilly for all of the assets that are available.
        The reprogramming of the money which you brought to our
    attention we now find out is, much to my chagrin and our
    chagrin, a process that has been occurring in DEA since 1988.
    And as we look at how this process was occurring, individuals
    would for several reasons--and I have to first of all make it
    very, very clear, we have gone over all the information we have
    presently. There is no embezzlement of this money. There is no
    money missing. Even though it is bad and it is wrong, it is an
    important issue that has to be laid on the table.
        What we found out is a former chief financial officer,
    since retired, and a budget officer, made decisions on their
    own. I can't find one executive, past or present in DEA, who
    was aware of these reprogrammings that were taking place. They
    are on their own, I think, for probably as far as I can see
    three various reasons. The one which I think is probably the
    biggest problem for me, and I am sure for you and the
    Committee, was the decision that they were going to reprogram
    money from one area or budget to another because if Congress
    knew before it was done, somehow they would lose the money or
    they saw some negative connotation. I don't know what that
    would be, but it appears to be it.
        The second part was from kind of an end-of-the-year review
    that occurs within DEA where we would find out that we wouldn't
    spend certain money on salaries or whatever problems, and
    apparently they would say if we don't spend this money now and
    we turn it back in, it will be lost. By the way, I have not yet
    interviewed or had interviewed for purpose of a disciplinary
    matter of these individuals, but our people are looking into
    it.
        The third part appears to be lack of competency. They got
    the money in the beginning of the year. They had an antiquated
    accounting system. They put it in the wrong pot at the
    beginning of the year where it shouldn't have been in the first
    place. When they took it out of there and put it where it was
    probably designed to be in the first place, it had then to be
    reprogrammed.
        The next area would be, for example, the foreign accounts:
    if we were to deploy people overseas, it takes us 12 to 14
    months to eventually get them approved by the State Department,
    language-trained and overseas. In addition to that, there is
    certain equipment that goes with them: cars, computers, and all
    of that. Rather than leaving that money in the foreign account
    at the beginning of the year, they wrongfully moved the account
    into some categorical area of DEA, to buy the car or buy the
    computer out of there, and if they would have left the money in
    a foreign account in the first place, it would have had to be
    reprogrammed.
        All of that said, we are wrong. It is on my watch. I take
    the responsibility for straightening it out.
        Now, we have done two things. We removed officers. We
    removed one. The individual retired. I don't know what our
    legal abilities are in that particular area. We have, with the
    assistance of the Justice Department, continually gone through
    our accounts, the ones in 1998 which are easiest to go through,
    because we now have a state-of-the-art accounting system that
    looks to be okay, and we are looking at 1996 and 1997.
        In the area of the embezzlement, I personally asked for a
    contract with Price Waterhouse to come in and look at all of
    our cash transactions areas. They have indicated that we are
    doing the right things in that particular area. In our
    financial statement other than this issue, Peat Marwick has
    given us, as part of the governmentwide audit, an unqualified
    audit the best level of audit that you can get in that
    particular area.
        I have hired three financial analysts to make them part of
    our inspection team to inspect every part that deals with
    financial issues. If, as the end of a result of the scrub of
    our books, you or any member of the Committee is still
    uncomfortable with the reprogramming aspect, where the money
    goes, I have committed myself to either an outside audit or
    assistance from any other agency that will help us.
        There are some things I can do, obviously, in an
    administrative discipline area. In foreign money, we had
    specifically told everybody over the last 3 years, do not touch
    any of the foreign money, that Congress has dedicated that to
    specific functions. Yet, despite our best instructions, that
    occurred. So I apologize for all of the work that this has
    caused everybody. I have to tell you, none of it has affected
    our foreign enforcement programs. All of them are staffed
    fully. The statistics that I have given you for arrest and
    seizure effectiveness of the agency I don't think has been
    diminished, and if anything, I would probably say that our
    people have done an outstanding job over the last 3 or 4 years.
    It is up to us to do this to your satisfaction. And my biggest
    fear of this would be because of mistakes that we have made
    that somehow it would impact citizens who depend on our service
    greatly. I will do everything possible to make sure that
    doesn't happen.
        Mr. Rogers. Well, we expect you to get to the bottom of it
    real quick, and we want to know right away the whole story
    before we mark up. We will be asking the Committee staff to
    assist you in that review. This is a serious matter. We will
    not allow any agency to spend the monies that we give them
    under false pretenses, and that is what happened here. We gave
    you $330 million over a period of time and whomever at the
    agency decided that they wanted to spend that another way. If
    that is what they want to do, let them run for Congress. But
    until that time, I expect that they will spend these monies
    exactly as we appropriated. If you want to change that in some
    fashion, as you well know, we routinely entertain reprogramming
    requests and most always approve them, given some
    justification, just by a simple letter. That is all we ask. We
    want to be kept informed and have information sought when you
    are changing the taxpayers' dollars from one account to
    another. But for somebody to do that on their own, we want to
    know who it was, when it happened and why. And I expect you to
    take appropriate action in regard to those personnel. If you
    don't, we will.
        Mr. Constantine. We are wrong, you are right. If you know
    my reputation, I don't shrink from taking appropriate action.
    That is not hard for me.
        Mr. Rogers. Well, as I say too, this has nothing to do with
    you personally. I have every confidence in you. I am not happy
    with your financial management team that you have had. I don't
    know what you have done about that. We want to know.
        Mr. Constantine. We have a new team.
        Mr. Rogers. Are they with us today?
        Mr. Constantine. I believe one of them is. Whether he wants
    to stand up at this stage of the game or not is another
    question.
        Mr. Rogers. I think we want to see their faces.
        Mr. Whetstone. Jim Whetstone, Chief Financial Officer of
    DEA.
        Mr. Rogers. All right. Has he been charged with running a
    straight ship?
        Mr. Constantine. He has not only been charged, I think I
    have beat him in the ground within the last 2 months, and one
    of his assistants has wound up in the hospital. They have
    worked tirelessly for 2 or 3 months to try to address the
    mistakes that other people made. I will tell you something, I
    could not ask more of how hard they have worked as have the
    people from the Justice Department. It is up to us to make you
    feel comfortable, and that is our job.
        Mr. Rogers. I won't feel comfortable until I see some
    personnel discipline. Because I don't want the other agencies
    to get the idea they can get by with this. I don't want anybody
    to get by with violating the law. In dealing with taxpayers'
    dollars it is appropriately handled by the Congress. That is
    what we are charged with doing. If we don't do it, they can
    come at us, the public can, and they should. So that is enough
    about that. I don't want to dwell upon it, but I think it needs
    to be dealt with very quickly, forthrightly and severely. And
    we will talk about this some more when we get your report. When
    can we expect to hear from you?
        Mr. Constantine. The scrub of the books to determine where
    all the money has gone, as I have mentioned to you is
    proceeding. I have statements for 1996, 1997, 1998 for the
    accountability of the money, but not the formal agreement, I
    think the Justice Department staff and your staff is set for
    April 14th, which I believe is a correct date.
        Mr. Rogers. All right.
        Mr. Constantine. And if any other agency is thinking about
    this in the future, have them call me and I will tell them what
    it is like.
        Mr. Rogers. Well, any other agency would have gotten a
    harsher lecture.
        Mr. Constantine. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Rogers. Mr. Serrano.

                                   profiling

        Mr. Serrano. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Let me just before I ask some questions and touch on some
    subjects, Mr. Chairman, just comment on some of the things that
    I heard as we went around. First of all, I think we should take
    very seriously, and I know you did, the comments made by Ms.
    Roybal-Allard about the profiling of people. That is a big
    issue in this country now and it is a big issue in communities
    like mine. In fact, had I asked Ms. Bucella to bring Mr. Carter
    and Mary Jo Wyatt with her today, she would have had to tell me
    that they are pretty busy with the Justice Department and
    investigating the police department in New York City right now,
    something that has created such an uproar in New York right now
    that 250 people were arrested yesterday at civil disobedience
    demonstrations. The number arrested is reaching 1,000,
    including Members of Congress. It is not a pretty site to be
    handcuffed, as I was this past Monday, just to make a point
    that the police department has to be looked at. When you have a
    26-year-old son who travels with a 26-year-old African-American
    and they tell you the fact that they are college graduates and
    one of them works for the U.S. Marshal's office, and so on,
    that it is not important that they get stopped routinely
    because they look like the people that may be causing problems.
    That really hits home.
        So what we have to do in this country is find a way of
    striking a balance between the gains we have made against crime
    and people's rights to be able to go on. I have no doubt that
    without a suit and a tie and congressional license plates, I
    would get stopped in New York City by the very forceful
    policing that is taking place now. Aggressive policing. Of
    course, with the license plates I could be stopped by a lot of
    citizens who just are very upset at me. But, that is a
    different issue all together.
        Another at least for me, interesting point for the future
    generations to pay a little attention to, is that we seem, in
    this country, to be overrun now or outraged at everything that
    is happening at the south Texas border and how it is affecting
    us. Being a child of the 1960s, I remember when we used to say
    in addition to asking the question, are you a Communist, and if
    they said no, we would then say okay, then, carry on, that we
    should have been asking them, and how else are you setting up
    your societies and what other business are you involved in
    other than anti-Communist activities. I think a lot of what we
    are seeing today is that we focused on winning the Cold War and
    we never focused on winning the drug war and so communism was
    the fear. In the long run, I wish they would have heard us
    more, and we will find out soon.

                             computer related crime

        One quick thing. If I may, Ms. Bucella, just moving on to
    an issue which is part of what you do, but not necessarily
    related to this hearing, but it is related to what the
    Administrator said, you were, I know you are very much involved
    in the issue of computer-related crimes and so on, and yet I
    understand that the FBI was given money by this committee to do
    that kind of work, but you were not, you folks were not. Does
    that create a problem? Is that something we should be looking
    at?
        Ms. Bucella. Yes. Thank you for asking that question. It
    does create a big problem.
        One of the words that just echoes in my head every time is
    balance. For the U.S. Attorneys' offices, every time a new
    appropriation is given to a different agency, not just the DOJ
    investigative agencies, but also Treasury, ATF, Postal, Secret
    Service, they bring cases in. If we don't have a number of new
    assistants assigned, we will have to have those cases
    unaddressed. So I ask for balance again when adding new agents.
    We have to account for what is going to happen with the cases.
        In the area of computer technology, unlike drugs, in the
    area of drugs, we usually use a ratio of 1 to 3 or 1 to 4, one
    Assistant United States Attorney to 3 or 4 DEA agents or FBI
    agents in the narcotics area. But in the computer crime area,
    because it is so complex, so technical, that many instances,
    both our Assistant United States Attorney and our investigators
    are learning together and working out, because the technology
    is so new, so complex and ever-changing, we are almost at a 1-
    to-1 ratio. So that has become a big problem, because we are
    trying to play catch-up and trying to move whatever resources
    that we currently have that are not specifically earmarked for
    drugs or for civil enforcement to get them over to do some of
    the computer crimes.
        Mr. Serrano. And you are requesting dollars to try to deal
    with that problem?
        Ms. Bucella. Yes, we are. We are this time. Last year, we
    had requested it, 36 positions were, in fact, earmarked from
    our existing budget. That did not necessarily help us. So I ask
    if you are going to give us any resources, we can use them,
    especially in the computer crime area.

                  drug issues in puerto rico and the caribbean

        Mr. Serrano. Now, I know we are running short of time, so
    what I am going to do is ask some questions probably from the
    three of you. Just answer them as you see fit on the whole
    issue of the drug issue and what is happening in Puerto Rico.
    Now, a lot of people in this country when they look at Puerto
    Rico and that issue, they see it as a place in the Caribbean,
    but the fact is that it is an American territory, so it is no
    different than drugs coming into Miami. It is the same issue.
    Yet, I would like to note what is the issue, you know, what
    percentage of our drugs is coming through there. We were told a
    long time ago that it is one of the beauties of being an
    island. It is hard to invade you militarily. However, it seems
    that drug people can invade islands very easily, unlike
    military forces.
        I also understand that there is a problem with keeping
    agents. Now, I am sure it is not because they hate the sun or
    the beaches, so what is the problem in keeping agents and what
    are we doing specifically to address the issue of the
    Caribbean?
        Mr. Constantine. Let me answer that, because most of that,
    at least some of it is my issue.
        Early in my tenure as Administrator of DEA, I met several
    people that had a big impact on me. One was the Governor of
    Puerto Rico, Governor Rossello, and the second was the acting
    U.S. Attorney. He was then the Attorney General of Puerto Rico
    whose brother had been killed in a carjacking. They came to my
    office at different periods of time talking about the impact of
    drug trafficking through Puerto Rico and the impact in Puerto
    Rico as drug trafficking was starting to disrupt a lot of the
    systems and increasing violent crime.
        I was so impressed with all three of them that we decided
    to make Puerto Rico the focal point of a new division for the
    DEA, the Caribbean Division. We used to run it out of Miami,
    and paid a lot of attention to the Bahamas. We have since
    opened our central location for the Caribbean and Puerto Rico.
    We have tripled the number of agents that are stationed in
    Puerto Rico, as has the FBI, and we have worked very closely
    with the chief of police there. I think we have been very
    effective. What had occurred was criminal organizations sent
    people either from Colombia or more likely from the Dominican
    Republic. There came a close distribution system involving the
    leaders from Colombia moving the drugs to the Dominican
    Republic and then from the Dominican Republic to Puerto Rico,
    because as you said, once the drugs are in Puerto Rico, the
    movement of the contraband becomes that much easier.
        We have had some major investigations that never would have
    occurred before as a result of these assets, and I think we are
    making inroads. I give great credit to the leadership of Puerto
    Rico for making crime an issue, and drug distribution. Anything
    more we can do, we will do.
        It happened at the same point in time that we were required
    to put agents in Peru, Bolivia, Colombia, Mexico, and
    eventually, the Southwest border. We started to exhaust a lot
    of our agents who would be fluent in Spanish and would have to
    go to language training. What would occur is if an agent is
    then going to say well, what do I put in for? I can go to
    Puerto Rico or I can go to Colombia. If I go to Colombia, I
    then can avail myself of some enhanced benefits that are being
    provided, government schools for example and so it really
    became like a market who would we get to go.
        I did several things. One was, which tended to violate the
    first agreement in talking to this Congresswoman, was if you
    come from Puerto Rico and you want to go back there as a young
    agent, we would send them back for a period of time to make
    sure we had this dramatic buildup over a short period of time.
    Working with the Attorney General, who was excellent on this,
    and the FBI, we were able to develop some enhancements in
    salary and in education for people who would go there.
        Now, what has happened, is we have stabilized the
    situation, Congressman. We now have virtually full staffing in
    Puerto Rico and we are not facing the needs for those
    enhancements. The trafficking system is still very difficult,
    because--I can't tell you whether it is 25 percent today or 35
    percent, but the Caribbean is the next area of vulnerability
    after the Southwest border in Mexico. That includes Haiti, the
    Dominican Republic, a lot of the out islands all the way from
    Aruba.
        Mr. Serrano. Does it come in by plane?
        Mr. Constantine. Well, the primary way that they do that is
    the general aviation planes, King Airs, Aero Commanders. They
    fly out of the north coast, usually of Colombia, and they go to
    any of the islands that they want to go to. They may drop at
    Jamaica and then bring it in by boat, go-fast boats, but they
    bring it in maybe over the top of Cuba masked in the air
    traffic there; they then have people in what we call go-fast
    high-speed twin-engine boats. They will each have global
    positioning satellites. They will connect with each other by
    radio and by global positioning satellites. They will meet each
    other at an intersection within 15 minutes. They will drop the
    sealed bails of cocaine out of the plane, and then they will
    keep themselves right off the top of the water so no radar can
    pick them up right away, so that when they pop back up, we are
    not sure of exactly where that drop took place. Then eventually
    from there, one of the things that they used to do, before we
    had a lot of the assets, was to get it to Puerto Rico and move
    it to other places.
        But I think eventually over time, we will be more
    successful in Puerto Rico than we will be in other places,
    because there is a sincere interest on the part of the
    leadership at every level that I have dealt with to try to help
    us to do something about it.
        Mr. Robinson. Just let me add, we have spent a fair amount
    of time addressing the issue of getting agents who encounter
    difficulties with, as the Administrator said, if you go on a
    foreign assignment, you have enhancements of a pay package.
    There are issues relating to the recruitment of agents and
    Assistant United States Attorneys who the Criminal Division has
    sent prosecutors down to assist the U.S. Attorney's Office. I
    think it is absolutely critical to the drug war to have
    effective personnel there, and also to provide the kind of
    assistance to the people of Puerto Rico with the gang violence
    and other activities. So it seems to me that anything that
    could be done to assist with regard to our ability to encourage
    people to be able to go to Puerto Rico to fulfill these very
    important positions and deal with this problem that we have had
    of the recruitment and retention of DEA and FBI agents and
    Federal prosecutors in that area, that is something we have
    been spending a lot of time working on.

                           use of the national guard

        Mr. Serrano. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just have one
    quick, quick question.
        The governor took a lot of heat for using--heat from some
    groups for using the National Guard.
        Mr. Constantine. The housing projects.
        Mr. Serrano. The housing projects. But the people in the
    housing projects supported it. Do we have any statistics on how
    that worked?
        Mr. Constantine. You would probably have to ask him. I will
    tell you something. I meet a lot of people in life and I don't
    know anything about politics or anything. He is probably one of
    the most impressive people that I have met. It took a lot of
    guts for him to do that. What had happened was the traffickers
    from Colombia, and this happens all the time, rather than
    paying off the workers in Puerto Rico in cash, paid them off in
    dope. So the only way they can make money is selling.
        Mr. Rogers. We have run out of time. There is a vote on the
    floor and we have kept you here beyond the time that we had
    intended. But you have been very forthcoming and helpful to us.
    We appreciate your testimony, and the jobs you are doing.
        Mr. Constantine. Thank you.
        Ms. Bucella. Thank you.
        Mr. Robinson. Thank you.

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                               Tuesday, March 16, 1999.

                        STATE AND LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT

                                   WITNESSES

    LAURIE ROBINSON, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, OFFICE OF JUSTICE PROGRAMS
    JOSEPH E. BRANN, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF COMMUNITY ORIENTED POLICING
        SERVICES
    SHAY BILCHIK, ADMINISTRATOR, OFFICE OF JUVENILE JUSTICE AND DELINQUENCY
        PREVENTION

                               Opening Statement

        Mr. Rogers.  The Subcommittee will come to order.
        We are pleased to welcome this afternoon Laurie Robinson,
    the Assistant Attorney General of the Office of Justice
    Programs; Shay Bilchik, the Administrator of the Office of
    Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention; and Joseph Brann,
    the Director of the Office of Community Oriented Policing
    Services, also known as the COPS Program.
        Your agencies represent the Federal Government's primary
    assistance to State and local law enforcement agencies and
    their fight against crime in our communities. You are
    responsible for administering grants totaling over $4 billion,
    an amount that has increased over 100 percent from fiscal year
    1995 through fiscal year 1999.
        That covers a full arsenal of programs from adding more
    police officers, building new prisons, addressing domestic
    violence, and combatting and preventing juvenile crime. I am
    concerned that the Administration is proposing cutting
    important programs with proven records, such as the State
    Prison Grant, Law Enforcement Block Grant, and Juvenile
    Accountability Block Grant, and initiating other programs which
    have no track records.
        Obviously, money is not the only answer because not only
    has the Federal crime effort substantially increased, the State
    and local governments are also spending more and more, all for
    the sake of our struggle to reduce crime.
        We all have ideas about how best to tackle these problems.
    With the limitations on funding that we face, we will have to
    pool our knowledge, talent, and resources to make sure that we
    are investing in truly effective programs.
        You are the experts. You must look closely at State and
    local needs, and to recommend strategies for them that work and
    make a difference. Your leadership is essential to addressing
    the crime and drug problems facing this Country. We expect you
    to give it everything that you have.
        We will continue to support you as we have over the past
    years to the best of our ability, to give you the resources you
    need to address the most significant crime problems. We will
    include your written statements in the record.
        We will like you to summarize your statements, hopefully,
    within 5 minutes each, but we will not bring the gavel down on
    you. General Robinson.

                    Ms. Laurie Robinson's Opening Statement

        Ms. Robinson.  Mr. Chairman, thank you so much for having
    us here again this year to talk about the important work that
    we are doing together to ensure that States and localities have
    the funding and the help they need to combat crime and ensure
    public safety.
        I want to specifically express my appreciation to you, Mr.
    Chairman, for this Subcommittee's bipartisan support over a
    number of years now to OJP.
        As you know, crime rates are down again this year, for the
    sixth year in a row. The programs we are proposing in the
    budget are designed to build on this momentum and on what we
    learned about what works in reducing crime. Back to the
    earliest days of our program, three decades ago in LEAA, it is
    clear to me that a mix is needed of Block Grant funds,
    discretionary monies, technical assistance, research, and
    training.

                       choices on spending level programs

        It is also clear, however, that difficult choices had to be
    made by the Administration within spending levels available. I
    would like to briefly highlight today five critical areas where
    we propose to target OJP funds in the next fiscal year to build
    on efforts that are making our communities safer.
        First, the important task of ensuring offender
    accountability through programs we know have an impact. Our
    research has shown over and over the link between drug use and
    crime.
        We know from that research that coerced treatment, while we
    have offenders in the system, works. We also know that
    transition treatment under post-release supervision is really
    essential to making those changes in behaviors stick.
        So, we propose to continue and expand the successful Drug
    Treatment in Prison Program, as well as the Drug Court Program.
    We also propose new drug testing sanctions and intervention
    initiatives, to help primarily local communities to hold drug-
    involved offenders who are out on probation or parole,
    responsible for changing their behavior, getting off drugs, and
    staying away from offenders.
        A second important focus for OJP is enhancing criminal
    justice technology. Law enforcement professionals tell us today
    that they need a solid technological infrastructure if we are
    going to fight crime effectively.
        They need computer hardware and software for crime mapping
    and they need resources to help reduce the backlog of DNA
    sampling in our Nation's Crime Labs. They need inner- operable
    wireless communications, and they need sophisticated technology
    to improve their forensic science capabilities.
        The funding we are seeking today cannot bring to scale this
    technology for every jurisdiction in the Country. I think it
    can play a vital role by providing seed money for pilot
    projects, demonstration programs, and important advances in our
    knowledge.
        Third, OJP will also continue its focus on addressing crime
    and drug abuse by juveniles. My colleague, Mr. Bilchik, will be
    addressing that in further detail.
        I think it is important that we recognize despite
    statistics showing declines in juvenile crime, that we know
    that this remains very much a continuing concern.

                                budget proposals

        So, among other proposals in the budget, we are requesting
    $20 million for the next fiscal year, a $10 million increase
    for the Drug Prevention Demonstration Program, which you
    started 2 years ago, Mr. Chairman.
        We are seeking funding as well for a new Youth Gun Violence
    Initiative, recognizing that the impact of gun violence on
    young people remains tragically high.
        I was shocked recently, as the mother of a 15-year-old boy,
    to read that a teenager today is more likely to die of a gun
    shot wound than of any disease.
        So, we are proposing in the budget an initiative that
    builds on a pilot effort now underway in four cities to
    aggressively address juveniles' illegal access to guns.
        The fourth area I want to highlight is enhancing community-
    based public safety efforts. I view OJP's role here as one of
    providing hands-on technical assistance, knowledge, and funding
    support to empower local communities to help them identify
    their unique crime problems, develop a comprehensive strategy
    to address those specific needs, and then implement efforts to
    put those plans into action.
        We have seen how successful that approach can be, for
    example, through the Weed and Seed Program, which as you know
    was developed by the last Administration, and is now underway
    in some 200 communities. It has been so effective in reducing
    crime, revitalizing neighborhoods, and increasing public
    confidence in law enforcement.
        The final area I would like to mention this afternoon is
    counter-terrorism domestic preparedness. I want to thank you,
    Mr. Chairman, and the Congress, for your vital support in this
    area.
        OJP is proud to be a key part of the Justice Department's
    team that is tackling this issue, working with the FBI, and our
    other Federal branch agencies. While this may be a new mission
    for OJP, working in close partnership with state and local
    jurisdictions is not.
        We are now putting this experience to work to aggressively
    address the problem of state and local domestic preparedness.
    Over the last few months, I have had the chance to visit the
    five Counter-Terrorism Training Centers for first responders
    that we help support, and to talk to those front-line people,
    the first responders, about their needs in this critical area.
        From those discussions and those visits, it is clear to me
    that our budget request for training, technical assistance, and
    equipment funding can go a long way in helping to provide those
    needed resources.
        In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I recognize that this budget
    request may not be everything that you--or I--might want it to
    be, but I pledge my personal commitment to working with you to
    ensure that State and local criminal justice practitioners have
    the resources they need to protect our Nation's communities.
        I look forward to continuing to work with you toward this
    goal. Of course, I would be happy to answer your questions.
    Thank you.
        [The statement of Ms. Robinson follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                        Mr. Bilchik's Opening Statement

        Mr. Rogers.  Thank you. Mr. Bilchik.
        Mr. Bilchik.  Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee,
    it is my pleasure to be here today to discuss the activities of
    the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.
        I am able to report to you today that with the support
    provided by Congress, the Department of Justice has been able
    to effectively partner with communities and State and local
    jurisdictions in addressing juvenile crime.
        It is true that youth crime is still a serious problem;
    however, as Ms. Robinson noted, I believe we are making
    progress. We are moving in the right direction. After steady
    increases from 1989 to 1994, the juvenile arrest rate for Part
    I, violent crimes, has dropped for 3 straight years; falling 23
    percent during the time period from 1994 to 1997.
        Every type of violent crime index offense has declined
    significantly. This includes a 43 percent drop in the juvenile
    murder arrest rate from 1993 to 1997. This positive trend is
    due in part to a movement toward a balanced approach to
    attacking juvenile crime.
        It is one that combines prevention programs for at-risk
    youth, with early intervention and sanctions that hold
    offenders accountable at every stage of the Juvenile Justice
    System. Entire communities, with the support that you have
    provided, are coming together; law enforcement, schools,
    businesses, youth services, and the community to protect their
    children, to hold them accountable, and to steer them away from
    crime and drug abuse.
        As a Nation, we can celebrate these achievements, but we
    cannot rest. Although juvenile crime rates are falling, and are
    now approximately where they were in 1990, they are still 23
    percent above where they were as recently as 1988.
        Mr. Chairman, we recognize that juvenile crime is primarily
    a State and local issue. Our Federal role is to provide
    assistance and guidance to support research, evaluation,
    statistics, the seeding demonstration of replication of
    effective programs, training, technical assistance, and
    information sharing.
        I can assure you we will continue to work with State and
    local communities toward balanced, comprehensive, and
    community-wide approaches to preventing and combating juvenile
    crime.

                              objective highlights

        I would like now to highlight some of our recent work and
    outline our objectives for the future for this budget. Since
    1993, the Office has promoted a comprehensive strategy for
    serious violent crimes and offenders, which has served as our
    foundation for our programming.
        The strategy is based on three decades of research on what
    causes delinquency and what works to address it; emphasizing
    six key areas of activity: strengthening families, supporting
    core social institutions. By providing prevention it is the
    most cost effective approach to reduce delinquency.
        While intervening immediately and effectively at the first
    sign of high risk behaviors that can lead to delinquency, and
    by establishing a system of graduated sanctions designed to
    hold every offender accountable.
        To identify and control the small percentage of serious,
    violent and chronic juvenile offenders who account for the
    great majority of serious and violent juvenile crime in this
    Country.
        This type of work, which has taken hold across the Country,
    needs to be supported by a range of prevention and intervention
    programs addressing the most critical issues facing our
    communities today; violence in our families, schools, and
    communities, gang activity, drugs, guns in the hands of
    juveniles, and juvenile crime in our communities.

                               type of tools used

        The tools we have to attack these problems include program
    support for activities, and for the research of OJJDP and other
    institutes and organizations-- We know it can work--Mentoring
    strategies that attack gangs; community-based delinquency
    prevention programs that mobilize communities around juvenile
    gun violence reduction; school and community-based substance
    abuse reduction efforts; multi-disciplinary school violence
    reduction strategies, which involve members of the broad
    community; and programs that reduce child abuse and neglect and
    the victimization of children.

                           president's budget request

        The President's budget request for OJJDP and the Department
    seeks support for each of these areas of activity. It
    complements the support with several other proposed budget
    increases which provides funding for community prosecutors,
    community crime prevention, drug courts, and drug testing of
    offenders.
        Mr. Chairman, we are having success and we are getting the
    word out to communities around the Country about how to be
    successful. In 1998, we distributed over 3.5 million copies of
    our publications; a 45 percent increase from 1997.
        We received over 44,000 requests from communities and
    individuals for information about what works; a 14 percent
    increase over 1997. Our Web site was visited over 90,000 times
    in 1998.
        We sponsored six satellite tele-conferences, each on
    average attended by 13,000 people. We also provided support to
    136 National and local conferences.
        I want to thank the Subcommittee for the support it has
    provide to OJJDP in the past. I look forward to working with
    you, Mr. Chairman, and members of this Subcommittee in the
    future to continue the progress we have seen over the past
    several years. I will be pleased to respond to any questions
    you may have. Thank you very much.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Bilchik follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                         Mr. Brann's Opening Statement

        Mr. Rogers.  Thank you. Mr. Brann.
        Mr. Brann.  Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, I
    am very pleased to appear before you once again on behalf of
    the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services.
        Today, what I would like to do is to update you on the
    progress of the Policy Office and show you the results the
    communities are achieving with the help of these grants across
    the Country; and also to discuss the Administration's budget
    request, to continue to work with the Policy Office in fiscal
    year 2000.

                  results of hiring community police officers

        I am pleased to report today that the COPS Office will,
    this year, achieve its goal of funding 100,000 additional
    community policing officers, under budget, and ahead of
    schedule.
        We are seeing results from Bangor, Maine to San Diego
    California; North Pole, Alaska, to Brownsville, Texas. Across
    this Country, COPS is planning the hiring and redeployment of
    over 92,000 community police officers.
        More than 50,000 of these new officers are already on the
    beat and fighting crime in their communities. I think it is
    reasonable to ask why there are not even more COPS-funded
    officers on the beat.
        I do have a chart here that I think may be helpful in
    explaining this. This addresses primarily the movement, hiring,
    and selection process, and the training process. It does not
    address the local fiscal steps that an agency has to go
    through.
        In looking at this, what we see typically is it takes 7 to
    10 months for recruitment; to go through the actual classes
    related to selection, and then bring those folks in for the
    various testing phases they go through.
        Once that is completed, we are still looking at 6 to 8
    months, on average, to enroll them into a police academy
    throughout this Country. So, as you can see, the answer is
    actually tied to the challenges of local police hiring
    practices.
        In the course of my career, I did at one time serve as the
    Commander of the Personnel and Training Operations at Santa
    Ana, California. I found that my experience is consistent with
    this.
        Also, ultimately in addition to this with 5 out of every
    100 applicants who begin this process, will make it all the way
    through the process and actually go out there on the street to
    function as a police officer.
        My colleagues in law enforcement across this Country tell
    me that this experience is not unusual. In my opinion, it
    should not be either. As a Former Police Chief, I can assure
    you from personal experience that it is dangerous and foolish
    to rush unprepared officers into service prematurely.
        After our second goal, enhancing community policing, the
    COPS Office continues to help local law enforcement implement
    innovative and effective community policing strategies.
    Community policing has become law enforcement's principal
    weapon in the fight against crime.
        The reason for this is that community policing works. I can
    attest to this based on my number of years in the law
    enforcement arena.
        Having risen through the ranks from that old patrol officer
    in Santa Ana, California to that of the Police Chief in
    Hayward, California, I have witnessed and experienced first-
    hand the benefits and the impact of community policing.
        As the Director of the COPS Office for the past 5 years, I
    have had the privilege of visiting many communities across this
    Country; large and small agencies, and urban and rural ones as
    well.

                                crime reduction

        I have seen how COPS funding has served as a catalyst for
    this revolutionary shift that we are seeing and we are
    experiencing towards committee policing. Community policing and
    the COPS Program all reduce crime in the communities all across
    the Country.
        In Boston, violent crime is at a 30-year low. In Mesquite,
    Texas they have recently reported that they are experiencing
    the lowest crime they have had in 25 years. In Reno, Nevada
    gang violence plunged 40 percent in the last year alone. Right
    across the River here in Arlington, Virginia burglaries have
    dropped to their lowest level reported in nearly 40 years.
        In addition, there are a number of examples, that I have
    here in the back of the room that contain just some examples of
    how COPS Funds and community policing are making a very real
    difference in the lives of Americans.
        Crime has dropped 6.5 consecutive years. In the last 6
    years, violent crime has dropped more than 20 percent and the
    murder rate has fallen to its lowest level in 30 years.
        Now, I will not sit here and tell you that the COPS Program
    is solely responsible for this dramatic decrease in crime. I
    can, however, tell you that the number of officers on the
    street is up, and this increases every day.
        Police Chiefs, Sheriffs, and Criminal Justice Experts say
    that if more police were in community policing, it means less
    crime. I would now like to turn to the Administration's budget
    request for the COPS Office for fiscal year 2000.
        Mr. Rogers.  I wonder if we could interrupt your testimony?
    We have a vote on the Floor and time is just about out. We are
    going to take about a 2-minute recess.
        Mr. Brann.  Okay.
        Mr. Rogers.  So, hold that thought.
        [Recess.]
        Mr. Rogers.  The Subcommittee will come to order.
        Mr. Brann, we will hear the rest of your statement.
        Mr. Brann.  Thank you. As I said, we will reach our goal of
    funding 100,000 community policing officers in fiscal year
    1999. We are proud of this accomplishment.
        I think we agree that now is not the time to sit back and
    simply pat ourselves on the back. Crime is down, but it is
    still far too high. In 1997 alone, there were more than 18,000
    murders in this Country.

                               funding and hiring

        When you think about that in terms of the human impact and
    social consequences, that is a truly frightening number. It
    represents 18,000 of our family and friends; 18,000
    constituents; and it is 18,000 too many.
        That is one of the reasons why we are requesting a total of
    $1.27 billion to add more officers to the street to support
    measures to engage the entire community in preventing crime, to
    fund community prosecutors, and to provide local law
    enforcement with the technology needed to keep pace with
    increasingly sophisticated criminals.
        We are requesting $365.7 million to hire or redeploy
    additional community policing officers. We need to continue to
    add officers to the street, especially in those areas that have
    not benefited from this historic drop in crime.
        We also need to help economically distressed communities
    keep their officers on the street. With this in mind, we are
    targeting $50 million for a Retention Program. This
    Subcommittee has wisely provided local law enforcement with the
    funds necessary to make great strides in the fight against
    crime.
        If we are going to continue to drive crime rates down and
    to keep them down, we must take the next logical steps in
    community policing.
        That is why we are proposing a $125 million Comprehensive
    Community Crime Prevention Program to prevent juvenile crime,
    recruit seniors to help police, establish citizen problem
    solving academies, and promote police partnerships with other
    service providers.
        To build on the success of community policing, we are also
    proposing $200 million to help communities hire community-based
    prosecutors and establish or expand innovative Community
    Prosecution Programs.
        I think we would all agree with the need to make officers
    on the front line more effective by providing them with the
    best available technology. For that reason, we are seeking $350
    million for vital crime fighting technologies.
        This Technology Program will promote telecommunications and
    systems compatibility among criminal justice agencies, foster
    improvements of the forensic science capabilities of state and
    local agencies, and encourage the use of technology to predict
    and prevent crime.
        Finally, for the management and the administration of the
    COPS Office, we are requesting $36 million from the total
    program dollars.
        Again, I want to thank you for the opportunity to testify.
    I especially want to acknowledge this Subcommittee for your
    support of Local law enforcement.
        I look forward to continuing to work with you. On behalf of
    the COPS Office, I do appreciate your consideration of this
    budget request. I will be pleased to answer any questions you
    might have.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Brann follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Rogers.  Thank you for your testimony.
        Mr. Serrano, do you have any opening comments?
        Mr. Serrano.  Mr. Chairman, just to thank these good folks
    for appearing before us. I apologize for not being here at the
    beginning of the testimony. I was caught up where I was and
    where the Chairman was.
        He was where he was supposed to be and I was not. I
    apologize for that. I will have some questions later because
    this area is of great interest to me and the people that I
    represent.
        Mr. Chairman, thank you.

                                  block grants

        Mr. Rogers.  Ms. Robinson, once again this year the
    Administration's budget eliminates the Local Law Enforcement
    Block Grant, as you have for several years. That puts this
    Subcommittee in the position of finding additional funds from
    other programs to continue to support much needed assistance
    for local communities' crime efforts.
        I would also point out that the Congress has been fair
    about supporting the COPS Program over the last 3 years, even
    though the Administration continues to eliminate the Block
    Grant Program, which was the Congressional alternative to the
    COPS Program.
        The Attorney General told us at her hearing that the
    Department requested funding for the Block Grant of OMB and
    that obviously the White House nixed it. You mentioned in your
    statement the need for a balanced mix of programs, both
    discretionary and formula grants to address various crime
    problems in communities.
        Do you agree that the Block Grant is critical to that
    balance in order to support local communities' crime fighting
    efforts?

                       local law enforcement block grants

        Ms. Robinson.  Mr. Chairman, as you know, because I have
    made this statement in prior hearings, we are very proud of the
    way that we have implemented the Local Law Enforcement Block
    Grant Program. We have set up a new automated grant system
    through our Bureau of Justice Assistance.
        We have been able to move out roughly 2,700 grants on a
    very good schedule to localities. We are seeing a lot of good
    work done with that funding.
        As a criminal justice professional, it is my view that what
    is needed is a mix, as I indicated in my statement; a mix of
    block grants, discretionary, technical assistance, research,
    statistics, and training.
        On the Local Law Enforcement Block Grant Program, as you
    know, the Department did request that funding from OMB. It has
    been an integral part of the mix of programs that we have
    offered.
        As you also are aware, the Administration is looking at
    spending caps that were in existence, as well as tough choices
    among competing priorities; and made a different decision on
    that and came back with a mix of programs.
        We do believe that the Local Law Enforcement Block Grant
    Program has been implemented well, and has served in many ways
    as a complementary program to COPS and other programs within
    the funding mix.
        Mr. Rogers.  Well, the Local Law Enforcement Block Grant
    will have provided over $1.1 billion over the last 2 years to
    local communities to fight crime, hire cops, pay overtime, buy
    equipment, and technology for law enforcement officers, Crime
    Prevention Programs, security measures in and around schools
    and public places, to enhance the adjudication of criminals;
    that is, courts and prosecutors. The Department is proposing in
    place of those very successful Block Grants $1.3 billion,
    mostly unauthorized, in new programs for things which these
    Block Grant Programs can already be used.
        Why are you proposing a series of new piecemeal programs to
    replace the more successful and flexible Block Grant Programs?
        Ms. Robinson.  First of all, on the issue of the
    authorization, the Administration is going to be sending up a
    piece of legislation or several pieces of legislation to
    address that, as I understand it, within the coming few weeks--
    authorization in areas that do not exist would now be
    available.
        Secondly, Mr. Chairman, in a number of the programs that
    are proposed, and I would single out in particular some of the
    technology areas, there is a strong belief, with which I agree,
    that there are certain things that could be done with
    discretionary money which may not be able to be addressed as
    well by Local Block Grants.
        One example of that, that I would pull out is the DNA
    samples backlog. Here we have potentially up to a million
    samples in that backlog, as of the year 2000. In order to get
    that backlog erased, and to get those samples into CODIS so
    that we can be running samples against them from offenders who
    have been arrested, it really is critical.
        In our view, we need a targeted investment. In this case,
    it is $15 million to address that. Similarly, the Community
    Prosecution Program is something that we feel is a natural next
    step in the progression past community policing.
        That is something that can take us to ensuring that there
    are convictions, that there are partnerships with the
    communities, and that we take the lessons learned out of
    community policing and take that as, in effect, the next step.

                        block grants used by localities

        Mr. Rogers.  Well, Block Grant funding has been used by
    localities to hire police officers. Can you tell me how many
    were hired with that funding in fiscal years 1997 and 1998?
    Also, if those were in localities that could not afford the
    COPS Program?
        Ms. Robinson.  About 11 percent of the funding last year--
    there was $523 million that you all had appropriated--and 11
    percent was spent on hiring. I do not have the exact figure,
    but we can get that to you.
        I think, equally important, money was also spent on
    overtime and on the equipment and technology areas that, again,
    were compliments to hiring them under COPS.
        Mr. Rogers.  Again, pointing out, those Block Grants are
    100 percent money. In many towns, communities, counties that
    cannot afford the 25, 50, 75 percent local share.
        The COPS Program could go to the Block Grant Program and
    get 100 percent. Can you tell me how many communities that
    could not afford the COPS Program took advantage of the Block
    Program?
        Ms. Robinson.  Mr. Chairman, I do not have that figure with
    me. We would be happy to get that to you. We do know that a
    number of communities have done that. I think one of the
    challenges faced is that the funding is spread over so many
    communities.
        In many cases, the award amount given is quite small. So,
    the question would be whether, in addition to that, they might
    also be going after the COPS funding.
        Mr. Rogers.  Well, if we were to begin funding a $200
    million Community Prosecutor Program, what level of commitment
    would we be taking on? How much money and over how many years?
        Ms. Robinson.  In other words, into the future. Is that
    your question?
        Mr. Rogers.  Yes.
        Ms. Robinson.  The thought here would be that at least for
    several years, and the authorization decisions have not been
    finally made in the crime bill that will be sent to Congress
    shortly, but our thinking at this point is that it would be an
    authorization to go 3 or 4 years into the future.
        [Clerk's note.--Subsequent to the hearing, the following
    information was provided:]

        The Local Law Enforcement Block Grant (LLEBG) Program has 7
    authorized purpose areas including Purpose area number 1: Law
    Enforcement Hiring, Overtime, and Equipment/Technology.
        In 1999, approximately $54 million, or 14% of available
    LLEBG funding was targeted for the hiring of law enforcement
    officers. In 1998, $47 million, or 11% of available funding,
    was targeted for this purpose.
        At this time, we are unable to determine the actual number
    of law enforcement officers hired. OJP is continuing to work
    with LLEBG grantees regarding their reporting requirements and
    will address this issue further in our development of the new
    LLEBG grants management system.

                      juvenile accountability block grants

        Mr. Rogers.  Now, your proposal also includes $35 million
    for a new Juvenile Gun Courts Program. The Juvenile
    Accountability Block Grant, which you propose to eliminate can
    already be used for Juvenile Gun Courts, plus Juvenile Drug
    Courts, community prosecutors, juvenile detention facilities,
    technology, and things that you are proposing to do another
    way.
        What evidence do we have that the Juvenile Crime Block
    Grant will not meet the needs that you say we have?
        Ms. Robinson.  I need to defer to my colleague.
        Mr. Bilchik.  I do not think we have any evidence that it
    would not meet our needs, Mr. Chairman. I think that the 2
    years' funding of the Juvenile Block Grant is really just
    beginning to reach the first set of communities.
        Records indicate that the first 10 states have made awards
    in the past several months, that indeed the first year of
    funding is still in the pipeline, let alone the second year
    funding.
        I do not think we have the record yet, but we have no
    reason to doubt that it may meet those needs. What I think we
    are trying to do here is just focus on what we are hearing from
    the field. There is a very specific need; particularly the
    juvenile gun problem.
        As I have testified in one of our prior hearings about the
    increase in juvenile homicides, when we chart out the increase
    in juvenile violent crimes, particularly homicides, the entire
    increase in juvenile homicides is attributable to juvenile
    firearm deaths. The entire decrease we have had in the past 4
    years has been attributable to a decrease in the juvenile
    firearm deaths.

                            juvenile crime reduction

        Mr. Rogers.  We have pumped zillions of dollars in the last
    couple of years into juvenile crime prevention and treatment.
    Most of it through Block Grants that allow communities--they
    can use it for whatever they think is best for their community,
    rather than us, up here, trying to force a one size fits all on
    a lot of the communities in this Country.
        Juvenile crime is entirely the responsibility of the
    states. Are they not in the best position to decide the
    particular programs that would best address the juvenile crime
    issues in their communities, rather than us telling them how to
    spend the money?
        Mr. Bilchik.  I think you are right. I think a lot of
    support would still be provided to local communities through a
    formula approach. With the formula program, the Title V
    Prevention Program, the At-Risk Children's Program, those are
    monies that go out in a formula fashion.
        This was really an attempt, as I have said, to focus on one
    issue that we have heard universally that needs to be addressed
    and then try to help replicate a couple of the programs
    location where we have seen some effectiveness with the
    juvenile gun court. I would equate this in a very similar way,
    Mr. Chairman, to where we were on drug courts 10 or 15 years
    ago.
        A couple of communities experimenting and showing very,
    very good results in reducing juvenile gun violence, and us
    having the opportunity with an investment of this $35 million
    to help replicate that across the Country.
        Hopefully, it would catch fire and indeed there would be
    enough knowledge about it that the Formula Program could
    support it.

                           juvenile gun court program

        Mr. Rogers.  If we were to begin funding a new $35 million
    Juvenile Gun Court Program, what level of commitment would we
    be taking on? How much money would that mean per year over the
    next several years?
        Ms. Robinson.  Again, I think the crime legislation that we
    sent to Congress will clarify that. My recollection is it would
    be for a 3- to 4-year period.

                          truth in sentencing funding

        Mr. Rogers.  Now, you also propose to eliminate, except for
    a few earmarks, the $720 million State Prison Grant Program.
        Your own Bureau of Justice Statistics concluded that the
    average time served by a violent offender has increased as a
    result of States changing their laws to meet the requirements
    of the State Prison Grant Program. That is, State prison grants
    have resulted in keeping violent criminals off the streets for
    longer periods of time. Would you not agree that the State
    Prison Grant Program has been a very effective program?
        Ms. Robinson.  Mr. Chairman, we now do have, as I think you
    know, 28 States that qualify for the Truth in Sentencing
    Funding. We know of 3 additional States that are likely to
    newly qualify this year.
        So, it clearly has had a real impact in states changing
    their laws to ensure that violent offenders spend a longer
    portion of their sentence behind bars. The original 1994 Crime
    Act contemplated that funding would end in the year 2000. The
    authorization ended at that point.
        The States have been aware that this was not support over
    the long term. As they have had the funding support to build
    prison cells, they have had to bear the cost of operations.
        So, it has been a joint venture, if you will, the states
    and Federal Government. But to date, we do think that the
    program has had a substantial impact.
        Mr. Rogers.  Yet, you propose to eliminate it. Why?
        Ms. Robinson.  Mr. Chairman, as I indicated, there were
    tough decisions made by OMB among the priorities and limited
    amounts of money.
        Mr. Rogers.  I do not know why we do not have the OMB up
    here to testify. Every time we hear from anybody, well, we
    asked for it and OMB denied it. I do not know why we do not
    just cut to the chase and subpoena them up here, put them under
    oath on the grill.
        Mr. Serrano.  We would need a larger room for that.
        Mr. Rogers.  You are right about that.
        Well, the State Prison Grant Program is not only Truth in
    Sentencing funds, 50 percent of the funds are available for
    State detention needs, without the Truth in Sentencing
    requirements.
        If we were to eliminate those grants now, I think we would
    be reneging on our commitment to the States that we made a few
    years ago. Mr. Serrano.
        Mr. Serrano.  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

                               domestic violence

        Ms. Robinson, a few weeks ago, this Subcommittee had a
    hearing with the Legal Services Corporation. One topic of
    discussion at that hearing was LSC's request for directing
    funding in their own budget; specifically associated with
    domestic violence, even though several grantees are receiving
    funding through your Justice Department program.
        Would you comment on this whole issue? Is the funding you
    are requesting under the Justice Department enough to cover
    these needs at this point?
        Ms. Robinson.  The request for $23 million, which is an
    increase from the $12 million this year and the $12 million
    that Mr. Rogers started last year, actually only begins to meet
    the needs out there in many ways. For the $12 million program
    this past year, we had $85 million in requests that came in.
    So, I think the needs are great.
        I think in many ways what we do is a little bit different
    from what LSC has contemplated. For example, under our grant
    program, applicants have to come in and show--did they have a
    collaboration with a local domestic violence advocate's group
    who do training and support.
        We provide funding, for example, to bar associations to
    train pro bono lawyers to provide this assistance free of
    charge. We provide support to legal services clinics. They have
    student help to assist in addressing these needs.
        It is a little bit different than, I think, what LSC has
    specifically requested. In addition to that, our figures show
    that about $7 million of the $12 million from last year went to
    Legal Services providers at the local level.
        So, while we certainly do not give money directly to LSC,
    many of their local affiliates in fact are recipients of this
    funding. It meets a critical need.
        Mr. Serrano.  No doubt that it does meet a critical need.
    My concern is I wonder if there is more that Legal Aid Offices
    could be doing in this area to complement your programs and
    more that you could be doing to assist them in some more
    coordination.
        It just seems at times, and I am one who supports
    innovative and different programs that could be replicated
    throughout the Nation. It seems at times that programs have
    cris-crossed each other. You wonder how much coordination takes
    place.
        I am wondering if there is something you could tell us as
    to how best you could help them and what you would demand from
    them if you had your way to help you.
        Ms. Robinson.  Coordination is always a challenge in
    Government, though we have taken a number of steps here to try
    to meet that. When we first had the funding proposed for this
    program about a year and a half ago, we sat down and met with
    LSC to make sure that, if the appropriations came through, that
    our efforts would be coordinated.
        We have had several meetings since that time. Even more
    importantly, we are trying to ensure that localities are having
    that kind of collaboration and coordination as well.

                             violence against women

        In almost every instance with successful applicants who
    came in under the $12 million program, they showed a
    collaboration between the number of people at the local level
    with different services, domestic violence victim advocates,
    law schools, bar associations, and local legal services
    provided. It seems to me that, that kind of collaboration is
    essential to moving ahead.
        Mr. Serrano.  There was a press article recently that
    indicated that the focus of funding on violence against woman
    had lead to a reduction in deaths associated with these crimes.
        The interesting part of the article is that it says it is a
    reduction in the deaths of men killed in acts of desperation by
    the women they have abused, which then leads to an obvious
    question.
        First of all, could you comment on this? Secondly, are we
    using our limited resources in the right way? I mean, I do not
    want to seem to be in favor of men getting killed.
        It seems to me that if the victims are the children and the
    women, and we seem to be almost celebrating the fact that
    something else did not happen, is that still targeting--is this
    the result of the right actions being taken?
        Does that mean that we are definitely then providing
    through these programs more support for women and children?
        Ms. Robinson.  I think these programs are taking us in the
    right direction. I am familiar with that research from Carnegie
    Mellon. I happened to be out there last year when they were
    presenting the initial findings from this.
        The explanation, if you will, behind the research is that
    many of these collaborative community-based programs have
    assisted women in being able to leave before the violence has
    escalated to the point where, in an act of revenge, perhaps
    while their husband is sleeping, they kill him. That is the
    explanation the researchers gave. I think we need to look
    behind that and see that progress in many jurisdictions--
    Quincy, Massachusetts is one that is often cited. In over 10
    years, there has only been one death of a woman who was court-
    involved with one of the victim services of the Violence
    Against Women Program. That case in Quincy involved one of our
    sexual abuse case.
        There are now many, many Quincys. That kind of
    collaboration involved the courts and prosecutors in an
    effective kind of collaboration that is actually protecting
    victim's safety and holding offenders accountable.
        So, yes, I think we are very much moving in the right
    direction here.
        Mr. Serrano.  I am glad to hear that, and certainly stand
    assure that we support you in that effort. I know that this is
    a bipartisan effort to deal with this most cowardly of all
    crimes in this society and to protect women and children in
    that situation. So, please, whatever it is that we need to do,
    remind us so that we can deal with this.

                                policing issues

        On the policing issues, as you know on February 4, 1999 in
    my Congressional District, a West African immigrant with no
    criminal record was killed during the morning hours by four New
    York City police officers who fired 41 shots at him in the
    doorway of his Bronx apartment building. It is unclear why the
    police officers opened fire.
        The man, Ama Dou Diallo, was 23 years old. He came here to
    America more than 2 years ago from Ghana and worked as a street
    peddler in Manhattan. He died at the scene. The Bronx District
    Attorney's Office is investigating the shooting; the details of
    which are still murky.
        There are some in New York who have suggested that Federal
    funds should be whipped out for the local police departments
    until issues of police brutality and misconduct are sorted out
    and properly addressed.
        While I do not, at this time, support that kind of action
    to achieving accountability, could you discuss with us other
    ways to hold local police departments accountable in return for
    Federal dollars?
        Is there a way or can you devise a way to impose training
    and diversity requirements on grantees of COPS funding? Let me,
    before you answer, just tell you that I have said it over the
    last couple of weeks.
        Every time it comes up, we will have to repeat it. In the
    25 years that I have been an elected official, I have never
    seen the outcry in my community and in New York with this issue
    of the police. The best way to explain it to you is that for
    years in my ethnic community, the Puerto Rican community, there
    was a division as to the feelings about the police. Older
    Puerto Ricans telling younger Puerto Ricans they are our
    friends. They are the people who protect us.
        Do not gripe so much about them. Stay out of trouble and so
    on. Now, these older folks, most of them retired, are on the
    picket lines, are in the demonstrations saying we do not feel
    safe. We do not feel safe for our children. We do not feel safe
    for our grandchildren.
        I have been quoted as saying, and it was not on my part
    irresponsible, that I know how to avoid the local mugger in my
    South Bronx District. I do not know how to avoid the arrogance
    of many police officers.
        While we celebrate the numbers have gone down in crime, we
    somehow are being told by some people that in the war against
    crime, there are victims and that these are the victims.
        At what point do you get involved? At what point do other
    people get involved? We have starting May 26th a Federal Civil
    Rights Commission Investigation. We have other things
    happening.
        I will tell you, and let me close with this. When the
    people who support the police department throughout this
    country the most begin to complain, it should be a message to
    Government that something is terribly wrong. I will give the
    example.
        If I step out on the street and I see three individuals who
    have spent 25 years criticizing my legislative work, and they
    curse me out, I know where it is coming from.
        If I step in the street and see three people who I know
    have been my supporters for 25 years tell me I am not doing the
    right thing, I had better pay attention because something is
    wrong. That is what has happened in New York.

                               community policing

        Mr. Brann.  Mr. Serrano, I would like to respond in the
    context that not only is it directed at the COPS Office, but in
    a very personal sense as well.
        This having to do, as I indicated, 30 years in the policing
    industry. I think that one of the problems that we have in this
    profession and in this industry relates to the model policing
    that we have subscribed to that we have been following for many
    years.
        That in fact is being turned on its head, as a result of
    community policing. Let me just interject here that community
    policing is not as some people have tried to label it, either
    soft on crime or a public relations or a community relations
    program.
        Nothing could be further from the truth. It is in fact
    effective policing that focuses on the responsibility of police
    to not do something to a community. Policing is not something
    that you do to a community. In fact, it is something that we do
    in concert with, on behalf of a community. The community has to
    be directly involved in identifying the priorities and the
    solutions. I think that is the beauty that leads to community
    policing.
        I spent my career working with two agencies that are in
    fact the dominant population and the minority population. It
    has a very small Anglo population in both communities. We solve
    the same kinds of challenges that many other communities across
    this Country with respect to increasing cultural and ethnic
    diversity.
        I can tell you that earlier in my career, it was remarkably
    different from the last 25 years. The first 5 years, I was in
    very much a traditional organization, but one which in fact
    became a pioneer in community policing improvement.
        It forced us to change our assumptions, our values for that
    matter. It challenged us to take a look at our demeanor, our
    attitude, and our behavior in terms of how we dealt with the
    public.
        Out of that, I think we learned to far better appreciate
    the increasing diversity in our community, to better appreciate
    the circumstances that we were confronting, and to recognize
    that we had become more sensitive ethically, culturally, and on
    a lot of other fronts as well.
        That, to me, is one of the most phenomenal byproducts in
    outcomes of community policing. It does change the way that--
    what I have seen is a remarkable shift in communities that have
    really embraced the concept and the philosophy that we have
    practiced for a number of years.
        I can tell you, again, from my own personal experiences, I
    saw a significant decline in both jurisdictions that I served
    in. I have seen this in other jurisdictions as well; a
    significant decline in not only the crime rate, but in the
    number of the complaints coming in.
        At the same time, a significant increase in the number of
    complaints that were being sustained internally within the
    Police Review Process. That told me that we were doing a far
    better job of reacting.
        With respect to the COPS Office and our role in all of
    this, it is in fact to support, to sustain, to expand the
    concept of--in this Country. In so doing, I think it will
    better position us to deal with these very kinds of issues.
        It is not just the change that we are looking in that it is
    gradual; the change that we are trying to effect here. I think
    at the same time, there are agencies where in fact there are
    significant problems.
        We can turn a variety of resources above and beyond the
    simple funding for additional officers, technology, and things
    of that nature. There are things that we are doing through our
    Regional Community Policing Institutes, COPS Office, the
    National Institute of Justice on ethics.
        We are making resounding success. It is very, very well-
    accepted in the policing profession. We are expanding upon
    that. We are looking for new ways to get out there and
    addressing these kinds of issues in an over and above board
    manner. Therefore, getting the professional industry to take a
    look at itself.
        I think that the kind of funding you have provided in the
    past, the kinds of things that we have attempted to support in
    a way of professionalizing the police will continue to be
    addressed through what we are already doing, as well as the new
    initiatives that have been proposed.

                           qualified police officers

        Mr. Serrano.  You know, my concern here is at what point do
    we, at one level or another, begin or grow on the theory that
    somebody has to tell local police departments that we have to
    really find out if people are qualified to be police officers?
        Not just the things I saw on your chart; on your chart, you
    had the 100 applicants. They went down to apply and you follow
    the steps that it takes to become a police officer. In there, I
    wonder was there a step in which you asked someone, are you
    prepared to police this particular community?
        Are you fearful of this community? Do you have preconceived
    notions of what these people are? Were you told as a child that
    this is a problem? Were you told that there were a bunch of
    cheats, or Welfare recipients, or lazy people? If you feel
    that, do you think you should be a police officer?
        If you ask a priest, do you not believe in God and he says
    the answer is yes. Then you do not make that person a priest;
    right? If you go to a guy and you say, do you hate people? Do
    you want them to die? Then maybe you should not make them a
    doctor.
        No one seems to ask that question of police officers. All
    we hide in New York City--and New York is a good example of
    other cities. What we hide behind is residency requirement. If
    you had more people living in the City, it would make more.
        I will shock some of you by saying other people say if we
    had more minority cops it would be better. I am not sure. The
    question is do you have more people who understand that when
    there is a confrontation with an unarmed man who may look
    different, act different, that the first thing you do not do is
    pull out your gun and shoot?
        That has to be the last thing you do. You train somebody to
    do that. I am wondering at what point do you include in there,
    well we are going to try to help communities select people who
    are fit to be cops, not people who want to be cops because it
    is a good job or whatever; who are fit to be cops.
        Mr. Brann.  I will give you a quick example. The
    traditional method of selecting police officers historically,
    has been to have existing people at the organization who are
    sitting on these interview panels and administering the various
    written exams, physical agility tests, and what have you.
        In a community policing organization what you find is a
    very common practice is actually to bring the community in as
    members of the selection boards, the selection panels. They
    actually play a role.
        It forces us, again, to take a look at what we are doing--
    psychological screening and examining your background
    investigations, and examining the very kinds of issues that are
    here.
        Mr. Serrano.  Let me just tell you the tragedies of what is
    happening in New York and other places. There are what, 98
    percent of the police officers doing the job that we want them
    to do? The department does not have enough public relations, if
    you will. They are quiet.
        The focus is on those four this one time; those two the
    other time. The feeling about the department is that----
        Mr. Brann.  Initially it is both in New York and Los
    Angeles to support minority outreach reach recruitment efforts
    in those two jurisdictions----
        Mr. Serrano.  Mr. Chairman, in closing let me just make a
    friendly request. I hope that it is revealed, all of these
    issues, this year and the coming years that we consider asking
    these folks--they can alert local police departments that the
    program under which they recruit and train has to include
    something else.
        That is some way of finding out if people really want to do
    this job and are they fit to do this job. Fit does not mean
    that they can run the 10, the 100 meter dash or whatever.
        Fit means am I afraid of that person? What do I think of
    that person I am policing. If it does not work that way, then
    we are never going get a police department that has a good
    relationship with the people. It is very tragic right now.

                              state participation

        Mr. Rogers.  Mr. Latham.
        Mr. Latham.  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Welcome to all of you. I am pleased to report that
    representatives from the COPS Office here in Washington have
    worked very, very well with the staff at the Regional
    Methamphetamine Center in Sioux City.
        This law enforcement initiative in the quad-State area is a
    resounding success. We have had 477 officers from 164
    departments in 4 States participate in the first 7 classes that
    were offered; and 20 more classes are scheduled for the
    remainder of the year. We expect about 2,000 more officers to
    be trained in those classes.
        I have held drug meetings in my District, going on in 30
    counties. Law enforcement officials came up and thanked me and
    thanked you, I guess, for the opportunity for the training that
    they are experiencing. And I thank the Chairman very much for
    all of your help in securing the funds for this.
        It is really making a difference. The cooperation is very
    much appreciated from the COPS Office. It is a huge success. I
    represent the District in that whole upper mid-West area and we
    have a terrible meth problem.

                            video conferencing grant

        However, I would like to inquire about the status of the $3
    million video conferencing, tele-conferencing grant that the
    Subcommittee included in the COPS Technology Program last year.
        As you know, the grant is supposed to help rural areas who
    are without significant INS presence by providing them with the
    equipment to interface with INS via video tele-conferencing to
    identify illegal aliens.
        When I talked to the INS, they basically say that you are
    supposed to be doing it. They do not have grant authority. When
    I talked to your Office, they basically tell me that it is INS'
    responsibility.
        I would probably share the Chairman's opinion.
        I would trust you first, I guess, before INS to get it
    right. We are 5 months into the fiscal year. I just wondered
    where we are. Would you update me on the status?
        Mr. Brann.  Yes, Mr. Latham. Thank you, first of all, for
    those very kind comments. The process last year, I think,
    actually enabled us to create a model program here with what is
    being done with the Sioux City Police Department with this
    meter mark from last year.
        It has been serving as a model in terms of regional efforts
    and training. I am so very pleased to hear your experiences
    reflecting that as well. With regard to this earmark, we have
    been working with INS since last December.
        The funds from this, I remember we passed through from COPS
    to INS, that is the way that we set it up. Because this
    question has arisen as to whether or not they have grant making
    authority, we have been unable to complete this Memorandum of
    Understanding.
        We have been pushing on this issue and in fact have a
    meeting setup for this Thursday, the 18th, with INS to try to
    bring this to closure. The point is that we believe we could
    pass it through and they can administer it.
        If they cannot, then we have got to figure out a way to
    move this and move it now. There is no reason for this to
    continue to delay it. As you have said, we are 5 months into
    the fiscal year. We are anxious to get all of these earmarks
    done. This one should be done by now.
        Mr. Latham.  Do you have any idea how many grants could be
    done this fiscal year? Is there money in your budget for the
    year 2000?
        Mr. Brann.  Let me turn to staff on that. We can check on
    that for the record.
        Mr. Latham.  Do you expect to use the money that is in this
    year's budget to get it done before the end of the year?
        Mr. Brann.  Yes, we do. That is our expectation. I will be
    happy to get back to you later this week following that meeting
    on Thursday to let you know what the outcome of that is.
        [The information follows:]

        The COPS Office and officials with the Immigration and
    Naturalization Service (INS) are working together to finalize
    how these grants will be administered. We last met on March 18,
    1999, and we determined that the COPS Office would develop and
    implement a grant program to fund video teleconferencing
    projects and activities. INS will provide substantial input and
    support for this program. We hope to finalize a Memorandum of
    Understanding between the two agencies before the end of April.
        In addition we hope to send out applications to targeted
    jurisdictions (as identified by INS) by the end of May, and
    make awards in mid August. While all of the details have not
    been worked out, we are examining the possibiity of providing
    $100,000 grants to approximately 30 grantees nationwide.
        The Administration has not included funding for this
    specific initiative in its budget request for FY 2000.

        Mr. Latham.  I very much appreciate it. A lot of people are
    very anxious to see the results of it. The people at INS, I
    mean, they think they have it figured out how they are going to
    do it, but they seem to have problems executing occasionally.
        In addition, I want to associate myself with the Chairman's
    comments about the Truth in Sentencing Grants. I would like to
    submit, if I could Mr. Chairman, a letter from the Governor's
    Office, the new Democrat Governor from Iowa, from his Director
    of the Department of Corrections, stating his strong opposition
    to the reduction of that grant.
        [Mr. Kautzky's letter follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                         drug court administrative cost

        Mr. Latham.  Again, I want to associate myself to what you
    have brought up before. As you know, I support the Drug Court
    Program. I was pleased to see Woodbury County in my District
    receive a grant to begin their own program.
        I am really supportive of the idea of the increase from $10
    million to $50 million in your budget request. However, I do
    notice that of the additional $10 million, 12 percent or $1.2
    million is allotted for administrative costs.
        In previous years, the entire program's administrative
    costs were under 2 percent of the total cost. In fact, with
    this new increase, you are increasing administrative costs by
    150 percent. What is the explanation.
        Ms. Robinson.  Mr. Latham, I do not know the answer. I will
    get back to you with that figure. Perhaps, though, it
    encompasses our set aside for technical assistance, evaluation,
    and research.
        Typically, our administrative costs have run very low, like
    at one percent or less. I will be happy to get back to you
    about that. We have been proud that we have kept our costs very
    low.
        [The information referred to follows:]

        On April 8, 1999, the Office of Justice Programs, Office of
    Budget and Management Services, directly contacted Congressman
    Latham's staff to discuss questions that arose regarding
    administrative costs associated with the Drug Court Program.
    This discussion was very productive and answered the concerns
    of Congressman Latham, therefore, no further information is
    required.

        Mr. Latham.  Of the $10 million, about 12 percent is
    administrative costs.
        Ms. Robinson.  That does not seem right to me. I will look
    into it and we will get back to you.
        Mr. Latham.  It does not seem right.
        Ms. Robinson.  Let me also say that we are delighted that
    Sioux City does have the drug courts starting and look forward
    to working with you all on that.

                      bullet proof vest partnership grant

        Mr. Latham.  Thank you. The Bullet Proof Vest Partnership
    Grant is a 3-year program. They are well into their first year
    already. Yet, not one vest has been able to be purchased by a
    state or a locality.
        As you know, in rural States like Iowa, small communities
    do not have the resources to afford that. Could you share with
    me what you are doing to expedite the full implementation of
    this vital life saving program?
        Ms. Robinson.  Certainly. This program has been, in many
    ways, a real challenge for us administratively. There are some
    30,000 jurisdictions that will be eligible to purchase vests.
        There are something like 1,200 vendors and hundreds and
    hundreds of available types of vests. So, in effect what we
    have done through our Bureau of Justice Assistance, reinvented
    the process. We are going to be using an Internet-based, in
    effect, shopping mall approach.
        A jurisdiction can register on-line. If they do not have
    Internet access, then we will do it through an 800 number. Then
    turn around payments within 3 days. We are beta testing it
    right now.
        We are going to have it up and running by the end of March.
    So, we are just about ready to go on it, and we are very
    excited about it.

                        family violence research program

        Mr. Latham.  That is good to hear. Just one last question.
    Included in your request, there is $5 million for a National
    Institute of Justice Family Violence Research Program.
        In your justification for the funding of this program, it
    cites the fact that according to the National Academy of
    Sciences, only 114 studies have been conducted in this field. I
    am just wondering is it really under-studied? Do we need the
    115th study?
        If so, I guess how do you know when you get to the point
    where you need to determine how many studies you need to make a
    decision?
        Ms. Robinson.  Mr. Latham, I often share your sense of
    frustration about some of that. In fact, the National Academy
    of Sciences--which is, as you know, is very well-renowned. What
    they did and what we are relying on is that they surveyed, not
    just the number, but what it is those studies looked at and
    said.
        Very frequently in academic research, studies address very
    narrow questions. There are still a number of issues to
    explore. Shay Bilchik here could attest to many of those
    relating to child abuse, relating to neglected children,
    relating to children exposed to violence, for example, in the
    homes that Mr. Serrano talked about where domestic violence
    occurrs.
        Elder abuse; is an issue that is really coming to light
    more and more. What we want to see is not obscure academic
    studies. We want to see evaluations of approaches that look
    like they are working, so that they can be taken and put into
    reality and moved into the program side; so they can actually
    change the behavior of practitioners and help address these
    basic problems.
        I guess I would rely on the National Academy of Sciences
    here. In having looked briefly at their review, I think there
    really is a need there.
        Mr. Latham.  So, you are saying we have only had 114
    studies. You would think that one of them in there would have
    done this already. My concern would just be that the money be
    spent to actually go out and help victims, rather than just to
    do the 115th study.
        It seems like sometime we have got to make a decision on
    what to do. Thank you Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Rogers.  Ms. Roybal-Allard.

                            successful cops programs

        Ms. Roybal-Allard.  Thank you Mr. Chairman.
        First of all, let me just say that the COPS Program has
    been very, very successful in many of the cities that I
    represent. In addition to Los Angeles, I represent eight other
    small cities.
        One of the concerns of the various police departments has
    always been is that once the money runs out, then what is going
    to happen in terms of all of the progress that has been made?
        I noticed that you are asking for about $50 million for
    retention. I was really happy to see that because I think that
    is a very, very serious concern with the small cities that I
    have in the COPS Program and have been able to make some
    progress in turning the tide with regards to crime.
        We are extremely concerned that once the money runs out,
    that we will be going backwards. I just wanted to let you know
    that I was happy to see that retention money.

                          violent crime against women

        Ms. Robinson, when I was reading your testimony, I guess I
    was interested in more than what was not said rather than what
    was in your testimony, particularly as it pertains to your
    statements about crime going down.
        Although crime is going down, it is my understanding that
    crimes against women have either remained static or have
    somewhat, and you can argue that, actually increased. There was
    no mention of that increase in any of your testimony.
        I was just wondering, what is it that the Justice
    Department is doing to respond to crimes that are being
    committed to institutionalize the effort against crimes against
    women as a priority for the Justice Department?
        Also, if you could respond to if there is anything that
    could be done to strengthen the Violence Against Women Act that
    would help. Maybe the next time that you came before us, you
    would be able to say, crime overall is going down, and so are
    crimes against women.
        Ms. Robinson.  Thank you. There are about 55 different
    funding streams going into OJP. I could not mention all of them
    in the statement. The Violence Against Women area continues to
    be an extraordinarily high priority for the Administration, for
    the Justice Department, and I know for this Subcommittee as
    well.
        Our request is $282 million, which continues the amount
    enacted for 1999. I think it carries forward terribly, terribly
    important work dealing with law enforcement victim; advocates,
    prosecution, and--very importantly--the coordinated approach
    across all of those pieces of the system.
        What we are seeing in communities across this country, and
    I have the opportunity when I travel to go and visit domestic
    violence shelters to talk to victim advocates, to talk to
    victims, to see what kind of difference has been made here.
        In fact, our surveys show this, too, that the level of
    victim satisfaction in these cases has gone up substantially
    because of the support from this Subcommittee, because of the
    support from Congress, and the Administration for this.
        If I were to identify two areas where I think that there is
    real need, one of them, in fact this Subcommittee has
    addressed. That is the $25 million for rural domestic violence.
        The needs in rural areas, from my personal perspective, are
    even greater than in urban areas. For example, last year I was
    in West Virginia. I was in some of the rural counties there. It
    is not a situation that you might find, let us say, in
    Washington, D.C. where somebody could get on the Metro and go
    to a shelter that might even be in an adjoining jurisdiction.
        In many of these situations, the women are very isolated.
    They may not even have the keys to the truck or the car. They
    may not be able to use the telephone without their husband
    observing it.
        There are great issues about victim safety in those
    situations. So, I would urge the Subcommittee to continue the
    $25 million support for the rural program, in particular.
        Secondly, and this goes, I think, to the reauthorization of
    the Violence Against Women Act, rather than an appropriations
    issue. It is very important for the courts to be at the table
    on this. I think we have seen enormous support from law
    enforcement, from prosecution, and from many judges.
        I would also say that additional work needs to be done to
    really bring the judges and the courts on board. So, during the
    consideration of the Violence Against Women reauthorization,
    the Administration will be urging the courts be considered as
    perhaps one of the designated recipients of the Block Grant
    money.

                           corrections program office

        Ms. Roybal-Allard.  Also, when I read your testimony, I
    read where you have a program known as Corrections Program
    Office. Just recently an article came out where Amnesty
    International reported that women inmates in the Nation's
    prisons and jails are being routinely subjected to sexual abuse
    by the male guards.
        I was wondering if you envision any kind of role for that
    Corrections Program Office in working with the state and local
    agencies to investigate these allegations and to find ways to
    work with them so that we do not have these kinds of things
    happening?
        Ms. Robinson.  Our role from OJP would not be to
    investigate. It would be to share information, to do education,
    to assist on training and technical assistance. In fact, from
    our Corrections Program Office, we have a good working
    relationship with I think virtually every state correctional
    administrator in this country, including the one that Mr.
    Latham had referred to.
        One of the things we are planning to do, probably in early
    fall, is to hold a conference, not a huge one, but a real
    working symposium on the issue of women offenders. There are
    very special needs that women offenders have in terms of
    training, education, assistance, because of having minor kids
    at home with whom they still have relationships, issues of
    transition once they come out.
        These and many other issues we need to be addressing and
    addressing very seriously. The purpose of the conference will
    be to address that.
        Ms. Roybal-Allard.  Is this going to happen anyway or is it
    the result of the article? I mean, were you aware of these
    abuses that are taking place?
        Ms. Robinson.  Those kinds of abuses have been discussed
    for several years. In addition to that, I think the other thing
    that really caught our attention is the fact of the growth in
    female offending, which is much greater proportionately than
    for male offenders; the number of women offenders in prison.
    The increase is much greater than for men proportionately.
        Ms. Roybal-Allard.  They are usually drug abuses. Is that
    correct?
        Ms. Robinson.  Many of them are drug-related, correct.
        Ms. Roybal-Allard.  So, this conference, it will be
    actually working with the state and local agencies to do what?
    I mean, what is it that is going to come out of this conference
    that is going to help prevent these kinds of things from
    happening?
        Ms. Robinson.  What we try to do in this kind of setting is
    to raise issues and listen to state and local practitioners
    about the issues they think need to be addressed, and then--in
    our case from OJP--what is it that we can do to help respond?
        Is there help that we could give on training, for example,
    for correctional guards, or educational programs, or addressing
    things specifically for offenders, such as drug treatment?
        Ms. Roybal-Allard.  I was at the White House when the
    President gave his radio talk and introduced his Officer
    Training Initiative where he talked about--law enforcement
    agencies----
        Ms. Robinson.  Mr. Brann addressed some of that in the
    prior question I think on the education and training issues.
    One thing that we are already moving a head with through our
    Bureau of Justice Statistics is to add questions to the
    National Crime Victimization Survey to find out from citizens
    across the Country what their interactions have been with law
    enforcement and to try to really sort out issues relating to
    police use of force.
        This is not for identification of particular departments,
    but to try to get a handle on what kind of statistics that are
    out there. What are the facts? What can we learn from that?
        Ms. Roybal-Allard.  Thank you.
        Mr. Brann.  I would like to respond to that as well.
    Several months ago, the COPS Office and the Civil Rights
    Division co-sponsored a national symposium on this very issue.
        We brought together representatives from Mellon and the
    policing community from around the Country, but also ACLU and a
    variety of public interest organizations to begin discussion
    about this, to take a look at not only model programs and
    strategies, but some of the things that need to be done, both
    within the Justice Department, as well as within the profession
    as a whole.
        There is follow up work that is taking place on that
    thought. As Ms. Robinson indicated, there are really different
    components here in the Justice Department, with Civil Rights
    and other having responsibility to investigate and pursue
    certain kinds of allegations.
        The funding of agencies is looking more towards training
    and creating opportunities for change.
        Ms. Roybal-Allard.  This is interesting. I just want to
    support what Mr. Serrano said in regards to the fact that if we
    are really going to have good community policing or good police
    departments, then we really do need to go beyond. I apologize
    for not being here.
        From what I have seen, we have to go beyond their physical
    capability on whatever task that is important to really test
    somehow what their attitudes are about the communities that
    they are being asked to work.
        I think that, in itself, will make a tremendous difference
    and really help us to move forward towards the objectives that
    we all want.
        That is a good relationship between communities and police
    officers so that they can work together towards the common goal
    of stopping crime in communities. I think that was a very good
    point.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

                               cops authorization

        Mr. Rogers.  Director Brann, I understand as of September
    30, 1998, grants for over 88,000 new police officers had been
    awarded.
        In your testimony you state that you will need to go over
    100,000 ahead of schedule. How many new cops will be provided
    with the fiscal year 1999 appropriated net of $1.4 billion?
        Mr. Brann.  We expect to actually hit approximately 105,000
    to 106,000 by the end of this fiscal year.
        Mr. Rogers.  Are you planning on going beyond the 100,000
    cops in fiscal year 2000?
        Mr. Brann.  Yes. That would be a part of the proposal in
    the President's Initiative.
        Mr. Rogers.  How much is the COPS Program authorized to
    receive in fiscal year 2000?
        Mr. Brann.  The current authorization is for $360 million,
    thereabouts.
        Mr. Rogers.  Does $268 million sound better to you?
        Mr. Brann.  I would have to go back; if you have the
    figures in front of you.
        Mr. Rogers.  I think it is $268 million. Now, is your COPS
    II Program authorized?
        Mr. Brann.  No, not as of yet.
        Mr. Rogers.  Since most of that new COPS II Proposal, which
    is over a billion dollars, is not authorized, do you plan to
    submit proposed authorization legislation to the Congress to
    support that new proposal?
        Mr. Brann.  It is my understanding that, that is what will
    be coming to the Congress later this year.
        Mr. Rogers.  What if the Congress is unable or unwilling to
    authorize these programs, these proposals of yours, by the time
    the 2000 appropriation bill is completed?
        I would point out to you that we have not passed an
    authorization bill in 20 years, I think. What if we do not
    authorize that? What happens then?
        Mr. Brann.  I wish I could give you the right answers. To
    be quite honest, those are issues that I think would have to be
    addressed.
        Mr. Rogers.  You do not want us to fund unauthorized
    programs; do you?
        Mr. Brann.  Well, I am not sure how we would move forward
    with this. I do know that there will be a proposal that will be
    coming to the Hill shortly.

                      crime identification technology act

        Mr. Rogers.  In the last days of the last Congress, we
    passed the bipartisan Crime Identification Technology Act of
    1998. Yet, your COPS II Proposal does not follow that newly-
    enacted program.
        Mr. Brann.  I am sorry. I am not--this is the DeWine
    legislation from last year?
        Mr. Rogers.  Right.
        Mr. Brann.  That is correct.
        Mr. Rogers.  How does your program differ from that?
        Mr. Brann.  I think I would have to defer to Ms. Robinson
    on this because of how the monies have been administered
    previously.
        Mr. Rogers.  The question is how do we know that you are
    not going to duplicate or overlap any of the programs we have
    authorized.
        Ms. Robinson.  Mr. Chairman, the separate pieces under both
    the OJP and COPS budgets do address every one of the purpose
    areas in the DeWine legislation. On the issue of overlap, it
    would be our intention to rely on the staffing components
    within OJP or within COPS that have already developed expertise
    in the various areas.
        For example, on the DNA and Crime Lab Improvement Program,
    the staff within NIJ who are already working with the State
    crime labs. I would further say that COPS and OJP would be
    working very closely to coordinate and ensure that there was
    not duplication.

                             ojp restructuring plan

        Mr. Rogers.  Now, Attorney General Robinson, we have been
    extremely supportive here of State and local assistance
    programs to address crime in our communities. Funding for OJP
    Grant Programs since 1995 has increased by 213 percent.
        We have gone from $1.1 billion to $3.4 billion. With that
    growth, we have also seen the complexity in scope of OJP's
    programs increase immensely. We have been concerned about
    instances of duplication and overlap that we believe are caused
    by your agency's structure, and magnified by the growth.
        In your report to the Subcommittee last year, you agreed
    that there are lost opportunities for responding to crime and
    tremendous inefficiencies in the use of resources, as a result
    of the current OJP structure.
        Last week, you submitted your proposal for restructuring
    OJP. Would you summarize your report and your recommendations
    and identify the benefits that you believe your recommendations
    would provide to us.
        Ms. Robinson.  Certainly. Let me say, first of all, a note
    about the process we went through on this. We thought it was
    terribly important, even though we were on a short time frame,
    to do some listening to the field about this.
        So, we outreached to about 50 practitioners and constituent
    groups to find out about their interactions with OJP and the
    kinds of things that they would like to see changed.
        We also did a similar kind of outreach within the Justice
    Department and within OJP itself. The report that was forwarded
    to you last week reflects a couple of central principles.
        One of them is, as you indicate, responsive to the notion
    of accountability and the need for a greater centralized
    management when the program has grown so substantially.
        So, rather than having a structure that incorporates a
    group of semi-autonomous agencies working with a common
    infrastructure, we have proposed a set of components that in
    fact have coherent functions organizationally and following a
    common mission. That would be the vision of the restructure
    plan. We would look to have all research, for example, done in
    one area; all statistics in one area; program work organized
    around subject area; and Formula Grants organized around what
    we call state desks, so that there could be responsiveness to
    individual geographic needs.
        Then, very importantly, we have also proposed that there be
    something that I call kind of an ``information central'' point.
    Even with a simplified structure, there are so many funding
    streams going into OJP, that it is hard for an individual
    mayor, D.A., police chief, or other practitioner to figure out
    how you penetrate, get in, and find out what kind of technical
    assistance or help is available.
        So, we thought it is very important to have one central
    point that is almost a triage point for a jurisdiction to come
    in seeking help--whether it is technical assistance or grant
    funding, finding out about conferences or publications. In
    other words, to find out the help that they need.
        Mr. Rogers.  Now, are you planning to provide legislative
    changes to enact that proposal?
        Ms. Robinson.  Mr. Chairman, the recommendation that we
    have made in the report was that if Congress chooses to act
    along this line, that they make the changes effective perhaps
    at the time of the change in Administration so as not to
    disrupt appointees who are currently in place.
        In the interim, we are happy to work with you and provide
    statutory language as you request.
        Mr. Rogers.  Do you think it is necessary that we pass
    legislation in order to do this?
        Ms. Robinson.  Yes. Statutory changes are needed. It is
    really the statutory infrastructure of OJP that really leads to
    these problems.

                         police corps in restructuring

        Mr. Rogers.  I see that you incorporated the Police Corps
    into OJP as the 1999 bill directed. Why is not the COPS Program
    incorporated into the OJP structure as well? It is due to
    expire in the year 2000.
        Ms. Robinson.  The structure that is proposed in the report
    that we forwarded to you last week is a flexible one so that
    Congress, in the future, if the COPS Office did go out of
    business or were addressed in some other way, those
    responsibilities could be incorporated within OJP.
        Mr. Rogers.  It makes sense, does it not, one-stop shopping
    for local authorities?
        Ms. Robinson.  Well, I will tell you that the practitioners
    out in the field are a little frustrated with us in Washington
    at times.
        Mr. Rogers.  Mr. Brann, would not merging the COPS Office
    into OJP eliminate the possibility of duplication and
    streamline the process, provide that one-stop shopping for
    State and local Governments and other grantees that we are
    looking for?
        Mr. Brann.  Mr. Chairman, honestly I am not sure of what
    duplication you may be referring to. What I see, the COPS
    Office was created specifically to be very responsive to local
    agencies in particular.
        A huge issue that exist out there that we have certainly
    realized as the result of the creation of this office is that
    there are many agencies. We are dealing with over 11,000
    agencies that the COPS Office is funding.
        The vast majority of those agencies have never been the
    recipients of Federal grant funding. We set ourselves up to be
    very responsible on that front to provide a high level of
    service.
        We have also specialized in focusing on the needs of local
    law enforcement, direct funding for obviously police positions,
    for technology, and for a variety of issues there. I think in
    effect what we have is a degree of expertise and a service
    level that has been created, vis-a-vis the COPS Office that is
    somewhat different from that which we find through the other
    OJP Programs and components.

                          juvenile drug abuse program

        Mr. Rogers.  Mr. Bilchik, we provided a $10 million grant
    program to your office to develop initiatives that would warn
    teenagers of the risks and harm of drug use. Tell us what you
    are doing with those monies and what results you expect.
        Mr. Bilchik. We are extraordinarily optimistic about the
    implementation of this program, Mr. Chairman. We know the
    program that we selected for replication in the training
    program has been tested in a variety of jurisdictions and found
    to be effective at reducing juvenile substance abuse and
    alcohol abuse over a sustained period of time.
        What was important about this particular model was that it
    was not proven effective just in one place. It has been moved
    from jurisdiction to jurisdiction and found to be effective.
        What you have permitted us to do with this funding is to do
    a massive replication of this type of approach. It really is
    the first time something like this has been done in this
    country.
        What we did during the first year of the program was to
    identify the providers, train the trainers that would be going
    out to these communities across the Country to train the
    guidance counselors, the school teachers, and the communities
    that would be working with this model.
        That has been done. In fact, this month we have 16
    different jurisdictions that are being visited from whom and
    training is being setup. As of this fall, 34,000 youth will
    receive this particular curriculum.
        That is just beginning to use touching into the $10
    million. It is using first $5 million and then also additional
    funding. So, with the $10 million and then the additional $20
    million, we expect to reach over 280,000 youth with this
    school-based curriculum. It has been a difficult process
    because it has not been done before.
        Training people in how to replicate a particular approach,
    and maintain the integrity of that program design is not easy.
    It is where we often fail with other types of programs.
        It is how we learned through Big Brothers-Big Sisters how
    to do mentoring the correct way. Particular elements need to be
    in place in order to be successful. That is what we are trying
    to do with this program as well.
        So, the numbers are fairly astounding to think that we have
    reached that many youth. I believe it will make a dent in the
    youth substance abuse problem.
        Mr. Rogers.  You are requesting $20 million, double the
    1999 figures.
        Mr. Bilchik.  We are excited about your program.

                        juvenile drug prevention program

        Mr. Rogers.  And quadrupled what you requested in 1999 for
    that Juvenile Drug Prevention Program. I assume that means it
    is showing some real results?
        Mr. Bilchik.  The model itself is showing results. What we
    have done, during the initial stages of this program, is to
    setup the massive replication. This is what has caused so much
    excitement in the field. I cannot tell you today that there are
    children for whom I have measured the outcome for this program.
    What we do know is the training has begun. The curriculum will
    start for 34,000 children. That is a significant undertaking.

                          ONDCP anti-drug abuse media

        Mr. Rogers.  Last year, Congress provided $185 million to
    ONDCP for an anti-drug abuse media campaign. Last year we
    learned that the infrastructure for responding to calls for
    help from either kids or parents as a result of that media
    campaign was inadequate.
        While I understand that this campaign is being handled by
    ONDCP, has there been any improvement on the infrastructure to
    respond to calls for help?
        Mr. Bilchik.  If my information is correct, Mr. Chairman,
    the answer is yes. The Web site was setup to facilitate
    Internet connections for parents and children to make inquiry.
        In addition, the ONDCP Drug Policy Information
    Clearinghouse has been setup. They have received a over a 200
    percent increase for information and are now supposed to be
    handling those increases without any problems.
        There is an 800 number that has been setup. As you know,
    most PSAs do not have 800 numbers and this one does have an 800
    number. I might add that one of the things we have seen early
    in this campaign is that the amount of exposure that you have
    had for this ad campaign is almost double what was anticipated.
        We are hopeful, as we research, that we can impact the
    perception of youth about the risk of using drugs. That we will
    also then see the decrease in substance abuse. So, we hope the
    campaign will have that effect.
        You know there is an impact evaluation to be done as well,
    but the results are not in yet to see what impact we have on
    these children's perception of risk.
        Mr. Rogers.  When do you expect that?
        Mr. Bilchik.  I have been told it will be about another
    year before we can get those results. I can double check on
    that, Mr. Chairman. Again, it is not something that we are
    overseeing directly. Would you like for me to report to you on
    that?
        Mr. Rogers.  Please do.
        Mr. Bilchik.  Yes, sir.
        [The information follows:]

        In FY 1998, the Office of National Drug Control Policy, with
    support from Congress, initiated a $195 million anti-drug advertising
    campaign to educate and enable America's youth to reject illegal drugs.
    Support from communications firms; an expert panel which is guiding the
    advertising message and direction; testing of the advertisements;
    research projects; surveys; and a multi-million dollar evaluation of
    the campaign promise to ensure its quality and integrity. The
    independent evaluation is being managed by the National Institute on
    Drug Abuse and the National Institute for Health. The contract for this
    evaluation was awarded September 30, 1998 and the baseline data
    collection will begin in September 1999. Evaluators expect results on
    (1) change in perception and attitude regarding drug abuse within 2
    years and (2) changes in behavior within 3 years.
        Early results indicate that the advertisements are making an
    impact. According to ONDCP, anti-drug coalitions in the twelve-city
    test markets reported three times their average number of phone calls
    from kids and parents who have been exposed to the ads and are seeking
    guidance and help for drug-related problems. Community anti-drug
    coalitions in those same cities also experienced increases in requests
    from local business, schools, and organizations for presentations about
    anti-drug programs and increased volunteerism from people who want to
    help with the campaign. Businesses also volunteered to fund continued
    anti-drug advertising, and local news coverage of drug issues has
    increased.
        Some additional preliminary outcomes of the national campaign
    effort include:
        32 network television episodes have incorporated issues, scenes or
    themes supportive of important drug prevention concepts (i.e. ER,
    Dawson's Creek, and Home Improvement).
        The campaign's new Web site for parents and teens (www.projectknow)
    has received over 4.5 million hits.
        More than a 200% increase, as compared to this time last year, in
    requests for material from National Clearinghouse on Alcohol Abuse and
    Drug Information. Most calls are from print public service
    announcements or advertisements (PSAs). The television PSAs are aired
    in 105 media markets across the country--the 800#s are identified by
    the local network affiliates in order to link individuals to local
    resources.
        While an early goal of the media campaign has been to reach 90
    percent of the general teen target audience with four strategic anti-
    drug messages a week, the paid and matching funds advertising effort
    generated resources sufficient for an exposure rate of almost seven
    messages a week seen by 95 percent of that audience. For African
    American audiences, the exposure rate is almost eight exposures a week,
    reaching 95 percent of the teen audience. For the Hispanic target
    audience the exposure rate is 5.6 times per week, seen by 94 percent of
    the Hispanic teen audience.

                           drug treatment initiative

        Mr. Rogers. Ms. Robinson, your budget request includes a
    new $100 million initiative for drug treatment, both during and
    after incarceration; and $65.1 million for the Residential
    Substance Abuse Program for State prisoners. Please describe
    for us specifically who would be targeted by that new
    initiative.
        Ms. Robinson.  Mr. Chairman, the new initiative would
    target a group that is not captured either by the Drug Court
    funding or by the Residential Substance Abuse, increase in drug
    treatment--that is primarily offenders who are out on pre-trial
    release or back in the community on parole. One of the things
    that we have been hearing over and over from local mayors is
    about the influx of offenders returning to the community after
    they have served their term of incarceration, and the kinds of
    problems that can lead to in the community.
        We also know, of course, the link between drug use and
    crime. That $100 million would be specifically targeted for
    local jurisdictions, primarily, to hold offenders who are
    returning to the community or, as I said, out on pre-trial
    release, hold them accountable for their behavior through drug
    testing, interventions with sanctions, and couple that with
    treatment. The goal here, which we have seen from our research
    work, is to reduce drug use and thereby reduce associated
    crime. One of the things that I have been very struck by during
    my tenure with the Justice Department is just how clear the
    research is about the impact we can have from these kinds of
    programs.
        For example, the Amity Drug Treatment Program out in
    California, which couples in-prison treatment with prison after
    care treatment back in the community has shown remarkable
    reductions in recidivism.
        In the control group, they had 63 percent who had
    recidivated within a year. That dropped to 42 percent, if they
    had the drug treatments in prison.
        Again, that dropped from 42 down to 26 percent, if they had
    the after-care. So, this is remarkable, black and white, very
    clear research that shows a drop in drug use and associated
    crime.
        Mr. Bilchik.  Can I add to that? I think that the area of
    activity that Ms. Robinson just described also applies to the
    juvenile area. We are hearing from communities that they also
    need this capacity to be testing and treating juvenile
    offenders as they reenter communities and hold them accountable
    for any relapses.
        We have worked hard at working with juvenile probation
    officers and sensitizing them to the issue of juvenile
    substance abuse. We have worked hard with empowering
    communities on how to set up testing programs.
        One of the things we have heard is there are not sufficient
    funds to actually implement those programs. Whatever support we
    can provide in the juvenile area, would be welcomed as well.

                         use of existing grant programs

        Mr. Rogers.  Well, the Crime Block Grant that we funded
    last year could be used for this purpose. You are not
    requesting that this year.
        Mr. Bilchik.  Correct.
        Mr. Rogers.  How come?
        Mr. Bilchik.  As I indicated before, Mr. Chairman, I think
    what we are trying to do is target a few specific areas, rather
    than 12 different areas, that we have heard are the greatest
    problem areas.
        So, looking at reentry issues, drug testing issues,
    community prosecution issues, we thought those would be the
    most intensive areas of concern right now.
        Mr. Rogers.  Ms. Robinson, why cannot the HHS existing
    grant program be used for this purpose? Why do we need a new
    one in Justice when we already have one in HHS?
        Ms. Robinson.  Mr. Chairman, that is a very good question
    and one that I would not have known the answer to before I came
    into Government.
        It is very clear that HHS targets its money primarily,
    almost exclusively, to non-criminal justice populations. They
    do not view public safety and crime as their primary
    jurisdictional area. That is why it seems to me that the
    Justice Department, because of its link with crime and public
    safety, needs to come to the forefront here.
        Again, the research is so clear that we can, in the end,
    change offender behavior and affect public safety. That is not
    HHS's primary goal.
        Mr. Rogers.  It is the local community who decides what
    they want to apply for. It is not HHS that tells them what they
    have to do with the money. It is the local community who vies
    for the monies if they are available.
        They can use them for this very purpose. I would hate to
    see another bureaucracy set up when we already have one set up
    for this type of program; admitting it is a good program.
        Ms. Robinson.  Traditionally, the state and local agencies
    to whom the HHS Block Grants go, again, serve non-criminal
    justice populations. We have actually worked with them, Mr.
    Chairman, to try to raise their consciousness about that.
        There is huge demand for treatment. The general reaction
    has been--we are going to get it to the people who are the kind
    of up-standing citizens in the community and not to offenders.
    I wish it were otherwise, but that is the reality out there.

                               prison transition

        Mr. Rogers.  We already provide residential testing and
    treatment for state prisoners. You want us now to fund
    treatment after the state prisoners are released. I am
    wondering where can we draw a line?
        Ms. Robinson.  It seems to me, again, going back to the
    statistics that I cited about the Amity Program in California,
    if we do not ensure the transition back into the community,
    that they are really making that transition back successfully
    when they are back with all of the temptations of their old
    neighborhood, their old peers, and their old friends, then in
    many cases we should not have invested in the treatment in
    prison.
        It is essential to ensuring the successful transition so
    that they can actually make it back into the column of the law
    abiding, and not fall back into the old habits, which
    frequently are tied up with drug use.
        Mr. Rogers.  What percent of the monies would you expect
    would be spent on treatment of prisoners after they have been
    released?
        Ms. Robinson.  Under RSAT funds, we would anticipate that a
    pretty small percentage would be spent on that. What we have
    heard from some States is that they already have funding
    available for the in-prison piece. What they really need is the
    after-care help.
        Mr. Rogers.  What percent of the monies would you expect to
    target towards juvenile offenders?
        Ms. Robinson.  At this point, I think it is about a quarter
    of the funding that goes to juvenile offenders. I can get you
    that exact figure. A number of the States do have programs
    addressing juvenile drug use while the juveniles are
    incarcerated.
        [Clerk's note.--Subsequent to the hearing the following
    information was provided:]

        The Office of Justice Program's Corrections Program Office
    (CPO) administers the Residential Substance Abuse Treatment
    (RSAT) program, which is formula based grant program that was
    first funded in 1996:

                                                                    Millions
    1996..............................................................   $27
    1997..............................................................    30
    1998..............................................................    63
    1999..............................................................    63
    2000 (request)....................................................  65.1

        RSAT funds are provided to States, for use by States and
    local governments to develop and implement residential
    substance abuse treatment programs within State and local
    correctional and detention facilities, where inmates are
    incarcerated for sufficient time to permit substance abuse
    treatment (typically, 6 to 12 months).
        Since the implementation of this program, approximately $11
    million has been targeted by the States for the use in the
    treatment of juveniles.

        Mr. Rogers.  This program is not authorized; is it?
        Ms. Robinson.  The program?
        Mr. Rogers.  Your proposal.
        Ms. Robinson.  The proposal for the $100 million will be in
    the Crime Bill II that the Administration sends to the Hill
    later this spring.
        Mr. Rogers.  What if it is not authorized by the time we
    must appropriate here? What do you propose that we do?
        Ms. Robinson.  Well, I guess I would suggest that we
    regroup at that point.

                       drug testing and treatment program

        Mr. Rogers.  Now, if we were to fund an extensive drug
    testing and treatment program, what level of commitment would
    we have? How much money and for how long?
        Ms. Robinson.  The total package here is $215 million. That
    would cover from the pre-trial release stage to the post-
    incarceration.
        Mr. Rogers.  Let me ask Mr. Brann, you heard Ms. Robinson's
    questions. We are living on a budget cap. We are short of
    money. We have to make choices in what things we fund and do
    not fund.
        If you had to choose between hiring more cops and the new
    drug testing and treatment initiatives, which one shall we
    choose?
        Mr. Brann.  I think we are going to be funding--at the same
    time--COPS Offices is specifically set up to try to represent
    and be responsible to the needs of local law enforcement.
        At the same time, I must tell you that I hear from local
    law enforcement officials about their needs and their
    interests. Funding for prevention programs is spread over
    things to deal with; drug prevention, drug enforcement, and the
    whole range of issues.
        It is a tough decision. I think everybody in this room
    understands there are going to be great budget decisions to be
    made here.
        What we have come up with and what the Administration is
    proposing in the form of this initiative I think is responsive
    to what we have been hearing from customers out there; the
    kinds of issues they have identified. We have tried to develop
    a plan around that 21st Century Police Initiative.
        Mr. Rogers.  I do not think I heard your answer to my
    question.
        Mr. Brann.  I am going to end up pushing for the additional
    officers and a combination as provided for in this 21st Century
    Police Initiative; the combination of funding that will allow
    them to do some of the things that they are trying to do at the
    local level. This initiative addresses that.
        Mr. Rogers.  Ms. Robinson.
        Ms. Robinson.  If it were up to me, I would fund the Drug
    Treatment and Testing Program. Let me explain why. I think that
    it is terribly important to develop some models in this area.
        I would agree with my colleague, Mr. Brann, that law
    enforcement has been very, very supportive of things like drug
    courts in many communities. We do not have sufficient models of
    carrying this drug testing, treatment, sanctions, and
    accountability through the system.
        That is something that is very much needed and does not now
    exist. I think it is a terribly important investment, and that
    the Federal Government could make a real difference and help
    states and localities see the direction in which to go.

                       health clinic security initiative

        Mr. Rogers.  Finally, Ms. Robinson, you have requested a
    Health Clinic Security Initiative using funds from within the
    Byrne Discretionary Program. Would you briefly describe that
    proposal?
        Ms. Robinson.  Yes, Mr. Chairman. This $4.5 million
    proposal would invest in three things that have really come to
    light from the law enforcement and prosecution work which the
    Department has done relating to clinic security and some of the
    bombings that have occurred.
        The first would be to provide to local law enforcement and
    clinics security assessments.
        The second would be technical assistance and training for
    local law enforcement in terms of how to assist clinics in
    protecting their security.
        The third would be to target health clinics in the form of
    equipment. It might be lighting or such for particularly high
    risk clinics.
        Mr. Rogers.  Under what authority are you proposing that
    program?
        Ms. Robinson.  Mr. Chairman, our General Counsel has told
    us that Byrne Formula Grant Purpose area No. 26, which deals
    with domestic terrorism, could cover the first two areas, but
    not the third dealing with equipment.
        So, the President's budget requests that specific language
    in it which, if the appropriators choose to pass it, would
    carry in effect the authorization.
        Mr. Rogers.  I think it is a real stretch, the legal
    interpretation, that is being made. I am very skeptical about
    the use of Byrne Grants for that purpose. I doubt that it falls
    within any acceptable statutory prudence. So, I hope we can
    talk further about that.
        Ms. Robinson.  We would be happy to talk with you about
    that, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Serrano.

                                    inmates

        Mr. Serrano.  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Chairman, one of those occasions when I am going to
    show the difference, one of the major differences, between
    being on this Subcommittee 15 years as you have, and a couple
    of months as I have or a month, and that is when we speak about
    inmates, are we talking about programs where you assist
    localities with their inmates?
        Are we talking about Federal inmates; inmates in Federal
    prison? If we are, when we talk about juveniles, you might
    teach me something. Do we have juveniles in the Federal prisons
    also?
        Ms. Robinson.  Sir, all of our money goes to states and
    localities in the form of grants.
        Mr. Serrano.  That is what I thought. If I had my way, I
    would fund both, but I do not have my way. You just used a
    phrase, domestic terrorism. Was that correct in correct in
    using that? What are we talking about here?
        Ms. Robinson.  As opposed to international. I just meant
    within the United States.
        Mr. Serrano.  Within, but not caused by local folks. That
    is terrorism; right?
        Ms. Robinson.  That is correct. I think the term is usually
    used, for example, in the domestic preparedness discussions
    about events that actually take place within the Continental
    United States or Alaska, Hawaii.
        Mr. Serrano.  In Territories.
        Ms. Robinson.  And Territories.
        Mr. Serrano.  Territories are important. I am being nice
    today, Mr. Chairman. I am not saying colonies. The anti-drug
    use ads, you said there is a recidivism report coming to show
    how successful they have been?

                                  campaign ads

        Mr. Bilchik.  It was an interim report that showed what
    level of exposure youth and families have had to the ad
    campaigns thus far. There will be a follow up report. I think
    Westat is doing the evaluation of the project; of the impact,
    whether they have changed children's impressions of the dangers
    and risks involved with using drugs. That is the critical goal.
        If you do increase the awareness of the risk involved with
    using drugs, our research shows that the use will go down.
    There is a direct correlation to increased perception, decrease
    in use.
        Mr. Serrano.  Bring me up-to-date. Which one are your ads,
    the ones I see on TV?
        Mr. Bilchik.  The ONDCP ads are the one with the frying pan
    in the kitchen.
        Mr. Serrano.  Right.
        Mr. Bilchik.  That is an ONDCP ad. The ad you may have seen
    in the movie theaters recently of a youth who is taking the
    back alley to get home because he is afraid of the gang members
    in his community.
        Mr. Serrano.  Right.
        Mr. Bilchik.  That is one of those ads. Talking to your
    children about drugs and what happens if you do not talk to
    your children about drugs is a part of that ad campaign.
        What is happening with this campaign however is that the
    $185-something million that has been invested in it, has rolled
    into $400 million of ads that have been run by the television
    networks and different cable stations.
        Mr. Serrano.  How much?
        Mr. Bilchik.  Approximately $400 million total in leverage
    ads.
        Mr. Serrano.  So, again, close to $600 million.
        Mr. Bilchik.  So, when you see an ad that may be running a
    mentoring program, and we know mentoring programs reduce
    substance abuse, that is a direct result of the Congressional
    investment in this area.
        So, we see a variety. It does not look like they are from
    ONDCP, but they would not have been in prime time but for this
    undertaking. So, we are pleased with what is happening thus
    far. We are looking forward to finding what the impact is
    overall.
        Mr. Serrano.  These are TV ads, movie?
        Mr. Bilchik.  Radio. They are print ads.
        Mr. Serrano.  How many languages are you running?
        Mr. Bilchik.  I could not answer that off the top of my
    head, Mr. Serrano.
        Mr. Serrano.  You are running it in more than one language;
    right?
        Mr. Bilchik.  I really would be guessing. I would make an
    assumption.
        Mr. Serrano.  You do not know if you run them in languages
    other than English?
        Mr. Bilchik.  Not having the oversight of that campaign, I
    do not know how many languages are running besides English,
    Spanish, other languages.
        Mr. Serrano.  I hope we can run them.
        Mr. Bilchik.  I would imagine that they would reach more of
    the population in this Country if they were, but I do not want
    to guess.
        I could follow up and find out for you and let you know the
    answer. We are looking at different publications that reach
    targeted populations like our publication written by parents
    about abducted children. We are printing that in Spanish
    because we need to know we reach that population in this
    Country as well.
        Mr. Rogers.  Let us know what language the media campaign
    is in.
        [The information follows:]

        The National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign is disseminated
    in English and 8 other languages (Spanish and seven Asian
    languages--Korean, Vietnamese, Filipino, Japanese, Cambodian,
    Chinese--Mandarin and Cantonese). The campaign has also been
    localized (in the English language) for Native American
    communities, Guam, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands; and
    ONDCP will soon be developing messages in the Aleut language
    and disseminating localized ads for Alaskan Native communities.

        Mr. Serrano.  I have nothing further.
        Mr. Rogers.  Well, thank you very much for your testimony.
    It has been a useful hearing to us and hopefully to you.
        The work that you are doing is all important because this
    is the money that goes to our local communities out of the
    Federal coffers to supplement what essentially are State and
    local responsibilities; juvenile crime, and most crime is State
    jurisdiction.
        So, these are not Federal crimes or Federal items that are
    normally on our plate. As has been said, this Subcommittee has
    helped beef up this section of what Justice does, in an
    enormous way in the last few years.
        It appears to be paying off. The juvenile crime rate is
    encouraging, very encouraging, as is the overall crime rate. I
    think a big part of that is a big reason for what you do with
    the funds that we have given.
        So, I think we can do a little bit of self-congratulations
    here, early on. We have got a long ways to go, but I think we
    are making some real progress.
        Thank you. The hearing is adjourned.
                                             Wednesday, March 24, 1999.

                     IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE

                                    WITNESS

    DORIS MEISSNER, COMMISSIONER, IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE

                                Opening Remarks

        Mr. Rogers. The Committee will come to order.
        This afternoon we would like to welcome the Commissioner of
    the Immigration and Naturalization Service, Doris Meissner,
    again to testify before the Committee on behalf of the INS'
    fiscal year 2000 budget request.
        You are requesting more than $4.2 billion for INS in fiscal
    year 2000, an increase of $388 million, 10 percent over the
    amount Congress provided in fiscal year 1999. The Congress has
    increased funding for the INS from $2.1 billion in fiscal year
    1995 to $3.9 billion in fiscal year 1999, an increase of $1.8
    billion.
        Despite this overwhelming increase, the problems of the INS
    continue, problems ranging from continuing backlogs for
    naturalization and their benefits to a detention space crisis.
    Most of INS' problems are not new ones. Some have continued for
    more than 10 years. Yet, the fiscal year 2000 increase does not
    provide for any additional Border Patrol agents, and absolutely
    no funding for immediate and necessary detention space. After
    all of the complaints that INS has received from not only this
    committee, but complaints from the citizens of this country,
    INS still ignores these pleas. I hope your testimony will shed
    some light on the continuing management problems which continue
    to plague INS.
        As you know, the Attorney General testified before this
    Subcommittee earlier this month. Both the Attorney General and
    I agreed that there are many dedicated and capable people
    within your organization, but that these people need to be
    provided a structure and function so that they can best do
    their jobs. The American people deserve to have a fair,
    efficient and effective Immigration and Naturalization Service.
        Commissioner Meissner, we have given you the funding to
    support your efforts to enforce the immigration laws. Now we
    will work to give this agency the structure it needs to
    function. In a moment we will recognize you for your opening
    comments. We will insert your written statement in the record,
    and we will ask you in a moment to summarize it, after I yield
    to Mr. Serrano.
        Mr. Serrano. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will be very brief.
        I just want to welcome you here, Commissioner, and tell you
    that, as one who has worked within the Hispanic Caucus for all
    of my 9 years here, we have had conversations on both sides of
    the immigration issue and we have found you in your time to be
    very cooperative and willing to listen to us. I take that very
    seriously and I thank you for it. We are here to try to see in
    which way we can make your role and your job easier. You can
    help people who are here become citizens and deal with the
    immigration issue in general.
        So we welcome you and we look forward to your testimony,
    and we look forward to assisting you in any way that we can.
        Mr. Rogers. You may proceed.

                      Opening Statement of Doris Meissner

        Ms. Meissner. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr.
    Serrano, members of the subcommittee, for the opportunity to
    discuss the President's fiscal year 2000 budget request for the
    Immigration and Naturalization Service. This of course is my
    first appearance before the Subcommittee in the 106th Congress,
    and I want to begin by saying that I stand ready to continue
    building the partnerships that are necessary to address the
    many immigration issues that are of concern to us all.
        Since I have been Commissioner, INS has confronted and
    addressed all problems, responded to new mandates, fielded
    scores of needed new initiatives and, when we stumbled, worked
    diligently to fashion new solutions. As a result, enforcement
    of immigration laws has been strengthened significantly at our
    borders and in the Nation's interior, while the delivery of
    services to legal immigrants has improved. The President's
    fiscal year 2000 budget will allow INS to consolidate and to
    build on successes.

                              ins accomplishments

        I have submitted a detailed written account of the budget,
    so let me highlight some of the major issues and successes that
    we have recently achieved with the resources that this
    Subcommittee has generously provided. These are successes that
    we will be able to continue and expand under the fiscal year
    2000 proposed budget.

                               border management

        Our greatest achievements have come in the area of border
    management where more has been accomplished in the past 5 years
    than had been accomplished in decades. Nowhere is the
    effectiveness of our approach to enforcement more visible than
    on the Southwest border. To bring control and safety to the
    border, INS has developed a comprehensive multiyear Southwest
    border strategy to which we remain deeply committed. We have
    doubled the number of Border Patrol agents since 1993 to more
    than 8,000 today, including hiring and training 1,900 agents
    last year alone. And, we have implemented comprehensive
    operations to control illegal entries in all key crossing
    corridors.
        These operations, such as Rio Grande in south Texas,
    Safeguard in Arizona, and Gatekeeper in San Diego, have proven
    that deterrence works. In fiscal year 1998, apprehensions in
    Brownsville declined by 35 percent, and in San Diego, they have
    reached an 18-year low. Perhaps even more important for those
    who live in border communities, local officials credit our
    border operations for having contributed significantly to
    falling crime rates in communities all along the 2,000-mile
    frontier.
        Our border management strategy integrates activities
    between ports of entry with work at the ports of entry. They
    are vital to the Nation's economy, just as they are potential
    entry points for criminals and for contraband. By working
    cooperatively with other Federal agencies, we have achieved
    impressive results. At San Ysidro, the world's busiest land
    port, we have worked with the Customs service to reduce the
    average waiting time, recently as high as 2 hours, to under 20
    minutes, while enhancing enforcement results. With Customs, we
    are now replicating these efforts at all other ports along the
    southwest border.

                         interior enforcement strategy

        To fully establish the integrity of our Nation's
    immigration laws, enhanced border management needs to be linked
    to an effective approach to combating illegal immigration in
    the Nation's interior. We have developed a new interior
    enforcement strategy and are beginning to implement it
    nationwide. This new strategy, built on a foundation of
    cooperation and coordination with other law enforcement
    agencies, seeks to address illegal immigration inside the
    United States. It targets our enforcement resources on
    identifying and removing criminal aliens, disrupting and
    dismantling smuggling rings, responding to community reports
    and complaints about illegal immigration, combating benefit and
    document fraud, and blocking employers' access to and use of
    undocumented workers.
        Such an integrated enforcement approach to interior
    enforcement is already producing results. Last November, we
    dismantled the largest, most complex smuggling ring ever
    encountered by Federal authorities. It smuggled more than
    10,000 people into the United States, with organizers grossing
    nearly $220 million. That same month, INS agents in Los Angeles
    put out of business what is believed to be the largest U.S.-
    based criminal enterprise producing fraudulent documents. They
    seized more than 2 million fake documents that had a street
    value of at least $800 million.
        The new interior enforcement strategy recognizes that much
    of the demand for illegal workers is generated by unscrupulous
    employers who often work in concert with alien smugglers. The
    strategy will allow us to develop more cases like our
    investigation of Atlantic Finishing, a Georgia-based apparel
    manufacturer. That probe culminated last April when 11
    defendants pled guilty, including the firm's president, who was
    sentenced to 10 months in jail and fined $10,000.

                            criminal alien detention

        We are also strengthening our capacity to detain and remove
    aliens who have committed serious criminal offenses. Today, we
    have more than 14,500 criminal aliens in detention. This
    quadruples the 1994 number. Last year, the number of criminal
    aliens we removed reached 56,100, which is double the number
    removed in 1993. Increased efficiency in the removal process
    will allow us to maximize our available bed space.
        Last year, we were able to detain a total of about 150,000
    aliens, 74 percent more than in 1995.

                              citizenship program

        As we strengthen our enforcement capabilities, we are also
    improving delivery of immigration services. Here, our top
    priority has been revitalizing the Nation's citizenship program
    which, as we all know, has experienced a variety of problems.
    Overhauling the citizenship process is a work in progress, but
    we have taken a series of critical steps in the past two years,
    beginning with restoring the system's integrity, as the
    foundation of rebuilding the program. The effectiveness of our
    quality assurance procedures to ensure the integrity of the
    naturalization process has been validated now by two audits
    conducted by an outside firm. In addition, we have opened more
    than 120 new fingerprinting sites in immigrant communities
    around the country, installed scores of electronic
    fingerprinting machines to reduce the rejection rate of
    fingerprints from almost 50 percent to only four percent today,
    and we have launched a massive conversion from incompatible
    computer and manual processing systems to a single nationwide
    automated system that supports naturalization case processing.
        Now, our emphasis is on reducing the historically high
    backlog of pending applications. The comprehensive nature of
    reengineering the entire naturalization process has prevented
    INS from reaching the high levels of productivity we had hoped
    to achieve during the first quarter of this year. Still, we
    have completed twice as many cases to date this year from the
    same period last year, and we have set performance targets for
    which our managers are being held accountable. With new staff
    from this year's budget coming on board in April, we believe we
    will meet our goal of $1.2 million completions in
    naturalization this fiscal year.
        Our effort with naturalization is to achieve improvements
    similar to those we have accomplished with the reform of the
    Nation's asylum system. Once a magnet for abuse, the asylum
    system has been restructured so that we can identify and grant
    valid claims quickly, while discouraging frivolous ones. As we
    enhanced the system's integrity, the number of new claims fell
    by 33 percent last year to 35,000, which is the lowest level in
    10 years.
        INS has undertaken other efforts that enhance both the
    delivery of services and the enforcement of the Nation's
    immigration laws. One critical step has been the development of
    easily verifiable fraud-resistant documents. Last year we
    introduced a new green card, one of the most sophisticated
    counterfeit-resistant documents produced by the Federal
    Government. To meet the demand for this card and other new
    documents, we expanded our production capacity, opening a new
    facility in Corbin, Kentucky, which has allowed us to become
    current in card processing. We also continue to strengthen and
    expand support operations that serve as the administrative and
    technological backbone for both enforcement and services. Last
    year, for example, we continued a 3-year effort to replace
    several outdated financial systems with a single integrated
    system that streamlines financial processes and procedures and
    brings us into compliance with Federal requirements.

                               ins restructuring

        The progress we have made on these and many other fronts
    demonstrates that we can achieve dramatic results. However,
    there is a barrier to achieving the effectiveness to which we
    are committed that no amount of resources or strategic planning
    can surmount, and that is INS's current structure. Since last
    spring, we have been developing the details of a proposal to
    restructure the agency by dividing its primary functions of
    enforcement and service into distinct, separate chains of
    command. We established an Office of Restructuring and hired a
    nationally renowned consulting firm to provide design support,
    drawing on best practices from other public and private
    organizations. By dividing INS's structure into separate chains
    of command for enforcement and service, we would establish a
    single point of accountability for performance in each of our
    primary functions, while keeping these interconnected,
    interdependent functions under one organizational roof.
        Our proposal represents fundamental reform in the culture
    and in the operations of the agency. It would replace our
    current region and district office structure with a design
    focused on assigning the proper mix of skills and management to
    meet the enforcement and the case adjudication needs of local
    communities and the Nation. We hope we will be able to work
    with the committee as we finalize this draft proposal in the
    weeks ahead.

                                 budget request

        The fiscal year 2000 budget request totaling $4.27 billion,
    which is 8 percent more than 1999, continues to support the
    immigration goals and strategies that the administration and
    INS have effectively pursued over the past several years. The
    thrust of the budget is to extend ongoing initiatives, while
    maximizing the efficiency of current resources. It would allow
    us to strengthen a successful border management strategy, deter
    illegal immigration in the interior of the country, combat
    alien smuggling, and remove criminal and illegal aliens from
    the United States, while continuing to address the
    naturalization backlog and improve customer service.
        We must ensure the fiscal year 2000 budget provides INS
    with the resources necessary to meet our obligations to the
    American people, and I hope we can continue to work together to
    achieve those shared goals.
        Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I am happy to answer any
    questions you and the Members have.
        [The statement of Ms. Meissner follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                           naturalization processing

        Mr. Rogers. Thank you for your testimony.
        Now, is INS on target to process 1\1/2\ million
    naturalization applications this year, as we were promised last
    year?
        Ms. Meissner. Mr. Chairman, we began the year with the goal
    of 1.5 million naturalization completions. It quickly became
    clear in September and October that some changes, particularly
    systems changes that needed to be made, were not happening as
    quickly as they should, and so we have revised the goal to 1.2
    million. That is a very ambitious goal. We believe we can meet
    it. It would bring us to the point that we need to be in our 2-
    year effort to reduce this backlog and restore timely
    processing.
        Mr. Rogers. But you are not on that--you are not even on
    the 1.2 million person curve yet, are you? I mean if you
    straight-lined what you have done so far this year, you would
    fall far short of that, would you not?
        Ms. Meissner. If we were to straight-line what we have done
    so far, we would fall short. However, the productivity schedule
    that we have established calls for, and did from the very
    outset, substantially increased productivity in the second half
    of the year from the first half of the year, because the new
    staff that was provided in the fiscal year 1999 budget is
    currently in the hiring pipeline and will only arrive on board
    beginning in April. So the productivity that is gained from
    those 200 adjudicators, and I believe it is 100 clerical staff,
    can be realized in the second half of the year.
        Mr. Rogers. Well, if you did just the straight-line
    projection from now, where would you be?
        Ms. Meissner. Right now, we have done in the first 4 months
    of this year about 300,000 completions. That is twice as many
    as we did during this period of last year. If we were to
    straight-line that, because it is 4 months, that would bring us
    to between 900,000 and 1 million. So we need to go up to 1.2
    million, and therefore, that additional 200,000-plus needs to
    be--is in our calculations for the second half of the year.
        Mr. Rogers. You understand why I am a little bit skeptical,
    because you promised us a million and a half last year that you
    would do this year, and you have already lowered that target to
    1.2, and you are on a straight line for even less. So some of
    us are skeptical that you can meet even your lowered
    expectations.
        Ms. Meissner. Well, we are trying to be very honest and
    forthright with the Committee and with others on this issue. It
    is a massive undertaking. There is not only a tremendous
    productivity requirement that we have put on ourselves, but we
    are doing it during a period while entirely redesigning the
    process. We have been successful in the first steps of that. It
    is very ambitious, but we will do everything we can to meet it,
    and we believe that we will be able to meet it.
        Mr. Rogers. Now, will INS be able to process applications
    no matter where they are filed in the U.S. within 12 months?
        Ms. Meissner. This is a 2-year program to reduce the
    backlog. It is our intention to reach an average processing
    time by the end of this fiscal year; in other words, by October
    of 1999, of 12 months. That then requires fiscal year 2000, to
    reach the 6-month processing goal, which is ultimately where we
    want to be in order to restore a timely process.
        Mr. Rogers. Where are the waits likely to be over 12 months
    in this fiscal year?
        Ms. Meissner. We have a list of offices. I don't actually
    have it in front of me. I can provide it to the committee. I
    think that our major focus is the largest district offices that
    account for the major share of the caseload. Los Angeles, for
    instance, accounts for almost a third of this caseload
    nationally. Los Angeles has been the target of our first
    efforts, because we must obtain productivity there properly in
    order to do it properly around the country. We have focused
    attention on Los Angeles. Los Angeles is meeting and exceeding
    its targets. It will reach 12 months or less by the end of this
    fiscal year, and we are moving those techniques and proven
    processes of production management in Los Angeles into the
    other big offices, office by office.
        Our next targets are New York and Miami, which are the next
    largest share of the caseload. We have had in-depth
    discussions, analyses and changes in the way the work is being
    done in those offices in order to bring them to the same level
    of effectiveness that we are now seeing in Los Angeles, and
    that is how we will continue to proceed.
        Mr. Rogers. What is the processing time averaging in those
    larger cities now?
        Ms. Meissner. I believe that the processing time in some of
    those larger cities is 17 or 18 months, up to about 22 months.
    When we started this whole endeavor we were 24- to 25-plus
    months. So we have been able to bring it down, but unevenly
    around the country. Obviously, ultimately we want this to be
    consistent everywhere. We have to start where we can and move
    from there.
        Mr. Rogers. We have a vote on the floor, Commissioner, so
    we will be in a short recess.
        Ms. Meissner. Thank you.
        [Recess.]

                         release of illegal immigrants

        Mr. Kolbe [presiding]. The Subcommittee will resume. Mr.
    Rogers has asked me, while he is voting, to go ahead and start
    and maybe I can get my questions in during the time that he is
    gone here.
        Commissioner, thank you very much, and thank you for taking
    the time that you have to come up and talk to me and answer
    questions and concerns that I have as representative of a
    border State. Because we share a border with Mexico, we
    obviously have a lot of concerns. So most of the things I am
    going to talk to you about here today are things that we have
    probably already personally discussed, but I just want to get
    them for the record here.
        The first has to do with the INS policy of apprehending
    illegal immigrants in one location and moving them to another
    location to let them go. The experience that we have had is
    that the illegal immigrants are apprehended over in the Nogales
    area and they are brought to Douglas to be led across the line
    into Agua Prieta.
        First, I have questions about the theory of this. I guess
    the idea is, as I understand it from talking to Border Patrol
    agents on the ground, the idea is to break the connection
    between the illegal immigrant and the ``coyote,'' or the
    smuggler. Do we have any empirical evidence that this works,
    that fewer of these people come back across? Or that they just
    give up? Do they somehow wander back down into Mexico or do
    they stay on the border there? Do we have any empirical
    evidence at all that this works?
        Ms. Meissner. I would have to go back and ask whether we
    have empirical evidence. We certainly have a very strong
    experiential base within the Border Patrol for believing that
    that is helpful, and I am very much guided by the Border Patrol
    judgments on the ground as to their experience on these
    matters.
        Mr. Kolbe. When you say experiential, do you mean
    anecdotal?
        Ms. Meissner. Whether it is more than anecdotal I couldn't
    tell you right now, but I would be happy to follow up and
    determine that. There is clearly increased smuggling and
    organized movement in order for people to come across the
    border because we have gotten so much better at the border, it
    is just much more difficult to do it without guidance. So the
    idea of breaking the connection with the smuggler is crucial.
        I mean, for instance, in the San Diego area, one of the
    things that is going on now in El Centro is the effort to
    prevent the smugglers that used to operate south of San Diego
    from transplanting their operations in El Centro, and there are
    a variety of things that the Border Patrol does in order to try
    to discourage that from happening.
        The particular issue that you and I discussed about the
    numbers and the difficulties that that causes in the Douglas
    area, because that area is now such a hotspot, are issues that
    I have now discussed with Johnny Williams, the regional
    director, and what I want to pass on to you is that there is
    not a formalized agreement on direct numbers of swapping.
        Operationally, the people on the ground are charged with
    the responsibility for balancing this out so that there is not
    an undue burden in any particular place. As a practical matter
    right now, the apprehensions are so much reduced in Nogales,
    that there really is not Nogales activity of any magnitude
    compared to Douglas. In fact, it is the other way around. There
    is so much activity in Douglas that people are being taken and
    returned to an extent through Nogales.
        Mr. Kolbe. Let me see if I understand. You are saying
    today, more of those apprehended in Douglas are being released
    in Nogales than vice versa, so larger numbers are actually
    being moved to Nogales? If there is any of this movement going
    on, which I still question, are being moved from Douglas to----
        Ms. Meissner. To Nogales.
        Mr. Kolbe. How recent a phenomenon is this, this apparent
    reversal? I was not aware that the numbers in Nogales were down
    that much yet.
        Ms. Meissner. Well, I spoke about this with the region
    yesterday, and in Nogales they are now running an average
    between 200 and 250 per day, which is dramatically down.
        Mr. Kolbe. In Douglas, a town one-tenth the size----
        Ms. Meissner. In Douglas, about 95 over the last several
    days, last week or so. So there is a marked and dramatic change
    in Nogales, and that is the shift that is taking place.

                         douglas--apprehension hotspot

        Mr. Kolbe. That then leads me to my next question. It
    appears that at least in our area, I don't know whether this is
    true for the whole border, but as far as I know, the last big
    unplugged spot right now, at least that has a town of any
    consequence on the border, on both sides of the border, the
    last big unplugged spot appears to be Douglas. Is that an
    accurate statement?
        Ms. Meissner. What I can say to you as an accurate
    statement is that Douglas right now is the busiest, most highly
    pressured----
        Mr. Kolbe. The number one spot in terms of apprehension.
        Ms. Meissner. That is correct.
        Mr. Kolbe. Though Douglas is 10,000--oh, maybe 90,000 to
    100,000 as compared to the Tijuana-San Diego area of many
    millions.
        Ms. Meissner. That's right.
        Mr. Kolbe. So if we translate those numbers of
    apprehensions means that you can extrapolate from that, to some
    degree, at least, to the number of people that are surging
    towards the border in that area, and you can imagine the kind
    of pressure that is being put on a town of that size.
        Ms. Meissner. Yes. It is a very extraordinary pressure. We
    recognize that. We have had to go through these transition
    periods all along the way over the last 4 years as we have put
    the border strategy into place. We have increasing experience
    with how to work with the community on this. We know that there
    will be a period of time where that pressure will continue
    before we are able to deter it. People will be returning to the
    Douglas area on a regular basis to work with the ranchers and
    Mexican officials. We are particularly concerned as the heat
    intensifies this spring. The Border Patrol and the region have
    a carefully developed plan that they are working through, which
    will address these issues and I think it would be a good idea,
    I have asked the regional director to be in touch with you and
    brief you on these issues in the next weeks as they evolve.

                        construction of douglas station

        Mr. Kolbe. Thank you. I would very much appreciate that.
    But let me segue from that into the more specific--and maybe
    before I do that let me, if I might, just share with you, which
    I think I may have shared with you the other day, this one
    paragraph of a letter from the Mayor of Douglas to give you
    some feel for the problem that exists, where he writes in his
    letter to, I believe it was all of the Members of the
    Congressional Delegation--no, Mr. Pastor and myself:

        The perception in Douglas is that our community is being
    overrun. Many of our citizens, especially the elderly, have
    been exposed to the phenomenon of strangers driving down their
    alleys, running down their streets, hiding in their yards, are
    afraid to leave their homes or answer their doors after dark.
    The UDA's nocturnal activities disturb the peace and quiet of
    our city and cast a shadow of fear that was never before
    present. The barking of dogs, along with other sounds
    associated with these activities, create a situation where
    people cannot get a peaceful night's rest. Property is trampled
    and destroyed, homes are broken into, and a trail of garbage is
    left behind, not only in the city, but also in the outlying
    area. Our biggest fear is that the people's desperation and
    fear eventually will result in a situation that ends
    tragically.

        Let me just ask you, you and I talked about the concern
    that we have of the facility there, and we had a plan that I
    understood was to expand that facility which then, as I read it
    in the budget, is now been pushed back 2 or 3 years. I have
    been to this facility, this Border Patrol station. They are
    literally standing around. When they have the call at muster,
    people are standing outside because they can't all get inside,
    there are so many people. It is a facility that is so tiny
    compared to the number of people that they have there today
    that there are no desks for them. They are writing their
    reports on top of file cabinets. It is an awful situation in
    which they are working right now. What can you tell me about
    what we are going to do about that?
        Ms. Meissner. A new station for Douglas is among our
    highest priorities for construction. The President's budget for
    fiscal year 2000 for the Border Patrol is supporting the Border
    Patrol through technology and construction funding requests. We
    have a terrible shortage of space because of the very dramatic
    growth of the Border Patrol over the last 4 years. That is
    demonstrated exactly by what you are saying with the Douglas
    station. There is a new Douglas station scheduled for
    construction in the year 2001. It remains in the budget. The
    design is taking place now. The site acquisition and all of
    those issues are always 3-year endeavors, but Douglas is in
    that schedule, and there will be a new station in Douglas.
        Mr. Kolbe. So the 2000 budget would have the money for the
    design and planning of it, and 2001 for construction, is that
    correct?
        Ms. Meissner. That is correct.
        Mr. Kolbe. Okay. I might want to see if there is anything
    we can do to accelerate it. It has really been an intolerable
    situation for a couple of years and I don't know for how much
    longer they can go with this; because if that is the last
    unplugged area, you are going to have to get some temporary
    facilities or something, because you can't put more people in
    there, literally.
        Ms. Meissner. Right. But we have moved in modular
    facilities. That continues to be an option.
        Mr. Kolbe. I know. I have seen those.
        Ms. Meissner. Sometimes it is the best you can do, but it
    is obviously better than nothing.
        Mr. Kolbe. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I have some
    other questions. I may either submit them for the record or if
    I can, I will ask them.
        Mr. Rogers. Mr. Serrano.

                   2000 census and ins enforcement activities

        Mr. Serrano. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Commissioner, this morning we had our hearing with the
    Census Bureau, and among other things we discussed methods of
    reducing the undercount. As you know, the constitutional
    mandate for the census is to count everyone in the country on
    Census Day, regardless of citizenship status. But one group
    that tends to be more undercounted than others is immigrants,
    both documented and undocumented. Some come from countries
    where government is feared, some live in households where their
    landlords or local authorities may try to break them up; some
    are undocumented and fear any contact with government that
    might bring them to the attention of the INS. Census Director
    Prewitt said this morning that he has requested a moratorium on
    INS raids for the period of the 2000 census to make it
    absolutely clear that filling out a census questionnaire or
    answering an enumerator's knock at the door will not threaten
    any resident.
        Can you tell me what the INS plans are for encouraging all
    U.S. residents to participate in the 2000 census, and can you
    also assure me that INS does not and will not get information
    of any kind about individuals from the Census Bureau?
        Let me prior to your answer say that this is not just an
    issue for undocumented folks, which is obviously something that
    concerns you, but it is also about people who have just become
    citizens, who are still not fully understanding that in this
    country we don't have to fear the government to that extent, or
    at all, and they may just think that any participation might
    affect them also, whether they are here illegally or are here
    as citizens already.
        What can you tell me about this issue?
        Ms. Meissner. Well, participation in the census and an
    accurate census count is of overriding national importance.
    That is an issue that the INS and the Census Bureau have always
    agreed on. We have had discussions, I have had discussions with
    the prior Director of the Census about INS during the census
    period. Traditionally, INS has been very--``agreeable'' is even
    too weak a word. I mean, they have strongly supported the
    notion that we should make known during the period of the
    census that people need not have a fear of immigration
    enforcement in the process of the census being taken, and I
    would envision our doing the same thing for the 2000 census.
        I would also say that the issue of the way in which the
    Immigration Service enforces the law in communities and in the
    interior of the country is one that is changing. I made
    reference to that in my opening remarks. We are pursuing a
    strategy of enforcement in the interior of the country now
    which is much more targeted, which seeks to achieve high impact
    out of activities that are abusive, criminal in nature, or
    fraudulent. We are organizing our resources to focus them in
    those ways, so that we would increasingly see ourselves dealing
    with enforcement at the community level through removing
    criminals, through attacking smuggling, through focusing on
    benefit and document fraud. I think that that is the best way
    for us to enforce the immigration law. It also is a way that
    should create more confidence in communities about the nature
    of the immigration activity in their communities.
        Mr. Serrano. Now, would you categorize this as something
    that will be passively done by the INS, or is this something
    where you might go somewhat out of your way to make sure this
    happens. I remember the 1980----
        Ms. Meissner. We have gone out of our way in the past.
        Mr. Serrano. Well, but if you recall the 1980 census, one
    of the things that really broke our hearts in our communities
    was that the Catholic Church came out and said, We can't
    guarantee that people who come forth and say that they are in
    this country will be protected from the INS. Now, perhaps at
    that time the Church just spoke a little too quickly or
    whatever, but it created, I remember, an incredible feeling in
    my neighborhood among people who were legally here, waiting to
    apply or applying, which brings me to the whole issue of the
    backlog.
        You know, the backlog presents another problem in the
    census count. That is, if you are here legally, you are waiting
    to be processed, you are in the system, if you will, you still
    have a lot of these fears about how you deal with government
    and with the INS, especially the INS, and we have just got to
    make sure--and I don't know, Commissioner, that it would be
    enough to put out the word that it is okay.
        Is it possible as the census is going out there, for the
    Census Bureau in a very forceful way to say, ``Be counted,''
    for the INS to say, ``This is not an issue for us.'' I know
    that is a touchy thing for you because you are not supposed to
    advertise you are okay, if a person is not okay, but we do want
    to count people.
        Ms. Meissner. Right. Well, let me say that I will do
    everything that I can and on behalf of the Immigration Service,
    we will do everything that we can institutionally to work with
    the Census Bureau so that there is nothing in the immigration
    context that undercuts the ability of the Census Bureau to do
    its job.
        Now, we always will have the issue of criminal aliens and
    of criminal activity on the part of aliens. So we would not
    stand down where that work is concerned. But apart from
    criminal activity, we have, I think, been very aggressive in
    doing things that are appropriate to communicate that, above
    all, people should feel safe in participating in the census and
    in cooperating with the census, and I will be very eager to do
    that again.
        Mr. Serrano. Let me just say that for the record, I don't
    want you to stand down or back off from any of your duties; I
    just want us all to find a way that perhaps the message can
    come out from your agency that your work is not directly
    related to being counted in the census. That doesn't mean
    people who are in fear of the INS are going to start loving you
    overnight; that is not what we are looking for; but certainly
    people should feel there is no relationship between one and the
    other.
        Ms. Meissner. We have talked about that with the Census
    Bureau. That is a continuous conversation with the census
    approaching, and we will do everything we can to assure that.

                           chinese detainees in guam

        Mr. Serrano. Great.
        My colleague, Robert Underwood, the Delegate from Guam,
    asked me to raise this issue with you today.
        During the past year, more than 500 Chinese undocumented
    immigrants and smugglers, mostly men, have been apprehended on
    Guam. Since January of this year, a total of 235 have been
    apprehended. Just this past Sunday, the largest group so far,
    97 undocumented immigrants, including women and children, ran
    aground on Guam. Each of them is expected to apply for asylum.
        I understand that the INS does not have sufficient funds to
    process immigrants on Guam. How does INS propose to address the
    situation and to ensure that undocumented immigrants on Guam
    are processed in a timely manner?
        Ms. Meissner. The undocumented immigration that you are
    referring to is, by and large, large-scale smuggling of
    Chinese. It is the most vicious of the international
    trafficking of aliens that we deal with around the world today.
    We don't have sufficient detention capacity in Guam when groups
    arrive there, and that is something that we are working on. But
    the extent to which people do arrive in Guam and do apply for
    asylum, we have a very effective, efficient system now for
    processing asylum claims. I believe that we handle Guam by
    sending asylum officers there, although I will verify that, to
    interview people and to provide a case-by-case review of
    whether or not they have a well-founded fear of persecution. It
    is very much in the interests of an effective asylum
    decisionmaking process to handle those cases in as timely a
    fashion as possible, because if they are not handled timely, it
    encourages people who might be interested in misusing the
    system to do so.
        So we react very quickly to those situations. We work very,
    very diligently with the Coast Guard to prevent those boats
    from arriving in the first place. If they are indeed
    trafficking on the high seas, when they do arrive, we move as
    quickly as we possibly can to adjudicate cases so that any
    among those people who might validly be refugees can, in fact,
    get protection. We find that the very large majority are not
    eligible for asylum, and then we need to move as quickly as
    possible to return them, so that the message goes back not to
    abuse the system in this way.

                           alien smuggling from cuba

        Mr. Serrano. Let me ask you my last question for this round
    on a related issue.
        It is interesting, and I probably will get a couple more
    chances to say this before this year ends, but the Chairman and
    I have an ongoing kind of a side conversation here as to how
    long it will take for the census issue to come up during any
    hearing, or for me to bring up Cuba during any hearing. Well,
    guess what? I just did the census, and watch this question now.
        Interrelated to this smuggling issue, it used to be that if
    you came from Cuba, you were welcome here immediately. That
    changed somewhat over the last few years. It also used to be
    that if you have been involved in getting people from Cuba
    here, in spite of immigration laws, you were considered a hero
    not only by some people in the Miami community, but by a lot of
    people at the State Department. That also seems to be changing.
    There have been quite a few incidents reported lately of people
    from this country involved in, I would say, the business of
    trafficking and smuggling people from Cuba. Some have died,
    some never made it here.
        And I know you are not in the business of indicting people,
    that is not what you do; you prepare information. Is it as hard
    to get an indictment on this issue as it used to be years ago
    when it was welcome for everybody to break the immigration law,
    or has that changed at all? Some people would say that the
    hardest indictment to get in Miami is for getting a person out
    of Cuba. That is always a welcome thing to do.
        Ms. Meissner. Well, in our experience, your observation
    that these practices are changing is a correct observation. We
    believe that some of these practices are changing, and these
    changes amount to organized smuggling of one form or another in
    the case of people coming from Cuba, not all together, but to
    some considerable extent. The United States Attorney in Florida
    has been increasingly concerned with these changing practices
    as well, and is beginning to bring some cases as smuggling
    cases.
        I think the direct answer to your question is to look at a
    very recent case where, indeed, there was an indictment and I
    believe that the jury found guilty, and there was a sentence on
    a person who brought a group--the boat capsized or something
    happened to the boat, a significant number of people drowned,
    including the wife of the smuggler. It was a very tragic
    situation all around, but it does demonstrate that these are
    life-and-death activities, very dangerous activities, and I
    think we are starting to see some change in the behavior of the
    criminal justice system in responding to them.
        Mr. Serrano. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

                       border patrol request for fy 2000

        Mr. Rogers. Now, Commissioner, we have increased the number
    of Border Patrol agents from a fiscal year 1993 level of 3,900
    agents to fiscal year 1999 level of 9,000 agents, a 122 percent
    increase. Yet, while the stream of illegal aliens may have
    slowed in the San Diego area, it has moved east to Arizona, New
    Mexico and Texas, as Members of Congress and Border Patrol
    chiefs and agents will tell you.
        Additionally, we have barely begun to identify the needs
    for the U.S.-Canadian border, as alien smuggling and other
    forms of illegal immigration become more prevalent across the
    Northern border. Yet INS's budget request does not request one
    single additional Border Patrol agent for fiscal year 2000.
        You say in your testimony today that there are too many
    inexperienced agents, but Congressman Reyes, a former Border
    Patrol chief who has over 26 years of experience with INS and
    is a former Border Patrol chief, disagrees with you and says
    that the current level of less experienced agents is well
    within acceptable standards, as he testified on February 25th.
    He also says that all five Texas Border Patrol chiefs agree
    that they desperately need more agents, and that technology is
    irrelevant if you don't have Border Patrol agents to respond to
    it.
        What do you say to that?
        Ms. Meissner. Well, as you have noted, the Border Patrol
    has experienced very dramatic growth. It has more than doubled
    in the last 4 years and that has obviously been with very
    strong support from this Committee, and has involved a very,
    very aggressive hiring and training effort on the part of the
    Immigration Service. We have been able to bring this growth of
    several years into deployment. We have another 1,000 agents
    that are authorized and funded in this year's budget, the
    fiscal year 1999 budget. We are having some problems this year
    actually meeting our recruiting targets because of labor market
    issues, but we have the capacity to deal with these numbers; we
    have been able in the past 4 years to build this force up in a
    very, very aggressive fashion, and we continue to remain
    committed to the growth of the Border Patrol and to the
    strategy that we have put into place.
        The growth has been very substantial, however, and it has
    been explosive, and we have a very new work force.
        Mr. Rogers. I want you to stay on track. What about the
    charges that we need more Border Patrol agents?
        Now, you are not likely to hire all 1,000 that we provided
    for you in the current year bill. Six Border Patrol training
    classes have been canceled. Less than 400 agents are currently
    in training. In fact, if we continue as we are now, you will be
    lucky to hire 500 agents this year when we gave you 1,000. What
    are we doing to ensure that all of those agents that we gave
    you this year are on board by the end of 1999?
        Ms. Meissner. We have worked very aggressively this year on
    our hiring program. As I say, we have over the last 4 years met
    all of our hiring goals; we have opened a new training academy;
    we have not only maintained our training standards, we have
    improved the quality of the Border Patrol. We have the capacity
    to do this hiring. We have developed a recruitment and a
    training program that has been effective.
        This year, for the first year, we are hitting problems and
    they are problems that are labor market problems, similar to
    what the military is experiencing and what other law
    enforcement agencies are experiencing. We are in a business
    where the economy has, as we all know, very, very low
    unemployment, and where the standards that we are calling for
    with the Border Patrol are very stringent. We have the longest
    training period of any Federal law enforcement agency. We
    require Spanish language, which is an exceptional requirement
    as compared to other agencies, and so we are facing
    difficulties this year. We will not meet by the end of this
    fiscal year the hiring goal of 1,000.
        However, we are very aggressively changing our recruitment.
    We are working on the procedures to be sure that we are
    shortening the hiring period as much as we can, consistent with
    maintaining high standards, and that recruitment will,
    therefore, have to go over into the next fiscal year.
        However, the growth of the Border Patrol needs to continue.
    The Administration made the decision this year to support the
    Border Patrol through facilities, through technology. Our
    budget request is almost one-half support for the Border
    Patrol, $98 million in a combination of construction funds and
    technology funds. The technology is not a substitute for
    agents, we know that. At the same time, it is a very, very
    important force multiplier, particularly in areas like Texas
    and the more remote areas of the border.
        Mr. Rogers. What do you say to the five Texas border
    chiefs, Border Patrol chiefs that say that they desperately
    need more agents, and that technology is, and I am quoting
    them, ``irrelevant, if you don't have Border Patrol agents to
    respond to it,'' end of quote. Are they in error?
        Ms. Meissner. They are not in error. They know, as we all
    know, that the effectiveness of our efforts on the border is a
    combination of people, technology, and equipment. In all of the
    sectors we have provided a combination of those three factors.
    There are places where technology can be of more assistance
    than in others. The Texas Border Patrol sectors will be getting
    basically half of the 1,000 agents this fiscal year that will
    help them considerably. The technology that is in the budget
    for fiscal year 2000 will also help them very considerably,
    because it is state-of-the-art technology that will allow
    agents----
        Mr. Rogers. It just seems to me that every time we give you
    a goal and give you the money to do it and you promise us that
    you will do something, you always come up short. I mean,
    everything I have asked you about so far today, you have come
    up short. The naturalization, you are falling way short. Border
    Patrol agents, you can't hire them. And I have a lot more that
    I want to cover with you, but so far you are batting pretty
    close to zero.
        Ms. Meissner. Well now on the Border Patrol, the hiring
    that has taken place in the Border Patrol for the last 4 years
    has been an extremely ambitious program. We have met the goal
    every year. We have the capacity and we have demonstrated that
    we can meet the goal with a very high-quality work force. This
    year, we are dealing with a labor market situation that is
    beyond our control. We are adjusting to that situation as
    quickly as we can, but we are in the same boat as sister
    Federal agencies and the military. One cannot overcome those
    factors in simply a month or two. One has to recalibrate the
    pipeline, has to look for different sources of recruiting. This
    is an issue that is government-wide, and we are adjusting as
    quickly as we can in order to meet our obligations in the year.

                           southwest border strategy

        Mr. Rogers. Now, in January of this year, the GAO released
    their report on the Department of Justice management problems.
    In relation to the Southwest border, they said, quote, ``INS
    has spent billions of dollars on border enforcement, but has
    not yet done a comprehensive evaluation to determine whether
    its strategy to deter illegal entry has been effective.''
        Why haven't you done a comprehensive evaluation so that we
    can definitively know whether this very sizable investment that
    we are making in resources at the southwest border has been
    effective?
        Ms. Meissner. It is very important to be able to determine
    how the investment is paying off. We know that where we have
    applied resources, we are seeing results. We have a
    comprehensive evaluation, which is underway. Any evaluation of
    an issue of this magnitude takes some time to do. The
    evaluation has been contracted and we expect to have results--I
    actually need to verify for you when we will have the results
    of the evaluation, but I believe that it is within the coming
    fiscal year. And we recognize that we need to have a
    comprehensive evaluation, which is why we have made
    arrangements to accomplish that.
        Mr. Rogers. Who did you----
        Ms. Meissner. I believe that we are working with the Center
    for Naval Analysis, which has the skills and the background to
    assess an issue of this magnitude across this broad a
    geographic area.
        Mr. Rogers. Naval?
        Ms. Meissner. I believe so.
        Mr. Rogers. Naval Analysis?
        Ms. Meissner. Yes. It is one of the DOD research activities
    which now, since changes in the Defense Department, is working
    with domestic agencies on issues that are relevant to the
    techniques that they have developed over the years in analyzing
    DOD issues.
        Mr. Rogers. But you can't tell me when that is going to be
    finished?
        Ms. Meissner. I don't have it with me right now, but I will
    get back to you on that.
        Mr. Rogers. Does anybody in the room have that information
    with them? Surely somebody does.
        Ms. Meissner. Well, I believe that we will have some
    preliminary information late this spring, and more
    comprehensive information later in the year, but I will check
    that for you.
        Mr. Rogers. Okay. That's 0 for 3.
        Mr. Latham.
        Mr. Latham. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and welcome. I thank
    you for dropping by yesterday and having the opportunity to
    visit about the quick response teams and the video
    teleconferencing and Operation Vanguard. I am going to be,
    because of the hour of the day, quite brief here today and I
    will submit some questions for the record on those
    conversations we had yesterday.

                    proposed detention facility in nebraska

        Mr. Latham. But there is a critical issue in the Iowa-
    Nebraska region where the Omaha District Office has been
    attempting to construct and operate a 300-person capacity
    prefabricated detention facility in Grand Island. However, no
    funds have been made available by INS to do so. The region's
    jails are so overcrowded, probably as a result of the INS and
    other Federal prisoners, that the courts are going to start
    releasing prisoners. Opening up this planned detention facility
    which officials estimate could be done within 2 months is
    critical to addressing the problem. Is there a way for INS to
    find the funds to get this facility up and running this year?
        Ms. Meissner. I have to be honest with you to say that we
    have a very serious situation with funding for detention this
    year. The Grand Island facility is an idea that our central
    region has developed. We know that we need more detention in
    that part of the country. I would be very reluctant, however,
    to say that we would be able to fund that out of this year's
    funding, given what the funding picture is.
        Mr. Latham. Is there funding requested in the year 2000?
        Ms. Meissner. Funding for this is not currently in the
    fiscal year 2000 budget. We, however, have a continued funding
    issue in the fiscal year 2000 budget where detention is
    concerned, and we are working with OMB on solutions that we
    will bring to the Congress.

                         cooperative agreement program

        Mr. Latham. Okay. As you know, the Attorney General is
    requesting $35 million for the cooperative agreement program.
    Do you know how much of that INS will get, and do you have any
    idea where those funds are going to go in INS?
        Ms. Meissner. The cooperative agreement?
        Mr. Latham. Well, it is to help pay for incarceration of
    Federal prisoners.
        Ms. Meissner. Oh, the reimbursed funding to States.
        Mr. Latham. Right.
        With the Marshals Service.
        Ms. Meissner. Are we talking about the U.S. Marshals
    Service IGSA contract?
        Mr. Latham. Right, right.
        Ms. Meissner. Okay. A good deal of our detention capacity
    now is as a result of agreements with local jails to buy and
    use space from them, and that takes place all over the country,
    but that again is a function of dollars. So to the extent that
    we have funding limitations, those agreements are affected by
    those funding issues.

                                 fingerprinting

        Mr. Latham. What I would like to do is, I am going to have
    a delegation out here from Sioux City, Woodbury County, and if
    we could possibly get a meeting set up and visit to see if we
    can work on the problem. It is a major, major concern for the
    area.
        Just one final area. Do you know how many of the portable
    IDENT fingerprint systems INS has, and in the budget are you
    going to procure anymore portable systems in Sioux City?
    Basically, their computer system does not match up and they
    can't use it; they need a portable system up there.
        Ms. Meissner. I would be pleased to get back to you on what
    the plans are for that. There are a number of local areas that
    are interested in this and we work with them as comprehensively
    as we can. Actually, the best support that we are able to give
    to local law enforcement is through the Law Enforcement Support
    Center, which is this phone-in capability that we have to a
    center in Vermont that checks all of the criminal databases and
    responds to local law enforcement in the case where they have
    arrested somebody that they believe might be a criminal alien.
        Mr. Latham. You don't know if there is in the budget,
    though, anything for additional portable IDENT systems?
        Ms. Meissner. It would be part of our base budgeting. It is
    not a new request, but there is a good deal of that kind of
    technology in our base budgeting, so let me check to see
    whether any of it meets what you are asking about.
        [The information follows:]

        Using FY 1998 funding, INS has developed and deployed 55
    Portable IDENT (Mobile IDENT Stations) to 28 sites around the
    country.
        Presently, Sioux City does not have IDENT capability. In FY
    1999, we have $500,000 for the continuing deployment and
    development of Portable IDENT. That budget was approved by the
    INS Investment Review Board (IRB). We have received a request
    for portable units for the two agents in Sioux City and Omaha.
    That request was approved by INS Office of Field Operations,
    and they will have their equipment before the end of FY 1999.

        Mr. Latham. Thank you. I have some questions that I will
    submit.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

               effect of fingerprinting on naturalization backlog

        Mr. Rogers. Ms. Roybal-Allard.
        Ms. Roybal-Allard. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Welcome, Ms.
    Meissner.
        Ms. Meissner, as you know, one of the greatest concerns
    that many of us have is the tremendous backlog that has
    existed, and it is my understanding that you are not going to
    be able to meet the projected numbers in terms of reducing the
    backlog as originally anticipated.
        I was wondering, considering the backlog, what was the
    thinking behind a policy that you currently have that requires
    applicants that have not been naturalized within 15 months of
    their original FBI clearance to have to be reprinted and
    recleared. Because my understanding is that that is extremely
    costly and it really does slow down the process. In fact, last
    year, the INS testified before the House Judiciary Committee
    that there was an estimated 500,000 naturalization applicants
    that would have to be refingerprinted at a cost of about
    $19,600,000.
        Could you explain why the fingerprinting records of
    applicants are not stored at least for some period of time by
    the FBI to reduce the costs, or if there is some way to perhaps
    target applicants, for example, like the elderly, those who are
    less likely to be criminals, target them so that they don't
    have to go through this process again, and it would save time
    and money?
        Ms. Meissner. Well, first, let me reference the target
    number here, because as we have discussed earlier, at the
    beginning of the fiscal year, we had set a target of 1.5
    million cases, which we have revised to 1.2 million. That
    remains a very, very substantial completion rate. It is an
    historic high, would be a historic high for the Immigration
    Service and remains a very ambitious target, which we are
    working very hard to meet.
        The fingerprinting requirements that exist in the
    immigration process are of paramount importance to us because
    they go to the core of the integrity of the naturalization
    program, and of the new foundation of integrity that we have
    built for the naturalization program. Moreover, the
    fingerprinting technology that we are now using and the new
    fingerprint centers that we have put into place have been a
    very, very important advance and achievement in improving the
    process.
        The 15-month rule is a rule that is there in order to
    prevent or preclude the possibility of somebody committing a
    crime after the fingerprint check has been completed but before
    the naturalization decision is made. That is a quality issue.
    We have been in a catch-up period because the backlog cases had
    accumulated for so long; sometimes 2 to 3 years to create a
    backlog, and fingerprints had been cleared a long time ago. We
    had to submit fingerprints again to be certain that there
    wasn't current criminal information on those people. We have
    done that at no charge to the applicant, where we have had to
    reprint. But more importantly, now that the new fingerprinting
    procedures are in place, now that the quality assurance
    procedures are working correctly, and the integrity measures
    are in place the way they need to be, we are now calling people
    for their fingerprints only when it is sufficiently close to
    the interview so that we can be sure the time will not elapse
    to call for a fingerprint again.
        Now, we are still in the process of switching; where we are
    still dealing with older cases of people that were cleared
    longer than 15 months ago, and so we do have to inconvenience
    them. The pattern for the future and the newer cases that are
    coming in is to only call them to take their fingerprint when
    we can see the interview time is going to be available, and
    they, therefore, would fall within the proper time period and
    not have to come again.
        Ms. Roybal-Allard. So that is the method whereby you are
    actually going to be eliminating the cost and the delay?
        Ms. Meissner. Exactly. Exactly.

                           naturalization denial rate

        Ms. Roybal-Allard. Great. One of the concerns that we have,
    particularly in Los Angeles, and I know you have heard this
    before, is the significant increase in the denial rates. In
    fact, in Los Angeles, the denial rate increased from 7 percent
    to 43 percent during the same 1-year period.
        Could you explain for the committee why there is such a
    high denial rate? Also, why there is such a wide variation in
    denial rates between various INS district offices. For example,
    in the first quarter of 1999, the denial rate for INS districts
    ranged from 7 percent in Portland, Maine to a high of 67
    percent in Miami.
        Ms. Meissner. We are seeing some very dramatic changes in
    the denial rate. The denial rate had typically been somewhere
    in the neighborhood of 20 percent or less, and there are some
    districts, as you say, that are now in the 40 percentiles.
    There are actually some districts where there have been denials
    in the 50 percentiles. It is a function, we believe, of
    beginning to process the backlog in a very serious way. That is
    to say that we are requiring that our district offices go back
    into the old caseload. They have had a habit over time of often
    setting the difficult cases aside, or of setting the cases that
    were to be denied aside because it takes more work to write the
    denial letters and process the paperwork. As we require and put
    the procedures into place to work through all of those old
    cases, a lot of cases are now coming forward that are simply
    cases to be denied.
        In addition to that, we find that people have filed
    multiple applications, and so in joining the applications to be
    sure that we are operating out of one file, several are denied
    even though the person ultimately, in a consolidated
    application, may have an approvable case which is approved.
        We also are finding, particularly in locations like Miami
    where there have been a high proportion of elderly applicants,
    we are finding large numbers of people abandoning their
    application, and we believe that that is because the initial
    impetus for some people to apply had been changes in the
    welfare laws, which now have changed again, so that the urgency
    that they felt for naturalization is no longer so critical to
    them. That is particularly the case with elderly people who are
    having difficulty learning the English language and now that
    there is a change in their eligibility for particular programs,
    it is no longer necessary, in their view, for them to proceed.
        So there are all of those kinds of reasons. At the same
    time, we are concerned about these changes and we have to be
    absolutely certain that those reasons are indeed the reasons.
    So we have been monitoring this very closely. We have the very
    troubling issue of change of address that also creates an issue
    with denials. Some of these applicants who have been with us
    for a long time have changed their residences. The change in
    address may not have caught up with the file the way it should.
    If we have denied somebody improperly because we didn't know of
    their change of address and they filed the change of address
    with us, we will reopen that case at no cost to the applicant.
    Instructions on that procedure are going out to our district
    offices this week so that if you do hear of cases where people
    have filed with us an address change form and received a denial
    because we believe they abandoned their application, but, in
    fact, they didn't know that they were supposed to come in, then
    we will rectify that.
        Finally, I would tell you that on this change of address
    issue, this is a very significant issue for us overall, not
    just with denials. We need to have a centralized automated way
    of dealing with changes of address, and we are developing that
    and hope we will be able to put something into place later this
    year so that that is much easier for applicants and for the INS
    to handle and match up.
        Ms. Roybal-Allard. Okay. Now, if they did not file a change
    of address, they forgot or whatever, and then later come back
    and ask what has happened, will they be able to be processed?
        Ms. Meissner. Well, probably not. I mean, it is their
    responsibility to tell us if their address changed, and if they
    fail to do so and the time has tolled on their response to us
    for an interview or additional information, I think in those
    cases, then they would be required to be filed.
        Ms. Roybal-Allard. What kind of proof? In other words, they
    send a form in saying they have a change of address, it gets
    lost or something happens, and what----
        Ms. Meissner. We will give the benefit of the doubt in
    these cases because we know we are dealing with massive
    conversion here.
        Ms. Roybal-Allard. Okay. Thank you.
        Mr. Rogers. Mr. Wamp.

                              interior enforcement

        Mr. Wamp. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Commissioner, thanks for being here. I have great empathy
    for you. I can't even imagine the challenges that you face. I
    know misery loves company, and if it will make you feel a
    little better, the census guy, he is in more trouble than you
    are in.
        But I got home----
        Mr. Serrano. We are hoping you don't have any more trouble.
        Mr. Wamp. I got home last weekend to a story in Chattanooga
    of 24 illegal aliens that were rounded up by the authorities
    and, there wasn't anything they could do with them. They were
    headed to a tomato farm in south Georgia, so they just loaded
    them back up and sent them on their way. Then, by the time the
    weekend was over, the same situation happened again in a
    neighboring county, in Polk County, and again, there was
    nothing that could be done, and they literally put them back in
    the truck and sent them on their way.
        The folks back home are asking me, ``Have we just given up,
    or are we just so overloaded that we can't deal with any of
    these problems?''
        Now, I think it was someone with the INS, interviewed on
    television and he said--and my wife and I were commenting, that
    it was a really heartwarming response, because he said, ``You
    can't blame these folks. They are basically just trying to feed
    their families. They are just trying to provide for
    themselves.''
        So I certainly have great empathy for them as well. But I
    do wonder if we are in effect having to just give up on some of
    the immigration problems that our country faces. We are pretty
    far inland, but there is an awful lot of aliens in southwest
    Tennessee and northwest Georgia.
        Ms. Meissner. Well, I think that we have to say quite the
    opposite from giving up. We are not only not giving up, we are
    making significant headway. Now, that is not to say that we
    have been able to, or will be able to solve all of the problems
    that surround illegal immigration. At the same time, what you
    are seeing is changes in the patterns of moving people into the
    country, largely because we have been far more successful in
    our enforcement at the southwest border. And what has happened,
    unfortunately, is that, as always happens with law enforcement,
    we are finding far more organization and organized activity in
    the response to the enforcement that has taken place and
    therefore a need for us to respond in new and different ways,
    more aggressively, and in more complex situations than has been
    the case in the past.
        Now, the most immediate thing that I can tell you is work
    that this Committee did in the last budget round, which is by
    giving us 200 positions for what is being called ``Quick
    Response Teams,'' which will be located in places around the
    country that are experiencing these trafficking patterns
    changing, as well as other local law enforcement implications
    of changes in illegal immigration. Those quick response teams
    will be precisely for the purposes of supporting local law
    enforcement when occurrences like this take place. Those people
    will begin to be hired on site later this fiscal year. So you
    can tell your constituents that we will be doing everything
    that we can with the support of this Committee and of the
    Congress to meet their needs.

                               foreign adoptions

        Mr. Wamp. Shifting gears real quick, we have a lot of
    nonprofit and faith-based groups that work adoptions from
    foreign countries, and it is very complicated. We are inundated
    with it in our office, local casework, and constituent work.
    But can you just talk about the trends and challenges that we
    face? Obviously, as we try to discourage abortion around the
    world, adoption is the best alternative, and a lot of people in
    this country are seeking to adopt people from other countries,
    and I guess it is overloading you as well.
        Can you speak to that issue?
        Ms. Meissner. Yes, I can. I would say that the adoption
    cases, we call them orphan cases, are probably among the two or
    three most complex adjudications that we perform. They are not
    only complex from the standpoint of the legal requirements and
    all of the bases that need to be touched to approve an adoption
    as a proper adoption; they are also very labor-intensive
    because they don't lend themselves to automation; they involve
    coordinating with foreign governments, with foreign attorneys,
    with adoption agencies that operate abroad, with home study
    social services agencies in the United States, and they also
    function in the context of extreme emotional anxiety and
    feelings on the part of the new parents.
        So I wish we could devote more resources to adoptions. We
    actually have some of our very best people around the country
    that handle these cases in our offices, and the critical thing
    for us is to be absolutely certain that the babies indeed are
    legitimately available for adoption. That can be very complex
    in particular countries around the world because, as we know,
    poor parents can be very desperate and there are some real dark
    practices that take place in the name of humanitarianism in
    this arena.
        Mr. Wamp. One final question. Are you aware of the fact
    that Mr. Serrano's nephew is now a professional baseball player
    and was drafted last year? I thought, Jose, you might want to
    talk about that just for a minute. You have got the card in
    your pocket.
        Mr. Serrano. He is not playing in that Cuba game on
    Saturday. He is on his way to San Jose.
        Mr. Wamp. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Serrano. Thank you for mentioning it.
        Ms. Meissner. Congratulations all around.
        Mr. Rogers. Is the gentleman finished?
        Mr. Wamp. Yes.

                              quick response teams

        Mr. Rogers. The gentleman from Tennessee is advised that
    this Subcommittee, as the Commissioner mentioned, established a
    Quick Response Team network in our bill for the current year,
    and we are halfway through that year, but I understand the
    Quick Response Teams, which there will be one in most States,
    most interior States, including Tennessee, so that your law
    enforcement officials will have a number they can call and the
    team will be based in Tennessee and they will be able to come
    and quickly work in the situation like the situation you
    mentioned. That is due to the work of your trusted
    Subcommittee.
        Mr. Wamp. Thank you.

                     immigration enforcement and the census

        Mr. Rogers. Now, Commissioner, did you say during your
    conversation with Mr. Serrano that during the census taking,
    that deportation would be suspended?
        Ms. Meissner. I did not.
        Mr. Rogers. Tell me what you said.
        Ms. Meissner. I said that we would of course, continue our
    work where criminal alien activities are concerned but that we
    would seek to cooperate with the census as fully as we can to
    be sure that people feel free to participate in the census.
        Mr. Rogers. Well, what does that mean? Are you going to
    cease to work on evicting illegal aliens?
        Ms. Meissner. The census period is a very short period and
    the arrangement that has taken place in the past during the
    census period, which as I recall is usually a week or two, is
    that the Immigration Service has tried to make clear that it
    would work only where criminal matters are concerned and would
    not have operations in immigrant neighborhoods that might
    create a chilling effect on the ability of the census to be
    taken.
        Mr. Rogers. It is a separate question. Are you going to
    continue to seek out and evict illegal aliens, people who are
    here illegally, who enter the country illegally?
        Ms. Meissner. We will continue to remove criminal aliens
    from the country and people who are in the deportation----
        Mr. Rogers. I didn't say criminal. I said illegal aliens.
        Ms. Meissner. I would think that our normal activities
    where people who are subject to deportation and in immigration
    proceedings of one sort or another--if their date for removal
    were to arrive during that census week, I would think that we
    would enforce those deportation orders.
        Mr. Rogers. You are only talking about the one week?
        Ms. Meissner. Traditionally it has been the week or two
    during which the census takers are in neighborhoods that have
    been of concern.
        Mr. Rogers. That is the only time you are talking about
    easing up at all?
        Ms. Meissner. That is correct.
        Mr. Rogers. What about the Border Patrol? Will they
    continue to patrol the border?
        Ms. Meissner. Absolutely. That has nothing to do with the
    census.
        Mr. Rogers. And the law enforcement agents within the
    interior will continue to do their work?
        Ms. Meissner. They will continue to investigate cases.

                  emergency supplemental funding for detention

        Mr. Rogers. All right. Now, you are asking for $80 million
    in emergency funding for nearly 3,000 additional detention beds
    for criminal aliens from Central America and illegals from
    Central America apprehended at or near the border. If we don't
    provide the funds, criminal aliens, criminal aliens could be
    released into the community while they are awaiting deportation
    and waves of new illegal aliens may reach our Southwest border
    on the hopes of being released for a lack of detention space.
    The need for emergency detention space is in large part a
    direct result of INS's failure to plan for and request in a
    timely fashion sufficient detention space to meet its statutory
    requirements. We have had two years to prepare for that
    requirement. We knew it was coming and yet there is no planning
    done. It is not the first time that INS has not planned and
    requested sufficient detention space to house criminal and
    illegal aliens.
        In fiscal year 1997 we provided program increases of over
    $114 million, $70 million over what you ask us for detention
    due to the then shortage of space which resulted in INS
    releasing criminal and illegal aliens. Since then, your
    requests have focused on building some detention space but not
    requesting immediate contract space to provide for the
    immediate detention needs. In fiscal year 1999, the first year
    that the mandatory criminal alien detention rules became fully
    effective, your request was far short of its need for immediate
    space. Knowing that INS did not have enough detention space to
    detain all the criminal aliens required by law, why weren't
    funds requested for additional and immediate detention space
    earlier?
        Ms. Meissner. As you say, there has been a very dramatic
    increase in detention funding over the last several years. We
    have, with the Committee's support, increased by over 140
    percent the detention resources available in the INS. We have
    increased those resources both through a combination of INS
    resources, more through agreements with local jails in which we
    buy bed space, and those increases in bed space have been
    accompanied by very significant staffing increases, recruitment
    training, hiring of detention staff so that we have had a major
    buildup from about 6,000 beds to close to 15,000 beds over the
    course of a few years.
        The pressures that we are facing now, this year, in
    detention and the $80 million that is in the supplemental
    request comes about as a result of a number of different
    factors. The mandatory detention requirements that you
    referenced go into effect this year. We were on the track for
    being able to meet those requirements, along with a series of
    management changes and improvements in our own handling of
    detainees that we have been concerned with, particularly the
    Institutional Removal Program where we need to see improvements
    in our ability to remove more people from State and Federal
    prison custody without having them come back through our own
    facilities.
        We have put all of our district offices under requirements
    to improve their procedures. All of them have given us
    improvement programs which indeed have erased the backlog of
    cases that need to be interviewed in the seven large
    Institutional Hearing Program States. We are on track with
    meeting the IRP requirements for this year. There are
    additional management improvements that need to be made through
    administrative removals and use of other legal streamlining
    measures that are available to us.
        The mandatory detention is an area where we could have been
    better prepared from the standpoint of collecting data over the
    last several years that would have allowed us to work with the
    Congress on the best ways to meet those mandatory requirements.
    That data is now being gathered, but we were short in being
    able to rigorously estimate and demonstrate the needs that
    those mandatory requirements would bring about. Then those
    things combined with, of course, the unexpected element of the
    hurricane and what that has meant for us where the stays of
    deportation on Central Americans are concerned have created the
    difficulty this year.

                         institutional removal program

        Mr. Rogers. On top of all the monies we have given you,
    there are tremendous increases. No agency, I don't believe in
    the whole government, has gotten more consistent and large
    increases as we have given INS over the last 4 to 5 years. And
    yet here we are bailing you out again in the middle of the year
    for something you didn't anticipate or ask us about. And then
    to top it all off, in 1997 GAO concluded that many criminal
    aliens were released into the community and that if INS had
    completed proceedings for all aliens released from State and
    Federal prisons before their release, it could have avoided
    nearly $63 million in detention costs. And only now when the
    mandatory detention of criminal aliens required by law has
    become effective and INS by its own hand has a detention
    crisis, only now is INS looking at ways to improve the
    Institutional Removal Program. 0 for 4.
        Why hasn't the INS made the Institutional Removal Program
    the effective cost-saving program that it should be, briefly?
    We are running out of time.
        Ms. Meissner. The Institutional Removal Program has been in
    our line of sight for quite sometime. We instituted the changes
    that GAO recommended in its report. All of the cases that they
    brought to our attention have indeed been interviewed and
    identified. We put requirements last year on our district
    offices on more effective management of the program. Every
    district has a plan for how to improve its management of the
    Institutional Removal Program. The plans are being adhered to.
    Accountability is fixed to meeting the targets.
        This year we have set ourselves a target of 16,800, I
    believe is the number of removals under the Institutional
    Removal Program. We will exceed that target and are likely to
    achieve about 18,000 removals under that program. So the issue
    is being addressed. We believe that the Institutional Removal
    Program is an excellent way to deal with the criminal alien
    responsibility that we have and we are addressing it as
    aggressively as we can and will continue to do so.
        Mr. Rogers. GAO identified these problems over 2 years ago.
        Ms. Meissner. We began to work on them early last year,
    soon after we got the GAO report. I believe that we did have
    some period of time where we were not as aggressive internally
    with this as we might have been. We have been very aggressive
    on this for the last year, and continue to be so. I think the
    improvements are showing results.
        Mr. Rogers. Which GAO recommendations have been
    implemented?
        Ms. Meissner. GAO asked us to look at a series of cases. We
    have looked at all of those cases and dealt with them so they
    have been disposed of one way or the other. GAO recommended
    changes in our tracking system. We have put those changes into
    place. GAO recommended workload analysis measures. Those
    workload analysis measures have been developed. There are, I
    believe, two or three other recommendations that we have
    addressed.
        Mr. Rogers. In the fiscal 1999 conference report of our
    Subcommittee, the Congress recommended that INS replace the
    more experienced and higher-paid special agents used in IRP
    with immigration agents. Even detention officers might be used
    instead of special agents. Such a change as that would reduce
    the overall cost of IRP and would free up more experienced
    agents for alien smuggling and other higher priority
    investigative projects. Have you prepared a plan to make those
    adjustments?
        Ms. Meissner. We have had those adjustments. We run our
    Institutional Removal Program with the lower-graded immigration
    agent. We have, however, had very high turnover with that
    occupation and that has been one of the difficulties in the
    Institutional Removal Program. But the people who actually do
    that work who are located at the institutions interviewing the
    prisoners are always looking to bid on higher paying jobs and
    do so regularly. With the hiring that has been going on in the
    agency, particularly in the last year or two, the investigator
    hiring which is a higher-graded position, we have had very high
    turnover. I think we have had turnover sometimes in the 30 and
    40 percentiles on that immigration agent position.
        Mr. Rogers. Staff tells me that that is incorrect. It is
    only being studied, that there have been no moves yet in
    changing the personnel that I asked you about.
        Ms. Meissner. What I am saying to you is that we do the IRP
    work with the lower-graded agent. We do not believe that that
    is working as well for us as it ought to because of the
    attrition that we are seeing in that occupation. So we are
    looking at what we need to do to remedy that. There are a
    series of recommendations that are coming forward. We are
    likely to change the program direction where that effort is
    concerned in order to get a more consolidated overall direction
    for the program, but it is the lower-graded employee that is
    doing that interviewing, and we have got to solve the problem
    of attrition because that is not investigative work in the more
    technically skilled areas that things like antismuggling
    represent.
        Mr. Rogers. Mr. Serrano.

                  immigration enforcement and the 2000 census

        Mr. Serrano. Mr. Chairman, I want to just very briefly, in
    response to your questions of the Commissioner, to reinforce my
    desire that the INS not stop their work during the census
    period; simply that they don't send mixed signals to the
    community. This is important so people will go out there and
    get themselves counted. Please understand that that is our only
    concern.
        Mr. Chairman, with your permission, is it proper--can I
    yield my time to the gentleman from North Carolina who has some
    very specific issues to ask?
        Mr. Rogers. Generally we allow visitors from the full
    committee on the subcommittee to ask questions when members of
    the subcommittee have exhausted themselves first.
        Mr. Serrano. I feel terribly exhausted right now.
        Mr. Rogers. If no member objects, I think we can do that.
        Mr. Serrano. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Rogers. Mr. Price.

                naturalization and adjustment of status backlogs

        Mr. Price. Thank you. I appreciate your courtesy, Mr.
    Chairman, and also our Ranking Minority Member and other
    members of the Subcommittee. I am a member of the Full
    Committee. I am only a former member of this Subcommittee, but
    I was eager to be here today and I appreciate your courtesy in
    allowing me to spend a few minutes and to raise some questions.
        Ms. Meissner, I want to welcome you, of course, to the
    Subcommittee, and thank you for your testimony.
        I am here, though, because I do have some very serious
    concerns about some experiences we have had in our region with
    your agency and with the handling of cases, and I just want to
    raise these issues with you and see what kind of understanding
    we can come to as to how these problems might be addressed.
        What we are talking about, and I am sure it is not news to
    you, is the backlog and the time that it is taking for people
    to get an answer from your agency, the backlog in citizenship
    and adjustment of status applications that you are facing, I
    suppose all over the country, but certainly in North Carolina
    and in the southeastern region of this country. In my district
    offices, I currently employ three caseworkers who spend between
    half and three-quarters of their time ironing out problems with
    the INS, and I can tell you that that is two or three times the
    amount of staff time I have had to dedicate to this in the time
    I have been in office, since the early years I was in office.
        I recently sent these staff members to an INS workshop in
    Atlanta to find out how we can do a better job on our casework.
    At that workshop my staff learned that Atlanta holds the
    dubious distinction of being the most inefficient INS office in
    the Eastern Region. Efficient, I guess, is what we say because
    it is a dubious distinction. It is measured as a ratio of the
    total percentage of work each office in the region is handling
    and the total percentages of the budget it receives. At that
    measure we have a 3.6 efficiency rating, meaning that we are
    doing a great deal of work with a relatively small amount of
    money.
        What that rating does not take into account is the pending
    and in this case an increasing workload. In the last 5 years,
    the number of pending cases that the Charlotte field office has
    handled has increased from 2,000 to over 16,000. That is an 800
    percent increase. As I understand it, there are currently 4,850
    citizenship applications pending, an additional 8,000 waiting
    input at the Texas Service Center. There are 5,400 pending
    applications for adjustment of status; an additional 6,400
    justifications other than citizenship and adjustment of status
    pending. That is a total of 16,650 pending applications not
    including 8,000 in Texas that ultimately will be referred to
    Charlotte. In addition, some 6,000 persons come into their
    office every month seeking information service.
        Now, remarkably, all of this work is being handled by a
    Charlotte field office of 33 employees. Of that number, three
    are term employees. Seven are in the incumbent or overhire
    categories. So in addition to having a disproportionate share
    of resources and an increasing backlog, we have the potential
    to lose up to 10 employees through attrition who would not be
    replaced.
        Now, I know you have made some effort to try to address the
    backlog. Charlotte, in fact, benefited from the deployment of
    one of your backlog reduction teams which conducted almost
    7,000 interviews and swore in over 3,500 citizens last fall.
    But the team did not eliminate the backlog and Charlotte is now
    left with just two officers who can conduct naturalization
    interviews.

                               backlog resources

        When I look at your budget, I don't see anything that will
    enable you to achieve the 6-month backlog goal that you have
    set for yourselves. Six months is still a long time, but it
    surely would represent a substantial improvement over where we
    are now. I know that you have increasingly focused on
    enforcement and border protection and that is very important.
    But it shouldn't come at the expense of services for legal,
    taxpaying immigrants.
        Your budget request, as I read it, does not add up to a
    game plan for addressing the problems that we are experiencing
    in the Southeast Region.
        For the enforcement account, you have requested 146 new
    FTEs. For the Citizenship and Benefits Immigration Support and
    Program Direction account, I see only 7 additional FTEs. That
    appears to be for immigration support data and communications
    systems. I would like to know how we are going to get this
    problem addressed, and these are my specific questions. I know
    we have got a vote and we are going to have to go. If you can
    respond orally or for the record.
        Number one, does the request for Citizenship Immigration
    Support and Program Direction account with just 7 new FTEs
    reflect what you have submitted to OMB? Is that your best
    judgment of what you need?
        Secondly, does INS have any realistic long-term plans to
    reduce or perhaps even eliminate the backlog?
        Third, can you provide me with some information about the
    nationwide backlog? How Charlotte compares to the national
    average and how many FTEs you would need to reduce the backlog
    on all pending applications to 6 months?
        And finally, can I at least get some assurance from you
    that the 3 term employees currently assigned to the Charlotte
    office will not be withdrawn or reassigned?
        Ms. Meissner. The reduction of the naturalization backlog
    is our first priority where our immigration services work is
    concerned. We have historic levels of citizenship applications
    in our caseload having developed over the course of several
    years. The backlog reduction program is a 2-year target for the
    Immigration Service that has been supported by this committee.
    This is the first year in the backlog reduction. It is going to
    take through next fiscal year because we are dealing with a
    caseload nationally now of about 2 million cases. Those are
    historic levels and have been for several years.
        I will be happy to work with you on Charlotte where the
    resources are concerned and the comparison of those resources
    to be sure that they are equitable as around the whole country.
        But where the budget overall is concerned, the support for
    this case processing does come from the fees that people pay in
    order for their cases to be adjudicated. That has been for this
    backlog reduction effort amplified by additional funds in this
    fiscal year's budget and that funding is extending into next
    year, the fiscal year 2000 budget.
        I am not sure how it is displayed in the way that you are
    recounting it in your remarks, but there is funding support for
    backlog reduction this year and next year apart from the fees
    that applicants pay. We are doing everything that we can to try
    to move this agenda forward as aggressively as we possibly can,
    and I will try to work with you in every way that I can to be
    sure that that is felt in your district.
        Mr. Price. I appreciate that. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate
    the chance to raise these issues. Of course we need some help
    with Charlotte. We have said that repeatedly. We do mean that
    and we welcome your offer of cooperation and support.
        I do have questions and I think it would be useful for the
    record if you could provide a documentation of how your
    agency's goals in terms of reducing these various backlogs
    square up with what appear to be very modest FTE requests and a
    budget request that does not seem to reflect the kind of all-
    out mobilization I would think these backlog numbers would
    require.
        Now, maybe I am missing something, but I would appreciate a
    fuller documentation of exactly how we get from point A to
    point B in terms of these backlog reductions.
        Ms. Meissner. We will provide that because that has been
    something we have worked very closely with the Committee to
    achieve and we have worked very closely within our agency to
    achieve. We are mobilizing everything we can.
        Mr. Rogers. We have votes on the floor and the gentlelady
    will submit a written report on the question.
        Ms. Meissner. I will do that.
        [The information follows:]

    Immigration and Naturalization Service Naturalization Backlog Reduction
                                      Plan

        At the end of FY 1998, the INS had 1,843,880 naturalization
    applications pending. Official INS receipt projections indicate that we
    will receive 700,000 new applications in FY 1999. INS's goal is to
    complete 1,200,000 applications this fiscal year. Based on these
    figures, we will have approximately 1,344,000 applications pending at
    the end of FY 1999. Based on these pending and completions projections,
    INS's target is to achieve a nationwide 12 months average processing
    time at the end of FY 1999.
        First Quarter FY 1999 Actual Production: INS received 224,009
    naturalization applications, and completed 238,062 naturalization
    applications during first quarter FY 1999. We had 1,836,715
    applications pending at the end of first quarter FY 1999.
        INS completed 97 percent more applications in first quarter FY 1999
    (238,062) than during first quarter FY 1998, when we completed 120,838
    applications.
        The INS received a record 253,105 applications in January 1999,
    more than in any other month in INS history. A total of 2,032,279
    applications were pending at the end of January 1999 and 69,419
    applications were completed. We had a completion goal of 95,000 for
    January. Actual production fell 27 percent short of the goal; however,
    116 percent more applications were completed in January 1999 than in
    January 1998 when 32,076 were completed.
        In some offices the backlogs have grown. To address these
    increases, the Boston, Dallas, and Houston offices have been allocated
    additional adjudications officer positions. Most offices will receive
    additional clerical support.
        The two hundred term district adjudication officer positions,
    provided in the FY 1999 Appropriations Act, have been distributed to
    the eight districts with the most critical need for additional officer
    resources (Los Angeles, San Francisco, Chicago, Miami, New York City,
    Boston, Houston, and Dallas account for 74 percent of INS' pending
    caseload). The one hundred immigration information officer positions
    have been distributed to the four service centers. All of the districts
    and service centers are expeditiously recruiting to fill these
    positions. Of the 357 authorized contract clerical positions allocated
    to most centers, 81 percent of these positions were filled on April 30,
    1999.

        Mr. Rogers. We will stand in short recess. Mr. Latham will
    return shortly to resume the hearing and then I will return
    shortly with Mr. Serrano.
        [Recess.]

                              quick response teams

        Mr. Latham [presiding]. The Chairman will be back shortly.
    In the meantime, I think maybe we could talk about the QRTs.
    QRTs are very, very important to Iowa and Nebaska and hopefully
    we will have some news soon on that issue. Can you tell me how
    much money is set aside in the INS budget for QRTs in your
    proposal for fiscal year 2000?
        Ms. Meissner. In fiscal year 2000, there would be the
    continuation of the support in 1999 for the QRTs. The full
    hiring and deployment of those people is going to happen at the
    end of this fiscal year because of the recruitment processes.
    They really become fully operational in fiscal year 2000 and so
    the funding support then is in the base. There is not
    additional funding right now in the President's request for
    that program.
        Mr. Latham. How many will you actually have this year? How
    many teams?
        Ms. Meissner. The budget this year provides for, I believe,
    200 positions.
        Mr. Latham. Fifty teams?
        Ms. Meissner. Basically. I think that actual number will be
    announced in the next days because that has been a discussion
    between the INS and the Committee, but there will be teams in a
    very large number of States.
        Mr. Latham. You don't know whether you are at this point
    anticipating, since we don't have the teams yet and thus don't
    know what kind of reaction we will have, how many teams you
    will have fielded by next year?
        Ms. Meissner. We intend to be as close to fully hired up
    with these as we possibly can, and it is our intention to hire
    all of them during this fiscal year and then they would be, as
    I say, operationally effective in the coming fiscal year. But
    our hiring plan calls for completing the hiring process between
    now and September 30.

                         video teleconferencing grants

        Mr. Latham. We visited yesterday about the video
    teleconferencing grants. It is something that is going to be
    very, very beneficial, I think, especially for the rural areas
    that aren't well served.
        Just for the record, where are you on the memorandum of
    understanding?
        Ms. Meissner. The videoconferencing is a combination of
    funding to the Immigration Service and to the Office of Justice
    Programs, particularly the COPS program which has grant-making
    authority. The INS does not have grant-making authority. The
    videoconferencing will be handled now through the COPS Program.
    A large share of the disbursing of those funds will be handled
    through the COPS program machinery. We have worked out an
    agreement verbally with the staff there that will be formalized
    in a memorandum of understanding which we would expect to have
    completed, I think, by the end of April, and then the COPS
    program would anticipate soliciting proposals for the
    videoconferencing later in the spring, I believe, in the May/
    June time frame.
        The actual awards of the grant money would occur according
    to the timetable in August, and after that there is a certain
    amount of training and so forth that needs to take place, but
    again these would be fully operational in the next fiscal year
    with planning and the grant-making taking place this fiscal
    year.

                  staffing for video teleconferencing centers

        Mr. Latham. Do you foresee any problems as far as the
    regional centers getting up and operating there? Obviously we
    have the local entities that are going to be applying and
    getting the equipment. But as far as your office, say, in
    Chicago or wherever, as far as that actually being operational
    24 hours a day, do you foresee any problem there?
        Ms. Meissner. I don't foresee any technical problems. The
    technology is available to do it. Moreover we have the
    commitment to do it because we believe it is a very cost-
    effective way of linking with areas that are far afield where
    we would not otherwise be able to provide coverage.
        We will need and want to put together a sufficiently
    comprehensive network of communities participating to justify
    the 24-hour coverage, because we always have tugs and pulls
    where that kind of staff resource is concerned. But we want to
    be able to do that. The idea of a hub, a command center where
    you can have 24-hour coverage, then, to really leverage that
    staff resource is something that we think makes an enormous
    amount of sense, so we are going to do everything we can to
    accomplish it.
        Mr. Latham. How many people do you envision at one of the
    centers? Twenty-four hours a day, but what kind of staffing
    requirement do you think that is going to take?
        Ms. Meissner. Well, I would have to check. Actually, given
    the amount of coverage that you can achieve for it, it is not a
    burdensome commitment of staff. Obviously it is 24 hours, so
    you are talking about a minimum of three people every day in
    order to be able to do it. But part of doing this--of course,
    we haven't done this before, so we have done it in a certain
    form. We have done it in the San Diego area so we have some
    experience, but each part of the country is a little different,
    so some of this will be testing out how much staff coverage
    actually is required in order to meet the 24-hour requirement.
    Can we do it with one person on watch or do we need more than
    that?
        Mr. Latham. In the memorandum with the COPS, because of the
    distance different police departments would be from INS, are
    you suggesting any preferences as far as eligibility? Such as
    the distance from a current INS office, say, from Omaha or from
    Sioux City?
        Ms. Meissner. I don't believe that distance is a
    constraint. I think the constraint, to the extent that it
    exists, has to do with the command center, the staffing of the
    command center, how much traffic, as it were, the command
    center can handle and be responsive.
        Mr. Latham. Do you have any idea how many grants will be
    able to be given with the $3 million provided by the
    Subcommittee?
        Ms. Meissner. I believe that we are talking about 20 sites
    for that funding amount.
        Mr. Latham. Right. Not 20--for rural police departments? It
    should be more than that. There is 3 million dollars.
        Ms. Meissner. I guess there would be----
        Mr. Latham. You are talking about the centers, right, and
    not the individual grantees?
        Ms. Meissner. And not the individual police department.
        Mr. Latham. Right.
        Ms. Meissner. I believe that the 20 sites are INS locations
    and then there would be spokes off of those wheels.
        Mr. Latham. You don't know how many that would fund as far
    as the spokes out there?
        Ms. Meissner. We can try to provide that information. I
    don't know right now.
        [The information follows:]

        Immigration and Naturalization Service Number of COPS VTC Grants

        As a very preliminary estimate, we understand that the COPS
    Office will issue about 30 $100,000 grants with the $3 million
    funding it received in FY 1999. The grants will cover such
    items as the purchase of VTC equipment, installation of
    necessary circuits, and building modifications. The grants will
    also cover hiring consultants if necessary, to advise on the
    most appropriate type of equipment, where it should be
    installed, and any building modifications required.

        Mr. Latham. You ever try to talk with someone from your
    staff talking in your ear? [Laughter.]
        Is there someone at INS who is--and I guess just so that we
    know who to contact--that is in charge of the memorandum and as
    far as working out the details specifically?
        Ms. Meissner. We have a contact point now at the COPS
    program. That was really the issue; that we needed to be
    certain that we had somebody there fixed with this
    responsibility, because this is a new endeavor for them. We are
    handling it out of our field operations program. The person
    responsible for that, Mike Pearson, is here and members of his
    staff who are taking this on.
        Mr. Latham. I am very pleased the Chairman is back. We were
    just about to start talking about the weather.
        Thank you.

                                citizenship usa

        Mr. Rogers [presiding]. Now, Commissioner Meissner, in a
    March 1, 1999 report by Justice on Citizenship USA, I note with
    grave concern two things: 71,413 new cases were recently
    discovered and, ``INS is weighing the cost and potential
    benefits of submitting them to a case review process.''
        And the second point is only 12 revocations out of 1.1
    million people granted citizenship in Citizenship USA have
    taken place since that fiasco occurred. As you recall, 263,000
    individuals were granted citizenship without having a full
    criminal history check, one of the black days of this Agency's
    history. As it turns out, 77,000 of those people had criminal
    history records with the FBI of which nearly 17,250 had at
    least one felony arrest; 26,000-plus had one or more
    misdemeanors. Now we hear that you have discovered another
    71,413 new cases. How could that many cases have been
    overlooked?
        Ms. Meissner. The number of cases that we are dealing with
    from the standpoint of improper naturalizations came to a
    universe of about 7,000. That was made up of cases where 300
    were clearly improperly naturalized cases where people had
    disqualifying convictions that were not identified properly. In
    addition, the remaining cases, between 300 and 7,000, were
    cases where people made misstatements.
        Mr. Rogers. The question is how could you overlook 71,000
    cases and just now recently discover them? How many more cases
    are there to be recently discovered before this thing finally
    is over with? These are new cases, never before dealt with. How
    could you overlook that many? What happened? And I don't want a
    history book. I want to know what happened on these cases.
        Ms. Meissner. These cases are part of the overall review
    that took place of Citizenship USA. That review has been
    completed. There is a follow-up to that review that is involved
    with the revocation question. All of the procedures have been
    changed.
        Mr. Rogers. The point is, these were not part of the
    original review. These are not part of what we have talked
    about. These are new; 71,000-plus new cases not part of the
    original review. My question is, how did you not discover those
    until now?
        Ms. Meissner. The Citizenship USA review was completed. An
    entirely new set of procedures was put in place. The follow-up
    on the cases that were improperly naturalized has continued.
    The entire program from the integrity and quality assurance
    standpoint has been redesigned. The fingerprint issues that
    were the deficiency in the program have been addressed. We now
    do 100 percent fingerprint checks through automated procedures.
    The program is today on a sound footing.
        Mr. Rogers. What are you doing about these new 71,413 cases
    that we had not known about before now?
        Ms. Meissner. If there are cases where there were criminal
    convictions that would have made the person ineligible for
    naturalization, they will be part of the revocation
    denaturalization activity.
        Mr. Rogers. Well, the Justice Department's report to
    Congress on efforts to correct problems in the naturalization
    process March 1, 1999, I am looking at page 5, bottom right,
    page 5, and Justice says, quote, ``At this point no action is
    being taken regarding the 71,413 cases, although INS is
    weighing the costs and potential benefits of submitting them to
    a case review process.'' Is that correct?
        Ms. Meissner. I am looking at what I think that you are
    looking at. Could I have a moment to review this?
        Mr. Rogers. Yes.
        Ms. Meissner. Mr. Chairman, I will have to provide the
    Committee with that information. I don't have the updated
    information on the status of those cases and I will get it.
        Mr. Rogers. Is any action being taken regarding those
    cases? That is the point.
        Ms. Meissner. I will get you the information.
        Mr. Rogers. You don't know whether they are or not?
        Ms. Meissner. I will get you that information. I don't
    know.
        Mr. Rogers. Well, can I have your assurance that these
    cases will be reviewed as we have reviewed all of the others?
        Ms. Meissner. I will find out what the status of these
    cases is, and I will get back to you on what we are doing with
    them.
        Mr. Rogers. This report goes on to say in the same
    paragraph, quote, ``Based on the experience of the original
    criminal history case review, approximately 5,000 could be
    found to have FBI records. A thousand of those  could  involve
    arrests  for  felonies, C-I-M-T----''
        Ms. Meissner. Crimes of Moral Turpitude.
        Mr. Rogers [continuing].``Or other potentially
    disqualifying offenses,'' and so on. So we are talking about
    the possibility, Justice says, of up to a thousand of these
    people could have felony records and they are out there running
    around.
        Ms. Meissner. I will follow up on this and we will get back
    to you as quickly as we possibly can.
        [The information follows:]

      Immigration and Naturalization Service Status of New Naturalization
            Cases Identified as Missing Full Criminal History Checks

        In 1997, using INS' automated case tracking systems, INS determined
    that a universe of 1,049,876 persons had been naturalized between
    August 31, 1995 and September 30, 1996, during the Citizenship USA
    period. KPMG Peat Marwick oversaw an INS review of these cases, which
    found that 63 percent had been adjudicated properly, 35 percent
    required further action to determine whether they had been adjudicated
    properly, and 2 percent were presumptively ineligible for
    naturalization based on their criminal history. The cases requiring
    further action and those that were presumptively ineligible were
    referred to the INS Office of General Counsel for possible revocations
    proceedings.
        To find out whether the original universe of reviewed cases did in
    fact encompass all persons naturalized between August 31, 1995 and
    September 30, 1996, INS recently conducted a second system review. This
    review identified an additional 71,413 cases that had not been
    identified previously. These new cases were added to the database after
    the initial review. INS will review these cases to ascertain whether
    any were improperly naturalized. A plan is currently being developed
    for this review process.

                              detention resources

        Ms. Meissner. Mr. Chairman, could I go back on the
    detention issue because I did not fully round out the answer
    with the bottom line point, which is that we, as you know, are
    working with you on the issue of detention this year and in the
    fiscal year 2000 budget. We very much appreciate the support
    that the Committee gave in the supplemental, but it is critical
    that $80 million that is in the supplemental be made available.
    In addition to that, we are working with OMB in this fiscal
    year on a need beyond the $80 million. We will be coming to the
    Committee with the results of that work and we are also working
    with OMB on the fiscal year 2000 budget because the
    difficulties in detention this year extend into fiscal 2000 and
    need to be addressed.

                citizenship usa and revocation of naturalization

        Mr. Rogers. Now, the other question I wanted to ask you
    about Citizenship USA, so far of the 77,000 people who had
    criminal history records with the FBI, only 12 revocations have
    occurred since this whole thing began. Why?
        Ms. Meissner. The review of the 7,000 cases that were
    subject to revocation began after those cases were identified.
    We carried that review forward very aggressively until last
    July when we had reviewed more than 4,000 of the 7,000 cases
    and had issued notices of revocation in about half, about
    2,000-plus of the cases that were subject to review.
        At that point, we by that time had actually accomplished 16
    revocations, when a district court put an injunction on the
    process and prevented us from going forward with administrative
    revocation in administrative proceedings of any kind with
    revocation. As a result, we have had to switch gears and go the
    Federal district court route. We have put together a strategy
    for judicial denaturalization while we are fighting the
    injunction but the injunction remains in effect. That effort to
    bring cases before Federal district courts for denaturalization
    is a cooperative effort between the Immigration Service,
    attorneys in the Justice Department, prosecutors, and obviously
    ultimately the Federal courts. That effort goes forward with
    the preparation of cases to be filed. Those cases will be filed
    in the courts this year and the litigation of those cases will
    proceed over the course of the next 2 years.
        Meanwhile, we hope that the injunction will be lifted in
    which case, if we are successful, we will proceed with the
    administrative procedures that had been underway until last
    July.

                                problems at ins

        Mr. Rogers. Now let me just list a list of things for the
    record. These are what I consider failures, problems at INS:
        Your 2000 request does not include a single new Border
    Patrol agent in spite of an authorization of a thousand.
        You fail to plan for adequate and immediate detention space
    for criminal aliens and then put the Congress in the position
    of either granting an emergency supplemental request, which we
    are doing right now on the floor, or releasing those criminal
    aliens into our communities. Then you blame the Appropriations
    Committee for inadequate funding in your testimony before the
    House Judiciary Committee on the subject, when in fact INS
    failed to request adequate funds for 4 years, 1997 through
    1999, now 2000.
        INS failed to get the Institutional Removal Program running
    effectively, to swiftly but fairly remove criminal aliens with
    the benefit of saving detention space and costs.
        INS requested funds for an interior enforcement without a
    strategy; then produced a strategy 9 months late without a
    sufficient implementation plan. This is in FY 1999.
        Citizenship USA. Criminals were naturalized when INS simply
    did away with the FBI criminal background check. Three years
    later only 12 people have been denaturalized out of the 1.2
    million.
        INS represented to Congress, the press, and the American
    people that the naturalization application processing times
    would decrease to 12 months by the end of fiscal year 1999 as a
    result of the new resources and not abiding by that promise.
        INS has a 2 million person application backlog in benefits
    other than naturalization, primarily because INS is placing
    most of its service resources into making the naturalization
    process work and still falling short.
        INS misrepresented the 2000 budget to the Congress, the
    press, the public by stating that INS was proposing additional
    funds for naturalization backlogs and improvements when it was
    not proposing any additional funds.
        INS has serious financial management problems. Audits in
    1997 and 1998 state that INS does not have sufficient internal
    controls to ensure that accounting records and relevant
    documentation support balances in their financial statements.
    An outside organization report in 1999 gave INS a ``D'' in
    financial management. In January of this year we learned that
    INS has a $300 million shortfall in fiscal 1999 base funds.
        Next, INS also has an apparent failure in its managing of
    its automation program, evidenced by a March 1998 Inspector
    General report which has predicted unnecessary cost increases
    as a result.
        Next, INS failed to meet the Committee report deadline,
    even when an extension was granted and refused to postpone a
    press conference so that Members of Congress could be given
    adequate notice that they were about to receive new INS
    resources in their districts and a high-ranking INS official
    released Committee reports to the public over the expressed
    objection of the Committee. And no one was held accountable for
    any of these problems.
        All of these things beg the question: Does the agency need
    drastic reform? It does. It is time to recognize that the
    current structure for dealing with these responsibilities,
    important responsibilities for the American people, is
    unworkable, overloaded and swamped. Do you agree that INS must
    be reorganized?
        Ms. Meissner. I said in my opening statement and in other
    conversations that we have had that we are committed to
    fundamental reform on many fronts, including a fundamental
    restructuring of the agency. The range of things for which we
    are responsible, both through the tremendous growth that we
    have experienced over the last 5 years, the new mandates that
    have come with a succession of new statutes, as well as very
    ambitious reforms and new initiatives that we have launched,
    are a very, very broad set of responsibilities.
        We have spent a great deal of time and effort over the
    course of the last year looking at how this agency could be
    restructured to bring about fundamental reform to improve
    performance, because ultimately the purpose for a restructuring
    of the scope that we are talking about is valuable only if it
    does improve performance. We think we can show how improved
    performance would be tied to the planning that we have done.
        We want to work with the Committee to achieve a good
    government solution where the structure of the INS is
    concerned. I do believe that as I said earlier, we certainly
    have made mistakes. We certainly have had problems, but we have
    been very aggressive in attempting to fix those problems step
    by step on some very, very complicated, broad-ranging issues.
        I think in many ways it is a question of glass half empty,
    glass half full. We have a very, very strong record of reforms
    that we have been able to make, including in our management of
    such things as the financial management systems where we are at
    the culmination of a very aggressive difficult 3-year process
    to reform our financial management systems. We have been able
    to bring about this growth in a way that has met most of the
    major targets.
        We definitely will continue to work with the Committee as
    cooperatively as possible in producing reports, and the issues
    such as Citizenship USA where we all agree there were serious
    deficiencies that are now on a sound footing. The production
    problems that we are finding in the citizenship program are to
    a great extent the result of a total revamping that is taking
    place, but that is what has to be done in almost every area of
    the INS's work, a total revamping from beginning to end, and
    those things don't get done overnight.
        But where we have applied our efforts, we have shown that
    we can do it. Where we have turned our attention to the border,
    we are able to show results. Where we have reformed and rebuilt
    the asylum system, we have done it in a way that is lasting and
    reliable. Where we have turned our attention to interior
    enforcement, we are showing that we can bring cases that are as
    good as the cases brought by any federal law enforcement
    agency.
        So the issue of structure and the need to restructure the
    agency is coming at a time where we have grown to the point and
    shown the ability to function in ways that I believe will allow
    us to accomplish a fundamental restructuring, but we need to do
    it responsibly and we need to do it in a way that ultimately
    achieves the performance that we all want to see.

                               INS restructuring

        Mr. Rogers. Well, we must reform. And it must be radical
    reform. This agency doesn't work. I think it is mainly the
    Congress's fault because we designed an agency and gave it
    conflicting responsibilities: law enforcement, and at the same
    time dispensing rights under the Constitution, and people who
    are seeking rights are reluctant sometimes to give out
    information relative to that for fear of the enforcement coming
    at them from the other direction because it is part of the same
    organization. I don't think that we need to keep this agency
    with both enforcement and service functions. One or the other
    has to go.
        And I understand you have created a restructuring office,
    and you have hired some people to spearhead a restructuring
    effort, and you have spent about a million and a half on the
    details. And I am happy to hear the details but I am very
    skeptical about your premise that all existing functions of the
    INS must stay within. I don't see how that can take place. So
    either you do it or or we will help you.
        Ms. Meissner. Well, I hope that we can work together on
    this, as we have discussed. I do believe that the enforcement
    and the services responsibility of this agency are different
    sides of the same coin, because they all have to do with the
    legal status of people coming to this country prior to their
    becoming citizens and that legal status can sometimes,
    depending on what they do, put them into the jeopardy of being
    in an illegal status. Similarly, people who come here illegally
    have ways under the law of becoming legal. Those activities are
    very much related. If we split our responsibilities along the
    lines of separate chains of command so that there is more
    focus, more professionalism, clear points of accountability and
    responsibility for the enforcement activities separate from the
    service activities, but keep them joined at a macro-level for
    overall coherence, overall policy direction, and overall
    accountability in ways that overcome fragmentation, we believe
    that we can get a more effective performance out of the
    Immigration Service. As I say, we will want to work with you on
    this. I look forward to working with you on this, and I think
    that we can come out with a good government solution here.
        Mr. Rogers. Well, you will pardon me if I am a little bit
    skeptical of your promises because there have been a lot of
    them over the last few years and very few have been kept. So it
    is not that you are not attempting. I don't want to impugn your
    integrity, but this thing just will not work. I have spent 15
    years trying to make it work. Pumped money in--doubled the
    budget in the last 5, 6 years and did everything I knew to do,
    the Committee has, to help make it work and I have come to the
    conclusion that it has inherent incompatibilities that we have
    to deal with in a reorganization, restructuring of the
    organization. And so you and I just differ on a very essential
    point, I think.
        Does anyone have anything further?
        Mr. Serrano. Just one comment, Mr. Chairman. I think that
    your point is well taken. I think that many people would agree
    that there is a need to have a clearer picture of what the
    enforcement side is doing and what the naturalization side is
    doing, but I think what the Commissioner has suggested is
    something that we should take into consideration. I think it
    meets your needs and it meets the needs of other people who
    don't want a lack of cooperation or lack of relationship
    between the two services. The fact of life is that it is one
    straight line. It may be a bumpy line at times but it is a line
    from of how you get into this country to whether or not at the
    end of that process you become a citizen.
        How that happens, well, we can clean that up and I think
    that we can meet your concerns and the concerns of many of us
    that we need to know how enforcement is going. We need to know
    how the services part is going. But we don't have to separate
    them.
        And I think that what the Commissioner is suggesting is
    something we should really take seriously, the ability to do
    exactly what you are saying and leaving it under one agency
    with clear chains of command. That is what she has said. I know
    you heard everything I said.
        Mr. Rogers. I did.
        Mr. Serrano. Okay.
        Mr. Rogers. Mr. Latham?
        Thank you very much, Commissioner, for your appearance here
    today. Sorry it took a little longer than usual. We appreciate
    your testimony.

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                          Wednesday, February 24, 1999.

                               BUREAU OF PRISONS

                                    WITNESS

    KATHLEEN HAWK SAWYER, DIRECTOR

                               Opening Statements

        Mr. Rogers. This morning we welcome to the subcommittee the
    Director of the Bureau of Prisons, Dr. Kathleen Hawk Sawyer, to
    discuss the fiscal year 2000 budget request for the Federal
    prison system and the challenges you face in providing for
    custody of an ever-growing population of inmates.
        For fiscal year 2000, the Bureau of Prisons is requesting a
    total budget of $3.8 billion, which includes $559 million for
    the construction of new prisons to expand the capacity for the
    continued transfer of D.C. sentenced felons and non-returnable
    aliens into the Federal prison system, as well as the
    continued, steady growth of the inmate population in general.
        While this Subcommittee has substantially increased funding
    for the Federal prison system over the past years, from $1.7
    billion in fiscal year 1991 to $3.3 billion in fiscal year
    1999, I believe that we can say our investment is paying off.
    The Nation's violent crime rate fell almost 7 percent during
    1997, and has dropped for the sixth consecutive year, and I
    would attribute this decline in part to our efforts to keep
    criminals off the streets.
        In addition, as this Subcommittee is faced with many
    pressures, and you take on the additional population of the
    District of Columbia inmates and the non-returnable aliens, we
    must also ensure that we fulfill our responsibilities to the
    growth in the Federal prison population so that there will be
    adequate bed space to continue to lock up violent criminals.
        We appreciate your being here with us today. Before I
    recognize you for a statement, let me congratulate you on your
    almost first anniversary with your husband who is here today,
    Reverend Jack Sawyer. Please stand so we can get a look at you.
    Lucky man. Welcome to the Subcommittee, Mr. Serrano.
        Mr. Serrano. If I may, Mr. Chairman, first of all I want to
    welcome you, and we have had an opportunity to chat before. I
    look forward to your testimony and assisting you in any way
    that I can.
        Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my colleague, Alan Mollohan,
    for the work that he did as the ranking member on this
    subcommittee. He was kind enough, I think he did it purposely,
    to spend some time with me during my first hearing to see if I
    survived it. I would like to tell you, Alan, that I appreciate
    all of your kind words and I look forward to your support and
    your expertise. If I can do half the job that you have done in
    the last few years on this subcommittee, I will be a major
    success.
        Mr. Mollohan. I thank my colleague. I know that Mr. Serrano
    is going to do an outstanding job. He will appreciate the
    opportunity of working with a very fine Chairman and looking at
    the bill favorably and professionally. In addition to treating
    the minority appropriately, Mr. Rogers is also a very capable
    and bright guy. It is a pleasure to take the bill to the floor.
    We are in good hands and he has good jurisdictions. The hearing
    we have today is one of the best agencies and witnesses. The
    witness is from my district, Mr. Chairman. She is very
    effective. It is a pleasure to be here.
        Mr. Rogers. Let me echo Mr. Serrano's comments. Alan
    Mollohan is the best ranking member anybody ever had, and he
    and I shared a warm personal and professional relationship on
    and off this Committee. It is with a great deal of sadness that
    I saw him move on to higher and greater things, but we have
    been blessed. Mr. Serrano is a great guy and is working hard to
    try to quickly grasp the issues here, and I am impressed with
    him. But we can't do without your wisdom, and we appreciate
    your coming back every minute you can.
        We are also pleased to have a new member, Ms. Roybal-Allard
    from California, whose father broke me in on the Treasury,
    Postal Subcommittee, and we have several other new members that
    I will introduce as they arrive.
        But I join you in saluting the witness. I wish she were
    from my district. She has done a wonderful job over there, and
    I have said publicly and privately that BOP, in my opinion, is
    the best run agency in the Federal Government. Do you think she
    would like INS?
        Mr. Mollohan. Well, she would certainly do a good job, but
    we need her where she is.
        Mr. Rogers. You are recognized.

                   bureau of prisons director opening remarks

        Ms. Sawyer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am pleased to appear
    before you today to discuss the fiscal year 2000 budget request
    for the Bureau of Prisons. Let me begin by thanking you,
    Chairman Rogers, for your leadership, and express my
    appreciation to the subcommittee for your interest and support
    of the Bureau of Prisons. You have closely monitored the growth
    and changing requirements of the Federal inmate population, and
    have provided the resources necessary for the BOP to confine
    offenders in facilities that are safe, humane, cost-efficient
    and appropriately secure.
        The BOP continues to face multiple challenges, and the
    fiscal year 2000 request of $3.8 billion reflects our efforts
    to meet these challenges. The major focus is adding prison beds
    to keep violent offenders off the streets, and to absorb the
    D.C. felon population, and also begin to transfer INS
    nonreturnable criminal aliens to the BOP. We also need to
    better maintain the infrastructure of our existing 94 Federal
    prisons which are getting older and older each year.
        We have made substantial progress with the resources
    Congress has already provided. Since the beginning of fiscal
    year 1996, we have added nearly 15,000 new prison beds, and
    have an additional 24,000 new beds planned or under
    construction. Unfortunately, our projections are such that the
    Federal inmate population will continue to grow quite
    significantly, and we must continue to add prison capacity.
        At the beginning of fiscal year 1999, the total BOP
    population was 122,316. That is, with nearly 12 percent housed
    in privately managed prisons, contract facilities, and other
    alternative confinement. By the end of fiscal year 2006, we
    project that nearly 178,000 inmates will be in the BOP's
    custody. This is a growth of almost 50 percent in eight years.
        The 2000 request includes $86.8 million to activate five
    new facilities, or 4,320 beds. Also requested is $80.7 million
    to house 3,000 short-term sentenced criminal aliens and 2,000
    D.C. sentenced felons in private contract facilities, and to
    absorb 1,000 INS nonreturnable criminal aliens in the Federal
    Prison System. An additional $2 million is requested for
    expansion of our residential drug treatment programs and
    community based transitional drug treatment services.
        A program increase of $411 million is requested for
    construction of new prison capacity. This includes:
    construction of two facilities, one USP and one FCI, for D.C.
    sentenced felons; construction of one penitentiary in the
    western region for sentenced inmates; site and planning for
    three medium security facilities for sentenced inmates, one in
    Yazoo City, Mississippi and two in the western region; and site
    and planning funds for three facilities, two USPs and one FCI,
    for INS nonreturnable criminal aliens. Finally, the 2000
    request includes an increase of approximately $27 million for
    the modernization and repair program. This amount equals nearly
    2 percent of the replacement value for BOP facilities, and will
    provide a constant funding level to support a long-term planned
    program for the maintenance of safe and sound facilities.
        Mr. Chairman, we recognize that the 2000 budget is larger
    than any previous request for the BOP, but it is necessary to
    meet the challenges we face now and in the future. Historical
    overcrowding, transfer of D.C. sentenced felons and INS non-
    returnable criminal aliens, and a 50 percent population
    increase expected by 2006, demand our attention, careful
    planning and adequate resources.
        I would like to thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the
    subcommittee for your continued support. This concludes my
    prepared remarks, and I would be pleased to answer any
    questions you may have.
        [The information follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                            inmate population growth

        Mr. Rogers. Thank you for your testimony. In your testimony
    you talk about the growth in the population caused not only by
    the D.C. felons and INS nonreturnable aliens, but simply by the
    sheer growth of the number of successful Federal prosecutions
    and longer sentences?
        Ms. Sawyer. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Rogers. During fiscal year 1998 you experienced the
    largest one-year inmate population increase in history?
        Ms. Sawyer. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Rogers. An increase of more than 10,000 inmates in one
    year, just a phenomenal growth rate. We have had the good
    fortune to work with you closely to make sure that you have the
    resources to see that you can manage those kinds of increases,
    but I am concerned about your ability to keep up with that
    capacity growth, given the current overcrowding levels and the
    work load, the population that you are experiencing.
        Your request includes a request for $178 million, of which
    $137 million is for construction of one prison with a work camp
    in the Western region, and $33 million for site and planning
    preparation for three additional prisons to increase your
    capacity for sentenced felons. Will your request keep up with
    the expected annual increase and the overall population growth?
        Ms. Sawyer. The request will certainly go a long way to
    help us keep up. You oftentimes share with us that money is not
    unlimited, and that we should be reasonable in what we request;
    and so we are trying to be very reasonable this year. We know
    that the population is going to continue to grow. We will
    probably be back again next year with additional requests to
    help us keep up with the growth in the outyears. But with the
    nine facilities that we are asking for this year, if the money
    we are requesting could be forthcoming, we will do very well in
    trying to keep up with the growth.
        Mr. Rogers. We have some overcrowding in maximum and
    minimum security facilities. Will these monies help ease that
    overcrowding?
        Ms. Sawyer. Yes. Our most dangerous overcrowding is at high
    security and medium security. Those are the two security levels
    that hold our most dangerous inmates, along with the super max
    at the Florence facility. And if you note in our request, we
    are asking for medium and high security beds. If these beds can
    be forthcoming, they will help us tremendously in reducing the
    crowding at these security levels.
        Mr. Rogers. What is the percent of overcrowding?
        Ms. Sawyer. Overall the Bureau of Prisons is at 28 percent
    overcrowding, which is really a meaningless figure because our
    minimums are not very crowded. It is our medium and highs that
    are so overcrowded. Right now, we are at 57 percent over
    capacity at high security and 50 percent over capacity at
    medium. Again, that is why our requests this year are almost
    solely for medium and high security beds.

                            transfer of d.c. inmates

        Mr. Rogers. One of the biggest challenges that you face is
    absorbing the D.C. inmates into the system. I understand that
    you are currently incarcerating about 1,100 of those inmates?
        Ms. Sawyer. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Rogers. What is your plan for 1999 and 2000 for the
    transfer of more of those?
        Ms. Sawyer. In the Revitalization Act, we are required to
    have 2,000 D.C. inmates in contract facilities by the end of
    1999, and the remainder of the total 7,500 will be transferred
    by BOP by the end of 2001. That is our plan at this point in
    time.
        Mr. Rogers. Are those prisoners being classified under
    BOP's classification so they are placed in an appropriate level
    of security?
        Ms. Sawyer. Yes. We went in and reclassified all of them in
    order to know for what security level prisons to ask for
    construction monies. We needed to know what their security
    levels were, so they are now reclassified under our system.
        Mr. Rogers. Mr. Serrano.

                              immigrant detainees

        Mr. Serrano. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Could you just give
    me an explanation of the relationship between you and the INS?
    We give them dollars to do what they do and then they send
    people over to you for detention. The obvious question is, do
    they share any of the dollars that they give you and how does
    that work? Do you have anything to say about the numbers that
    come over or is it just the numbers that come over?
        Ms. Sawyer. Immigration detention primarily holds inmates
    that are not sentenced. Either they are pre-sentence, or they
    have not yet been accused of a crime. So they are not a
    sentenced felon, or they get them back again once their
    sentence has been served.
        We hold INS detainees when they are a Federal felon under
    sentence. We house them in our facilities. The only exception
    to that would be our facility in Oakdale, Louisiana, which is a
    joint facility built with an agreement between us and INS where
    we do house some sentenced offenders who have already served
    their sentence and they are waiting for INS to finalize their
    deportation. For the most part, the distinction between who
    they hold and we hold, is that we house them when they are
    actually serving a felony sentence for an offense that they
    committed here.
        Mr. Serrano. Who holds them when they are just being
    detained?
        Ms. Sawyer. INS, and then they contract out a significant
    number of beds throughout the country.
        Mr. Serrano. You don't oversee that.
        Ms. Sawyer. Not normally. The non-returnables would be ones
    that belong to INS, but because of their unique situation we
    would house them. And right now we are also holding
    approximately 1,000 Mariel Cubans who have served out their
    sentences, but Cuba will not take them back. It was more
    appropriate for us to house them in a long-term facility than
    Immigration, which has shorter term detention facilities.
        Mr. Serrano. When you say longer time, in some cases we are
    talking 10, 15 years or so?
        Ms. Sawyer. Yes. Some have been serving a sentence. Others
    have finished the service of their sentence and are being held
    because their country of origin will not take them back.
        Mr. Serrano. Do we know what percentage? You have 1,100?
        Ms. Sawyer. Yes.
        Mr. Serrano. How many of those have served their sentence?
        Ms. Sawyer. I think the majority of those 1,100 have served
    their sentence.
        Mr. Serrano. So those are really no longer a Federal prison
    issue, they are an Immigration issue?
        Ms. Sawyer. Primarily, yes.
        Mr. Serrano. And you keep them under what kind of a ruling?
    Obviously it is not a Federal prison, it is a State
    Department----
        Ms. Sawyer. It is kind of a combination State Department-
    Justice Department situation where they are not releasable.
    They are deemed to be too dangerous or their history of
    offenses have been too serious to release them back into our
    own communities. They cannot be deported either, and someone
    has to house them. Since we have longer term facilities, we
    house them for them.
        Mr. Serrano. Has anyone ever done a study on how much that
    is costing your Department or the Federal Treasury, people who
    have served their sentence and are awaiting their--because it
    seems to me that those folks are not one of your issues. In
    other words, you are funded to carry out a certain duty. Those
    folks are there for another reason.
        Ms. Sawyer. Right. But it wouldn't take a very elaborate
    study. Our costs are roughly $20,000 per year and you could
    multiply that by the number of inmates. We could give you a
    figure. But the Appropriations Committee has been very aware
    that we house them, so it is not as though we are using the
    money improperly. The Committee is aware that we house them,
    but it is pretty expensive.
        [Clerk's note.--Subsequent to the hearing, the following
    information was provided:]

        The BOP currently has 996 Mariel Cubans in custody who have
    finished serving their sentence, and the cost of housing them
    is approximately $21.8 million annually. The BOP does not house
    any inmates who have entered the country under the Cuban
    Adjustment Act and then committed a crime. However, there are
    13 non-returnable Cuban inmates who are not Mariels being
    housed in BOP facilities for the INS at this time.

        Mr. Serrano. I am going to go vote.
        Mr. Rogers. We will have another round.
        Mr. Mollohan.

                        privatization of d.c. prisoners

        Mr. Mollohan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I have all of these press articles discussing the problems
    associated with the Ohio prison. What is the status of that
    prison and its contracting with the District of Columbia for
    D.C. prisoners at this time?
        Ms. Sawyer. It is still an operational contract. D.C. still
    has several hundred inmates there. D.C. did move out the higher
    security inmates from that facility, and they also moved out
    the minimum and lower security ones whose safety was thought to
    be in jeopardy because they had been placed in too secure a
    facility. They now house medium security inmates for the most
    part, and they are being monitored by D.C. Corrections and the
    Department of Justice's Trustee who was named to help oversee
    that facility. It has been running better. They have not had
    the volume of homicides and escapes that they had last year,
    but they are still monitoring it closely.
        Mr. Mollohan. Are those all D.C. prisoners?
        Ms. Sawyer. Yes.
        Mr. Mollohan. They have approximately 200 inmates in the
    facility?
        Ms. Sawyer. It is several hundred. More than 700, I
    believe.
        Mr. Mollohan. How does the decrease in the population there
    affect the privatization requirement?
        Ms. Sawyer. The privatization requirement for us?
        Mr. Mollohan. For D.C. prisoners.
        Ms. Sawyer. The immediate privatization requirement is that
    we privatize the 2,000 lows, females, Youth Act inmates and
    minimum security inmates by the end of 1999.
        Mr. Mollohan. You were counting the inmates in Youngstown
    towards that requirement at some point?
        Ms. Sawyer. Not towards the first 2,000. The first 2,000
    are lows, minimums and females. The Administration's position
    is that the private sector has demonstrated an ability to
    privatize minimums, lows and females. We are not too troubled
    by that contract, although there was the issue of how you split
    the contract in the last year.
        The piece of the Revitalization Act that we were very
    concerned about and we discussed with this Subcommittee before
    is the 50 percent requirement by the year 2003. That then
    brings in many of the medium and high security inmates, because
    the vast majority of the D.C. inmates are medium and high, and
    it is still the position of the Administration that the private
    sector has not demonstrated an ability to safely manage medium
    and high security inmates. That is still in the statute for
    2003 and that still concerns us very much.
        Mr. Mollohan. I read somewhere that Eleanor Holmes Norton
    was introducing legislation to remove that requirement. Are you
    aware of that, and is there any effort to do that?
        Ms. Sawyer. I am aware that she has crafted legislation to
    that effect and it is my understanding that she is beginning to
    try to get support on that legislation, but I don't know its
    exact status right now.
        Mr. Mollohan. What is your position on the issue? Taking
    into consideration the privatization requirement, your
    professional view, how should these prisoners be managed?
        Ms. Sawyer. As I indicated, I am very comfortable with the
    prospect of us privatizing 2,000 of the D.C. inmates, because
    when we reclassified the population, we found there are roughly
    2,000 minimum, low and females in the D.C. population. When you
    go above 2,000, though, you are getting into medium and high
    security inmates.
        I still feel it is a great threat to public safety to
    privatize medium and high security inmates. I think that
    situations that have occurred in private corrections in the
    last year have spoken very loudly to that effect. There have
    been numerous problems throughout the country, not only in the
    Youngstown facility, but facilities that were privatized in New
    Mexico and in Tennessee and others that have had very serious
    life-threatening problems, attacks on staff, inmates dying and
    escaping. And when you get to medium and high security, you
    have a very serious threat to public safety. I still have great
    difficulty with the prospect of us privatizing medium and high
    security.
        Now as part of the Revitalization Act, we were directed to
    do a study of the feasibility of privatizing all security
    levels. It was a one-year study, and that study was completed
    and forwarded to Congress. The study was not done by us, but
    was done by a private consulting firm. They looked at all
    information that exists, to date, and their analysis was that
    there is no indication, yet, that the private sector has had
    sufficient experience running medium and high security
    facilities. There isn't any assurance that they are ready to
    handle that kind of population. I still feel strongly that it
    is a threat to public safety for us to privatize above low
    security.
        Mr. Mollohan. I think in West Virginia as a matter of State
    law, we cannot allow privatization of medium and high security.
        Ms. Sawyer. There have been a number of States watching
    that over the last several years. I am not being negative on
    private corrections. They have served us very well, and we are
    indicating here we are looking for 3,000 more beds, but low
    security, in private corrections. But it is a different picture
    when you move into medium and high security. You have much more
    violent inmates. The threat to public safety if they escape or
    act up is much more dangerous.
        Mr. Mollohan. What would happen if the privatization
    requirement was changed?
        Ms. Sawyer. Nothing would change in this request for 2000
    because we went ahead and requested sufficient beds to house
    the D.C. medium and high security inmates in our own
    institutions. So we have requested capacity to house them.
        If the statute stays as written right now, we would simply
    have to move some of those inmates out of those facilities and
    put them in private corrections. We know that our numbers are
    going to be great enough and we would have other inmates to
    move in, but it would require us to privatize medium and high
    security D.C. inmates.
        Mr. Mollohan. So there is no impact on this year's budget
    request?
        Ms. Sawyer. No, it would be in the outyears, 2002 and 2003.
        Mr. Mollohan. And there is no impact for the 2001 request?
        Ms. Sawyer. That is correct.
        Mr. Mollohan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Rogers. Ms. Roybal-Allard.

                           staffing levels in prisons

        Ms. Roybal-Allard. You are requesting significant FTE
    increases in new facilities. My question is, in order to do
    this, are you also cutting the FTEs from prisons where
    originally you had increased them? And if so, why, and what is
    going to be the impact?
        Ms. Sawyer. When our crowding levels were grossly high a
    few years ago, before we were able to start getting the funding
    from Congress to build new institutions, Congress was very
    helpful and this Committee was very helpful by giving us a lot
    of new positions to help offset the overcrowding levels at our
    institutions. We were able to beef up staffing because the
    inmate populations were so huge.
        Now as the new institutions get built and we are able to
    bring down the crowding levels at some of those institutions,
    we have been able to realign the staffing. We request some new
    positions coming in to open up new facilities, and later we'll
    be able to pull some of those positions back from existing
    institutions to meet an appropriate staff-to-inmate ratio. If
    we end up with more staff than we need because the crowding
    level has gone down, then we'll redeploy those staff or return
    FTE's to the Appropriations Committee.
        Ms. Roybal-Allard. What is the ratio right now?
        Ms. Sawyer. Three to one, but that is misleading because in
    a high security, a penitentiary, obviously your staffing is a
    little richer. In a medium it is a little lighter. But on
    average it is a 3-to-1 ratio.
        Ms. Roybal-Allard. The reason that I am asking these
    questions is because my office in the district is right next to
    the Federal prison in Los Angeles, and I have had an
    opportunity to meet with some of the correctional officers and
    they have expressed real concern about their safety, their
    quality of life, and the fact that reductions are being made
    where they feel that ultimately the quality of not only their
    protection but their ability to do their job is being
    jeopardized. Could you expound on that?
        Ms. Sawyer. Sure. We are trying to do a major reeducation
    for our staff. We have grown so much in the last five to eight
    years. A large number of our staff has only been with us as
    Bureau of Prison employees during this time of heavy
    overcrowding, so the only staffing pattern that they are
    accustomed to is this very rich staffing pattern.
        Those staff with us before the heavy overcrowding days know
    that we can run our prisons well with a 3-to-1 average ratio.
    But we are really having to work hard to educate our newer
    staff, to help them allay their fears and help them realize
    that they are not suddenly going to be in great jeopardy if the
    staffing levels come down, as long as the population comes down
    in a commensurate fashion.
        If the population stays up and we pull out staff, there is
    a grave concern. But if the staffing levels come down as the
    population levels come down, we feel that staff are not at risk
    at all, any more than in any other kind of correctional
    setting. We really have had to do a lot of education because
    they only have been with us during the rich days, the large
    staffing patterns, and it is taking a lot of work to help them
    feel safe.
        Ms. Roybal-Allard. Can you do a little more education in
    Los Angeles, please?
        Ms. Sawyer. Yes, we will do that.
        Ms. Roybal-Allard. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

                     prison space for nonreturnable aliens

        Mr. Rogers. Twenty-five percent of your prisoners are
    criminal aliens. In your request you plan to transfer 3,000
    short-term criminal aliens to contract facilities?
        Ms. Sawyer. Yes, that is correct.
        Mr. Rogers. To free up space for more serious criminals and
    nonreturnable aliens?
        Ms. Sawyer. The 3,000 contract beds that we are asking for
    really are not directly related to the nonreturnables. They are
    not with us yet. That is an additional 1,000.
        Mr. Rogers. That is what I am saying. You are transferring
    3,000?
        Ms. Sawyer. Right.
        Mr. Rogers. To make room for more serious criminals and
    nonreturnables?
        Ms. Sawyer. Right. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Rogers. I understand that you currently house about
    1,000 criminal nonreturnable aliens.
        Ms. Sawyer. Yes.
        Mr. Rogers. In addition, you also include $20 million for
    planning funds for the eventual construction of three
    facilities to absorb the nonremovable criminal aliens from INS?
        Ms. Sawyer. Yes.
        Mr. Rogers. Will you be taking additional nonreturnable
    aliens from INS custody in fiscal year 2000 beyond the 1,000
    that you have in custody, or will you be waiting for
    construction of your new facilities?
        Ms. Sawyer. We hope not to take very many from INS because
    we don't have the capacity for them, but there is a concern
    that we not jeopardize public safety, collectively, at the
    Justice Department. So, if any of the nonreturnables in
    Immigration custody act up in such a dangerous way that it is
    more safe for the public for us to take them, we may take more,
    but we are so grossly overcrowded that we are trying to assist
    INS in finding other housing for them.
        Mr. Rogers. Will those three new facilities provide enough
    room to absorb the expected nonreturnables?
        Ms. Sawyer. In the short term they will do very well. INS's
    long-term projection is that they will have up to 5,000
    nonreturnables in the next five to six years. Our three
    facilities will take in about 3,000 more than the 1,000 that we
    already have, and that will not meet the 5,000 bed outyear
    requirement. If it looks in the outyears as though their
    projections are going to be met, we could come back again for
    another nonreturnable facility.
        Mr. Rogers. What is your current timetable for transferring
    all of the INS long-term detainees?
        Ms. Sawyer. Basically when the beds are built.

            health care and population management of nonreturnables

        Mr. Rogers. What special concerns do you have about the
    nonreturnable aliens?
        Ms. Sawyer. Two primary concerns. The first is health care
    issues, because the rate of tuberculosis with non-citizens is
    significantly higher than the rate of active tuberculosis for
    our own citizens being incarerated. From a health care
    standpoint there are some additional concerns, additional
    costs, and fears of transmission of infectious disease, and we
    will have to deal with those.
        The other issue is more of a population management concern.
    These inmates, such as the Mariel Cubans that we have held for
    many years in the BOP, are basically in a hopeless situation.
    They don't know what tomorrow will hold for them because we
    cannot release them into this country, nor will their country
    take them back. They are in a limbo status, which is a very
    dangerous situation to hold anyone.
        You recall back in 1987 when we had the terrible riots and
    hostage situations at Atlanta, in Oakdale, Louisiana, when
    these individuals in this hopeless status reacted to a claim
    that we were going to send them all back to Cuba. They were
    afraid, at that time, that they were going to be harmed, and
    they burned down two institutions and took over one hundred
    staff hostage. It is a continual challenge to manage them
    effectively without being heavy-handed, which we don't want to
    do either. Most of them behave relatively well in an open
    population setting, but they do pose a unique threat in terms
    of population management.

                              hiv and tb concerns

        Mr. Rogers. What about HIV infection? Is that a major
    problem?
        Ms. Sawyer. That is more of a concern with D.C. inmates
    coming to us. Our own rate is roughly 1 percent of HIV positive
    inmates. The D.C. system has an 8 to 10 percent positive rate
    for HIV. So the medical concern, especially in terms of cost,
    is going to be more directly impacted by the D.C. inmates
    coming our way than the nonreturnable aliens for which the big
    concern is tuberculosis, and D.C. is HIV.
        Mr. Rogers. Some of these are quarantinable?
        Ms. Sawyer. Right. We have an elaborate system of screening
    when an inmate is first received into our system. We don't move
    them anywhere until we determine whether or not they have
    active TB, and then we put them in the reverse pressurized
    rooms. The concern is how many they may infect when they first
    come to us. We can catch them quickly after we get them, but if
    you consider that they come on buses or airlifts, they come
    into a holding area where we do the first test, the prick, and
    you don't get your final test until a week or so after. It is
    controllable, but it is far more expensive because you are
    having to do additional testing and screening.
        Mr. Rogers. I assume that you have to more or less
    quarantine these individuals?
        Ms. Sawyer. If they have a positive first test.
        Mr. Rogers. What about the HIV patients?
        Ms. Sawyer. Those are maintained in an open population
    unless their symptoms become so severe they require inpatient
    hospitalization, and then we place them in one of our hospital
    facilities. They are not quarantined. They are just very ill
    and they need inpatient hospitalization.

                   criminal alien population per capita cost

        Mr. Rogers. The cost per capita of the criminal alien
    population is higher than your normal population?
        Ms. Sawyer. It is somewhat from a health care standpoint,
    yes.
        Mr. Rogers. Can you estimate the cost and the impact?
        Ms. Sawyer. I don't have those numbers with me. We could do
    that, Mr. Chairman.
        [Clerk's note.--Subsequent to the hearing, the following
    information was provided:]

                   Criminal Alien Population Per Capita Cost

        The cost per capita of the criminal alien population is somewhat
    higher than your normal population from a health care standpoint.
    Inmates arriving from other countries are likely to have had little or
    no previous health care or access to many medications available in the
    United States (U.S.) for treatment of chronic diseases. For example,
    inmates arriving with HIV infection are more likely to present with
    AIDS and its complications requiring hospitalization than persons with
    HIV in the U.S. who now routinely enter jails and prisons on therapy
    when medically indicated. Also, while TB incidence has been on the
    decline in the U.S. for the past few years, the percentage of TB cases
    among foreign-born persons has continued to increase. Of 33 diagnosed
    TB cases in 1998, 76 percent occurred among criminal aliens, and 11 of
    these cases were identified at intake at MCC San Diego. Because of the
    increase in TB cases at San Diego, a universal chest x-ray screening
    for TB has been instituted for all inmates entering the institution.
    This is an expensive screening process and results in more inmate
    evaluations in the hospital setting. The practice may be expanded to
    other BOP detention centers with large numbers of arriving criminal
    aliens.

                     sufficient resources for dc population

        Mr. Rogers. Now, given the likely growth in the D.C. prison
    population, do you expect that the seven prisons that you plan
    to absorb them will provide sufficient capacity?
        Ms. Sawyer. As of right now seven should be fine. The
    unknown in here is that D.C. created a new sentencing
    commission, on which the Department has a member, and there are
    a lot of people involved in it. Depending on what changes that
    they make in the sentencing structure in D.C., our needs could
    change somewhat. If the numbers start going up, we will be
    coming back to request more capacity.
        The other thing, we do not know for sure whether the courts
    are going to change their sentencing practices for D.C. felons
    now that they have facilities they feel more positive about. We
    could find them violating parole more readily and some other
    things that are still unknown. So right now the seven will be
    fine for the 7,500 existing D.C. inmates. Some things could
    change to make those numbers go up, and if so, we may have to
    come back.

                           transfer of d.c. prisoners

        Mr. Rogers. Does your request include enough money to
    accommodate the transfer of all those D.C. prisoners after the
    closing of Lorton by 2001?
        Ms. Sawyer. The transfer costs would not yet be in this
    budget because they would come into effect in 2001. The beds
    are here, but the transfer costs of actually moving these
    inmates will occur in 2001.
        Mr. Rogers. We are joined on our Subcommittee by another
    new member, Mr. Wamp from Tennessee.
        Mr. Wamp. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, but I don't know enough
    yet to ask an intelligent question, so I will yield back the
    balance of my time.

                              testing new inmates

        Mr. Serrano. I don't know enough either yet, but I had some
    staff who know this jot me some questions down.
        As I was listening to you, as troubled as I have always
    been about the whole issue of testing and so on, I still know
    the importance in a situation like yours to deal with this
    serious issue. You keep telling us about testing people as they
    come to you. In the case, for instance, of D.C., there could be
    no arrangement where you could test people prior to so at least
    you know what is coming in, so you would be able, from the
    beginning be able to deal with that, rather than a week later?
        Ms. Sawyer. On the D.C. inmates we have the advantage of
    knowing that they are coming to us, so we are already doing
    some work with the D.C. prison system to get their medical
    system functioning well, so that the protocols for drugs or
    whatever should be occurring before we get the inmates. Testing
    will be occurring before they come and we will know for sure in
    those cases. As they come to us, we will know what their
    medical status is. It is the others, non-citizens or our
    regular population that is coming in. Those are the ones that
    are unknown.

                            nonreturnables from ins

        Mr. Serrano. The whole issue of INS, do you have a choice?
    Do you have to take these folks as INS sends them over? Do we
    mandate that?
        Ms. Sawyer. We generally have to take the ones that have
    been sentenced in this country because that is our mission,
    that is our responsibility.
        Mr. Serrano. Right.
        Ms. Sawyer. Separate from those, we do in essence have a
    choice, although the Justice Department tries to manage its
    assets as best as possible to serve the American public, as
    well as the detainees. And so that is when a discussion comes
    in, where are they best served? The nonreturnables are more of
    a Justice Department decision, and I think a wise one from a
    public safety standpoint. These offenders are looking at a lot
    of time and are in a hopeless situation, it is very difficult
    to manage that population in a detention facility where there
    is very little to do. In our institutions we keep them
    constructively occupied and the time goes by faster. It just
    works out better all the way around.

                               educating inmates

        Mr. Serrano. That leads me to a question: If you were to
    ask people on the street about Federal prisons their thoughts
    would be about white-collar professionals. That has changed
    quite a bit. We forget then in that case, since it has changed,
    that there also have to be services for rehabilitation.
    Especially with the INS issues, then, are you satisfied with
    the services you are providing in languages other than English
    or is there a need to expand on that? How do you communicate
    with some folks who are still not fluent in English?
        Ms. Sawyer. Language is always a concern. And there are
    many languages that come to us, not just Spanish, although the
    larger percentage of them are Hispanic. We do have English as a
    second language classes for these inmates. We try to teach them
    good survival skills in English. They can also get their GED in
    Spanish, and if space is available they are also able to get
    their GED in English.
        We try to spread the resources that we do get, and we try
    to be reasonable with what we ask for. We could always do more,
    if we had more resources, in terms of teaching English skills,
    both for the non-citizens and our own inmates, in terms of
    helping them be more productive when they are released. I think
    we do a very good job in terms of teaching, education.
        Our three primary emphases in the BOP are basic education,
    work skills and drug treatment, because all three of those have
    proven to have a direct nexus as to whether or not someone gets
    involved in a crime again later. We have gotten tremendous
    support from this Subcommittee in terms of resources, and I
    think we do a reasonably good job in terms of teaching every
    inmate who has a need for work skills, education and drug
    treatment.

                          violent criminal population

        Mr. Serrano. Was there a time when----
        Ms. Sawyer. That time is long gone. If you look at our
    population now, roughly 18 percent of our 120,000 inmates are
    in minimum security institutions. Many people think that the
    Federal system has all these country club camps around and all
    of these white-collar offenders, but only 18 percent of our
    120,000 inmates are in these minimum security institutions.
        We have a much more violent population. The major Federal
    emphases are drug crimes, violent drug gangs, the major cartels
    bringing drugs in from outside the country, as well as what you
    see happening in our cities and urban areas with drug
    trafficking. Our population has changed dramatically in the
    last 10 years, and the old image is not at all what we have in
    our prisons today.
        Mr. Serrano. So it is possible that part of your planning
    has to be to deal with what some of these State and local
    facilities have dealt with in terms of inmate violence and
    everything else?
        Ms. Sawyer. Absolutely. In our request, the vast majority
    of the beds are medium and high security, and that is because
    the numbers of inmates coming to us are higher security inmates
    with bad histories.

                               federalizing crime

        Mr. Serrano. You also might be impacted by what was in the
    Washington Post on the 23rd, federalizing crime and the trend
    in the country by us, I guess, to federalize a lot of crimes
    that were dealt with at the local level previously. You have
    felt some of that impact already. Do you foresee this growing
    out of hand, perhaps?
        Ms. Sawyer. I don't know off hand, but it is definitely
    growing. Many of the offenses that we receive inmates for now,
    would have never come to Federal prisons years ago because they
    were purely State offenses.
        Mr. Serrano. Such as?
        Ms. Sawyer. A lot of the drug offenses. Some of the violent
    offenses. I think those are it for the most part. Carjacking
    never used to be a Federal offense until the last few years
    here in this country.
        So there are a number of things that used to be handled by
    States and locals, and that is why they had the more violent
    population in the old days and we didn't. Now we are getting so
    many more of these inmates. Two-thirds of our inmates are in
    for some kind of drug offense, and that is where we are seeing
    the huge numbers coming our way; drug and weapons offenses. The
    next grouping are the criminal aliens coming across the
    Southwest border with the huge influx of Border Patrol agents.
    But the federalization of crime has had a significant impact on
    who our population is and the numbers that we get.
        Mr. Serrano. Thank you.

                              prison overcrowding

        Mr. Rogers. I learned a long time ago on this Subcommittee
    that in the criminal justice system when you increase the FBI
    agents, you have to increase the number of prosecutors, the
    number of judges, and the number of prison beds and the number
    of everything else, and the whole chain increases when any one
    part increases.
        We, this Subcommittee, have added thousands of new Border
    Patrol agents. We have quadrupled the FBI budget and the
    Justice Department budget in the last few years. We have not
    increased very dramatically the judges. We increased
    prosecutors. The need for bed space in prisons is going to go
    up. But when we increase one item or one part of the chain, the
    whole chain is affected, and we are seeing now the fruits of
    that labor because we are overcrowding. Some of the prisons are
    90 percent or a hundred percent over capacity.
        Ms. Sawyer. Yes, they are.
        Mr. Rogers. I suspect that is the more violent, high
    security prisons.
        Ms. Sawyer. It is kind of a combination. Some of our
    detention facilities, you mentioned L.A., and Brooklyn is at
    117 percent of their capacity and some of our penitentiaries
    are 60 and 70 percent.
        But when you reference the increase in agents and all of
    those other categories, one of the other things that we have
    been watching in more recent years is how technology has
    increased within the agencies in the Justice Department and
    other departments. The technologists oftentimes talk about how
    the law enforcement agents are going to be that much more
    efficient and they will be able to do many more things. And so,
    we have to count those dollars in terms of the impact, of what
    it does for our numbers, and not just the number of agents
    coming to the table. As they become more efficient, that gives
    us more inmates.
        Mr. Rogers. And as Mr. Serrano has said, the Congress has
    passed a lot of new criminal laws that formerly were State
    violations, and now we have created Federal crimes and put
    those people in Federal prisons. We have lots of new Federal
    crimes.

                           impact of hurricane mitch

        Mr. Serrano. On a related subject, Mr. Chairman, I heard
    something which troubles me because of my philosophies.
    Supposedly in the disaster package, the aid for Hurricane
    Mitch, there is $80 million for detention of illegal
    immigrants. It seems that as a result of the hurricane there
    are people who are coming north. I understand that is a
    problem, but somehow the whole idea that you are going to end
    up with some of these folks who are running away from a
    hurricane or mudslide presents just a whole new situation for
    us to deal with, and my understanding is that there is a large
    amount of money for that.
        Mr. Rogers. Every time we get an influx of new immigrants
    for whatever reason, a certain percent of them will commit a
    crime on our soil and will have to be detained in our prisons.
        Ms. Sawyer. With Hurricane Mitch we are seeing the
    detention beds that are being strained, and then if you take
    any percentage of those because they commit an offense, because
    they have no money or whatever it might be, it just escalates
    in terms of the problem.
        Mr. Rogers. This is also to increase our capability of
    catching those who are entering illegally, as well.
        Ms. Sawyer. Right. We never see them because they send them
    back.
        Mr. Rogers. Do you have any comment on the recent newscast
    that INS may release a lot of their criminal detainees?
        Ms. Sawyer. I don't think that I should speak for INS, but
    I do know that they are having a real shortfall in terms of
    detention bed space for this reason and many others. I know
    that they are looking at those who pose the least amount of
    risk to anyone, but they only have x amount of beds and x
    amount of money to house them, and it is hard to hold inmates
    if you don't have the money or the beds. We can't help them.
    Our own institutions are grossly overcrowded. We can only help
    them to a limited degree, and those are for the most serious
    offenders.
        Ms. Roybal-Allard. Mr. Chairman, part of that $80 million
    is to address that problem, criminal detainees.
        Mr. Rogers. By the way, you are recognized.

                       screening of communicable diseases

        Ms. Roybal-Allard. I just have a couple of follow-up
    questions. You said that when you get the prisoners that you
    screen them for TB?
        Ms. Sawyer. Yes.
        Ms. Roybal-Allard. Do you screen them for AIDS and other
    communicable diseases as well?
        Ms. Sawyer. We screen for TB because that is the most
    readily communicable disease. HIV, we do a random testing of
    all of the inmates coming in, a certain percentage. And then we
    work closely with those that have any of the risk factors that
    indicate that they could have HIV, drug users or homosexual
    experiences or they have been involved with someone who has
    AIDS. We encourage them to get tested also.
        Thus far, we have a hit rate of 1 percent of our inmates
    who are HIV positive, and our rate of conversions that ever
    shift is minuscule. Those that have converted are generally
    converted within the first--there is a window when you could
    have been positive and it takes you three or six months to
    convert. All of our conversions have been within that window,
    which leads us to believe that they contracted it on the
    outside and we identified them once they became more active in
    the prison population.

                         treatment of infected inmates

        Ms. Roybal-Allard. Do you know what percentage of your
    budget is for treating inmates with those diseases? Is it a
    large percent or relatively small?
        Ms. Sawyer. I think there are some numbers in my written
    testimony that speak to that. I do know that the average
    medication for an active HIV case is $12,000 per inmate; and
    when they become very symptomatic and require inpatient
    hospitalization, that is generally $100 or so a day. We could
    work out those numbers specifically.
        Ms. Roybal-Allard. So it is not a separate line item?
        Ms. Sawyer. No, it is all part of our medical budget.
        [Clerk's note.--Subsequent to the hearing, the following
    information was provided:]

        Approximately three percent of the BOP medical budget of
    $355 million was spent on treating inmates with infectious
    diseases in FY 1998. This percentage is expected to increase
    over the next five years as new drug therapy becomes the
    standard of care and more effective treatments are developed
    and approved.

                    nonreturnable aliens: mariels and cubans

        Ms. Roybal-Allard. I believe you were answering this
    question when I came back from the vote, and it had to do with
    the non-returnable aliens and the INS. Is this a long-term
    commitment or is this something that is temporary?
        Ms. Sawyer. These are long-term. These are from countries
    where we do not have diplomatic relationships such as Vietnam,
    Somalia, Laos, Cambodia and Cuba. That is why the Department
    has made the decision to go to a permanent solution of us
    building prisons and taking them into our population.
        Mr. Serrano. Just for a second, Mr. Chairman. I would
    appreciate, as you promised before, if you would get us figures
    on how much the 1,100 Mariel people are costing the system, and
    if it is possible to separate those who truly are Mariel people
    and then those who are folks who showed up here, and under the
    Cuban Adjustment Act they are allowed to stay simply because
    they said that they were running away from communism, and then
    committed a crime, because I think there is a distinction
    between the two. I guess that government could claim the ones
    that we sent you we will take back, but the ones that you took
    and made a big fuss about, maybe that is your problem.
        Ms. Sawyer. I don't believe that we have many of those in
    our system. I know that Immigration has roughly 500 Cubans that
    are in this limbo status and are not Mariel, but we will try to
    get you those numbers.
        Mr. Rogers. Mr. Wamp.

                               juvenile offenders

        Mr. Wamp. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You have three new
    members of the Subcommittee here, and maybe you can help us
    understand the process. If you are 16 years old and you are
    convicted of carjacking, where do you end up in the justice
    system?
        Ms. Sawyer. You could be prosecuted locally in your State,
    and in fact, the Justice Department encourages most of them to
    be handled at the State level and not federalize them. Many of
    these cases go either way. If it should go Federal and you
    become prosecuted federally. We contract out all of our
    juveniles. The Federal Prison System has responsibility for 256
    Federal juveniles. At least 50 percent of those are Native
    Americans from Indian reservations, and the remaining are non-
    Native Americans. We contract those out primarily with State-
    run or county-run detention facilities because our goal is to
    get them as close to home as possible. We try to contract with
    the nearest facility that can meet their needs, and hopefully
    they can be placed close to home.
        Mr. Wamp. Some of the hearings claim that one of the
    threats is a juvenile super predator that emerges from the
    terrible drug culture in our society. Are you concerned about
    the proliferation of Federal juvenile offenses in the future
    that you might have to deal with other than contracting out
    locally, or is that not a threat, or do you think that the
    Federal judicial system is capable of handling an increasing
    number of juvenile cases?
        Ms. Sawyer. It is always somewhat of a concern for us
    because of the number of pieces of legislation that are put
    forward that would federalize more and more offenses for
    juveniles, and some are even talking about them being
    mandatory. Thus far, they are all discretionary, and the locals
    and the Feds can discuss who is going to take the case.
        Until there are more resources, judges and prosecutors, I
    don't think that you are going to see Federal courts taking in
    the juvenile cases because they don't have the resources to do
    so. I know that the Attorney General asks us, periodically, to
    identify what we would do in the system if suddenly we got a
    thousand more juveniles. And it could result, if there were not
    enough beds out there for us to buy from counties and States,
    in our having to go back into the juvenile business and provide
    housing, which is something that we do not want to have to do
    because, I think, juvenile issues are local issues, and should
    be dealt with closer to home.
        Mr. Wamp. On that line, are you comfortable that they are
    handling the situation adequately for juvenile Federal
    offenders?
        Ms. Sawyer. For the juvenile Federal offenders, yes. We
    monitor those contracts very carefully. The problem,
    oftentimes, is we cannot find a facility close enough to home
    that meets the other criteria and we have to house them a
    little farther away. But the States and locals are having
    difficulty keeping enough juvenile beds available to manage
    their own population, and we have to work pretty hard to find
    adequate beds to meet our criteria of housing these offenders
    relatively close to home.
        Mr. Wamp. What is the likelihood that a juvenile that is
    incarcerated, what is the likelihood that they will return to a
    productive life?
        Ms. Sawyer. Very good. There are a lot of different factors
    involved. I don't know the rate of recidivism for juveniles and
    it would vary. It is based on where they are being housed and
    programs available, but they are certainly worth the effort and
    the resources and time and energy to try to catch them at a
    young age; otherwise, we are going to be paying $22,000 a year
    for them in our Federal and State prisons.
        Mr. Wamp. What is that $22,000?
        Ms. Sawyer. Our average cost is $22,000 per year. That
    varies from minimum security to high security.
        Mr. Wamp. How does that rank with States?
        Ms. Sawyer. It is comparable with the States. We are
    probably at the two-thirds mark.
        Mr. Wamp. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

                             design/build contracts

        Mr. Rogers. Now, finally, you have begun using a new method
    of building called design/build contracts. Tell us about that.
        Ms. Sawyer. Prior to 1997, civilian agencies were not
    allowed in the government to use the design/build award. What
    we had to do was go out on one contract for the architect and
    the engineering firms, and once the design was done, go out on
    another contract for the construction. That changed in 1997 and
    opened the door up for civilian agencies to be able to do a
    design/build contract, which means one bid, and we get a
    company who will both design it and actually build it.
        We looked carefully at it to make sure this was the right
    way to go, and we have several projects that are under the
    design/build award mechanism. One has been completed, and we
    think that it is very good for the government.
        What we were finding in the old days was that you go in and
    hire an architect, and then you would hire your contractor. If
    the contractor was running into problems, they would blame them
    on the architect, and the architect would blame it on the
    contractor, and we were stuck with a lot of change orders. And
    usually there was a legal battle as to whose fault it was and
    who had to pick up the cost, and it took longer to split the
    contracts like that.
        We are very optimistic and we have had a good experience on
    our first award that, number one, it is going to save time;
    and, two, it is going to save a lot of that finger-pointing if
    there are things that are not quite as they should be, because
    the one who designed it is also the one building it. So far our
    first contract came in a little ahead of schedule.
        Mr. Rogers. So you have it for one completed project?
        Ms. Sawyer. That is correct, and we have seven more that we
    are in negotiations with or about to award. We feel very good
    about moving in that direction.
        Mr. Rogers. Would you use that, do you think, on all
    projects?
        Ms. Sawyer. Probably. If these go well and we don't have
    any reason to question the wisdom of it all, I think our plan
    is to use this in the future.
        Mr. Rogers. Did you notice, the one completion that you
    had, did it impact the time of the process?
        Ms. Sawyer. It came in a little under expectation and the
    cost was good. We saved some money on the one contract.
        Mr. Rogers. Good.
        Ms. Sawyer. And that was simply a camp. So if you make it a
    whole facility, we envision the money savings to be more
    dramatic.
        Mr. Rogers. Whether or not you complete your acquisitions
    for fiscal year 1999 and fiscal year 2000 timely impacts how
    much money you need to spend somewhere else.
        Ms. Sawyer. Yes.

                          fy 1999 and 2000 activations

        Mr. Rogers. Any delays in the opening of new prisons in
    1999 or fiscal year 2000?
        Ms. Sawyer. We are ahead of schedule on three of them, and
    we are going to be using some of our carryover money from 1998
    to 1999 to bring a couple of those on line early, the Houston
    facility, the Victorville facility, and maybe even
    Philadelphia.
        The only one that may be a little delayed is the Butner
    Medical Facility. We have had a lot of problems with the
    contractor there. We have actually removed that contractor and
    we are getting a new contractor. We don't have a new activation
    date on it, but we fully understand if it is beyond when it is
    supposed to be, we would come back to you with money that we
    don't use.
        [Clerk's note.--Subsequent to the hearing, the following
    information was provided:]

        BOP has recently selected the new contractor for the FMC
    Butner project, but still does not have the activation date. We
    will inform the Subcommittee as soon as the activation date has
    been determined.

        Mr. Rogers. We would want to know where you stand as we get
    very close to markup.
        Ms. Sawyer. Okay.
        Mr. Rogers. And, by the way, we are going to mark up
    earlier than usual this year, so we would want to know around
    April 1 or maybe a little sooner.
        Ms. Sawyer. We will give you the best numbers that we have
    at that time.
        Mr. Rogers. Does anyone else have any questions?

                         gender population of criminals

        Ms. Roybal-Allard. Mr. Chairman, I have one quick question.
        What is the breakdown in the criminal population, women
    versus the men?
        Ms. Sawyer. Seven percent of our population are female.
    That used to be much smaller, we used to run around 4 percent,
    but with the changes in the sentencing guidelines, which became
    less discretionary on the part of the judges, and they were
    basically forced to provide a certain sentencing guideline to
    the female offenders, that rate shot up faster than the rate of
    males coming in. It has now flattened out. The rate of our
    female population right now is 7 percent, and it tends to grow
    about the same rate as males, so we envision that 7 percent
    will stay pretty consistent.
        Ms. Roybal-Allard. And the kinds of crimes?
        Ms. Sawyer. They tend to be much less violent. Most females
    tend to be able to be housed in minimum and low security
    levels. They don't have a history of violence. They are mostly
    drug offenses. Again, two-thirds are drug offenders and most of
    them are carriers. They transport drugs.
        Ms. Roybal-Allard. Are there separate facilities?
        Ms. Sawyer. We have 17 institutions that hold females.
    Seven are pretrial, like L.A., for example, that has a floor
    for women. We have 10 other institutions that hold women. Now
    five of those institutions are almost solely female:
    Tallahassee, Florida; Carswell, Texas, which has the major
    medical facility; Dublin, California; Danbury, Connecticut and
    Alderson, West Virginia. There are five that house almost all
    females.
        We have been able to get the women closer to home because
    we have built satellite camps attached to some of our male
    institutions where the main institution may be a medium, like
    at Pekin, Illinois or Phoenix, Arizona. The main institution is
    male, but the satellite camp next door to it is female. That
    gives us more opportunity to have smaller populations of women,
    but get them closer to home, so you get the economies of scale
    from the larger facility. So we have a total of 10 institutions
    which house long-term sentenced females, five are big
    institutions and roughly five more are satellite camps which
    are attached to another facility.
        Ms. Roybal-Allard. Thank you.
        Mr. Rogers. We thank you for your testimony and your
    presence and your hard work and your success. We are proud of
    what you do, and we cannot say the same for some of the others,
    but BOP is a good organization.
        Ms. Sawyer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We have wonderful
    staff, and they just do a terrific job.
        Mr. Rogers. Thank you very much. The hearing is adjourned.

                               W I T N E S S E S

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page
    Bilchik, Shay....................................................   469
    Brann, J. E......................................................   469
    Bucella, D. A....................................................   347
    Constantine, T. A................................................   347
    Freeh, L. J......................................................   275
    Meissner, Doris..................................................   561
    Reno, Attorney General Janet.....................................     1
    Robinson, J. K...................................................   347
    Robinson, Laurie.................................................   469
    Sawyer, K. H.....................................................   651

                                   I N D E X

                                  ----------                              --
    --------
                                                                       Page
    Attorney General.................................................     1
        Antitrust:
            Budget Request...........................................   251
            Cartel Activity........................................247, 250
            Global Competition.......................................   252
            Industry Competition...................................230, 247
        Biography, Attorney General Janet Reno.......................    33
        Budget:
            INS Detention Shortfall..................................    21
            Request..................................................     4
            Summary..................................................    34
        Bulletproof Vest Grant Program...............................   259
        CALEA:
            Implementation of........................................   203
            Rural Carriers...........................................   205
        Cartel Activity.......................................247, 248, 250
        Community Oriented Policing Service (COPS):
            Budget Request...........................................   236
            Community Policing.......................................   229
            COPS II Initiative................................243, 246, 257
            Policing Initiative......................................     5
        Community Prosecution Program................................   246
        Cooperative Agreement Program (CAP).........................20, 260
        Counterrorism:
            Budget Request...........................................    13
            Cybercrime...............................................    12
            NIPC.....................................................    12
        Crime Analysis Program.......................................   244
        Criminal Records Upgrade Program.............................   243
        Detaining Felons.............................................    18
        Diallo, Amadou...............................................   227
        Drug Enforcement Administration:
            Enhancements.............................................    15
            Foreign Program Allocation...............................   233
            Juvenile Drug Abuse......................................    17
            Management, Financial....................................   232
            Reprogramming............................................   234
            Zero Tolerance Initiative................................    16
        Drug Trafficking.............................................    15
        Employment Diversity.........................................   272
        Etraditions:
            Del Toro.................................................   210
            Delays...................................................   212
            Mexico, Fleeing to.....................................211, 213
        Federal Bureau of Investigation Request......................    30
        Federal Prison Detention.....................................    20
        Federal Prison System Request................................    18
        Female Inmates, Treatment of.................................   266
        Gun Control:
            Gun Strategy.............................................     7
            Juvenile Gun Courts Initiative...........................    10
            NICS.....................................................    10
            Youth Violence........................................... 9,246
        Immigration and Naturalization Service:
            Application Processing.................................215, 222
            Backlog, Naturalization..................................   263
            Border Patrol Agents...............................22, 214, 221
            Budget Request...........................................
            Citizenship USA........................................219, 221
            Detention..............................................216, 222
            Disciplinary Action......................................   218
            Emergency Supplemental..................................21, 217
            Institutional Removal Program............................   221
            Late Amnesty--Section 377................................   264
            NACARA Regulations.......................................   264
            Problems, General......................................220, 225
            Restructuring of.........................................   223
        Indian Country:
            Budget Request...........................................    26
            Crime....................................................    25
        Information Resource Management..............................    29
        Initiative, Department.......................................    28
        Litigation...................................................    27
        Local Law Enforcement Block Grants...........................   242
        Methamphetamine..............................................   261
        Narrowband Communication.....................................    29
        National Instant Check System (NICS).........................    10
        National White Collar Crime Center (NWCCC)...................   242
        Office of Inspector General Request..........................    30
        Office of Justice Programs:
            Bulletproof Vest Program.................................   259
            Grant Program Requests...................................   235
            Request..................................................    30
            Title V At Risk Program..................................     9
            Youth Gun Violence.......................................     9
        Police Misconduct............................................   227
        Port Industry, Competition in the............................   230
        Procurement Diversity........................................   272
        Prosecutors Grant Program....................................     6
                Public Safety Wireless Telecommunications Assistance
            Program245.....................................................
        Regional Information Sharing System (RISS)...................   243
        Questions for the Record.....................................   238
        Statement:
            Formal, Janet Reno.......................................     4
            Opening:
                Ms. Reno.............................................     2
                Mr. Rogers...........................................     1
                Mr. Serrano..........................................     2
        Team Names.................................................207, 209
        Tobacco Litigation..........................206, 208, 209, 238, 253
        U.S. Marshals Request........................................    19
        U.S. Trustees Request........................................    31
        Violent Crime:
            Decline in...............................................   255
            Resources................................................   255
            Violence Against Women...................................   265
            Violent Offender and Trust in Sentencing Grants........256, 258
            White Collar Crime, vs...................................   255
            White Collar Crime Resources.............................   255
        Youth Violence...............................................   246
    Federal Bureau of Investigation..................................   275
        Activities, Intelligence.....................................   341
        Allegations, Investigation of................................   304
            Recommendations, Department of Energy....................   304
            Responses..............................................305, 306
        Amadou Diallo................................................   333
        Appropriation Language.......................................   345
        Atlanta Bombing Investigation................................   304
        BATF.........................................................   342
        Biography....................................................   303
        Budget Request
            Funding Requirements...................................282, 300
            Overview.................................................   288
        CALEA......................................................323, 324
        Certification of Mexico......................................   320
        Challenges.................................................276, 283
        Computer Crimes..................................279, 292, 330, 339
        Cooperation, Private Sector..................................   328
        Counterterrorism.............................................   291
        Crime:
            Bank Robberies, Iowa...................................317, 337
            Indian Reservations......................................   317
        Cyber Crime................................................279, 292
            Efforts..................................................   339
            New Technology, Criminal Use.............................   330
        Danger Pay...................................................   282
        Defensive Arming Proposal....................................   334
        Department of Energy.......................................304, 311
        Enforcement, Firearms........................................   341
        Espionage:
            Cases, Motivation........................................   319
            Investigations, Complexity.............................309, 315
            Prevention, Responsibility for...........................   314
            Progress.................................................   311
            Punishing Individuals....................................   308
            Recommendations..........................................   304
            Responses..............................................305, 306
        Firearms Enforcement.........................................   341
        Hiring of Personnel, Status..................................   337
        IAFIS........................................................   320
            Update...................................................   322
        IDENT........................................................   320
        Indian Reservations, Crime...................................   317
        Information Collection.....................................278, 288
        Infrastructure.............................................299, 328
        Initiatives:
            Information Sharing......................................   324
            Southwest Border.........................................   318
            Technology Crimes......................................279, 292
        Intelligence.................................................   341
        Investigations:
            Eric Rudolph.............................................   313
        Laboratory.................................................281, 326
        Law Enforcement Services...................................281, 296
        Legislative Proposals........................................   301
        Memorandum of Understanding, BATF............................   342
        Mexico, Certification........................................   320
        National Infrastructure Protection Center....................   293
        National Instant Criminal Background Check System..........281, 298
        NCIC 2000, Update............................................   322
        NICS.......................................................281, 298
        NIPC.........................................................   293
        Opening Remarks
            Chairman Rogers..........................................   275
            Director Freeh...........................................   276
        Polygraph....................................................   335
        Priorities, National.........................................   278
        Privacy......................................................   331
        Private Sector Cooperation...................................   328
        Proposals, Legislative.......................................   301
        Recognition of Wade Houk.....................................   275
        Security, Need for Conscious Culture.........................   316
        Services, Law Enforce........................................   281
        Sioux City:
            Methamphetamine Problem..................................   338
            Mexican Drug Organizations...............................   338
            Special Agents & Support Staff...........................   337
            Tri-State Drug Task Force................................   338
        Statement:
            Formal...................................................   283
            Opening..................................................   276
        Strategic Plan...............................................   285
        Technology Crimes..........................................279, 292
        Terrorist Incident Response, Aircraft for....................   329
        Title V Exemption............................................   327
        Wade Houk....................................................   275
        Wiretaps.....................................................   324
    Drug Enforcement Program.........................................   347
        Criminal Division............................................   366
        Activities...................................................   384
        Asset Forfeiture.............................................   392
        Biography, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, James K.
          Robinson...................................................   404
        Budget Request.............................................366, 369
            Antidrug.................................................   399
            Non-Drug.................................................   402
        Caribbean Initiative.........................................   387
        Colombia:
            Black Market Peso Exchange System........................   390
            Certification............................................   395
        Drug, Primary Objective......................................   367
        Drug Control:
            Strategic Plan.........................................371, 375
        Extradition:
            Alternatives.............................................   444
            Cases....................................................   430
            International............................................   441
            Mexican Nationals........................................   429
            Recordkeeping............................................   443
        Federal Capital Cases........................................   393
        Initiatives:
            Southwest Border.......................................374, 385
        International:
            Drug Trafficking Organizations...........................   372
            Efforts..................................................   395
            Emergency Economic Powers Act............................   397
            Training.................................................   398
        Methamphetamine, Strategy..................................374, 388
        Money Laundering Strategy....................................   392
        National Drug Control Strategy...............................   366
        OCDETF:
            Accomplishments...................................376, 372, 376
            Budget Request...........................................   383
            Funding Mechanism........................................   446
        Prosecutorial Practices......................................   441
        Southwest Border Initiatives.................................   459
        Special Operations Division..................................   386
        Statement, Robinson, James K:
            Formal...................................................   370
            Opening..................................................   366
        Drug Enforcement Administration..............................   347
        Accomplishments, 1998........................................   351
        Biography, DEA Director, Thomas A. Constantine...............   365
        Budget Request.............................................350, 363
        Colombian Certification......................................   431
        Compromised Agents and Inspectors............................   438
        Diversion Control Initiative.................................   364
        Domestic Enforcement Initiative..............................   363
        Drugs:
            Addressing Problems on Regional Basis....................   356
            Caribbean................................................   455
            Crime Increase...........................................   432
            Enforcement Training Curriculum..........................   361
            Heroin...................................................   359
            International, Trafficking...............................   435
            Merthamphetamine.........................................   359
            Migration Problem........................................   349
            Primary Objectives.......................................   367
            Puerto Rico..............................................   455
            Shipment Patterns........................................   433
            Threat.................................................357, 360
        Drug Investigations, Joint...................................   348
        Electronic Surveillance......................................   450
        Extradition:
            Alternatives.............................................   444
            Cases....................................................   430
            Recordkeeping............................................   443
        Financial Management.........................................   451
        Heroin.......................................................   359
        Infrastructure:
            Improvements.............................................   356
            Initiative...............................................   363
        Intelligence, Role...........................................   448
        International:
            Drug Trafficking.........................................   435
            Extraditions.............................................   441
        Kosovo Liberation Army.......................................   462
            Methamphetamine........................................359, 436
        Mexico:
            Certification..........................................426, 434
            Extradition of Mexican Nationals.........................   429
            Law Enforcement Cooperation..............................   427
        Mobile Enforcement Teams.....................................   349
        National Guard, Use of.......................................   457
        Operation Pipeline...........................................   464
        OCDETF:
            Funding Mechanism........................................   446
        Personnel, Availability of Qualified.........................   437
        Profiling..................................................439, 454
        Regional Drug Enforcement Teams..............................   460
        Southwest Border Initiative..................................   459
        Statement, Thomas A. Constantine:
            Formal...................................................   351
            Opening..................................................   348
        Technology, Improvements.....................................   356
        Trafficking:
            International, Drug Organizations Targeting..............   354
        Violent Crime, Reducing in American Communities..............   352
        Wiretapping..................................................   450
        United States Attorneys (USA)................................   405
        Biography, Director, USA, Donna A. Bucella...................   425
        Budget Request...............................................   414
        Child Support Enforcement....................................   423
        Civil Defensive Litigation...................................   419
        Computer Crime.............................................417, 455
        Counterterrorism.............................................   417
        Drug:
            Convictions..............................................   406
            Program..................................................   405
        Firearms Prosecutions........................................   421
        Indian Country, Violent Crime................................   415
        OCDETF, Funding Mechanism....................................   445
        Southwest Border Initiative..................................   459
        Statement, Donna A. Bucella:
            Formal...................................................   407
            Opening..................................................   405
    State and Local Law Enforcement..................................   469
        Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS)................511, 534
        Biography, Director COPS, Joseph E. Brann....................   526
        Budget Request, FY 2000......................................   470
        Community Policing....................................511, 534, 543
        COPS Office..................................................   537
        COPS Program, Extension....................................543, 547
        Crime Identification Technology Act..........................   547
        Crime Reduction..............................................   512
        Funding and Hiring...........................................   513
        Grants.....................................................540, 542
        Grants, Video Conferencing...................................   537
        Local Law Enforcement Block Grant Program:
            Versus COPS Grants.......................................   528
        Police Corps Program.........................................   549
        Police Officers, Qualified...................................   536
        Policing Issues..............................................   533
        Statement, Joseph E. Brann, Director:
            Formal...................................................   514
            Opening..................................................   511
        Witnesses, Introduction of...................................   469
        Office of Justice Programs...................................   469
        Biography:
            Bilchik, Shay............................................   510
            Robinson, Laurie.........................................   490
        Block Grants.................................................   527
            Juvenile Accountability..................................   529
        Budget Request:
            Proposals................................................   471
            Spending Levels, Choices.................................   470
        Chairman's Opening Remarks...................................   469
        Child Protection.............................................   503
        Community-Based Prosecution, Weed and Seed...................   485
        Comprehensive Strategy.......................................   495
            Gun Violence.............................................   498
            Prevention...............................................   496
        Corrections Program Office...................................   545
        Counterterrorism/Domestic Preparedness.......................   486
        Crime Rates, Decline.......................................477, 530
        Criminal Justice Technology..................................   481
        Domestic Violence Programs...................................   531
        Drugs:
            Drug Court's Program.....................................   542
            Drug Treatment Initiatives...............................   555
            Drug Use and Crime, Breaking the Cycle...................   554
            Drug Use and Juveniles...................................   499
        Family Violence Research Program.............................   543
        Gangs and Youth Violence...................................484, 501
        Grants, Existing Programs....................................   553
        Gun Violence.................................................   498
        Initiatives:
            Drug Treatment...........................................   552
            Health Clinic Security...................................   556
            Juvenile Drug Demonstration..............................   550
        Inmates......................................................   556
        Juvenile Justice & Delinquency Prevention:
            Anti-Drug Abuse Media Campaign.........................551, 557
            Budget Request, FY 2000..................................   509
            Information Sharing......................................   508
            Juvenile Accountability Block Grants.....................   529
            Juvenile Crime Reduction.................................   530
            Juvenile Drug Demonstration Initiative...................   550
            Juvenile Drug Use........................................   551
            Juvenile Gun Court Program...............................   530
            New Programs, 2000 Appropriation.......................550, 556
            Research and Evaluation..................................   506
            Tribal Youth Programs....................................   506
        Local Law Enforcement Block Grant Program....................   527
            COPS Grants, Versus......................................   528
        Media and Drugs:
            Anti-Drug Abuse Campaign...............................551, 557
        Objectives, OJP..............................................   491
        Offender Accountability......................................   478
        Programs, Choices on Spending Levels.........................   470
        Restructuring Plan, OJP......................................   548
        Strategy, Comprehensive......................................   495
        Statement, Laurie Robinson, AAG:
            Formal...................................................   473
            Opening..................................................   470
        Statement, Shay Bilchik, Administrator, Office of Juvenile
          Justice and Delinquency Prevention:
            Formal...................................................   493
            Opening..................................................   491
        Technology...................................................   492
        Truth in Sentencing..........................................   530
        Violence Against Women.....................................532, 544
        Violence, School.............................................   501
        Weed and Seed, Community-Based Prosecution...................   485
        Witnesses, Introduction of...................................   469
        Youth Crime & Violence.....................................484, 503
    Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS).....................   561
        Achievements, INS:
            Border Management............................562, 568, 572, 598
            Citizenship Program....................................564, 570
            Criminal Alien Detention.................................   563
            Interior Enforcement Strategy..........................563, 599
            Restructuring................................565, 570, 594, 635
            Worksite Enforcement.....................................   586
        Adoptions, Foreign...........................................   619
        Asylum Processing............................................   593
        Authority, Delegation of.....................................   640
        Backlog, Texas Service Center................................   644
        Biography, INS Commissioner, Doris Meissner..................   601
        Border:
            Management...................................562, 568, 572, 598
            Remote Video Inspection System...........................   576
        Border Patrol Agents:
            Florida..................................................   645
            Number Requested.......................................574, 611
        Budget Request.............................................565, 597
        Census 2000...........................................607, 620, 624
        Chinese Detainees, Guam......................................   609
        Citizenship USA............................................630, 632
            Program..................................................   564
            Cooperative Agreement Program..........................614, 642
        Criminal Alien, Removal of...................................   563
        Detention:
            Center, Reimbursement....................................   637
            Resources................................................   632
        Douglas:
            Apprehension Hotspot.....................................   606
            Construction of Station..................................   606
        Emergency Supplemental Funding, Detention....................   621
        Expansion:
            Agent....................................................   644
            Iowa.....................................................   642
        Fingerprinting...............................................   615
        IDENT System.................................................   615
        Illegal Aliens, Removal of:
            Achievements.............................................   576
            Detention................................................   563
            Numbers Removed..........................................   576
            Processing...............................................   647
            Release of...............................................   604
            Smuggling, Cuba..........................................   610
        Immigration:
            Enforcement and Census.................................620, 624
            Services.................................................   600
        Inspect......................................................   593
        Institutional Removal Program..............................622, 645
        Interior Enforcement Strategy...............563, 585, 599, 618, 637
        Local Law Enforcement Calls..................................   643
        N-648 Denials, Status of.....................................   649
        Naturalization:
            Backlog...........................................616, 624, 649
            Cases, Status of.........................................   632
            Denial Rate............................................617, 648
            Improvements.............................................   590
            Process..................................................   603
            Reduction, Plan..........................................   627
            Resources, Backlog.......................................   625
        Nebraska, Detention Facility...............................614, 637
        Operation Vanguard.........................................637, 641
        Problems.....................................................   633
        Questions for the Record.....................................   637
        Quick Response Teams..................................620, 628, 643
        Remote Video Inspection System...............................   576
        Restructuring.........................................565, 594, 635
        Southwest Border Strategy....................................   613
        Statement:
            Formal...................................................   566
            Opening..................................................   562
        Technology Improvements......................................   581
        Video Teleconferencing:
            COPS, Number of..........................................   630
            Grants.................................................628, 639
            Staffing.................................................   629
    Bureau of Prisons................................................   651
        Activations, FY 1999 and FY 2000.............................   685
        Aliens, Nonreturnable:
            Criminal Alien Population Per Capita.....................   677
            Health Care and Populations Management...................   675
            Immigration and Naturalization Service...................   678
            Mariels and Cubans.......................................   682
            Prison Space.............................................   675
        Biography, BOP Director, Kathleen M. Hawk....................   667
        Budget Request.............................................651, 655
        Design/Build Contracts.......................................   684
        District of Columbia:
            Privatization of D.C. Prisoners........................671, 673
            Resources................................................   677
            Transfer of Inmates....................................670, 677
        Educating Inmates............................................   678
        Federalizing Crime...........................................   679
        FMC Butner Project...........................................   685
        Hurricane Mitch, Impact of...................................   681
        Immigrant Detainees..........................................   682
        Infectious Diseases:
            HIV and TB...............................................   676
            Inmate Care..............................................   677
            Screening................................................   681
            Testing New Inmates......................................   678
        Juvenile Offenders...........................................   683
        Overcrowding...............................................674, 680
        Population:
            Gender...................................................   685
            Inmate Growth............................................   669
            Violent Criminals........................................   679
        Privatization................................................   673
        Staffing Levels, Prison......................................   673
        Statement, Kathleen Hawk:
            Formal...................................................   654
            Opening..................................................   652
        Summary......................................................   665
        Testing New Inmates..........................................   678