    [Senate Hearing 106-147]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                                                             S. Hrg. 106-147

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

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

                                    HEARINGS

                                    before a

                              SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE

                COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS UNITED STATES SENATE

                           ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                       on

                               H.R. 2670/S. 1217

    AN ACT MAKING APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE DEPARTMENTS OF COMMERCE, JUSTICE,
      AND STATE, THE JUDICIARY, AND RELATED AGENCIES FOR THE FISCAL YEAR
               ENDING SEPTEMBER 30, 2000, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES

                                   __________

                              Part 1 (Pages 1-811)

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

                                   __________

             Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations

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

                                     ______

                           U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
     54-206 cc                    WASHINGTON : 1999
    _______________________________________________________________________
                For sale by the U.S. Government Printing Office
    Superintendent of Documents, Congressional Sales Office, Washington, DC 20402
                               ISBN 0-16-059465-0

                          COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

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

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

                      JUDD GREGG, New Hampshire, Chairman
    TED STEVENS, Alaska                  ERNEST F. HOLLINGS, South Carolina
    PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico         DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii
    MITCH McCONNELL, Kentucky            FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey
    KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas          BARBARA A. MIKULSKI, Maryland
    BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL, Colorado    PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont
                                         ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia
                                           (ex officio)
                               Professional Staff
                                  Jim Morhard
                                 Kevin Linskey
                                   Paddy Link
                                   Dana Quam
                                  Clayton Heil
                         Eric Harnischfeger (Detailee)
                             Lila Helms (Minority)
                             Emelie East (Minority)
                             Tim Harding (Detailee)

                                C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------

                             Tuesday, March 9, 1999

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

                            Thursday, March 11, 1999

    Department of Commerce: Secretary of Commerce....................   131

                            Tuesday, March 16, 1999

    Department of Justice: Immigration and Naturalization Service....   169

                             Friday, March 19, 1999

    Department of Commerce: National Oceanic and Atmospheric
      Administra-
      tion...........................................................   227

                             Monday, March 22, 1999

    Small Business Administration....................................   245

                           Wednesday, March 24, 1999

    Department of Justice:
        Drug Enforcement Administration..............................   261
        Federal Bureau of Investigation..............................   261

                            Thursday, March 25, 1999

    Securities and Exchange Commission...............................   313
    Federal Communications Commission................................   325
    Nondepartmental witnesses:
        Department of Commerce.......................................   367
            Immigration and Naturalization Service...................   384
            National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration..........   389
        Department of Justice........................................   409
        Department of State..........................................   420
        The judiciary................................................   431
        Related agencies:
            Department of Transportation: Maritime Administration....   458
            North-South Center.......................................   459
            Small Business Administration............................   462
            Securities and Exchange Commission.......................   464

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

                                  ----------

                             TUESDAY, MARCH 9, 1999

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

                             DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

                         Office of the Attorney General

    STATEMENT OF HON. JANET RENO, ATTORNEY GENERAL

                                opening remarks

        Senator Gregg. We will get started. I understand Senator
    Hollings is on the telephone but will be here in a few minutes.
        Rather than having opening statements take up a lot of the
    Attorney General's time, I would hope that members could submit
    those for the record. We will turn directly to the Attorney
    General and let her make her points, and then we can ask her
    some questions.

                     attorney general reno opening remarks

        Ms. Reno. Thank you very much, Senator. I appreciate the
    opportunity to be before you today, and I appreciate the
    thoughtfulness with which you, Senator Hollings, and the entire
    committee have approached the issues that are of such mutual
    concern.
        In 1994, this administration, with the full support of this
    subcommittee, attacked the crime problem by forming a
    partnership with State and local law enforcement and by making
    significant new resources available for State and local law
    enforcement assistance. From new police officers to prison
    construction, we have provided the resources, and I think we
    have seen an impact. The Nation's violent crime rate has
    dropped more than 20 percent over the last 6 years, and the
    murder rate has fallen to its lowest level in three decades.
        We have a choice now, Mr. Chairman, and I think I do not
    have any doubts as to the direction in which you want us to go.
    We can become complacent, as we have when crime has gone down
    in the past, and sit back and let it go back up again, or we
    can continue to do our job in Federal law enforcement, meet the
    new challenges that we face, focus strategically on crime, and
    help communities build strong, self-sufficient communities that
    have a lasting capability to effectively deal with the problem
    of crime. I think we can go a long way toward ending the
    culture of violence in this country.
        At the same time, I prize our federalist system of
    government, and as a former State prosecutor, I also respect
    the independence of State and local law enforcement. We must
    maintain the balance, and this budget does that by focusing
    support on community-building and inherently Federal
    responsibilities.
        Specifically, the budget seeks nearly $1.2 billion for a
    21st Century Policing Initiative to help communities build on
    their efforts under the successful COPS program. Six hundred
    million dollars of this request will allow the continued hiring
    of new officers, particularly in high crime areas. It will
    address retention of officers in the neediest communities, and
    the redeployment of those who are already hired.
        Another $350 million will establish a Crime Fighting
    Technology Grant Program to address the wide array of
    telecommunications and forensic science needs of State and
    local law enforcement. The initiative also provides $200
    million for a Community Prosecution Grant Program to help
    communities hire, redeploy, and train badly needed prosecutors
    who are stationed in and work within the neighborhoods they
    serve.
        Time and again, I am told by line officers throughout this
    country that effective law enforcement relies heavily on
    community involvement with strong prevention at its core. To
    assist neighborhoods and communities in their efforts to
    develop and implement comprehensive crime prevention and
    reduction strategies, another $125 million is included for a
    Community Crime Prevention Program. Building on existing
    programs, such as Weed and Seed and school-based problem-
    solving partnerships with law enforcement, this new initiative
    will fill critical gaps in support for local public safety
    efforts.
        As I told the subcommittee during my testimony last month,
    our growing dependence on cyber networks makes us vulnerable to
    the destruction or intrusion of those networks. Last year,
    through your leadership, we were able to establish the National
    Infrastructure Protection Center to deter, detect, analyze,
    investigate, and provide warnings of cyber threats and attacks
    on critical infrastructure.
        Since computers are essential in our day-to-day lives, they
    play a larger role in the crime that is perpetrated, not only
    cyber terrorism, but other sorts of illegal intrusions,
    including fraud schemes and the dissemination of child
    pornography.
        In order to improve our ability to deal with computer
    crimes, we must raise the general level of computer competence
    among agents, prosecutors, and investigators through aggressive
    training and hiring of computer experts. The fiscal year 2000
    budget includes $122.6 million in cyber crime and counter-
    terrorism program increases for the FBI, U.S. Attorneys, and
    the Criminal Division.
        We are also focused on preparing first responders for
    actions against weapons of mass destruction. The Office of
    Justice Programs is seeking $17 million to operate the Fort
    McClellan training center, $7 million for the Law Enforcement
    Training Program which was developed by the New Mexico
    Institute of Mining and Technology, and $45 million in
    additional equipment for first responders. In total, $173.5
    million will be available through the Office of Justice
    Programs for First Responder Domestic Preparedness grants to
    State and local governments in fiscal year 2000.
        We seek funding which will enable us to better coordinate
    investigations and evidence, hire additional criminal attorneys
    to prosecute complex international drug cases, and provide
    support for critical information technology systems that are
    essential in drug enforcement efforts.
        On the drug prevention side, the funds will be used to
    expand the highly successful drug court program and increase
    our efforts to drug-test and mandate inmate treatment so that
    inmates do not go back to using drugs as soon as they are
    released from prison.
        The Department is asking for $124 million to fund the
    second year of our Indian Country Law Enforcement Initiative,
    begun with the help of this subcommittee last year. It is
    critically important that we continue to enhance funding for
    law enforcement in Indian Country because the need is so great.
    A recent Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) study indicated
    that Native Americans are twice as likely to be the victims of
    violent crime as other Americans.
        The fiscal year 2000 budget request addresses the need for
    additional prison space, providing $738 million to meet the
    demand for additional detention and prison bed space for a
    Federal prison population that has grown by 142 percent in the
    last 10 years. The resources necessary for the U.S. Marshals
    Service to transport and detain Federal felons on their way
    through the court system, and for the Bureau of Prisons to
    incarcerate them once convicted, are essential to ensuring that
    our criminal justice system works.
        Beginning in 1994, the administration, with the strong
    backing of this subcommittee, embarked on an unprecedented
    effort to strengthen our ability to control the flow of illegal
    immigration into this country. This effort has doubled the size
    of the Border Patrol, added 1,890 immigration inspectors to
    better facilitate the flow of travelers and identify those
    seeking entry illegally, and established an interior
    enforcement strategy that works in concert with our efforts
    along the border.
        We continue to deploy field-tested, effective technologies,
    and we have struck accords with other agencies, such as the
    U.S. Customs Service, enabling our philosophy of ``enforcement
    through deterrence'' to successfully evolve. The fiscal year
    2000 budget request continues this aggressive effort, but also
    reflects important management considerations that can no longer
    be ignored.
        Specifically, no funding is requested to increase the
    number of Border Patrol agents in fiscal year 2000. The request
    continues Border Patrol staffing at the fiscal year 1999 level
    of nearly 9,000 agents--a 122 percent increase over the fiscal
    year 1993 level of 3,965 agents--and allows us the time to
    ensure that we can sustain the professionalism and integrity of
    our Border Patrol.
        When I testified before this subcommittee in March of 1995,
    I committed to having 7,281 Border Patrol agents on board by
    the end of fiscal year 1998. We have met and exceeded that
    figure today. Our initial projection for fiscal year 1999 end-
    of-year strength was 8,947; however, I am concerned that the
    difficulties we are currently experiencing in recruitment may
    leave us short of this level.
        But still, the high proportion of new agents makes it
    necessary that they be allowed to integrate into the Border
    Patrol corps to safeguard the highest standards of law
    enforcement professionalism for this new work force. Law
    enforcement experts indicate that it is risky to allow an
    agency's overall ratio of inexperienced to experienced agents
    to exceed 30 percent. As of July 1998, the percentage of Border
    Patrol agents having 2 years of experience or less was almost
    34 percent. It is essential that the considerably large numbers
    of new Border Patrol agents be given time to assimilate,
    gaining critical and valuable experience.

                               prepared statement

        Mr. Chairman, I appreciate your thoughtful approach to the
    many issues that confront our Department and look forward to
    working with you and the entire subcommittee.
        I will submit the rest of my testimony for inclusion in the
    record.
        [The statement follows:]
                        Prepared Statement of Janet Reno
        Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: It is a pleasure once
    again to appear before you this morning to present the President's
    budget request for the Department of Justice. For fiscal year 2000, the
    President's budget includes $21 billion for the Department of Justice--
    a $317 million increase over last year--to continue fighting crime,
    combating cyber-terrorism, curbing drug abuse, and incarcerating
    felons.
        Since I became Attorney General in 1993, funding for the Justice
    Department has increased more than 88 percent--due in large part to the
    efforts and commitment of this Subcommittee. During this same time, we
    have seen crime steadily fall. The nation's violent crime rate has
    dropped more than 20 percent over the last six years, and our murder
    rate has fallen to its lowest level in three decades. Our investment is
    paying off, but we must not let up on our efforts now. I want this
    trend to continue and believe our fiscal year 2000 budget request will
    do just that.
                     fighting crime within our communities
        One of our top challenges will be to help communities keep the
    crime rate down. But we will need a full arsenal of innovative
    strategies and programs--from high tech solutions to community-based
    prevention programs--to reduce crime even further. We know that there
    is no single solution to the crime problem. Our approach must be
    comprehensive and multi-faceted, combining and interconnecting
    enforcement, punishment, prevention, and community involvement at the
    local level.
        The budget I present to you today seeks nearly $1.3 billion for a
    21st Century Policing Initiative to help communities build on their
    efforts under the successful COPS program. Specifically, we are
    requesting $600 million to hire and redeploy between 30,000 and 50,000
    more law enforcement officers over five years, with an effort to target
    new officers to crime ``hot spots''. Funds will also be used to help
    economically-distressed communities absorb the long-term costs of their
    new hires, and for programs to train, educate, and recruit law
    enforcement officers.
        For high tech solutions, $350 million is included to establish an
    innovative Crime-Fighting Technology program to promote
    telecommunications and systems compatibility among criminal justice
    agencies, improve the forensic science capabilities of state and local
    labs, and encourage the use of technologies to predict and prevent
    crime.
        The initiative also provides $200 million for a Community
    Prosecution Grant Program. This includes $150 million in grants to help
    communities throughout the country hire, redeploy, and train badly
    needed prosecutors to help secure public safety in our nation's
    communities; and $50 million for innovative community-based public
    safety programs. Under the community prosecution philosophy,
    prosecutors are stationed in, and work within, the neighborhoods they
    serve. These prosecutors will make a difference, just as community
    policing has made a difference in fighting crime by bringing
    communities together.
        Time and time again, I am told by line officers in communities
    throughout this country that effective law enforcement relies heavily
    on community involvement with strong prevention efforts at its core. To
    assist neighborhoods and communities in their efforts to develop and
    implement comprehensive crime prevention and reduction strategies,
    another $125 million is included for a Community Crime Prevention
    Program. Building on existing programs, such as Weed and Seed, this new
    initiative will fill critical gaps in support for local public safety
    efforts that current Department funding--both formula and
    discretionary--cannot fill. The program will also support direct
    funding for crime and delinquency prevention programs that utilize
    promising approaches in preventing and reducing crime and delinquency,
    and in strengthening partnerships between community groups, schools and
    criminal justice and juvenile justice agencies in their efforts to
    fight crime and delinquency.
        And, as you are well aware, an essential building block for
    community safety is peaceful relations. The budget before you includes
    an increase of $2.13 million for the Community Relations Service (CRS)
    to improve the delivery of conciliation services to communities
    threatened with racial unrest and violence.
                   keeping guns out of the hands of criminals
        In helping communities keep the crime rate down, and reduce it even
    further to historic lows, we must address the issue of gun violence.
    Every day in this country, 93 people die from gun-related injuries.
        While gun violence may not be a uniquely American problem, it is
    certainly one in which we stand out. To bring this issue into sharper
    focus, I want to share with you a statistic that I find truly stunning:
    In the five years from 1992 through 1996, Toronto, Canada experienced
    exactly 100 gun homicides. In contrast, Chicago, an American city of
    comparable size, had 3,063 gun homicides in that same time period.
    Clearly, reducing gun-related injuries and deaths should be a national
    priority and a central part of any strategy to reduce crime.
        The Department's gun strategy involves three important components:
    prevention, interdiction and enforcement. To complement the additional
    state prosecutors requested in our fiscal year 2000 budget, and the
    additional Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (ATF) agents included in
    Treasury's fiscal year 2000 request, we are seeking $5 million to
    conduct intensive firearms prosecution projects under the leadership of
    U.S. Attorneys Offices. Building on the success achieved in reducing
    violent crime in Boston, Massachusetts and Richmond, Virginia, these
    funds will be used to hire and dispatch more than 40 federal attorneys
    to select cities across the country to prosecute criminals who possess
    guns. Once there, these prosecutors will team up with their local
    counterparts to develop comprehensive strategies for the prosecution,
    prevention, and disruption of gun violence in their communities. They
    will work together to identify those crimes that would be better off
    being brought in federal court. Violent felons, armed drug traffickers,
    and firearms offenders will all get the message: Carry a gun and you'll
    do more jail time.
        Another $49 million is requested for three Office of Justice (OJP)
    grant initiatives geared toward addressing the problem of youths and
    guns. Within this amount is $4 million for the National Institute of
    Justice to support a new Childproof Gun and Gun Detection Technology
    Program, whose goal is to expand development, testing, and replication
    of ``smart gun'' technologies. Once fully developed and tested, these
    new ``smart gun'' technologies will allow law enforcement officers'
    weapons to be more safely and reliably secured and will help prevent
    accidental deaths to children who have access to firearms.
        Also included is $10 million, earmarked within the Title V--At Risk
    Children's Program, for the Prevention and Reduction of Youth Gun
    Violence. This program, currently being implemented and evaluated in 4
    cities, seeks to reduce juveniles' illegal access to guns and address
    the reasons they carry and use guns in violent exchanges. Communities
    participating in the program are required to implement 7 program
    strategies which together represent a comprehensive approach to
    addressing the prevention, intervention, and suppression of youth gun
    violence. These new resources will enable the Department to expand this
    grant program in fiscal year 2000 to 20-25 new communities.
        Our third piece addressing the problem of youths and guns is a $35
    million request for the Juvenile Gun Courts Intervention Program--
    Certainty of Punishment. This initiative is designed to support the use
    of juvenile gun courts as the point of coordination for the
    implementation of a community-wide, comprehensive plan to address
    juvenile gun violence and accountability.
    National Instant Check System (NICS)
        What you will not find in this budget is money to operate the Brady
    Law's National Instant Check System (NICS)--a critical component of our
    gun strategy that became operational on November 30, 1998. In its first
    12 weeks of operation, the NICS processed checks for more than 2
    million gun transfers. Of these checks, the States that have agreed to
    serve as partners with the FBI in conducting background checks--we call
    them ``Points of Contact'' or ``POC's'', processed 990,364. While we do
    not yet have solid numbers for denials that the State POC's made, we do
    know that the FBI checks resulted in 22,290 denials of gun transfers.
    This means that over 22,000 persons who should not have guns did not
    get them as a direct result of the National Instant Check System
    (NICS). Clearly, operating the NICS is a very important priority and
    essential to our efforts to reduce gun violence.
        The reason funding for the National Instant Check System (NICS)
    does not appear in the fiscal year 2000 budget request is because we
    are proposing that the operational costs of the NICS be funded through
    a user fee to be paid by gun purchasers. As you know, Section 621 of
    the Fiscal Year 1999 Department of Justice Appropriations Act
    prohibited the Federal Government from charging a fee. Understandably,
    many States have found it politically difficult to continue imposing a
    state user fee for background checks when the Federal Government
    performs the checks free of charge. The prohibition has had the effect
    of discouraging states from serving as points of contact for NICS
    checks, and has pushed more workload to the Federal level.
        A federal user fee, therefore, makes sense from both a public
    safety and an appropriations viewpoint. Background checks by POC states
    are generally more thorough because criminal justice records at the
    State level tend to be more complete and readily available. And, from
    an appropriations point of view, the costs to the Federal Government
    rise as states discontinue their participation as POC's.
                       combating cybercrime and terrorism
        Another significant challenge we face will be to continue to
    prevent and combat cybercrime and terrorism. Modern technology has
    created tremendous opportunity for progress. But, it has also opened
    the door for cyberterrorists to wreak havoc on our nation's
    infrastructure. As I told the Subcommittee during my testimony last
    month, our growing dependence on cyber networks makes us vulnerable to
    the destruction or intrusion of those networks, and we must be prepared
    to fight this new cyber threat with new tools.
        Last year, through the leadership of Chairman Gregg and this
    Subcommittee, we were able to establish the National Infrastructure
    Protection Center (NIPC) to deter, detect, analyze, investigate and
    provide warnings of cyber threats and attacks on critical
    infrastructures. But, we must also remember that as computers become
    essential in our day-to-day lives, they play a larger role in the crime
    that is perpetrated--not only cyber terrorism, but also other sorts of
    illegal intrusions. Computers can be used for fraud schemes and to
    disseminate child pornography. In order to improve our ability to deal
    with these sorts of computer crimes we must raise the general level of
    computer competence among agents, prosecutors, and investigators--
    aggressively training our current staff to have the requisite expertise
    for these types of investigations and hiring computer experts, where
    necessary. That is one of the things our fiscal year 2000 budget
    request seeks to do.
        Specifically, the fiscal year 2000 budget request for the
    Department of Justice includes $122.6 million in counterterrorism/
    cybercrime program increases. For the FBI, we are seeking $45.7 million
    to add 60 agents and support staff to create 12 additional cybersquads
    to identify, investigate, and prevent threats and unlawful acts
    targeting the critical infrastructure of the United States, including
    illegal intrusions into government computer networks, protected
    civilian computers, and the national information infrastructure. We are
    also seeking 79 computer forensic analysts for the FBI's field offices
    and Headquarters. For the U.S. Attorneys, we are seeking $7.3 million
    and 87 positions to develop a global response to cyber attacks and to
    help prosecute the increased number of cases involving computer and
    high-tech crimes. Increasingly, attorneys are confronted with cases
    involving sophisticated computer use by terrorists and other criminals.
    More prosecutors with an understanding of computer technology are
    critically needed. Nearly $2 million is included for 9 additional
    Criminal Division attorneys to help resolve unique issues raised by
    emerging computer and telecommunications technologies, litigate cases,
    provide litigation support to other prosecutors, train federal law
    enforcement personnel, and coordinate international efforts to combat
    computer crime.
        The Department's fiscal year 2000 request also includes $27 million
    for the Counterterrorism Fund to reimburse federal departments and
    agencies for costs incurred in support of countering, investigating, or
    prosecuting domestic and/or international terrorism. And, another $38.5
    million is included to expand the Office of Justice Program's domestic
    preparedness efforts by supporting the new domestic preparedness
    training center in Alabama, and by purchasing additional equipment to
    protect first responders and detect chemical or biological weapons.
    This increase is in addition to the $135 million in funding provided in
    fiscal year 1999, bringing the total funding available for First
    Responder Domestic Preparedness grants to State and local governments
    to $173.5 million in fiscal year 2000.
                        drug trafficking and drug abuse
        The budget I present to you today seeks to step up our efforts to
    control the flow of illegal drugs and cut down on the demand, with an
    increase of 2.5 percent over fiscal year 1999, including growth in
    direct federal, state and local assistance. With these increased funds,
    the Department of Justice will have a budget of nearly $8 billion to
    fight drugs next year. This increase will enable us to better
    coordinate investigations and hire additional criminal attorneys to
    prosecute complex, international drug trafficking cases. And, on the
    drug prevention side, the funds will be used to expand the drug court
    program; implement proven programs that help prevent our young people
    from turning to or continuing to use drugs; and step up our efforts to
    drug-test and mandate inmate treatment so they don't go back to using
    drugs as soon as they are released from prison.
    Drug Law Enforcement
        Specifically, resources for the Drug Enforcement Administration
    (DEA) will grow to $1.469 billion, including $22 million in program
    enhancements. Within this amount is $9 million to augment the Special
    Operations Division--which supports major federal drug enforcement
    strategies, including the Southwest Border, the Caribbean Corridor
    Strategy, and the Methamphetamine Strategy; and, $13 million to
    accelerate Phase II of its FIREBIRD office automation project. FIREBIRD
    provides access to DEA's investigative databases, containing
    intelligence information on alleged criminal activity which fosters
    DEA's ability to more efficiently and effectively conduct complex drug
    investigations. In the same way that drug traffickers use sophisticated
    technology to manage their drug empires, drug law enforcement must have
    the tools to expand its capabilities and keep pace with an ever
    changing world. In addition, the fiscal year 2000 request includes
    $1.13 million for the Criminal Division (CRM) for its support of DEA's
    Special Operations Division. These monies will enable CRM to increase
    efforts devoted to prosecuting the complex cases that result from these
    drug investigations and support the processing of Title III wiretaps.
    Because the war on drugs and international crime as a whole has
    expanded beyond the borders of the United States, the Division's
    request includes two attorneys to be placed overseas in Asia and the
    Middle East.
    Zero Tolerance Drug Supervision Initiative
        A $112 million increase is provided to fund a $215 million
    initiative to promote drug testing and treatment. Recent studies have
    confirmed that our fight against drugs must include efforts to break
    the cycle between drug use and criminal activity. A report released by
    the National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia
    University found that 80 percent of people serving time in our state
    and federal prisons either were high at the time they committed their
    crimes, stole property to buy drugs, violated drug or alcohol laws, or
    have a long history of drug or alcohol abuse. And, parolees who
    continue to use drugs are much more likely to commit crimes that will
    send them back to jail.
        These findings are clear: we must stop the revolving door and break
    the cycle between drugs and criminal activity. To do this, we've
    included $100 million to establish a Drug Testing and Treatment Program
    that will provide discretionary grants to states, local governments,
    state and local courts, and Indian tribes. These grants will support
    programs to implement comprehensive drug testing policies and establish
    appropriate interventions to illegal drug use for criminal justice
    populations. I strongly believe systemic drug testing is an important
    tool for criminal justice agencies concerned with controlling drug
    abuse among offender populations. And, when compared to substance
    abusers who voluntarily enter treatment, those coerced into treatment
    through the criminal justice system are just as likely to succeed.
    Reducing Juvenile Drug Abuse
        Our request also includes $20 million for the Juvenile Justice Drug
    Prevention Demonstration Program that the Subcommittee started two
    years ago. Designed to develop, demonstrate and test programs to stress
    to young people that drug use is risky, harmful, and unattractive, in
    fiscal year 2000 the program will fund up to 280 new sites, reaching
    approximately 1,000 middle school students per site.
                       detaining and incarcerating felons
        As we investigate and prosecute more criminals, the federal felon
    population continues to grow. The number of federal detainees has
    increased annually by an average of 13 percent during the past decade,
    and by even more in the past few years. And, the federal prison
    population has increased by 142 percent during the last ten years. Even
    though meeting this demand for additional detention and prison bedspace
    is costly, it cannot be ignored. The Department's fiscal year 2000
    budget seeks $738 million in increased resources to meet this mandatory
    requirement.
        Specifically, for the Federal Prison System, our request includes
    $607.5 million to construct three new prisons--2 of which will add
    capacity for District of Columbia felons; to cover the startup costs
    incurred in connection with the construction of 6 more--including 3
    that will add capacity for the Bureau of Prisons to house long-term,
    non-returnable INS detainees--a population that has been growing
    considerably over the last few years. Finally, the request includes
    resources to activate 5 other facilities to address the 28 percent
    overcrowding rate systemwide.
        These funds will also allow us to meet the conditions of the
    National Capital Revitalization and Self-Government Improvement Act of
    1997, which requires that at least 2,000 District of Columbia sentenced
    felons be housed in contract facilities by December 31, 1999. However,
    because the original Request for Proposal (RFP) to fulfill this
    requirement was modified to accommodate more stringent security
    requirements, there is the possibility for a small delay in the actual
    transfer of these sentenced felons from the D.C. Department of
    Corrections to BoP contract facilities. If these delays are realized,
    reimbursements for this population will occur between the BoP and the
    D.C. Corrections Trustee. This action should not, however, affect the
    closure date for the Lorton Correctional Complex.
        For the United States Marshals Service, our request includes $119.6
    million to fund the costs associated with approximately 8.87 million
    contract jail days, 2.1 million above the anticipated fiscal year 2000
    base level. The detainee population has grown considerably over the
    last few years due to significant increases in apprehensions by our
    growing law enforcement personnel at the FBI, the DEA, and the INS
    Border Patrol. As a result, we are reaching a crisis situation in
    paying for the bedspace to house detainees awaiting trial. Indeed, for
    fiscal year 1999 we will be facing a shortfall in the Federal Prisoner
    Detention account for which I will need your assistance. I am
    attempting to address our shortfall from within existing Department
    resources and am hopeful you will concur with my reprogramming request.
    Furthermore, we have engaged a firm to develop a model that should
    enable us to better predict our future detention needs.
        We are also requesting a $10 million increase for the Cooperative
    Agreement Program (CAP), providing a total of $35 million, to enable
    the USMS and the INS to obtain detention space in cities and towns
    where detainee populations are large and detention facilities limited.
        In addition to the needs of the Federal Prisoner Detention program,
    the fiscal year 2000 budget request includes nearly $27 million in
    increased funding for the U.S. Marshals Service to handle the increased
    workload generated by staff increases in other federal law enforcement
    agencies, and to provide the personnel and equipment necessary to
    ensure that new courthouses and new courtrooms in existing facilities
    can open on schedule and with adequate security.
        In many ways, the Marshals Service work is uncontrollable in that
    the Marshals organization must meet the needs of the Judiciary and our
    investigators and prosecutors. The Marshals do not control the number
    of threats that judges may be confronted with, or the number of
    prisoners coming into their custody. I have had the Department review
    USMS spending in 1999 and believe that the Marshals Service must be
    fully funded in fiscal year 2000 if it is to have a chance at
    fulfilling its mission.
        ins central american detention shortfall emergency supplemental
        Exacerbating the already untenable situation we face with limited
    detention bedspace and funds to cover the costs of housing the alien
    detainee population in state and local jails, the mass destruction left
    in the wake of Hurricane Mitch resulted in the suspension of all alien
    removals to Honduras, Nicaragua, El Salvador and Guatemala during the
    two months immediately following the Hurricane. While limited
    controlled removals have begun, the pace remains slow. In addition,
    limited detention bedspace means that INS is unable to accommodate
    large numbers of illegal border crossers, particularly those from
    Central America. If this situation continues, INS is concerned that
    many more people will attempt to illegally cross the border. As a
    result, it is estimated that $80 million is required in fiscal year
    1999 to support these increased detention requirements.
        On February 16, 1999, the President submitted the fiscal year 1999
    Emergency Supplemental for Central American Disaster Relief which
    includes the $80 million for INS detention requirements I have just
    described. I appreciate the swift action you have taken to address
    these emergency requirements and look forward to working with you as
    the Supplemental proceeds to conference. Without these additional
    monies, our detention crisis will only become more dangerous and
    unmanageable.
                                  immigration
        Beginning in 1994, the Administration, with the strong backing of
    this Subcommittee, embarked on an unprecedented effort to strengthen
    our ability to control the flow of illegal immigration into this
    country. This effort has included doubling the size of the Border
    Patrol, adding over 1,900 Immigration Inspectors to better facilitate
    the flow of legal travelers and identify those seeking entry illegally,
    and establishing an interior enforcement strategy that works in concert
    with our efforts along the border. We continue to deploy field-tested,
    effective technologies, and we have struck accords with other agencies,
    such as the U.S. Customs Service, enabling our philosophy of
    ``enforcement through deterrence'' to successfully evolve. The fiscal
    year 2000 budget request continues this aggressive effort, but also
    reflects important management considerations that can no longer be
    ignored.
        Specifically, no funding is requested to increase the number of
    Border Patrol agents in fiscal year 2000. The request continues Border
    Patrol staffing at the fiscal year 1999 level of nearly 9,000 agents, a
    122 percent increase from the fiscal year 1993 level of 3,965 agents,
    and allows us the time to ensure that we sustain the professionalism
    and integrity of our border patrol cadre of agents.
        When I testified before this Subcommittee in March of 1995, I
    committed to having 7,281 Border Patrol Agents on board by the end of
    fiscal year 1998. We have met and exceeded this figure. The fiscal year
    1999 projected number of Border Patrol Agents on board will be 8,947.
        The high proportion of new agents makes it necessary that they be
    allowed to integrate into the Border Patrol corps to safeguard the
    highest standards of law enforcement professionalism for this new
    workforce. Law enforcement experts indicate that it is very risky to
    allow an agency's overall ratio of inexperienced to experienced agents
    to exceed 30 percent. When it does, the agency will find it difficult
    to maintain performance, professionalism and integrity. Some municipal
    police departments have struggled with significant corruption and
    performance problems when they have greatly expanded their uniformed
    force in a short amount of time. INS cannot guarantee that it will not
    have the same problems. In a recent study, it was determined that the
    percentage of Border Patrol Agents having two years or less service as
    of July 18, 1998, was almost 39 percent compared with October 2, 1993,
    when only 15 percent of Border Patrol Agent's had less than two years
    of service. It is essential that the considerably large numbers of new
    Border Patrol agents be given time to assimilate, gaining critical and
    valuable experience.
        The fiscal year 2000 budget maintains the Administration's
    commitment to border control with its request for $50 million to
    increase force-multiplying surveillance technology which, through the
    Integrated Surveillance Intelligence System (ISIS), provides the
    capability to monitor the border from remote sites. ISIS will relieve
    Border Patrol Agents from having to go to sites needlessly, thus
    increasing their effectiveness, while giving the Border Patrol time to
    raise experience factors to acceptable levels.
        In addition, the fiscal year 2000 request includes $6 million for
    new border inspectors in Texas; $20 million in increased funding to
    transport and remove aliens in INS custody and to increase detention
    space; and, $70.6 million to plan and construct new detention
    facilities, new Border Patrol Stations, and Sector Headquarters space.
                       targeting crime in indian country
        The fiscal year 2000 budget includes $124 million to fund the
    second year of our Indian Country Law Enforcement Initiative, begun
    with the help of this Subcommittee last year. Using funds appropriated
    in fiscal year 1999, the Department has been working closely with the
    Department of Interior to address the critical need for better law
    enforcement in Indian Country and to find new ways to deliver resources
    to tribal communities in the most efficient manner. To that end, the
    Department, through its grant programs, is encouraging tribal
    communities to work together through inter-tribal or regional
    cooperation so that we can make the most impact with current resources.
    The Department is also developing a model project on three
    reservations--the CIRCLE Project--to assist tribal leaders in
    developing a comprehensive plan to address their community's problems.
    I hope that this project will serve as a model for future,
    comprehensive efforts to improve public safety in Indian Country.
        To build on the efforts we have begun with fiscal year 1999
    resources, the fiscal year 2000 request includes $45 million for the
    hiring, equipping, and training of Indian Country law enforcement
    officers through the 21st Century Policing Program; $34 million for the
    construction of badly needed corrections facilities; $10 million for
    alcohol and substance abuse treatment in Indian Country as part of the
    new Drug Testing and Treatment Program; $20 million in At-Risk Youth
    Initiative funds to assist Indian tribes to prevent and control
    delinquency, improve their juvenile justice systems, and improve
    coordination and cooperation between tribal governments, federal
    agencies, and other organizations serving Indian youth; $5 million to
    continue the Tribal Courts Program; $5 million from the Police Corps
    Program to increase the number of police in Indian country with
    advanced education and training; $2 million to conduct a national
    census of tribal criminal justice agencies and related statistical
    activities to improve the Nation's understanding of crime and the
    administration of justice among Native Americans; and, $3.2 million and
    26 assistant United States attorneys to investigate and prosecute
    crimes in Indian Country where Federal law enforcement is the only
    avenue of protection for victims of such crimes.
                             department litigation
        The Department's fiscal year 2000 budget request includes $59.5
    million in program increases for the litigating divisions of the
    Department of Justice. As responsibilities and caseloads continue to
    increase, these additional resources are critical to the Department's
    ability to prevent, investigate and prosecute unlawful activities.
        Within these increased resources, $21.7 million is included to
    provide payments of claims expected to be approved under the
    Administration's proposed amendments to the Radiation Exposure
    Compensation Act; and, $9.55 million from pre-merger filing fees is
    requested for the Antitrust Division to maintain its criminal
    enforcement program and to meet its statutory requirements related to
    reviewing and investigating the increasing number of mergers. For the
    Civil Rights Division, $8.23 million is included to expand efforts to
    prosecute hate crimes, step up the enforcement of fair housing and fair
    lending laws, and protect the rights of Americans with disabilities.
        Another $20 million is included for the Civil Division: $5 million
    to investigate and prosecute the Columbia/HCA matters, where fraud has
    been alleged in virtually every aspect of the largest health care
    conglomerate in the United States; and, $15 million for tobacco
    litigation. Like the States, the federal government has expended
    considerable resources to combat tobacco-related illnesses, incurring
    significant expenses through Medicare, CHAMPUS, the Veteran's
    Administration, the Department of Defense, and the Indian Health
    Service. With these new resources, the Civil Division will aggressively
    pursue claims against responsible third parties to recover such
    expenses. In addition, $5 million is requested to cover the cost of
    anticipated expert witnesses in the tobacco litigation.
        For the U.S. Attorneys, we are seeking $5 million to handle an
    expanding defensive civil caseload for tort litigation, employment
    discrimination, Social Security disability, and prisoner litigation.
    Also, another $5 million is requested to implement the provisions of
    the Child Support Recovery Act of 1996 and the Deadbeat Parents
    Punishment Act of 1998.
                      other justice department initiatives
        In addition to the special initiatives I have outlined thus far,
    the Department's fiscal year 2000 budget includes $171.25 million for
    other important program enhancements. These include funding to improve
    communications, to respond to this Subcommittee's concern regarding the
    timeliness of Office of Inspector General investigations, and to
    improve FBI intelligence collections and management capabilities.
    Information Resources Management
        Specifically, $80 million in additional funding is requested to
    improve the information sharing abilities of the Department and to
    upgrade much needed legal and management tools. Within this amount, we
    are seeking an additional $38.8 million to continue to move forward
    with the FBI's Information Sharing Initiative (ISI), which supports the
    FBI's overall information technology, specifically its Information
    Collection and Analysis Strategy critical to the success of FBI
    operations; and, $37 million for Legal Activities Office Automation
    (LAOA) to upgrade critical legal and management tools within the
    Department.
    Narrowband Communications
        Another $56.6 million is requested to accelerate the conversion of
    the Department's wireless radio communications to narrowband
    operations, and to support the Wireless Management Office within the
    Justice Management Division as directed by this Subcommittee.
    Federal Bureau of Investigation
        And, $14.5 million in additional funding is included for FBI law
    enforcement services, including the federal offender DNA database,
    improved connectivity between state and local crime labs and the FBI,
    and to begin outfitting the new FBI laboratory. Also, $5.8 million is
    requested to improve FBI intelligence collections and management
    capabilities.
    Office of Justice Programs
        In addition, within total funding for the Office of Justice
    Programs, $7.75 million will be used for new civil rights and hate
    crimes initiatives--including $5 million to create Civil Rights
    Enforcement Partnerships that will provide competitive grants to help
    build the capacity of states to address specific enforcement issues
    within their jurisdictions by hiring additional staff, primarily
    prosecutors.
    Office of the Inspector General
        The fiscal year 2000 budget request includes $7.5 million in
    increased funding for the Office of Inspector General (OIG), $5 million
    of which would replace with direct appropriations a reimbursement
    agreement with the INS for audit, inspection, and investigative
    oversight that has been in place since fiscal year 1992. This will
    provide a more streamlined and efficient means of providing funding for
    the OIG and will eliminate the need for future reimbursements between
    the OIG and INS for fee-related work. The $2.5 million in requested
    program enhancements would fund 31 new positions in the OIG's
    Investigations Division and six positions in its Special Investigations
    and Review Unit. These enhancements are essential to enable the OIG to
    effectively address record numbers of misconduct allegations while
    reducing its average case closure rate to 180 days.
    U.S. Trustees
        The fiscal year 2000 request also includes an increase of $4.9
    million to meet the ever-increasing number of bankruptcy filings, as
    well as to provide the U.S. Trustees with new capability for word
    processing, database management, communications, file-transfer, and
    security.
                                   conclusion
        Mr. Chairman, I have attempted to outline for you today, the
    principal focus of the fiscal year 2000 budget request for the
    Department of Justice.
        I appreciate the support you have given to me, and to the
    Department of Justice during the past six years. We have made
    tremendous progress in fighting crime, and with your continued support,
    I am certain we can continue to build on our progress made to date.
        Thank you. I look forward to answering any questions you might
    have.

        Senator Gregg. Thank you very much, Madam Attorney General,
    and as is the tradition of this committee, at least, when we
    are fortunate enough to have the chairman of the committee with
    us, we give him the first shot at asking questions if he has
    any.

                              Parenting education

        Senator Stevens. Well, thank you very much. I am only going
    to stay for a minute, but I do hope, Madam Attorney General,
    that you can renew your plans to come to my State [Alaska]. We
    had a very nice trip planned, and I look forward to your
    coming.
        I just have one very short statement and then a comment. I
    have been sort of mesmerized by the ``Decade of the Brain,''
    and one of the things I have been looking into is the effect of
    brain stimulation on babies. I am the father of six, and it is
    very interesting for me to see these new things that are being
    developed. With the new statistics of the number of women of
    childbearing age who work out of the home and the lack of
    caregivers, such as grandparents, these days, one of the
    interesting things we find is that the lack of stimulation for
    a baby between the ages of 1 and 3 years means the brain just
    does not set up the kinds of connections and develop the
    functions that will permit the child to have good learning
    capability.
        I think a Baylor University study showed that negative
    stimulation, or not having stimulation, sets a child up for a
    lifetime of disabilities, social dysfunction, and violence. A
    friend of mine at UCLA has done some studies that show that
    kids exposed to drugs later in life really lose all function
    and have a hole in their brains--an interesting thing.
        What I am getting at is that when we had Secretary Riley
    and Secretary Shalala before our subcommittees, I asked whether
    they could work with this committee in developing an integrated
    approach to parenting education. It is really cost-effective.
    One study showed that every dollar we might invest in parenting
    education would save the Government $4 to $5 later in life for
    that same child.
        I would like to see a coordinated, Government-wide program
    on parenting that would try to take advantage of these studies.
    The studies absolutely show that a baby's brain is literally
    wired, and they develop the capacity for learning and social
    functions between the time they are born and 3 years of age,
    and we are neglecting that entirely in all Federal programs
    today.
        My question to you is: Would you be willing to give us some
    assistance from your Department to see if we could work out a
    Government-wide program on parenting and how to develop the
    real capability to stimulate the brains of the children in this
    country?
        Ms. Reno. Mr. Chairman, those are some of the most
    wonderful words I have heard since I got here. It was 6 years
    ago today that I came up to this building for the beginning of
    my confirmation hearing. I came as a former prosecutor from
    Miami who had tried to figure out what to do about crack-
    involved infants and their mothers. The doctors took me to the
    public hospital to figure out whether we should prosecute them
    or what we should do with them.
        I saw babies lying in the nursery who could not be sent
    home because there was no one to care for them. They were not
    held or talked to except when they were changed or fed, and
    they had been there for 6 months. They were not reacting with
    human emotions, whereas the child with severe birth defects,
    with both parents around her to the extent humanly possible
    around-the-clock, was beginning to react through her pain and
    misery with human emotions.
        The doctors told me that 50 percent of all learned human
    response is learned in the first year of life; that the concept
    of reward and punishment and conscience is developed in the
    first 3 years. I asked myself what good are all the prisons, 18
    years from now, going to be if the person does not understand
    what punishment means or does not have a conscience.
        Since that time, I have tried to do everything I could to
    focus community-building on ages zero to 3. One of the most
    heartening experiences I have had was 2 weeks ago to go to the
    National Association of Counties' meeting on public safety and
    criminal justice. They were focusing on zero to 3 as the most
    critical time.
        I would love to work with you. I will meet with your staff.
    I will do anything I can to assist in this effort because I
    think it is absolutely vital. I do not think we can neglect any
    point along the way, because after we do a good job with zero
    to 3, we have got to make sure that those same children have
    appropriate supervision after school when both parents are
    working and that they are prepared for the work force.
        I would love to work with you, and I commit to doing so,
    and I am looking forward to going to Alaska.
        Senator Stevens. Good. Thank you very much.
        Thank you for your courtesy, Mr. Chairman and members of
    the committee.
        Senator Gregg. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        We will use the 5-minute rule from here on out, and with
    the exception of Senator Hollings and myself, we will go by
    order of arrival.

                          Independent counsel statute

        Madam Attorney General, could you give me some thoughts on
    the Independent Counsel statute? I serve on the authorizing
    committee as well as on this committee, of course, and I notice
    the Department has changed its position basically 180 degrees
    from being at one point in favor of the reauthorization to now
    being opposed to the reauthorization.
        My question--and I am suspect of the legislation myself--
    but my concern is this, and it is a concern that has been
    expressed to me by senior people in the law enforcement
    community, especially the Federal law enforcement community.
    How do we handle a corrupt Attorney General if we do not have
    an Independent Counsel? Shouldn't the statute at least exist
    for the purposes of addressing the President, the Vice
    President, and the Attorney General?
        Ms. Reno. I think one of the ways that you address the
    issue of a corrupt Attorney General is by impeaching the
    corrupt Attorney General or taking other appropriate action.
    But let me just give you my background, because I testified
    before committees in support of the legislation when it was
    reauthorized.
        I came from the point of view of a person who was elected
    within a jurisdiction where there were 19 other State Attorneys
    in Florida; there was another executive. So that when any
    question arose, I simply recused myself. There was no question
    about it, but there was another executive who was independent
    who could pursue it, an executive who had the same limitations
    with respect to budget, who had the same requirements, and the
    Governor could supervise the matter.
        I did not have what I have had these last 6 years, which
    has been people saying you did this wrong, you did not do this
    right--I was damned if I did and damned if I did not. Under the
    Independent Counsel Act, to sustain its constitutionality, the
    court relied on the fact that I had--the Attorney General had--
    the authority or the requirement that they make the initial
    triggering decision and that they also have the power to remove
    the Independent Counsel for cause.
        As long as the Attorney General has that authority and
    responsibility under the Act, you are not going to get away
    from the issue of, ``Is the Independent Counsel independent?''
    There are going to be questions raised, as there are
    constantly, over the decisions that I make. I reached a
    conclusion, after having functioned under both since I had been
    responsible for the regulatory appointment of a Special
    Counsel, Mr. Fisk, that if I were going to be responsible, I
    had best be responsible in a way that made me truly accountable
    to the people.
        There is nothing perfect, but my sense is that this country
    did well for 200 years without an Independent Counsel Act,
    dealt with the issue of, as I recall, one Attorney General--and
    I will have to go back and refresh my recollection on that
    Attorney General--and I think that law enforcement can continue
    to work.

                    investigating Attorney General position

        Senator Gregg. So if you have an Attorney General who is
    acting inappropriately and potentially in a corrupt manner, you
    are thinking that--who would initiate the investigative
    activity and be in at least a quasi-independent status? I mean,
    clearly, anybody within the Attorney General's Office would not
    have the quasi-independent status that at least an Independent
    Counsel has.
        Ms. Reno. Well, clearly, the FBI has the authority and
    the----
        Senator Gregg. But they are a line agency for you.
        Ms. Reno. But the Director of the FBI is an independent
    person in the sense that he has a term. Granted, I can
    recommend removal for cause, but I think the same situation is
    going to exist. If you have, under the present Act, a corrupt
    Attorney General, that corrupt Attorney General is going to
    refuse to trigger the Act.
        Senator Gregg. Well, I presume we could adjust the Act so
    that when the issue was the Attorney General, there would be
    some other triggering mechanism.
        Ms. Reno. Well, in certain situations--and the Deputy
    Attorney General and I will get the law on this for you so that
    you can address it--I think the Deputy Attorney General could
    take action as well.
        The bottom line is that in a State system, you have a
    Governor, elected officials and the like, who have different
    responsibilities. Here, in the federal system, it comes right
    down to the ultimate responsibility lying in the executive
    branch of Government. I think there is no way around coming up
    to the fact that you cannot design a system that provides for
    true independence without disrupting the concept that is so
    vital to this Nation, which provides the checks and balances of
    three branches of Government that are ultimately accountable.
        Senator Gregg. Well, I guess I would like to pursue this
    further, but rather than tie up this committee, which is going
    to be involved in a lot of other substantive money issues, I
    will not. I will come back to those money issues and now turn
    to Senator Hollings.

                   reauthorization of Independent Counsel Act

        Senator Hollings. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
        On the Independent Counsel, talking about the
    reauthorization and the position taken by the Department of
    Justice, it strikes me, really--and I am trying to get rid of
    him--do not misunderstand me; I think that he and all other
    previous independent prosecutors have been used politically. We
    have to learn something from our harsh experience here, and
    after 4\1/2\ years and $44 million--you and I both know that we
    could find something against almost anybody in 4\1/2\ years and
    $44 million. And therein is where the people of the country
    save the Congress.
        I remember in 1941, the Congress saved the people by one
    vote passing the Selective Service, but you had the reverse
    situation. People did not like President Clinton being less
    than forthright, there was no question, but they did not like
    even more the Independent Counsel, who never saw a witness,
    never saw Monica Lewinsky and used tricks of the trade,
    including wiring and taping, to develop a case.
        Go back down to Dade County where you were the prosecutor.
    Go to the domestic court where A sues B for sexual misconduct,
    adultery; A and B both, under oath and in open court before the
    judge, swear to their pleadings. Either A or B loses, and the
    loser is never taken from the domestic court, saying, we are
    going to take you to criminal court because you lied under
    oath, and that is obstruction of justice. The process threw the
    whole country into turmoil.
        So I am looking at the statute, and it is not the
    reauthorization. You have to go back, General--and correct me
    if I am wrong--to 1987, Public Law 100-202. There was an
    omnibus bill passed in December of that year that created a
    permanent, indefinite appropriation for the activities of the
    Independent Counsel, and therein is how Fisk, the predecessor
    to Mr. Starr, was actually financed. He did not get financed
    under the authorization because the authorization bill that you
    now oppose reauthorizing is not at issue.
        What is really at issue is not only that, but this
    permanent statute--am I correct? Wasn't that the way you
    financed Mr. Fisk?
        Ms. Reno. That is correct.
        Senator Hollings. So in other words, Mr. Chairman, in
    addition to getting rid of that reauthorization bill, you have
    to address the permanent and indefinite appropriation. I
    believe that as an executive, you would never have Linda Tripp
    around, but under the rules of the game you have to keep them.
    And similarly, you have a lot of Republican people over there
    in the Department of Justice leaking information all over the
    place. The Attorney General is not in charge. We need not worry
    about a corrupt Attorney General. You are the most uncorrupt
    individual to ever hit the Attorney General's Office, I can
    tell you that. You are going to do right regardless of what
    Clinton wants.
        Let me go to Joel Klein now, Attorney General, and let us
    put in some strong statements, because you have a movement now,
    and he is doing well. I like to see the Government lawyers
    outsmart all these private lawyers, and he is doing a good job.
    I say that advisedly, because I opposed his nomination because
    he was playing politics at the time. But he does not play
    politics now. He is very, very competent and doing a lot of
    work, and in this era of mergers and so on, he has more work,
    and rather than cut $1 million, as the Senator from Washington,
    Senator Gorton, intends to say on the floor, I hope we can
    increase the funding.

                            Mexico drug trafficking

        Jumping quickly under this limited time to drugs, I know
    our distinguished chairman has found some funding unaccounted
    for, and I am going to join the chairman with a separate order
    for DEA, but let me go to Mexico, because it is the same act,
    the same scene. Let us go back to 1989 when President Bush
    proclaimed a new era of unprecedented cooperation, and agreed
    to intensify joint efforts to combat drug trafficking. This was
    an agreement between President Bush and President Carlos
    Salinas.
        Well, Salinas is a fugitive from justice right now, down in
    Havana, Cuba. Call him up. That was the prototype of free trade
    for the emerging countries with Carlos Salinas and NAFTA. But
    besides that, go right to the next Attorney General, and under
    General Thornburgh in 1990, ``The record of Mexican law
    enforcement is extremely impressive.'' Under President Clinton
    they claimed to be ``fully cooperating'' down there. Yet Tom
    Constantine, the Drug Enforcement Administrator, the Director
    of that administration, said, and I quote: ``The power of the
    Mexican criminal organizations has grown virtually
    geometrically over the past 5 years, resulting in corruption
    unparalleled to anything I have seen in 39 years of law
    enforcement.'' That was on February 27, less than a month ago.
        Would you like to comment? Do you want to make a statement
    about how wonderful it is?
        Ms. Reno. No. I will tell you what my statement was.
        Senator Hollings. Yes, ma'am, please do.
        Ms. Reno. I wrote to Chairmen Grassley and Biden at the
    time that Tom Constantine testified, and I said: ``Corruption
    has had in past years a terribly corrosive impact in Mexico. We
    have had concerns and frustrations with this situation. Indeed,
    President Zedillo has been probably the person most frustrated
    by it. He inherited a very difficult situation that you have
    described, and he has taken steps to address it.'' I describe
    the steps; I describe other things that need to be done; and
    there is no doubt that corruption in Mexico is a significant
    problem.
        Senator Hollings. I will come back.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Gregg. Senator Campbell.

                                Drug prevention

        Senator Campbell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I would like to associate myself with at least part of
    Senator Hollings' comments. I think you are doing a very fine
    job, Madam Attorney General, and I will not ask you a single
    question about the Independent Counsel or Monica Lewinsky or
    anybody else in that unfortunate circumstance.
        But I wanted to ask you a few questions about the use of
    drugs, and Senator Hollings touched on it. I would like to
    start out by asking you to look at a bill that I introduced
    last year that I am going to be reintroducing that gives
    conditional certification to Mexico. I know there is some
    disagreement between some Members of Congress and the
    administration, with the administration saying, with the
    exception of Mr. Constantine's comments, that they in fact have
    come up to a certain threshold of performance. Many of the
    people in Congress do not believe so, and they want to hold up
    certification.
        It seems to me we could find some area where we could give
    certification on condition, conditional certification with a
    time frame in which we could monitor their performance, and I
    am going to reintroduce that bill if you would look at that.
        We had testimony in our Subcommittee on Treasury the other
    day in fact from General McCaffrey, and he talked about the
    West, particularly Colorado and some of the Western States,
    which are at the forefront of methamphetamine use in the United
    States. I know that as you mentioned, there are certainly areas
    where crime is going down, and I think that is great, but I am
    a little bit concerned about what I see as a duplication of
    effort.
        He asked in his testimony if we would provide roughly $200
    million per year for the next few years for a campaign--that
    has been going on for 3 years now, by the way; I think we have
    put, if I am not mistaken, well over $500 million of money into
    it, a preventive national campaign to convince youth that they
    do not need drugs. I worry a little bit about the duplication
    of effort, since we do not have unlimited money.
        The ONDCP has its own drug prevention program called the
    Drug-Free Communities Act, which I am sure you are aware of.
    This was funded at $20 million last year. The Department of
    Justice has asked for $20 million for what is called the Drug
    Prevention Demonstration Program this year.
        Could you tell me how those programs are different or where
    they are going to overlap, so we are not just duplicating our
    efforts?
        Ms. Reno. This is how we are trying to design it within the
    Department of Justice. Prevention programs are better operated,
    in terms of drug prevention specifically, through HHS and
    through ONDCP, but it is vital that we coordinate together so
    that as we observe people on drugs, we can take steps to
    intervene before another crime is committed, aside from the
    drug possession; that we take steps through the drug courts,
    which are clearly in the law enforcement realm and for which we
    have asked for increases. They have proven to be very
    successful; and for those that continue to abuse and continue
    to forfeit the opportunities that have been provided to them,
    that we provide increased penalties and increased sanctions at
    each step of the way.
        At the same time, for people who have substance abuse
    problems, we are working with the ONDCP and with the Department
    of Health and Human Services to develop the best means of
    testing and treatment and after-care and follow-up. In that
    connection, I think we are working closely with the two other
    principal agencies involved, and I will continue to address
    that.

                                 Tribal courts

        Senator Campbell. Thank you. So you do use ONDCP's
    clearinghouse for materials that you might pass over for your
    grant program.
        You also mentioned Indian crime rates in your statement,
    and I know as you do that they are just skyrocketing on many
    Indian reservations. I am interested in the capacity-building
    for tribal courts. Could you give me an overview of the
    resources that are now available to increase that capacity? Let
    me ask one other question, too. I know that cases of domestic
    violence are on the rise in reservations, too. We have a
    problem, obviously, if one member of a marriage is an enrolled
    member of a tribe, and the other one is not, because tribal
    courts have no jurisdiction against the non-Indian in the
    marriage. How do you address that issue as well, if you could
    touch on both of them?
        Ms. Reno. First, with respect to the tribal courts, with so
    many different tribes, it is very difficult to properly fund
    and create a sufficient number that we can effectively use the
    dollars for. So there are some tribes that have come together--
    the Sioux Nation is an example--and have formed a court
    structure that is developing and, I think, serving some
    significant purposes.
        We are asking for $5 million to assist tribal governments
    in the development, enhancement, and continuing operation of
    tribal justice systems. That does not begin to scratch the
    surface, but I think----
        Senator Campbell. That seems like a very low request to me.
        Ms. Reno [continuing]. It is a beginning.
        With respect to domestic violence and with respect to youth
    issues and so many others, what I have learned, Senator, is
    that given a chance, given the opportunity to build a strong
    tribal justice system, tribes throughout the United States are
    taking significant steps in addressing the issue of domestic
    violence in a culturally sensitive way and in a way that is
    thoughtful.
        What we are trying to do is to learn from each other and
    support programs that are working and that can be identified
    and can be replicated. It is a very challenging effort, but I
    think it is one of the most important efforts that we can
    undertake in the Department of Justice, because I think that
    for too long, we have neglected that whole area.
        Senator Campbell. I thank you for your response and your
    sensitivity to it. It is a very complicated and difficult
    question I know, and I thank you.
        I am out of time. Thank you.
        Ms. Reno. Somebody just gave me a figure, and I will
    clarify it for you, Senator, of $10 million for tribal courts.
    I have two different figures here, so we will clarify it for
    you and let you know exactly what it is.
        [The information follows:]

                              Tribal Court Program

        The 2000 President's Budget includes $5 million for the
    continuation of the Office of Justice Programs' Tribal Court
    Program, which was first appropriated in 1999.
        The purpose of this program is to assist tribal governments
    in the development, enhancement and continuing operation of
    tribal judicial systems by providing resources for the
    necessary tools to sustain safer and more peaceful communities,
    by focusing on juvenile and family issues as well as non-
    traditional approaches to justice, to enhance the
    administration of civil and criminal justice on Indian lands,
    and to encourage the implementation of the Indian Civil Rights
    Act by tribal governments.
        While promoting greater cooperation among tribal, State,
    and Federal justice systems, this program will assist tribal
    justice systems to coordinate programs and services within its
    tribal structure with law enforcement, victims services,
    treatment providers and others. The Tribal Court Program will
    also assist with technology development to ensure that tribal
    justice systems can communicate within the tribal and non-
    tribal justice community.

        Senator Campbell. Thank you.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Gregg. Senator Leahy.

                    Independent counsel investigation costs

        Senator Leahy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Madam Attorney General, I was interested in being here as a
    new member of this subcommittee but also in my role as ranking
    member of the authorizing committee.
        I note the Department filed court papers on March 8th
    defending your oversight authority to investigate allegations
    of misconduct by Special Prosecutor Kenneth Starr. You note in
    those papers that inherent in your removal power is the
    authority to investigate and assure that the Independent
    Counsel is competently performing his or her duties in a manner
    that comports with the law.
        The Department also states that ``The ability to determine
    the pertinent facts is a prerequisite to responsible and
    effective exercise of that authority.''
        I would assume in determining those pertinent facts, you
    could also determine how he or she may have spent their money.
    We also have that oversight responsibility, and I wrote you
    last week requesting information about the cost of Mr. Starr's
    investigation, and Mr. Chairman, I would ask that my letter be
    made a part of the record, which goes into a number of
    questions.
        Senator Gregg. Without objection.
        [The information follows:]
                      Letter From Senator Patrick J. Leahy
                                  United States Senate,
                                    Committee on the Judiciary,
                                         Washington, DC, March 4, 1999.
    The Honorable Janet Reno,
    Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice,
    Washington, D.C.
        Dear Janet, In anticipation of the hearings on the Department's
    budget next week before the Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce,
    Justice, State, and the Judiciary and the Committee on the Judiciary
    Committee, I would like to alert you to two areas of particular
    concern: funding for Independent Counsels and for the Communications
    Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (CALEA).
        Independent Counsels.--At the Judiciary Committee's Department of
    Justice Oversight hearing in July 1998, you may recall that I asked you
    about spending by independent counsels (ICs) and you referred me to
    information compiled by the General Accounting Office. While the
    Comptroller General is responsible for auditing independent counsels,
    under 18 U.S.C. Sec. 596(c), and the Administrative Office of the
    United States Courts (AO) is responsible for providing administrative
    support and guidance to independent counsels, under 18 U.S.C.
    Sec. 594(1)(2), the law gives the Department and the Attorney General
    overall responsibility for spending by Independent Counsels.
        Specifically, under 18 U.S.C. Sec. 594(e), the Department of
    Justice is directed to ``pay all costs relating to the establishment
    and operation of any office of independent counsel'' and the Attorney
    General is directed to report to Congress ``on amounts paid during that
    fiscal year for expenses of investigations and prosecutions by
    independent counsels.'' In addition, under 18 U.S.C. Sec. 594(d), the
    Department of Justice may grant requests by independent counsels for
    assistance in carrying out their functions, including access to records
    and files, the use of resources and personnel, and the detailing of
    prosecutors, administrative personnel, and other employees of the
    Department to the staff of the independent counsel.
        In my view, these statutory responsibilities make the Department
    the primary repository of relevant and material information relating to
    the costs of independent counsels, particularly since the AO is
    expressly prohibited from providing information without the independent
    counsel's authorization (see 18 U.S.C. Sec. 594(1)(2)).
        Given the Department's responsibilities for spending by independent
    counsels, I expect fully responsive answers by the Department to the
    attached questions regarding the costs of Kenneth Starr's Office of
    Independent Counsel (OIC), unless there is a legal prohibition of which
    I am unaware barring your providing this information to Congress.
        CALEA.--As I indicated in a floor statement at the close of the
    last Congress, I have been disturbed by the pace of implementation of
    CALEA and the potential costs associated with the so-called ``punch
    list'' items being urged by the Department and the Federal Bureau of
    Investigation. I have enclosed a copy of my statement on this matter
    for your convenience.
        CALEA authorizes $500 million of government funds to pay
    telecommunications carriers for the reasonable costs of retrofitting
    equipment deployed before 1995 to comply with the new capability
    requirements under the law. This amount was authorized based on
    representations at the time by the Department and the FBI, and was set
    at a level intended to apply pressure on law enforcement to contain
    costs and limit the surveillance capability they would seek.
        Now, carriers are concerned that the ``punch-list'' items will
    drive the costs up to as much as ten times the amount Congress
    authorized. Their concerns appear to be well-founded since you
    indicated in a letter last October that ``[i]n excess of $2 billion
    would likely be needed'' to cover the costs of modifying equipment to
    comply with the surveillance capability sought by the Department. These
    ongoing disputes over the specific surveillance capabilities and the
    costs of compliance are delaying implementation of this important law.
        In 1994, I specifically questioned Director Freeh about whether he
    would use the legislation to build the perfect surveillance system, or
    what I referred to as ``the bomb-proof fax machine.'' He responded that
    he was not ``proposing rewiring America on the bomb-proof fax machine
    theory'' and promised that ``We will never * * * require that type of
    ridiculous cost and preparation.'' Nevertheless, the Department has
    pursued a surveillance system that has delayed achievement of law
    enforcement goals, while driving up costs. I authored this law and
    worked for its passage because I thought there was a sense of urgency
    and need on the part of law enforcement.
        Is it time to scale back the Department's demands and speed up
    CALEA implementation at the same time? What steps are you taking to
    prioritize law enforcement needs and ensure that CALEA is implemented
    in a cost-effective manner for both the government and the taxpayer or
    ratepayer? To avoid further delays in CALEA compliance, should Congress
    resolve the ongoing dispute between the Department and the
    telecommunications industry and make the determination whether certain
    punch-list items being requested by the Department are simply too
    expensive?
        I look forward to speaking with you about these matters.
                Sincerely,
                                                 Patrick Leahy,
                                                 United States Senator.
                                   attachment
    Personnel:
        How many attorneys are employed by the OIC?
        How many attorneys have been detailed to the OIC?
        What is the salary for each attorney (without naming the attorney)?
        How many paralegals are employed by the OIC?
        How many paralegals have been detailed to the OIC?
        What is the salary for each paralegal (without naming the
    paralegal)?
        How many secretaries or other assistants are employed by the OIC?
        How many secretaries or other assistants have been detailed to the
    OIC?
        What is the salary for each secretary or assistant (without naming
    the secretary or assistant)?
        How many employees of the OIC have received or are eligible for
    raises or bonuses?
        What is the amount of each raise or bonus that has been granted?
    Personnel Salaries/Bonuses:
        How many employees in the OIC are eligible for overtime pay?
        What is the amount of overtime pay that has been paid to OIC
    employees?
        How many consultants or other advisers (such as press or public
    relations or ethics consultants) are or have been employed by the OIC?
        Please identify each of them.
        What is the amount that has been paid to each of the consultants or
    other advisors employed by the OIC?
    Federal Agent Detailees:
        How many federal agents are detailed to the OIC?
        From which agencies are these agents or employees detailed?
        How many agents or other persons are detailed from the Federal
    Bureau of Investigation?
        How many agents or other persons are detailed from the Internal
    Revenue Service?
        How much of the cost of each detailed federal employee is charged
    to the OIC and how much to a federal agency?
        Please identify the unit from which each detailed agent was
    diverted to work on the OIC?
    Travel Costs:
                Air Transportation:
        What is the total number of airplane trips made by OIC staff at
    government expense and the total cost of these trips?
        How much money has been spent on airline tickets for:
          a. Kenneth Starr?
          b. Other OIC staff?
        How many first class tickets have been purchased and at what cost?
        How many business class tickets have been purchased and at what
    cost?
                Surface Transportation:
        What is the total number of automobiles used by OIC staff at
    government expense?
        Please identify the make, model and year of each automobile, and
    the cost and of the lease and length of the lease for each vehicle?
        What is the total number of official drivers employed by the OIC
    and the salary for each driver?
                Witness Transportation:
        What is the total number of times Starr's OIC has paid for witness
    travel at government expense?
        What is the total cost of such travel to the government?
        How many witness' have traveled at government expense in connection
    with the OIC?
        What is the total cost to the government of witness travel and
    lodging in connection with the OIC?
    Offices:
        What are the locations of the offices used by the OIC?
        What is the cost of rent for each office used by the OIC?
        How much square footage has the OIC rented in each location?
        What is the cost of telephone system used for each office?
        What is the cost of court reporting services incurred by the OIC?
    Computer Services:
        What is the total cost of computers and computer systems incurred
    by the OIC?
        Does the OIC lease computers and computer systems?
        If so, what systems are leased and at what cost per month?
        Does the OIC employ a systems administrator?
        If so, what is that cost of the systems administrator?
    Witness' Attorney Costs:
        What is the amount of witness' attorney's fees in connection with
    OIC that the government has reimbursed or anticipates reimbursing?
    Lewinsky Matter:
        What is the best estimate of the total cost to the government of
    the OIC investigation of the Lewinsky matter, including OIC staff
    salary, travel, and detailee salaries?
    Foster Suicide Matter:
        What is the best estimate of the total cost to the government of
    the OIC investigation of the Vince Foster suicide, including OIC staff
    salary, travel, and detailee salaries?
           [Excerpt From the Congressional Record, October 21, 1998]
      statement of senator patrick leahy on passage of certain anti-crime
                                  legislation
        Mr. Leahy. Mr. President, as this Congress draws to a close, much
    has been and will be said about what has and has not been accomplished.
    There is no getting away from the fact that Congress has dropped the
    ball on too many issues of vital importance to the American people. I
    need only mention campaign finance reform, a patients' bill of rights,
    and the failure to pass tough legislation on youth smoking. I have
    spoken often about the failure of this Congress to live up to its
    constitutional advice and consent responsibilities with respect to
    nominations. In addition, this is the first year since enactment of the
    Congressional Budget Act that Congress has failed to pass a budget.
    There is much about the record of the 105th Congress with which I have
    been disappointed and with which the American people should find fault.
        In the area of criminal justice, I particularly regret Congress'
    failure to pass balanced juvenile crime legislation, the Democratic
    crime bills, S. 15 and S. 2484, or comprehensive legislation on behalf
    of crime victims. At the same time, I would like to highlight those
    important measures that we have been able to pass.
              * * * * * * *
     authorization of the department of justice and implementation of the
               communications assistance for law enforcement act
        I was pleased to work with Senator Hatch on the Hatch-Leahy
    substitute amendment to H.R. 3303, the Department of Justice
    Appropriation Authorization Act for fiscal years 1999, 2000, and 2001,
    that the Senate Judiciary Committee reported favorably and that I had
    hoped would be enacted before the end of this Congress.
        The last time Congress properly authorized spending for the entire
    Department of Justice was in 1979. This 19-year failure to properly
    reauthorize the Department has forced the appropriations committees in
    both houses to do both jobs of reauthorizing and appropriating money
    for the Department. This bill reaffirms the authorizing jurisdiction
    and responsibility of the Senate and House Judiciary Committees. I
    commend Senator Hatch and Congressman Hyde for working in a bipartisan
    manner to bring the important business of re-authorizing the Department
    back before the Judiciary Committees. Regular reauthorization of the
    Department should be part and parcel of the Committees' traditional
    role in overseeing the Department's activities.
        One of the provisions that the Hatch-Leahy substitute removed from
    the House-passed version of the bill relates to the compliance date and
    so-called ``grandfather date'' in the Communications Assistance For Law
    Enforcement Act (CALEA), commonly called the ``digital telephony law.''
    As part of H.R. 3303, the House extended the compliance date for two
    years and the ``grandfather date'' for almost six years, until October
    2000.
        I have long resisted the efforts and urging of many to tamper with
    the provisions of CALEA. This law was carefully crafted, after months
    of negotiation, to balance privacy rights and interests, law
    enforcement needs, and the desire of business and consumers for
    innovation in the telecommunications industry. I have so far resisted
    legislative modifications not because implementation of this law has
    been problem-free. Far from it. Implementation of this important law
    has certainly been slower than any of us anticipated. For example, the
    Department of Justice issued its final notice of capacity in March
    1998, over two years late. Capacity requirements are integrally
    involved with setting appropriate capability standards and building
    CALEA-compliant equipment. Thus, the delay in release of the final
    capacity notice has also delayed the ability of telecommunications
    carriers to achieve compliance with the capability assistance
    requirements.
        In addition to significant delays, implementation of CALEA has been
    fraught with controversy and debate. Currently pending before the FCC,
    for example, are proceedings to determine the sufficiency of an interim
    standard adopted in December 1997 by industry for wireline, cellular
    and broadband PCS carriers to comply with the four general capability
    assistance requirements of the law. This interim standard was developed
    in accordance with CALEA's direction that the telecommunications
    industry take the lead on figuring out technical solutions for
    implementing the law. Such industry standards provide ``safe harbors''
    under the law.
        While the FBI criticizes the interim standard for failing to
    include certain surveillance functions (referred to as the ``punch
    list'' items), civil liberties groups criticize the interim standard
    for failing to protect privacy by including surveillance functions for
    location information and packet-mode call content information. We
    recognized in CALEA that these are complicated issues, which require
    intensive time and technical expertise to resolve. The law consequently
    authorizes the FCC to review alleged deficiencies in, or establish
    under certain circumstances, technical requirements or standards for
    compliance with the CALEA capability assistance requirements.
        Uncertainty over the outcome of the disputed interim standard has
    resulted in further delays in developing technical solutions. Indeed,
    because of the delays in implementation of CALEA, neither the House or
    the Senate provided any new direct appropriations into the
    Telecommunications Carrier Compliance Fund. The Explanation of Managers
    for the Omnibus Appropriations bill makes clear that should funding be
    necessary in the upcoming fiscal year, the Attorney General is expected
    to spend the unobligated funds currently available in the fund.
        Even if the FCC were to issue its decision and settle the disputes
    today, compliance with the interim standard would not be achievable for
    some time because of the development cycle for standardized products
    and services after promulgation of standards. Therefore, the conferees
    for the Omnibus Appropriations bill urged the FCC ``to act quickly to
    resolve this issue.'' I join in this direction and also urge the FCC to
    resolve the pending petitions regarding the interim standard promptly.
        Should the FCC determine that the FBI is correct and that all, or
    substantially all, the punch list items are required to be incorporated
    into the compliance standard, the FBI may have won a battle but in the
    long run--given the potential costs associated with the punch list
    items--lost the proverbial war. Carriers would bear the costs of
    complying with those punch list items for equipment, facilities, and
    services deployed or installed after January 1995, unless the cost is
    so high, compliance is not reasonably achievable. Then the Government
    would have to pay for retrofitting, subject to available appropriations
    and prioritization by law enforcement. Absent such Government payment,
    which would make compliance ``reasonably achievable,'' CALEA directs
    that the equipment, facilities, and services at issue will be ``deemed
    to be in compliance with such capability requirements.'' 47 U.S.C.
    Sec. 1008(b)(2)(B).
        I therefore strongly urge carriers to provide the FCC with all
    necessary cost information associated with the punch list items so that
    the agency is able to make determinations on whether compliance is
    reasonably achievable.
        We anticipated when we passed CALEA that debates and delays over
    implementation issues would occur. Congress therefore established
    processes at the FCC and in the courts to hear all sides, resolve
    differences, and grant extensions where necessary and warranted.
        CALEA expressly authorizes the FCC to extend the compliance date of
    October 1998, one of the dates extended by the House in its version of
    H.R. 3303. On September 11, 1998, the FCC released a decision
    exercising its authority and extending the CALEA compliance date until
    June 30, 2000. This is a few months shy of the extension approved by
    the House. This action shows that the FCC process we set up in CALEA to
    resolve problems that may arise with the law's implementation works.
    The agency's decision on extension of the compliance date has given me
    renewed confidence in its ability to carry out the responsibilities we
    gave the agency under CALEA.
        The House-passed version of H.R. 3303 also extended the
    ``grandfather date.'' Let me explain the significance of this date.
    CALEA authorizes $500 million for the Federal Government to pay
    telecommunications carriers for the reasonable costs of retrofitting
    equipment, facilities or services deployed by January 1, 1995 to comply
    with the capability requirements. Any such equipment not retrofitted at
    Government expense is deemed to be compliant, or ``grandfathered,''
    until the equipment is replaced or undergoes significant upgrade in the
    ordinary course of business.
        Carriers have raised concerns that due to significant changes in
    the telecommunications infrastructure as well as the deployment of new
    equipment and services since 1995, they may be ineligible for any
    reimbursement under this ``grandfather'' clause. Carriers have sought
    an extension of the ``grandfather date'' until 2000. Before we take
    such a step and extend the grandfather date, we should fully consider
    the possible unintended consequences.
        The ``grandfather date'' was set at a time earlier than the
    compliance date in order to give telecommunications carriers every
    incentive to find and implement the most efficient and cost-effective
    solutions to ensure the requisite law enforcement access. In addition,
    Congress fully contemplated that at some point carriers--not the
    Government--would bear the costs of CALEA compliance. Setting the
    grandfather date at January 1995 was intended to be a privacy-enhancing
    mechanism by giving carriers the additional incentive to interpret the
    capability assistance requirements narrowly since compliance with non-
    grandfathered equipment or services was on their ``dime.'' Extending
    the grandfather date by almost six years to the year 200 may have the
    unintended consequence of undercutting these important policy
    considerations.
        While CALEA requires that equipment, facilities or services
    deployed after January 1995 comply with capability assistance standards
    at the carriers' expense, to ensure fairness and promote innovation,
    the law provides a ``relief valve.'' Specifically, carriers are
    authorized to petition the FCC to determine whether compliance for such
    non-grandfathered equipment, facilities or services is ``reasonably
    achievable'' or whether compliance would impose significant difficulty
    or expense on the carrier or users of the carrier's systems. As I noted
    above, if the FCC decides compliance is not reasonably achievable,
    under 47 U.S.C. Sec. 1008(b)(2)B), the carrier is ``deemed to be in
    compliance'' unless the Attorney General prioritizes its needs,
    evaluates the importance of the surveillance feature to laws
    enforcement's mission, and determines that reimbursement is justified.
        I appreciate the circumstances under which telecommunications
    carriers are seeking extension of the grandfather date and their
    concern over the costs of CALEA compliance for individual companies and
    ratepayers. As I have already noted, the cost implications of the punch
    list are significant in evaluating whether compliance is ``reasonably
    achievable,'' regardless of the specific grandfather date. Should the
    cost of CALEA compliance and of the punch list become excessive, I urge
    the industry not to assume that extension of the grandfather date is
    the only means to achieve a fair resolution of the costs of CALEA
    compliance.
        I look forward to a continued dialogue with the telecommunications
    industry and the Department of Justice to ensure that the
    implementation of CALEA is fair and maintains the careful balance of
    privacy, innovation and law enforcement interests that we intended.

        Senator Leahy. I will not go into the question of
    reauthorizations--others will do that--but when I look at some
    of these fundamental costs, the General Accounting Office gives
    us only the most general reports on total expenditures. For
    example, the latest GAO report--and I have been unable to get
    straight answers from them--from September 1998 tells us that
    Kenneth Starr spent close to half a million dollars over a 6-
    month period for investigators and other specialists. These
    investigators were in addition to the agents you used from the
    FBI and the IRS.
        Now, who these special investigators and specialists are
    and how many are paid for out of Government funds are questions
    that remain unanswered.
        The Administrative Office of the Courts is responsible for
    disbursement to the Independent Counsel, but he is legally
    barred from telling us about how much was spent and on what. As
    I read the law, only your Department has overall responsibility
    for spending by the Independent Counsel.
        So, with all that, you have a series of questions from me
    about his expenditures. Do we know how many attorneys are
    employed by the OIC?
        Ms. Reno. In order to ensure the independence and the
    public confidence that the Independent Counsel envisions, I am
    told that the Department's policy has existed since the late
    1980's. The policy has been to keep records only as to the
    categories of expenditures by Independent Counsel.
        We have a copy of the most recent quarterly report, which
    we have brought----
        Senator Leahy. But that does not tell us diddly-squat; it
    really does not. What I am trying to get at is that GAO will
    not tell us, you will not tell us, the Administrative Office of
    the Courts will not tell us, but we are expected to come up
    with $40 or $50 million for what is appearing to be more and
    more of an ego trip or a vendetta on the part of Mr. Starr--but
    even if it were justified, it is still $40 or $50 million of
    taxpayers' money. I do not know of any prosecutors' offices
    that have budgets like that. Nobody will tell us what it is
    spent on. Why bother to even have an oversight hearing?
        And I assume you will not tell us in the Judiciary
    Committee. We cannot find out how many Federal agents are
    detailed to him. We cannot find out how much money he is
    spending on airplane travel. We cannot find out whether he
    gives bonuses or does not; what he is paying for personnel; how
    many cars are leased which I am told just sit there month after
    month without being used; how many square feet of high-priced
    office space is leased and never used; how many people are
    flown around even when not needed.
        Do you understand my frustration?
        Ms. Reno. I do.
        Senator Leahy. Well, do we have any answers?

                   accountability of the Independent counsel

        Ms. Reno. As I have come to understand the practice of the
    Department of Justice, as I have looked at the language of the
    Act, I have concluded, and I have said on previous occasions,
    that one of the steps I think should be taken if the Act were
    to continue, is that the person who is the Independent Counsel
    ought to have a budget--everybody else in Government exists
    with a budget--and must live within that budget and be
    accountable for it, and that there be a mechanism for that
    accountability. I do not think that that exists now.
        Senator Leahy. Well, everybody in the world with the
    exception of Kenneth Starr would agree with you on that, but is
    there nobody today who can tell us how much he is spending? I
    mean, if I want to find out how much you are spending, how many
    lawyers you have in your Department, how much they pay you,
    whether they get bonuses, what their expense accounts are, I
    can find that out. Anybody can find out how much we are paid,
    how much we spend, and how much we put in on our expense
    accounts, our telephone bills, and everything else. Is there
    nobody who can tell us what this man is spending in detail?
        Ms. Reno. I will be happy to review all the factors with
    you. I do not know of a way that the Justice Department can
    provide that information under the Act and ensure the
    independence of the Independent Counsel.
        Senator Leahy. Is there anybody who can supply it?
        Ms. Reno. Yes, the Independent Counsel.
        Senator Leahy. Oh, good. You know, maybe it is because I
    see the snow falling outside that I think of the expression of
    ``hell freezing over,'' as far as ever getting that from him.
        So in effect, there is no--I can ask the questions, and I
    will not get the answers, so there is really no reason for me
    to go to the oversight hearing on Friday, either, is there?
        Ms. Reno. Well, I know from your past comments to me and
    your past actions that there are other issues that you care
    deeply about.
        Senator Leahy. Yes. CALEA, yes--there is one that is a
    mess.
        Senator Gregg. The Senator's time has expired.
        Senator Leahy. OK. I will have some questions on CALEA, and
    I will wait to see if we can get ourselves through that mess.
        Senator Gregg. Senator Lautenberg.

                                Racial profiling

        Senator Lautenberg. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Madam Attorney General, I commend you for the leadership
    that you have provided. The crime rate drop is significant--
    over 20 percent since 1993. And I also commend you for your
    effort to reduce gun violence in our country and solicit your
    assistance with some legislation I have to reduce those
    shocking figures that we hear so regularly, that we lose over
    30,000 people a year to gun violence.
        But for the moment, I want to address a particular problem
    that pervades our society and has been an egregious problem in
    the State of New Jersey. It is referred to under the
    description of ``racial profiling.'' As a matter of fact, there
    is even an acronym ``DWB,'' or ``driving while black.'' It is a
    dangerous issue for many innocent people.
        I want to thank you for permitting Mr. Holder to join us at
    a meeting later today that we are having on racial profiling.
    We have several members of the African American clergy here
    from New Jersey as well as State legislators. I call attention
    to a letter that I sent you some days ago, asking for a task
    force to be created to investigate this problem because it is
    not unique to New Jersey. It is particularly acute up and down
    the Northeast corridor from Washington to New York along
    highway I-95. I asked for a task force to help us expedite a
    review of this and come up with either civil enforcement,
    prosecution or a change in law if necessary.
        It is totally unacceptable that a part of our society is
    deprived of their civil rights while others enjoy the full
    protection of the law. The first time the Justice Department
    looked at this, Madam Attorney General, was in December 1996
    when a State judge in New Jersey ruled that racial profiling
    was an obvious occurrence in some 19 cases. So I would ask if
    you can help, and we are going to discuss that with Mr. Holder
    when we see him in a short while.

                               prepared statement

        And Mr. Chairman, I would ask also that the full text of my
    statement be included in the record as if read.
        Senator Gregg. Without objection.
        [The statement follows:]
               Prepared Statement of Senator Frank R. Lautenberg
        Thank you Mr. Chairman.
        Let me first commend you, Attorney General Reno, for all of your
    hard work.
        You can't argue with results, and you've made substantial progress
    in the battle against crime. The violent crime rate has now fallen more
    than 21 percent since 1993. In fact, violent crime rates are the lowest
    since 1973, when the Bureau of Justice Statistics first began its
    National Crime Victimization survey. And it's not just violent crimes
    that are down. The property crime rate is also at a historic low.
        Certainly, this progress could not have been made without the
    dedication of our police officers and community groups, but your
    leadership has made a critical difference in protecting people and
    making our neighborhoods safer.
        Of course, as you have said, there is much work yet to be done.
    Your record shows that you are always looking for the next challenge,
    and I look forward to working with you as our nation looks to build
    safer communities for the twenty-first century.
        Let me briefly outline some of the issues that I am most concerned
    about, and I hope we can discuss them further during the question
    period.
        First, we must find better ways to protect the civil rights of all
    Americans.
        We have all been horrified by the brutal attacks against minorities
    in recent months. There was the savage beating of Matthew Shepard, a
    gay student at the University of Wyoming. We were also horrified when
    James Byrd Jr., a black man, was chained to a pickup truck and dragged
    to his death in east Texas. In my home state of New Jersey, a retarded
    man was recently beaten and tortured.
        It is hard to believe that people in a civilized society can
    brutalize others like this. We cannot tolerate this violence. We may
    never be able to prevent the ignorant few from teaching hate, but we
    can crack down on anyone who threatens the well-being of his fellow
    man.
        It is particularly disturbing when we see law enforcement officers
    violating the civil rights of others. No one is safe when those who
    must uphold the law treat it with contempt.
        This has become a very important issue in my home state of New
    Jersey. With us today are a number of leaders from New Jersey--members
    of the Black Ministers Council and representatives from the Black and
    Latino Legislative Caucus. They are in town for a meeting later today
    with Deputy Attorney General Holder on the problem of racial profiling.
        For many years there have been serious and credible allegations
    that the New Jersey State Police have pulled people over for ``D.W.B.''
    or ``Driving While Black.'' The fact that this term has become a part
    of the common vocabulary shows how pervasive the problem is.
        Last year, I tried to help with this issue by securing federal
    funds so that trooper cars could be equipped with video cameras. While
    that may be a part of the solution, more needs to be done.
        I would like you to consider creating a Task Force, of Justice
    Department personnel and other outside experts, to take a careful look
    at the racial profiling issue--not just in New Jersey but along the
    Interstate-95 corridor.
        I know that the Civil Rights Division at Justice is currently
    conducting a review of certain allegations and I recently sent you a
    letter urging you to expedite this effort. But I think more needs to be
    done in a prompt and comprehensive manner. After all, we are talking
    about our citizens' constitutional rights. No one should fear that they
    will be pulled over because of the color of their skin.
        We must also do more to stop gun violence. For too long we have let
    the gun extremists define the debate at the expense of reasonable and
    common sense gun regulations. They spend a lot of time misrepresenting
    the 2nd Amendment, but they denigrate many other important rights.
        What about the right of children to be free from violence and
    terror? What about the right of all Americans to sit in their living
    rooms without bullets flying through their windows? And what about the
    right of taxpayers who pay billions of dollars in health care costs to
    take care of victims?
        I have introduced legislation that will help taxpayers recover
    these costs--it's called the Gun Industry Accountability Act. Many
    Mayors across the country--the local officials who face the everyday
    problems--are fighting back against the gun lobbyists. They are saying
    that gun manufacturers and dealers must take responsibility for their
    product, just like other industries whether it's cars, aspirin, or
    toasters.
        These communities are saying that if you do not take reasonable
    steps to make your product safe, or if you market and distribute guns
    in an irresponsible way, you have to bear the costs of your actions.
    Not only is this a basic principle in our legal system, it's something
    all parents teach their kids.
        I hope that the Administration will support this effort, as it has
    supported a similar approach to tobacco.
        Of course, litigation is not the best way to solve problems. Courts
    can be slow, and lawyers are expensive. But we should not be surprised
    if people turn to the courts when their voices are drowned in a sea of
    special interest money.
        I have proposed a number of other common sense measures that will
    help prevent gun violence. With these measures in place, there would be
    little need for litigation.
        We should close the loophole in federal gun laws which allows
    criminals to buy firearms at gun shows without background checks. I
    appreciate the Administration's help and support with this measure.
        I also have a proposal to limit handgun purchases to one per month.
    Anyone who needs more than 12 guns a year should probably not be
    allowed to buy guns.
        Finally, I have introduced The Childproof Handgun Act which would
    help prevent those tragedies that occur when children find guns. It
    would require that handguns be engineered, with a device such as a
    combination lock, or a magnetic ring, so that they cannot be fired by
    an unauthorized user.
        Whether it is protecting civil rights, preventing gun violence, or
    taking other steps to make our communities safer; we should always
    remember what is at stake--a better America for future generations.
        I hope that we will all rededicate ourselves to renewing the most
    troubled neighborhoods where gangs and drug dealers have destroyed the
    foundation that children need to build better lives. Every young child
    has great hope and spirit, and we cannot let the worst elements of
    society destroy their dreams.
        Recently, we were both at the White House for the First Lady's
    announcement of new resources for mentoring programs. As you know, I
    authored the Juvenile Mentoring Program--what we call JUMP--which helps
    keep young people in school and off the streets by matching responsible
    adults with children who need additional discipline and guidance to
    help them stay on the path to success.
        I know that prevention efforts have always been a key part of your
    agenda, and I want to thank you for your support of the JUMP
    initiative.
        Again, let me thank you for your leadership of the Department of
    Justice. I have always enjoyed working with you, and I look forward to
    working with you to fight crime, protect civil rights, and build
    stronger neighborhoods for our children.

        Senator Lautenberg. About 3 years ago, a New Jersey
    Superior Court judge found that 19 minority motorists who were
    arrested from 1991 to 1998 had been stopped because of their
    race. In that case, two former State troopers testified that
    they were trained to stop minority drivers even if they had not
    broken any motor vehicle law.
        The issue became more heated after an incident just last
    April when two State troopers fired a number of shots into a
    van holding four minority men, and thus far, there is nothing
    that suggests these men were engaged in anything criminal.
        This problem is not limited to New Jersey. Lawsuits have
    been filed in Maryland and in other States along the Interstate
    95 corridor. This is unacceptable. No one should fear being
    pulled over because of the color of his or her skin.
        I have a friend who is an outstanding attorney in New
    Jersey, an African American, who says one of the worst things
    he has to do is get on the highway and drive. It sounds like
    such a simple task, but he is aware of the fact that at any
    moment, without provocation, he could be pulled over.
        I know that you share my concern about this issue, and I
    want to ask you a few questions about the Department's efforts
    in this area. First, could you just briefly discuss the role of
    the Department of Justice when there are allegations that law
    enforcement officials are violating the constitutional rights
    of minorities?
        Ms. Reno. Senator, with respect to the particular issue
    that you have raised in New Jersey, the Civil Rights Division
    is actively pursuing a review of the New Jersey State police
    and this issue. We are examining State police policies and
    practices to determine if State troopers are engaged in the
    pattern or practice of discriminatory traffic stops. We want to
    do a thorough review and complete it as soon as possible.
        In the 1994 Crime Act, Congress gave us the authority to
    determine if there were patterns and practices, and we are
    pursuing that, and in a number of other jurisdictions as well.
        The whole issue, not just with respect to traffic stops,
    but with respect to stopping a young man on the streets of
    Washington or some other jurisdiction in this country is of
    grave concern. If you talk to young people, they sometimes feel
    like they have been put down or harassed. What we are trying to
    do is to develop an attitude about policing in this country
    where people look to the police officer as their friend, as
    their mentor, as the person who can provide guidance.
        Through our community policing initiative, I think we have
    made some substantial progress. This past December, we held a
    conference on racial profiling issues that brought together
    civil rights advocates, police organizations, chiefs of several
    major departments and of State highway patrols, and Federal
    officials that focused on training for local law enforcement
    agencies. So both from the point of view of the pattern and
    practice jurisdiction and the training, we are pursuing the
    issue of profiling.
        With respect to the issue of what happens when a law
    enforcement official violates someone's constitutional rights,
    we are working closely with State and local law enforcement to
    make sure these cases are pursued, and that the Federal
    interest in the protection of civil rights is vindicated. This
    is one of our highest priorities.
        Senator Lautenberg. Well, we could very well need your
    help--and I will finish, Mr. Chairman--because in the State of
    New Jersey, an appeal was filed to overturn the judge's
    conclusion that racial profiling was taking place. They have
    since held up on it, and it is a matter of great urgency.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Gregg. Thank you, Senator Lautenberg.
        Senator Inouye.

                            Hawaii detention center

        Senator Inouye. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
        I would like to shift gears, Madam Attorney General. I
    would like to thank you for your leadership in the construction
    of a Federal detention center in Hawaii, and I would like to
    report to you that it is on schedule, and I think it is going
    to be a major cost-saver. As you know, at this moment, several
    prisoners will have to be shipped to some prison on the
    mainland, then returned to Honolulu for trial; this way, it is
    going to be done efficiently.
        Senator Gregg. Are you telling me we can get a vacation in
    Hawaii now, where we have a Federal prison? Sounds like a good
    deal.
        Senator Inouye. I was also pleased to learn that the Bureau
    of Prisons officials are coming to Hawaii to conduct career
    fairs to help in the employment of people in Hawaii for this
    center. I was also very pleased to learn that your Department
    has offered to fund certain drug initiative programs on one of
    our forgotten islands, Lanai, and also the teen prostitution
    prevention program of our First Lady.
        So I thank you very much in behalf of the people of Hawaii.

                       Immigration investor visa program

        Madam Attorney General, I was planning to raise a question
    on the immigrant investor visa program, but I have been told
    that 5 days ago, your Department issued a report on this
    matter, so I will study this report, and if I may, I would like
    to call upon your office for discussion.
        Ms. Reno. By all means, sir.
        Senator Inouye. Thank you very much.
        Ms. Reno. Thank you.
        Senator Inouye. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Gregg. Thank you, Senator Inouye.
        Senator Hutchison.

                            INS Border Patrol agents

        Senator Hutchison. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I am putting up a chart behind me to show the four major
    drug cartels operating out of Mexico and where they are coming
    into the United States. Two of the four operate through Texas,
    chiefly the McAllen-Laredo-Del Rio border sectors, and one
    through Juarez.
        I am very concerned, Madam Attorney General, that your
    budget does not call for the required 1,000 Border Patrol
    agents that has been put in the law over a 5-year period
    starting in 1997. Texas still has the smallest number of agents
    per mile, and only this year did Texas surpass California with
    its 140 miles of border, although Texas has 1,254 miles of
    border. Texas, New Mexico and Arizona have approximately 2.4 to
    3 agents per mile, while California has 19 agents per mile.
        I am very concerned that we seem not to have the
    willingness from INS or the Justice Department to continue on
    the pursuit of 5,000 new Border Patrol agents. When I heard
    about the budget request, I called the head of each of the
    sectors of the Border Patrol to see if perhaps there was a
    reason why we would not need any further Border Patrol agents,
    and they assured me that technology does not surpass the number
    of people and that we are still woefully short of the number of
    Border Patrol agents.
        The only time that we have had the real infusion is thanks
    to this subcommittee, especially the chairman and the ranking
    member, who held firm in the last 2 years; but as you know, in
    the last year the 500 that were allocated for Texas have not
    come through, so the only year we had a real infusion was the
    year before last. The training is not occurring. I understand
    there are problems with getting personnel in the training
    center.
        I just want to ask you why is it not a priority for your
    Department to continue the commitment which was beginning to
    work, which was having a good effect of adding the thousand new
    Border Patrol agents per year to try to get some control over
    the illegal immigration and illegal drugs coming into our
    country.
        Ms. Reno. First of all, it has been an extraordinarily high
    priority for me since the beginning. I have probably spent as
    much time on the Border Patrol as almost any other single
    agency, and it is a significant priority.
        With respect to this year's funding, I am as concerned as
    you are about the fact that it is not the training that has
    been canceled because we could not provide training; rather, it
    is that we have not had the classes because of difficulty in
    recruiting. The military has seen the same issue. We are
    reviewing everything that we are doing to make sure we try to
    address this shortfall, and I will try to keep you posted on
    day-to-day developments because I know of your concern.
        But I have told you before, and I know there is some
    dispute, but I have checked with law enforcement officials, and
    they suggest to me that there reaches a point where you can
    absorb just so many new agents if you do not have an experience
    level in the field to match it.
        Law enforcement experts have indicated that it is very
    risky to allow an agency's overall ratio of inexperienced to
    experienced agents to exceed 30 to 1. As of February 13, 1999,
    47.9 percent of the Border Patrol will have 3 years of
    experience or less, and it was my considered judgment, still
    maintaining this as a priority, that we needed to allow time
    for the Border Patrol to learn; to become assimilated in the
    ranks, and to develop the expertise that they need to address
    the critical issues along the border.

                  supervisory training of Border Patrol agents

        Senator Hutchison. Madam Attorney General, if you realize
    that recruiting is the problem, and you are saying that because
    the force is inexperienced, then why is there not a priority in
    the budget for supervisory training--something that would deal
    with this--rather than just saying no more new Border Patrol
    agents? We are just beginning to see--well, $1 billion worth of
    drugs was kept out, confiscated on the border in Texas, but it
    is estimated by the Office of National Drug Control Policy that
    $10 billion tried to cross. So $1 billion was taken out, and $9
    billion got through to all of these places in the country that
    are the destinations.
        I just cannot understand why we do not address the concern.
    If it is that we do not have enough maturity, then let us get
    supervisory training personnel. If it is recruiting, let us
    step up recruiting. But we cannot have 1,000 one year and
    supposedly 1,000 the next year, but only a few have come on,
    and ever have a stability and an anticipation that we are going
    to follow through with the strategy that you have laid out from
    the beginning.
        The strategy, if you remember, because you and I have
    talked about this, was to start with California and work your
    way toward Texas. Well, California has 19 agents per mile, and
    then you go to Arizona, with three, New Mexico, with two, and
    Texas, with two, and you are stopping before you have finished
    the strategy.
        So I just ask you how are you going to show an improvement
    if you do not follow through on the strategy, and especially if
    you stop with the State that has 1,200 out of the 2,000 miles
    of border with Mexico?
        Ms. Reno. As I indicated, we are reviewing our entire
    recruiting process to see if there are sources of recruiting
    that we can follow through on. We are trying to streamline it
    in every way; we are giving it every attention that we can, and
    I will be happy to keep you posted.
        With respect to supervisory training, we are trying to
    provide that. One of the problems when you have that ratio is
    the difficulty in taking people off the line to provide the
    training, because they are the only experienced people on the
    line.
        I will be happy to meet with you and go over any
    suggestions you might have from your experience in talking to
    various law enforcement officials, but it has been my
    experience that those departments that take on such a
    significant number of new personnel, all within a limited
    period of time, suffer, and the responsibilities of the Border
    Patrol are so mixed and so varied that I think it requires that
    we do this in the way that will develop a permanent
    professional cadre.
        I do not intend to slack off one bit. It is the best
    judgment that I can make, but I will be happy to continue to
    explore it with you because I know how strongly you feel about
    it.
        Senator Hutchison. I believe my time is up, and I just want
    to say that I appreciate the chairman continuing to pursue the
    strategy. I want to work with you, but we are going to continue
    to pursue the strategy of adding to the Border Patrol if I have
    any say in it.
        Thank you.
        Ms. Reno. Thank you.
        Senator Gregg. Senator Dorgan.

                       Antitrust Division budget request

        Senator Dorgan. Mr. Chairman, I am not a member of this
    subcommittee, and I thank you for the courtesy of allowing me
    to ask a question.
        I wanted to ask a question of the Attorney General on
    antitrust issues. Normally, downsizing would be something that
    we would all look at with favor in the Federal Government, and
    the downsizing of the Antitrust Division from 456 attorneys in
    1980 to 363 attorneys in 1998 comes at a time when last year,
    the announced number of mergers in this country tallied $1.6
    trillion. That exceeds all the mergers all over the world just
    a year and a half ago.
        So that while we see this orgy of mergers in our country,
    $1.6 trillion, I welcome the request in the budget submission
    for more funding for the Antitrust Division, but I must say I
    am one of those who believes that we may well still be far
    short of what we need, with 4,700 filings last year, three
    times as many as in 1992. With your requirement to administer
    and enforce the Clayton Act and to be the protector of the free
    market, we may well have to add resources.
        I simply wanted to ask the question: Do you feel, even with
    the proposed increase, that you have sufficient resources given
    the reduced number of employees in the last 18 years to
    effectively administer the antitrust laws?
        Ms. Reno. Well, that is the reason for our feeling that the
    present funding needs to keep pace with the burgeoning work
    load that you have so aptly described.
        Up until now, the resources have not kept up with the work
    load, and that is the reason the President requested a 16
    percent increase in the Division's budget for fiscal year 2000.
    I think that that will keep the Division on course.
        Senator Dorgan. Well, I might say some will oppose that
    increase. I will not only support it, but I think we may have
    to do more. You will still have fewer employees--fewer
    lawyers--dealing with the antitrust issue than nearly 20 years
    ago, when the amount of merger activity just skyrocketed.
        I say this not because I think big is bad, or not because I
    would oppose all mergers--I do not--but I do think that one of
    our most important jobs is to keep the free market free, to
    foster competition. Section 7 of the Clayton Act dating way
    back to the start of this century is an admonition to us to do
    our job to protect the free market, and I worry very much that
    at least some of the merger activity in our economy has been
    terribly unhealthy, decreases competition--concentration is the
    antithesis of competition--and I just want you to know that as
    we have this debate, some of us feel very strongly that we
    ought to add resources sufficient so that we do our job to keep
    the free market free. And I would encourage you to be very
    aggressive in seeking sufficient resources from Congress to do
    that.
        Ms. Reno. Well, it makes sense, because I am very proud of
    the work of the Division. They have done so much with limited
    resources, and I think they can do more. And all the dollars
    for antitrust cases come from merger filing fees.
        Senator Dorgan. That is true. In fact, about 15 years ago,
    I had threatened to put the pictures of lawyers in the Justice
    Department and the Federal Trade Commission on half-gallon
    cartons of milk, feeling that we had 1,000 people at that point
    designed to protect the free market in both Justice and Trade,
    and fearing that they had disappeared, because I could sense no
    evidence that they existed. Now, that was in the early 1980's,
    and things have changed a bit, but one thing that has changed
    is this rapid movement toward more concentration and massive
    quantities of mergers of a very, very large nature.
        So let me again offer you encouragement and thank the
    chairman again for this opportunity. I know that Senator
    Hollings has made similar expressions. We just need to pay very
    close attention to the enforcement of the Clayton Act, the
    Sherman Act, and other things that we are required to do to
    make sure the free market remains free.
        Thank you very much.
        Senator Gregg. Thank you, Senator Dorgan.
        Senator Domenici.
        Senator Domenici. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I apologize for
    coming in so late. I am chairing another one of these
    subcommittees upstairs.
        Senator Gregg. You picked a perfect time.

                                 Several issues

        Senator Domenici. Madam Attorney General, I have a whole
    series of questions, but I am going to submit most of them to
    you. I have one for you on the expansion of the Federal Prison
    Industries which I will not bother you with today, but
    sometimes increasing the industry $30 or $40 million does not
    have much effect nationally, but it has a very big effect on
    certain industries and businesses in our State, and I will ask
    you about that.
        The First Responder Training Program--it would be good to
    have a report on how well it is succeeding and what is really
    happening, and I will submit a series of questions to you on
    that.
        There is a move abreast in the Congress to expand the
    Radiation Exposure Compensation Act (RECA) Program--and I know
    that you know about everything going on in your Department, but
    I am sure you do not know the details of this very large
    program. RECA is compensating mostly Navajo Indian people who
    worked in uranium mines when we did not have the right safety
    requirements, and there is proof of cancer relationships vis-a-
    vis their illnesses and deaths. I think it is imperative before
    we go further, since there is a new bill being offered, that we
    get a complete summary of what that law has done and what the
    claims were, and if you could submit those to the subcommittee,
    it would be helpful.
        Senator Gregg. Absolutely.
        Senator Domenici. Also, believe it or not, it does not seem
    like 9 years ago, but the Violent Crime Reduction Trust Fund is
    about to expire in a year. That means its 10th year. My
    budgeteers indicate we have spent $30.2 billion out of that
    trust fund. I think it would be good for us to know what these
    funds did. Maybe you could give us a summary of the kinds of
    things we have accomplished and the successes and/or failures,
    and I have asked you some questions about that.
        Ms. Reno. That is an excellent suggestion. I would
    appreciate that.
        Senator Domenici. There are two things that apply very much
    to my State about which I want to inquire. One is law
    enforcement in Indian country. I think you are fully aware now
    that the statistics are showing some very, very dismal
    conditions on our Indian reservations with reference to drugs,
    gangs, and crime being more rampant there than it is even in
    the worst parts of the United States. I would like to ask you a
    series of questions about what you are doing about it, but I
    first want to thank the administration for increasing the
    funding for law enforcement on Indian country. I think you have
    requested $124 million for your Department and $23 million for
    the Department of the Interior to address this issue. I have
    some specific questions that I would like you to respond to
    regarding that initiative.

                                Black tar heroin

        My last observation and concern has to do with black tar
    heroin coming from Mexico to my State. We are a poor State, and
    we have many, many Hispanics; our population is perhaps 38 to
    40 percent Hispanic. I look over and smile at my friend Senator
    Hollings, because he once came to my State when he was chairman
    of the Senate Committee to Elect Democratic Senators, and he
    had to appear before a large gathering in New Mexico. I spoke
    Spanish and he spoke Southern, and things did not work out very
    well for his candidate. We have had a great time ever since.
    [Laughter.]
        But essentially what is happening is that it looks like
    maybe the Mexican nationals who bring this heroin across the
    border have found that we are a weak link. Black tar heroin is
    coming across in absolutely inordinate amounts, and Mexican
    nationals are actually residing in some of our small,
    principally Hispanic communities. We have one county in our
    State that is a poor county. It is now the most significant
    heroin-burdened county in all of the United States. One city
    within that county had 44 deaths from heroin overdoses last
    year, which exceeds the city in Texas that was reported
    nationally as being so festered with it; we exceed them by
    eight times in terms of the use of heroin in this community.
        I think we very much need your help to attempt to
    coordinate what resources could be made available for a county
    like this in a State like ours through all of your DOJ
    programs. So I want to ask you today if you would agree,
    yourself or someone in your behalf, to meet with some of our
    New Mexico leaders and myself and others and see what you could
    put together that would encourage us a bit in this regard.
        Ms. Reno. I would be happy to. Some steps have been taken
    since December of 1998, but I think this shows you again the
    value of oversight, because it may be a specific problem. We
    can illuminate it and use it as an example for other
    initiatives around the country. I would be delighted to meet
    with those that you think appropriate, and I will, even before
    that meeting, take steps to see what can be done to enhance the
    effort.

                      extradition of Mexican drug dealers

        Senator Domenici. And in that regard, could I just ask you
    what is the DOJ policy regarding Mexican nationals arrested on
    drug crimes in the United States? If Mexico makes an
    extradition request, do we typically send these drug dealers
    back to Mexico?
        Ms. Reno. It would again depend on the circumstance and
    what the drug crime is. If the crime is committed here, it
    would generally be our desire to try them here. If there is a
    significant crime in Mexico and a relatively minor crime here,
    and the person was wanted in Mexico, and there was an
    extradition request, we would probably balance it in that
    regard. You would have to take each situation on a case-by-case
    basis.
        Senator Domenici. I want to pose the question in a slightly
    different way. What if there is no extradition request? Does
    the United States deport them on its own? I would like very
    much for you to take a look at this because I believe we are
    doing that. It is pretty frustrating to those people who see
    the same Mexican nationals get deported and come right back and
    camp out in the same town, meet with the same people and sell
    heroin again. You know, heroin is now the new drug. They have
    made it cheap. Ten dollars is all you need to get started, and
    they have increased its punch from 45 percent to 70 percent. So
    it is a really serious drug, and it kills people much more
    easily than some of the others.
        Ms. Reno. We will address that as part of the overall focus
    on that particular county.
        Senator Domenici. In doing that, I hope you will look at
    the U.S. Attorney's offices in those plagued areas and see how
    they could be more helpful. I think it really is important that
    we show something to these people.
        Ms. Reno. I will do so.
        Senator Domenici. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

                          Border Patrol budget request

        Senator Gregg. Thank you, Senator Domenici.
        I think one of the tones of this hearing so far has been
    the border, and almost everybody, or certainly a number of
    members, have asked questions about the border and the border
    problems that we are having. This goes to the budget that you
    have sent up, because I think there are some serious problems
    here in the enforcement and investigative activities of this
    budget relative to the border.
        Take, for example, the fact that you have underfunded the
    detention areas of INS by about $185 million. Now, we have just
    gone through this detention issue with the INS, and we know it
    is a serious concern, and it looks like it is going to be
    aggravated by this budget.
        The budget dramatically underfunds the materials that the
    Border Patrol needs. The Border Patrol has only 4 percent of
    the pocket scopes it needs, 22 percent of the goggles, 28
    percent of the fiberoptics, 4 percent of the hand-held search
    lights, 12 percent of the infrared scopes, 2 percent of the
    global positioning systems, and 4 percent of the vehicle
    infrared cameras that it needs, and that account is not funded.
        You have in this budget, or recently, proposed to certify
    Mexico again. It is hard to understand how Mexico can be
    certified. There has been no significant progress in drug
    trafficking, and many of the categories, in fact most of the
    categories, are poor. Seizures of cocaine and heroin have
    fallen significantly; drug arrests have declined by 14 percent;
    the number of poppy fields destroyed and drug laboratories
    dismantled has dropped--this is all in 1998--confiscation of
    drug-carrying cars, trucks, and boats has declined; seizure of
    opium gum has dropped by just over half since 1997; corruption
    continues to pervade the law enforcement community to the point
    where the DEA has serious reservations about even dealing with
    the law enforcement community in Mexico, and the main drug
    cartels are actually expanding instead of contracting.
        So we are confronted with some fairly significant border
    problems. You have not funded the 1,000 additional Border
    Patrol agents who were supposed to be coming on this year; you
    put zero in. And there does not appear to be the funding
    necessary, as the Senator from New Mexico stated, in the area
    of prosecutorial activity in the U.S. Attorney's Office for the
    borders.

                             Local law enforcement

        I know that you have a commitment to fighting the issue on
    the borders, but this budget does not have a commitment to
    fighting the issue on the borders. My question is, where do we
    find the money to do that? And it is coupled with the fact that
    this budget cuts by $1.3 billion--$1.3 billion--the money
    flowing into law enforcement, community law enforcement
    specifically. There is a $522 million cut in the Community Law
    Enforcement Block Grant, a $250 million cut in juvenile
    funding, and a $720 million cut in State prison grants. I know
    you are committed to law enforcement, especially to making sure
    that our local communities have support from the Federal
    Government, but this budget again does not support that.

                            certification of Mexico

        My question to you is threefold. One, why even bother to
    certify Mexico? Why go through this dance any longer? We
    decertified Belize because it is a small country, but we refuse
    to decertify Mexico because it is a big country. It is that
    simple. It is like that old saying when you deal with a bank--
    if you have a loan that is $100, and it is in default, you are
    in trouble, but if you have a loan of $1 million that is in
    default, the bank is in trouble. In this situation, if you are
    dealing with a big country, and they are not doing the job on
    drugs, we do not decertify them. If they are a small country,
    and they are not doing the job on drugs, we do decertify them.
    So why even have this facade anymore?
        Second, this budget does not support the necessary efforts
    that we have to make along the borders. Where are we going to
    get the money to do that?
        Third, the budget does not support local police activity
    and local law enforcement and local prison activity, so where
    are we going to get the money to do that? That is a three-
    pronged question, and I ask them all because I only have 5
    minutes, and I do not want to run out of time.
        Ms. Reno. As I indicated to Senator Hollings, the picture
    you paint of corruption and the problems in Mexico is one that
    we have all shared and have expressed frustration on. As I
    pointed out, President Zedillo inherited a very difficult
    situation. The fact that it is being uncovered after all these
    years, I think, is a tribute to his openness in government and
    his leadership. They have enacted a comprehensive organized
    crime law, and anti-money-laundering and chemical control
    legislation. Our extradition relationship has improved
    significantly, and for the first time, we have seen the
    extradition of Nationals. I have an excellent working
    relationship with Attorney General Madrazo; a relationship that
    has permitted both countries to share information and develop
    strong cases against major trafficking organizations. We have
    developed joint training programs that have proven effective,
    and President Zedillo has recently pledged $400 million for
    technological advances to assist in the detection of drug
    smuggling in Mexico.
        Director Freeh recently returned from Mexico impressed with
    the steps being taken in the formation of the Federal
    Prevention Police, and I believe he is committed to trying to
    support that initiative.
        As other countries have observed--if you take, for example,
    Italy, as it dealt with issues of organized crime--it will not
    happen overnight. It is a slow process. I firmly believe that
    if Mexico is to succeed in its fight against drug trafficking
    and corruption, it will only happen with a sustained, long-term
    effort by the Government of Mexico. Success, moreover, will
    also require a continuing relationship of cooperation and
    mutual respect between our two countries. And I have, for these
    reasons, supported certification, while at the same time
    recognizing the facts as people have described them.
        With respect to law enforcement and the funding of local
    law enforcement initiatives, as a number of members of this
    committee have pointed out, one of the most successful programs
    has been the COPS program; a program that has helped
    experienced detectives find evidence that produces conviction
    in serious cases, while at the same time helping communities
    come together to prevent crime in the first place.
        Crime is down significantly in this country, and as I said
    at the outset, I value the balance between State and local law
    enforcement and Federal law enforcement. I do not think State
    and local law enforcement should become too dependent on
    Federal law enforcement, and there is a point where we draw the
    line. I think----

                        cuts to State and local programs

        Senator Gregg. Well, if we could stop right there, you are
    talking about expanding the COPS program by 30,000 people over
    the original initiative, which was 100,000. We are at 92,000
    now, and we are going to get to 100,000 under the present
    budget. But you put in an additional 20,000 new cops on top of
    the 100,000. Now, that is getting involved in local law
    enforcement. But at the same time, you zeroed out the LLEBG,
    which is basically the $522 million cut; you zeroed out the
    Juvenile Accountability Incentive Block Grant, which is a $250
    million cut, and you reduced dramatically the State Prison
    Grant Program.
        Those are all programs that worked. So you are basically
    taking, in this case, $1.3 billion out of those programs, and
    you are taking $600,000 of it and putting it into increasing
    the COPS program over what the original proposal was. I guess
    because it has also worked, but in a balancing effort, it does
    seem unusual to zero out these other programs. I do not know
    what you did with the other $600,000 that you took out of these
    programs. My point is those programs have been zeroed out, and
    it appears to me that it was done in order to put this
    committee in the untenable position of having to go out and
    find the money to put back into those programs because you know
    we have supported those programs. We are certainly going to
    hear from our States when we eliminate $720 million for prison
    grants, I can tell you that.
        You have made politically attractive choices at the expense
    of this committee, which is going to have to put the money back
    into those programs.
        Ms. Reno. I think these are judgments----
        Senator Gregg. Well, let me ask you--let me put it very
    simply--if we produce a budget out of this committee that
    leaves zero money in the State prison grants program, is this
    administration going to sign that budget, which is what you
    sent up here?
        Ms. Reno. I do not know what you are going to present, so I
    cannot say that the administration----
        Senator Gregg. No, but if we do--if we stay with your
    numbers--if we take your number here, which is zero for LLEBG,
    zero for juvenile justice, and zero for the State prison
    programs, all of which have been long-term programs that have
    been strongly supported up until now jointly by this committee
    and the administration, are you going to tell us that that is
    going to be an acceptable position?
        Ms. Reno. The Violent Crime Initiative was never meant to
    fund State correction systems forever. What we have done,
    Senator, is--you say cut juvenile justice funds--there are
    juvenile justice funds there, carefully fashioned to address
    issues of both punishment and prevention. There are law
    enforcement funds and community prosecution funds that can be
    significant.
        We have got to make a judgment as to how we use precious
    Federal resources, and if you approve the President's budget,
    he will sign it.
        Senator Gregg. Well, that is good news. I guess we are
    going to save $1.3 billion, and I will refer the local
    communities to you.
        Senator Hollings.
        Ms. Reno. Mr. Chairman, I would be happy to take all of
    your local law enforcement and your State law enforcement
    personnel and talk with them on a regular basis, because to
    make this system work in a long range effort, it is going to
    require the development of a capacity in communities across
    this Nation that both prevent crime and intervene forcefully
    and regularly.
        We have spent a great deal on prisons through the Violent
    Crime Trust Fund. It was never anticipated that it would last
    forever. The COPS program has been one of the most successful.
    I think that this budget is a responsible reflection of how we
    start with what the chairman suggested--zero to 3--through
    initiatives focused on children who are victims early on of
    crime, or of what society has done to them; of intervention
    programs that can make a significant difference, such as drug
    courts; of punishment programs that mean what they say and that
    also provide for after-care, returning the person to the
    community with a chance of success.
        As I talk to law enforcement around this country, I think
    we are all committed to a balanced, thoughtful approach that
    balances the independence of State and local law enforcement
    with the partnership that is necessary to get the job done. I
    will be happy to speak to the leaders as they come to your
    door. You can send them to me, or I will go and talk to them.
        Senator Gregg. Well, you are going to have to, because this
    committee may take up on these numbers, I can tell you that
    right now. I have been thinking, if the administration wants to
    zero out all these accounts, maybe we will zero them out. But I
    will tell you at the same time, we are not going to extend the
    COPS program, which was designed to be a 3-year program with
    100,000 cops, just add another 30,000 cops when that program
    was not designed to do that. We are going to take that money,
    and we are going to apply it to the priorities that this
    committee may have on the border, for example, where we do have
    a commitment of adding 1,000 border agents. So there is going
    to be a difference of opinion here, but at least on these
    numbers, maybe we will have the same agreement.
        Ms. Reno. Well, again, as you know, I admire you, and I
    admire the thoughtfulness with which you approach these issues.
    I also know the competing interests, and I look forward to
    working with you in every way that I can in terms of taking the
    slings and arrows and having further discussion.
        Senator Gregg. The respect is mutual, I assure you, and
    that is why I was surprised at these numbers.
        Go ahead, Senator Hollings.

                     solutions of drug problem with Mexico

        Senator Hollings. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
        With respect to the Border Patrol and the Mexico problem,
    our colleague Senator Hutchison had a very thoughtful article
    in the Post this morning. It is a mutual problem of consumption
    here within the United States.
        Thirty years ago when we met, Senator Domenici, we had
    nothing but ashtrays around here, and the smoke-filled rooms.
    We even stopped you from smoking. So we are making progress.
        In light of the experience, I can tell you here and now,
    with all the Border Patrol and everything else that has been
    suggested, it is not going to be solved. I have been through
    the poppy fields, not in Flanders Fields, but in Turkey, to the
    factories in Marseilles, to the Golden Triangle in upper Laos
    and Thailand, Burma. I have been down to Bolivia, on into
    Paraguay, up into Colombia, down to Peru, back over to
    Colombia, and of course, into Mexico.
        I have been down to Tijuana, where they have a large number
    of the Border Patrol--everybody likes to live in San Diego.
    They do not like to live out there in a dirt field in New
    Mexico where there is a camera, and you hope you can get to it.
    I have heard all of the suggestions--such as cameras--and 20
    years ago we had a General Chapman from the Marines who was
    going to take all of the latticework landing strips that we
    used in World War II, and erect them in a 90-degree fashion,
    and we were going to build a 2,000-mile fence.
        The problem is real, and Mexico is our responsibility. We
    have totally open borders, particularly with respect to trade.
    I have even talked to people who transport cars. They seal them
    in boxcars down in Laredo before they even get in, and when
    those boxcars arrive at their destination it looks like they
    are still sealed, but along the line, people jump into the
    cars, play the radio, and eat food. When they get up to Ohio,
    these brand new cars are ruined. So the transport companies
    have had to put in their own guards. It is not just our Border
    Patrol, but also private industry. Transportation companies are
    doing it.
        The solution--a Marshall Plan. You have to get in there and
    clean up the drug culture, and as long as you have the
    tremendous poverty down in Mexico, it is not going to happen.
    Do not go to the Yucatan with the dog-and-pony show, do not go
    to either Salinas or to Zedillo with $12 billion. The money
    goes right back out--they refinance with Deutschebank--and the
    money goes right back out to Wall Street. Use the $12 billion
    to advance workers' rights, the ownership of property, free
    elections, and of course, some progress on the drug culture. We
    ought to put the money in the right place.
        If you are starting with children--and incidentally, it is
    not 3 years, but 5 years--I have written the book on that
    subject--if you are going to start with the children, that is
    fine, that is excellent, but what you have got to do is start
    with that down in Mexico. Don't spend a little bit of money
    here and a little bit of money there.
        In our country, we have a sign that says ``Deer Crossing,''
    and it shows a deer running across the highway; down in
    Tijuana, they have a poor mother with a child running across--
    ``Refugee Crossing''--100 yards from where the Border Patrol is
    supposed to be checking it. But at nighttime, people are coming
    right across the border unchecked.

                           Border Patrol recruitment

        So you have got to be realistic, and we need an overall
    solution to try to bolster the standard of living down there in
    Mexico so that it does not pay to get into drugs. That should
    be the method of attack on that side, because there just are
    not enough policemen here, even with the new additional
    policemen on the beat, to control the drug problem. We have
    drug courts, and we have many drug enforcement activities but a
    question: With respect to the Border Patrol--I just got the
    figures--we have trained 2,704 border patrolmen down in the
    Charleston Navy Yard. We have a wonderful facility down there.
    When they closed that Navy Yard, we put in a school. It is a 3-
    month course, where the trainees learn to speak Spanish; they
    have a driving range and other amenities and they are quite
    professional. We have had a couple of those 2,700 patrolmen
    killed already--but the point is that you do not pay them well.
    What is the average pay, Attorney General, for a border
    patrolman?
        Ms. Reno. I do not know what the average pay is, sir.
        Senator Hollings. It is around $25,000, $26,000. By the
    time they get to their duty station and develop a performance
    record, New Mexico or Houston will hire them as a local law
    enforcement officer. What is the attrition rate in the Border
    Patrol?
        Ms. Reno. It is a significant rate.
        Senator Hollings. A very significant rate. We must pay
    these officers. In my home town now, we have wonderful college
    graduates, the majority by far, on the city police force. Law
    enforcement has obtained more expertly trained and skilled
    officers, but we are not going to get them to seek employment
    in the Border Patrol if we don't establish competitive pay
    rates. If I had a son-in-law who said he was going to get into
    that profession, I would ask, Why? You will go to work on the
    border for a couple thousand dollars a month, where they are
    supposed to have cameras to assist you in apprehending
    individuals crossing the border illegally? How can you get to
    the cameras in time to apprehend anyone? Just as there is not
    enough of a fence, as General Chapman wanted, you cannot get
    enough cameras to the remote areas to be effective. If people
    can come through at Tijuana, I can tell you people can get past
    these cameras. You have to go down to Tijuana or San Diego and
    look at it to understand.
        Ms. Reno. The starting pay, by the way, Senator, is
    $22,208.
        Senator Hollings. Well, there you go; it is less than what
    I had recorded here. They are just not going to want to get
    into the profession. That is our problem in education; we are
    not paying schoolteachers enough. I go to graduations and I
    hear: ``Senator, I would like to teach, but I cannot send my
    kids to college making $22,000 a year''--it is about the same
    in South Carolina--``so I went into international studies, and
    I went to business school.'' The best and the brightest who
    want to teach are not attracted to teaching.
        And we sit up here with a few more Border Patrol, a few
    more cameras, and for 30 years, we have been going through the
    same thing. So we have got to have a coordinated education
    program. Can you tell us about the coordination of your
    particular moneys in here for education?
        Ms. Reno. For the Border Patrol?
        Senator Hollings. You have education programs in some of
    the prisons; you have got some in the Office of Juvenile
    Justice. What I am saying is that education programs are
    scattered. Could you coordinate it somehow and let us get a
    real program?
        Ms. Reno. You are talking about education of youth now?
        Senator Hollings. Yes, ma'am, and prisoners. We have
    education programs in the prison system, so that when people
    get out they can pursue a legitimate lifestyle. Eighty percent
    of prisoners in the prison system in the United States are in
    for drug-related offenses so we need to start drug related
    education early.

                            Border Patrol technology

        Ms. Reno. Let me go back first to the issue you raised with
    respect to the Border Patrol. To address just those issues,
    because there are some pay inequities, we are reviewing the
    whole issue of pay reform and will be making recommendations.
        With respect to what you refer to as the cameras, I can
    tell you from my own experience that I have seen a significant
    difference. When I went to the border in August of 1993, I saw
    a border that had no technology whatsoever with which to
    enhance the efforts of Border Patrol agents. I now see not just
    cameras, but sensors and lights and connections through an
    automated system that gives the Border Patrol far greater
    ability to focus its resources where the problem is, and make
    them far more effective. And when I talk to Border Patrol
    agents, they say this technology has been absolutely critical
    in enhancing the effectiveness of their job.

                              Educating prisoners

        With respect to education, I think you have got to start
    early. As I pointed out, if 50 percent of all learned human
    response is learned in the first year of life, a lot of schools
    are not going to be worth much unless we have a good
    foundation; but to do that, I defer to the early childhood
    educators and to people like Dick Riley, who know far more
    about education than I do.
        What I think is important is that, as we bring people into
    the system, as they are in custody either through probation or
    through prison, that we make sure we return them to the
    community with an education that can give them a chance of
    succeeding in the real world, with the labor market and with
    the demands being made today.
        I think that if you do not have a job, you are going to get
    back in trouble; if you do not have a job, if you do not have
    skills that can fill jobs that maintain companies as first-rate
    companies, we are going to have problems. So I am all for
    investing in education that can prepare people for the skilled
    jobs that too often go unfilled.
        Senator Hollings. Thank you.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Gregg. Senator Leahy.

                          Independent counsel's budget

        Senator Leahy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Madam Attorney General, I am pleased to see how well the
    Bulletproof Vest Partnership Program--I wanted to say something
    nice to you while you are here--has done. I was quite pleased
    to see the program and that you now have a web site where
    people can go. Law enforcement in my State of Vermont is very
    much in favor of having a place where they can go. I also
    understand you are going to open up the program's application
    process later this month.
        I still remain concerned that you are unable to answer--I
    do not agree with your reasons--unable to answer my questions
    about what is being spent by Mr. Starr or--what was the name of
    the man who prosecuted Espy--Schmaltz--this thing is so out of
    control, this special prosecutor, Schmaltz, who was probably as
    humiliated as any prosector I have ever seen anywhere by the
    D.C. jury--they brought 30-some-odd counts, and the jury had
    absolutely no difficulty, as they should not have, in voting
    not guilty on every, single one of those, and then, in one of
    the most arrogant, outrageous, unprofessional and totally
    disgusting performances by a special prosecutor, he went out
    and said, well, it does not make any difference whether we get
    convictions; we can just bring charges, and that will set the
    example.
        Any prosecutor in the country who took an attitude like
    that, if they were elected, would be unelected at the next
    election. You know that, and I know that.
        This man was so out of control that he was even buying
    wristwatches referring to his prosecution of former Secretary
    Espy and handing them out as trophies as though it was some
    kind of a big game hunt.
        Mr. Starr has not been a heck of a lot better, rushing
    agents and investigators down to Florida to tear through
    somebody's television station, having them hire lawyers,
    intimidating them, because he wanted to have copies of the tape
    they had of Monica Lewinsky visiting Greg Norman and President
    Clinton in Florida. He made them spend all kinds of money, he
    made the taxpayers spend all kinds of money, and of course
    found out afterward that Ms. Lewinsky had not even been in
    Florida that day--in fact, she had been at work at the
    Pentagon, something they could have checked with a local
    telephone call--and ignored the obvious, that if the TV station
    had such films, they would have had it on every newscast in the
    world. But when you have an unlimited budget, and you want to
    spend $10,000, $20,000, $30,000, or $40,000 and make them spend
    an equivalent amount for lawyers and staff work and everything
    else--just do it.
        So I am concerned that you will not answer. I certainly
    will not vote for any increase in budget for the Department of
    Justice or anybody who may, directly or indirectly, spend money
    on this until I can get such answers.

                                     CALEA

        Now, on the CALEA law. The capacity requirements were
    finalized 2 years late by the Department. I think the law has
    turned out to be a mess--and I was involved with it. The
    technical standards for compliance should have been in place
    over 2 years ago, but the FCC had to extend the compliance date
    from last year until next year. The Department is litigating at
    the FCC over the standards adopted by the industry. The
    litigation has turned into a serious battle over costs and over
    privacy, and is a major distraction from proceeding with the
    implementation of the law. In fact, the Department's most
    recent annual report to Congress on CALEA on January 4th of
    this year states that no payments have been made to carriers in
    the last year to comply with the law; there is no clear end in
    sight. I do not think that that is good for law enforcement,
    and it is not good for the telecommunications industry.
        I have serious concerns about these continuing delays in
    the cost estimates that I have seen associated with the
    surveillance capability the Department is seeking before the
    FCC. My question is this: Is it time to scale back the
    Department's demands and speed up CALEA implementation at the
    same time?
        Ms. Reno. I do not believe that scaling back the
    requirements is appropriate at any time. As I have said, the
    capabilities currently in dispute are consistent with existing
    electronic surveillance law and vital for effective electronic
    surveillance.
        I think the FCC is in its rightful role as arbiter of the
    disputes, and it will soon determine the appropriateness of the
    punchlist. Again----
        Senator Leahy. Don't you think Congress will step in and do
    it for them if they do not?
        Ms. Reno. I think they will. It is already tentatively
    concluded that five of the nine capabilities in dispute are
    indeed required by CALEA, and I think they will act.
        Senator Leahy. Well, in the meantime, if they are not
    acting, and with this kind of off-track, are you prioritizing
    law enforcement needs? I mean, you could do parts of this.
        Ms. Reno. We are trying to do it in two ways, sir--first,
    consisting of reimbursement options, the FBI is holding
    discussions with major manufacturers of telecommunications
    equipment regarding the reimbursement of their development
    efforts. Under a right-to-use license, the Government would
    obtain CALEA software by purchasing the results of the
    developmental effort from a manufacturer through a carrier-
    partner. The manufacturer would then provide its software at no
    charge to any carrier using its platforms now and in the
    future.
        The second category is carrier deployment. The FBI is
    holding discussions with carriers to identify the equipment of
    highest priority to law enforcement. This process includes
    assessing recent electronic surveillance activity on carriers'
    equipment. The FBI will then focus on deploying solutions in
    areas of highest law enforcement priority, in time to meet the
    June 30, 2000 deadline.
        Deployment of CALEA compliance solutions in other areas
    will be deferred to coincide with the normal deployment cycles
    of carriers. The details of this deferred deployment are
    currently a subject of discussion between the Department and
    the FBI.
        Senator Leahy. I see my time is up, but I would suggest
    that perhaps your staff, the FBI staff and mine spend a little
    time on this, because if this thing winds up really off-track,
    instead of accomplishing the goals that both you and I totally
    agree on on having it work, we could almost end up in worse
    condition than we were before. You do not want that, and I do
    not want that, and you know that notwithstanding some of my
    comments here this morning on another area, you do not have any
    stronger supporter on this committee or the authorizing
    committee in the Senate than myself. So I would hope that on
    this one--let us work together on this one even if we cannot
    get anywhere on the other one.
        Ms. Reno. We will call and arrange a meeting. With respect
    to the other issue, it is not that I will not--at this point, I
    cannot. So let us look at the law. I will be happy to come and
    meet with you and get your version of the law, because I have--
    --
        Senator Leahy. I have sent it down. I sent down a letter.
        Ms. Reno. As you know, I have great respect for you.
        Senator Leahy. Thank you. I do appreciate that.
        Mr. Chairman, I appreciate it, and I do want to make it
    very clear that I am a strong supporter of the Attorney
    General, and I think highly of her and Ms. Hawkins and
    everybody else in the Department, but I am frustrated at not
    being able to find out. When I was a prosecutor, if I spent
    money on postage that the public could not find out about, I
    would have been in trouble.
        Thank you.
        Senator Gregg. Thank you, and your concerns about CALEA are
    also very legitimate. Of course, this is a huge contingent
    liability for this committee once we do resolve it, but it
    needs to be resolved. I appreciate the fact that the Attorney
    General is standing firm in her belief that it has to be
    resolved on terms that are effective for law enforcement.
        Senator Leahy. Well, we will work together on that. You
    have been supportive, and we worked very hard to get the law
    through in the first place, and I do worry about the unfunded
    liability aspect.

                          Counterterrorism turf issues

        Senator Gregg. Madam Attorney General, I am interested in a
    number of other issues that I want to touch base on. The first
    is the terrorism issue. As you know, we have spent a lot of
    time talking about this, and I am concerned about the National
    Security Council role, Mr. Clark's role. I am just wondering if
    we are seeing a reawakening; and now I see that Mr. Tenet has
    suggested an intelligence-gathering center for the country for
    Federal activities. My concern is are we seeing an erosion of
    what was a very cooperative spirit, and are we finding that as
    this issue matures, turf is reestablishing itself?
        Ms. Reno. With respect to Mr. Tenet, the cooperative
    relationship and the appropriate allocation of responsibility
    and adherence to the law, I think, is taking place between the
    FBI and the CIA.
        With respect to the NSC, you have raised these issues, and
    I am very sensitive to them, and so far, nobody has been
    pushing the turf issue.
        Where I think there are issues that we have got to work
    out, they come more in the language, and I would suggest the
    need to develop an understanding of what everybody's roles are.
    We know how to deal with it when it happens, sometimes not in
    the clearest way possible, when we see a situation like
    Oklahoma City. But as we plan for it, we can think of so many
    different problems that can arise that we wonder how we can get
    them solved.
        I have had the chance to speak with you, and I would like
    to follow up on that, to tell you what we are doing with the
    issue of weapons of mass destruction and preparing first
    responders and recognizing that first responders are going to
    be there when we are not there at the outset, and that they
    have got to be prepared in training, in equipment, and in
    exercising to know just what to expect. But it is vitally
    important with the FBI as the lead agency, that the FBI be
    involved from the beginning, plan with the State and local
    officials from the beginning, so that in every part of the
    country, we have some idea of what is going to be involved
    should, God forbid, it happen.
        Senator Gregg. I understand that, and I understand the
    concerns about the NDPO and the question of the State
    Governors' involvement as the referral agency or the
    centralizing agency. But my concern goes to just the
    interagency activities here within the Federal Government. You
    know, it is a natural state of governance that at the beginning
    of an issue, when it is a crisis situation, and people
    recognize the crisis, there is always tremendous cooperation,
    which I think there has been. Your Department produced an
    excellent report--the Interagency Task Force Report was
    superb--but as this issue matures, as we go down the road and
    try to develop it, I want to make sure we stay on top of the
    concerns of turf and people trying to create fiefdoms. I sense
    the NSC is trying to do that now. I have not met with them. We
    have no jurisdiction over them.
        Ms. Reno. I can tell you that we are entirely satisfied
    with our jurisdiction.
        Senator Gregg. Well, if you need more language, tell us.
        Ms. Reno. Thank you, sir.

                            reprogramming DEA funds

        Senator Gregg. I am concerned also about this transfer that
    we have discovered within the DEA which was outside of the
    terms and conditions of our traditional way of doing things on
    this committee. It is a huge number, and it appears to have
    occurred in a manner that violates this committee's traditional
    approach to reprogramming. I would like to know what your
    sensitivity is to it.
        Ms. Reno. I am very sensitive to the problem. As you have
    seen, Mr. Colgate rarely gets exercised. When he came to my
    office one day exercised on this situation months ago, that was
    my first exposure to it. It is something that we have both
    followed since then. I think Mr. Constantine has taken
    corrective action; the review is ongoing, and we will follow it
    as closely as we can.
        Senator Gregg. Well, it will not happen again; right?
        Ms. Reno. One of the things I have learned is never say it
    will not happen again, but I am going to do everything I can in
    the 24 hours a day that I have to see that it does not.

                         Information sharing initiative

        Senator Gregg. In this or any other agencies which come
    under this committee, hopefully, that are in your jurisdiction.
        We also have this initiative which the FBI is talking
    about, that is, the information sharing initiative, which is
    going to be just a huge undertaking, involving a tremendous
    amount of technology and a tremendous amount of staff. My
    concern is that we are stepping into a brand new area here
    which may have viability. It may not have viability, but I do
    believe that the proper approach to something this big, is to
    do it on a demonstration pilot program approach and pick a
    narrow area--I would suggest Russian mafia activity as a
    possible opportunity--but in any event, pick a narrow area and
    do a pilot program. Let us see what happens before we step into
    a major--and I mean these are some big numbers--initiative. I
    am interested in what the Department's view is on this. I know
    the FBI wants to get going, but I think there may be some need
    to have a few test runs.
        Ms. Reno. What I would like to do is come and talk to you
    at your convenience, and perhaps bring Director Freeh with me,
    so that you can get the full picture. I am absolutely committed
    to not spending the money until I have it well-thought-out,
    until I show that it can work and that the FBI has the capacity
    to make it work. I do not have all the details, but I think it
    might be very helpful for us to share what we are doing with
    you and make sure that you are comfortable with it.
        Senator Gregg. Well, I think it is safe to say there will
    be some language restrictions put in the bill on this issue, so
    I would like to have the restrictions which the FBI is
    comfortable with, recognizing that they will not be happy with
    them, but I would like to have them at least be comfortable
    with them.
        Ms. Reno. As Mr. Colgate points out, we support the notion
    of a prototype, but I would like to work with you and with
    staff if it is OK to try to fashion language that addresses
    your concerns----
        Senator Gregg. Yes, that is what I want to do.
        There are a couple of other issues, but they are not of
    that high visibility, and I would like to give you the
    opportunity to get back to work and do something useful.
        Ms. Reno. Well, quite frankly--and my staff think I am nuts
    when I say this--but I think the oversight function can be very
    useful. I kind of hold my breath as I go into these sessions,
    but it is very useful, and it is very useful to see a wide
    range of thoughts. We have not figured out a better form of
    Government.
        Senator Gregg. No. It does work, but it is messy.
        Thank you very much for your time.
        Ms. Reno. thank you.

                         Additional committee questions

        Senator Gregg. Before we close, questions submitted by
    Senator McConnell will be included.
        [The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
    were submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the
    hearing:]
                Questions Submitted by Senator Pete V. Domenici
                       law enforcement in indian country
        Question. Attorney General Reno, the Administration continues to
    focus on the law enforcement situation in Indian Country, and promotes
    cooperation between the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) and the
    Department of Justice agencies. Last year, this Subcommittee provided
    $88.7 million through various Department of Justice programs to enhance
    law enforcement in Indian Country. This year, the budget includes
    $124.2 million as part of this joint initiative with the Department of
    Interior and BIA to address the public safety situation on Indian
    lands.
        First, I'd like to turn to the fiscal year 1999 funding and its
    implementation. The tribal courts will receive $5 million in 1999
    funding. What are the Department's current plans to award these funds
    to tribal courts. Could you please tell the Subcommittee the current
    plans to provide these funds to tribal courts?
        Answer. In the context of the President's Law Enforcement
    Initiative, the Department recognizes that increases in the number of
    police officers and investigators in Indian Country is certain to
    increase the burden on tribal courts to process and adjudicate
    defendants. Accordingly, awards through this discretionary grant
    program will be based upon the extent and urgency of the justice needs
    of each tribe. The program will provide tribes the opportunity to apply
    for competitive grants for the development of tribal courts or the
    enhancement and continuing operation of tribal courts. We recognize
    that tribal justice systems vary significantly in terms of form and
    relative sophistication and have designed the program to accommodate
    both tribes that are developing a tribal court for the first time and
    tribes that have established, well-developed justice systems. In
    addition, the program will include a training and technical assistance
    (TA) program to support the efforts of tribal court grantees. The
    Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) has
    developed the following plan to implement the Tribal Court Assistance
    Program (TCAP), which is a $5 million initiative for the development,
    enhancement, and continuing operation of tribal courts. The plan
    responds to the stated needs of tribal court judges and administrators,
    and was developed with input from the Department's Office of Tribal
    Justice and other interested components.
        In administering this program, BJA will encourage the development
    and enhancement of inter-tribal court systems. Emphasis, where
    appropriate, will be placed on the economic efficiency of inter-tribal
    court systems, especially for smaller tribes in Alaska and throughout
    the Nation. However, the administration of this program will not
    exclude single tribe applicants with competitive proposals.
        This program will also emphasize technical training and assistance
    for tribal justice systems, which have historically adjudicated a wide
    range of criminal and civil issues with minimal funding and support.
    Technical assistance will include the development of resources such as
    bench books, model protection or support orders, and will be driven by
    consultation with tribal court representatives themselves or others
    engaged in the enhancement and operation of courts.
        Solicitation for the Development of Tribal Courts.--Approximately
    $600,000 will be available for development of tribal courts. Up to
    $30,000 will be awarded to federally-recognized Indian tribes without
    formalized judicial systems. Past experience with grant programs
    addressing such issues as drug courts and violence against women has
    demonstrated that giving tribes the option to apply for planning
    grants, in the first instance, leads to more effective grant
    implementation in the long term. Acknowledging the complexities facing
    grantees who are working to develop their justice systems, BJA plans to
    administer an intensive training and technical assistance program to
    support this initiative. The BJA aims to disseminate solicitations for
    the development and enhancement of tribal courts within 30 days of
    Congressional approval of this plan, which was granted the first week
    of June.
        All recipients of development grants will participate in the BJA
    Tribal Court Training Program (TCTP), which will be designed to provide
    comprehensive assistance for tribes that are in the process of
    establishing or formalizing their court systems. As one aspect of the
    grant program, tribes will be requested to convene a tribal court
    development team from within their community to participate in periodic
    training through the BJA Tribal Court Training Program. Upon completion
    of the training program, grantees will access funds to purchase needed
    information management hardware and software that will ultimately
    enable the tribes to link electronically. All tribes will receive
    compatible hardware and software, as well as the training necessary to
    assure effective use of these systems.
        Solicitation for the Enhancement and Continuing Operation of Tribal
    Courts.--Approximately $2.25 million is available for small and large
    enhancement projects: up to $50,000 per grant for small enhancement
    projects, and up to $100,000 for large enhancement projects. All
    federally-recognized tribes with existing judicial systems are eligible
    to apply, including inter-tribal judicial systems. Tribes will have
    considerable latitude in designing their enhancement projects to best
    serve their communities' justice needs. Once they have begun
    implementation, the tribes that receive grants for enhancement or
    continuing operations will be invited to participate in a Program
    Development Workshop, which will allow grantees to share information
    about the progress and challenges of their projects.
        Tribal Court Assistance Program Technical Assistance Support.--
    Approximately $750,000 will be available for technical assistance
    support for the Tribal Court Assistance Program. Any organizations that
    have demonstrated capacity to work with and provide training and
    technical assistance to tribal governments and tribal judicial systems
    are eligible to apply. BJA aims to disseminate the solicitation for the
    technical assistance support program within 30 days of Congressional
    approval of this plan. The designated TA provider will provide
    comprehensive training and technical assistance to tribal governments
    for the development, enhancement, and continued operation of tribal
    courts. BJA has also contributed to the costs of Departmental regional
    outreach sessions, held in Minneapolis, Seattle, and Albuquerque (April
    19-23), to inform tribes about the tribal courts and other law
    enforcement grants available through the Department in fiscal year
    1999.
        Congressional Earmarks.--At the direction of Congress, BJA will set
    aside $500,000 of available funding for two projects, which include the
    Winnebago Tribe of Nebraska and the Sioux Tribes of South Dakota,
    working in cooperation with the Wakpa Sica Historical Society.
        The Attorney's General CIRCLE Project.--BJA will set aside $400,000
    to support the Attorney General's CIRCLE Project. These funds will be
    used in conjunction with other funding sources through COPS and OJP to
    assist the three designated tribes. Enhancing the tribal justice
    systems of the CIRCLE tribes through BJA is consistent with the
    objectives of the overall Law Enforcement Initiative and will assist in
    the development of viable models for federal-tribal cooperation.
        Management and Administration.--Finally, $100,000 will be available
    for related program costs and administration.
        Question. Congress also approved $34 million through the State
    Prison Grants Program to help with the addition of detention facilities
    in Indian Country. How is the Department expending these funds in 1999?
        Answer. The Department's Corrections Program Office will administer
    $34 million in 1999 for the construction of detention facilities on
    tribal lands for the incarceration of offenders subject to tribal
    jurisdiction. The 1999 Conference Report directs that, ``OJP is
    expected the follow the same priority for funding that exists under the
    BIA priority list when determining the order in which grantees are
    allocated funding that exists under the BIA priority list projects in
    Indian Country, if appropriate.'' In light of the narrow statutory
    authority for allowable funding purposes under the Violent Offender
    Incarceration/Truth in Sentencing language, coupled with the limited
    available funds, the Department has assessed the relative strengths and
    weaknesses of funding the tribes that appear on the BIA Priority,
    seriatim. Currently, in cooperation with the BIA Facility Management
    and Construction branch, we are re-evaluating the need, cost, size, and
    tribal investment in these proposed projects to ensure appropriate and
    responsible allocation of grant funds. Given the amount of funding in
    the context of overwhelming aggregate need, it has been important to
    consider regional capacity in developing a grant program. The
    Conference Report also requests that the needs of the Three Affiliated
    Tribes of Ft. Berthold and Barrow Alaska be considered. The former is
    on the BIA Priority list.
        To respond to the congressional guidance as well as the expressed
    needs of tribes themselves, we have proposed the following funding
    allocation:
        Tier 1, Congressional Earmarks.--As an initial matter, program
    guidance and application information for new construction of
    correctional facilities will be distributed to the Three Affiliated
    Tribes of Ft. Berthold and the North Slope Borough of Barrow, Alaska.
    The amount allocated under this Tier is not likely to exceed $8
    million.
        Tier 2, BIA Priority List.--The Department is currently working
    with the House and Senate Appropriations Subcommittee staffs to develop
    a plan for these funds, likely to total about $10 million. Once the
    plan is congressionally approved, we will coordinate with BIA to
    distribute solicitations as soon as practicable.
        Tier 3, the CIRCLE Project.--Up to $7 million will be dedicated to
    the Attorney General's CIRCLE Project for the benefit of participating
    tribes. Increased detention capacity will be an essential component of
    comprehensive law enforcement reforms, as a greater number of arrests
    and prosecutions will result in heightened need for secure facilities.
        Tier 4, Inter-Tribal/Regional Approaches.--All tribes who do not
    fall in the category of congressional earmarks (Tier 1), BIA Priority
    List (Tier 2), or CIRCLE (Tier 3) will be eligible to compete for $8
    million for the construction of tribal detention facilities. Proposals
    that incorporate an inter-tribal, cooperative approach will receive
    preference. We expect to allocate about $8 million for projects that
    meet this description.
        Question. What is the analysis of need for these facilities across
    the nation?
        Answer. The Bureau of Indian Affairs informs us that there are only
    approximately 70 detention facilities in Indian Country, most of which
    fall far short of basic professional and BIA detention standards. This
    critical situation is the direct result of a historic, chronic shortage
    of funds for operation, repairs, and maintenance, as well as training
    or technical assistance. The Department of Interior has not obtained
    funds for Indian Country jail construction since 1995. The most recent
    assessment of tribal detention need, performed by a private contractor
    for the BIA in 1995, concluded that most existing BIA facilities had
    fallen into such disrepair, that outright replacement of the facilities
    was the only viable option. Accordingly, tribes are confronted with
    outmoded and antiquated facility designs, many of which were federally
    constructed in the 1970's, that result in hazardous conditions for the
    inmates and detention staff. The outmoded design of many of these old
    jails, combined with their generally poor condition, create a variety
    of health and safety problems, including staff and inmate injury risks,
    fire hazards, sanitation and pest control, and hazardous substance
    control, such as asbestos. The majority of existing facilities are
    overcrowded with inmates and many tribes are forced to contend without
    access to any facility at all, or to dedicate scarce resources to the
    transportation and detention of inmates to local county or contract
    facilities, which are frequently several hours away.
        Recognizing the need to augment the resources available through the
    BIA for jail construction, the Department of Justice has worked to
    support tribes as they develop a range of sentencing options for tribal
    offenders, including secure detention. Since 1996, the Department,
    through the Corrections Program Office, has targeted a small portion of
    funds from its Correctional Facilities Grant Program to build jails in
    Indian Country. The Department's Bureau of Justice Statistics conducted
    a Survey of Jails in Indian Country 1998 to gather information on each
    of the roughly 70 jail facilities presently used by tribes. The results
    affirm the urgent need for more detention capacity, qualified and
    trained staff, as well facility modification to assure appropriate
    treatment of adults and juveniles, and male and female inmates. Most of
    the facilities responding also cited a need for alcohol and substance
    abuse testing and treatment for both adult and juvenile inmates. The
    Department intends to fund construction of facilities for offenders in
    tribal custody, and the Bureau of Indian Affairs has committed to fund
    operations and staffing for the newly constructed tribal facilities. By
    expanding the range of sentencing options to allow early, effective
    intervention with tribal offenders, we hope that tribes will be able to
    deter and prevent offenders from progressing to more serious federal
    crimes and ultimately becoming wards of the federal prison system.
        Question. The initiative also included $35 million through the
    Community Oriented Policing (COPS) program to assist Indian tribes and
    pueblos with the hiring of additional law enforcement officers, to
    purchase equipment, and to train new and existing officers. What is the
    status of obligating these funds?
        Answer. The COPS office distributed applications for the Tribal
    Resources Grant Program to all federally-recognized tribes in April
    1999. In addition, the COPS office participated in Departmental
    regional outreach sessions to educate tribes about the new program
    offerings, and instruct on effective application and implementation
    strategies, April 19-23. Applications were required to have been
    postmarked by May 28, and the COPS office is currently in the process
    of reviewing applications. Once the office has finalized the review
    process and made the attendant decisions, tribes should be notified of
    their awards in July, 1999.
        The COPS Tribal Resources Grant Program will offer a menu of
    options to tribal agencies that will include grants to hire more
    officers, as well as funding for training and standard issue equipment,
    such as uniforms, firearms, and portable radios. The grants are
    designed to assist the recipients in addressing their most serious law
    enforcement needs and must be linked to the enhancement of community
    policing.
        Question. How did the Department decide to implement this portion
    of the initiative?
        Answer. The COPS Tribal Resources Grant Program reflects
    information gathered through consultation with Indian tribal police and
    law enforcement; the BIA, Office of Law Enforcement Services; COPS;
    FBI; Office of Tribal Justice; U.S. Attorneys; and, the Office of
    Justice Programs. Throughout, the aim of the COPS program in Indian
    Country has been to assist community policing efforts by increasing the
    number of police officers per capita. The Uniform Crime Reports for
    1997 indicated that communities in Indian Country receive a level of
    law enforcement service that is far below minimum standards for
    similarly situated non-Indian communities. Tribes who had received
    hiring grants previously shared concern with the Department about their
    inability to train, equip, outfit, and provide transportation for new
    officers, given their limited resources. As a result, the potential
    benefits represented by the hiring grants were often hindered by a lack
    of basic training and equipment. Of the more than 200 law enforcement
    departments in Indian Country, more than 90 percent are either
    administered by the BIA or solely reliant on the BIA for contract
    funding--funding which hadn't previously been budgeted for the training
    and equipping of DOJ funded officers. Also underscoring the need to
    adapt COPS programs to the particular needs of Indian Country, were
    persistent reports of increasing rates of violence in many parts of
    Indian Country. In February 1999, the Bureau of Justice Statistics
    published a study on American Indians and Crime, which found that
    American Indians were more than 2.5 times as likely to be victims of
    violence than any other segment of the U.S. population.
        After careful consideration of the law enforcement needs and
    expressed concerns of tribal law enforcement professionals, in
    conjunction with their counter-parts at BIA, the COPS office devised
    the Tribal Resources Grant Program to address the needs beyond just
    salaries and training. Accordingly, through the Tribal Resources Grant
    Program, the Department aims to help tribes professionalize their
    police forces through equipment and funding, while addressing the
    general shortage of full-time police officers available to serve
    citizens in Indian Country.
        Question. $10 million was approved for the Office of Juvenile
    Justice and Delinquency Prevention programs for programs to combat
    tribal youth crime. What is the status of this program?
        Answer. The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention
    (OJJDP) has distributed program guidance and solicitation material to
    all federally-recognized tribes, with a due date of June 30, 1999, for
    proposals. Prior to the solicitation distribution, OJJDP participated
    in the regional outreach sessions sponsored by the Department to inform
    interested tribes about the newly developed Tribal Youth Program and
    its objectives. To aid the development of the Tribal Youth Program,
    OJJDP sponsored a focus group with members of the Indian community
    which generated the following consensus recommendations:
      --Recognize that each tribe is distinct and has its own history,
            traditions, economic and political relations, and pattern of
            inter-relation with state and federal governments.
      --Enhance communication among grantees through national and regional
            meetings, electronic communications, teleconferences, or
            newsletters.
      --Ensure that any evaluation effort acknowledge and respect Indian
            nations' history and cultural differences, as well as be useful
            and constructive to the community.
      --Provide training and technical assistance on program strategy,
            staff development, management information systems, designing
            evaluations, and developing and using cultural assessment
            tools.
        Incorporating the findings of the focus group, of the $10 million
    appropriated to OJJDP for this purpose, $1 million will fund research,
    evaluation, and statistics gathering on the effectiveness of tribal
    intervention and prevention programs, and $200,000 will support
    training and technical assistance to tribal grantees. The remainder of
    the funds will support other programs through individual grants to
    tribes, including mentoring projects, in a number of tribal
    communities. OJJDP will make awards that range from $75,000 to
    $500,000, according to the tribal service population statistics as well
    as other indices of need and interest. OJJDP will encourage inter-
    tribal cooperation through its application and award process because
    the available funding will not permit grants to every federally
    recognized tribe.
        Question. What types of programs does the Department plan to fund
    with these dollars?
        Answer. While we have encouraged tribes to submit proposals that
    incorporate their individual tribal customs and norms in relation to
    juveniles, the Department plans to fund a wide variety of programs that
    demonstrate the capacity to address the following objectives:
        Category I--Reduction, control and prevention of crime by and
    against Indian youth.--Programs funded under this category might
    include those which emphasize community risk assessments, parenting and
    family strengthening classes, truancy reduction, drop-out prevention,
    anti-gang education, conflict resolution and peer mediation, child
    abuse prevention, or anti-youth gun violence initiatives.
        Category II--Interventions for court-involved tribal youth.--
    Programs funded under this category might include those that emphasize
    community supervision, restitution and community service, teen courts
    or peer sentencing boards, pre-trial diversion programs, home
    detention, shelter or foster care, sex offender monitoring and
    treatment, or mentoring or big brother/big sister programs.
        Category III--Strengthening the tribal juvenile justice system.--
    Programs funded under this category might include those that emphasize
    training for tribal court judges and personnel, intake assessments,
    tribal juvenile code development, juvenile advocacy programs, probation
    and aftercare services, or detention programming and treatment.
        Category IV--Prevention programs that focus on alcohol and drugs.--
    Programs funded under this category might include those that emphasize
    drug and alcohol education, drug testing and monitoring, substance
    abuse counseling, responsible driving incentives and sanctions, or
    prevention of underage alcohol/tobacco sales.
        Question. What indication is the Department getting as to the
    nature of this problem in Indian Country and the need for resources?
        Answer. The evidence available to the Justice Department, from the
    FBI, BIA, state, and tribal law enforcement agencies, indicates that
    juvenile crime and delinquency has become a significant problem in
    Indian Country. While the lack of uniform reporting and data collection
    in Indian Country exacerbates our ability to compile precise
    statistics, law enforcement reports and anecdotal information do
    suggest several trends in youth violence and criminal activity in
    Indian Country: juveniles account for an increasing percentage of all
    serious crimes committed in Indian Country; Indian juveniles are
    offending at younger ages; and, gang members in Indian Country are more
    frequently committing violent offenses and engaging in crimes for
    profit. A recent BIA survey estimates that more than 375 gangs may
    exist in Indian Country, with approximately 4,650 gang members on or
    near Indian Country. Another indicator of the increase in violent
    crime, the number of Indian youth in Bureau of Prisons (BOP) custody
    has risen 50 percent since 1994. Reflecting the unique nature of
    jurisdiction in Indian Country as well as the increase in youth crime,
    roughly 70 percent of the youth presently in federal BOP custody are
    from Indian Country.
        Demographics may also contribute to the problem of juvenile
    delinquency and youth violence in tribal communities. The median age of
    American Indians as of the 1990 census was 24.2 years compared with
    32.9 years for other Americans. On many reservations, it is
    increasingly common to have more than 50 percent of the total
    population under 18 years of age--a fact which reaffirms the need to
    provide increased attention to our treatment of delinquent juveniles.
        Question. Finally, the 1999 Omnibus Appropriations Act included
    $4.7 million for additional FBI personnel and Safe Trails Task Forces.
    How is this program being implemented? Will these funds be allocated
    this year?
        Answer. The fiscal year 1999 appropriation provided the FBI an
    additional 30 agent and 20 support positions for law enforcement in
    Indian Country (IC). To implement this appropriation, the funded
    staffing levels for the offices with IC investigative responsibilities
    were increased. FBI headquarters coordinated the allocation of these
    positions for IC with field office managers. The placement of these
    positions was based upon the need for personnel to begin or supplement
    a Safe Trails Task Force, and to address increases in the reported
    incidence of crimes. The positions were allocated to the following
    field offices: Albuquerque, Charlotte, Denver, Detroit, Las Vegas,
    Milwaukee, Minneapolis, Oklahoma City, Omaha, Phoenix, Salt Lake City,
    and Seattle.
        It is anticipated the appropriated funds will be expended this
    year. Several agents have already been selected for assignment to the
    offices listed above, and it is expected that the remaining agents will
    be selected and in place before the end of the year. Also, the support
    positions are being posted, and it is anticipated they will be filled
    this year.
        Question. For fiscal year 2000, the Administration's proposed
    $124.2 million continues the tribal courts, detention facilities, and
    COPS initiatives and expands to additional activities including the
    U.S. Attorneys, alcohol and substance abuse, a Police Corps and a
    number of new initiatives. Is it realistic for the Department of
    Justice to continue funding this initiative largely through newly
    proposed programs, such as the Police Corps and Drug Testing and
    Treatment programs? Would you give the Subcommittee your rationale for
    the targeting of resources under the proposed program for fiscal year
    2000?
        Answer. Given the severity of the violent crime problem in Indian
    Country, Justice and Interior Department efforts to improve Indian
    Country law enforcement must be active and ongoing. With respect to the
    rationale for the fiscal year 2000 funding request, the resource
    allocations in the President's Budget reflect the information gathered
    from consultation and dialogue with tribal leaders, tribal police and
    investigators, FBI, BIA Office of Law Enforcement Services, as well as
    statistical analyses through the Bureau of Justice Statistics, such as
    American Indians and Crime (1999). For the second year of the
    initiative, the Department is seeking $124,208,000 for the Indian
    Country Law Enforcement Initiative, and BIA is also seeking an increase
    of more than $40 million. The new requests, Drug Testing and Treatment
    and Police Corps, are part of a comprehensive strategy to improve and
    sustain public safety in Indian Country.
        First, drug and alcohol testing and treatment is essential to fight
    crime in Indian Country because of the strong correlation between
    alcohol abuse and violent crime in Indian Country, which is reflected
    in the BJS survey. In 55 percent of violent crimes against American
    Indians, the victims report that the offender was influence of alcohol
    or drugs. In addition, the 1996 arrest rate for alcohol related
    offenses among American Indians and Alaska Natives was more than double
    that of the general population. At times, law enforcement agencies can
    become overwhelmed by the sheer volume of alcohol-related offenses,
    which impedes their ability to address other types of crime within the
    community. Many habitual alcohol and substance abuse offenders can be
    more efficiently and effectively adjudicated through alternative
    sentencing that specifically targets their substance abuse problem than
    through incarceration alone. The drug and alcohol testing and treatment
    allocation of $10 million would allow some tribes to divert chronic
    substance abusers to treatment programs, while reserving sanctions and
    resources within the justice system for more violent or serious
    offenders.
        The Department of Justice also requests $5 million for the Office
    of Police Corps and Law Enforcement Education (OPCLEE) to implement a
    Police Corps program in Indian Country. This new initiative offers
    federal scholarships on a competitive basis to college students who
    agree to serve as police officers for at least four years with a law
    enforcement agency. We hope that the ultimate effect of the Police
    Corps program in Indian Country will be to address violent crime by
    helping Indian law enforcement agencies increase the number of highly
    qualified officers assigned to community patrol in areas with less than
    adequate service. Over time, this program has the potential to increase
    the number of college-educated tribal police officers while providing
    education assistance to students with a demonstrated interest in law
    enforcement.
        With attendant increases in the number of investigators, FBI
    agents, and tribal police officers in Indian Country, the number of
    federal prosecutions that result will almost certainly increase. To
    bring more cases and thereby fully implement the Major Crimes Act,
    Indian Country Crimes Act, Indian Child Protection Act, and the Anti-
    Gang and Youth Violence Act, additional federal prosecutors are needed.
    The request for $3.2 million to hire 26 additional Assistant U.S.
    Attorneys, originally sought for fiscal year 1999, will augment current
    federal prosecutorial efforts in Indian Country. Assistant U.S.
    Attorneys also play an important role in assisting tribal governments
    to address violent and juvenile crime at the tribal level while
    implementing Child Protection Teams and Multi-Disciplinary Teams to
    assure that tribal and federal interventions are coordinated for the
    best interest of the victims involved.
                         border patrol deployment plan
        Question. Ms. Reno, you state that since you became the Attorney
    General in 1993, Department of Justice budgets have increased 88
    percent as Congress and the White House have waged the war against
    crime, illegal drugs, illegal immigration, youth crime and violence,
    and most recently, terrorism. Congress has funded dramatic increases in
    the number of Border Patrol agents within the Immigration and
    Naturalization Service (INS) over the past several years, and has
    worked with the Administration to ensure that they are deployed most
    effectively, even in the less heavily populated states such as New
    Mexico. INS employment has increased from 18,400 positions in fiscal
    year 1993 to an estimated 30,800 in fiscal year 1999. How many of the
    INS positions are Border Patrol positions, and would you provide the
    Subcommittee with a breakdown of the number of Border Patrol agents
    funded, the number trained and deployed, and where those deployments
    took place by region and state (fiscal year 1997 through fiscal year
    1999)?
        Answer. The following table provides information on total INS
    positions and Border Patrol positions for the period from 1993 through
    1999:

                TOTAL INS POSITIONS AND BORDER PATROL POSITIONS (INCLUDING SUPPORT)--FISCAL YEARS 1993-99
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  1993      1994      1995      1996      1997      1998      1999
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total INS.................................    18,417    18,622    21,048    24,704    26,123    28,903    30,832
    Border Patrol.............................     4,863     5,434     6,233     7,193     8,193     9,351    10,491
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The number of funded Border Patrol agent positions (including
    pilots) in 1993 was 4,288. In 1999 the number is 8,947, including the
    1,000 new agents contained in the fiscal year 1999 INS appropriation.
    The following table provides details regarding the training and
    deployment of Border Patrol agent increases:

                                   NEW AGENTS TRAINED AND DEPLOYED BY REGION AND STATE
                                             [Fiscal year 1994-99 (planned)]
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            1994      1995      1996      1997      1998      1999
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Eastern Region:
        Puerto Rico.....................................  ........  ........  ........         8  ........  ........
        Michigan........................................  ........  ........  ........  ........  ........         7
        New York........................................  ........  ........  ........  ........  ........         8
    Central Region:
        Texas...........................................  ........       328       100       360       625       485
        New Mexico......................................        50        15        31        76        45        15
    Western Region:
        Arizona.........................................  ........       128       241       228       196       395
        California......................................       300       229       428       328       134        83
        Washington......................................  ........  ........  ........  ........  ........         7
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Note: There were no new deployments in fiscal year 1993 by the Border Patrol. The data for fiscal year 1999 is
      from the INS deployment plan and shows the locations receiving 1,000 new agent positions. Based on current
      projections, not all of the positions will be filled by the end of the fiscal year. Efforts to fill them have
      been intensified and will continue into fiscal year 2000.

        Question. I thank you for the work you have done to be sure that
    the El Paso sector, which covers New Mexico, receives adequate
    personnel, and I hope the Department of Justice, and especially INS,
    will continue to focus on an overall border strategy, considering the
    needs of New Mexico and Arizona, as well as the larger states of Texas
    and California.
        The Committee has recently reviewed the proposed INS deployment
    plan for fiscal year 1999. I thank the Subcommittee for approving the
    deployment of another 25 positions to the El Paso sector. What is the
    major thrust of the proposed plan, and how do you envision it as a
    component of an overall Southwest border strategy over the next several
    years?
        Do you think the plan is balanced in its approach to the problems
    along the border and to providing Southwest border states, including
    New Mexico, the resources they need to address the situations?
        Answer. The major thrust of the fiscal year 1999 deployments is to
    target resources to counter the current high levels of illegal entry
    attempts as well as anticipating shifts in the flow of illegal traffic
    into previously little-used stretches of the border including eastern
    California, New Mexico and the south Texas border. The overall
    Southwest border strategy for the Border Patrol continues to be gaining
    control of the southern land border by concentrating resources in the
    busiest illegal entry corridors first. The challenge for the INS over
    the next several years will be to gain and maintain control of the
    major corridors as neighboring areas experience significant growth in
    illegal alien traffic, and as smuggling organizations seek new entry
    routes.
        The National Border Control Strategic Plan was developed to ensure
    that all of the nation's border is provided with the resources
    necessary to gain and maintain control of illegal entries into the
    United States. The systematic and phased approach in the deployment of
    significant resources is sound and has proven that significant
    improvements can be implemented, and will continue to be implemented,
    to control illegal immigration at the border.
        The New Mexico border has been targeted within the INS plan for
    additional resources over the last two years due to the increase in
    illegal alien traffic coming from west Texas and eastern Arizona.
    Operation Rio Grande is also currently enhancing border enforcement
    throughout Texas and New Mexico and will continue to do so as permanent
    staffing is deployed to these areas in 1999.
        Question. Ms. Reno, this year the Administration proposes no new
    Border Patrol agents in its budget request. What is the Department's
    rationale for the suspension of the Border Patrol recruitment of new
    agents? A detailed response to this question would be welcome by the
    Subcommittee and especially those of us representing Southwest border
    states.
        Answer. The fiscal year 2000 budget continues Border Patrol
    staffing at the fiscal year 1999 level of nearly 9,000 agents,
    including Border Patrol pilots, a 126-percent increase from the fiscal
    year 1993 level of 3,965 agents. The fiscal year 2000 budget request
    allows recently-hired Border Patrol agents the time to assimilate into
    the workforce after six years of rapid growth. The following table
    illustrates the increases in Border Patrol agents that have occurred
    from fiscal year 1993 through fiscal year 1999:

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    As of 10/2/  As of 2/13/
                                                         93           99
                   Length of Service                (Cumulative  (Cumulative
                                                      percent)     percent)
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Less than 1 year..............................         2.32        16.15
    Less than 2 years.............................        14.53        33.55
    Less than 3 years.............................        17.35        47.90
    Less than 4 years.............................        18.94        56.67
    Less than 5 years.............................        24.01        60.65
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The high proportion of new agents makes it necessary to allow that
    they be integrated into the Border Patrol corps to safeguard and
    maintain the highest standards of law enforcement professionalism. Law
    enforcement experts indicate that it may be risky to allow an agency's
    overall ratio of inexperienced to experienced agents to exceed 30
    percent. When it does, the agency may find it difficult to maintain
    performance, professionalism and integrity.
        Some municipal police departments have struggled with significant
    corruption and performance problems when they have greatly expanded
    their uniformed forces in a short period of time. While INS has not
    experienced those problems, this approach will help to safeguard
    against them. Current records show that the percentage of Border Patrol
    agents having three years or less service, as of mid-February, 1999,
    was nearly 48 percent. Compare this with October 2, 1993, when only 17
    percent of Border Patrol agents had less than three years of service.
        We believe it is important that the considerably large numbers of
    new Border Patrol agents be given time to assimilate, and gain critical
    field experience. The fiscal year 2000 budget does, however, maintain
    the Administration's commitment to border control. In doing so, the
    fiscal year 2000 budget request includes $50 million and 14 positions
    for ``force-multiplying'' technology, namely the Integrated
    Surveillance Intelligence System (ISIS), which provides the capability
    to monitor the border from remote sites. ISIS will relieve Border
    Patrol agents from having to go to sites needlessly, thus increasing
    their effectiveness, while giving the Border Patrol time to raise
    experience factors.
        The fiscal year 2000 budget request also includes $48.1 million for
    Border Patrol construction projects and other border improvements. Of
    the total amount, $34 million is requested for full construction
    projects for Border Patrol stations, Sector headquarters buildings, and
    for agent housing. Planning, site acquisition and design requirements
    for future facilities account for $8.1 million of the request. Finally,
    the request includes $6 million for a variety of border improvement
    projects, some of which will involve Department of Defense assistance
    through its Joint Task Force Six (JTF-6). These projects include, among
    others, border barriers and roads.
                       violent crime reduction trust fund
        Question. With the Violent Crime Reduction Trust Fund (VCRTF)
    scheduled to expire at the end of fiscal 2000, a review of Trust Fund
    expenditures would be helpful. Could you please provide the Committee
    with a comprehensive overview of Trust Fund activity since its
    inception? Specifically, could you provide us with a list of every
    program (or account) funded from the Trust Fund by year and amount of
    appropriation?
        Answer.

                               VIOLENT CRIME REDUCTION TRUST FUND (INCLUDES TERRORISM BILL 1996) AUTHORIZATIONS VS. APPROPRIATIONS
                                                                    (In thousands of dollars)
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                         Total                                              1998        1999         2000
                                           DOJ Agency     Total Auth    Approp    1995 Approp  1996 Approp  1997 Approp    Approp      Approp    President's
                                                         (1995-2020)   (1995-99)     Total        Total        Total        Total       Total      Request
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 PREVENTION

    Violence Against Women:
        Department of Justice:
            Grants To Combat Violence    OJP...........     800,000      672,750      26,000      130,000      144,000      172,000     200,750      200,750
             Against Women.
            Grants To Encourage Arrest   OJP...........     120,000      150,000  ...........      28,000       33,000       59,000      30,000       30,000
             Policies.
            Rural Domestic Violence      OJP...........      30,000       65,000  ...........       7,000        8,000       25,000      25,000       25,000
             Enforcement.
            Victims of Child Abuse
             Grants:
                Court-Appointed Special  OJP...........      38,000       26,000  ...........       6,000        6,000        7,000       7,000        7,000
                 Advocate Program.
                Training for Judicial    OJP...........       8,050        5,750  ...........         750        1,000        2,000       2,000        2,000
                 Personnel &
                 Practitioners.
                Grants for Televised     OJP...........       4,250        2,600  ...........          50          550        1,000       1,000        1,000
                 Testimony.
            National Stalker & Domestic  OJP...........       6,000        6,000  ...........       1,500        1,750        2,750  ..........  ...........
             Violence Reduction.
            Victims Counselors.........  USA...........       1,500        1,500  ...........         500        1,000   ..........  ..........  ...........
            Training Programs..........  OJP...........       2,000        9,000  ...........       1,000        1,000        2,000       5,000        5,000
            State Data Base Study......  OJP...........         200          200  ...........         200   ...........  ..........  ..........  ...........
            National Study/Campus        OJP...........         200          200  ...........  ...........         200   ..........  ..........  ...........
             Assault.
                                        --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Subtotal, DOJ............  ..............   1,010,200      939,000      26,000      175,000      196,500      270,750     270,750      270,750
                                        ====================================================================================================================
        Department of Health & Human
         Services:
            Number & Cost of Injury      ..............         100          100  ...........  ...........         100   ..........  ..........  ...........
             Study.
            Rape Prevention Grants.....  ..............     205,000      165,542  ...........      31,642       31,900       51,000      51,000       51,000
            Community Programs On        ..............      10,000        9,000  ...........  ...........       9,000   ..........  ..........  ...........
             Domestic Violence.
            Grants for Battered Women's  ..............     325,000      223,800  ...........      21,358        4,442       93,000     105,000      101,000
             Shelters.
            Grants To Reduce Sexual      ..............      30,000       13,558  ...........  ...........      13,558   ..........  ..........  ...........
             Abuse of Runaway,.
            Youth Education and          ..............         400          400  ...........  ...........         400   ..........  ..........  ...........
             Domestic Violence.
            National Domestic Violence   ..............       3,000        2,600       1,000          400        1,200   ..........  ..........  ...........
             Hotline.
                                        --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Subtotal, HHS............  ..............     573,500      415,000       1,000       53,400       60,600      144,000     156,000      152,000
                                        ====================================================================================================================
        Department of Interior:
            Capital Improvements--       ..............      10,000   ..........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ..........  ..........  ...........
             National Parks.
            Capital Improvements--       ..............      15,000   ..........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ..........  ..........  ...........
             Public Parks.
                                        --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Subtotal, DOI............  ..............      25,000   ..........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ..........  ..........  ...........
                                        ====================================================================================================================
        Judiciary: Education & Training  ..............         700   ..........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ..........  ..........  ...........
         for Federal Judges.
        Department of Transportation:    ..............      10,000   ..........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ..........  ..........  ...........
         Capital Improvements--Public
         Transporta-  tion.
        State Justice Institute: Equal   ..............         600   ..........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ..........  ..........  ...........
         Justice For Women In Court.
                                        --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Total, Violence Against Women  ..............   1,620,000    1,354,000      27,000      228,400      257,100      414,750     426,750      422,750
                                        ====================================================================================================================
    Other:
        Department of Justice:
            Local Crime Prevention       OJP...........     377,000   ..........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ..........  ..........  ...........
             Block Grant.
            Model Intensive Prevention   OJP...........     625,500   ..........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ..........  ..........  ...........
             Grants.
            Res. Substance Abuse         OJP...........     270,000      183,000  ...........      27,000       30,000       63,000      63,000       65,100
             Treatment For State
             Prisoners.
            Drug Courts................  OJP...........   1,000,000      111,900      11,900   ...........      30,000       30,000      40,000       50,000
            Assist for Delinquent & At-  OJP...........      36,000   ..........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ..........  ..........  ...........
             Risk Youth.
            Family Unity Demo Projects.  OJP...........      19,800   ..........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ..........  ..........  ...........
            Missing Children/Alzheimers  OJP...........       2,700        3,600  ...........         900          900          900         900          900
             Grants.
            Boys and Girls Clubs 10/     OJP...........      80,000   ..........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ..........  ..........  ...........
             (NON-CRIME BILL TBD).
                                        --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Subtotal, OJP Other......  ..............   2,331,000      298,500      11,900       27,900       60,900       93,900     103,900      116,000
                                        ====================================================================================================================
            Federal Prison Drug          BOP...........     112,500       91,342  ...........      13,484       25,224       26,135      26,499       26,499
             Treatment.
                                        --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Subtotal, DOJ Other......  ..............   2,443,500      389,842      11,900       41,384       86,124      120,035     130,399      142,499
                                        ====================================================================================================================
        Ounce of Prevention: Ounce of    ..............      90,000        1,500       1,500   ...........  ...........  ..........  ..........  ...........
         Prevention Council.
        Department of Education: Family  ..............     243,000   ..........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ..........  ..........  ...........
         & Community Endeavor Schools
         Program.
        Department of Health & Human
         Services:
            Comm. Schools Youth          ..............     567,000       37,000      37,000   ...........  ...........  ..........  ..........  ...........
             Services & Supervision
             Grants.
            Community Economic           ..............     270,000   ..........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ..........  ..........  ...........
             Partnership Fund.
                                        --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Subtotal, HHS............  ..............     837,000       37,000      37,000   ...........  ...........  ..........  ..........  ...........
                                        ====================================================================================================================
        Department of Housing and Urban  ..............   1,620,000   ..........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ..........  ..........  ...........
         Development: Local Partnership
         Act.
        Department of Interior: Urban    ..............       4,500   ..........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ..........  ..........  ...........
         Recreation & At-Risk Youth
         Grants.
        Department of Treasury: Gang     ..............      45,000       24,200       9,000        7,200        8,000   ..........  ..........  ...........
         Resistance Education &
         Training Projects.
                                        ====================================================================================================================
          Total, Other.................  ..............   5,283,000      452,542      59,400       48,584       94,124      120,035     130,399      142,499
                                        ====================================================================================================================
          TOTAL, PREVENTION............  ..............   6,903,000    1,806,542      86,400      276,984      351,224      534,785     557,149      565,249
                                        ====================================================================================================================
      STATE AND LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT

    Department of Justice:
        Community Policing.............  COPS..........   8,800,000    6,889,786   1,299,806    1,399,980    1,390,000    1,400,000   1,400,000    1,175,000
        Police Corps...................  COPS..........     100,000       90,000  ...........  ...........      30,000       30,000      30,000  ...........
        Police Scholarship Program.....  COPS..........     100,000   ..........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ..........  ..........  ...........
        Police Recruitment.............  COPS..........      24,000   ..........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ..........  ..........  ...........
        Rural Drug Enforcement           OJP...........     240,000   ..........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ..........  ..........  ...........
         Assistance.
        Local Law Enforcement Block      OJP...........          na    2,072,000  ...........     503,000      523,000      523,000     523,000  ...........
         Grant.
        Juvenile Incentive Block Grants  OJP...........          na      500,000  ...........  ...........  ...........     250,000     250,000  ...........
        Drug Prevention Demonstration    OJP...........          na   ..........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ..........  ..........  ...........
         Program.
        Drug Testing and Intervention    OJP...........          na   ..........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ..........  ..........      100,000
         Program.
        Brady Handgun Violence           OJP...........     150,000      265,000     100,000       25,000       50,000       45,000      45,000  ...........
         Prevention.
        Byrne Grant Program............  OJP...........   1,000,000      838,500     450,000      147,000      199,000       42,500  ..........      400,000
        Byrne Grant Program (TERRORISM   OJP...........     100,000   ..........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ..........  ..........       59,950
         BILL 1996).
        Incarceration of Undocumented    OJP...........   1,800,000    1,600,000     130,000      300,000      330,000      420,000     420,000      500,000
         Criminal Aliens.
        State Courts Assistance (Youth   OJP...........     150,000       12,000  ...........  ...........  ...........  ..........      12,000       45,500
         Violence Courts).
        Certain Punishment for Young     OJP...........     150,000   ..........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ..........  ..........       35,000
         Offenders.
        Violent Offender Incarceration   OJP...........  10,442,600    2,753,000      24,500      617,500      670,000      720,500     720,500       75,000
         Grants (Corrections Grant
         Prog.).
        Community Based Grants for       OJP...........      50,000   ..........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ..........  ..........  ...........
         Prosecutors (Prosecutor
         Grants).
        Grants to Prosecutors to Target  OJP...........          na   ..........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ..........  ..........  ...........
         Gang Crime/Juvenile.
        Law Enforcement Family Support.  OJP...........      25,000        4,500  ...........       1,000        1,000        1,000       1,500        1,500
        DNA Identification State Grants  OJP...........      40,000       31,500  ...........       1,000        3,000       12,500      15,000  ...........
        Tuberculosis in Prison.........  OJP...........       5,000          200  ...........         200   ...........  ..........  ..........  ...........
        Improved Training & Technical    FBI...........     100,000       18,500  ...........       9,000        9,500   ..........  ..........  ...........
         Automation.
        S&L Training at Quantico/        FBI...........      20,000        8,000  ...........       4,000        4,000   ..........  ..........  ...........
         Intelligence Gathering.
        Improved Technical Automation    FBI...........      10,000   ..........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ..........  ..........  ...........
         at Quantico.
        Local Firefighter Trng State     OJP...........       5,000   ..........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ..........  ..........  ...........
         Grants (TERRORISM BILL 1996).
        Indian Tribal Courts...........  OJP...........          na        5,000  ...........  ...........  ...........  ..........       5,000        5,000
                                        --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Subtotal, DOJ................  ..............  23,311,600   15,087,986   2,004,306    3,007,680    3,209,500    3,444,500   3,422,000    2,396,950
                                        ====================================================================================================================
    Department of Treasury: Rural Drug   ..............       5,000   ..........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ..........  ..........  ...........
     Enforcement Training: FLETC.
                                        --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          TOTAL, STATE AND LOCAL         ..............  23,316,600   15,087,986   2,004,306    3,007,680    3,209,500    3,444,500   3,422,000    2,396,950
           ASSISTANCE.
                                        ====================================================================================================================
          FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT

    Department of Justice:
        USA General Crime Support......  USA...........      50,000      192,363  ...........      20,235       28,602       62,828      80,698       57,000
        FBI General Crime Support......  FBI...........     245,000      654,689  ...........     208,715       43,497      179,121     223,356      280,501
        FBI General Crime Support        FBI...........     468,000       30,080  ...........  ...........      30,080   ..........  ..........  ...........
         (TERRORISM BILL--1996).
        Narrowband Communications......  DOJ...........  ...........  ..........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ..........  ..........  ...........
        DOJ General Crime Support......  ..............     199,000      199,254  ...........      72,921      126,333   ..........  ..........  ...........
            INS........................  INS...........  ...........  ..........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ..........  ..........  ...........
            USMS.......................  USMS..........  ...........      51,106  ...........     [24,980]     [25,000]      25,553      25,553       26,210
            USA........................  USA...........     [50,000]  ..........  ...........  ...........     [15,274]  ..........  ..........  ...........
            FBI........................  FBI...........  ...........  ..........  ...........  ...........     [86,059]  ..........  ..........  ...........
            DEA........................  DEA...........  ...........  ..........  ...........     [47,941]  ...........  ..........  ..........  ...........
        DOJ General Crime Support        DOJ...........      41,000   ..........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ..........  ..........  ...........
         (TERRORISM BILL--1996).
        Additional DEA Agents..........  DEA...........     150,000      958,537  ...........      12,000      138,000      403,537     405,000      405,000
        DEA General Crime Support        DEA...........     172,000       82,000  ...........  ...........      82,000   ..........  ..........  ...........
         (TERRORISM BILL--1996).
        Asylum Reform..................  ..............     338,000      269,504      49,000       94,289      126,215   ..........  ..........  ...........
            INS........................  INS...........  ...........  ..........     [28,600]     [44,089]     [19,585]  ..........  ..........  ...........
            EOIR.......................  EOIR..........  ...........     118,502      [9,000]     [33,378]     [35,000]      59,251      59,251       59,251
            USA........................  USA...........  ...........  ..........      [6,800]      [9,231]  ...........  ..........  ..........  ...........
            CIVIL DIVISION.............  CIV...........  ...........      16,129      [4,600]      [7,591]      [7,750]       7,969       8,160        8,555
        Border Control System            INS...........     675,000    2,161,006     181,000      231,323      297,987      608,206     842,490      500,000
         Modernization.
        Expanded Special Deportation     ..............     160,000      230,798      54,000       54,886      121,912   ..........  ..........  ...........
         (IHP).
            INS........................  INS...........  ...........  ..........     [45,800]     [40,539]    [108,912]  ..........  ..........  ...........
            EOIR.......................  EOIR..........  ...........  ..........      [8,400]     [14,347]     [13,000]  ..........  ..........  ...........
        INS General Crime Support        INS...........      20,000   ..........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ..........  ..........  ...........
         (TERRORISM BILL--1996).
        Criminal Alien Tracking Center.  INS...........      18,400   ..........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ..........  ..........  ...........
        DNA Analysis...................  FBI...........      25,000       11,000  ...........       5,500        5,500   ..........  ..........  ...........
        Gang Investigation Info.         OJP...........       1,000        1,000  ...........       1,000   ...........  ..........  ..........  ...........
         Collection.
        Motor Vehicle Theft Protection.  OJP...........       5,000        3,300  ...........         500          750          750       1,300        1,300
        Presidential Summit on Crime...  OJP...........       1,000   ..........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ..........  ..........  ...........
        Sr. Citizens Against Marketing
         Scams:
            FBI Agents.................  FBI...........       7,500   ..........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ..........  ..........  ...........
            U.S. Attorneys.............  USA...........       2,500   ..........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ..........  ..........  ...........
            Public Awareness &           OJP...........      10,000        6,500  ...........  ...........       2,000        2,500       2,000        2,000
             Prevention Initiatives.
        NIJ, Office of Science &
         Technology (TERRORISM BILL--
         1996):
            Foreign Assistance in        OJP...........      20,000   ..........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ..........  ..........  ...........
             Counterterrorism
             Technology.
            R&D in Counterterrorism      OJP...........      10,000   ..........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ..........  ..........  ...........
             Technology.
                                        --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Subtotal, DOJ............  ..............   2,618,400    4,985,768     284,000      701,369    1,002,876    1,349,715   1,647,808    1,339,817
                                        ====================================================================================================================
    Executive Office of the President:   ..............  ...........      25,700  ...........  ...........  ...........  \1\ 23,200       2,500  ...........
     ONDCP--HIDTA.
    Interior: U.S. Park Police           ..............       2,000   ..........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ..........  ..........  ...........
     (TERRORISM BILL 1996).
    Judiciary:
        General Crime Support (Crime     ..............     200,000      141,043  ...........      30,000       30,000       40,000      41,043       66,000
         Bill 1994).
        General Crime Support            ..............      41,000   ..........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ..........  ..........  ...........
         (TERRORISM BILL 1996).
    Department of Treasury:
        General Crime Support (Crime     ..............     550,000      204,135      30,000       69,304       70,410       33,021       1,400       11,000
         Bill 1994).
        General Crime Support            ..............      40,000       58,300  ...........  ...........      18,300   ..........      40,000       45,000
         (TERRORISM BILL 1996).
        U.S. Customs Service (TERRORISM  ..............      31,000      126,120  ...........  ...........  ...........      60,648      65,472       64,000
         BILL 1996).
        U.S. Secret Service (TERRORISM   ..............      50,000       38,359  ...........  ...........  ...........      15,731      22,628       12,000
         BILL 1996).
                                        --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          TOTAL, FEDERAL LAW             ..............   3,532,400    5,579,425     314,000      800,673    1,121,586    1,522,315   1,820,851    1,537,817
           ENFORCEMENT.
                                        ====================================================================================================================
          TOTAL, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE.  ..............  29,383,700   15,931,639   2,326,206    3,925,433    4,495,000    5,185,000   5,470,957    4,150,016
          TOTAL, VCRTF.................  ..............  33,752,000   22,473,953   2,404,706    4,085,337    4,682,310    5,501,600   5,800,000    4,500,016
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Includes $1,600,000 appropriated for Department of the Treasury, Departmental Offices, from balances available in the Violent Crime Reduction Trust
      Fund.

        Background.--The VCRTF was established by Public Law 103-322, Title
    31, and, as created, provided $30.2 billion over six years (fiscal 1995
    through 2000) for anti-crime programs. Since appropriations from the
    Fund could be spent on a wide variety of anti-crime measures and the
    appropriations committees themselves were given a limited 10 percent
    transfer authority among anti-crime programs, a large number of
    accounts or programs--well over 50 at the Fund's mid-point two years
    ago--have received VCRTF funding. In accessing the Fund's use and the
    effectiveness of the programs it has funded, a summation of those
    accounts or programs, the amount spent, actual or estimated by fiscal
    year, and the amount proposed for expenditure in the final year of the
    Fund would be helpful.
                   rio arriba county black tar heroin problem
        Question. Attorney General Reno, Rio Arriba County in northern New
    Mexico is facing a drug crisis of epidemic proportions. Mexican
    nationals have begun to flood poor, rural communities with cheap and
    potent black tar heroin. New Mexico now leads the nation in per capita
    heroin overdose deaths, and Rio Arriba County leads New Mexico. Last
    year, 44 people died heroin-related deaths in Rio Arriba County.
        I am working to develop an overall strategy to assist Rio Arriba
    County, including providing the necessary federal funds for prevention,
    rehabilitation and law enforcement to address this problem from every
    conceivable angle.
        Will you agree to work with me to help identify DOJ drug prevention
    programs available to assist these communities in their anti-drug
    efforts?
        Answer. Yes. As you know, the Office of Justice Programs (OJP) has
    a long standing relationship with state and local governments and has
    for many years been the source of both programmatic and training/
    technical assistance resources. As you develop your strategy to assist
    Rio Arriba, OJP can offer assistance by pulling together a technical
    assistance team to help Rio Arriba in developing a strategic plan to
    identify, understand, and manage the black tar heroin problem.
        Additionally, OJP has several drug prevention programs that may
    provide additional resources:
      --Drug Prevention Demonstration Program--directly addresses juvenile
            substance abuse. This discretionary grant program is
            administered by OJP's Office of Juvenile Justice and
            Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) and targets 6th, 7th, and 8th
            grade students in urban, rural and tribal jurisdictions. It is
            a school-based program that is designed to increase the
            perception among juveniles that substance abuse is risky,
            harmful, and unattractive. In studies involving more than 180
            suburban and urban schools, grades 7 to 12, this program has
            generally documented initial reductions of fifty percent in
            youth alcohol, tobacco, and marijuana use, along with a
            sustained impact.
      --Drug Abuse Resistance Education (D.A.R.E.)--is the nation's most
            predominant school-based drug abuse and violence prevention
            program. It has been implemented by more than 8,000 law
            enforcement agencies in school systems across the country.
            Approximately 33,000 law enforcement officers have received
            D.A.R.E. training and more than 75 percent of schools
            nationwide participate in this program--over 25 million
            students in the U.S. have benefitted from D.A.R.E. Boys and
            Girls Clubs of America (B&GCA)--with funding from OJP's Bureau
            of Justice Assistance, B&GCA have implemented the SMART Moves
            (Skills Mastery and Resistance Training) program in more than
            2,260 clubs nationwide. SMART Moves is a dynamic, nationally
            acclaimed prevention program designed to help young people
            resist alcohol, tobacco, and other drug use, as well as
            premature sexual activity. This national prevention program
            provides resistance training to young people and helps them
            develop social skills to increase their ability to protect
            themselves. SMART Moves has been recognized as one of 10
            exemplary prevention programs by both the U.S. Center for
            Substance Abuse Prevention and the National Association of
            State Alcohol and Drug Abuse Directors. It has also been lauded
            as a premier national prevention program by the White House
            Conference for a Drug-Free America and the Children's Defense
            Fund.
      --Weed and Seed Program--represents the Department's premier,
            neighborhood-based comprehensive crime control initiative. The
            Weed and Seed program continues to pioneer the nationwide
            adoption of community-based strategies designed to ``weed out''
            violent crime, illegal drug and gun trafficking, and illegal
            gang activity and to ``seed'' their communities with crime
            prevention programs. To achieve this mission, the Executive
            Office for Weed and Seed (EOWS) provides assistance to sites in
            designing comprehensive strategies to prevent and control
            crime, coordinates federal participation in cooperation with
            the U.S. Attorneys Offices and federal law enforcement agencies
            and other federal departments, and provides grant funding to
            communities to further their strategies.
        Question. What is the current DOJ policy regarding Mexican
    nationals arrested on drug crimes in the United States? If Mexico makes
    an extradition request, do we typically send these drug dealers back to
    Mexico? If there is no extradition request, does the U.S. deport them,
    or hold them for prosecution?
        Answer. There is no general DOJ policy regarding Mexican nationals
    arrested on drug charges in the United States, each case instead being
    assessed and addressed on its specific merits and circumstances. If
    Mexico has charges pending against the arrested and submits an
    extradition request, we have the option of dropping our own case and
    surrendering him to Mexican authorities through extradition or of
    pursuing our own case and delaying extradition until the proceedings
    and sentence against him are completed in this country. Depending on
    the arrested's immigration status when initially detained, immediate
    voluntary departure may be pursued, or, if the arrested is here
    legally, the prosecution may proceed, with deportation following
    service of sentence in the United States or a transfer to Mexico for
    service of sentence pursuant to the U.S.-Mexico Prisoner Transfer
    Treaty. As noted, however, each case must be addressed individually to
    ensure that its disposition, whether here or in Mexico, best serves the
    interests of justice and most effectively protects our communities from
    criminal activity.
        Question. Would the United States Attorneys in New Mexico benefit
    from additional resources to prosecute Mexican nationals accused of
    trafficking in heroin and other illegal drugs in northern New Mexico?
        Answer. New Mexico could benefit from more resources, as could any
    of our districts. However, since the resources of the Federal
    Government and the Department of Justice are finite, the U.S.
    Attorneys' goal is to deploy available resources in the most effective
    manner possible. The U.S. Attorneys have continued to respond to
    shifting crime problems, whether those problems are emerging crime in
    particular geographic areas, or new types of crime. In both cases, the
    U.S. Attorneys' policies and procedures have, and will, continue to
    enable us to be responsive and timely in addressing new threats.
        The U.S. Attorneys have an elaborate allocation process to place
    resources where they are most needed. Specifically, the allocation
    process begins with a working group of U.S. Attorneys who are chosen
    for their expertise in the narcotics area. In addition to written
    justifications submitted from the districts, the attorneys use certain
    data to make an accurate assessment of each district's needs. The data
    includes narcotics-related case activity, district size, average
    attorney work week, local/regional involvement, previous narcotics
    allocations, and law enforcement resources. After an objective review
    of this information, the group allocates the resources to ensure a
    continued enforcement effort in the narcotics area.
        In the past three years, New Mexico has received a total of 11 new
    Assistant U.S. Attorney (AUSAs) positions and eight support positions
    for narcotics prosecutions. In fiscal year 1997, six AUSAs and three
    support positions were allocated to the New Mexico U.S. Attorney's
    office specifically for narcotics prosecutions. In fiscal year 1998,
    four AUSAs and five support positions were allocated to strengthen the
    U.S. Attorney's narcotics and immigration prosecution activities in New
    Mexico along the Southwest Border. In fiscal year 1999, the U.S.
    Attorney was allocated one additional AUSA position for drug
    prosecutions in New Mexico.
                           mexico drug certification
        Question. Attorney General Reno, earlier this month, the President
    announced that he again would certify to Congress that Mexico is a
    ``fully cooperating'' partner in the drug war. DEA Administrator Tom
    Constantine left the impression recently that Mexico had not achieved
    much in the way of significant progress in the past year. Specifically,
    he notes that not a single major Mexican national wanted here on drug
    charges was extradited from Mexico during the past year.
        Do you believe that Mexico deserved to be certified as fully
    cooperating in the drug war?
        Answer. Despite the many challenges that remain, Mexico has become
    a real partner in our battle against drugs. The law enforcement
    relationship that exists between the United States and Mexico is strong
    and growing stronger every day.
        Question. What evidence of progress have you seen in the past year?
        Answer. Mexico's current situation has developed over many years/
    generations, and success in overcoming the drug threat in Mexico will
    not occur overnight. Progress will need to be measured over time. Over
    the past years corruption has had a terribly corrosive impact on Mexico
    and has led to concern and frustration, both here and in the government
    of President Zedillo. President Zedillo inherited a difficult situation
    but he is taking appropriate steps to address it. Under his leadership
    Mexico has passed a new Organized Crime Law and enacted anti-money
    laundering and chemical control legislation. I have worked closely with
    Attorney General Madrazo, and we have an excellent working
    relationship. This relationship has enabled both countries to share
    investigative information, develop strong cases against major drug
    trafficking organizations, and inaugurate a program of joint training
    of prosecutors and investigators of both countries. Both President
    Zedillo and Attorney General Madrazo are committed to establishing a
    professional law enforcement capacity in Mexico, and we are already
    seeing progress from their commitment. If Mexico is to succeed in its
    fight against drug trafficking and corruption, it will only happen with
    sustained, long-term efforts by the Government of Mexico. Moreover,
    success will require a continuing relationship of cooperation and
    mutual respect between our two countries.
        Question. How many Mexican nationals wanted on drug charges have
    been extradited to the United States in the past 3 years?
        Answer. The pace of extraditions from Mexico during 1998 held to
    1997 levels, with an increase in the number of Mexican nationals
    extradited, and deportations have increased significantly. Although we
    were discouraged by occasional adverse court decisions and weak follow-
    through on some cases in Mexico, Mexico's arrest and detention of the
    Amezcua brothers (methamphetamine kingpins) for extradition to the U.S.
    is important. In addition, there were several notable successful
    domestic prosecutions, under Article 4 of the Mexican Penal Code.
    Finally, Mexican authorities have cooperated with the U.S. Marshals
    Service fugitive project in Embassy-Mexico City, resulting in the
    arrest of eight U.S. fugitives. The following table summarizes Mexico's
    extradition performance over the past three calendar years.

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                   Categories                   1998       1997       1996
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total Extradition/Mexico to U.S........         12         13         13
        Number Mexican Nationals...........          3  .........          2
        Number on Narcotics Charges........          4          7          6
        Number Mexican Nationals on Drug         \1\ 1  .........  .........
         Charges...........................
    Found Extraditable by Mexico (whether           19         21         11
     actually surrendered or not)..........
        Number Mexican Nationals...........          5          9          2
        Number Facing Narcotics Charges....         10         11          2
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Also wanted for murder.

        Question. Would you provide me with a list of all of the Mexican
    nationals currently under indictment in the United States on drug
    charges?
        Answer. Information regarding the nationality of persons currently
    under indictment in the United States on drug charges is not available.
        Question. I have been looking for a way to get federal law
    enforcement officials more involved in the certifications process,
    because I believe law enforcement has the best perspective on whether a
    country deserves certification. Do you have any thoughts on how we
    might improve the certification law, with particular emphasis on giving
    the Department of Justice, DEA, INS, and FBI a greater role in the
    process?
        Answer. The law requires that the President identify annually those
    countries which he determines are major source or transit countries for
    illicit drugs--the so-called ``majors list''--and to certify to
    Congress the level of cooperation with the United States in the area of
    narcotics control of countries included on the ``majors list.'' To
    assist the President in making these determinations and certifications,
    the Department of State coordinates with all interested departments and
    agencies, including the Department of Justice, the Drug Enforcement
    Administration and the Federal Bureau of Investigation, regarding the
    composition of the ``majors list'' and the determinations and
    certifications pertaining to each country on the list. I believe that
    this process affords appropriate consideration to the views and
    recommendations of the primary federal drug law enforcement departments
    and agencies.
                            first responder training
        Question. Attorney General Reno, the Administration has touted its
    commitment to fighting terrorism, both domestically and
    internationally. Last year, the Department established the National
    Domestic Preparedness Consortium to coordinate the Department's efforts
    in training first responders to a terrorist act. I was at the ceremony
    and supported funding for the Consortium at $20 million in fiscal year
    1999--$8 million for Fort McClellan Headquarters, and $3 million each
    for the four consortia members doing the actual training of state and
    local law enforcement personnel.
        With all the Administration's focus on counterterrorism and the
    push to adequately train state and local first responders, the
    Administration appears to propose eliminating support approved by the
    Congress for the Consortia members in 1999 and redirect this $12
    million to other expanded or new programs in 2000. In response to an
    earlier question, the Department responded that it will follow through
    with the directives in the 1999 conference report and provide these
    funds to the Consortia members. Is that the case?
        Answer. Yes. In fiscal year 1999, Congress appropriated a total of
    $20 million to be distributed among five members of the National
    Domestic Preparedness Consortium. Of this amount, $16 million is
    available under the First Responder Training Program and $4 million is
    available under the First Responder Equipment Acquisition Program.
        As provided in the Fiscal Year 1999 Department of Justice
    Appropriations Act, a total of $3 million will be provided to each of
    the following four Consortium members: New Mexico Institute of Mining
    and Technology, the National Center for Bio-Medical Research and
    Training, Louisiana State University, the National Emergency Response
    and Rescue Training Center, Texas A&M University, and the National
    Exercise, Test, and Training Center, Nevada Test Site. A total of $8
    million will be provided to the Center for Domestic Preparedness, Ft.
    McClellan.
        Question. Congress has provided two years of funding for the four
    members of the National Consortium, and they are actively involved in
    hands-on training of these personnel. New Mexico Tech has done classes
    for Seattle, St. Louis, Chicago, Phoenix, and Fairfax County, Virginia,
    for example. Each of these four institutions have existing expertise
    and facilities to bring to the first responder training program and are
    doing the job. Does the Administration propose to directly support the
    members of the Consortia that it established just this past summer in
    the fiscal year 2000 budget?
        Answer. In 1998 and 1999, funding for the consortium members'
    activities occurred outside the traditional budget process. In 1998, in
    addition to appropriating funds for OJP's three existing
    counterterrorism programs (Local Firefighter and EMS Training:
    $5,000,000; State and Local Anti-terrorism Training: $2,000,000; and
    Counterterrorism Technology Development $12,000,000), Congress provided
    an additional $16,000,000 targeted to three new counterterrorism
    program activities: $12,000,000 for the First Responder Equipment
    Acquisition Program and $2,000,000 each for Ft. McClellan and New
    Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology.
        The funding requested for counterterrorism programs under the
    Office of Justice Programs includes an overall increase of $38,500,000.
    This increase, along with $6,500,000 from OJP's counterterrorism base
    resources, are proposed to be used to fund the FBI bomb tech equipment
    program at a total level of $45,000,000, $20,000,000 more than is
    available in 1999. As you are aware, Congress allowed the Department to
    use $25,000,000 from the Working Capital Fund to pay for this program
    in 1999. The bomb tech equipment program was supposed to be multi-year,
    and the Department cannot assume that funding will be available from
    the Working Capital Fund in 2000 to continue this program. We believe
    that we can work with congressional appropriators within the total
    level of counterterrorism program funding proposed in the fiscal year
    2000 budget to continue the training programs begun in 1999 by the
    consortium members while providing some permanent base of funding for
    the bomb tech equipment program.
        Also, within the limited base resources that were available in
    2000, $17,000,000 was included for the Center for Domestic Preparedness
    at Fort McClellan, which is a member of the National Domestic
    Preparedness Consortium; this is an increase of $9,000,000 from 1999.
    OJP will assume full responsibility for the live agent training
    infrastructure at the base in fiscal year 2000, and this increase is
    necessary to fund first responder training at Fort McClellan as well as
    the additional overhead costs that will be incurred once the transition
    is complete.
        Question. How does the Administration propose to continue its first
    responder training program and what role with the four major training
    partners of the National Domestic Preparedness Consortium play?
        Answer. As mentioned above, in fiscal year 1999, Congress
    appropriated a total of $20,000,000 to be distributed among the five
    members of the National Domestic Preparedness Consortium. Of this
    amount, the Center for Domestic Preparedness, Ft. McClellan will
    receive $8,000,000 and the balance of $12,000,000 will be equally
    divided among the remaining four members. In fiscal year 2000,
    $17,000,000 is requested to continue training activities at the Center
    for Domestic Preparedness, Ft. McClellan.
        The fiscal year 2000 budget request for counterterrorism programs
    within the Office of Justice Programs is $173,500,000, which is a
    $38,500,000 increase above the amount appropriated in 1999. This
    request contains $17,000,000 for the Center for Domestic Preparedness
    (CDP) at Fort McClellan. During 1998, the CDP operated as a tenant of
    the U.S. Army and shared training facilities (including the ``live
    agent'' training facility), lodging, and dining facilities. Through
    1999, all operations, maintenance, and facilities' support will be
    provided by Army personnel, based on an agreement between OJP and the
    Army. This agreement terminates with the Army's departure from Fort
    McClellan at the end of fiscal year 1999. As a result, in fiscal year
    2000, CDP plans to occupy and maintain buildings and other structures
    at Ft. McClellan necessary for administration, classes, lodging,
    dining, maintenance, storage, and support. Transition of operation,
    support, and maintenance of the facility to OJP is estimated to cost
    around $11,500,000 in 2000. Some of these costs include providing a 24-
    hour security guard force for the training facility, physical security
    plans of all the CDP property including the live agent facility, and
    physical security systems, such as fencing and intruder detection.
        The remainder of the $173,500,000 for counterterrorism programs
    under the Office of Justice Programs will be used as follows:
      --$17,000,000 for continued base funding for three OJP
            counterterrorism programs that have been in existence since
            1997: $5,000,000 for the Firefighter and Emergency Services
            Training Program, $2,000,000 for the State and Local
            Antiterrorism Training Program, and $10,000,000 for the
            Development of Counterterrorism Technologies Program.
      --$81,500,000 for the Equipment Acquisition Program, which is the
            second of a proposed multi-year effort to provide equipment for
            first responders.
      --$6,000,000 to provide technical assistance for each of the
            jurisdictions receiving equipment grants. Technical assistance
            is an integral part of OJP grant programs. In fiscal year 2000,
            OJP anticipates providing resources to more than 200 state and
            local jurisdictions; this is significantly higher than the 41
            grantees we provided funding to in 1998.
      --$7,000,000 in new funding for the Law Enforcement Training Program.
            This program was developed by the New Mexico Institute of
            Mining and Technology (with $2,000,000 in funding provided by
            OJP in 1998). Of this amount, $5,000,000 will be used to
            deliver basic first responder training to 47,000 law
            enforcement officers and 750 qualified trainers from the
            targeted jurisdictions. The remaining $2,000,000 will be used
            to (1) modify the command level and tactical training programs,
            which are currently being developed for fire and emergency
            medical services, to address the similar unmet needs of the
            first responder law enforcement community and (2) initiate the
            process of integrating OJP's curricula into states' law
            enforcement certification processes--ensuring that state-
            mandated basic and advanced training requirements for all law
            enforcement personnel are maintained.
      --$45,000,000 in new money for the State and Local Detection
            Equipment Program, a program run in coordination with the FBI
            to provide specialized equipment and training to state and
            local bomb tech squads. This represents the second year of a
            multi-year effort to support and protect state and local bomb
            squads by outfitting them with equipment to enhance their
            capabilities to render safe improvised or conventional
            explosive devices and to detect and render safe chemical,
            biological, radioactive, or nuclear (CBRN) explosive devices.
            The goal of this program is to provide equipment to the
            existing 229 accredited state and local bomb technician squads
            throughout the United States with a baseline of render safe
            equipment and also to another 200 state and local bomb
            technician squads receiving accreditation through the FBI's
            Hazardous Devices School (HDS) at the Redstone Arsenal. In
            1998, the FBI's HDS created a one-week specialized Weapons of
            Mass Destruction (WMD) Bomb Technician Emergency Action Course,
            based on the realization that even though bomb technicians may
            be among the first emergency responders to encounter a
            terrorist explosive device, they are relatively unprepared to
            address incidents involving the combined use of explosives with
            CBRN enhancements. In 1999, the FBI has begun the first year of
            a multi-year equipment and training program for accredited
            state and local bomb technician squads with $25,000,000 from
            the Working Capital Fund, consistent with language contained in
            the 1999 Justice Department's appropriations act. The
            Department had proposed in our amendment last year that we
            receive a direct appropriation of $49,000,000 for this program
            in 1999, so that we would have base funding available to
            continue this multi-year program in 2000 and beyond. The
            funding provided from the Working Capital Fund is one-time in
            nature, and we cannot assume that we will have this funding
            available in future years.
        Question. On page 142 of the Department of Justice ``2000 Budget
    Summary,'' the Department of Justice indicates that the Center for
    Domestic Preparedness at Fort McClellan is the only ``live-agent''
    training facility in the U.S. that provides the hands-on training to
    respond to domestic terrorism involving various weapons of mass
    destruction. The other four members of the Consortia include the Nevada
    Test Site; the National Center for Bio-Medical Research and Training at
    Louisiana State University; the National Emergency and Response and
    Rescue Training Center at Texas A&M University; and the New Mexico
    Tech, a leading expert in conventional explosives. How can the
    Department make such a sweeping statement when there are these existing
    assets to train first responders?
        Answer. The Chemical Defense Testing Facility--housed at Ft.
    McClellan--is the only facility of its kind, where live chemical agents
    are used in actual training. This statement did not, in any way,
    detract from the fact that the other Consortium member facilities are
    indeed excellent assets in our training architecture.
        Question. I believe the most important outcome of the first
    responder program is training real people. Congress tapped existing
    facilities with the expertise to do the job to carry out the first
    responder training program. Will you please provide for the
    Subcommittee an accounting of the number of state and local personnel
    trained by each member of the National Consortia in fiscal year 1998
    and the projected training program in fiscal year 1999?
        Answer. In 1998, $2 million each was appropriated for the New
    Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology (NMIMT) and Ft. McClellan to
    provide first responder training. As a result, in 1998, 540 first
    responders were trained at NMIMT and an additional 500 first responders
    were trained at the Center for Domestic Preparedness, Ft. McClellan. In
    1999, it is estimated that the Center for Domestic Preparedness will
    train approximately 1,300 first responders and that each of the four
    other Consortium members will train approximately 331 first responders,
    for a total of 1,324.
        Question. I have learned that the Office of Justice Programs, in
    implementing the first responder training program, originally committed
    to fund the $1,000 per student stipend and other miscellaneous costs
    for state and local personnel who are trained through the first
    responder program. After the fiscal year 1998 funding was committed to
    the Consortia members, OJP changed its mind and now requires that the
    Consortia members pay those stipends out of their $2 million training
    budget. OJP has received healthy funding increases and should pay the
    stipend costs so that more personnel can be trained. How can the
    Department justify this policy when it means that for every four
    classes held, the Consortia member loses one class simply to pay the
    stipend costs?
        Answer. In order to make training available to our nation's state
    and local first responder community, it has always been and continues
    to be OJP's intention that the training resources provided to
    Consortium members would be used to fund the full cost of training--
    which includes the costs associated with the development and delivery
    of training, as well as the costs necessary to transport, house, and
    feed first responders.
        Question. Last year, Congress added an equipment component to the
    First Responder Training program, and as one of the sponsors of that
    funding, I can tell you that it was our intent to allow the additional
    $1 million in equipment funding to be used for both equipment purchase
    and training in the use of that equipment. I believe this will ensure
    that the proper use of the equipment is well understood and that the
    federal dollars spent on equipment and at the state and local levels
    are well spent. Why does the Administration refuse to allow the
    Consortia members to use these funds in a flexible manner to maximize
    the first responder training program?
        Answer. The Department is following direction from the 1999
    Conferees in requiring that the additional funds be used for equipment.
    The Conference Report on 1999 appropriations includes language, on page
    998, directing that of the $75.5 million provided for equipment
    purchases, ``* * * $4 million is for equipment for the National
    Domestic Preparedness Consortium to be distributed as described below
    under Training.'' Under Training, the Conference Report states that
    each of the four members of the consortium, besides Ft. McClellan, is
    to receive an additional $1 million from the equipment grant program.
                    radiation exposure compensation program
        Question. Ms. Reno, you are aware of my longstanding interest in
    implementation of the Radiation Exposure Compensation Program, which I
    authored and for which I have sought sufficient funding to fulfill its
    purpose of compensating those who have sustained injury as a result of
    the United States open-air nuclear testing and uranium mining
    activities in the 1950s through 1970s.
        The President's fiscal year 2000 budget includes $2 million to
    administer the Radiation Exposure Compensation Program, and $21.7
    million for the Radiation Exposure Trust Fund from which payments are
    made. I am pleased to see the Administration continue its support of
    this program.
        Congress has appropriated approximately $200 million to the Trust
    Fund established under the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act.
        How many claims has the Department approved and how much has been
    spent out of the Trust Fund to pay these claims?
        Answer. From the inception of the Radiation Exposure Compensation
    Act (RECA) Program in April 1992 through April 1999, the Department has
    approved a total of 3,135 claims valued at nearly $232 million.
        Question. What is the current balance in the Trust Fund with which
    to pay claims during fiscal year 1999? How many claims are currently
    pending for compensation from the Radiation Exposure Compensation Trust
    Fund? Is the amount currently available in the Trust Fund sufficient to
    pay claims for the remainder of this fiscal year?
        Answer. At the end of April, the Radiation Exposure Compensation
    Trust Fund had a balance of $13.6 million and there were 291 claims and
    appeals pending. The amount in the Trust Fund is sufficient to pay
    claims for the remainder of the year.
        Question. Congress provided an advance appropriation of just under
    $16.3 million for fiscal year 1997 for the payment of these claims, and
    another $4.4 million was approved in the 1998 bill. No new funding was
    needed for this fiscal year--1999. Would you please provide the
    Subcommittee with updated information on the number of claims approved
    for payment from the Trust Fund, the average amount of the claims
    approved, the number of claims denied, and the general reason for
    denial of these claims?
        Answer. Through April 1999, a total of 3,135 claims were approved--
    with an average value of $73,870--and 3,359 claims were denied. Claims
    are denied if one or more of the following eligibility criteria are not
    met: disease, exposure and identification of the proper party to file a
    claim. Downwinder and onsite participant claims are most frequently
    denied for failure to establish a compensable disease. Most uranium
    miner claims are denied because documentation does not establish
    exposure to the requisite amount of radiation during the course of
    underground uranium mining employment.
        Question. For the record, would you please provide the Subcommittee
    with a breakdown of the types of claims approved or disapproved
    (childhood leukemia, other downwinder, onsite participants or uranium
    miners), the number of claims currently pending, and the amounts
    disbursed by type of claim paid?
        For my use, would you please provide this same information
    specifically for claims from New Mexico, including the total claims
    received, the total claims approved, the total claims denied, and the
    total claims pending?
        Answer. The following table lists, by category, the total value of
    the awards approved by the Radiation Exposure Compensation Program, as
    well as the number of claims and appeals received, approved,
    disapproved and pending at the end of April 1999.

                                                  RADIATION EXPOSURE COMPENSATION PROGRAM APRIL 1992-APRIL 1999
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                                             Ending/Pending
                                                              Value of    Claims   Initially   Initially    Appeals   Appeals    Appeals   -----------------
                                                               Awards    Received   Approved  Disapproved  Received  Approved  Disapproved   Claims  Appeals
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Childhood Leukemia....................................   $1,100,000        41         22          19          9  ........           8   .......        1
    Other Downwinder......................................   74,320,000     2,753      1,465       1,217        208        22         182        71        4
    Onsite Participant....................................   12,681,106       912        170         716        149        15         130        26        4
    Uranium Miner.........................................  143,491,500     3,061      1,341       1,544        324       100         215       176        9
                                                           -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Total...........................................  231,592,606     6,767      2,998       3,496        690       137         535       273       18
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

        With respect to claims for which the primary claimant resides in
    New Mexico, the Department has approved 371 claims, with a total value
    of nearly $37 million. The following table lists, by category, the
    value of the awards and the number of claims and appeals received,
    approved, disapproved, and pending at the end of April 1999.

                                            RADIATION EXPOSURE COMPENSATION PROGRAM--NEW MEXICO APRIL 1992-APRIL 1999
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                                             Ending/Pending
                                                              Value of    Claims   Initially   Initially    Appeals   Appeals    Appeals   -----------------
                                                               Awards    Received   Approved  Disapproved  Received  Approved  Disapproved   Claims  Appeals
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Childhood Leukemia....................................      $50,000         1          1  ...........  ........  ........  ...........  .......  .......
    Other Downwinder......................................      250,000        17          5          10          2  ........           2         2  .......
    Onsite Participant....................................      600,000        31          7          23          6         1           5         1  .......
    Uranium Miner.........................................   35,634,500       994        323         597        113        34          75        74        4
                                                           -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Total...........................................   36,534,500     1,043        336         630        121        35          82        77        4
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Question. The request for payment of claims for fiscal year 2000
    totals $21.7 million. This assumes that the Administration may submit
    or will support, and the Congress will enact, legislation expanding the
    eligible illnesses qualifying for payment. How much would be needed in
    fiscal year 2000 to pay claims under current law?
        How many claims are projected to be filed and processed under
    current law in the upcoming year?
        Answer. We have taken a second look at our 2000 needs and project
    that more funding will be required under current law than was
    anticipated when the fiscal year 2000 budget was developed several
    months ago. This revision is based on two factors: 1999 awards to-date,
    which have exceeded projections, and the expected impact of new
    regulations, described below. Based on our review, we have raised both
    the 1999 and 2000 award and payment projections, resulting in a lower
    carry forward from 1999 and higher funding requirements in 2000.
        The Department of Justice adopted new program regulations,
    effective April 21, 1999. A key change amends the definition of a
    ``non-smoker'' to include any uranium miner who ceased smoking at least
    15 years prior to the diagnosis of a compensable disease. When the
    fiscal year 2000 budget was developed, this proposed regulation was
    expected to apply to miners who developed lung cancer. Based on formal
    comments received and the advice of experts, the final regulation was
    expanded to also include miners who developed non-malignant respiratory
    diseases. A review of previously denied miner claims indicates that
    more may qualify for compensation under the expanded ``non-smoker''
    regulation. As a result, 1999 and 2000 miner award projections have
    increased since the 2000 budget was developed.
        In fiscal year 1999, we expect that 259 awards will be approved,
    with associated payments totaling $18.2 million. These 1999 estimates
    are higher than the projections in the pending request--199 awards and
    $13.7 million in payments. As a result, about $4.1 million is expected
    to be carried forward to 2000, rather than the $8.3 million projected
    in the pending budget.
        In fiscal year 2000, when the new regulations will be in effect for
    a full year, we expect that 464 claims will be filed and about 506 will
    be processed. About 299 awards are expected to be approved, with
    associated payments totaling $24.1 million. Even absent statutory
    changes, we expect to require funding comparable to the pending $21.7
    million request.
        As displayed in the chart which follows, a $21.7 million Radiation
    Exposure Compensation Trust Fund appropriation, together with the $4.1
    million expected to be carried forward from 1999, will provide the
    funding needed to make projected payments under current law and the new
    regulations.

    Radiation Exposure Compensation Trust Fund Current Statute 2000
    Estimates

                              (Dollars in millions)

    Carry Forward.....................................................  $4.1
    Plus Appropriation................................................  21.7
    Plus Interest.....................................................    .3
    Minus Payments....................................................  24.1
    Ending Balance....................................................   2.0

        Question. What are the expansions of the RECA program supported by
    the Administration? Would you please provide the Subcommittee with the
    estimated annual cost of the program expansions you support?
        Answer. The Administration supports including male breast cancer as
    a compensable condition. The pathology of male and female breast cancer
    is nearly identical and there is no reason for excluding the male
    condition. The Administration recommends the addition of childhood
    leukemia as a compensable disease for ``onsite participant'' claimants
    as well as expanding compensation for pneumoconiosis and silicosis to
    individuals who mined uranium ore in underground mines outside an
    Indian Reservation. More technical suggestions include: eliminating the
    extent of coffee consumption as a factor for pancreatic cancer;
    limiting the mandatory offset for other federal payments to only those
    payments received from the Department of Veterans Affairs; and
    permitting claimants to apply for compensation three times. Finally,
    although there is not a formal Administration proposal before this
    Congress, the Department believes that the system for providing full
    compensation to underground uranium miners as described in the
    Administration's bill from the 105th Congress still represents the best
    method for determining eligibility.
        Notwithstanding the difficulty of accurately projecting claim
    receipts and approvals associated with programmatic changes, we believe
    that, beyond the pending request for $21.7 million, an additional $10
    million should be adequate to cover payments in 2000 associated with
    the potential statutory changes described above. This estimate takes
    into account the additional awards expected under the expanded
    regulations and assumes that the statutory changes will be implemented
    in the second half of 2000.
        Question. Will the Administration submit its own proposed
    legislation to revamp programs under the Radiation Exposure
    Compensation Act?
        Answer. At this time, the Administration is not anticipating
    introducing legislation to amend the RECA Program. In the 105th
    Congress, the Administration forwarded through the Speaker of the House
    a proposed bill to amend the RECA Program. However, that draft
    legislation did not find sponsorship in either the House or Senate. In
    this Congress, legislation amending RECA has been introduced in both
    the House and Senate by Senator Jeff Bingaman (D-NM), Representative
    Tom Udall (D-NM) and Representative Joe Skeen (R-NM). Both proposals
    expand and extend the Act well beyond the provisions of the current
    statute. Representative Patsy Mink (D-HI) has introduced legislation as
    well. With respect to each of these proposals, the Administration is
    committed to working with Congress to ensure that any change is
    consistent with the spirit and intent of the original Act, and
    supported by sound science. Should one of the more expansive proposals
    be enacted, the budget estimates will have to be revisited in order to
    fully fund the program.
        Question. Does the Administration have any long-range estimates as
    to the number of claims that might be filed under the Radiation
    Exposure Compensation Act under current law? Under the proposed program
    expansions?
        Answer. It is difficult to estimate with certainty the number of
    claims that might be filed under the existing Radiation Exposure
    Compensation Act or under the proposed program expansions. The
    Department continues to work to identify potential claimants, and to
    make information about the existence of the RECA Program readily
    available to larger numbers of Americans through outreach efforts. For
    example, the Program sent notification of the Department of Justice's
    revised regulations to over 3,200 individuals, including formerly
    denied claimants, advocacy groups and attorneys. Additionally, several
    staff members will be traveling to many of the affected communities
    this summer to provide information about the Program and the regulatory
    changes. Finally, the Program is in the process of developing its own
    web-page in order to reach greater numbers of individuals through
    Internet access, ultimately making electronic claim filing possible.
                     expansion of federal prison industries
        Question. Earlier this year, two New Mexico constituents who own
    small businesses contacted me about a proposed expansion of the
    services provided by Federal Prison Industries (FPI). I have been told
    that FPI intends to significantly expand its production of signs, to
    the detriment of small businesses which currently produce these signs
    for the Federal Government. I also understand that FPI also may begin
    to convert commercial vehicles for use by federal law enforcement
    agencies.
        While I believe that it is important for inmates in the Federal
    Prison System to learn job skills during their period of incarceration,
    I believed that this sort of expansion, which has a significant impact
    on small businesses, is inappropriate.
        Are you aware of whether FPI intends to expand into the police
    vehicle conversion market?
        Answer. FPI has recently started providing a variety of vehicle
    retro-fitting services for border patrol and detention vehicles for the
    Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS). FPI does not manufacture
    these vehicles. Rather, FPI performs various modification services that
    prepare the vehicle for the specialized needs of INS personnel.
        FPI does not provide any type of retrofitting services to any state
    or local law enforcement agency.
        Question. With respect to the expansion into sign-making, are you
    aware that FPI intends to expand its business from $9 million last year
    to over $32 million by fiscal year 2004? That might seem like a small
    amount given the overall size of the domestic sign market ($3.9
    billion), but for a small state like New Mexico, that expansion will
    have a significant impact.
        Answer. FPI's Board of Directors approved expanding its production
    of signs, decals and related items to $32 million by fiscal year 2004.
        An increase in FPI's sign sales, however, does not translate into a
    significant impact on private sign manufacturers. FPI's expansion would
    affect private sign vendors only by slightly limiting the amount of
    additional federal business they may obtain.
        The projected growth in the sign market dwarfs the increase
    approved by FPI's Board. The total domestic market for the types of
    signs made by FPI is projected to increase by almost $1.6 billion from
    1999 to 2004. During the same time, FPI may increase its sign sales by
    only $23 million. All the additional sign business beyond which FPI
    supplies will be available to private vendors. This expansion is
    necessary to provide employment for inmates. It is FPI's mission to
    employ and train inmates. If the corporation can meet its inmate
    employment goals without increasing its sales, it does so.
        FPI generally makes every effort to minimize its impact on the
    private sector. FPI also works to avoid jeopardizing existing contracts
    that a private vendor may have. Prior to approving this expansion,
    FPI's Board examined extensive materials dealing with the potential
    impact that would result from the proposal. Also, as part of the public
    involvement process FPI follows for each of its expansion proposals,
    FPI completed a detailed impact study examining the impact on private
    industry and free labor.
        Included with the impact study were comments submitted to FPI from
    private sign vendors, including P&M Signs of Mountainair, New Mexico.
    FPI's Board was provided with copies of all comments, in their
    entirety. The Board reviewed this information prior to making its
    decision approving FPI's expansion.
        P&M Signs primary federal customer is the U.S. Forest Service
    (USFS). Signs bought by the USFS are exterior signs for lands under
    that agency's control. FPI's sign production is focused primarily on
    interior architectural signs. P&M's comments also suggested an interest
    in producing road and highway signs. The legislation that provides
    funding for most federal roads and road signs includes stringent
    restrictions on the use of inmate labor. In essence, this prohibits FPI
    from providing more than a fraction of all federal road signs. While
    there is some overlap between the types of signs offered by P&M Signs
    and by FPI, the primary focus of each is different.
        Question. What portion of the federal sign market is impacted by
    this expansion?
        Answer. During fiscal year 1998, FPI's sign sales accounted for
    approximately 13.2 percent of all federal sign purchases. The decision
    by FPI's Board limits the annual dollar amount of FPI's annual sign
    sales through fiscal year 2004. If FPI were to increase its sign sales
    up to the limit set by its Board, FPI's share of the federal sign
    market is estimated to increase to $32 million or 39.7 percent.
        Question. Does the Department of Justice keep records to determine
    whether inmates who are taught job skills by FPI actually utilize these
    skills once they are released from prison.
        Answer. The Department of Justice does not maintain records on
    whether inmates, once they have been released from custody, utilize the
    specific job skills they were taught by FPI. However, more than
    specific job skills, a primary benefit inmates gain from experience
    with FPI is a general work ethic. For many inmates, a job with FPI is
    the first time they have been employed. The experience of regularly
    reporting to work on time, performing assigned tasks, and following a
    supervisor's instructions help instill a general work ethic that
    exhibits its benefits through the type of results found in the Post-
    Release Employment Project (PREP) (Attachment A).
        The Federal Bureau of Prisons conducted the PREP, collecting data
    on more than 7,000 inmates. The PREP concluded that inmates with
    experience working in FPI are more likely to obtain and maintain
    employment after they are released from incarceration. The PREP also
    concluded that inmates with experience working in FPI were less likely
    to be recommitted than inmates without prison industries experience.
    Further, the PREP found that inmates working for FPI were less likely
    to be written up for disciplinary offenses while still incarcerated
    than inmates not working for FPI.
                                  attachment a
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T11MA09.001

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T11MA09.002

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T11MA09.003

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T11MA09.004

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T11MA09.005

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T11MA09.006

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T11MA09.007

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T11MA09.008

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T11MA09.009

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T11MA09.010

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T11MA09.011

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T11MA09.012

                                     ______

                 Questions Submitted by Senator Mitch McConnell
              introductory statement by the department of justice
        We are happy to respond to the extent possible to the questions
    from the Committee, but are constrained by the fact that litigation
    planning is on-going.
        Since December 1998, when the Attorney General decided that there
    were viable bases to pursue recovery of the Federal Government's
    tobacco-related health care costs through litigation, the Department
    has been working to establish a tobacco litigation team within the
    Civil Division. The litigation team, currently composed solely of
    Department personnel, is studying all aspects of potential litigation
    against tobacco companies and working to devise a litigation plan for
    the United States. Department attorneys are reviewing past litigation
    against tobacco companies by private litigants and by the state
    attorneys general. We have heard from members of the public, including
    law professors and attorneys, who have their own views concerning
    plausible federal lawsuits against the tobacco companies. We are
    considering a large body of factual material concerning the conduct of
    the tobacco companies, the potential bases for tobacco industry
    liability to the United States, and the nature and scope of damages
    that may be recovered. In order to ensure accountability by the tobacco
    industry, the Department is committed to assembling the strongest team
    and preparing the most effective litigation effort possible. We have
    agreed to retain outside expert legal consultants and may hire
    experienced attorneys as Justice Department employees, where their
    prior experience will economically fill litigation requirements. We
    intend to build a litigation team to present the strongest possible
    case or cases on behalf of the United States.
        The importance of this initiative cannot be overstated. Tobacco-
    related health care costs exceed $50 billion per year, and the Federal
    Government pays a substantial portion of these costs. The states
    settled their litigation against the tobacco industry for more than
    two-hundred billion dollars. It is important to keep in mind that the
    United States' tobacco-related health care costs substantially exceed
    those of the states. The Department's efforts to recover money properly
    owed to the Treasury in litigation brought on behalf of the American
    people is a matter of singular importance.
        We next address the specific questions submitted.
                               farmers' concerns
        Question. On February 2, 1999, seven Members of the Kentucky
    Congressional delegation, including myself, wrote to President Clinton
    expressing our concern that the planned litigation by the Justice
    Department would ``further harm tobacco farmers who are already feeling
    the devastating effects of the proposed settlement between the states
    and these manufacturers.'' How does the Administration reconcile its
    expressed concern for tobacco farmers with the fact that any successful
    federal litigation against the tobacco manufacturers would necessarily
    be an additional devastating blow to the tobacco farmers. When
    responding to this question, please provide any documents related to
    this topic, both electronic and written, that the Justice Department
    has drafted or considered.
        Answer. The Administration is fully committed to working with all
    parties, as needed, to ensure the financial well-being of tobacco
    farmers, their families, and their communities.
        First, the Administration supports the $5 billion agreement
    recently produced by the states, and by farmers and industry
    representatives, to provide financial assistance to tobacco farmers and
    their communities.
        Second, the Administration would support legislation to settle the
    federal claims to the state tobacco settlement funds in exchange for a
    commitment by the states to use the federal share on shared national
    and state priorities, which include protecting tobacco farmers, as well
    as preventing youth smoking, improving public health, and assisting
    children.
        Third, the Administration believes that in connection with any
    judgment or settlement of other (non-Medicaid) federal claims there
    should be established a fund to protect farmers from the unintended
    consequences of that lawsuit, as was done in the settlement with the
    state attorneys general. This Administration is committed, as any
    federal litigation proceeds to judgment or settlement, to making sure
    that adequate funds are set aside by legislation or other appropriate
    means, developed in consultation with Congress and representatives of
    tobacco farmers, their families, and communities, to ensure the
    financial security of tobacco farmers and their communities.
                 legal action planned by the justice department
        Question. You have asked the Congress to appropriate $20 million
    for fiscal year 2000 to pursue a case that the Wall Street Journal
    reported--on the basis of comments by Justice Department officials--as
    containing ``several weaknesses in the Federal Government's legal
    position.'' Cloud, David S., ``Congress May Have to Play Key Role in
    Justice Department's Tobacco Suit,'' The Wall Street Journal, Jan. 27,
    1999; see also, e.g., Adelman, David J. ``Tobacco: Review of Federal
    Reimbursement Claim Conference Call,'' Morgan Stanley Dean Witter, Feb.
    4, 1999.
        In the past, the Justice Department has consistently taken the
    position that it does not have the authority to sue tobacco
    manufacturers to recover Medicare and other costs incurred by the
    Federal Government in connection with tobacco related illness. In
    evaluating the Department's request for funding, it is important for
    the Subcommittee to know the Department's assessment of its authority
    to bring such a suit.
        On April 30, 1997, at a hearing before the Senate Judiciary
    Committee, you testified that the Department did not have authority to
    bring a direct action against tobacco manufacturers to recover Medicare
    and other costs incurred by the Federal Government in connection with
    tobacco-related illnesses. What has happened since that time to change
    your mind concerning the Department's authority to sue the tobacco
    industry?
        Answer. The Justice Department has never concluded nor taken the
    position that the United States has no authority to sue tobacco
    manufacturers to recover Medicare and other costs, apart from Medicaid.
    To the contrary, we have concluded that viable grounds for suit do
    exist. When the Attorney General testified in April 1997, before the
    Senate Judiciary Committee, she addressed her comments to the issue of
    the actions filed against the tobacco industry by the states.
    Accordingly, her comments about the lack of authority for a direct
    cause of action related solely to Medicaid costs, not to Medicare or
    other costs. While the Attorney General has acknowledged that her
    testimony was not as clear as she would have liked, her answer was
    limited to whether the United States had authority to join in the
    states' lawsuit relating to Medicaid outlays; and it appears from
    Senator Kennedy's follow-up question that he understood that the
    testimony was so limited.
        Question. Please provide any memoranda or other documents prepared
    by or for the Justice Department since January 1, 1994, addressing in
    any respect whatsoever a potential lawsuit against the tobacco
    industry, including, but not limited to, the grounds, or lack thereof,
    for suing the tobacco manufacturers.
        Answer. We have provided the Subcommittee with the following
    documents, which were prepared by persons outside the Department of
    Justice. These documents are quite voluminous, therefore are not
    printed in this hearing record:
      --two July 28, 1998 memoranda, ``Common Law Claims for Tobacco
            Related Federal Health Care Costs'' and ``Public Nuisance as
            Independent Injury, Basic Principles;''
      --an August 12, 1998 memorandum, ``The Argument for a Federal Lawsuit
            to Recover Tobacco-related Health Care Costs;''
      --an August 13, 1998 memorandum on antitrust issues from Einer
            Elhauge;
      --a letter that Professor Laurence Tribe sent to Senator Kennedy on
            MCRA (dated July 15, 1998);
      --a memorandum by G. Robert Blakey, Einer Elhauge, Richard Scruggs,
            and Laurence Tribe, ``The Case for a Federal Tobacco Lawsuit;''
      --a memorandum by the authors of the previous memorandum and by Kim
            Tucker and Jonathan Massey, ``Follow-Up Comments on Federal
            Tobacco Lawsuit;''
      --an undated draft complaint from the law firm of Scruggs, Millette,
            Bozeman & Dent, P.A.;
      --a document entitled ``Methodologies for Calculating Tobacco-Related
            Health Care Expenditures and Preliminary Estimates,'' dated
            July 24, 1998, from the law firm of Scruggs, Millette, Bozeman
            & Dent, P.A.;
      --a memorandum entitled ``Why the Federal Government Should Sue the
            Tobacco Industry,'' prepared by Action on Smoking and Health
            for Senator Richard Durbin; and
      --an analysis written by David Vladeck, Todd Heyman and Allison
            Zieve, concerning bases for a suit to recover federal health
            care expenditures caused by tobacco products.
        As a matter of longstanding practice, internal Department analyses
    prepared in anticipation of litigation are not being provided because
    to do so could be damaging to the interests of the United States in any
    litigation that the Department may initiate. Such internal deliberative
    materials are privileged in litigation and would not be available to
    the other parties in the litigation.
        Question. Why did Department of Justice officials previously think
    there was no direct cause of action under the Medical Cost Recovery
    Act? What did Department officials previously see as the flaws in the
    case and how are you going to overcome such flaws.
        Answer. At no time has the Department believed that there was no
    direct cause of action under the Medical Care Recovery Act (MCRA). To
    the contrary, the Department has brought successful lawsuits to recover
    the costs of medical care directly under MCRA.
        Question. The Administration directly connects its proposed 55-cent
    increase in the cigarette excise tax to health care expenditures in
    various federal programs. See Fiscal Year 2000 Budget of the United
    States Government, Table S-8 (listing Veterans, Federal Employees
    Health Benefits Program, Department of Defense, and Indian Health
    Service). Doesn't this suggest that the amount of previously collected
    federal tobacco excise tax revenues should offset any claims for past
    federal health care expenditures?
        Similarly, doesn't this indicate that future projected revenues
    from the current federal excise tax on tobacco products should offset
    any claims based on alleged future health care costs?
        Answer. No. The Department believes that liability for federal
    tobacco-related health care costs properly may be assessed against the
    parties responsible for those costs. The Department does not agree that
    excise taxes relieve or reduce the accountability of the tobacco
    companies for these costs.
        Question. Please describe and cite the specific statutes and
    liability theories on which you intend to rely for this lawsuit.
        What relief does the Department intend to seek? What types of
    damages?
        Answer. As stated above, the Department is evaluating a number of
    bases upon which parties may be held liable to the United States for
    its costs incurred as a result of the use of tobacco products. The
    legal theories are still under development, and we have not made any
    final decisions on those that we will rely upon in litigation.
        Question. It has been reported that the Administration will be
    seeking or supporting new tobacco-liability legislation because of the
    legal impediments with its case. Will such proposed legislation contain
    provisions that take away the traditional defenses available to a
    defendant (i.e., barring defenses, such as assumption of risk, that
    would apply to individual smoker claims; allowing proof of causation by
    statistics; and authorizing apportionment of liability based on market
    share)? Please provide a copy of any such draft legislation prepared
    by, or provided to Justice Department employees, and any related
    memoranda or analyses.
        Answer. The Administration has not sought new legislation. We
    believe that we possess authority under current law to pursue tobacco-
    related health claims. Upon request of members of Congress or their
    staff, the Department has provided technical drafting assistance on
    legislation, regardless of whether we will ultimately support or
    advocate for the adoption of the underlying bill. On the subject of
    tobacco, the Department provided such assistance to a number of members
    of Congress on a variety of issues that arose during the debate on
    comprehensive tobacco legislation and beyond.
                                   precedent
        Question. The Chamber of Commerce sent congressional leaders a
    letter in response to the President's announcement of this lawsuit. The
    letter states, in part: ``The action contemplated by the President
    represents an unprecedented intrusion of government into the private
    sector and a dangerous undermining of the legislative process.'' What
    precedent will the Justice Department's actions in this case set for
    other industries involved in the sale of products which could be
    associated with adverse health effects, such as high-fat foods,
    alcohol, firearms, automobiles or motorcycles to name just a few?
        Answer. While all controversies are analyzed on a case-by-case
    basis, tobacco is a unique product with a unique history. That unique
    history, the nature of the risks presented by tobacco products, the
    unprecedented financial costs such products have imposed on the
    American taxpayers, our legal analysis of these factors, and the
    example set by the state attorneys general have led us to conclude that
    litigation against the tobacco industry is in the national interest. We
    are not aware of any other industry or product with those
    characteristics.
                    outside counsel consultants and experts
        Question. Members of Congress have expressed great concern about
    the level of compensation obtained by private counsel as a result of
    the state litigation against the tobacco manufacturers. You stated
    during a press briefing on January 21, 1999, that you ``would not
    foreclose [the] possibility'' of hiring outside counsel for this
    matter. I am concerned by reports that a number of these very attorneys
    sought to persuade the Justice Department to bring a federal lawsuit,
    even though career officials of the Department reportedly had cast
    strong doubts about the viability of such a lawsuit. For example, the
    New York Times reported: ``Justice Department officials met with
    several plaintiffs' lawyers and law professors who had been involved in
    the state lawsuits * * *. At the meeting the lawyers and professors
    gave the Justice Department a 100-page document outlining the legal
    strategies that the government could use to sue the industry * * *.''
    Meier, Barry, Many Are Caught Off Guard By Clinton's Tobacco Plan, ``
    New York Times Jan. 21, 1999.
        According to the Wall Street Journal: ``[A] group of antitobacco
    lawyers led by Pascagoula, Miss., lawyer Richard Scruggs have been
    urging the White House and Justice to file a suit for several months
    and have offered their services free, said Mississippi Attorney General
    Mike Moore.'' Geyelin, Milo, Justice Department Considers Hiring
    Outside Trial Lawyer for Tobacco Suit, Wall Street Journal. Jan. 22,
    1999. Have Justice Department employees met, or otherwise communicated
    with any persons who are not employees of the Federal Government about
    the possibility of pursuing litigation against the tobacco
    manufacturers?
        Answer. Yes. Such meetings are not unusual. Indeed, the Department
    routinely meets with members of the public and with counsel who request
    the opportunity to discuss potential litigation in matters of common
    interest. Over the past several months, in an effort to make the most
    informed decisions relating to this potential litigation of historical
    proportions, we have received the views and heard the ideas of private
    citizens. In addition, the Department has had discussions with legal
    experts who have agreed to serve as paid consultants or employees of
    the Department in connection with these matters. See below.
        Question. Please provide the following: (A) the dates of any such
    meeting or communication; (B) the participants in any such meeting or
    communication; (C) a description of the purpose of any such meeting or
    communication; and (D) a brief summary of any such meeting or
    communication.
        Answer. Since August 1998, we have had a number of telephone
    conversations and meetings to discuss existing litigation by the states
    and by private litigants and have heard the views of citizens on the
    potential for legal action by the United States. The Department has had
    discussions with a number of representatives of the state attorneys
    general and the lawyers who represented the states, as well as
    discussions, at their request, with attorneys who represented the
    states and private litigants in tobacco litigation. For instance, in
    early August 1998, we met with attorney Richard Scruggs and other
    attorneys from his firm; in late August, we spoke by telephone with
    Professor Einer Elhauge of Harvard; on October 1, we held a conference
    call with Professor Laurence Tribe of Harvard; on January 14, 1999, we
    held a meeting with Professors Tribe and Elhauge, and G. Robert Blakey
    of Notre Dame, and Jonathan Massey, Richard Scruggs, and Kim Tucker;
    and in February 1999, we met with those same individuals (with the
    exception of Professor Tribe), and with attorneys Ronald Motley, Joseph
    Rice, and Ann Ritter. We also have met with attorneys representing
    private parties in ongoing cases concerning the pending litigation.
    Numerous routine conversations with the state attorneys general and
    their representatives may also have included discussions concerning a
    possible legal action by the United States.
        In addition to these meetings and conversations, the Department has
    received countless telephone calls and letters supporting litigation by
    the United States against the tobacco industry. As mentioned above,
    among those supporting legal action by the government are law
    professors, public interest groups, and private litigators, who have
    represented the state attorneys general and private parties in
    litigation against tobacco companies, including some attorneys
    identified in the preface to this question. We have listened to their
    views. The proposals made to the United States by the citizen
    participants are generally reflected in the documents they have
    submitted and which are being made available to the committee.
        Question. As of the date of your response to these questions, has
    the Justice Department hired any outside counsel to assist the
    Department in this litigation?
        If so, please provide (A) the names of such counsel; (B) the dates
    an which they were retained; and (C) the terms of their retention,
    including any caps on the compensation that such counsel may receive
    either in total or on an hourly basis.
        If not, do you plan to hire outside counsel to assist in the
    litigation?
        (A) When do you plan to hire outside counsel?
        (B) On what terms do you plan to hire such counsel?
        Answer. On April 5, 1999, the Justice Department entered into an
    agreement with the Minneapolis law firm, Robins, Kaplan, Miller &
    Ciresi L.L.P., to retain the firm's services as litigative consultants
    on tobacco litigation. Under the agreement, Robins, Kaplan, Miller &
    Ciresi will provide assistance to the Justice Department's tobacco
    litigation team on a reduced-rate hourly billing basis through June 30,
    1999. Under the contract, the Department of Justice will pay the firm
    $75 per hour and will reimburse the firm for travel costs and expenses.
    This represents a substantial reduction in the firm's customary billing
    rate. The total contract, which runs through June 30, 1999, is for a
    maximum of $81,670, although the contract could be extended with the
    agreement of both the government and the firm.
        Question. Is the Justice Department authorized to retain outside
    counsel on a contingency fee basis?
        Answer. We are not contemplating retaining outside counsel on a
    contingency fee basis. There are statutes providing specific authority
    to enter into contingency fee arrangements with respect to debt
    collection (Debt Collection Improvement Act, 31 U.S.C. Sec. 3701) and
    bank fraud recovery (12 U.S.C. Sec. 4241), but we are not aware of any
    general grant of such authority.
        Question. Is there any Justice Department precedent for such an
    arrangement?
        Answer. No, other than under the statutes cited above.
        Question. Has the Department hired outside counsel on a
    contingency-fee basis to work on the federal litigation against the
    tobacco manufacturers?
        Answer. No, the Department has not hired outside counsel on a
    contingency-fee basis to work on the federal litigation against the
    tobacco manufacturers.
        Question. If not, is it possible that the Department might do so in
    the future?
        Answer. The Department has no intention of hiring any attorneys on
    a contingency fee basis.
        Question. Would the hiring of such outside counsel or consultants
    be subject to federal procurement law?
        Answer. Any retention of outside counsel, whether or not under a
    contingency arrangement, would be subject to federal procurement law.
    The Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994, Pub. L. 103-355,
    codified at 41 U.S.C. Sec. 251 et seq., would be applicable to such a
    procurement. 41 U.S.C. Sec. 253 exempts such procurements from
    competitive procedures.
        Question. Do you plan to seek competitive bids for such outside
    services?
        Answer. We do not plan to seek formal competitive bids for such
    services.
        Question. You have indicated that the Justice Department has formed
    a task force for this litigation. Press Availability, Jan. 21, 1999.
    Please explain whether this ``task force'' is an ``advisory committee''
    under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (``FACA'')? If members have
    been appointed, please provide a list of membership and the affiliation
    of each member.
        What steps has the Justice Department taken to comply with
    Sec. Sec. 9-12 of FACA?
        Have task force meetings been, or will they be, held in public as
    required by Sec. 10 of FACA?
        Answer. The FACA applies only to committees that are established or
    utilized ``in the interest of obtaining advice or recommendations.'' 5
    U.S.C. App. Sec. 3(2). Teams assembled to conduct government litigation
    do not fall within this definition.
                                 funding issues
        Question. The Justice Department has indicated that its litigation
    against the tobacco manufacturers is going to be a very expensive
    endeavor. For example, you have requested $20 million in additional
    funding in fiscal year 2000 in order to fund this lawsuit. To put this
    amount in context, the Justice Department's Antitrust Division was
    funded with $94 million in salaries and expenses in fiscal year 1998.
    In short, I am concerned about the size of your request, and that such
    an enormous expenditure by the Department would take resources away
    from other critical programs and Department functions.
        If the Antitrust Division can be funded with approximately $100
    million per year, why do you need $20 million for a year just to fund
    one lawsuit?
        Answer. Tobacco litigation will be a massive and complex
    undertaking. The evidentiary collection is immense, and the potential
    damages are unprecedented. The tobacco companies will spend far in
    excess of this amount defending the matter. In light of the billions of
    federal dollars spent each year on tobacco-related diseases, we believe
    the taxpayers will recoup their investment in this litigation many
    times over.
        To put the $20 million in context, we list below a few examples of
    the tobacco litigation costs being paid by other litigants:
        The California legislature appropriated $11.4 million for fiscal
    year 1998 and $14 million for fiscal year 1999 to fund 34 attorneys, 40
    paralegals, and 47 secretaries to press its case relating to a single
    state. We expect that the scope of the litigation involving nationwide
    evidence and damages will be far greater than California's.
        An article in the March 19, 1999, Washington Times quotes unnamed
    tobacco lawyers as saying that the tobacco industry is paying its
    defense attorneys $600 million annually, thirty times the pending
    budget request.
        In the Minnesota litigation a single defendant, R.J. Reynolds,
    stated in a court filing that it had spent more than $90 million to
    create, maintain, operate, and use its litigation database, alone.
        In the same litigation, a lawyer for defendant Philip Morris
    declared that it was spending $1.25 million per week on document
    production. The same attorney later stated that the major defendants
    spent roughly $125 million on document production alone in that one
    case involving a single state.
        Question. The Justice Department has requested $15 million in
    fiscal year 2000 to fund 50 employees, including 40 attorneys, to staff
    the litigation against the tobacco manufacturers. This sum amounts to
    $300,000 per employee. Please break down your anticipated expenses on a
    per employee basis, e.g. average salary per employee; average benefits
    per employee; average expenses per employee, etc., and break down, in
    detail, any remainder of the $15 million according to its designated
    use(s).
        Answer. Only $3.8 million of the $15 million is for employee
    salary, benefits, and overhead expenses for the 50 employees (30 FTE in
    fiscal year 2000)--an average of $126,000 per employee ($64,500--
    salary, $17,400--benefits, $44,100 overhead expenses). Of the
    remainder, an estimated $5.7 million will be needed for litigative
    consultants, including epidemiologists, expert legal consultants,
    statisticians, economists, and auditors, to analyze the government's
    damages and potential claims, and provide assistance concerning
    litigative strategies. We project that $5.5 million will be needed for
    contractor-provided automated litigation support, which will be used to
    acquire, organize, and automate the massive collection of potential
    evidentiary documents. Automated litigation support will also be an
    indispensable tool in enabling the government to respond timely to the
    opponents' discovery requests.
        Question. Does the request for $15 million include plans to
    compensate outside counsel or consultants? If so, how have the fees for
    such outside counsel or consultants been estimated, e.g. were they
    estimated based on a projected charge per hour?
        Answer. As stated in the previous answer, $5.7 million is our
    estimate of the cost for consultants. These cost projections are based
    upon our experience with such other large-scale litigation as the
    Winstar litigation, the A-12 stealth fighter case, and the Columbia/HCA
    health care fraud litigation.
        Question. You have stated your intention to pursue this matter
    whether or not Congress approves your request for an additional $20
    million in fiscal year 2000 to fund this lawsuit. Please indicate,
    specifically, where you will obtain the funds to proceed if Congress
    does not provide the additional appropriation, including what specific
    cuts you would make to other programs or functions in order to finance
    this litigation.
        Answer. We are committed to pursuing the recovery of these costs
    that the taxpayers have borne. Congressional denial of the requested
    resources would have at least two effects. First, the Department will
    be forced to draw resources away from other matters. As a consequence,
    numerous cases, such as bankruptcy and fraud cases, will be declined or
    placed on hold. Second, we will not be able to pursue the tobacco
    litigation as effectively, absent the appropriate level of resources.
    The tobacco industry can be expected to spend enormous resources in
    defending these actions. Without adequate resources to research,
    analyze, and prove the nationwide damages inflicted upon them, we may
    be forced to limit the scope of the litigation we bring; and we will
    likely lose the opportunity to recoup the full extent of the taxpayers'
    loss.
        Question. Please provide estimates of your funding needs for this
    litigation for fiscal year 2001, fiscal year 2002, fiscal year 2003 and
    fiscal year 2004. Please break down these estimates in the manner
    requested above.
        Answer. At this time, we project the funding needs will remain
    essentially constant through fiscal year 2004. We will need a mandatory
    increase of about $2.5 million to fund all 50 positions for a full year
    starting in fiscal year 2001. No other increases are projected at this
    time.
        Question. Have any Justice Department employees assisted in any
    way, or does the Justice Department plan to assist in any way, foreign
    governments that have initiated or are considering initiating,
    litigation against tobacco manufacturers?
        Answer. We have not provided such assistance and have no current
    plans to assist foreign governments in connection with their tobacco
    litigation. We may consult with counsel in any litigation against
    tobacco manufacturers, when doing so will advance the interests of the
    United States.
                                     ______

             Questions Submitted by Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell
                               drugs in colorado
        Question. At a hearing before the Treasury Appropriation
    Subcommittee last week, General McCaffrey of ONDCP stated, ``Colorado
    is on the forefront of the methamphetamine problem in the United
    States.'' In fact, just two days before that statement, there was a
    large meth lab bust south of Denver. Does the Department of Justice
    agree with General McCaffrey's assessment, and if so, how specifically
    is the Department meeting this growing problem in the west?
        Answer. Over the past five years, the State of Colorado has
    experienced a growing methamphetamine crisis, with the quantity of
    methamphetamine abuse, production, and distribution similar to the
    increases experienced by many other states throughout the Western and
    Midwestern U.S. In fiscal year 1997, DEA participated in the seizure of
    22 clandestine laboratories (labs) in Colorado; in fiscal year 1998
    this total increased to 45 clandestine labs. This twofold increase from
    previous years may be contrasted with DEA's national lab seizure
    increase from 1,321 in fiscal year 1997 to 1,627 in fiscal year 1998;
    about a 20 percent increase. One of the labs seized in Colorado in 1998
    was capable of producing at least 20 pounds of methamphetamine per
    ``cook'', while there were none of this size the previous year.
        Another indication of the growing methamphetamine problem in
    Colorado is found through information provided by the Drug Abuse
    Warning Network (DAWN). DAWN statistics show that from 1992 to 1996,
    emergency room treatments in Colorado jumped from 31 to 106--a 300
    percent increase. For 1997, preliminary data indicate that over 18
    percent of methamphetamine accounted for only about nine percent of all
    arrests in fiscal year 1995. This figure has grown every year, and
    during the first two quarters of fiscal year 1998 (the latest data
    available), methamphetamine accounted for 21 percent of all arrests by
    DEA in the Denver area.
        DEA clandestine lab seizures in Colorado ranked seventh in the
    nation in fiscal year 1998. Having no central repository for these
    records, Colorado was unable to provide any statistics relative to
    state/local clandestine lab seizures. As of January 1, 1999, the
    National Clandestine Laboratory Database will collect this data for all
    federal, state, and local agencies nationwide.
        In summary, although there are other states in the U.S. that have
    undertaken more clandestine methamphetamine lab seizures, the number of
    these labs operating in Colorado is continuing to grow at a significant
    pace. This view is supported by the increase in statewide
    methamphetamine arrests and DAWN methamphetamine emergency room
    admissions.
                            coordination with ondcp
        Question. As one of the only members of the Senate that has been
    directly involved in law enforcement, I am delighted to see increased
    resources devoted to crime-prevention programs, especially drug
    prevention programs.
        However, I am concerned about the possible duplication of effort
    and lack of coordination of effort among agencies, undermining the
    effectiveness of both enforcement and prevention programs.
        As you know, Congress is funding ONDCP's media campaign to the tune
    of about $200 million per year. Is DOJ incorporating that media
    campaign into any of its OJJDP grant programs?
        Answer. The Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP), with
    support from Congress, has initiated a $195 million anti-drug
    advertising campaign to educate and enable America's youth to reject
    illegal drugs. The Department of Justice (DOJ) works very closely with
    ONDCP in addressing youth substance abuse issues, and has been actively
    engaged in supporting the development and dissemination of the media
    campaign. The Office of Justice Programs (OJP) Assistant Attorney
    General serves as a principal on the Interagency Demand Reduction
    Working Group (IDWRG). In addition, OJP's Office of Juvenile Justice
    and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) serves as the DOJ representative on
    the IDRWG Substance Abuse Media Committee, which is assisting ONDCP in
    formulating and implementing the campaign strategy. OJJDP also served
    on the Partnership Development Panel, which put forth suggestions for
    localizing the campaign, and has published an article on the media
    campaign in the Juvenile Justice Journal devoted to substance abuse
    prevention that was distributed to over 70,000 juvenile justice and
    delinquency prevention practitioners.
        An important component of the campaign is the public service
    advertising match. In order for the campaign to achieve maximum impact,
    and to help offset the trend of declining broadcast time contributions
    for many types of public service announcements, ONDCP is working with a
    Media Match Committee. The Media Match Committee includes OJJDP, the
    Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) and the Ad Council and
    works to determine the public service announcements (PSAs) that will
    serve as the match to the paid advertisements. With each media purchase
    made by the government, media outlets are being asked to donate in-kind
    public service time or space with identified PSAs, increasing the real
    value of the campaign. Currently the campaign has generated more than
    $175.4 million in matching contributions, 102 percent of what was spent
    on paid ads. Thirty-three non-profit organizations and agencies with
    drug-related issues such as crime, underage drinking and tobacco use,
    after school activities, drug treatment, mentoring, etc. have
    benefitted by their own messages being played in regular viewing/
    listening hours given to ONDCP by media outlets. This has amounted to
    more than 47,000 messages played on television and radio. One campaign
    that has benefitted is the Investing in Youth for a Safer Future public
    education campaign funded by OJJDP ($510,000) and the Bureau of Justice
    Assistance. This campaign seeks to educate the public (both adults and
    youth) on effective solutions to juvenile crime, and ways to support
    these solutions.
        An equally significant aspect of the campaign, and what may
    ultimately be the measure of its success, is the engagement of
    community coalitions in supporting the media messages with real,
    person-to-person interactions with young people. It is the personal,
    civic, and financial involvement of the public--and private sectors--in
    promoting pro-social environments for young people, that will
    ultimately make the difference. OJJDP participates in the substance
    abuse Communications Directors Working Group, jointly convened by
    Community Anti-Drug Coalitions of America and ONDCP, to think through
    how media messages can be incorporated into local programs, including
    ONDCP's Drug Free Communities Program, which OJJDP administers.
        Also, in cooperation with ONDCP, as part of the media campaign's
    effort to reach youth, OJJDP prepared The Coaches Playbook Against
    Drugs. This document was released during National Coach-A-Thon Week in
    October, 1998 to coaches of youth athletes across the nation. The
    document has been highlighted twice in the Washington Post and promoted
    by John Madden during a recent sporting event. Over 70,000 copies of
    the Playbook have been mailed to date.
        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.
        Additional outcomes of the national campaign effort include:
      --32 network TV episodes have incorporated issues, scenes, or themes
            supportive of important drug prevention concepts.
      --The campaign's new web-site for parents and teens (www.projectknow)
            has received over 4.5 million ``hits''.
      --More than 200 percent increase, as compared to this time last year,
            in requests for material from the National Clearinghouse for
            Drug and Alcohol Information. Most of calls are from print PSAs
            (most television PSAs do not identify the 800#).
      --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 advertising
            effort has generated 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.
        Question. Similarly, ONDCP has its own drug prevention grant
    program, the Drug Free Communities Act. This was funded at $20 million
    last year. Yet DOJ asks for $20 million for the ``Drug Prevention
    Demonstration Program,'' this year. How are these different, and how do
    you coordinate with ONDCP? Do you use the ONDCP clearinghouse for any
    materials for your grant programs?
        Answer. The Drug Free Communities Program, which is administered by
    the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP),
    under an interagency agreement with ONDCP, is designed to support the
    development of drug prevention coalitions to enable them to prevent
    substance abuse more effectively.
        The Drug Prevention Demonstration Program was initially funded in
    1998 through a direct appropriation to OJJDP, and is designed to
    support the replication of the Life Skills Training (LST) program and
    is a complement to the Drug Free Communities Program. The LST program
    is a school-based drug prevention strategy that could be adopted by the
    Drug Free Coalition grantees to help them reduce drug abuse in their
    communities. All materials used in the Life-Skills Training program are
    part of an all inclusive package that has been through extensive
    process and outcome evaluation, shown sustained successful outcomes
    over time, and been successfully replicated. The program targets
    middle/junior high school (6th, 7th, and 8th grade) adolescents in
    urban, rural, and tribal jurisdictions. In studies involving more than
    180 suburban and urban schools, grades 7 to 12, diverse populations of
    youth, various substance abuse issues--and with long-term follow-up for
    up to six years--the Life Skills program has generally documented
    initial reductions of 50 percent in youth alcohol, tobacco, and
    marijuana use, along with a sustained impact.
                        illegal immigration in colorado
        Question. Last year, this Committee called the Department's
    attention to increasing illegal immigration in several areas, including
    Colorado, Utah and Nebraska. The conference report asked the Department
    to address the problem in these areas in its deployment plan for the
    Quick Response Teams and other interior state enforcement plans.
        Has the Department completed its deployment plan for the QRTs, and
    how does the plan address growing problem areas in the interior like
    Colorado and Utah?
        Answer. The INS has completed its deployment plan for the QRTs. The
    plan was approved by the Appropriations Committees on March 25, 1999.
    It includes the deployment of 45 QRTs to 12 states. The plan includes
    the deployment of 7 QRTs to Colorado and 4 QRTs to Utah.
        This deployment of resources to Colorado and Utah addresses growing
    problems with illegal immigration in these states. The primary
    responsibility of the QRTs is to work with state and local law
    enforcement agencies (LEAs) to apprehend and remove illegal aliens
    detected by state and local law enforcement officers as a result of the
    regular performance of their duties. The QRTs will be deployed in areas
    with a high concentration of illegal aliens, in drug smuggling
    corridors, and in areas that have recently experienced a substantial
    increase in illegal migration. In addition to Colorado and Utah, QRTs
    will be deployed to Arkansas, Georgia, Iowa, Kentucky, Missouri, North
    Carolina, Nebraska, South Carolina and Tennessee.
        Question. This committee noted that the Denver District Office
    proposed expanding the duty station in Grand Junction and opening new
    stations in several other Colorado towns. What has happened with that
    proposal?
        Answer. The INS deployment plan includes 7 QRTs for locations in
    Colorado. They will be deployed to Grand Junction, Alamosa, Craig,
    Durango, Greeley, Glenwood Springs and Ft. Morgan. These deployments
    provide resources to all of the locations contained in the Denver
    District Office's proposal.
                               indian crime rates
        Question. What impact has the joint DOJ-Interior Law Enforcement
    Initiative begun in 1997 had on the skyrocketing crime rates in Indian
    Country?
        Answer. Implementation of the President's Initiative on Indian
    Country Law Enforcement has proceeded on several fronts since
    congressional appropriation of fiscal year 1999 funding to the
    Departments of Justice and Interior. As an administrative matter, the
    Department of Interior has reorganized and consolidated law enforcement
    programs under the Office of Law Enforcement Services (OLES), and
    developed a plan to allocate uniformed police vehicles among BIA and
    tribal law enforcement programs.
        In order to avoid duplication of resources and assure maximum
    coverage in Indian Country, coordination with the Department of
    Interior has been an essential aspect of the Department of Justice
    planning and implementation process. In the allocation of investigatory
    resources, the FBI and Bureau of Indian Affairs OLES coordinated
    information regarding the placement of BIA criminal investigators and
    FBI agents. Since Congress provided $4.6 million in 1999 to enable the
    FBI to place 30 agents and 20 support staff in 11 field offices and
    training divisions that serve tribal communities, the FBI has allocated
    these positions to regions that report the greatest increases and
    highest volume of violent crimes under federal Indian Country
    jurisdiction.
        To make informed decisions regarding the implementation of more
    than $80 million in grant programs under Department of Justice 1999
    funding, the Department also made efforts to improve the available
    information regarding the scope and extent of tribal law enforcement
    needs. The results of these efforts include the Bureau of Justice
    Statistics forthcoming report, ``Survey of the Jails in Indian Country,
    1998.'' While the findings regarding the prevalence of the crime and
    the poor condition of jail facilities are valuable because they affirm
    trends suggested by information through the U.S. Attorneys' offices and
    the FBI reports, they also supplement tribe-specific information about
    staffing levels and law enforcement coverage gathered by the FBI, BIA,
    and the Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) Office. Aided by
    this composite, the Department is developing grant programs through
    COPS and OJP.
        While solicitations for grant applications have not yet been
    published and distributed, program plans are in process of being
    finalized for these targeted law enforcement funds and details will be
    provided as they become available to your Indian Affairs Committee
    staff. We have, however, transmitted the 1999 tribal courts
    implementation plan to Congress and continue to work with
    Appropriations staff on the plans for the tribal detention
    construction. A summary of the Law Enforcement Initiative programs
    follows.
        Tribal Court Assistance.--The Bureau of Justice Assistance will
    provide $5 million through the Tribal Court Assistance Program (TCAP)
    for the enhancement, development, and continuing operation of tribal
    courts. In administering this competitive discretionary grant program,
    BJA will also encourage the development of inter-tribal court systems.
        Police Officer Hiring, Training, and Equipment.--The COPS Office
    will distribute $35 million in funding to tribal law enforcement
    departments for salary and benefits for new officers, as well as
    training and equipment for new and existing officers to promote
    community policing in Indian communities. The Department has
    coordinated training opportunities with BIA-OLES to assure that tribal
    police officers, once hired, can obtain the needed training with a
    minimum of delay.
        Detention.--The Corrections Program Office will distribute $34
    million in competitive discretionary grants for the construction of
    detention facilities to incarcerate offenders subject to tribal
    jurisdiction. To facilitate efficiency, inter-tribal and regional
    proposals will be encouraged.
        Juvenile Delinquency and Crime.--The Office of Juvenile Justice and
    Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) will make grants to Indian tribes to
    fund tribal delinquency prevention, control, and juvenile justice
    system improvement for tribal youth. This $10 million allocation will
    emphasize programs to reduce, control, and prevent-crime both by and
    against tribal youth; to intervene with court-involved and detained
    youth; and to address alcohol and substance abuse by juveniles.
                       capacity building in tribal courts
        Question. I am most interested in capacity building in tribal
    courts: making sure there is infrastructure (physical, electronic, and
    human) so that tribes can handle their own civil and criminal
    caseloads. What resources are now available to build that capacity?
        Answer. The Office of Justice Programs (OJP) is committed to
    furthering DOJ's priority to assist tribal governments in building
    comprehensive and effective law enforcement and public safety systems
    in order to provide the foundation for healthy communities. In fiscal
    year 1999, OJP was appropriated $5 million for the Tribal Court
    Program, which will be administered by OJP's Bureau of Justice
    Assistance (BJA). Through this program BJA will provide resources to
    tribal governments to assist them in developing, enhancing and
    continuing operations of tribal justice systems.
        OJP's commitment to helping tribes build capacity is reinforced by
    our continuing to provide a mix of direct and indirect assistance. This
    assistance will be provided in the form of grant resources and training
    and technical assistance, which address a variety of issues ranging
    from violence against women, drug courts, victims assistance, juvenile
    justice, law enforcement, technology enhancement and research efforts.
        This year, in addition to the $5 million Tribal Court Program, OJP
    will allocate at least $54.6 million in discretionary grant resources,
    which are available for capacity building purposes, to Indian tribes:
      --$34 million under the VOI/TIS Discretionary Grants to Indian
            Country program, which is administered by the Corrections
            Program Office (CPO), will be available to tribes to build
            jails on tribal lands for the incarceration of offenders
            subject to tribal jurisdiction.
      --$10 million under the Tribal Youth Program, which is administered
            by the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention
            (OJJDP), will provide funds for comprehensive delinquency
            prevention, control and system improvements for tribal youth
            who have, or are likely to, come in contact with the juvenile
            justice system. Tribes are also eligible to apply for
            assistance under OJJDP's Mentoring, Gang and Special Emphasis
            programs, as well as Combating Underage Drinking Program.
      --$8.27 million under the STOP Violence Against Women Grant program,
            which is administered by the Violence Against Women Office
            (VAWO), will be provided to develop and strengthen tribal
            justice systems to combat violent crimes against Indian women
            and to improve services in cases involving violent crimes
            against Indian women. In addition to this funding, tribes may
            apply for assistance under VAWO's Grants to Encourage Arrest
            Policies Program, Rural Domestic Violence and Child Abuse
            Enforcement Assistance Program, and Training Program.
      --$1.272 million under the Children's Justice Act Partnerships for
            Indian Communities, which is administered by Office for Victims
            of Crime (OVC), will provide resources to assist Indian tribes
            to address shortcomings in the tribal criminal justice systems
            and to make system improvements in the overall response to
            serious child abuse and child sexual abuse cases.
      --$1.028 million under the Victim Assistance in Indian Country
            discretionary grant program, which is also administered by OVC,
            will provide permanent, accessible and responsive victim
            assistance services in Indian country. This program provides
            direct funding to Indian tribes to support the establishment of
            reservation-based victim assistance programs such as: crisis
            intervention, emergency shelters, mental health counseling, and
            court advocacy.
        OJP administers several other discretionary grant programs that
    provide resources to Indian tribes such as:
      --The Drug Courts Program, administered by the Drug Court Program
            Office (DCPO), provides funds on a competitive basis to Indian
            Tribal governments for the establishment of drug courts. These
            program resources help tribes respond to the increasing number
            of nonviolent, substance abusing adult and juvenile offenders
            who contribute to the problems of prison and jail overcrowding
            and the high recidivism rate of those offenders.
      --The Weed and Seed Program, administered by the Executive Office for
            Weed and Seed (EOWS), provides grant resources, on a
            competitive basis, to Indian tribes. These resources assist
            tribes in establishing comprehensive strategies to ``weed out''
            violent crime, illegal drug and gun trafficking, and illegal
            gang activity and to ``seed'' their community with crime
            prevention programs.
      --The Byrne Discretionary Grant Program, administered by BJA, which
            provides resources to assist Indian tribes to control and
            prevent drugs and violent crime and improve the functioning of
            the criminal justice system. Funds under this program may be
            targeted to any of 26 purpose areas including: (1) multi-
            jurisdictional task forces that integrate all levels of law
            enforcement and prosecution agencies and (2) criminal justice
            information systems to assist law enforcement, prosecution,
            courts and corrections organizations.
        Additionally, OJP plans to direct a minimum of $2 million in
    discretionary funding to provide training and technical assistance to
    Indian tribes. Training and technical assistance are a mainstay of the
    resources OJP provides all grantees--including Indian tribes. There are
    a variety of training and technical assistance opportunities that will
    be provided by OJP bureaus and offices that will enhance tribal efforts
    to build capacity. Examples of the training and technical assistance
    available include:
      --STOP Violence Against Indian Women Technical Assistance--VAWO will
            target $1.2 million to help Indian tribes build the capacity of
            grantees to serve as regional experts as well as to provide
            advanced experience in program implementation to their peers,
            demonstrating exemplary approaches tribal grantees are
            developing to combat violence against Indian women.
      --Juvenile Justice Training and Technical Assistance--OJJDP, in
            conjunction with the American Indian Development Associates,
            Inc., will provide training and technical assistance for Native
            American and Native Alaskan jurisdictions on improved
            management information systems and planning.
      --Tribal and Federal Judges Training--OVC, in partnership with the
            University of North Dakota, will provide legal education to
            tribal and federal judges on the adjudication of child sexual
            abuse cases occurring in Indian country.
        Finally, OJP was appropriated over $1.7 billion in formula grant
    program funding in fiscal year 1999. These formula grant resources are
    awarded to states, who in turn can sub-grant funds to eligible Indian
    tribes. OJP's formula grant resources are available for a variety of
    uses including:
      --Byrne Formula Grant Program--$505 million.--Provides assistance to
            states and units of local government in controlling and
            preventing drug abuse, crime and violence, and in improving of
            the functioning of the criminal justice system. This program
            has 26 purpose areas including: law enforcement, adjudication,
            and community crime prevention.
      --Juvenile Accountability Incentive Block Grant (JAIBG) Program--$250
            million.--Supports state and local efforts to address juvenile
            crime by encouraging reforms that hold all juvenile offenders
            accountable for their crimes. This program has 11 purpose areas
            including: building juvenile detention facilities, juvenile
            drug and gun courts, and accountability-based programs for
            juvenile offenders.
      --Juvenile Justice Formula Grant Programs--$159 million.--This
            funding includes $89 million available under Juvenile Justice
            Formula Grant Program, $25 million under the Combating Underage
            Drinking Program; and $45 million under Title V Incentive
            Grants for Local Delinquency Prevention Programs. These
            programs support state and local efforts to improve the
            juvenile justice system and prevent delinquency.
      --Residential Substance Abuse Treatment (RSAT) Program--$63
            million.--Provides for individual and group substance abuse
            treatment activities for offenders in residential facilities
            operated by state and local correctional agencies.
      --Violence Against Women Act STOP Formula Grants Program--$206.8
            million.--Supports improvements in the abilities of law
            enforcement to respond to violence against women, development
            of more effective strategies and programs to prevent violence
            against women and improvements in data collection and tracking
            systems.
      --Local Law Enforcement Block Grant (LLEBG) Program--$523 million.--
            Indian tribes that perform law enforcement activities--as
            defined by the Bureau of Indians Affairs (BIA)--may apply for
            direct funding under LLEBG. LLEBG resources are available for a
            variety of purposes including: law enforcement personnel
            hiring, drug courts, purchasing of law enforcement equipment,
            enhancing school security, adjudicating violent offenders,
            multi jurisdictional task forces, and crime prevention
            programs.
                      jurisdiction issues on tribal lands
        Question. In domestic violence cases involving a non-Indian spouse,
    the perpetrators often go unprosecuted because tribal courts don't have
    jurisdiction. How is the DOJ addressing this issue?
        Answer. As with all violent crimes, jurisdiction over domestic
    violence is particularly challenging in Indian country, where tribal
    and federal jurisdiction may be concurrent or exclusive depending on
    the severity of the crime and the identity of the parties. The history
    of federal criminal jurisdiction over crimes committed by non-Indians,
    including domestic violence, informs Department policy with respects to
    federal prosecution. Under the federal trust responsibility, in 1790,
    Congress enacted measures to punish crimes by non-Indians against
    Indians. In 1817, Congress extended its authority by establishing
    general federal enclave jurisdiction over crimes between Indians and
    non-Indians, while criminal jurisdiction over crimes between Indians
    remained under tribal jurisdiction, in deference to tribal self-
    government. Today, this statute is carried forward as 18 U.S.C.
    Sec. 1152, the General Crimes Act. As you note, the Supreme Court has
    held that because Indian tribes are dependent sovereigns, the United
    States has divested tribes of their original authority to punish non-
    Indian offenders in Indian Country. Oliphant v. Suquamish Indian Tribe,
    435 U.S. 191 (1978). Accordingly, the United States retains exclusive
    authority over offenses by non-Indians against Indians under the
    General Crimes Act, 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1152, unless Congress has otherwise
    provided by law.
        The Department of Justice, through the U.S. Attorneys' offices,
    does prosecute violent offenses by non-Indians against Indian victims,
    with cooperation from tribal authorities. There are limitations in the
    scope of federal jurisdiction, however, that may impede effective
    prosecution of domestic violence offenses by non-Indians. For example,
    the federal law that governs assault, 18 U.S.C. Sec. 113 (6), makes it
    a felony to commit assault resulting in ``serious bodily injury.''
    Serious bodily injury, as defined in 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1365, means
    ``bodily injury which involves--(A) a substantial risk of death; (B)
    extreme physical pain; (C) protracted and obvious disfigurement; or (D)
    protracted loss or impairment of the function of a bodily member,
    organ, or mental faculty.'' U.S. Attorneys in Indian country report
    that proof of serious bodily injury, as defined by the statute, can be
    difficult in the context of a criminal prosecution for domestic abuse.
    To address this concern, the Department's proposed crime bill includes
    a statutory amendment that would broaden the scope of ``serious bodily
    injury'' to include injuries that are serious but may not meet the
    heightened definition of ``serious bodily injury'' in 18 U.S.C.
    Sec. 1365. Simple assaults by non-Indians against Indian victims are
    prosecutable under 18 U.S.C. Sec. (a)(5) as petty offenses, punishable
    by a fine or imprisonment of up to six months.\1\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ Sentencing options for petty offenses are limited because they
    are not governed by the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines and supervised
    release is not an option for perpetrators of petty offenses.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Another way to address crimes by non-Indians against Indian women
    may be through prosecutions under the Violence Against Women Act
    (VAWA), 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2261 et seq.. The VAWA criminalizes crossing
    state lines or ``entering or leaving Indian Country'' in the commission
    of crimes of domestic violence or violations of domestic violence
    protection orders, tribal court orders included. Where the facts
    support a prosecution under the VAWA, the Department of Justice may
    pursue crimes by Indians or non-Indians against Indian women in cases
    where violence results in bodily injury to a spouse or intimate
    partner. See 18 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 2261, 2262 (a)(2).
        Clearly, however, the elements of the VAWA may not be met in every
    case of domestic violence. Where the VAWA does not apply, perhaps where
    there is no interstate travel or crossing of an Indian country
    boundary, and where the nature of a victim's injuries would not satisfy
    the statutory definition of serious bodily injury as defined in
    reference to assault statute of section 113 of Title 18, the Department
    of Justice has sought additional mechanisms to hold non-Indian
    offenders accountable despite the lack of tribal jurisdiction. One
    approach has been to convene federal court on Indian reservations
    through the use of magistrate judges. After consultations between the
    Department, the U.S. Attorney, federal magistrate judge, and
    Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation, the Department of
    Justice initiated a ``Magistrate Court Project'' on the Warm Springs
    Reservation in Oregon. The basic concept is to have a magistrate judge
    periodically convene federal court on a reservation to adjudicate
    misdemeanor cases committed by non-Indians over which tribal courts had
    no jurisdiction.\2\ These cases would include incidences of domestic
    violence by non-Indians against Indian women. Ideally, a tribal
    prosecutor could be appointed as a Special Assistant U.S. Attorney and
    prosecute the cases on behalf of the Federal Government. The Department
    remains open to developing variations of the Magistrate Court Project
    where tribes, like the Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs
    Reservation, express interest.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ With the written consent of the defendant, and the appropriate
    designation of the district court, magistrate judges have the power to
    conduct trials of Class A and non-vehicular Class B misdemeanor cases.
    With consent, they may sentence a defendant to a maximum term of one
    year imprisonment, impose a term of supervised release, and conduct
    hearings to modify, revoke, or terminate such supervised release. In
    October 1996, Congress authorized magistrate judges, even without the
    consent of the defendant, to also conduct trials of petty offenses,
    including vehicular Class B misdemeanors, Class C misdemeanors, and
    infractions, the maximum terms of imprisonment for which are six
    months, 30 days and 5 days, respectively.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        In addition, in some jurisdictions, like the Western District of
    Oklahoma, the Department of Justice, through the U.S. Attorney's
    Office, has utilized the Central Violations Bureau (CVB) of the
    Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts to adjudicate non-Indian
    misdemeanors such as domestic violence assaults. With appropriate
    cooperation from the federal magistrate judge, CVB, Bureau of Indian
    Affairs law enforcement, and the U.S. Attorney's office, non-Indian
    offenders can be issued citations by BIA officers or tribal law
    enforcement officers who have been commissioned by the Bureau of Indian
    Affairs as Deputy Special Officers. As federal officers, the BIA-
    commissioned law enforcement can cite non-Indians for certain
    misdemeanors and process citations through the CVB. The CVB then
    schedules a mandatory appearance date before the federal magistrate for
    the offender. The results in the Western District of Oklahoma have been
    encouraging and a number of other districts are in the process of
    examining the use of the Central Violations Bureau as an aid to
    prosecution of non-Indian misdemeanors such as domestic violence
    assaults.
        Effective prosecution of non-Indians for domestic violence offenses
    results from close coordination between tribal law enforcement and
    prosecution and the U.S. Attorneys offices. Wherever possible, the
    Department has encouraged the appointment of Special Assistant U.S.
    Attorneys within tribal communities to aid in the investigation and
    prosecution of offenses by non-Indians. In Arizona, the U.S. Attorney's
    office has tried to appoint Special Assistants on each of the major
    reservations in the District. It is through these types of innovative
    approaches, using Special Assistants, federal magistrate judges, and
    the Central Violations Bureau, that the Department has been able to
    work to close some of the gaps in jurisdiction over non-major crimes on
    reservations. Absent a modification to existing law regarding tribal
    criminal jurisdiction over non-Indians, effective prosecution of non-
    Indians for crimes of domestic violence committed on reservation will
    continue to be a challenge, requiring cooperative approaches and
    tribal-federal coordination.
                                 vail terrorism
        Question. In October 1998, an arson attack ravaged property in
    Vail, Colorado. The damage was estimated at $12 million. On October
    22nd, I sent you a letter requesting that the Department of Justice
    devote all necessary resources to apprehend those individuals
    responsible.
        In response to this letter, I received a very general reply. Could
    you provide me with a more detailed status report about the progress of
    the investigation. What can you provide for us now?
        Answer. Vail Associates, of Vail, Colorado, is currently in the
    process of conducting an expansion of their ski area. Several
    environmentally-oriented groups have been opposed to this expansion,
    and as a result, filed an injunction to stop the expansion. On October
    14, 1998, the District Court of Colorado dismissed a lawsuit against
    the proposed expansion of the Vail Ski Resort. The dismissal of the
    lawsuit ended a seven-year legal battle by the environmental community,
    which had sued Vail Associates on behalf of the lynx, private use of
    public land issues and other environmental concerns associated with the
    proposed expansion. After the judge ruled in favor of Vail Associates,
    there was a public announcement that October 19, 1998 was the proposed
    starting date to initiate construction for expansion.
        On October 19, 1998, multiple fires were set on several structures
    located on Vail Mountain, resulting in approximately $12 million of
    property damage. The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Denver field
    office initiated a joint investigation with the Bureau of Alcohol,
    Tobacco and Firearms (BATF), the United States Forest Service, the
    Colorado Bureau of Investigation, the Vail Police Department and the
    Eagle County Sheriff's Department. As part of the investigation, BATF
    deployed two National Response Teams to process the crime scene. Upon
    completion of a crime scene investigation, and subsequent examinations
    conducted by the BATF, it has been determined that an accelerant was
    used in the fires.
        Shortly after the fires, local colleges, newspapers and public
    radio stations received several electronic mail messages which had been
    sent by a group, known as the Earth Liberation Front, claiming
    responsibility for the arson. At this time, identification of the
    sender of the electronic mail cannot be determined due to the fact that
    the message was sent through an anonymous re-mailer, disguising its
    origin. The message reads as follows: ``On behalf of the lynx, five
    buildings and four ski lifts at Vail were reduced to ashes on the night
    of Sunday, October 18th. Vail, Inc. is already the largest ski
    operation in North America and now wants to expand even further. The 12
    miles of roads and 885 acres of clearcuts will ruin the last, best lynx
    habitat in the state. Putting profits ahead of Colorado's wildlife will
    not be tolerated. This action is just a warning. We will be back if
    this greedy corporation continues to trespass into wild and unroaded
    areas. For your safety and convenience, we strongly advise skiers to
    choose other destinations until Vail cancels its inexcusable plans for
    expansion.''
        FBI and BATF investigators are focusing on the following actions:
    Identifying those who were present on Vail mountain at the time of the
    arson; Reviewing of records and documents to identify any possible
    individual or groups who are opposed to the expansion by Vail
    Associates; and Interviewing individuals who may have knowledge of the
    arson or those responsible.
        This investigation has generated over 350 leads. A Grand Jury has
    been convened to assist in the investigation of the Vail fires.
                      radiation exposure compensation act
        Question. I am concerned about the Department's irresponsibility
    regarding the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act. This year, the
    Department is requesting $21.7 million to provide payments of expected
    approved claims under the anticipated changes to RECA. You asked for a
    similar amount last year for the same reason and proposed amendments
    have still not been acted upon.
        It is my understanding that these changes are to make important and
    necessary changes to the original law, so that the legislation
    reflected new scientific advances and more claimants could file and be
    approved for compensation. Where is the Administration's legislation?
        Answer. On March 26, 1997, the Administration forwarded a proposed
    bill to the 105th Congress through the Speaker of the House. The
    Administration's proposal responded to the report issued by the
    Radiation Exposure Compensation Act Committee (chartered by the
    President's Advisory Committee on Human Radiation Experiments) that
    recommended a review of RECA uranium miner provisions. The draft bill,
    which included the recommendations contained in the RECA Committee's
    final report, did not find sponsorship in either the House or Senate.
    At this time, although the Administration is not anticipating
    introducing legislation to this Congress, it still supports in
    principle much of that earlier proposal. In our view, the system for
    providing full compensation to underground uranium miners as described
    in the Administration's bill from last Congress still represents the
    best method for determining eligibility. Accordingly, our cost
    estimates continue to reflect a statutory change consistent with that
    proposal.
        Legislation seeking to amend RECA, however, has been introduced in
    both the House and the Senate. Senator Jeff Bingaman (D-NM) and
    Representative Tom Udall (D-NM) have each introduced legislation that
    would double the compensation amount for eligible uranium miners,
    permit multiple awards to a claimant, significantly lower the exposure
    requirements, expand the uranium miner claimant population, include
    additional compensable diseases under the ``downwinder'' provisions,
    and provide for partial payment awards based on liberalized eligibility
    criteria. Representative Patsy Mink (D-HI) has also introduced
    legislation this session, but with a more narrow focus. With respect to
    each of these proposals, the Administration is committed to working
    with Congress to ensure that any change is consistent with the spirit
    and intent of the original Act, and supported by sound science. Should
    one of the more expansive proposals be enacted, the budget estimates
    will have to be revisited in order to fully fund the program.
        Question. I understand the Department proposed changes to the RECA
    regulations in 1997 but has had trouble finalizing those changes. Have
    those changes yet been made final? Why not?
        Answer. On March 11, 1999, the Attorney General approved changes to
    the regulations implementing RECA. Under the revised regulations, the
    definition of ``non-smoker'' has been modified to include individuals
    who formerly smoked, but who stopped smoking at least 15 years prior to
    the diagnosis of a compensable disease. Also, individuals who file a
    claim for compensation will be allowed to submit affidavits to
    establish smoking and alcohol use histories where no other records
    exist. Other changes, more technical in nature, will assist claimants
    in establishing entitlement. The regulations were made available for
    public inspection in the Office of the Federal Register on March 19,
    1999, and published in the Federal Register on March 22, 1999. A copy
    of the new regulations is shown in Attachment B.
        Question. How much is there currently in the RECA compensation
    fund?
        Answer. Currently, the Radiation Exposure Compensation Trust Fund
    has a balance of $13.6 million. At this time, 282 claims and appeals
    are pending.
                                  Attachment B
          [From the Federal Register, Vol. 64, No. 54, March 22, 1999]
    DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

    28 CFR Part 79

    [A.G. Order No. 2213-99]

    RIN 1105-AA49

    Radiation Exposure Compensation Act: Evidentiary Requirements;
    Definitions; and Number of Times Claims May Be Filed

    AGENCY: Civil Division, Department of Justice.

    ACTION: Final rule.

    SUMMARY: The Department of Justice (``the Department'') amends its
    existing regulations implementing the Radiation Exposure Compensation
    Act to: allow claimants to submit affidavits or declarations in support
    of a claim to establish smoking and alcohol consumption histories where
    no other records exist; allow the use of pathology reports of tissue
    biopsies as additional means by which claimants can present evidence of
    a compensable non-malignant respiratory disease; amend the definitions
    of ``smoker'' and ``non-smoker''; include in situ lung cancers under
    the definition of primary cancers of the lung; and allow claimants who
    have filed claims prior to the implementation of these regulations and
    have been denied compensation to file another three times.

    DATES: Effective date: April 21, 1999. This final rule will apply to
    all claims pending with the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act Program
    (``RECA Program'') as of this date.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gerard W. Fischer (Assistant
    Director), (202) 616-4090, and Lori Beg (Attorney), (202) 616-4377,
    U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division, P.O. Box 146, Ben Franklin
    Station, Washington, D.C. 20044-0146.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Background
        On May 23, 1997, the Attorney General published a notice of
    proposed rulemaking in the Federal Register, 62 FR 28393 (1997),
    setting forth proposed amendments to the regulations implementing the
    Radiation Exposure Compensation Act, Pub. L. 101-426, 104 Stat. 920
    (1990) (codified as amended at 42 U.S.C. 2210 note) (``RECA'' or
    ``Act''). Comments were received over a period of 30 days ending on
    July 22, 1997. In response to several requests from the public for
    additional time, the comment period was reopened on August 29, 1997,
    for an additional 30-day period ending on September 29, 1997. The
    Department of Justice received 31 letters, each containing one or more
    comments regarding the proposed amendments. Commenters included both
    interested individuals and organizations. Most of the comments were
    positive, applauding the proposed changes and encouraging their swift
    implementation.
        The Department carefully reviewed all of the comments, several of
    which resulted in changes to the proposed rule. Specifically, the final
    rule will not introduce standards for the use of high resolution
    computed tomography (``HRCT'') reports, which were included in
    Sec. 79.36(a)(ii)(A)(2) of the proposed rule. The Department received
    many substantive comments on the proposed use of HRCT reports as a
    means by which claimants can present evidence of a compensable non-
    malignant respiratory disease. In order to respond to those comments,
    the Department engaged in extensive research and consultation.
    Presently, there is no consensus in the medical community for
    standardized criteria for the use of HRCT reports in the diagnosis of
    non-malignant respiratory diseases. Accordingly, as soon as the
    Department, in consultation with its designated medical and scientific
    experts, is able to identify recognized standards for the use of HRCT
    reports, the Department will implement appropriate regulations.
        Furthermore, the final rule amends the definitions of ``heavy
    smoker'' and ``smoker'' to exclude, and the definition of ``non-
    smoker'' to include, claimants who stopped smoking at least fifteen
    years prior to the date of diagnosis of disease. These definitions
    apply to claimants diagnosed with a compensable non-malignant
    respiratory disease as well as those diagnosed with lung cancer, as
    originally proposed. The Department is convinced that the evidence
    supports this approach.
    Discussion of Changes and Comments
        Following are summaries and discussions of the comments, which have
    been grouped together according to their similarity. Minor or technical
    issues are not discussed.
        In some cases, commenters suggested that the Department incorporate
    certain regulatory provisions that would modify statutory requirements
    relating to the criteria for compensation. Section 5 of the RECA
    authorizes claims only by individuals employed in uranium mines in
    particular states. Accordingly, the implementing regulations limit
    compensation to individuals employed in uranium mines in those states
    and exclude those individuals employed in uranium mines elsewhere as
    well as those individuals employed in uranium milling or processing,
    involved in mining other types of ore, and simply residing in a
    community where uranium mining was conducted. See 28 CFR 79.30-32. In
    addition, section 5 of the RECA sets forth specified compensable
    diseases and ties compensation to the level of radiation exposure, age
    at incidence of disease onset, and smoker status. The implementing
    regulations reflect the statutory limitations. See 28 CFR 79.32(c)(1)-
    (2). Stated simply, the Department cannot modify a statute by
    regulation. Rather, the legislative process must react to these
    concerns.
        One commenter suggested that the Department hold public meetings to
    discuss the proposed regulatory changes, which the Assistant Director
    for the Radiation Exposure Compensation Program, Gerard W. Fischer, and
    others from the Department have done. The Program held meetings in
    several locations in New Mexico and Utah, including the Navajo
    Reservation, in order to present the proposed regulatory changes and
    discuss their implementation with individuals in the affected
    communities.
        Several commenters asked the Department to render an opinion on
    whether certain records or references in records would satisfy the
    eligibility criteria in a hypothetical or individual case. The
    Department, however, is unable to render any opinion without reviewing
    an actual claim and evaluating the documentation provided in support of
    that claim.
    Subpart A--General
    Section 79.2 General Definitions
        Section 79.2(e) Contemporaneous Record. One commenter requested
    clarification of the term ``contemporaneous records.'' Existing
    regulations define the term to include those records that were created
    when the described events occurred. In some instances, the dates of
    records may not coincide precisely with the dates when actions took
    place. For example, a claimant's employment summary contained in a
    mining company archive may be used to clarify periods of employment
    prior to the date of the summary. In such instances, we will determine
    whether the records were created within a sufficient time of the
    relevant period to be considered contemporaneous. The Department relies
    on contemporaneous records because of their inherent reliability and
    trustworthiness.
    Section 79.4 Burden of proof, production of documents, presumptions,
            and affidavits
        Section 79.4(a) Production of documents. Several commenters
    suggested that contemporaneous records do not exist to establish
    complete employment histories for underground uranium miners,
    particularly for those miners who worked in small mining operations.
    This issue was addressed in connection with the original regulations,
    and that discussion still applies. See 57 FR 12430 (1992). That is, we
    have seen no evidence to support the assertion that contemporaneous
    records do not exist. Our experience reveals that available social
    security records are accurate and comprehensive. Thus, where records
    from employers are not available from company archives, social security
    records will sufficiently document an individual's employment history.
    In the very few cases where claimants worked for companies that failed
    to report earnings, claimants can provide federal or state income tax
    records. Moreover, numerous sources, such as the National Institute for
    Occupational Safety and Health (``NIOSH''), the University of New
    Mexico School of Medicine, the Colorado Bureau of Mines, and numerous
    mining companies have contemporaneous records to establish individual
    mining histories. In cases where claimants independently operated small
    mines and failed to earn a sufficient income to report to federal or
    state agencies, Atomic Energy Commission shipping records will reflect
    the name of the mine operators, which may often be used to establish
    exposure.
        One commenter noted that various contemporaneous records, including
    mine operator records and old medical records from country doctors,
    have been stored in remote areas and that the Department should collect
    and maintain such records. The Department currently maintains extensive
    records from various mining resources, including the Public Health
    Service Study of Uranium Miners, NIOSH, the Atomic Energy Commission,
    the Colorado Bureau of Mines, and Utah Mine Inspection Reports. The
    Department also has access to records from St. Mary's Hospital, the
    University of New Mexico School of Medicine, and the Colorado Tumor
    Registry, all of which maintain radon exposure information. The
    Department also has accessed records from various private entities.
    Although it cannot collect and store records from private companies,
    the Department will do all that it can to urge still-existing private
    companies to make their records available to the public. The Department
    attempts to identify records held by various public and private
    organizations and makes such information known to claimants.
    Additionally, if it is known to the Department that specific records
    are likely to be destroyed, we attempt to locate organizations that may
    be interested in maintaining those records and making them available to
    claimants. However, the RECA Program was not designed, nor is it
    equipped, to gather and maintain large quantities of records.
        Section 79.4(c) Affidavits. One commenter inquired as to the form
    an affidavit must take and the level of specificity required. Because
    the information contained in an affidavit will depend on the specific
    facts of each case, it is impossible to precisely define the amount of
    detail necessary to establish any element of compensation.
        Other commenters suggested that affidavits should be accepted on
    any and all relevant issues, and one commenter added that affidavits
    should be accepted to establish eligibility criteria without records to
    support the assertions contained therein. The Department, however, has
    purposefully limited the use of affidavits. In the experience of the
    RECA Program to date, affidavits are unnecessary in most cases.
    Determinations of eligibility based on documentation increase the
    integrity of the process, limit transactional costs, and minimize the
    potential for fraud. Despite complaints to the contrary, we have found
    that there is an enormous body of reliable contemporaneous records that
    can be used to establish eligibility requirements. Contemporaneous
    records are inherently more reliable than affidavits.
        Several commenters suggested that the Department should accept
    affidavits from individuals other than claimants, i.e., co-workers,
    friends, neighbors, and extended family members, to establish
    eligibility criteria for downwind presence or uranium mining
    employment. One commenter recommended that ``non-claimant'' affidavits
    should be allowed to establish all eligibility criteria. The
    Department, however, must limit the submission of affidavits to those
    individuals who are best situated to supply the information. Because of
    the risk that such affidavits may not provide information that is based
    on personal knowledge, the Department has placed reasonable
    restrictions on the submission of affidavits in an effort to ensure
    their reliability. Accordingly, affidavits may be submitted only by the
    claimant or the eligible surviving beneficiary.
        The final rule provides that affidavits will be accepted for the
    following purposes: (1) to prove eligibility of family members as set
    forth in the regulations at Sec. 79.51(e), (f), (g), (h), or (i); (2)
    to acknowledge other compensation received as set forth in
    Sec. 79.55(c) or (d); (3) to prove smoking and/or drinking history and/
    or age at diagnosis as set forth in Sec. 79.27(d) and Sec. 79.37(d);
    (4) to prove the amount of coffee consumed as set forth in
    Sec. 79.27(e); or (5) to establish mining information as set forth in
    Sec. 79.33(b)(2).
        One commenter proposed that affidavits be permitted to establish an
    individual's physical presence in a designated affected downwind area
    where former employers are no longer in existence or records have been
    destroyed, and where such employment is not documented in Social
    Security earnings records. The commenter urged that such declarations
    would be admissible in a court of law. Our experience has shown that a
    multitude of records are available to establish presence in downwind
    areas. The absence of records from one particular source will not
    necessarily preclude a claimant from establishing such presence. The
    RECA Program accepts records created by government entities,
    educational institutions, utility services, libraries, historical
    societies, religious organizations, businesses, associations, and
    medical institutions to establish the physical presence criteria under
    28 CFR 79.13. Additionally, in response to related comments to the
    initial regulations, the Department added contemporaneous postcards and
    certain postal stamped envelopes to the expansive list of acceptable
    records. See 57 FR 12430 (1992). Affidavits submitted in lieu of
    contemporaneous records, on the other hand, do not contain the same
    level of trustworthiness and cannot be relied upon to prove physical
    presence, a basic criterion for compensation under the downwinder
    program. The RECA Program represents Congress's attempt to create an
    inexpensive, expeditious, easy-to-administer, and non-adversarial
    scheme to compensate qualifying claimants. Expanding the role of
    affidavits in the compensation process would necessarily require
    staffing increases, alter the nature of the Program, and frustrate the
    purposes that Congress sought to achieve.
    Subpart B--Eligibility Criteria for Claims Relating to Childhood
            Leukemia
    Section 79.12 Criteria for Eligibility
        One commenter suggested that the downwinder provisions of the
    regulations be amended to provide compensation for individuals who were
    ``in utero'' during the designated time periods and later developed
    leukemia. The Act as well as the current regulations are silent on the
    issue of whether a fetus constitutes an ``individual'' for purposes of
    eligibility. Accordingly, the Department will rely on judicial
    interpretation in addition to legislative intent in making its
    determination should it be faced with such a situation.
    Subpart C--Eligibility Criteria for Claims Relating to Certain
            Specified Diseases
    Section 79.22 Criteria for Eligibility
        One commenter suggested that the downwinder provisions of the
    regulations be amended to provide compensation for individuals who were
    ``in utero'' during the designated time periods and later contracted
    any of the specified compensable diseases. The discussion of this
    comment at Sec. 79.12 applies to this section of the regulations.
    Subpart D--Uranium Miners
    Section 79.31 Definitions
        Section 79.31(e) Non-smoker. One commenter suggested that the
    Department revise the definition of non-smoker to include Native
    American Indians who smoked only for ceremonial purposes, even if they
    did so within 15 years of diagnosis of lung cancer. The Department
    evaluates each case independently in order to determine whether an
    individual has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the
    eligibility criteria are established. In cases where an individual
    presents documentation referencing his or her prior smoking history,
    the Department will carefully evaluate such references on a case-by-
    case basis. In addition, most medical histories that describe smoking
    status reference the extent of smoking in relation to ``pack'' of
    cigarettes and ``portions'' used. Finally, the only type of smoking
    that is relevant under the regulations is cigarette smoking. Pipe
    smoking, or any other type of smoking, is not relevant to the RECA
    Program. The existing regulations specify that ``smoking'' ``does not
    include the use of cigars or pipe tobacco, or any tobacco products that
    are used without being lighted.'' 28 CFR 79.21(d).
        Several commenters proposed revising the definition of non-smoker
    to include former smokers who developed a compensable non-malignant
    respiratory disease. The Department's designated experts at NIOSH have
    advised that former smokers who develop one of the compensable non-
    malignant respiratory diseases could be considered non-smokers for
    purposes of establishing the eligibility criteria. The NIOSH experts
    advise that this is especially true if the individual stopped smoking
    many years prior to the diagnosis of a restrictive non-malignant
    respiratory disease. Further, it is the opinion of the NIOSH experts
    that, based on available existing medical data, it is reasonable to
    treat an individual diagnosed with a compensable non-malignant
    respiratory disease as a non-smoker where the individual stopped
    smoking at least 15 years prior to diagnosis. We have decided to accept
    the recommendation of commenters to extend the applicability of the
    definition of ``non-smoker'' to individuals who stopped smoking at
    least 15 years prior to being diagnosed with a compensable non-
    malignant respiratory disease.
        Section 79.31 (f) Smoker. The Department currently defines a smoker
    as an individual who smoked at least ``one (1) pack year'' of cigarette
    products. Several commenters suggested that the Department should
    increase the number of pack years required for an individual to be
    treated as a smoker. Existing regulations define a pack year as ``an
    average of 20 cigarettes per day for one year.'' 28 CFR 79.21(d). A
    more detailed discussion of this definition was offered in connection
    with Department's current implementing regulations. See 57 FR 12431
    (1992). However, in light of the suggested change, we reviewed the
    relevant literature and consulted with numerous experts from the
    National Cancer Institute. We were advised that most epidemiological
    studies define a ``smoker'' as one who smoked one cigarette per day for
    one year, far less than the one pack year of cigarette smoking
    presently used in the RECA Program and set forth in the regulations.
    Many of the experts we consulted consider our current working
    definition very lenient and recommend against liberalizing it further.
        Section 79.31 (g) Onset or Incidence. One commentator noted that
    the ``date of diagnosis'' or ``initial diagnosis'' is not always clear
    from the medical records. With respect to uranium miners, the date of
    diagnosis is relevant only in relation to the issue of smoking status.
    A claimant's smoking status must be established by providing all
    medical records, as specified in 28 CFR 79.37(a), that were created six
    months prior to, and six months after, the initial date of diagnosis of
    a compensable disease. When the date of diagnosis is relevant, the RECA
    Program reviews the medical records to establish the initial date of
    diagnosis of a compensable disease. If any records suggest an earlier
    date of diagnosis, we will request medical records from the time of the
    earlier date of diagnosis to resolve the question. In all cases, the
    RECA Program will assist claimants in obtaining these additional
    records.
        Section 79.31(h) Primary Lung Cancer. One commenter requested that
    the Department provide a definition for ``in situ'' lung cancer. ``In
    situ'' lung cancer means that the cancerous cells have not left the
    tissue compartment of origin. It is a term of medical art that
    sometimes appears in claimants' medical records. In order to make it
    clear that such a term does not disqualify a claimant, the final rule
    includes it in the general definition of lung cancer.
        Section 79.31(j) Fibrosis of the Lung or Pulmonary Fibrosis. One
    commenter requested that the Department provide more detailed
    descriptions of the types of medical evidence that would be considered
    a diagnosis of pulmonary fibrosis for deceased miners. Because of the
    many types of evidence that can satisfy this condition, providing a
    list of all conditions that describe the existence of pulmonary
    fibrosis is impossible. The regulations presently identify specific
    records and results required for living miners. However, cases
    involving deceased miners, where recent x-rays are not available, often
    require a thorough analysis by a medical expert who is qualified to
    evaluate a multitude of findings and determine by a preponderance of
    the evidence whether a claimant contracted a compensable disease. Since
    the evidence is different in each case, identifying every qualifying
    condition is not feasible.
        Section 79.33 Proof of Employment in a uranium mine. Several
    commenters suggested that contemporaneous records do not exist to
    establish complete employment histories for underground uranium miners,
    particularly for those who worked in small mining operations. This
    issue was addressed in the original regulations, and the discussion
    offered in connection with those regulations still applies. That is, we
    have seen no evidence to support the assertion that contemporaneous
    records do not exist. Our experience reveals that social security
    records are accurate and comprehensive. In the very few cases where
    claimants worked for companies that failed to report earnings,
    claimants can provide federal or state income tax records. Moreover,
    numerous sources, such as NIOSH, the University of New Mexico School of
    Medicine, the Colorado Bureau of Mines, and numerous mining companies,
    have contemporaneous records to establish individual mining histories.
    In cases where claimants independently operated small mines and failed
    to earn a sufficient income to report to federal or state agencies,
    Atomic Energy Commission shipping records will reflect the name of the
    operators, which may often be used to establish exposure.
        Section 79.34 Proof of working level month exposure to radiation.
    One commenter noted concern that it is not possible to determine
    accurate radiation exposure levels in small mines because of the lack
    of readings taken from those mines. The commenter asserted that
    readings were taken only in the larger mines, where better ventilation
    systems were presumably employed. The NIOSH records used by the
    Department, however, do include exposure readings from many small
    mines. Moreover, the readings taken from the larger mines do not
    necessarily reflect lower exposure readings. In instances where
    exposure levels are unavailable for a particular mine, the regulations
    allow the RECA Program to use readings from other mines in the same
    geographical area, which typically include readings from mines of
    various sizes.
        Another commenter expressed concern that radiation exposure
    measurements were taken from areas of the mine where the working levels
    were lower and, therefore, the readings do not accurately reflect
    exposure for purposes of calculating working level months. This issue
    was discussed in connection with the original regulations and that
    discussion still applies. See 57 FR 12432 (1992). Principally, Congress
    was aware that there were variations in the measurement of working
    levels in the mines but chose to set defined minimum levels based on
    the measurement data that existed. We must presume that those minimum
    levels set by Congress take into account the problems associated with
    the collection of the data. Moreover, there is simply no method of
    calculation that would result in total accuracy. Working level
    measurements varied widely within each mine in terms of time and
    location. We have found no evidence, however, that suggests that
    readings were taken only in areas where working levels were low. To the
    contrary, the numerous higher-level exposure readings included in the
    NIOSH database indicate that this was not the practice.
        One commenter noted that there is limited exposure data from small
    mining operations because NIOSH did not conduct radiation measurements
    until the mid-1960s, although uranium mining began twenty years
    earlier. The Department has access to Public Health Service records,
    which provide radiation exposure measurements that were recorded as
    early as 1950. To determine the exposure levels for 1947 through 1949,
    the Department applies the methodology outlined in the current
    regulations at 28 CFR 79.34(g)(2).
    Section 79.36 Proof of non-malignant respiratory disease
        Section 79.36(d)(1)(ii)(2) High resolution computed tomography
    scans and interpretation. There were several substantive comments
    regarding medical standards for the use of HRCT reports in diagnosing
    non-malignant respiratory diseases. Commenters included leading
    thoracic practitioners from major medical teaching facilities around
    the country. Their concerns specifically addressed such issues as
    scanner setting technique, use of non-conforming nomenclature, the lack
    of training in interpreting HRCT reports that is provided by most
    accredited radiology residency programs, and the absence of
    standardized testing protocols. While the Department sought out
    scientists in the medical community who had experience and expertise in
    the area to initially develop the proposed HRCT evaluation criteria,
    ``recognized'' standards by which to use HRCT reports to diagnose
    pulmonary fibrosis and the other compensable non-malignant respiratory
    diseases are still not available. The Department has determined,
    therefore, that it would be premature at this time to implement the use
    of HRCT reports as a diagnostic tool. As soon as recognized standards
    for evaluating HRCT reports develop, the Department will introduce
    appropriate regulations.
        79.36(d)(1)(ii)(B)(1) Pulmonary function tests. One commenter
    stated that the pulmonary function test (``PFT'') requirements are
    arbitrary and too stringent. The existing regulations defined pulmonary
    impairment as either a forced expiratory volume in one second
    (``FEV1'') or forced vital capacity (``FVC'') result less than or equal
    to 75% of the predicted value. In the amending regulations, the
    Department proposed to liberalize this definition in accordance with
    the recommendations of the American Thoracic Society. In the final
    rule, pulmonary impairment is defined as FEV1 or FVC less than or equal
    to 80% of the predicted value.
        Another commenter suggested that the Department adopt ethnic-
    specific PFT standards for Native Americans. The Department has
    declined to adopt this recommendation for several reasons. First, there
    is insufficient statistical confidence in the data obtained in the
    limited studies on this issue. To incorporate such a distinction at
    this time into a legal compensation scheme would be premature. Second,
    the Department will not adopt standards that might adversely
    discriminate against any one particular community. Third, acceptable
    PFT standards do not exist for each ethnic group within the subject
    population. Finally, the current regulations provide an alternative
    means by which to establish functional impairment, namely, arterial
    blood-gas (``ABG'') studies. Any inadequacies that may exist in the PFT
    standards can be avoided entirely with an ABG study, which is
    unaffected by physiological differences among ethnic groups.
        79.36(d)(1)(ii)(B)(2) Arterial blood-gas studies. Another commenter
    sought clarification on the interpretation of arterial blood gas
    (``ABG'') studies when results fall between the values set forth in the
    tables in appendix B of the implementing regulations. When reported
    pCO2 results fall between values listed in those tables, the
    Department will interpolate the corresponding qualifying pO2
    value.
        One commenter indicated that the Department should create new
    tables reflecting lower pO2 values as altitude increases and
    including separate pO2 values for every 1,000 feet above sea
    level. The Department consulted with its designated experts at NIOSH
    and requested that they study the existing ABG tables, specifically
    focusing their inquiry on the effects of revising the ABG tables to
    reflect impairment values broken down by 1,000 feet increments. The
    NIOSH experts advised that specifying impairment levels (reflected by
    pO2 and pCO2 values) for every 1,000 feet change
    in elevation would actually disqualify many claimants from
    compensation. The ABG tables as they now exist, providing impairment
    values broken down into only two altitude categories, are quite
    generous. Narrowing the altitude intervals would decrease, rather than
    increase, a claimant's chance of satisfying the impairment
    requirements.
        Section 79.36(e) Medical review. One commenter asserted that
    medical review of HRCT reports and ``B'' reader interpretations of
    chest x-rays by medical consultants is burdensome and not in accordance
    with the spirit of the Act. Section 6(b)(2) of the Act, however,
    specifically designates the NIOSH as a source for consultation when
    deemed necessary in making medical determinations. Given the highly
    technical nature of many of the eligibility criteria, expert opinions
    and guidance are necessary to resolve many claims. As the Department
    administers a compensation program for eligible individuals, it is in
    the public interest to subject claims to appropriate scrutiny.
        Section 79.37 Proof of smoking, nonsmoking, and age. Several
    commenters argued that affidavits should be accepted to establish
    smoking status when medical records are silent, incomplete, or reflect
    unclear or conflicting information regarding an individual's smoking
    history. In order to prove a history of non-smoking, the Department
    requires certain medical documentation created within the period six
    months before and six months after the date of diagnosis of a
    compensable disease. The final rule, however, seeks to liberalize the
    proof requirement by allowing claimants to submit affidavits regarding
    smoking history in the event that the required medical records no
    longer exist, or fail to contain information pertaining to the
    claimant's smoking history.
    Subpart F--Procedures
    Section 79.51 Filing of Claims
        One commenter requested clarification of the number of times a
    claim may be filed, and how the revised regulations would affect the
    limitations on filing. A related comment suggested that we apply the
    revised regulations to pending claims rather than requiring claimants
    to re-file for consideration under those regulations. We concur with
    this suggestion. The final rule allows claimants who filed claims prior
    to the rule's implementation and were denied compensation to file
    another three times. Moreover, the revised regulations will apply to
    all claims pending as of April 21, 1999, the date the final rule
    becomes effective, regardless of when those claims were filed.
    Certifications and Determinations
        In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 605(b), the Attorney General certifies
    that this rule affects only individuals filing claims under the RECA.
    Therefore, this rule does not have a significant economic impact on a
    substantial number of small entities, as that term is defined in 5
    U.S.C. 601(6). This rule, however, is a significant regulatory action
    under Executive Order 12866 and, accordingly, has been reviewed by the
    Office of Management and Budget. The rule is not a major rule as
    defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2) nor is it a rule having federalism
    implications warranting assessment in accordance with section 6 of
    Executive Order 12612. In addition, this rule is in full compliance
    with the Paperwork Reduction Act.
    List of Subjects in 28 CFR Part 79
        Administrative practice and procedure, Authority delegations
    (Government agencies), Cancer, Claims, Radiation Exposure Compensation
    Act, Radioactive materials, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements,
    Underground mining, Uranium.
        Accordingly, part 79 of chapter I of title 28 of the Code of
    Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

         PART 79--CLAIMS UNDER THE RADIATION EXPOSURE COMPENSATION ACT

        1. The authority citation for part 79 continues to read as follows:

        Authority: Sec. 6(b) and (j), Pub.L. 101-426, 104 Stat. 920 (42
    U.S.C. Sec. 2210 note).

        2. Section 79.4(c) is amended by redesignating paragraphs (c)(3)
    and (c)(4) as paragraphs (c)(4) and (c)(5), adding a new paragraph
    (c)(3) and revising paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) and new paragraphs
    (c)(4) and (c)(5) as follows:

    Sec. 79.4 Burden of proof, production of documents, presumptions, and
                        affidavits.

              * * * * * * *
        (c) * * *
        (1) Eligibility of family members as set forth in Sec. 79.51(e),
    (f), (g), (h), or (i);
        (2) Other compensation received as set forth in Sec. 79.55(c) or
    (d);
        (3) Smoking and/or drinking history and/or age at diagnosis as set
    forth in Sec. 79.27(d) and Sec. 79.37(d);
        (4) The amount of coffee consumed as set forth in Sec. 79.27(e); or
        (5) Mining information as set forth in Sec. 79.33(b)(2).
        3. Section 79.5 is amended by adding paragraph (c) to read as
    follows:

    Sec. 79.5 Requirements for written medical documentation,
                        contemporaneous records, and other records or
                        documents.

              * * * * * * *
        (c) To establish eligibility the claimant or eligible surviving
    beneficiary may be required to provide, where appropriate, additional
    contemporaneous records to the extent they exist or an authorization to
    release additional contemporaneous records or a statement by the
    custodian(s) of the records certifying that the requested record(s) no
    longer exist. Nothing in the regulations in this section shall be
    construed to limit the Assistant Director's ability to require
    additional documentation.
        4. In Sec. 79.21, paragraph (d) is amended by adding one new
    sentence after the second sentence to read as follows:

    Sec. 79.21 Definitions.

              * * * * * * *
        (d) * * * The term excludes an individual who smoked more than 20
    pack years, but who can establish in accordance with Sec. 79.27 that he
    or she stopped smoking at least fifteen (15) years prior to the
    diagnosis of primary cancer of the esophagus, pharynx, or pancreas, and
    did not resume smoking at any time thereafter.
              * * * * * * *
        5. Section 79.27 is amended by revising the heading, re-designating
    paragraph (c) as new paragraph (e), adding new paragraphs (c) and (d),
    and revising paragraphs (a) and (b), to read as follows:

    Sec. 79.27 Proof of no heavy smoking, no heavy drinking, no heavy
                        coffee drinking and no indication of the presence
                        of hepatitis B and cirrhosis.

        (a)(1) If the claimant or eligible surviving beneficiary is
    claiming eligibility under this subpart for primary cancer of the
    esophagus, pharynx, pancreas, or liver, the claimant or eligible
    surviving beneficiary must submit, in addition to proof of the disease,
    all medical records listed below from any hospital, medical facility,
    or health care provider that were created within the period six (6)
    months before and six (6) months after the date of diagnosis of primary
    cancer of the esophagus, pharynx, pancreas, or liver:
        (i) All history and physical examination reports;
        (ii) All operative and consultation reports;
        (iii) All pathology reports; and
        (iv) All physician, hospital, and health care facility admission
    and discharge summaries.
        (2) In the event that any of the records in paragraph (a)(1) of
    this section no longer exist, the claimant or eligible surviving
    beneficiary must submit a certified statement by the custodian(s) of
    those records to that effect.
        (b) If the medical records listed in paragraph (a) of this section,
    or information possessed by the state cancer or tumor registries,
    reflects that the claimant was a heavy smoker or a heavy drinker or
    indicates the presence of hepatitis B and/or cirrhosis, the Radiation
    Exposure Compensation Unit will notify the claimant or eligible
    surviving beneficiary and afford that individual the opportunity to
    submit other written medical documentation or contemporaneous records
    in accordance with Sec. 79.52(b) to establish that the claimant was not
    a heavy smoker or heavy drinker or that there was no indication of
    hepatitis B and/or cirrhosis.
        (c) The Program may also require that the claimant or eligible
    surviving beneficiary provide additional medical records or other
    contemporaneous records and/or an authorization to release such
    additional medical and contemporaneous records as may be needed to make
    a determination regarding the indication of the presence of hepatitis B
    and/or cirrhosis and the claimant's history of smoking and alcohol
    consumption.
        (d) If the custodian(s) of the records listed in paragraph (a) of
    this section and the records requested in accordance with paragraph (c)
    of this section certifies that a claimant's records no longer exist,
    and if the state cancer or tumor registries do not contain information
    concerning the claimant's history of smoking or alcohol-consumption,
    the Assistant Director may require that the claimant or eligible
    surviving beneficiary submit an affidavit (or declaration) made under
    penalty of perjury detailing the histories or lack thereof and, if the
    affiant (or declarant) is the eligible surviving beneficiary, the basis
    for such knowledge. This affidavit (or declaration) will be considered
    by the Assistant Director in making a determination concerning the
    claimant's history of smoking and alcohol consumption.
        (e) * * *
        6. Section 79.31 is amended by revising paragraphs (e) and (f) and
    the second sentence of paragraph (h), to read as follows:

    Sec. 79.31 Definitions.

              * * * * * * *
        (e) Non-smoker means an individual who never smoked tobacco
    cigarette products or who smoked less than the amount defined in
    paragraph (f) of this section and includes an individual who smoked at
    least one (1) pack year but whose acceptable documentation as set forth
    in Sec. 79.37 establishes that he or she stopped smoking at least
    fifteen (15) years prior to the diagnosis of primary cancer of the
    lung, pulmonary fibrosis, fibrosis of the lung, cor pulmonale related
    to fibrosis of the lung, or moderate or severe silicosis or
    pneumoconiosis, and that he or she did not resume smoking at any time
    thereafter.
        (f) Smoker means an individual who has smoked at least one (1) pack
    year of cigarette products, and who is not deemed a non-smoker by
    virtue of paragraph (e) of this section.
              * * * * * * *
        (h) * * * The term includes cancers in situ.
              * * * * * * *
        8. Section 79.36 is amended by revising the first sentence of
    paragraph (a), revising paragraph (d)(1)(ii), and adding new paragraph
    (e) to read as follows:

    Sec. 79.36 Proof of non-malignant respiratory disease.

        (a) Written medical documentation is required in all cases to prove
    that the claimant developed a non-malignant respiratory disease. * * *
              * * * * * * *
        (d) * * *
        (1) * * *
        (i) * * *
        (ii) If the claimant is alive, (A) One of the following:
        (1) Chest x-rays and two ``B'' reader interpretations. A chest x-
    ray administered in accordance with standard techniques on full size
    film at quality 1 or 2, and interpretative reports of the x-ray by two
    certified ``B'' readers classifying the existence of fibrosis of
    category 1/0 or higher according to the ILO 1980, or subsequent
    revisions; or
        (2) Pathology reports of tissue biopsies. A pathology report of a
    tissue biopsy, but only if performed for medically justified reasons;
    and
        (B) One or more of the following:
        (1) Pulmonary function tests. Pulmonary function tests consisting
    of three tracings recording the results of the forced expiratory volume
    in one second (FEV1) and the forced vital capacity (FVC) administered
    and reported in accordance with the Standardization of Spirometry--1987
    Update by the American Thoracic Society, and reflecting values for FEV1
    or FVC that are less than or equal to 80% of the predicted value for an
    individual of the claimant's age, sex, and height, as set forth in the
    Tables in Appendix A; or
        (2) Arterial blood-gas studies. An arterial blood-gas study
    administered at rest in a sitting position, or an exercise arterial
    blood-gas test, reflecting values equal to or less than the values set
    forth in the Tables in Appendix B of this part.
              * * * * * * *
        (e) The Radiation Exposure Compensation Unit may seek qualified
    medical review of ``B'' reader interpretations or pathology reports of
    tissue biopsies submitted by a claimant or eligible surviving
    beneficiary or obtain additional ``B'' reader interpretations or
    pathology reports of tissue biopsies at any time to ensure that
    appropriate weight is given to this evidence and to guarantee
    uniformity and reliability. This review may include obtaining
    additional chest x-ray interpretations and additional pathology reports
    of tissue biopsies.
        9. Section 79.37 is amended by revising the section heading,
    revising paragraphs (a) and (b), and adding new paragraphs (c) and (d)
    to read as follows:

    Sec. 79.37 Proof of non-smoker and diagnosis prior to age 45.

        (a)(1) In order to prove a history of non-smoking for purposes of
    Sec. 79.32(c)(1), and/or diagnosis of a compensable disease prior to
    age 45 for purposes of Sec. 79.32(c)(2)(i), the claimant or eligible
    surviving beneficiary must submit all medical records listed in this
    paragraph (a)(1) from any hospital, medical facility, or health care
    provider that were created within the period six (6) months before and
    six (6) months after the date of diagnosis of primary lung cancer or a
    compensable nonmalignant respiratory disease:
        (i) All history and physical examination reports;
        (ii) All operative and consultation reports;
        (iii) All pathology reports;
        (iv) All physician, hospital, and health care facility admission
    and discharge summaries.
        (2) In the event that any of the records in paragraph (a)(1) no
    longer exist, the claimant or eligible surviving beneficiary must
    submit a certified statement by the custodian(s) of those records to
    that effect.
        (b) If, after a review of the records listed in paragraph (a) of
    this section, and/or the information possessed by the PHS, NIOSH, state
    cancer or tumor registries, state authorities, or the custodian of a
    federally supported health-related study, the Assistant Director finds
    that the claimant was a smoker, and/or that the claimant was diagnosed
    with a compensable disease after age 45, the Unit will notify the
    claimant or eligible surviving beneficiary and afford that individual
    the opportunity to submit other written medical documentation in
    accordance with Sec. 79.52(b) to establish that the claimant was a non-
    smoker and/or was diagnosed with a compensable disease prior to age 45.
        (c) The Unit may also require that the claimant or eligible
    surviving beneficiary provide additional medical records or other
    contemporaneous records and/or an authorization to release such
    additional medical and contemporaneous records as may be needed to make
    a determination regarding the claimant's smoking history and/or age at
    diagnosis with a compensable disease.
        (d) If the custodian(s) of the records listed in paragraph (a) of
    this section and the records requested in accordance with paragraph (c)
    of this section certifies that a claimant's records no longer exist,
    and information possessed by the PHS, NIOSH, state cancer or tumor
    registries, state authorities, or the custodian of a federally
    supported health-related study do not contain information pertaining to
    the claimant's smoking history, the Assistant Director may require that
    the claimant or eligible surviving beneficiary submit an affidavit (or
    declaration) made under penalty of perjury detailing the claimant's
    smoking history or lack thereof and, if the affiant (or declarant) is
    the eligible surviving beneficiary, the basis for such knowledge. This
    affidavit (or declaration) will be considered by the Assistant Director
    in making a determination concerning the claimant's history of smoking.
        10. In Sec. 79.51, paragraph (j) is amended by revising paragraphs
    (j)(3) and (j)(4), adding paragraph (j)(5) and adding a sentence at the
    end of the concluding text to read as follows:

    Sec. 79.51 Filing of claims.

              * * * * * * *
        (j) * * *
        (3) Onsite participation in a nuclear test,
        (4) Exposure to a defined minimum level of radiation in a uranium
    mine or mines during a designated time period, or
        (5) The identity of the claimant and/or surviving beneficiary.
        * * * Claims filed prior to April 21, 1999 will not be included in
    determining the number of claims filed.
        11. In Sec. 79.55, paragraphs (d)(1)(i) and (d)(1)(ii) are revised
    to read as follows:

    Sec. 79.55 Procedures for payment of claims.

              * * * * * * *
        (d) * * *
        (1) * * *
        (i) Any disability payments or compensation benefits paid to the
    claimant and his/her dependents while the claimant is alive; and
        (ii) Any Dependency and Indemnity Compensation payments made to
    survivors due to death related to the illness for which the claim under
    the Act is submitted.
              * * * * * * *
        12. Appendix A to Part 79 is revised to read as follows:

                Appendix A to Part 79--Pulmonary Function Tables

                                                                       TABLE 1.--MALES FVC
                                                                [80% of Predicted; Knudson 1983]
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                Age
                                   Ht.                               ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        35      37      39      41      43      45      47      49      51      53      55
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    56.0............................................................    1.74    1.70    1.65    1.60    1.55    1.51    1.46    1.41    1.36    1.32    1.27
    56.5............................................................    1.83    1.78    1.73    1.69    1.64    1.59    1.54    1.50    1.45    1.40    1.35
    57.0............................................................    1.92    1.87    1.82    1.77    1.72    1.68    1.63    1.58    1.53    1.49    1.44
    57.5............................................................    2.00    1.95    1.91    1.86    1.81    1.76    1.72    1.67    1.62    1.57    1.52
    58.0............................................................    2.09    2.04    1.99    1.94    1.90    1.85    1.80    1.75    1.71    1.66    1.61
    58.5............................................................    2.17    2.13    2.08    2.03    1.98    1.93    1.89    1.84    1.79    1.74    1.70
    59.0............................................................    2.26    2.21    2.16    2.12    2.07    2.02    1.97    1.92    1.88    1.83    1.78
    59.5............................................................    2.34    2.30    2.25    2.20    2.15    2.11    2.06    2.01    1.96    1.92    1.87
    60.0............................................................    2.43    2.38    2.33    2.29    2.24    2.19    2.14    2.10    2.05    2.00    1.95
    60.5............................................................    2.52    2.47    2.42    2.37    2.33    2.28    2.23    2.18    2.13    2.09    2.04
    61.0............................................................    2.60    2.55    2.51    2.46    2.41    2.36    2.32    2.27    2.22    2.17    2.12
    61.5............................................................    2.69    2.64    2.59    2.54    2.50    2.45    2.40    2.35    2.31    2.26    2.21
    62.0............................................................    2.77    2.73    2.68    2.63    2.58    2.53    2.49    2.44    2.39    2.34    2.30
    62.5............................................................    2.86    2.81    2.76    2.72    2.67    2.62    2.57    2.53    2.48    2.43    2.38
    63.0............................................................    2.94    2.90    2.85    2.80    2.75    2.71    2.66    2.61    2.56    2.52    2.47
    63.5............................................................    3.03    2.98    2.94    2.89    2.84    2.79    2.74    2.70    2.65    2.60    2.55
    64.0............................................................    3.12    3.07    3.02    2.97    2.93    2.88    2.83    2.78    2.73    2.69    2.64
    64.5............................................................    3.20    3.15    3.11    3.06    3.01    2.96    2.92    2.87    2.82    2.77    2.73
    65.0............................................................    3.29    3.24    3.19    3.14    3.10    3.05    3.00    2.95    2.91    2.86    2.81
    65.5............................................................    3.37    3.33    3.28    3.23    3.18    3.14    3.09    3.04    2.99    2.94    2.90
    66.0............................................................    3.46    3.41    3.36    3.32    3.27    3.22    3.17    3.13    3.08    3.03    2.98
    66.5............................................................    3.54    3.50    3.45    3.40    3.35    3.31    3.26    3.21    3.16    3.12    3.07
    67.0............................................................    3.63    3.58    3.54    3.49    3.44    3.39    3.34    3.30    3.25    3.20    3.15
    67.5............................................................    3.72    3.67    3.62    3.57    3.53    3.48    3.43    3.38    3.34    3.29    3.24
    68.0............................................................    3.80    3.75    3.71    3.66    3.61    3.56    3.52    3.47    3.42    3.37    3.33
    68.5............................................................    3.89    3.84    3.79    3.74    3.70    3.65    3.60    3.55    3.51    3.46    3.41
    69.0............................................................    3.97    3.93    3.88    3.83    3.78    3.74    3.69    3.64    3.59    3.54    3.50
    69.5............................................................    4.06    4.01    3.96    3.92    3.87    3.82    3.77    3.73    3.68    3.63    3.58
    70.0............................................................    4.15    4.10    4.05    4.00    3.95    3.91    3.86    3.81    3.76    3.72    3.67
    70.5............................................................    4.23    4.18    4.14    4.09    4.04    3.99    3.94    3.90    3.85    3.80    3.75
    71.0............................................................    4.32    4.27    4.22    4.17    4.13    4.08    4.03    3.98    3.94    3.89    3.84
    71.5............................................................    4.40    4.35    4.31    4.26    4.21    4.16    4.12    4.07    4.02    3.97    3.93
    72.0............................................................    4.49    4.44    4.39    4.35    4.30    4.25    4.20    4.15    4.11    4.06    4.01
    72.5............................................................    4.57    4.53    4.48    4.43    4.38    4.34    4.29    4.24    4.19    4.14    4.10
    73.0............................................................    4.66    4.61    4.56    4.52    4.47    4.42    4.37    4.33    4.28    4.23    4.18
    73.5............................................................    4.75    4.70    4.65    4.60    4.55    4.51    4.46    4.41    4.36    4.32    4.27
    74.0............................................................    4.83    4.78    4.74    4.69    4.64    4.59    4.55    4.50    4.45    4.40    4.35
    74.5............................................................    4.92    4.87    4.82    4.77    4.73    4.68    4.63    4.58    4.54    4.49    4.44
    75.0............................................................    5.00    4.96    4.91    4.86    4.81    4.76    4.72    4.67    4.62    4.57    4.53
    75.5............................................................    5.09    5.04    4.99    4.95    4.90    4.85    4.80    4.75    4.71    4.66    4.61
    76.0............................................................    5.17    5.13    5.08    5.03    4.98    4.94    4.89    4.84    4.79    4.75    4.70
    76.5............................................................    5.26    5.21    5.16    5.12    5.07    5.02    4.97    4.93    4.88    4.83    4.78
    77.0............................................................    5.35    5.30    5.25    5.20    5.16    5.11    5.06    5.01    4.96    4.92    4.87
    77.5............................................................    5.43    5.38    5.34    5.29    5.24    5.19    5.15    5.10    5.05    5.00    4.95
    78.0............................................................    5.52    5.47    5.42    5.37    5.33    5.28    5.23    5.18    5.14    5.09    5.04
    78.5............................................................    5.60    5.56    5.51    5.46    5.41    5.36    5.32    5.27    5.22    5.17    5.13
    79.0............................................................    5.69    5.64    5.59    5.55    5.50    5.45    5.40    5.35    5.31    5.26    5.21
    79.5............................................................    5.77    5.73    5.68    5.63    5.58    5.54    5.49    5.44    5.39    5.35    5.30
    80.0............................................................    5.86    5.81    5.76    5.72    5.67    5.62    5.57    5.53    5.48    5.43    5.38
    80.5............................................................    5.95    5.90    5.85    5.80    5.76    5.71    5.66    5.61    5.56    5.52    5.47
    81.0............................................................    6.03    5.98    5.94    5.89    5.84    5.79    5.75    5.70    5.65    5.60    5.55
    81.5............................................................    6.12    6.07    6.02    5.97    5.93    5.88    5.83    5.78    5.74    5.69    5.64
    82.0............................................................    6.20    6.16    6.11    6.06    6.01    5.96    5.92    5.87    5.82    5.77    5.73
    82.5............................................................    6.29    6.24    6.19    6.15    6.10    6.05    6.00    5.96    5.91    5.86    5.81
    83.0............................................................    6.37    6.33    6.28    6.23    6.18    6.14    6.09    6.04    5.99    5.95    5.90
    83.5............................................................    6.46    6.41    6.37    6.32    6.27    6.22    6.17    6.13    6.08    6.03    5.98
    84.0............................................................    6.55    6.50    6.45    6.40    6.36    6.31    6.26    6.21    6.16    6.12    6.07
    84.5............................................................    6.63    6.58    6.54    6.49    6.44    6.39    6.35    6.30    6.25    6.20    6.16
    85.0............................................................    6.72    6.67    6.62    6.57    6.53    6.48    6.43    6.38    6.34    6.29    6.24
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  TABLE 1A.--MALES FVC
                                            [80% of Predicted; Knudson 1983]
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                            Age
                   Ht.               -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        57      59      61      63      65      67      69      71      73      75
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    56.0............................    1.22    1.17    1.12    1.08    1.03     .98     .93     .89     .84     .79
    56.5............................    1.31    1.26    1.21    1.16    1.11    1.07    1.02     .97     .92     .88
    57.0............................    1.39    1.34    1.30    1.25    1.20    1.15    1.11    1.06    1.01     .96
    57.5............................    1.48    1.43    1.38    1.33    1.29    1.24    1.19    1.14    1.10    1.05
    58.0............................    1.56    1.52    1.47    1.42    1.37    1.32    1.28    1.23    1.18    1.13
    58.5............................    1.65    1.60    1.55    1.51    1.46    1.41    1.36    1.31    1.27    1.22
    59.0............................    1.73    1.69    1.64    1.59    1.54    1.50    1.45    1.40    1.35    1.31
    59.5............................    1.82    1.77    1.72    1.68    1.63    1.58    1.53    1.49    1.44    1.39
    60.0............................    1.91    1.86    1.81    1.76    1.72    1.67    1.62    1.57    1.52    1.48
    60.5............................    1.99    1.94    1.90    1.85    1.80    1.75    1.71    1.66    1.61    1.56
    61.0............................    2.08    2.03    1.98    1.93    1.89    1.84    1.79    1.74    1.70    1.65
    61.5............................    2.16    2.12    2.07    2.02    1.97    1.92    1.88    1.83    1.78    1.73
    62.0............................    2.25    2.20    2.15    2.11    2.06    2.01    1.96    1.91    1.87    1.82
    62.5............................    2.33    2.29    2.24    2.19    2.14    2.10    2.05    2.00    1.95    1.91
    63.0............................    2.42    2.37    2.32    2.28    2.23    2.18    2.13    2.09    2.04    1.99
    63.5............................    2.51    2.46    2.41    2.36    2.32    2.27    2.22    2.17    2.12    2.08
    64.0............................    2.59    2.54    2.50    2.45    2.40    2.35    2.31    2.26    2.21    2.16
    64.5............................    2.68    2.63    2.58    2.53    2.49    2.44    2.39    2.34    2.30    2.25
    65.0............................    2.76    2.72    2.67    2.62    2.57    2.52    2.48    2.43    2.38    2.33
    65.5............................    2.85    2.80    2.75    2.71    2.66    2.61    2.56    2.52    2.47    2.42
    66.0............................    2.93    2.89    2.84    2.79    2.74    2.70    2.65    2.60    2.55    2.51
    66.5............................    3.02    2.97    2.93    2.88    2.83    2.78    2.73    2.69    2.64    2.59
    67.0............................    3.11    3.06    3.01    2.96    2.92    2.87    2.82    2.77    2.72    2.68
    67.5............................    3.19    3.14    3.10    3.05    3.00    2.95    2.91    2.86    2.81    2.76
    68.0............................    3.28    3.23    3.18    3.13    3.09    3.04    2.99    2.94    2.90    2.85
    68.5............................    3.36    3.32    3.27    3.22    3.17    3.13    3.08    3.03    2.98    2.93
    69.0............................    3.45    3.40    3.35    3.31    3.26    3.21    3.16    3.12    3.07    3.02
    69.5............................    3.53    3.49    3.44    3.39    3.34    3.30    3.25    3.20    3.15    3.11
    70.0............................    3.62    3.57    3.53    3.48    3.43    3.38    3.33    3.29    3.24    3.19
    70.5............................    3.71    3.66    3.61    3.56    3.52    3.47    3.42    3.37    3.33    3.28
    71.0............................    3.79    3.74    3.70    3.65    3.60    3.55    3.51    3.46    3.41    3.36
    71.5............................    3.88    3.83    3.78    3.73    3.69    3.64    3.59    3.54    3.50    3.45
    72.0............................    3.96    3.92    3.87    3.82    3.77    3.73    3.68    3.63    3.58    3.53
    72.5............................    4.05    4.00    3.95    3.91    3.86    3.81    3.76    3.72    3.67    3.62
    73.0............................    4.14    4.09    4.04    3.99    3.94    3.90    3.85    3.80    3.75    3.71
    73.5............................    4.22    4.17    4.13    4.08    4.03    3.98    3.93    3.89    3.84    3.79
    74.0............................    4.31    4.26    4.21    4.16    4.12    4.07    4.02    3.97    3.93    3.88
    74.5............................    4.39    4.34    4.30    4.25    4.20    4.15    4.11    4.06    4.01    3.96
    75.0............................    4.48    4.43    4.38    4.34    4.29    4.24    4.19    4.14    4.10    4.05
    75.5............................    4.56    4.52    4.47    4.42    4.37    4.33    4.28    4.23    4.18    4.13
    76.0............................    4.65    4.60    4.55    4.51    4.46    4.41    4.36    4.32    4.27    4.22
    76.5............................    4.74    4.69    4.64    4.59    4.54    4.50    4.45    4.40    4.35    4.31
    77.0............................    4.82    4.77    4.73    4.68    4.63    4.58    4.54    4.49    4.44    4.39
    77.5............................    4.91    4.86    4.81    4.76    4.72    4.67    4.62    4.57    4.53    4.48
    78.0............................    4.99    4.95    4.90    4.85    4.80    4.75    4.71    4.66    4.61    4.56
    78.5............................    5.08    5.03    4.98    4.94    4.89    4.84    4.79    4.74    4.70    4.65
    79.0............................    5.16    5.12    5.07    5.02    4.97    4.93    4.88    4.83    4.78    4.74
    79.5............................    5.25    5.20    5.15    5.11    5.06    5.01    4.96    4.92    4.87    4.82
    80.0............................    5.34    5.29    5.24    5.19    5.15    5.10    5.05    5.00    4.95    4.91
    80.5............................    5.42    5.37    5.33    5.28    5.23    5.18    5.14    5.09    5.04    4.99
    81.0............................    5.51    5.46    5.41    5.36    5.32    5.27    5.22    5.17    5.13    5.08
    81.5............................    5.59    5.55    5.50    5.45    5.40    5.35    5.31    5.26    5.21    5.16
    82.0............................    5.68    5.63    5.58    5.54    5.49    5.44    5.39    5.34    5.30    5.25
    82.5............................    5.76    5.72    5.67    5.62    5.57    5.53    5.48    5.43    5.38    5.34
    83.0............................    5.85    5.80    5.75    5.71    5.66    5.61    5.56    5.52    5.47    5.42
    83.5............................    5.94    5.89    5.84    5.79    5.75    5.70    5.65    5.60    5.55    5.51
    84.0............................    6.02    5.97    5.93    5.88    5.83    5.78    5.74    5.69    5.64    5.59
    84.5............................    6.11    6.06    6.01    5.96    5.92    5.87    5.82    5.77    5.73    5.68
    85.0............................    6.19    6.15    6.10    6.05    6.00    5.95    5.91    5.86    5.81    5.76
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                                      TABLE 2.--MALES FEV1
                                                                [80% of Predicted; Knudson 1983]
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                Age
                                   Ht.                               ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        35      37      39      41      43      45      47      49      51      53      55
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    56.0............................................................    1.54    1.49    1.44    1.40    1.35    1.30    1.26    1.21    1.16    1.12    1.07
    56.5............................................................    1.61    1.56    1.51    1.47    1.42    1.37    1.33    1.28    1.23    1.18    1.14
    57.0............................................................    1.67    1.63    1.58    1.53    1.49    1.44    1.39    1.35    1.30    1.25    1.21
    57.5............................................................    1.74    1.69    1.65    1.60    1.55    1.51    1.46    1.41    1.37    1.32    1.27
    58.0............................................................    1.81    1.76    1.71    1.67    1.62    1.57    1.53    1.48    1.43    1.39    1.34
    58.5............................................................    1.88    1.83    1.78    1.74    1.69    1.64    1.60    1.55    1.50    1.46    1.41
    59.0............................................................    1.94    1.90    1.85    1.80    1.76    1.71    1.66    1.62    1.57    1.52    1.48
    59.5............................................................    2.01    1.96    1.92    1.87    1.82    1.78    1.73    1.68    1.64    1.59    1.54
    60.0............................................................    2.08    2.03    1.98    1.94    1.89    1.84    1.80    1.75    1.70    1.66    1.61
    60.5............................................................    2.15    2.10    2.05    2.01    1.96    1.91    1.87    1.82    1.77    1.73    1.68
    61.0............................................................    2.21    2.17    2.12    2.07    2.03    1.98    1.93    1.89    1.84    1.79    1.75
    61.5............................................................    2.28    2.23    2.19    2.14    2.09    2.05    2.00    1.95    1.91    1.86    1.81
    62.0............................................................    2.35    2.30    2.26    2.21    2.16    2.11    2.07    2.02    1.97    1.93    1.88
    62.5............................................................    2.42    2.37    2.32    2.28    2.23    2.18    2.14    2.09    2.04    2.00    1.95
    63.0............................................................    2.48    2.44    2.39    2.34    2.30    2.25    2.20    2.16    2.11    2.06    2.02
    63.5............................................................    2.55    2.50    2.46    2.41    2.36    2.32    2.27    2.22    2.18    2.13    2.08
    64.0............................................................    2.62    2.57    2.53    2.48    2.43    2.39    2.34    2.29    2.25    2.20    2.15
    64.5............................................................    2.69    2.64    2.59    2.55    2.50    2.45    2.41    2.36    2.31    2.27    2.22
    65.0............................................................    2.75    2.71    2.66    2.61    2.57    2.52    2.47    2.43    2.38    2.33    2.29
    65.5............................................................    2.82    2.77    2.73    2.68    2.63    2.59    2.54    2.49    2.45    2.40    2.35
    66.0............................................................    2.89    2.84    2.80    2.75    2.70    2.66    2.61    2.56    2.52    2.47    2.42
    66.5............................................................    2.96    2.91    2.86    2.82    2.77    2.72    2.68    2.63    2.58    2.54    2.49
    67.0............................................................    3.02    2.98    2.93    2.88    2.84    2.79    2.74    2.70    2.65    2.60    2.56
    67.5............................................................    3.09    3.05    3.00    2.95    2.90    2.86    2.81    2.76    2.72    2.67    2.62
    68.0............................................................    3.16    3.11    3.07    3.02    2.97    2.93    2.88    2.83    2.79    2.74    2.69
    68.5............................................................    3.23    3.18    3.13    3.09    3.04    2.99    2.95    2.90    2.85    2.81    2.76
    69.0............................................................    3.29    3.25    3.20    3.15    3.11    3.06    3.01    2.97    2.92    2.87    2.83
    69.5............................................................    3.36    3.32    3.27    3.22    3.18    3.13    3.08    3.03    2.99    2.94    2.89
    70.0............................................................    3.43    3.38    3.34    3.29    3.24    3.20    3.15    3.10    3.06    3.01    2.96
    70.5............................................................    3.50    3.45    3.40    3.36    3.31    3.26    3.22    3.17    3.12    3.08    3.03
    71.0............................................................    3.56    3.52    3.47    3.42    3.38    3.33    3.28    3.24    3.19    3.14    3.10
    71.5............................................................    3.63    3.59    3.54    3.49    3.45    3.40    3.35    3.31    3.26    3.21    3.17
    72.0............................................................    3.70    3.65    3.61    3.56    3.51    3.47    3.42    3.37    3.33    3.28    3.23
    72.5............................................................    3.77    3.72    3.67    3.63    3.58    3.53    3.49    3.44    3.39    3.35    3.30
    73.0............................................................    3.83    3.79    3.74    3.69    3.65    3.60    3.55    3.51    3.46    3.41    3.37
    73.5............................................................    3.90    3.86    3.81    3.76    3.72    3.67    3.62    3.58    3.53    3.48    3.44
    74.0............................................................    3.97    3.92    3.88    3.83    3.78    3.74    3.69    3.64    3.60    3.55    3.50
    74.5............................................................    4.04    3.99    3.94    3.90    3.85    3.80    3.76    3.71    3.66    3.62    3.57
    75.0............................................................    4.11    4.06    4.01    3.97    3.92    3.87    3.82    3.78    3.73    3.68    3.64
    75.5............................................................    4.17    4.13    4.08    4.03    3.99    3.94    3.89    3.85    3.80    3.75    3.71
    76.0............................................................    4.24    4.19    4.15    4.10    4.05    4.01    3.96    3.91    3.87    3.82    3.77
    76.5............................................................    4.31    4.26    4.21    4.17    4.12    4.07    4.03    3.98    3.93    3.89    3.84
    77.0............................................................    4.38    4.33    4.28    4.24    4.19    4.14    4.10    4.05    4.00    3.96    3.91
    77.5............................................................    4.44    4.40    4.35    4.30    4.26    4.21    4.16    4.12    4.07    4.02    3.98
    78.0............................................................    4.51    4.46    4.42    4.37    4.32    4.28    4.23    4.18    4.14    4.09    4.04
    78.5............................................................    4.58    4.53    4.48    4.44    4.39    4.34    4.30    4.25    4.20    4.16    4.11
    79.0............................................................    4.65    4.60    4.55    4.51    4.46    4.41    4.37    4.32    4.27    4.23    4.18
    79.5............................................................    4.71    4.67    4.62    4.57    4.53    4.48    4.43    4.39    4.34    4.29    4.25
    80.0............................................................    4.78    4.73    4.69    4.64    4.59    4.55    4.50    4.45    4.41    4.36    4.31
    80.5............................................................    4.85    4.80    4.76    4.71    4.66    4.61    4.57    4.52    4.47    4.43    4.38
    81.0............................................................    4.92    4.87    4.82    4.78    4.73    4.68    4.64    4.59    4.54    4.50    4.45
    81.5............................................................    4.98    4.94    4.89    4.84    4.80    4.75    4.70    4.66    4.61    4.56    4.52
    82.0............................................................    5.05    5.00    4.96    4.91    4.86    4.82    4.77    4.72    4.68    4.63    4.58
                                                                        5.12    5.07    5.03    4.98    4.93    4.89    4.84    4.79    4.74    4.70    4.65
    83.0............................................................    5.19    5.14    5.09    5.05    5.00    4.95    4.91    4.86    4.81    4.77    4.72
    83.5............................................................    5.25    5.21    5.16    5.11    5.07    5.02    4.97    4.93    4.88    4.83    4.79
    84.0............................................................    5.32    5.27    5.23    5.18    5.13    5.09    5.04    4.99    4.95    4.90    4.85
    84.5............................................................    5.39    5.34    5.30    5.25    5.20    5.16    5.11    5.06    5.02    4.97    4.92
    85.0............................................................    5.46    5.41    5.36    5.32    5.27    5.22    5.18    5.13    5.08    5.04    4.99
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  TABLE 2A.--MALES FEV1
                                            [80% of Predicted; Knudson 1983]
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                            Age
                   Ht.               -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        57      59      61      63      65      67      69      71      73      75
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    56.0............................    1.02     .98     .93     .88     .84     .79     .74     .70     .65     .60
    56.5............................    1.09    1.04    1.00     .95     .90     .86     .81     .76     .72     .67
    57.0............................    1.16    1.11    1.07    1.02     .97     .93     .88     .83     .79     .74
    57.5............................    1.23    1.18    1.13    1.09    1.04     .99     .95     .90     .85     .81
    58.0............................    1.29    1.25    1.20    1.15    1.11    1.06    1.01     .97     .92     .87
    58.5............................    1.36    1.31    1.27    1.22    1.17    1.13    1.08    1.03     .99     .94
    59.0............................    1.43    1.38    1.34    1.29    1.24    1.20    1.15    1.10    1.06    1.01
    59.5............................    1.50    1.45    1.40    1.36    1.31    1.26    1.22    1.17    1.12    1.08
    60.0............................    1.56    1.52    1.47    1.42    1.38    1.33    1.28    1.24    1.19    1.14
    60.5............................    1.63    1.59    1.54    1.49    1.45    1.40    1.35    1.30    1.26    1.21
    61.0............................    1.70    1.65    1.62    1.56    1.51    1.47    1.42    1.37    1.33    1.28
    61.5............................    1.77    1.72    1.67    1.63    1.58    1.53    1.49    1.44    1.39    1.35
    62.0............................    1.83    1.79    1.74    1.69    1.65    1.60    1.55    1.51    1.46    1.41
    62.5............................    1.90    1.86    1.81    1.76    1.72    1.67    1.62    1.58    1.53    1.48
    63.0............................    1.97    1.92    1.88    1.83    1.78    1.74    1.69    1.64    1.60    1.55
    63.5............................    2.04    1.99    1.94    1.90    1.85    1.80    1.76    1.71    1.66    1.62
    64.0............................    2.10    2.06    2.01    1.96    1.92    1.87    1.82    1.78    1.73    1.68
    64.5............................    2.17    2.13    2.08    2.03    1.99    1.94    1.89    1.85    1.80    1.75
    65.0............................    2.24    2.19    2.15    2.10    2.05    2.01    1.96    1.91    1.87    1.82
    65.5............................    2.31    2.26    2.21    2.17    2.12    2.07    2.03    1.98    1.93    1.89
    66.0............................    2.38    2.33    2.28    2.24    2.19    2.14    2.09    2.05    2.00    1.95
    66.5............................    2.44    2.40    2.35    2.30    2.26    2.21    2.16    2.12    2.07    2.02
    67.0............................    2.51    2.46    2.42    2.37    2.32    2.28    2.23    2.18    2.14    2.09
    67.5............................    2.58    2.53    2.48    2.44    2.39    2.34    2.30    2.25    2.20    2.16
    68.0............................    2.65    2.60    2.55    2.51    2.46    2.41    2.37    2.32    2.27    2.22
    68.5............................    2.71    2.67    2.62    2.57    2.53    2.48    2.43    2.39    2.34    2.29
    69.0............................    2.78    2.73    2.69    2.64    2.59    2.55    2.50    2.45    2.41    2.36
    69.5............................    2.85    2.80    2.75    2.71    2.66    2.61    2.57    2.52    2.47    2.43
    70.0............................    2.92    2.87    2.82    2.78    2.73    2.68    2.64    2.59    2.54    2.50
    70.5............................    2.98    2.94    2.89    2.84    2.80    2.75    2.70    2.66    2.61    2.56
    71.0............................    3.05    3.00    2.96    2.91    2.86    2.82    2.77    2.72    2.68    2.63
    71.5............................    3.12    3.07    3.02    2.98    2.93    2.88    2.84    2.79    2.74    2.70
    72.0............................    3.19    3.14    3.09    3.05    3.00    2.95    2.91    2.86    2.81    2.77
    72.5............................    3.25    3.21    3.16    3.11    3.07    3.02    2.97    2.93    2.88    2.83
    73.0............................    3.32    3.27    3.23    3.18    3.13    3.09    3.04    2.99    2.95    2.90
    73.5............................    3.39    3.34    3.30    3.25    3.20    3.16    3.11    3.06    3.01    2.97
    74.0............................    3.46    3.41    3.36    3.32    3.27    3.22    3.18    3.13    3.08    3.04
    74.5............................    3.52    3.48    3.43    3.38    3.34    3.29    3.24    3.20    3.15    3.10
    75.0............................    3.59    3.54    3.50    3.45    3.40    3.36    3.31    3.26    3.22    3.17
    75.5............................    3.66    3.61    3.57    3.52    3.47    3.43    3.38    3.33    3.29    3.24
    76.0............................    3.73    3.68    3.63    3.59    3.54    3.49    3.45    3.40    3.35    3.31
    76.5............................    3.79    3.75    3.70    3.65    3.61    3.56    3.51    3.47    3.42    3.37
    77.0............................    3.86    3.81    3.77    3.72    3.67    3.63    3.58    3.53    3.49    3.44
    77.5............................    3.93    3.88    3.84    3.79    3.74    3.70    3.65    3.60    3.56    3.51
    78.0............................    4.00    3.95    3.90    3.86    3.81    3.76    3.72    3.67    3.62    3.58
    78.5............................    4.06    4.02    3.97    3.92    3.88    3.83    3.78    3.74    3.69    3.64
    79.0............................    4.13    4.09    4.04    3.99    3.94    3.90    3.85    3.80    3.76    3.71
    79.5............................    4.20    4.15    4.11    4.06    4.01    3.97    3.92    3.87    3.83    3.78
    80.0............................    4.27    4.22    4.17    4.13    4.08    4.03    3.99    3.94    3.89    3.85
    80.5............................    4.33    4.29    4.24    4.19    4.15    4.10    4.05    4.01    3.96    3.91
    81.0............................    4.40    4.36    4.31    4.26    4.22    4.17    4.12    4.08    4.03    3.98
    81.5............................    4.47    4.42    4.38    4.33    4.28    4.24    4.19    4.14    4.10    4.05
    82.0............................    4.54    4.49    4.44    4.40    4.35    4.30    4.26    4.21    4.16    4.12
    82.5............................    4.60    4.56    4.51    4.46    4.42    4.37    4.32    4.28    4.23    4.18
    83.0............................    4.67    4.63    4.58    4.53    4.49    4.44    4.39    4.35    4.30    4.25
    83.5............................    4.74    4.69    4.65    4.60    4.55    4.51    4.46    4.41    4.37    4.32
    84.0............................    4.81    4.76    4.71    4.67    4.62    4.57    4.53    4.48    4.43    4.39
    84.5............................    4.88    4.83    4.78    4.73    4.69    4.64    4.59    4.55    4.50    4.45
    85.0............................    4.94    4.90    4.85    4.80    4.76    4.71    4.66    4.62    4.57    4.52
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                                      TABLE 3.--FEMALES FVC
                                                                [80% of Predicted; Knudson 1983]
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                Age
                                   Ht.                               ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        35      37      39      41      43      45      47      49      51      53      55
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    52.0............................................................    1.66    1.64    1.61    1.58    1.55    1.53    1.50    1.47    1.45    1.42    1.39
    52.5............................................................    1.71    1.68    1.65    1.63    1.60    1.57    1.55    1.52    1.49    1.46    1.44
    53.0............................................................    1.75    1.73    1.70    1.67    1.64    1.62    1.59    1.56    1.54    1.51    1.48
    53.5............................................................    1.80    1.77    1.74    1.72    1.69    1.66    1.64    1.61    1.58    1.55    1.53
    54.0............................................................    1.84    1.82    1.79    1.76    1.73    1.71    1.68    1.65    1.63    1.60    1.57
    54.5............................................................    1.89    1.86    1.83    1.81    1.78    1.75    1.73    1.70    1.67    1.64    1.62
    55.0............................................................    1.93    1.91    1.88    1.85    1.83    1.80    1.77    1.74    1.72    1.69    1.66
    55.5............................................................    1.98    1.95    1.92    1.90    1.87    1.84    1.82    1.79    1.76    1.73    1.71
    56.0............................................................    2.02    2.00    1.97    1.94    1.92    1.89    1.86    1.83    1.81    1.78    1.75
    56.5............................................................    2.07    2.04    2.01    1.99    1.96    1.93    1.91    1.88    1.85    1.83    1.80
    57.0............................................................    2.11    2.09    2.06    2.03    2.01    1.98    1.95    1.92    1.90    1.87    1.84
    57.5............................................................    2.16    2.13    2.10    2.08    2.05    2.02    2.00    1.97    1.94    1.92    1.89
    58.0............................................................    2.20    2.18    2.15    2.12    2.10    2.07    2.04    2.01    1.99    1.96    1.93
    58.5............................................................    2.25    2.22    2.18    2.16    2.14    2.11    2.09    2.06    2.03    2.01    1.98
    59.0............................................................    2.29    2.27    2.24    2.21    2.19    2.16    2.13    2.10    2.08    2.05    2.02
    59.5............................................................    2.34    2.31    2.29    2.26    2.23    2.20    2.18    2.15    2.12    2.10    2.07
    60.0............................................................    2.38    2.36    2.33    2.30    2.28    2.25    2.22    2.20    2.17    2.14    2.11
    60.5............................................................    2.43    2.40    2.38    2.35    2.32    2.29    2.27    2.24    2.21    2.19    2.16
    61.0............................................................    2.47    2.45    2.42    2.39    2.37    2.34    2.31    2.29    2.26    2.23    2.20
    61.5............................................................    2.52    2.49    2.47    2.44    2.41    2.38    2.36    2.33    2.30    2.28    2.25
    62.0............................................................    2.56    2.54    2.51    2.48    2.46    2.43    2.40    2.38    2.35    2.32    2.29
    62.5............................................................    2.61    2.58    2.56    2.53    2.50    2.47    2.45    2.42    2.39    2.37    2.34
    63.0............................................................    2.65    2.63    2.60    2.57    2.55    2.52    2.49    2.47    2.44    2.41    2.38
    63.5............................................................    2.70    2.67    2.65    2.62    2.59    2.56    2.54    2.51    2.48    2.46    2.43
    64.0............................................................    2.75    2.72    2.69    2.66    2.64    2.61    2.58    2.56    2.53    2.50    2.47
    64.5............................................................    2.79    2.76    2.74    2.71    2.68    2.66    2.63    2.60    2.57    2.55    2.52
    65.0............................................................    2.84    2.81    2.78    2.75    2.73    2.70    2.67    2.65    2.62    2.59    2.56
    65.5............................................................    2.88    2.85    2.83    2.80    2.77    2.75    2.72    2.69    2.66    2.64    2.61
    66.0............................................................    2.93    2.90    2.87    2.84    2.82    2.79    2.76    2.74    2.71    2.68    2.66
    66.5............................................................    2.97    2.94    2.92    2.89    2.86    2.84    2.81    2.78    2.75    2.73    2.70
    67.0............................................................    3.02    2.99    2.96    2.93    2.91    2.88    2.85    2.83    2.80    2.77    2.75
    67.5............................................................    3.06    3.03    3.01    2.98    2.95    2.93    2.90    2.87    2.84    2.82    2.79
    68.0............................................................    3.11    3.08    3.05    3.02    3.00    2.97    2.94    2.92    2.89    2.86    2.84
    68.5............................................................    3.15    3.12    3.10    3.07    3.04    3.02    2.99    2.96    2.93    2.91    2.88
    69.0............................................................    3.20    3.17    3.14    3.12    3.09    3.06    3.03    3.01    2.98    2.95    2.93
    69.5............................................................    3.24    3.21    3.19    3.16    3.13    3.11    3.08    3.05    3.03    3.00    2.97
    70.0............................................................    3.29    3.26    3.23    3.21    3.18    3.15    3.12    3.10    3.07    3.04    3.02
    70.5............................................................    3.33    3.30    3.28    3.25    3.22    3.20    3.17    3.14    3.12    3.09    3.06
    71.0............................................................    3.38    3.35    3.32    3.30    3.27    3.24    3.21    3.19    3.16    3.13    3.11
    71.5............................................................    3.42    3.39    3.37    3.34    3.31    3.29    3.26    3.23    3.21    3.18    3.15
    72.0............................................................    3.47    3.44    3.41    3.39    3.36    3.33    3.30    3.28    3.25    3.22    3.20
    72.5............................................................    3.51    3.49    3.46    3.43    3.40    3.38    3.35    3.32    3.30    3.27    3.24
    73.0............................................................    3.56    3.53    3.50    3.48    3.45    3.42    3.39    3.37    3.34    3.31    3.29
    73.5............................................................    3.60    3.58    3.55    3.52    3.49    3.47    3.44    3.41    3.39    3.36    3.33
    74.0............................................................    3.65    3.62    3.59    3.57    3.54    3.51    3.49    3.46    3.43    3.40    3.38
    74.5............................................................    3.69    3.67    3.64    3.61    3.58    3.56    3.53    3.50    3.48    3.45    3.42
    75.0............................................................    3.74    3.71    3.68    3.66    3.63    3.60    3.58    3.55    3.52    3.49    3.47
    75.5............................................................    3.78    3.76    3.73    3.70    3.67    3.65    3.62    3.59    3.57    3.54    3.51
    76.0............................................................    3.83    3.80    3.77    3.75    3.72    3.69    3.67    3.64    3.61    3.58    3.56
    76.5............................................................    3.87    3.85    3.82    3.79    3.76    3.74    3.71    3.68    3.66    3.63    3.60
    77.0............................................................    3.92    3.89    3.86    3.84    3.81    3.78    3.76    3.73    3.70    3.67    3.65
    77.5............................................................    3.96    3.94    3.91    3.88    3.85    3.83    3.80    3.77    3.75    3.72    3.69
    78.0............................................................    4.01    3.98    3.95    3.93    3.90    3.87    3.85    3.82    3.79    3.76    3.74
    78.5............................................................    4.05    4.03    4.00    3.97    3.95    3.92    3.89    3.86    3.84    3.81    3.78
    79.0............................................................    4.10    4.07    4.04    4.02    3.99    3.96    3.94    3.91    3.88    3.86    3.83
    79.5............................................................    4.14    4.12    4.09    4.06    4.04    4.01    3.98    3.95    3.93    3.90    3.87
    80.0............................................................    4.19    4.16    4.13    4.11    4.08    4.05    4.03    4.00    3.97    3.95    3.92
    80.5............................................................    4.23    4.21    4.18    4.15    4.13    4.10    4.07    4.04    4.02    3.99    3.96
    81.0............................................................    4.28    4.25    4.22    4.20    4.17    4.14    4.12    4.09    4.06    4.04    4.01
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                 TABLE 3A.--FEMALES FVC
                                            [80% of Predicted; Knudson 1983]
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                            Age
                   Ht.               -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        57      59      61      63      65      67      69      71      73      75
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    52.0............................    1.37    1.34    1.31    1.28    1.26    1.23    1.20    1.47    1.43    1.38
    52.5............................    1.41    1.38    1.36    1.33    1.30    1.27    1.25    1.51    1.46    1.41
    53.0............................    1.46    1.43    1.40    1.37    1.35    1.32    1.29    1.54    1.49    1.44
    53.5............................    1.50    1.47    1.45    1.42    1.39    1.37    1.34    1.57    1.52    1.48
    54.0............................    1.55    1.52    1.49    1.46    1.44    1.41    1.38    1.60    1.55    1.51
    54.5............................    1.59    1.56    1.54    1.51    1.48    1.46    1.43    1.63    1.59    1.54
    55.0............................    1.64    1.61    1.58    1.55    1.53    1.50    1.47    1.67    1.62    1.57
    55.5............................    1.68    1.65    1.63    1.60    1.57    1.55    1.52    1.70    1.65    1.60
    56.0............................    1.73    1.70    1.67    1.64    1.62    1.59    1.56    1.73    1.68    1.63
    56.5............................    1.77    1.74    1.72    1.69    1.66    1.64    1.61    1.76    1.71    1.67
    57.0............................    1.82    1.79    1.76    1.74    1.71    1.68    1.65    1.79    1.75    1.70
    57.5............................    1.86    1.83    1.81    1.78    1.75    1.73    1.70    1.82    1.78    1.73
    58.0............................    1.91    1.88    1.85    1.83    1.80    1.77    1.74    1.86    1.81    1.76
    58.5............................    1.95    1.92    1.90    1.87    1.84    1.82    1.79    1.89    1.84    1.79
    59.0............................    2.00    1.97    1.94    1.92    1.89    1.86    1.83    1.92    1.87    1.83
    59.5............................    2.04    2.01    1.99    1.96    1.93    1.91    1.88    1.95    1.90    1.86
    60.0............................    2.09    2.06    2.03    2.01    1.98    1.95    1.92    1.98    1.94    1.89
    60.5............................    2.13    2.10    2.08    2.05    2.02    2.00    1.97    2.02    1.97    1.92
    61.0............................    2.18    2.15    2.12    2.10    2.07    2.04    2.01    2.05    2.00    1.95
    61.5............................    2.22    2.20    2.17    2.14    2.11    2.09    2.06    2.08    2.03    1.98
    62.0............................    2.27    2.24    2.21    2.19    2.16    2.13    2.11    2.11    2.06    2.02
    62.5............................    2.31    2.29    2.26    2.23    2.20    2.18    2.15    2.14    2.10    2.05
    63.0............................    2.36    2.33    2.30    2.28    2.25    2.22    2.20    2.17    2.13    2.08
    63.5............................    2.40    2.38    2.35    2.32    2.29    2.27    2.24    2.21    2.16    2.11
    64.0............................    2.45    2.42    2.39    2.37    2.34    2.31    2.29    2.24    2.19    2.14
    64.5............................    2.49    2.47    2.44    2.41    2.38    2.36    2.33    2.27    2.22    2.18
    65.0............................    2.54    2.51    2.48    2.46    2.43    2.40    2.38    2.30    2.25    2.21
    65.5............................    2.58    2.56    2.53    2.50    2.47    2.45    2.42    2.33    2.29    2.24
    66.0............................    2.63    2.60    2.57    2.55    2.52    2.49    2.47    2.37    2.32    2.27
    66.5............................    2.67    2.65    2.62    2.59    2.57    2.54    2.51    2.40    2.35    2.30
    67.0............................    2.72    2.69    2.66    2.64    2.61    2.58    2.56    2.43    2.38    2.33
    67.5............................    2.76    2.74    2.71    2.68    2.66    2.63    2.60    2.46    2.41    2.37
    68.0............................    2.81    2.78    2.75    2.73    2.70    2.67    2.65    2.49    2.45    2.40
    68.5............................    2.85    2.83    2.80    2.77    2.75    2.72    2.69    2.52    2.48    2.43
    69.0............................    2.90    2.87    2.84    2.82    2.79    2.76    2.74    2.56    2.51    2.46
    69.5............................    2.94    2.92    2.89    2.86    2.84    2.81    2.78    2.59    2.54    2.49
    70.0............................    2.99    2.96    2.93    2.91    2.88    2.85    2.83    2.62    2.57    2.52
    70.5............................    3.03    3.01    2.98    2.95    2.93    2.90    2.87    2.65    2.60    2.56
    71.0............................    3.08    3.05    3.03    3.00    2.97    2.94    2.92    2.68    2.64    2.59
    71.5............................    3.12    3.10    3.07    3.04    3.02    2.99    2.96    2.72    2.67    2.62
    72.0............................    3.17    3.14    3.12    3.09    3.06    3.03    3.01    2.75    2.70    2.65
    72.5............................    3.21    3.19    3.16    3.13    3.11    3.08    3.05    2.78    2.73    2.68
    73.0............................    3.26    3.23    3.21    3.18    3.15    3.12    3.10    2.81    2.76    2.72
    73.5............................    3.30    3.28    3.25    3.22    3.20    3.17    3.14    2.84    2.79    2.75
    74.0............................    3.35    3.32    3.30    3.27    3.24    3.21    3.19    2.87    2.83    2.78
    74.5............................    3.40    3.37    3.34    3.31    3.29    3.26    3.23    2.91    2.86    2.81
    75.0............................    3.44    3.41    3.39    3.36    3.33    3.30    3.28    2.94    2.89    2.84
    75.5............................    3.49    3.46    3.43    3.40    3.38    3.35    3.32    2.97    2.92    2.87
    76.0............................    3.53    3.50    3.48    3.45    3.42    3.40    3.37    3.00    2.95    2.91
    76.5............................    3.58    3.55    3.52    3.49    3.47    3.44    3.41    3.03    2.99    2.94
    77.0............................    3.62    3.59    3.57    3.54    3.51    3.49    3.46    3.06    3.02    2.97
    77.5............................    3.67    3.64    3.61    3.58    3.56    3.53    3.50    3.10    3.05    3.00
    78.0............................    3.71    3.68    3.66    3.63    3.60    3.58    3.55    3.13    3.08    3.03
    78.5............................    3.76    3.73    3.70    3.67    3.65    3.62    3.59    3.16    3.11    3.07
    79.0............................    3.80    3.77    3.75    3.72    3.69    3.67    3.64    3.19    3.14    3.10
    79.5............................    3.85    3.82    3.79    3.77    3.74    3.71    3.68    3.22    3.18    3.13
    80.0............................    3.89    3.86    3.84    3.81    3.78    3.76    3.73    3.26    3.21    3.16
    80.5............................    3.94    3.91    3.88    3.86    3.83    3.80    3.77    3.29    3.24    3.19
    81.0............................    3.98    3.95    3.93    3.90    3.87    3.85    3.82    3.32    3.27    3.22
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                                     TABLE 4.--FEMALES FEV1
                                                                [80% of Predicted; Knudson 1983]
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                Age
                                   Ht.                               ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        35      37      39      41      43      45      47      49      51      53      55
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    52.0............................................................    1.52    1.49    1.46    1.43    1.40    1.37    1.34    1.31    1.28    1.25    1.22
    52.5............................................................    1.55    1.52    1.49    1.46    1.43    1.40    1.37    1.34    1.31    1.28    1.25
    53.0............................................................    1.59    1.56    1.53    1.50    1.47    1.43    1.40    1.37    1.34    1.31    1.28
    53.5............................................................    1.62    1.59    1.56    1.53    1.50    1.47    1.44    1.41    1.38    1.35    1.32
    54.0............................................................    1.65    1.62    1.59    1.56    1.53    1.50    1.47    1.44    1.41    1.38    1.35
    54.5............................................................    1.69    1.66    1.63    1.60    1.57    1.54    1.51    1.48    1.44    1.41    1.38
    55.0............................................................    1.72    1.69    1.66    1.63    1.60    1.57    1.54    1.51    1.48    1.45    1.42
    55.5............................................................    1.76    1.72    1.69    1.66    1.63    1.60    1.57    1.54    1.51    1.48    1.45
    56.0............................................................    1.79    1.76    1.73    1.70    1.67    1.64    1.61    1.58    1.55    1.52    1.49
    56.5............................................................    1.82    1.79    1.76    1.73    1.70    1.67    1.64    1.61    1.58    1.55    1.52
    57.0............................................................    1.86    1.83    1.80    1.77    1.73    1.70    1.67    1.64    1.61    1.58    1.55
    57.5............................................................    1.89    1.86    1.83    1.80    1.77    1.74    1.71    1.68    1.65    1.62    1.59
    58.0............................................................    1.92    1.89    1.86    1.83    1.80    1.77    1.74    1.71    1.68    1.65    1.62
    58.5............................................................    1.96    1.93    1.90    1.87    1.84    1.81    1.78    1.74    1.71    1.68    1.65
    59.0............................................................    1.99    1.96    1.93    1.90    1.87    1.84    1.81    1.78    1.75    1.72    1.69
    59.5............................................................    2.03    1.99    1.96    1.93    1.90    1.87    1.84    1.81    1.78    1.75    1.72
    60.0............................................................    2.06    2.03    2.00    1.97    1.94    1.91    1.88    1.85    1.82    1.79    1.75
    60.5............................................................    2.09    2.06    2.03    2.00    1.97    1.94    1.91    1.88    1.85    1.82    1.79
    61.0............................................................    2.13    2.10    2.07    2.04    2.00    1.97    1.94    1.91    1.88    1.85    1.82
    61.5............................................................    2.16    2.13    2.10    2.07    2.04    2.01    1.98    1.95    1.92    1.89    1.86
    62.0............................................................    2.19    2.16    2.13    2.10    2.07    2.04    2.01    1.98    1.95    1.92    1.89
    62.5............................................................    2.23    2.20    2.17    2.14    2.11    2.08    2.05    2.01    1.98    1.95    1.92
    63.0............................................................    2.26    2.23    2.20    2.17    2.14    2.11    2.08    2.05    2.02    1.99    1.96
    63.5............................................................    2.30    2.26    2.23    2.20    2.17    2.14    2.11    2.08    2.05    2.02    1.99
    64.0............................................................    2.33    2.30    2.27    2.24    2.21    2.18    2.15    2.12    2.09    2.06    2.02
    64.5............................................................    2.36    2.33    2.30    2.27    2.24    2.21    2.18    2.15    2.12    2.09    2.06
    65.0............................................................    2.40    2.37    2.34    2.31    2.27    2.24    2.21    2.18    2.15    2.12    2.09
    65.5............................................................    2.43    2.40    2.37    2.34    2.31    2.28    2.25    2.22    2.19    2.16    2.13
    66.0............................................................    2.46    2.43    2.40    2.37    2.34    2.31    2.28    2.25    2.22    2.19    2.16
    66.5............................................................    2.50    2.47    2.44    2.41    2.38    2.35    2.32    2.28    2.25    2.22    2.19
    67.0............................................................    2.53    2.50    2.47    2.44    2.41    2.38    2.35    2.32    2.29    2.26    2.23
    67.5............................................................    2.56    2.53    2.50    2.47    2.44    2.41    2.38    2.35    2.32    2.29    2.26
    68.0............................................................    2.60    2.57    2.54    2.51    2.48    2.45    2.42    2.39    2.36    2.33    2.29
    68.5............................................................    2.63    2.60    2.57    2.54    2.51    2.48    2.45    2.42    2.39    2.36    2.33
    69.0............................................................    2.67    2.64    2.61    2.57    2.54    2.51    2.48    2.45    2.42    2.39    2.36
    69.5............................................................    2.70    2.67    2.64    2.61    2.58    2.55    2.52    2.49    2.46    2.43    2.40
    70.0............................................................    2.73    2.70    2.67    2.64    2.61    2.58    2.55    2.52    2.49    2.46    2.43
    70.5............................................................    2.77    2.74    2.71    2.68    2.65    2.62    2.58    2.55    2.52    2.49    2.46
    71.0............................................................    2.80    2.77    2.74    2.71    2.68    2.65    2.62    2.59    2.56    2.53    2.50
    71.5............................................................    2.83    2.80    2.77    2.74    2.71    2.68    2.65    2.62    2.59    2.56    2.53
    72.0............................................................    2.87    2.84    2.81    2.78    2.75    2.72    2.69    2.66    2.63    2.59    2.56
    72.5............................................................    2.90    2.87    2.84    2.81    2.78    2.75    2.72    2.69    2.66    2.63    2.60
    73.0............................................................    2.94    2.91    2.88    2.84    2.81    2.78    2.75    2.72    2.69    2.66    2.63
    73.5............................................................    2.97    2.94    2.91    2.88    2.85    2.82    2.79    2.76    2.73    2.70    2.67
    74.0............................................................    3.00    2.97    2.94    2.91    2.88    2.85    2.82    2.79    2.76    2.73    2.70
    74.5............................................................    3.04    3.01    2.98    2.95    2.92    2.89    2.85    2.82    2.79    2.76    2.73
    75.0............................................................    3.07    3.04    3.01    2.98    2.95    2.92    2.89    2.86    2.83    2.80    2.77
    75.5............................................................    3.10    3.07    3.04    3.01    2.98    2.95    2.92    2.89    2.86    2.83    2.80
    76.0............................................................    3.14    3.11    3.08    3.05    3.02    2.99    2.96    2.93    2.90    2.86    2.83
    76.5............................................................    3.17    3.14    3.11    3.08    3.05    3.02    2.99    2.96    2.93    2.90    2.87
    77.0............................................................    3.21    3.18    3.15    3.11    3.08    3.05    3.02    2.99    2.96    2.93    2.90
    77.5............................................................    3.24    3.21    3.18    3.15    3.12    3.09    3.06    3.03    3.00    2.97    2.94
    78.0............................................................    3.27    3.24    3.21    3.18    3.15    3.12    3.09    3.06    3.03    3.00    2.97
    78.5............................................................    3.31    3.28    3.25    3.22    3.19    3.15    3.12    3.09    3.06    3.03    3.00
    79.0............................................................    3.34    3.31    3.28    3.25    3.22    3.19    3.16    3.13    3.10    3.07    3.04
    79.5............................................................    3.37    3.34    3.31    3.28    3.25    3.22    3.19    3.16    3.13    3.10    3.07
    80.0............................................................    3.41    3.38    3.35    3.32    3.29    3.26    3.23    3.20    3.16    3.13    3.10
    80.5............................................................    3.44    3.41    3.38    3.35    3.32    3.29    3.26    3.23    3.20    3.17    3.14
    81.0............................................................    3.48    3.45    3.41    3.38    3.35    3.32    3.29    3.26    3.23    3.20    3.17
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                 TABLE 4A.--FEMALES FEV1
                                            [80% of Predicted; Knudson 1983]
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                            Age
                   Ht.               -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        57      59      61      63      65      67      69      71      73      75
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    52.0............................    1.18    1.15    1.12    1.09    1.06    1.03    1.00    1.38    1.32    1.25
    52.5............................    1.22    1.19    1.16    1.13    1.10    1.07    1.04    1.39    1.33    1.27
    53.0............................    1.25    1.22    1.19    1.16    1.13    1.10    1.07    1.41    1.34    1.28
    53.5............................    1.29    1.26    1.23    1.19    1.16    1.13    1.10    1.42    1.36    1.30
    54.0............................    1.32    1.29    1.26    1.23    1.20    1.17    1.14    1.44    1.37    1.31
    54.5............................    1.35    1.32    1.29    1.26    1.23    1.20    1.17    1.45    1.39    1.32
    55.0............................    1.39    1.36    1.33    1.30    1.27    1.24    1.20    1.47    1.40    1.34
    55.5............................    1.42    1.39    1.36    1.33    1.30    1.27    1.24    1.48    1.42    1.35
    56.0............................    1.45    1.42    1.39    1.36    1.33    1.30    1.27    1.50    1.43    1.37
    56.5............................    1.49    1.46    1.43    1.40    1.37    1.34    1.31    1.51    1.45    1.38
    57.0............................    1.52    1.49    1.46    1.43    1.40    1.37    1.34    1.52    1.46    1.40
    57.5............................    1.56    1.53    1.50    1.46    1.43    1.40    1.37    1.54    1.48    1.41
    58.0............................    1.59    1.56    1.53    1.50    1.47    1.44    1.41    1.55    1.49    1.43
    58.5............................    1.62    1.59    1.56    1.53    1.50    1.47    1.44    1.57    1.50    1.44
    59.0............................    1.66    1.63    1.60    1.57    1.54    1.51    1.47    1.58    1.52    1.46
    59.5............................    1.69    1.66    1.63    1.60    1.57    1.54    1.51    1.60    1.53    1.47
    60.0............................    1.72    1.69    1.66    1.63    1.60    1.57    1.54    1.61    1.55    1.48
    60.5............................    1.76    1.73    1.70    1.67    1.64    1.61    1.58    1.63    1.56    1.50
    61.0............................    1.79    1.76    1.73    1.70    1.67    1.64    1.61    1.64    1.58    1.51
    61.5............................    1.83    1.80    1.76    1.73    1.70    1.67    1.64    1.66    1.59    1.53
    62.0............................    1.86    1.83    1.80    1.77    1.74    1.71    1.68    1.67    1.61    1.54
    62.5............................    1.89    1.86    1.83    1.80    1.77    1.74    1.71    1.68    1.62    1.56
    63.0............................    1.93    1.90    1.87    1.84    1.81    1.77    1.74    1.70    1.64    1.57
    63.5............................    1.96    1.93    1.90    1.87    1.84    1.81    1.78    1.71    1.65    1.59
    64.0............................    1.99    1.96    1.93    1.90    1.87    1.84    1.81    1.73    1.66    1.60
    64.5............................    2.03    2.00    1.97    1.94    1.91    1.88    1.85    1.74    1.68    1.62
    65.0............................    2.06    2.03    2.00    1.97    1.94    1.91    1.88    1.76    1.69    1.63
    65.5............................    2.10    2.07    2.03    2.00    1.97    1.94    1.91    1.77    1.71    1.64
    66.0............................    2.13    2.10    2.07    2.04    2.01    1.98    1.95    1.79    1.72    1.66
    66.5............................    2.16    2.13    2.10    2.07    2.04    2.01    1.98    1.80    1.74    1.67
    67.0............................    2.20    2.17    2.14    2.11    2.08    2.04    2.01    1.82    1.75    1.69
    67.5............................    2.23    2.20    2.17    2.14    2.11    2.08    2.05    1.83    1.77    1.70
    68.0............................    2.26    2.23    2.20    2.17    2.14    2.11    2.08    1.84    1.78    1.72
    68.5............................    2.30    2.27    2.24    2.21    2.18    2.15    2.12    1.86    1.80    1.73
    69.0............................    2.33    2.30    2.27    2.24    2.21    2.18    2.15    1.87    1.81    1.75
    69.5............................    2.37    2.34    2.30    2.27    2.24    2.21    2.18    1.89    1.82    1.76
    70.0............................    2.40    2.37    2.34    2.31    2.28    2.25    2.22    1.90    1.84    1.78
    70.5............................    2.43    2.40    2.37    2.34    2.31    2.28    2.25    1.92    1.85    1.79
    71.0............................    2.47    2.44    2.41    2.38    2.35    2.31    2.28    1.93    1.87    1.80
    71.5............................    2.50    2.47    2.44    2.41    2.38    2.35    2.32    1.95    1.88    1.82
    72.0............................    2.53    2.50    2.47    2.44    2.41    2.38    2.35    1.96    1.90    1.83
    72.5............................    2.57    2.54    2.51    2.48    2.45    2.42    2.39    1.97    1.91    1.85
    73.0............................    2.60    2.57    2.54    2.51    2.48    2.45    2.42    1.99    1.93    1.86
    73.5............................    2.64    2.60    2.57    2.54    2.51    2.48    2.45    2.00    1.94    1.88
    74.0............................    2.67    2.64    2.61    2.58    2.55    2.52    2.49    2.02    1.95    1.89
    74.5............................    2.70    2.67    2.64    2.61    2.58    2.55    2.52    2.03    1.97    1.91
    75.0............................    2.74    2.71    2.68    2.65    2.61    2.58    2.55    2.05    1.98    1.92
    75.5............................    2.77    2.74    2.71    2.68    2.65    2.62    2.59    2.06    2.00    1.93
    76.0............................    2.80    2.77    2.74    2.71    2.68    2.65    2.62    2.08    2.01    1.95
    76.5............................    2.84    2.81    2.78    2.75    2.72    2.69    2.66    2.09    2.03    1.96
    77.0............................    2.87    2.84    2.81    2.78    2.75    2.72    2.69    2.11    2.04    1.98
    77.5............................    2.91    2.87    2.84    2.81    2.78    2.75    2.72    2.12    2.06    1.99
    78.0............................    2.94    2.91    2.88    2.85    2.82    2.79    2.76    2.13    2.07    2.01
    78.5............................    2.97    2.94    2.91    2.88    2.85    2.82    2.79    2.15    2.09    2.02
    79.0............................    3.01    2.98    2.95    2.92    2.88    2.85    2.82    2.16    2.10    2.04
    79.5............................    3.04    3.01    2.98    2.95    2.92    2.89    2.86    2.18    2.11    2.05
    80.0............................    3.07    3.04    3.01    2.98    2.95    2.92    2.89    2.19    2.13    2.07
    80.5............................    3.11    3.08    3.05    3.02    2.99    2.96    2.93    2.21    2.14    2.08
    81.0............................    3.14    3.11    3.08    3.05    3.02    2.99    2.96    2.22    2.16    2.09
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Dated: March 11, 1999.
        Janet Reno,
        Attorney General.
        [FR Doc. 99-6524 Filed 3-19-99; 8:45 am]
        BILLING CODE 4410-12-P
                                     ______

                  Questions Submitted by Senator Slade Gorton
                                   microsoft
        Note.--For cost-related questions, responses include only charges
    incurred by the Antitrust Division. The Microsoft Corporation was,
    however, one of 23 plaintiffs in a case challenging the
    Telecommunications Act of 1996. The Civil Division defended that case.
    There is, however, no reliable means of determining the portion of the
    defense cost attributable to Microsoft. Also, Microsoft is one of 26
    defendants in a qui tam procurement fraud case being handled jointly by
    the Civil Division and the United States Attorney for the Eastern
    District of Texas. Again, the portion of costs attributable to
    Microsoft cannot reliably be determined. It is also possible that
    individual U.S. Attorney Offices may have handled matters involving
    Microsoft. A survey of these 93 offices has not been conducted in
    response to the questions presented, though such a review can be
    conducted if this information is necessary.
        Question. How much money has the DOJ spent investigating and
    litigating against Microsoft from 1990 to date? What percentage of the
    Department's total outlays for investigation and litigation during this
    period does it represent?
        Answer. Over the past approximately 9 and one-half years [from
    October 1, 1989 (the start of fiscal year 1990) through February 26,
    1999] the Department has spent $12.57 million investigating and
    litigating against the Microsoft Corporation. This includes such
    matters as the investigation and resulting civil action that culminated
    in a negotiated consent decree with Microsoft in 1995, the
    investigation and filing of a court case challenging Microsoft's
    acquisition of Intuit Inc. in 1996 (a proposed acquisition ultimately
    withdrawn by Microsoft), and the on-going litigation in U.S. District
    Court in Washington, D.C. The amount spent is .09 percent (nine one-
    hundredths of one percent) of the Department's total budget of $13.7
    billion for investigation and litigation by its litigating divisions
    from fiscal year 1990 to fiscal year 1999.
        Question. How much money did DOJ spend investigating and litigating
    against Microsoft in fiscal year 1998? What percentage of the
    Department's total outlays for investigation and litigation during this
    period does this represent? How many FTEs does this represent?
        Answer. In fiscal year 1998, the Department spent $4.76 million
    investigating and litigating against the Microsoft Corporation. This
    represents .29 percent (twenty-nine one-hundredths of one percent) of
    the Department's total budget of $1.65 billion for investigation and
    litigation by its litigating divisions in fiscal year 1998 and 17.96
    FTEs.
        Question. How much money did DOJ spend investigating and litigating
    against Microsoft in fiscal year 1999 through February 28, 1999? What
    percentage of the Department's total outlays for investigation and
    litigation during this period does this represent? How many FTEs does
    this represent?
        Answer. In fiscal year 1999 through February 26th (the latest date
    for which consolidated information is readily available), the
    Department spent $1.62 million investigating and litigating against the
    Microsoft Corporation. This represents .10 percent (one-tenth of one
    percent) of the Department's total budget of $1.64 billion for
    investigation and litigation by its litigating divisions in fiscal year
    1999 and 11.46 FTEs.
        Question. How much money does the DOJ anticipate spending
    investigating and litigating against Microsoft in fiscal year 1999 as a
    whole?
        Answer. In fiscal year 1999 the Department anticipates spending an
    additional $690,000 in connection with the pending case against the
    Microsoft Corporation.
        Question. In regard to the DOJ litigation against Microsoft that is
    currently pending in U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., please
    provide a detailed breakdown of DOJ expenditures on such litigation to
    date in the following categories:
        Expenditures for private lawyers to investigate and/or try the case
    against Microsoft. Please provide the full name of each outside lawyer,
    the lawyer's firm or other private affiliation, the lawyer's address
    and telephone number, the amount paid to the lawyer to date, and the
    tasks performed by the lawyer.
        Answer. From the initiation of this matter in June 1995 through the
    most recent compilation of cost information on February 26, 1999, the
    Department has paid $213,731 to private lawyers working under contract
    as litigation consultants. Litigation in this matter currently is
    ongoing, and the release of identifying information about contracted
    legal consultants is inappropriate at this time, as it reasonably can
    be expected that the disclosure of such information would reveal
    confidential information about the government's case.
        Question. Please provide a detailed breakdown of DOJ expenditures
    for private-sector economists and other private-sector experts to
    assist in investigating or litigating against Microsoft. Please provide
    the full name of each economist or other expert, the individual's
    outside affiliation, address and telephone number, the amount paid to
    the individual to date, and the tasks performed by the individual.
        Answer. From the initiation of this matter in June 1995 through the
    most recent compilation of cost information on February 26, 1999, the
    Department has paid $2,232,961 to private-sector economists and other
    private-sector experts working under contract as litigation consultants
    and testifying experts. Litigation in this matter currently is ongoing,
    and the release of identifying information about private-sector
    economists and experts is inappropriate at this time, as it reasonably
    can be expected that the disclosure of such information would reveal
    confidential information about the government's case.
        Question. Please provide a detailed breakdown of DOJ expenditures
    for public relations and public information activities such as issuing
    press releases, briefing members of the press, posting information on
    the internet, etc. Please provide a breakdown of cost by type of
    activity; also include time spent by full-time DOJ employees on public
    relations activities. In addition, please identify all employees, firms
    or individuals hired by DOJ to provide such communications services.
        Answer. From the filing of the complaint in May 1998 through the
    most recent compilation of cost information on February 26, 1999, the
    Department has paid $194,140 for public information activities,
    including making information available to the public as ordered by the
    Court and/or in accordance with Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)
    requirements. Of this amount, $147,381 was spent to make documents and
    information available to the public via the Internet, and $46,759 in
    salary costs were incurred for one career government employee in the
    Department's Office of Public Affairs working part-time on the matter
    to ensure that questions from the substantial number of media present
    at the trial were responded to promptly, and for one career government
    employee (a paralegal) in the Antitrust Division providing part-time
    support dealing with requests for Division information in respect to
    this litigation. No employees, firms or individuals were hired by DOJ
    to provide the communications services referred to in the question.
        Question. Please provide a detailed breakdown of DOJ expenditures
    for travel for DOJ employees, outside counsel, consultants, or other
    agents to meet with individuals or companies with respect to the
    Microsoft matter. Please provide a breakdown of all such travel,
    including who represented the DOJ or its interests, the other
    individuals or parties participating, the dates of the meetings, and
    the cost of the travel involved.
        Answer. Over approximately the past four years (from the initiation
    of this matter in June 1995 through the most recent compilation of cost
    information on February 26, 1999) the Department has paid $233,100 in
    travel for DOJ employees to enable them to meet with individuals or
    companies with respect to the Microsoft matter currently pending in
    U.S. District Court. Travel costs by individuals under contract to the
    Department are included in the costs of these contracts as identified
    above. Litigation in this matter currently is ongoing, and the release
    of identifying information about travel related to the Microsoft matter
    is inappropriate at this time, as it reasonably can be expected that
    the disclosure of such information would reveal confidential
    information about the government's case.
        Question. Please explain the justification for paying the salaries
    and benefits of full-time litigation attorneys in the Antitrust
    Division, and then also hiring attorneys from private practice to
    litigate cases brought by the Division on behalf of the United States.
        Answer. The Antitrust Division periodically retains outside
    attorneys to supplement its full-time staff of attorneys for a number
    of reasons. In some instances, outside counsel has unique experience in
    investigating or litigating a particular type of matter. In others,
    such counsel are immediately available to provide short-term services
    in periods of very high work demands when the Division's full-time
    staff is fully occupied handling other matters. In these circumstances,
    using outside counsel can reduce expenditures in the long-term, because
    it permits the Division to perform necessary work without making a
    commitment to hire additional full-time staff.
        Question. Please explain in what specific respects the Antitrust
    Division's full-time litigation attorneys are not competent to litigate
    the cases brought by the Division on behalf of the United States.
        Answer. The Antitrust Division's full-time litigation attorneys are
    quite competent to handle the vast majority of cases brought by the
    Division on behalf of the United States. In some circumstances,
    however, a particular matter may require specialized expertise and
    experience, and Division attorneys with that expertise and experience
    may not be available to handle the matter.
        Question. Please explain what steps are being taken by the DOJ and
    the Antitrust Division to correct these deficiencies and to eliminate
    the need to hire attorneys from private practice to litigate cases
    brought by the Division on behalf of the U.S.
        Answer. The Department of Justice and the Antitrust Division engage
    in extensive efforts to hire and train highly competent counsel to
    represent the United States. But it would not be cost-effective,
    prudent or practical for the Division to maintain such a large full-
    time complement of lawyers that every conceivable need for attorney
    services could be met by the Division, regardless of the Division's
    workload.
        Question. Please also explain the justification for paying the
    salaries and benefits of full-time economists in the Antitrust
    Division, and then hiring outside economists to work on the Division's
    cases.
        Answer. The Antitrust Division periodically retains outside
    economists to supplement its full-time staff of economists for a number
    of reasons. In some instances, an outside economist may have unique
    experience in analyzing a particular type of matter. In others, it may
    be necessary to have as an expert witness a well-qualified economist
    who is not employed by the Department of Justice.
        Question. Has the Antitrust Division consulted with private-sector
    economists or other private-sector experts regarding possible remedies
    in the pending Microsoft case?
        Answer. Yes. The Antitrust Division has consulted with private-
    sector economists or other private-sector experts regarding possible
    remedies in the pending Microsoft case.
        Question. Please identify any such economists or other experts. Has
    the Antitrust Division paid, or will the Division pay, compensation to
    any such economist or other expert for his or her advice? If so, please
    identify each economist or other expert who has received or will
    receive compensation and the amount he or she has received or will
    receive.
        Answer. The Division has paid and will pay, its consultants for
    their services. Litigation in this matter currently is ongoing, and the
    release of identifying information about such economists or other
    experts is inappropriate at this time, as it reasonably can be expected
    that the disclosure of such information would interfere with the
    Division's decision-making process.
        Question. Has the Antitrust Division convened any task force,
    committee, meeting or other working group (formal or informal) that
    includes private-sector economists, employees or executives with any
    high-tech company, trade association representatives, or other private-
    sector experts to consider, discuss and/or formulate possible remedies
    in the Microsoft case? If so, please identify each member of such task
    force, committee, meeting or other working group. Please describe the
    purpose of such task force, committee or other working group, and
    please describe the process or procedures by which the task force,
    committee or other working group is going about accomplishing that
    purpose. Please provide the dates and locations of all meetings of such
    task force, committee or other working group, including the dates of
    all scheduled future meetings. Has the DOJ complied with all applicable
    federal laws requiring public notice and opportunity to comment on the
    activities of this committee, task force or working group?
        Answer. No, the Antitrust Division has not convened any such task
    force, committee, meeting or other working group. It has, however,
    retained the services of consultants (including economists) to assist
    it in evaluating various remedies options, and Division personnel have
    met with those consultants to discuss their work. In addition, Division
    personnel have met with interested parties (including high-tech
    companies and trade association representatives) to hear their views
    regarding possible remedies.
        Question. Has the DOJ hired or consulted with any public relations
    or publicity experts in connection with the Microsoft case? If so,
    please provide the names of any such public relations or publicity
    personnel hired by the DOJ as full-time government employees, together
    with a description of their duties and the amounts paid to them. Please
    also identify any outside public relations or publicity firms or
    experts hired by the DOJ in connection with the Microsoft case, and
    provide a description of their duties and the amounts paid to them.
        Answer. No, the DOJ has not hired or consulted with any such
    experts in relation to the Microsoft case.
                                     ______

               Questions Submitted by Senator Frank R. Lautenberg
                                  gun violence
        Question. There is a startling statistic in your opening
    statement--everyday in this country, 93 people die from gun-related
    injuries. That's about 34,000 deaths a year. That's the kind of body
    count you get during a war. For example, 33,651 Americans were killed
    during the entire Korean War. This must stop. For too long we have let
    the gun extremists define the debate at the expense of reasonable and
    common sense gun regulations. The powerful few over at the NRA and the
    politicians who toe their line keep misrepresenting the 2nd Amendment.
        As former Chief Justice Warren Burger has said, the NRA's constant
    distortion of the 2nd Amendment is a ``fraud on the American public.''
    Remember, that's a Supreme Court Justice speaking--not only an expert
    on the law, but a conservative who was appointed by President Richard
    Nixon.
        We cannot let the NRA destroy other rights. We need to protect the
    right of children to be free from violence and terror. And what about
    the right of taxpayers who pay billions of dollars in health care costs
    to take care of victims?
        I have introduced legislation that will help taxpayers recover
    these costs--it's called the Gun Industry Accountability Act. Many
    mayors across the country--the local officials who face the everyday
    problems--are fighting back against the gun lobbyists.
        They are saying that gun manufacturers and dealers must take
    responsibility for their product, just like other industries whether
    it's cars, aspirin, or toasters.
        In addition to helping the cities and states with their lawsuits,
    my bill would also allow the Federal Government to participate in this
    effort--as it has with tobacco.
        Is the Department of Justice considering working with cities and
    states in the effort to hold gun manufacturers and dealers accountable
    for their actions?
        Answer. We are following the cities' suits closely. We are also
    reviewing the various legislative proposals that have been introduced
    in Congress, including your bill, in response to the lawsuits filed by
    cities against gun manufacturers. While we have not taken a formal
    position on these proposals, in general, we are supportive of efforts
    to specifically allow cities to have their day in court on these
    issues.
                             childproof handgun act
        Question. Your budget proposal includes $4 million for the National
    Institute of Justice to support a new Childproof Gun and Gun Detection
    Technology Program. I commend this effort to make weapons safer.
        But I think that many people are not aware of the existing
    technologies that are available to make guns safer. Since 1976, more
    than 30 patents have been granted for various technologies that will
    prevent a handgun from being fired by anyone except the authorized
    user. For example, the SafTLok company in Florida manufactures a push-
    button combination lock that is incorporated into the grip of a
    handgun. If the buttons are not pushed in the proper sequence, the gun
    will not fire. These locks sell for $80 each, and the Boston police
    department recently announced that these locks will be standard
    equipment for its officers.
        Similarly, the Fulton Arms company in Texas has developed a
    revolver that cannot be fired unless the user is wearing a magnetic
    ring.
        And Colt Manufacturing in Connecticut has used a grant from the
    Federal Government to design a prototype handgun that emits a radio
    signal and cannot be fired unless the user is wearing a small
    transponder that returns a coded radio signal. Because this technology
    exists today, I have introduced the Childproof Handgun Act. It would
    require that all handguns be engineered so that they can only be fired
    by an authorized user. To give manufacturers time to comply, this
    requirement would not go into effect until three years after the bill
    is enacted.
        In many other areas, the Federal Government has taken steps to
    protect consumer safety: cars are now sold with seat belts and airbags,
    and aspirin bottles have childproof caps. It is hard to understand how
    anyone can oppose similar safety measures for deadly weapons. The time
    has come to hold firearm manufacturers to a higher standard of safety.
        You probably have not had a chance to review this legislation, but
    would you please review it and get back to me with any recommendations?
        Answer. The National Institute of Justice (NIJ) has reviewed S.
    319, the Childproof Handgun Act of 1999. NIJ notes that the Act does
    not address the need for development and implementation of performance
    standards for gun safety technologies and independent locking devices.
    In addition, the Act does not make any provision for mandatory
    evaluation of the gun safety technologies or locking devices.
        NIJ recommends that these areas be addressed. Currently, there are
    no performance standards to ensure that the gun safety technologies and
    locking devices actually function as intended.
                                  flatow case
        Question. We all share an interest in combating terrorism. To this
    end, Congress has passed legislation allowing the victims of terrorism,
    or their families, to sue the state sponsors of these heinous crimes.
    Steve Flatow won a $247 million judgment against Iran for its role in
    the suicide bombing which killed his daughter Alisa.
        However, he has not been able to collect on this judgment in part
    because the Civil Division at Justice has opposed his efforts in court.
    Could you review this matter with National Security advisor Sandy
    Berger and any other State or Treasury Department officials so that our
    government will be working with Steve Flatow instead of against him?
        Answer. The Administration conveys its deepest sympathy to the
    families, including the Flatows, who have lost loved ones as a result
    of terrorist acts. The United States Government has been unrelenting in
    its efforts to combat state-sponsored terrorism and has attempted to
    assist Mr. Flatow in a manner consistent with important national
    security and long-standing foreign policy objectives. The United States
    Government has provided Mr. Flatow with approximately 5,000 pages of
    information, which may lead to the identification of assets that are
    unblocked and potentially available for attachment.
        The United States has, however, filed Statements of Interest
    opposing efforts to attach certain kinds of assets, when important
    national security and foreign policy interests are implicated. The
    legal positions taken by the United States in these Statements of
    Interest have been developed in consultation with the State and
    Treasury Departments. Specifically, the United States is opposing the
    attachment of diplomatic and consular property--property which remains
    blocked under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA)
    and regulations promulgated thereunder. Such attachments would
    interfere with the ability of the United States to abide by its treaty
    obligations, specifically, the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic
    Relations (VCDR) and the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations
    (VCCR). If foreign diplomatic or consular property in the United States
    is not protected from attachment or garnishment, then the United States
    risks exposing its diplomatic and consular property abroad to similar
    actions--a result that could seriously undermine the national security
    of the United States. In addition, allowing the attachment of blocked
    property would deprive the President of what the Supreme Court has
    recognized to be a ``critical'' tool to be used when dealing with a
    hostile country.
        The United States is also opposing efforts to attach federal funds
    to be used to satisfy an award issued by the Iran-U.S. Claims Tribunal
    against the United States. The Tribunal was established pursuant to the
    Algiers Accords--an international agreement between the United States
    and Iran, which led to the release of the 52 hostages seized at the
    American Embassy in Teheran in 1979. Not only does the attachment of
    federal funds raise important legal issues, such as the doctrine of
    sovereign immunity, but the delay occasioned by the attachment has been
    used by Iran in an effort to undermine United States' claims against
    Iran before the Tribunal. These and other important issues should be
    resolved by the Courts.
        Even though the United States has opposed efforts to attach certain
    types of property, we continue to assist Mr. Flatow and other
    plaintiffs. We are working with the relevant agencies, including the
    Treasury and State Departments and the National Security Council, to
    identify additional information that my be provided to assist
    plaintiffs further in locating unblocked assets that are legally
    available for attachment.
                            expanding dna technology
        Question. Recently, we have seen a number of criminals apprehended
    because of advances in DNA technology. At the same time, we have seen a
    number of innocent people freed from prison, including some on death
    row, because of new DNA evidence. So, DNA technology has become
    critically important in not just catching criminals, but in also
    ensuring that the right person is being charged with a crime. I notice
    that the budget includes $14.5 million for FBI law enforcement services
    including the federal offender DNA database.
        Can you tell us more about this database and what additional funds
    might be needed so that we can take full advantage of DNA technology?
        Answer. The 1998 Justice Appropriations Act directed the FBI to
    provide a plan to Congress to support the implementation of a program
    that requires a federal prisoner convicted of a criminal offense
    involving a victim who is a minor or a sexually violent offense to
    provide a DNA sample for inclusion in a law enforcement database prior
    to the prisoner's release from incarceration. The FBI plan for Congress
    included draft legislation needed to implement the plan. That plan to
    develop the Federal Convicted Offender DNA Database (FCODD) was
    submitted in December 1998 and would be implemented upon receiving
    legislative authority and funding.
        All 50 states have now passed legislation that authorizes law
    enforcement agencies to take blood samples from felons convicted of
    specific offenses. The offenses vary from state to state, however, the
    DNA profiles created from these blood samples are all placed in the
    Combined DNA Indexing System (CODIS) database. The CODIS database is a
    national database shared by all state and federal law enforcement
    agencies. Currently, no DNA profiles from any individuals convicted of
    federal offenses are included in the CODIS database. The FCODD will
    provide DNA profiles from federally-convicted felons to be included as
    part of the national CODIS database.
        The FCODD will monitor sample receipt and disposition and include
    information about the sample contributor, i.e., name, sample's CODIS
    number, and date the sample was analyzed. The FBI Laboratory will
    consult and coordinate the collection of DNA samples with all affected
    agencies. Procedures for the collection of samples specify promulgation
    of each agency's responsibility in regulations. The FBI Laboratory is
    assuming responsibility for costs associated with providing DNA samples
    collection kits, DNA analysis and input of DNA data into the CODIS
    database.
        The FBI requests $5.3 million to implement the FCODD and personnel
    to manage and type federally-convicted offender samples in fiscal year
    2000. After establishment of the FCODD, there will be out year
    requirements to maintain the program, including funding for equipment
    such as genetic analyzers, analytical workstations, freezers, and
    thermal cyclers to improve operation of the FCODD; reagents to create
    DNA profiles of the estimated 15,000 federally-convicted offenders; and
    operational maintenance for the FCODD.
        The fiscal year 2000 budget also proposes $4.2 million to improve
    interconnectivity between the FBI Laboratory and State and local crime
    laboratories using the CODIS and National Integrated Ballistic Imaging
    Network (NIBIN).
        Only $9,500,000 is requested in 2000 for FBI law enforcement
    services. The additional $5,000,000 referenced in the question is for
    lab equipment for the new FBI Laboratory and is listed under the FBI
    infrastructure initiative.
                               domestic terrorism
        Question. On January 25th of the year, the anniversary of Roe v.
    Wade, Hillary Rodham Clinton spoke to member of the pro-choice
    community and called the rising tide of abortion clinic violence and
    the murder of doctors who provide abortions ``domestic terrorism.''
    Indeed, abortion clinics are subject to bombings, arson, acid attacks
    and raids which damage property and injure clinic employees. And health
    care providers are murdered for helping women to exercise their
    constitutionally protected right to choose.
        How does the Justice Department define ``domestic terrorism?''
        Answer. The Department of Justice defines terrorism as ``conduct
    constituting a potential violation of federal criminal law, undertaken
    by an individual or group seeking to further political or social goals,
    wholly or in part, through threats or use of force or violence.'' As
    this definition could cover both international terrorism and domestic
    terrorism, one further factor must be added to differentiate between
    the two.
        Domestic terrorist groups or individuals reside or operate in the
    United States without foreign direction or support.
        Question. Would you consider that eradicating ``domestic
    terrorism'' is one of the Justice Department's highest priorities?
        Answer. Deterring, detecting and preventing acts of domestic
    terrorism is one of the Department of Justice's and FBI's highest
    priorities.
        Question. Would you consider the rising tide of violence directed
    at health care clinics that provide abortion, among other reproductive
    services, and the murders of health care providers who work at those
    clinics ``domestic terrorism?'' If so, do you believe that the highest
    level of resources should be allocated to investigate and prosecute the
    perpetrators of those violent crimes?
        Answer. Attacks on clinics that provide abortions can be considered
    the unlawful use of force or violence in the furtherance of a political
    or social objective, and therefore, an act of domestic terrorism.
    However, there are also incidents of clinic violence that are
    perpetrated for personal vengeance or some other basis that would not
    constitute an act of terrorism. Several factors are incorporated into
    the determination to designate abortion violence as an act of
    terrorism, including, but not limited to, the incident's relationship
    to any ongoing cases; any previous related threats or subsequent claims
    of responsibility; the nature of the target; the timing of the event;
    the size and complexity of an explosive device if used; utilization of
    any secondary devices; and relationship, if any, to a diversionary
    device. Whether investigated as a violation of the Freedom of Access to
    Clinical Entrances Act or an act of domestic terrorism, the Department
    of Justice responds to incidents involving abortion clinic violence
    with all necessary resources to successfully identify and prosecute
    those individuals who carry out these violent crimes.
                                     ______

                Questions Submitted by Senator Patrick J. Leahy
                   prior unanswered questions--doj oversight
        Question. What is the status of the Department's responses to the
    written questions I submitted in connection with the Judiciary
    Committee's July 15, 1998 hearing on ``Department of Justice
    Oversight''?
        Answer. In response to Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Hatch's
    September 14, 1998 request, Acting Assistant Attorney General Dennis K.
    Burke provided responses from the Department of Justice to written
    questions submitted for the Attorney General on March 11, 1999.
                      independent counsels' accountability
        Question. The Department filed court papers on March 8, 1999,
    defending your oversight authority to investigate allegations of
    misconduct by special prosecutor Kenneth Starr. You note in those
    papers that ``inherent in your removal power'' is the authority to
    investigate and assure that the independent counsel is competently
    performing his or her duties in a manner that comports with the law.
    The Department also states that ``the ability to determine the
    pertinent facts is a prerequisite to responsible and effective exercise
    of that authority.'' Would full and complete access to independent
    counsels' expenditures help the Department fulfill its oversight
    responsibility of independent counsels?
        Answer. While any and all additional information about an
    Independent Counsel's investigation could serve to better inform the
    Attorney General about the conduct of an Independent Counsel and
    possible grounds for removal, direct oversight of an Independent
    Counsel's budget alone would be unlikely to reveal the kind of
    misconduct or misfeasance that would be reasonably expected to result
    in removal, unless that misconduct involved abuse of finances. It
    should also be noted that such close budget oversight may arguably
    limit an Independent Counsel's independence.
           communications assistance for law enforcement act (calea)
        Question. To avoid further delays in CALEA compliance, should
    Congress resolve the ongoing dispute between the Department and the
    telecommunications industry and make the determination whether certain
    punch-list items being requested by the Department are simply too
    expensive?
        Answer. Congressional action is not suggested at this time. The
    Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has already tentatively
    concluded that five of the nine capabilities in dispute are indeed
    required by CALEA. The Department hopes that the remaining
    capabilities, when thoughtfully considered by the FCC, will also be
    determined to be required under CALEA. The ``punch-list'' represents a
    small, but vitally important, set of capabilities to law enforcement.
    The ``punch-list'' capabilities are grounded in existing electronic
    surveillance legislation. With respect to your concern over the expense
    of individual capabilities, the Department believes that Congress
    considered that possibility by incorporating the ``reasonably
    achievable'' provision into section 109 of CALEA. In those instances
    where a carrier may not be able to comply with CALEA, the legislation
    allows those carriers to petition the FCC to determine whether
    compliance with the assistance capability requirements of CALEA is
    ``reasonably achievable.''
        Furthermore, the Department remains sensitive to the fact that,
    based on the individual architecture of telecommunications equipment
    and the services made available by that equipment, not all
    manufacturers will be able to meet all technical requirements in the
    same way. The Department and the entire law enforcement community
    understand that reality and firmly believe that it is important for the
    FCC to establish the baseline functionality required by CALEA and the
    underlying electronic surveillance statutes. Only after a baseline of
    capabilities is established should the FCC consider individual carrier
    circumstances in relation to the cost of implementing CALEA.
        The Department is not asking for any capability that is not allowed
    for under CALEA and under existing electronic surveillance statutes. In
    fact, the Department conducted an exhaustive legal analysis prior to
    petitioning the FCC, and determined that each of the nine capabilities
    currently in dispute is clearly within law enforcement's statutory
    authority. Furthermore, the urgency to protect law enforcement's
    ability to conduct lawfully-authorized electronic surveillance has not
    diminished. The Department is simply attempting to ensure that
    capabilities developed by the telecommunications industry are lawful
    and consistent with the intent of CALEA. It is the belief of the
    Department that the telecommunications industry should not develop an
    electronic surveillance capability that falls short of the requirements
    of the rules of evidence.
        Question. The Attorney General has estimated that ``[i]n excess of
    $2 billion would likely be needed'' to cover the costs of modifying
    equipment to comply with the surveillance capability sought by the
    Department. Telecommunications carriers estimate that the costs
    associated with the punch-list items being requested by the Department
    for both the wireless and wireline industry are in excess of $5
    billion.
        If estimates by either the Attorney General or the industry are
    correct, would the FCC exercise its discretion appropriately if it were
    to determine that CALEA compliance is not reasonably achievable due to
    the costs associated with compliance?
        Answer. The Department believes that Congress considered that the
    cost associated with compliance with CALEA may be out of reach for some
    carriers by incorporating the ``reasonably achievable'' provision into
    section 109 of CALEA. In those instances where a carrier may not be
    able to comply with CALEA, the legislation allows those carriers to
    petition the FCC to determine whether compliance with the assistance
    capability requirements of CALEA is ``reasonably achievable.''
        The $2 billion referred to by the Attorney General is the estimate
    of government liability if the January 1, 1995, reimbursement
    eligibility date were to be changed. Many in the telecommunications
    industry would have the Congress change the January 1, 1995,
    reimbursement eligibility date so that the burden of deploying the
    vital capabilities of CALEA would shift to the government. Government
    estimates for modifying equipment, facilities and services installed or
    deployed prior to the current eligibility date of January 1, 1995,
    suggest the cost of implementing CALEA is less than $1 billion.
        On May 7, 1999, the FCC released a Public Notice seeking comment on
    aggregated cost data submitted by five telecommunications equipment
    manufacturers. The data concerned revenue estimates for software;
    certain hardware; and, upgrades to switching equipment that
    manufacturers plan to sell to wireline, cellular, and broadband
    Personal Communications Services (PCS) carriers to meet the assistance
    capability requirements of CALEA. Specifically, the manufacturers
    provided revenue information to upgrade existing equipment with
    capabilities to meet the requirements of the industry's interim
    standard, J-STD-025, as well as estimates for the additional nine
    ``punch list'' capabilities.
        The Department believes that the manufacturers' revenue estimates
    can be relevant to the FCC's task to define technical requirements of
    CALEA, to the extent that they can help the FCC identify the least
    expensive methods of curing particular deficiencies in the industry's
    standard. However, Congress has not authorized the FCC to delete any
    assistance capability obligations from CALEA, on the grounds that it
    would cost ``too much.'' Any ruling by the FCC that discards certain
    capabilities on the grounds that they would cost ``too much'' would not
    meet the assistance capability requirements of CALEA's section 103.
        The FCC, in carrying out its section 107 responsibilities, must
    determine whether the industry's technical standard, J-STD-025, is
    deficient as a means of meeting the assistance capability requirements
    of CALEA's section 103. If the FCC determines the industry standard to
    be deficient in meeting CALEA's assistance capability requirements, it
    must adopt technical standards that meet those requirements. Section
    107(b) does not empower the FCC to remove assistance capability
    requirements from section 103 on the grounds that they would be
    financially burdensome for any particular carrier or the industry as a
    whole. Rather, CALEA addresses compliance burdens elsewhere, by
    providing that individual carriers with a demonstrated need may secure
    individual exemptions under section 109(b) of CALEA. The costs involved
    in providing the required assistance capabilities are relevant to the
    FCC's task, only with regard to choosing the means by which any
    identified deficiencies will be corrected.
        Question. In the event that compliance is not reasonably achievable
    due to the costs, the law directs that equipment, facilities and
    services will be deemed to be in compliance unless the government
    provides funds to pay for compliance. If the FCC determines that CALEA
    compliance with the punch-list items are not reasonably achievable due
    to the costs, is the Department prepared to seek additional
    authorization and appropriations to pay for compliance?
        Answer. The FCC is not currently considering whether compliance
    with CALEA is ``reasonably achievable.'' Rather, the FCC is considering
    the Department of Justice (DOJ)/FBI petition which highlights the
    capabilities missing from the current industry technical standard. The
    Department and FBI believe that the missing capabilities make the
    standard deficient in meeting the assistance capability requirements of
    section 103 of CALEA. As stated in the DOJ/FBI petition, the ability of
    an individual carrier to meet the assistance capability requirements
    can be considered by the FCC pursuant to that carrier filing a
    ``reasonably achievable'' petition pursuant to section 109 of CALEA.
        The $500 million authorized by Congress was intended to address law
    enforcement's priority electronic surveillance needs on equipment,
    facilities and services installed or deployed prior to January 1, 1995.
    Based on current information available from manufacturers of
    telecommunications equipment, the Department believes that most of law
    enforcement's priority needs can indeed be met with the current level
    of authorization.
        In the event that a large number of carriers petition the FCC with
    the claim that compliance with CALEA is not ``reasonably achievable,''
    and the service areas of those carriers coincide with law enforcement's
    lawfully-authorized electronic surveillance priorities, the Department
    will promptly bring the matter to the attention of Congress for
    resolution.
                           federal tobacco litigation
        Question. If the Federal Government wants to recover its costs for
    tobacco-related diseases, the appropriate avenue to do that is a
    federal lawsuit, not a raid on the multi-state tobacco settlement. To
    the extent you are able in a public forum, please provide an update on
    the Department of Justice's litigation plan against the tobacco
    industry.
        Answer. The Department is evaluating the legal and factual
    predicates that may support liability to the United States for its
    costs incurred as a result of the use of tobacco products. We
    previously have identified several statutory bases for such lawsuits,
    including the Medical Care Recovery Act (MCRA), 42 U.S.C.A., sec. 2651,
    et seq., and the Medicare Secondary Payer Act (MSPA), 42 U.S.C.
    Sec. 1395y(b). These are not the only bases that the Department is
    considering for a potential lawsuit. Since this process is on-going,
    however, we cannot provide additional information at this time.
                             prison building funds
        Question. The Department's budget includes over $500 million to
    construct more detention facilities to detain individuals who are
    awaiting deportation, often for non-violent crimes that may have
    occurred many years ago.
        How, if at all, are the mandatory detention requirements enacted as
    part of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act
    of 1996 responsible for the Department's request for funds for
    additional detention facilities?
        Answer. The fiscal year 2000 request for the Bureau of Prisons
    Buildings and Facilities Appropriation contains $20 million for site
    and planning costs for 3 facilities to assume the non-removable
    criminal alien population from the Immigration and Naturalization
    Service (INS). These INS detainees are deportable criminal aliens whose
    countries have refused to issue travel documents allowing for their
    return. The mandatory detention requirements, which were enacted as
    part of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act
    of 1996, are not the primary reason for this request.
        INS is requesting resources for the construction of additional
    detention space, or contract bedspace, to support the detention of
    aliens in federally-owned or contracted space, rather than continuing
    to rely heavily on the use of Inter-Governmental Service Agreements
    (IGSAs) to use state and local beds. Since 1996, INS' need for
    additional detention space has resulted in an increase in the use of
    IGSAs by 126 percent (3,281 to 7,430). Additionally, INS is detaining
    more criminal aliens, often violent criminals, and must upgrade many
    facilities to accommodate this criminal alien population. Older INS
    Service Processing Centers consist mostly of dormitory style, open bay
    areas. Newer facilities and upgraded facilities consist of more single
    and double style cells, which are more appropriate to detain the
    current and forecasted detainee populations.
        Question. Are the mandatory detention requirements of the Illegal
    Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 an
    effective crime prevention strategy and use of Department funds?
        Answer. The mandatory detention requirements of the Illegal
    Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 are not
    necessarily an effective crime prevention strategy since the mandatory
    detention requirements, in many cases, force the detention of
    individuals who are not a danger to their communities, and who could be
    released. The use of Department funds in these cases is often not an
    effective use of resources.
        Currently, INS is examining legislative proposals to provide for
    the expansion of the Attorney General's discretion to release aliens
    from custody by amending section 236(c) of the Immigration and
    Nationality Act. A limited expansion of release authority would provide
    the Attorney General with enhanced flexibility in determining how to
    use limited detention space. While detention of aliens convicted of
    crimes is a top priority, it is also important to detain some non-
    criminals in order to provide a deterrent to prospective illegal border
    crossers, and to support enforcement efforts across the southern land
    border, and in INS' interior enforcement operations.
        Question. Would the Department support a change in federal law to
    return greater discretion to immigration adjudicators and federal
    judges to determine which individuals are a threat to their community
    or are likely to flee if not detained?
        Answer. The Department would support a change in federal law to
    return greater discretion to immigration officers to determine which
    individuals are a threat to their community, or are likely to flee, if
    not detained. This discretion should rest with the Attorney General.
    Currently, almost all criminal aliens must be detained under INA
    section 236(c) during their immigration proceedings.
        The Department wishes to work with Congress on the issue of an
    amendment to section 236(c) expanding the Attorney General's authority
    to release from custody low-risk aliens who have been lawfully admitted
    to the United States, cannot be removed, or who are cooperating with a
    criminal investigation. Release would only be allowed where the alien
    demonstrates, by clear and convincing evidence, that he or she does not
    pose a danger to the public, or is not a flight risk. This limited
    expansion of release authority would provide the Attorney General
    enhanced flexibility in determining how to best use limited detention
    space.
                                   encryption
        Question. The Department has requested $9.63 million and 13
    positions to develop technological capabilities to obtain access to
    plaintext in investigations where encryption is encountered. At the
    same time, the Department and the FBI are seeking additional positions
    and funding for the National Infrastructure Protection and Computer
    Intrusion Program (NIPCIP), the Computer Analysis and Response Teams
    (CART), and for Network Data Interception. Please explain fully the
    function and responsibilities of the agents assigned to each of these
    programs.
        Answer. The counter-encryption program, the network data
    interception program, and the Computer Analysis Response Teams (CART)
    are technical support programs that provide investigative and forensic
    tools and services to the NIPCIP, other FBI field agents, and other law
    enforcement agencies. The relationship of these programs to
    investigations can be explained in the following example. An
    investigation determines that the Internet is being used by a suspect
    for criminal activity. The FBI obtains a court order to conduct an
    electronic surveillance of the suspect's account. To conduct this
    intercept, the FBI requires the capability of the network data
    intercept program so that the service to other network users is not
    affected by the court-authorized intercept. While collecting the
    information from the suspect's account, the FBI discovers that the
    suspect uses encryption to hide or mask illegal activities. The
    counter-encryption program will allow the FBI to gain plain-text from
    the encrypted communications. The investigation proceeds and an arrest
    warrant is issued. The FBI arrests the suspect and conducts a lawful
    search of the suspect's residence, at which time several computers are
    found. The CART program provides the FBI with the capability of
    examining the computers, hard drives, and related storage media in
    order to identify and analyze the evidence. Again, if the computer
    files are encrypted, the counter-encryption program can help gain
    plain-text access. Each of these techniques represent a critical set of
    highly specialized tools needed by the FBI to conduct investigations
    committed against, or facilitated by, computers, networks, and related
    technology.
        The purpose of the counter-encryption initiative is to ensure the
    FBI and other law enforcement agencies can counter encryption schemes
    used by criminals, terrorists, and others committing illegal acts to
    thwart lawfully-authorized Title III interceptions. This initiative
    will provide the law enforcement community with the technical
    capability to analyze and process signals, conduct protocol analysis,
    encryption recognition, data format and compression technique
    identification, and decryption. This will be accomplished, in part, by
    providing equipment and technical assistance to law enforcement
    agencies.
        The National Infrastructure Protection Center's (NIPC) mission is
    to detect, prevent, and respond to cyber and physical attacks on the
    nation's critical infrastructure and to oversee FBI computer crime
    investigations conducted in the field. In addition, NIPC analyzes and
    provides warnings of electronic threats and vulnerabilities to the
    infrastructure operators and investigates, analyzes, and responds to
    electronic attacks on the infrastructure should they occur. The Center
    is composed of representatives from multiple government agencies such
    as DOD, NSA, DOE, and CIA as well as federal and state law enforcement,
    including the U.S. Secret Service, the U.S. Postal Service, and the
    Oregon State Police. The National Infrastructure Protection and
    Computer Intrusion (NIPCI) field squads manage intrusion investigations
    and support other computer related investigations associated with FBI's
    criminal investigative and national security responsibilities. The
    fiscal year 2000 budget requests an increase of $1,656,000 for NIPC to
    conduct additional training, liaison, and outreach. In addition,
    $11,390,000 is requested to create 18 new NIPCI field squads and equip
    teams in the smaller field offices to establish baseline intrusion
    response and high technology capabilities in all field offices.
        CART provides primarily a forensics function, facilitating the
    search, seizure and examination of magnetic and optical media recovered
    from computers pursuant to law enforcement searches and seizures. In
    doing so, CART examiners participate in searches, catalog items of
    evidence, examine items of evidence, and testify in court. CART, which
    serves all investigative programs, provides services through a
    headquarters element in the FBI Laboratory and a network of field
    examiners located throughout most of the FBI field offices. Currently,
    field agents trained as CART examiners perform these duties on a part-
    time basis. Due to increased demand for these services, the fiscal year
    2000 budget proposes 79 full-time, non-agent examiners.
        The network data interception initiative focuses on ensuring the
    FBI's ability to collect, pursuant to Title III or Foreign Intelligence
    Surveillance Act (FISA) authority, evidence and/or intelligence from
    data networks (including the Internet) in support of criminal law
    enforcement and national security investigations. Due to the complex
    technology involved, network intercepts can be very difficult and
    require specialized techniques. Network intercept assistance is
    provided, as needed, by a small group of technically-trained agents and
    engineers assigned to the FBI Laboratory. This funding will allow the
    FBI to examine existing, emerging and future data network
    communications technologies, conduct research, and develop solutions to
    ensure the ability to perform court-authorized electronic surveillance
    on network technologies. This is accomplished, in part, by long-term
    and strategic efforts to develop data network communications
    interception and collection equipment, industry liaison to provide
    awareness of law enforcement's electronic surveillance requirements,
    and the provision of onsite field support and expertise.
        Question. Please explain fully how each of these programs is
    coordinated with functions and activities of each other.
        Answer. The CART, counter-encryption, and data network intercept
    programs are all managed by the FBI Laboratory, Engineering Research
    Facility. As a result, programs are able to coordinate efforts, share
    technology and techniques, and avoid duplication of effort.
        NIPCIP squads are managed by the NIPC. NIPC is a headquarters
    component that maintains close coordination with the FBI Laboratory,
    which it depends on for technical and forensic services.
        Question. Please explain fully how each of these programs is
    coordinated with the functions and activities of the Field Computer
    Investigations and Infrastructure Threat Assessment (CITA) Squads and
    the Computer Investigations and Infrastructure Threat Assessment Center
    (CITAC).
        Answer. In February 1998, the Attorney General authorized the
    expansion of the FBI's Computer Investigations and Infrastructure
    Threat Assessment (CITAC) into a Government-wide National
    Infrastructure Protection Center (NIPC). The FBI's former Computer
    Investigations and Infrastructure Threat Assessment (CITA) squads are
    now called National Infrastructure Protection and Computer Intrusion
    (NIPCI) squads, and are managed by the NIPC.
        The technical investigative support programs of the FBI Laboratory
    coordinate activities with the NIPC through established (formal)
    liaison contacts as well as through continual day-to-day operational
    contacts. This ensures that activities associated with the development
    or procurement of technical and analytical tools are not duplicated.
    Technical investigative support to field investigative squads are
    provided through established technical advisors within each field
    office. The technical advisor and/or field CART examiner coordinates
    delivery of technical investigative capabilities to the various field
    investigative squads, including the computer crimes squads, and serves
    as a technical advisor to the field investigative squad.
        Question. Please explain fully how, if at all, these programs will
    assist other federal law enforcement agencies and state and local law
    enforcement agencies.
        Answer. Each of these programs supports state and local law
    enforcement agencies in a number of ways. For example, CART provides
    technical expertise and guidance to state and local law enforcement
    agencies with regard to computer media examinations. The FBI, along
    with state and local agencies, is establishing a pilot regional
    computer forensics laboratory in San Diego, California to serve the
    southern California area. The FBI Laboratory also provides equipment
    and technical expertise to state and local law enforcement to support
    the interception of wire and electronic communications in state and
    local cases (pursuant to Departmental Order 890-80--Guidelines and
    Procedures for the Loan of Electronic Surveillance Equipment to State
    and Local Law Enforcement by the FBI) as well as in support of joint
    federal/state/local cases.
        Question. Is the encryption funding request included in or part of
    the ``$122.55 million in increased funding to combat cybercrime and
    support the Department's counterterrorism efforts?''
        Answer. Yes, the encryption request is included within the FBI's
    portion of the Department's request to combat cybercrime and support
    counterterrorism efforts.
                                  dna testing
        Question. The Department requests $55 million to establish the
    Crime Lab Improvement Program to make grants to state and local
    governments to improve their investigative and analytic capabilities.
    Does this program include funding for DNA testing? If so, does the
    Department have any guidelines or requirements for DNA testing by the
    states with federal funds?
        Answer. Yes, of the $55 million CLIP initiative, $15 million is
    specified for DNA purposes. All agencies receiving support under this
    program are required to sign a document (``Statutory Assurance'')
    ensuring compliance with quality assurance and proficiency testing
    standards for DNA analysis established by the FBI's DNA Advisory Board
    under Title 42 U.S.C. 14131, and ensuring that DNA identification data
    shall be made available only for law enforcement/judicial purposes or,
    if personally identifiable information is removed, for population
    databases, research/protocol development, or quality control purposes.
        Question. Please summarize the privacy safeguards that the
    Department follows in conducting DNA testing and any recommendations
    the Department has to improve those privacy safeguards.
        Answer. There are well defined privacy safeguards with respect to
    DNA testing. Information maintained in the Combined DNA Index System
    (CODIS) may only be disclosed in accordance with the DNA Identification
    Act of 1994 (See 42 U.S.C. 14131-14134, 3796kk-6): to criminal justice
    agencies for identification purposes related to law enforcement; in
    judicial proceedings, if otherwise admissible pursuant to applicable
    statutes or rules; for criminal defense purposes, to a defendant who
    shall have access to samples and analyses performed in connection with
    the case in which such a defendant is charged; and if personally
    identifiable information is removed, for a population statistics
    database, identification research and protocol development purposes, or
    for quality control purposes.
        Laboratories participating in National DNA Index System (NDIS) and/
    or receiving federal grant funding are required to certify their
    compliance with the above criteria. System wide standards have been
    established to ensure that only reliable and compatible profiles are
    contained in the NDIS files. These include quality assurance (QA)
    standards for performing forensic DNA analyses. Currently, pursuant to
    the DNA Act, the ``Guidelines for a Quality Assurance Program for DNA
    Analysis'' are the standards for QA in forensic DNA-typing
    laboratories. Additionally, a designated State Official must certify
    that all current and new CODIS users meet external proficiency testing
    standards as required by the 1994 Act. It is important to note, the FBI
    DNA profiles, which are a set of DNA identification characteristics
    (the particular chemical form at the various DNA locations which permit
    the DNA of one person to be distinguishable from that of another
    person) are not analyzed for physical characteristics. After analysis,
    the FBI returns DNA evidence to the contributor with instructions for
    storage.
        Question. One important privacy protection would be to ensure the
    destruction of DNA samples collected from convicted offenders after
    they have been tested and entered into the database. After all, the law
    enforcement interest is in indexing the DNA profiles, not in storing
    genetic material. (a) Do you agree? (b) Is that the current federal
    practice, and is it the practice of states receiving federal grants?
        Answer. Yes, the FBI's primary interest is in DNA profiles.
    However, current practice and technology requires the retention of some
    sample genetic material to confirm positive ``hits.'' The 1994 DNA
    Identification Act requires that these samples are used for law
    enforcement purposes only. However, once a ``hit'' is generated by the
    database, another sample is tested to verify that ``hit''. Therefore,
    this process requires that some of the blood from the original sample
    be stored for possible future reference by law enforcement personnel
    for law enforcement purposes only. Other states that participate in the
    national DNA database program operate in the same manner. Also, the
    technology to develop DNA testing is constantly changing. When the
    CODIS database was established, samples were tested using Restriction
    Fragment Length Polymorphism (RFLP) technology. Today, Polymerase Chain
    Reaction (PCR)/Short Tandem Repeats (STR) technology is used to type
    the samples. Since RFLP DNA profiles cannot be compared to the PCR/STR
    DNA profiles, the retained sample permits profiling using the newer
    technology. In the future, the technology will most assuredly change
    again. Therefore, storage of offender samples eliminates the need for
    relocating an incarcerated or released offender for additional samples.
        The National Commission on the Future of DNA Evidence is currently
    examining whether maintaining cellular samples from convicted offenders
    is necessary or appropriate as part of their work in the area of
    privacy issues surrounding biological sample collection and
    databanking. The Commission expects to make recommendations to the
    Attorney General concerning privacy issues by August 1999.
        Question. By statute, the federal DNA database may only contain
    information on DNA samples taken from convicted offenders, crime
    scenes, and unidentified human remains. Currently, Louisiana takes DNA
    samples from everyone charged with a crime, and other states have
    authorized or are considering a similar program. What assurances do you
    have that states will not use federal funds to create their own DNA
    databases for arrestees?
        Answer. According to the FBI, the Louisiana State statute requiring
    collection from all arrestees of enumerated crimes will go into effect
    on September 1, 1999. To the FBI's knowledge, New York is the only
    other state considering taking the collection of DNA samples from all
    arrestees. NIJ's DNA Laboratory Improvement solicitations require
    applicants to conform to CODIS standards. Solicitations under this
    legislation will specifically prohibit the use of federal funds for the
    development of state-specific DNA databases of arrestees.
        Question. What assurances do you have that states accepting federal
    grants for DNA testing, and any private laboratories used by such
    states, adhere to quality control standards, including blind external
    proficiency testing? To what extent does the Federal Government monitor
    the quality of state DNA testing?
        Answer. Certification of the testing laboratory is required for
    states to receive National Institute of Justice or Bureau of Justice
    Assistance grants to be used for DNA testing. All agencies are required
    to sign a document (``Statutory Assurance'') ensuring compliance with
    quality assurance and proficiency testing standards for DNA analysis
    established by the FBI's DNA Advisory Board under Title 42 U.S.C.
    14131, and ensuring that DNA identification data shall be made
    available only for law enforcement/judicial purposes or, if personally
    identifiable information is removed, for population databases,
    research/protocol development, or quality control purposes. Neither the
    1994 DNA Identification Act nor national DNA Advisory Board standards
    require blind external proficiency testing. The DNA Advisory Board's
    Quality Assurance Standards for Forensic DNA Testing Laboratories
    require an external proficiency test to be performed every 180 days.
    All laboratories accepting federal grant money must comply with these
    requirements. NIJ, at Congressional direction, has conducted a thorough
    examination of the feasibility of blind proficiency tests for DNA
    laboratories and will share the results within a year.
        Question. Just as DNA testing can be a powerful tool for proving
    guilt, it can also be a powerful tool for proving innocence. Yet
    convicted offenders are often unable to obtain the genetic crime scene
    evidence that could prove their innocence, with states arguing that
    they have already exhausted their state and federal post-conviction
    appeals. (a) Would the Department support conditioning the grant of
    federal funds for DNA testing upon certification by the state that it
    will, upon request by a convicted offender, provide reasonable access,
    for the purpose of DNA testing, of any genetic crime scene evidence
    collected in his case? (b) If not, please explain in detail your
    reasons for not supporting such a proposal.
        Answer. Awards are already conditioned in that manner. The
    Statutory Assurance document referenced above, specifically states that
    DNA samples shall be made available ``for criminal defense purposes, to
    a defendant, who shall have access to samples and analyses performed in
    connection with the case in which the defendant is charged.'' In
    addition, the National Commission on the Future of DNA Evidence, for
    which NIJ is the executive secretariat, is recommending a series of
    post-conviction guidelines to the Attorney General, which include
    access to both public and private labs for post-conviction DNA testing.
        Question. Although the national DNA database is open for business,
    it currently contains no federal offender DNA samples. What is the
    Department's timetable for collecting, testing, and indexing such
    samples?
        Answer. The FBI Laboratory projects an initial workload of 15,000
    samples from currently incarcerated offenders and an additional
    workload of 5,000 new offender samples per year that will require
    analysis for the FBI's Federal Convicted Offender DNA Database (FCODD).
    Draft legislation submitted to the Congress would require the FBI to
    begin obtaining samples, from the current population of federally-
    convicted offenders, 180 days after the bill's enactment.
        Question. What conditions, if any, does the Department intend to
    attach on its grants for DNA testing (beyond those already prescribed
    by statute)? In particular, do you anticipate requiring states, when
    possible, to prioritize their testing of DNA samples by release date?
        Answer. The National Commission on the Future of DNA Evidence is
    currently considering recommendations prioritizing convicted offender
    sample analysis. NIJ will provide copies of the Commission's
    recommendation to every laboratory in the program and encourage all
    grantee labs to adhere to the Commission's recommendations.

                              subcommittee recess

        Senator Gregg. We will have a hearing on March 11, and we
    have moved the room to S-128 for that hearing, and it will be
    with Secretary Daley.
        Thank you. The subcommittee is recessed.
        [Whereupon, at 11:51 a.m., Tuesday, March 9, the
    subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene at 10 a.m., Thursday,
    March 11.]

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

                                  ----------

                            THURSDAY, MARCH 11, 1999

                                           U.S. Senate,
               Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The subcommittee met at 10 a.m., in room S-128, the
    Capitol, Hon. Judd Gregg (chairman) presiding.
        Present: Senators Gregg, Stevens, Hutchison, Campbell,
    Hollings, Inouye, and Leahy.

                             DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

                             Secretary of Commerce

    STATEMENT OF WILLIAM M. DALEY, SECRETARY

                                opening remarks

        Senator Gregg. We will begin the hearing. I appreciate the
    Secretary being here. I understand that Senator Hollings is
    going to be joining us. So Mr. Secretary, whatever you would
    like to offer to the committee for thoughts, we would be happy
    to hear it.
        Secretary Daley. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I am
    pleased to present the Commerce Department's budget for fiscal
    year 2000, the first budget of the new century. We are leaving
    the old century with a surplus and I know that the President
    and the Congress want to enter the new one the same way.
        Without growing Commerce too much, we do want to make some
    key investments in 2000 to keep our economy growing. Our
    request is for $7.4 billion. Most of the increase over fiscal
    year 1999 is for the 2000 census.
        In light of the Supreme Court ruling and the dress
    rehearsal evaluation, Dr. Kenneth Prewitt, the Census Director,
    announced in February the broad outline of a new plan. As soon
    as the numbers are available, I will convey them to the
    Subcommittee.
        Let me quickly highlight some of the key areas of the
    budget, first, starting with the census. This is the Nation's
    largest peacetime mobilization. It is an enormous management
    challenge to count and determine where every person lives in
    America on April 1, 2000.
        We requested a total budget of $2.8 billion, which is a
    $1.8 billion increase over 1999 levels. Again, this was done
    before the court ruling in late January, so the request assumes
    the use of sampling for all purposes in the 2000 census. The
    Bureau remains convinced sampling will improve accuracy and
    should be used for all purposes other than apportionment.
        Conducting a census without sampling in the initial count
    will require substantially more resources. We will now have to
    visit 45 million homes, up from the 30 million originally
    planned, and hire many more enumerators. We will need to send
    more people to areas traditionally undercounted and more
    resources will be needed for promotion activities.
        I know that all of us agree that we need to do a better job
    in the year 2000 than we did in 1990 when 8 million people were
    missed and 4 million were overcounted.
        The second key area of the Department of Commerce is a 13
    percent increase for NOAA, $282 million over the last year's
    appropriation. The increase will help protect our natural
    resources and better protect people and property. For years
    this Senate Subcommittee has advocated that we bolster NOAA's
    oceanic and fisheries programs. I think we have heard the
    message and we have now put the ``O'' in NOAA.
        Let me break down this increase; $105 million is to support
    the President's Lands Legacy initiative, which will enhance our
    support of marine sanctuaries and estuarine reserves,
    rebuilding coral reefs, fisheries habitat, and coastal
    programs. Today, a greater percentage of Americans live within
    50 miles of coastlines, and 40 percent of our coastal waters
    are not fishable or swimmable.
        $122.5 million is to reverse the decline of salmon stock in
    the Pacific. Of that total, $22.5 million is for endangered
    species, and $100 million is for a new Pacific Coastal Salmon
    Recovery program.
        A priority will continue to be protecting the public from
    severe weather like tornadoes, hurricanes, and floods, and our
    budget fully funds the staff and operating requirements for the
    Weather Service. It proposes a $42 million increase so we can
    better predict where hurricanes hit. This will allow us to
    continue acquiring environmental satellites for storm
    monitoring and weather prediction.
        Third, we are requesting a 7 percent increase for ITA, the
    International Trade Administration. In 2000, we want to open
    new posts in 11 countries and create greater presence in
    Africa, Latin America, and in China.
        Last year our exports dropped--the first drop in more than
    a decade. Our exports to Asia plunged a staggering 14 percent.
    The huge drop accounted for over half of the increase in our
    trade deficit in 1998. Quite frankly, we need to do everything
    we can to help American exporters and help create new markets.
    We want to reach out more to small businesses to encourage them
    to export, especially now that the Internet makes worldwide
    access so easy.
        As you know, we have an advocacy center to help firms win
    contracts overseas, and half the clients are small- and medium-
    sized businesses.
        We want to beef up our trade compliance activities. We have
    benefited in America from open trade and open markets, but
    everyone has not played by the same rules. We saw that with a
    record surge in steel imports last year. Industry and workers
    complained, and we responded in a very aggressive manner.
        Fourth, NIST (National Institute of Standards and
    Technology). About $55 million of the request for new spending
    is to construct the Advanced Measurement Laboratory. It will
    enable our scientists to continue to perform cutting edge
    research, and continue to have on our staff Nobel Prize winners
    and National Medal of Science winners, who need and deserve
    state-of-the-art facilities.
        Fifth is the Economic Development Administration, where we
    want to continue fully funding important programs. We are
    requesting a $20 million increase to assist communities hurt by
    economic dislocation; $5 million will be for the Northeast
    where the fishing industry has been hit so hard.
        Let me quickly run through a few other initiatives. We are
    asking $14 million to help public broadcasters transition from
    analog to digital broadcasting. The Patent and Trademark Office
    is expecting a 7 percent increase in applications, and a 10
    percent increase in trademark applications. Both are sure signs
    that our economy is continuing to grow. To meet these workload
    increases and improve customer service, we will invest the
    increase of about $105 million in information technology and
    additional personnel.
        We are requesting $1.5 million for the Bureau of Export
    Administration to fund inspections of chemical facilities under
    the chemical convention. There are about 2,000 potential sites,
    and the request is to inspect at least 42 of them.
        Other requests are for increases in ATP (Advanced
    Technology Program), in statistical improvements, in research
    vessel support, and in preventing cyber attacks that could
    devastate our economy and American companies.

                               prepared statement

        Mr. Chairman, if I could end on a personal note. I hope to
    be the last Commerce Secretary of this century. This is the
    best time to serve as Commerce Secretary because we are in the
    longest peacetime expansion. Our Commerce Department is very
    strong today because of the support which this Subcommittee has
    given and you have given, Mr. Chairman. I just wanted to thank
    you and your colleagues for the support and advice which you
    have given me and our Department over the last 2 years.
        So I thank you and would be happy to answer any questions.
        [The statement follows:]
                     Prepared Statement of William M. Daley
        Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, I am pleased to
    appear before you today to present the Commerce budget for fiscal year
    2000, the first budget of the next century. As we leave the old century
    in robust economic health and with a budget surplus, I know you join
    President Clinton and me in wanting to enter the new one the same
    financially sound way. We at the Department have worked very hard to
    limit our requests for funding increases in fiscal year 2000 to those
    key investments that will keep our economy growing strong.
        The budget request the President has submitted for the Commerce
    Department for fiscal year 2000 is $7.4 billion. This reflects an
    increase of $1.8 billion over the fiscal year 1999 appropriated level,
    most of which is driven by the Decennial Census. Nevertheless, we are
    still reviewing the additional costs that will be necessary to conduct
    the Decennial Census in light of the Supreme Court ruling and the
    results of the Census Bureau's Dress Rehearsal. As soon as the numbers
    are available, I will personally convey them to the Subcommittee.
        Within the $7.4 billion request, we are seeking $521 million in
    funding for other high-priority initiatives. The Commerce Department is
    dedicated to expanding opportunities for American workers and American
    businesses. In formulating our requests for fiscal year 2000, we have
    made tradeoffs among existing programs, and we have proposed, in a few
    instances, new sources of revenue, where appropriate.
        This budget invests in our future. It invests in a successful
    Census so that future socioeconomic decisions are based on the most
    accurate data available. It invests in the stewardship of our Nation's
    natural resources and assets to ensure the wise use of fisheries,
    oceans and coastal areas. And it invests in expanding opportunities for
    trade and technology growth to create jobs and strengthen our economy.
        For fiscal year 2000, the Administration's five highest priorities
    for the Department of Commerce are: Decennial Census and Other
    Statistical Programs; Oceans and Atmosphere; Broadening Trade;
    Technology for Economic Growth; and Assisting Distressed Communities.
                decennial census and other statistical programs
        The President's budget was completed prior to the recent Supreme
    Court ruling. It assumes the use of scientific sampling for all
    purposes. Under that assumption, we requested a total budget of $2.8
    billion for the Decennial Census, a $1.8 billion increase above fiscal
    year 1999. We look forward to presenting a new cost estimate to the
    Subcommittee that will reflect the plan that conforms to the Supreme
    Court ruling and incorporates lessons learned in the Dress Rehearsal.
        The Supreme Court decision precludes the use of sampling for the
    numbers used to apportion seats in the House of Representatives. The
    Court noted, however, that sampling techniques are required for non-
    apportionment purposes, if feasible. As Dr. Kenneth Prewitt, Director
    of the Census Bureau, announced two weeks ago, it is feasible to use
    sampling for those other purposes. He presented the broad outlines of a
    plan to do so that includes an Accuracy and Coverage Evaluation (ACE)
    program to eliminate the undercount. While the Census Bureau will make
    every effort to count every person without sampling for apportionment
    purposes, it remains convinced that scientific sampling will improve
    the accuracy of the final numbers and should be used for all other
    purposes.
        Conducting a Decennial Census without using sampling in the initial
    enumeration will require substantially more resources. For example, the
    Bureau will have to visit 45 million housing units, 15 million more
    than estimated in the original plan. The Bureau will have to hire more
    enumerators and send more people to areas with traditionally high
    undercount rates. The Bureau will also have to increase its partnership
    work with local communities, its promotion activities and paid
    advertising. Again, we look forward to working with the Subcommittee on
    the details and cost estimates for this plan.
        By maintaining a reliable federal statistical system that readily
    monitors and measures economic activity and social trends, the
    Economics and Statistics Administration (ESA) helps national, state,
    and local governments and other institutions to make smart decisions
    that can improve the lives of all Americans. Our Nation's ability to
    respond to domestic and international developments that affect our
    economic infrastructure relies on a world-class information base and
    cutting-edge technology to make it accessible. In this capacity, ESA
    oversees the Census Bureau and the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA).
    ESA also manages STAT-USA, a user-friendly ``one-stop shop'' for the
    dissemination of business, economic, and trade statistics.
        As the Nation's accountant, BEA combines and transforms extensive
    data from government and private sources to produce a consistent and
    comprehensive picture of economic activity, featuring a key summary
    measure known as the gross domestic product (GDP) estimate. In
    addition, BEA's estimates of regional products and incomes are used in
    the allocation of federal grants to states. We are requesting an
    increase of $4.5 million to further improve BEA measures.
                             oceans and atmosphere
        The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) is
    leading the way in the stewardship of our natural resources and in
    improving the detection of oncoming natural events with greater
    precision to save lives and property and minimize business disruption.
    For fiscal year 2000, under the Oceans and Atmosphere priority,
    Commerce is proposing initiatives that support NOAA programs in two
    areas--the Natural Resources initiative, and the Natural Disaster
    Reduction initiative.
    Natural Resources Initiative
        First, Commerce supports the Natural Resources initiative,
    including the programs that constitute ``Ocean 2000'' and ``Climate in
    the 21st Century.'' In skillfully managing and protecting our Nation's
    assets and resources, NOAA plays a key role in the Natural Resources
    initiative by overseeing programs that expand knowledge and
    understanding of our lands, water, and air. Protecting coastal habitats
    from loss and degradation, researching the effects of climate changes
    on the oceans and atmosphere, and promoting safe navigation are all
    objectives of the initiative. Among the increases for this initiative
    are the Lands Legacy request of $105 million, the Year of the Ocean
    request of $78.1 million, and the Resource Protection request of $131.3
    million. Program increases supporting the Climate in the 21st Century
    program total $19.1 million.
        Under Ocean 2000, NOAA will expand programs that are designed and
    integrated to capitalize on the sustainable use of the ocean's
    resources. Under the Lands Legacy component, NOAA manages and protects
    our coastal areas and promotes sound economic conservation of our
    fishery resources. Closely linked to Lands Legacy are programs to
    further resource protection, mainly in the Pacific Northwest for salmon
    conservation. This includes an increase of $100 million to encourage
    salmon conservation and habitat recovery efforts in cooperation with
    state, tribal, and local governments. The remaining major components of
    this initiative are the Year of the Ocean programs designed to enhance
    marine navigation safety, coral reef restoration, aquaculture and
    fisheries stocks assessment, conservation, and management.
        Also, as part of the Natural Resources initiative, under the
    ``Climate in the 21st Century'' program, NOAA will develop newer and
    better data sets on seasonal-to-interannual time scales to produce
    climate forecasts to predict El Nino/La Nina events with more accuracy;
    and improve decadal to centennial climate change assessments,
    especially for greenhouse warming, ozone layer depletion, and air
    quality.
    Natural Disaster Reduction Initiative
        The second major component of Oceans and Atmosphere is the Natural
    Disaster Reduction initiative, under which NOAA requests a net increase
    of $42.1 million for fiscal year 2000. The Natural Disaster Reduction
    initiative supports improved weather warnings and forecasts to the
    general public through the National Weather Service (NWS), expanded
    weather research, and increased environmental data available for the
    public and private sectors.
        NOAA's success in describing and predicting the changes in the
    earth's environment and conserving our resources to ensure sustainable
    economic opportunity relies on cutting-edge research to develop new
    technologies, improve operations, and supply the scientific basis for
    managing natural resources and solving environmental problems. Overall,
    we are requesting a net increase of $282 million for all NOAA programs,
    12.8 percent above the fiscal year 1999 appropriation of $2.2 billion.
                                broadening trade
        In an increasingly global economy, the role of exports in
    sustaining a robust economic infrastructure becomes manifold. Exports
    support over eleven million jobs, and have generated over two million
    of those jobs in the past two years alone. In recent years, export-
    related jobs grew about six times faster than total employment, paying
    wages fifteen percent higher than the average U.S. wage. The
    competitive nature of a global marketplace raises the bar of challenges
    for the International Trade Administration (ITA) in leveling the
    playing field for U.S. businesses abroad and removing tariff and non-
    tariff barriers to trade. ITA's chief goals are to enforce U.S. trade
    laws to promote free and fair trade, increase the number of small
    business exports, improve the role of the Trade Promotion and
    Coordinating Committee (TPCC), and strengthen advocacy efforts.
    Overall, we are requesting an increase of $21 million for ITA programs.
    This represents a net increase of 7.3 percent above the fiscal year
    1999 appropriation.
        Much of the success of the Broadening Trade initiative rests on the
    expansion of the U.S. Foreign and Commercial Service's (US&FCS)
    outreach efforts to small- and medium-sized enterprises (SME's) to help
    them unleash their full export capacity. As a National Partnership for
    Reinventing Government High Impact Agency, the US&FCS measures
    performance by the increase in number of counseling sessions and new-
    to-export and new-to-market firms. The U.S. Export Assistance Centers
    (USEAC's) perform the valuable service of educating and assisting SME's
    through counseling sessions and trade events, helping to identify
    export-ready firms in need of technical assistance. Electronic commerce
    and the Internet are other vehicles to increase export opportunities
    for SME's. We are proposing an increase of $13.8 million for the US&FCS
    to expand overseas staffing in Africa, Latin America, and Asia, and to
    establish new standards attaches positions.
        In addition to our requests for program increases, we continue to
    support our key base programs in the trade arena. Among these, I would
    like to mention ITA's trade development activities, particularly the
    Advocacy Center. The Advocacy Center focuses on intensive trade
    promotion and achieving new market openings. Over the past five-plus
    years of its existence, the Advocacy Center has played a pivotal role
    in helping U.S. businesses reap the benefits of access to foreign
    markets. Over half of the 800 users, or customers, of the Advocacy
    Center are SME's. These SME successes are valued at $11 billion. The
    Advocacy Center is currently reaching out more than ever to involve
    SME's in its work. Advocacy in support of trade promotion and
    development is something that I personally spend a lot of time on, and
    the Advocacy Center plays a key role in this effort.
        Implementing an aggressive trade compliance program to aid U.S.
    companies in getting the full benefits of trade agreements is another
    key component of ITA's strategy. Market Access and Compliance's (MAC)
    region and country specialists can help ensure that this happens. By
    compiling case data on the access problem and outcome, MAC can measure
    the dollar value of opening world markets to U.S. exports as a result
    of reducing or eliminating trade barriers. We are requesting an
    increase of $4.4 million in this area. Through a sector-specific
    approach, the Import Administration (IA), another division of ITA, also
    improves the competitiveness of domestic firms by enforcing U.S. trade
    laws and agreements regarding subsidies and other harmful foreign trade
    practices. An increase of $1.7 million will allow the U.S. to
    strengthen implementation of the Uruguay Round, and resolve disputes in
    the World Trade Organization.
        The Bureau of Export Administration (BXA) carries out the export
    licensing, enforcement, and defense industry conversion in a manner
    that protects our national security and our economic competitiveness.
    BXA supports the Broadening Trade initiative by helping to remove
    unnecessary obstacles to exporting, and to strengthen multilateral
    regimes. It also assists small and medium-sized businesses to increase
    their involvement in export markets by helping them understand export
    control requirements through outreach visits, conferences, and
    seminars. As a second component of the Broadening Trade initiative, BXA
    will administer Chemical Weapons Convention declarations and perform
    on-site inspections.
        Overall, we are requesting an increase of $8 million for BXA
    programs, of which $2.5 million supports the Broadening Trade
    initiative. This represents a net increase of 15.5 percent above the
    fiscal year 1999 appropriation. The existing base program includes such
    activities as administering an understandable, accessible, and timely
    export control process and managing the Critical Infrastructure
    Assurance Office (CIAO).
        The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) helps to
    eliminate technical non-tariff barriers to trade, as part of the
    Broadening Trade initiative, by working to increase global recognition
    of U.S. measurements and standards. We are requesting an increase of $2
    million for this activity for fiscal year 2000. NIST also works with
    ITA to place standards attaches in Russia, China, and South Africa and
    with PTO on the Commercial Law Development Program to institutionalize
    trade in emerging economies via training programs. Through the linkages
    established between the Manufacturing Extension Partnerships (MEP's)
    and U.S. Export Assistance Centers (USEAC's), NIST helps identify small
    export-ready manufacturing firms who need technical assistance.
                         technology for economic growth
        In TA, the Office of the Under Secretary and the Office of
    Technology Policy (US/OTP) promote innovation and industrial
    competitiveness by advocating and coordinating efforts at interagency,
    state, national, and international levels. TA also includes the
    National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST) and the National
    Technical Information Service (NTIS). TA's primary mission is to
    improve the Nation's technological infrastructure and to facilitate
    innovation by working with industry. TA is essential to economic
    health, advances in science and technology, and our Nation's
    survivability in the information age.
        One of NIST's programs is the Measurements and Standards
    Laboratories Program (MSL). MSL is focused on infrastructural
    technologies such as measurements, standards, evaluated data, and test
    methods that provide a common language for use by industry in commerce.
    The accuracy of transactions amounting to trillions of dollars in sales
    depends on NIST's maintenance and development of accurate weights and
    measures for the fair exchange of goods and services. Trillions of
    dollars in additional sales are supported by NIST-delivered measurement
    techniques, equipment, calibrations, and standards. Moreover, U.S.
    scientists rely daily on NIST's evaluated data services and measurement
    expertise for a host of both basic and applied research activities.
        As part of the Technology for Economic Growth initiative, the
    Commerce fiscal year 2000 budget request also includes an increase of
    $55 million for a contract award to begin construction of NIST's
    Advanced Measurement Laboratory (AML). This facility will provide NIST
    with the temperature, humidity, vibration and air cleanliness required
    to perform cutting-edge research in the 21st Century. NIST will also
    establish a program to improve the quality of science education through
    its Teacher Science and Technology Enhancement Program.
        NIST is requesting an increase of $34.5 million to further enhance
    its successful Advanced Technology Program (ATP). This request is
    designed to further stimulate U.S. economic growth by developing high-
    risk and enabling technologies through industry-driven cost-shared
    partnerships. In addition, NIST's Manufacturing Extension Program (MEP)
    will increase resources devoted to gathering and disseminating best
    practices to all NIST-MEP manufacturing extension centers. Overall, we
    are requesting an increase of $94 million for NIST programs. This
    represents a 14.6 percent net increase above the fiscal year 1999
    appropriation. The existing base allows us to continue supporting U.S.
    industry, government, and scientific establishments with the
    development and application of technology, measurements, and standards.
        NTIS compiles and disseminates non-classified scientific,
    technical, and engineering information useful to U.S. business and
    government. The Department faces a management challenge with respect to
    NTIS. NTIS has traditionally been funded by fees, but the Internet and
    advances in information processing and distribution technology have
    fundamentally changed the market for scientific, technical, and
    engineering information. As a result, the Administration is requesting
    $2 million to partially fund the costs associated with the organization
    and preservation of NTIS' technical information. This level is critical
    for NTIS to perform its mission. Nevertheless, I look forward to
    working with the Subcommittee to address this Bureau's financial
    problems.
        In administering laws that grant and protect patents and
    trademarks, and in advising the Commerce Secretary, the President, and
    the Administration on intellectual property rights, the Patent and
    Trademark Office (PTO) plays a central role in America's economic
    growth. Through its stewardship of our Nation's intellectual property,
    PTO influences investment, development and marketing strategies, and
    the financial viability of American businesses. PTO plays a central
    role in increasing the competitiveness of our technology-based economy
    by providing more effective service delivery as product life cycles
    become shorter. Timely issuance of patents and trademark registrations
    make all the difference for firms operating in fast-paced markets.
    Toward this end, PTO is committed to customer-oriented and results-
    driven performance calling for reduced average processing time of
    patents and trademarks, the automation of various patent and trademark
    activities, and the establishment of a fee schedule aligned with actual
    costs.
        Through its provision of technical assistance and its expertise on
    trade-related property rights issues, PTO also helps support the
    Broadening Trade initiative. PTO contributes to the protection and
    expansion of intellectual property rights systems worldwide, vital to
    the institutionalization of the commercial infrastructure of developing
    economies and to promoting trade, through education and training on
    laws, regulations, and enforcement. It conducts international outreach
    and works in partnership with other nations to help support these
    objectives.
        Finally, improving communications, as part of a customer focus, is
    integral to the goal of promoting awareness of and providing effective
    access to patent and trademark information. This relies on an advanced
    information dissemination base able to respond to users in a timely
    fashion, make information available, and transform the majority of
    processes into electronic operations. It includes the increased use of
    the Internet to request the status of applications and place orders and
    to answer customer inquiries via e-mail.
        PTO's program operations are revenue-generating, and it is a self-
    sustaining Agency that strives for external customer satisfaction.
    Similar to private business, it conducts a number of transactions with
    the public directly and must become efficient enough to respond to
    private sector needs and a potentially growing market for its services.
    Freed of certain federal restrictions and with a clear mission,
    accountability, and measurable goals, the PTO is a good candidate to
    become a Performance Based Organization (PBO). The Administration is
    developing a legislative proposal to establish a PBO.
        We are requesting an increase of more than $100 million for the
    Patent and Trademark Business, Policy and Information Dissemination
    activities. These additional resources are completely funded by user
    fees and will increase staffing and expand existing workplace
    electronic systems to meet projected growth in workload.
        The National Telecommunications and Information Administration
    (NTIA) maximizes the use of telecommunications and information
    resources in ways that create jobs, augment U.S. competitiveness, and
    raise the standard of living. NTIA plays an important role in opening
    new markets and broadening trade by helping to implement the World
    Trade Organization (WTO) Basic Agreement on Telecommunications.
        Through the Public Telecommunications and Facilities Planning &
    Construction program (PTFP), NTIA will assist public telecommunications
    facilities in converting to digital broadcasting. As necessary, PTFP
    will continue to fund grants to replace basic equipment and provide
    assistance to rural and other areas where financial assistance is
    lacking. It is part of the President's program to ensure that the
    benefits of public broadcasting continue for all our citizens.
        NTIA manages radio spectrum allocated for federal use. It ensures
    that radio spectrum assignments provide the greatest public benefit by
    planning and implementing policies for both private and public sectors;
    meeting the requirements of federal agencies; and advancing the
    development of spectrally efficient technologies.
        NTIA's Telecommunications and Information Infrastructure Assistance
    Program (TIIAP) provides matching grants to state, local, and tribal
    governments, and other not-for-profit organizations to demonstrate
    creative uses of information technology. Overall, we are requesting an
    increase of $24 million for NTIA programs.
                             distressed communities
        The Economic Development Administration's (EDA) strategic goals are
    to create jobs and private enterprise in distressed communities and to
    build local capacity to achieve and sustain economic growth. Since its
    establishment, EDA has had to confront many challenges to the
    industrial and commercial growth of distressed communities of the
    United States. EDA was reauthorized for five years by the Economic
    Development Administration Reform Act (Public Law 105-393), to generate
    new jobs, help retain existing jobs, and stimulate industrial and
    commercial growth in economically-distressed areas of the United
    States.
        Today, rapidly changing production, trade patterns, and technology
    threaten certain communities. EDA's highly flexible programs for public
    infrastructure, planning, technical assistance, and research allow the
    Department to respond strategically to the specific conditions of
    disenfranchised areas to expand industrial and commercial growth. EDA
    works through a nationwide network now comprising 320 Economic
    Development Districts (EDD's), 64 Indian tribes, 69 University Centers,
    and 12 Trade Adjustment Assistance Centers (TAAC's). EDA focuses on
    supporting local planning and long-term partnerships with state and
    local organizations that can assist distressed communities with
    strategic planning and investment activities.
        As part of its Economic Adjustment Assistance Program, the
    Department of Commerce will assist distressed communities recovering
    from sudden and severe economic downturns, such as those caused by
    increased foreign imports, plant closings, environmental regulation,
    and natural disasters. Among other activities, this program will assist
    communities in the Northeast region with economic diversification and
    financial restructuring necessitated by federal restrictions imposed on
    the fishing industry. Commerce is requesting an increase of $20 million
    for assisting distressed and disadvantaged communities for fiscal year
    2000. This represents a net increase of 0.2 percent for fiscal year
    2000.
        The Minority Business Development Agency (MBDA) has the lead
    federal government role for coordinating all minority business
    programs. The agency provides access to market and resource
    opportunities through a variety of direct and indirect business
    assistance services. For fiscal year 2000, MBDA will continue to define
    its program strategy through goals that promote job creation, economic
    growth, and sustainable development for the growing minority business
    population in the United States. These goals are to improve
    opportunities for minority-owned businesses to gain access to the
    marketplace, and to pursue financing.
                       critical infrastructure protection
        Under the Critical Infrastructure Protection initiative, NIST will
    develop measurements, testing methodologies, and standards needed to
    help ensure the reliability, trustworthiness, and survivability of the
    information technology systems that support critical national
    infrastructures. The NIST program will address security technologies
    and methods used in a wide variety of systems (such as intrusion
    detection, cryptography, and access control), the processes used to
    build systems, and the application of these components to Federal
    government systems and to complex supervisory systems (which are a
    rapidly emerging area faced with important security concerns). These
    projects will focus on technologies not being developed by the private
    sector.
        In housing the Critical Infrastructure Assurance Office (CIAO), a
    component of the interagency Critical Infrastructure Program
    established by Presidential Decision Directive 63, BXA helps to
    safeguard the interconnected systems that are necessary to the
    operations of our government and economy.
        As part of the Critical Infrastructure Protection initiative, NTIA
    has the lead role for the information and communications (I&C) sector.
    It advances the public interest in communications, mass media, and
    infrastructure development by devising a plan that assesses the
    vulnerabilities of the I&C sector and identifying protection strategies
    in times of crisis. NIST and NTIA will carry out the research needed
    for I&C and will coordinate all research with the Office of Science and
    Technology Policy and CIAO. The research will help ensure against a
    catastrophic infrastructure failure, reduce the level of ongoing loss
    from attacks and failures, enhance overall national economic security,
    and reduce the direct and indirect costs associated with infrastructure
    failures.
        CIAO is funded at $6 million in fiscal year 1999. Overall, we are
    requesting a program increase of $7.3 million in fiscal year 2000 for
    NIST and NTIA to help facilitate the Commerce Department effort in this
    national program for critical infrastructure protection.
                           key management initiatives
        As you recall, when I took office I promised several actions to
    strengthen the management and operations of the Department. I reported
    on several of these last year, and I am pleased to report that we are
    continuing to make progress on key management issues at the Department
    of Commerce.
        In addition to developing a Strategic Plan under the Government
    Performance and Results Act (GPRA), we have submitted our fiscal year
    2000 Annual Performance Plan (APP) under that Act, reflecting
    substantial improvements over the fiscal year 1999 APP. It has
    substantially fewer goals and performance measures (about one-third as
    many performance measures as for fiscal year 1999), and these goals and
    measures are more outcome or results-oriented, than they were last
    year. The fiscal year 2000 APP is also much more closely linked to our
    fiscal year 2000 Budget Request than the fiscal year 1999 APP was to
    our fiscal year 1999 budget.
        In addition to these improvements in our implementation of GPRA, we
    have developed an internal Strategic Management Plan, which focuses on
    seven elements that cut across the Department. These are as follows:
    Supporting a successful Census 2000; Ensuring reliable and accurate
    Department-wide financial management; Making the most efficient use of
    information technology investments; Implementing an integrated policy,
    planning, and budgeting process; Establishing a solid risk management
    program; Improving customer service; and Maintaining a workplace that
    celebrates diversity and is free from discrimination.
        Each of these elements is described in more detail in Part IV of
    the APP, entitled ``Commerce Management Strategy: Success and
    Challenges.'' We will continue to move aggressively to improve our
    management capabilities and to ensure that Commerce is well-managed,
    well-organized, efficient and effective in providing the best possible
    service to the American public and business community.
        Here are just a few of our achievements during the past two years:
      --Increased clean financial audits from 24 percent to 84 percent;
      --Reduced security clearances by 34 percent;
      --Consolidated field offices from a total of 747 to a 600;
      --Increased Y2K compliance from 25 percent to 85 percent;
      --Installed an accountability system for IT investments--on which we
            spend $1 billion per year;
      --Increased the discipline in our budget process through an
            ``Integrated Policy, Planning, and Budget'' process, chaired by
            the Deputy Secretary;
      --Hired over 3,000 ``new workers'' under the Welfare to Work Program;
      --Launched a Government Wide Acquisition Contract (GWAC) for IT
            services for small, disadvantaged, and women-owned firms--the
            first such GWAC in government; and
      --Hired a Chief Information Officer (CIO), and taken steps to create
            a Digital Department, including making investments in
            telecommunications and IT systems.
        These initiatives are discussed in more detail in our Budget in
    Brief and APP. I am pleased to advise you that for the first time the
    Budget in Brief, the APP, and the budget justifications are available
    on a CD-ROM. The three documents are also available on the Internet at
    www.doc.gov/bmi/budget.
                              commerce employment
        For fiscal year 2000, our budget request reflects a significant
    increase in FTE employment. This increase of 45,167 FTE's for fiscal
    year 2000, plus a sizeable increase in fiscal year 1999, is almost
    exclusively due to the requirements associated with gearing up for the
    Decennial Census. Fee-funded patent and trademark examiners comprise
    most of the remainder of the FTE increase. In the fiscal year 2000
    Budget Request submitted prior to the Supreme Court decision, the FTE
    increase attributable to the Decennial Census was 44,749. This number
    of primarily temporary employees will increase further in light of the
    Supreme Court decision. It should be kept in mind that these FTE
    numbers are not the same as the number of full-time permanent positions
    within Commerce, which is growing at a very modest level.
                                    summary
        Mr. Chairman, we realize that you and the other Subcommittee
    Members have a difficult job before you to develop an appropriations
    bill that will conform to the spending caps, consistent with the
    eventual final Budget Resolution. We look forward to working with the
    Subcommittee on the key issues that will confront all of us as you work
    toward developing an fiscal year 2000 appropriations bill.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for this opportunity to review the
    progress we've made at Commerce over the past year and our requirements
    for the coming fiscal year. Last year I stated that we would hold every
    program and position to a stern test: keeping those we need to meet our
    goals, and searching for new and more efficient ways to get the job
    done. This year's plans and budget reflect this approach.
        And Mr. Chairman, if I may end on a personal note. As the last
    Commerce Secretary of this century, I always say it is the best time in
    the entire century to serve. We are in the longest peacetime expansion
    in history.
        But it takes your support to make Commerce what it is. I thank you
    for the past two years, and I look forward to two more good ones.

                                Decennial census

        Senator Gregg. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. I have great
    respect for the way you have managed the Department. I think
    you have been an extremely effective and positive force within
    this Administration and for the Department, and I have enjoyed
    working with you.
        I must say that we are clearly headed, however, toward
    loggerheads on the census issue. I am not sure that I see a
    great deal of point in us even discussing or debating it
    because the issue is so fundamental and because the differences
    are fairly clear. I believe the Supreme Court has decided and
    directed what the Census Bureau should do, and we believe that
    a single census that is an enumeration is the proper way to
    proceed. So rather than spending a lot of time on that issue,
    because we are just going to simply legislate it, and,
    hopefully, you will follow the legislation and the law.
        Let me ask you a couple other questions where the
    differences are not so acute.

                              Internet tax policy

        You mentioned the Internet and you mentioned the expansion
    of trade as a result of the Internet. Tax policy on the
    Internet has become a major issue, and obviously a significant
    issue for Commerce. We recently passed a moratorium relative to
    tax policy on the Internet. It is my belief that if we allow
    the different States and the different jurisdictions, which
    assess all sorts of different types of taxes against commercial
    activity, to use their taxing authority on the Internet, we
    will throw that huge engine of prosperity and growth in our
    economy into chaos.
        I would be interested in knowing what your position as
    Secretary is relative to the tax moratorium, number one. And to
    tax policy relative to the Internet generally.
        Secretary Daley. First of all, we strongly support the
    moratorium that Congress passed. We do acknowledge that there
    are serious concerns by State and local entities. I have had
    the pleasure of meeting with the Governors Association, the
    National Counties Association, and this past weekend a League
    of Cities which represent thousands of mayors, and I must say
    they have great interest in this issue.
        We have made the statement that we are not against sales
    tax over the Internet. But we are trying to get a handle on
    this issue. The commission which was created by Congress, as
    you know, has not met. They are charged with addressing this
    issue. There has been a dispute over the makeup of it. I think
    we are in the process of correcting that, trying to work with
    Congress to see a greater representation of the State and local
    representatives.
        But you raise the bottom line, if we allow every
    governmental entity out there to nick the Internet in some way,
    shape or form--sales tax represents 30 percent of the revenue
    of most State and local governments, so it is vital to them
    that they find a way to protect that revenue. At the same time,
    our greatest concern has been about new taxes that creative
    revenue raisers would come up with on the Internet that would
    then, as you say, stymie this medium.
        But they are very difficult and complex questions that
    hopefully this commission, which is charged with coming up with
    a report within 18 months, can get moving. I am a member of it,
    as well as the Secretary of the Treasury, and a couple of other
    Administration representatives. But it is a very difficult and
    complex issue that we are going to have to work through and
    then work on an international basis.
        Senator Gregg. Should not our policy as a Government, as a
    Federal Government, be that the Internet is an international
    and interstate commerce area where the assessment of thousands
    of different levels of sales tax would be counterproductive?
    Should that not be our basic position?
        Secretary Daley. I think that position is the logical
    position to be at, but cutting off what potentially may be 30
    percent of the revenue of some governments will put a
    tremendous strain on them.
        Senator Gregg. It is not going to cut that off. I mean, the
    fact is that the people who are purchasing over the Internet
    are not going to be traveling to the State and purchasing at
    the State, so the revenue is not lost. It is the same way that
    we deal with mail order in many ways, and it seems to me that
    as a fundamental policy we should be taking the position that
    the Internet should not be, as you say, nicked to death. I
    would say nickeled and dimed to death, or matrixed to death,
    with an overlay of taxes that are assessed against it by
    States.
        Secretary Daley. I think the greatest fear is really not
    just the sales tax, it is all of these new creative taxes that
    people come up with.
        Senator Gregg. Any taxes. We should be against all taxes on
    the Internet, should we not?
        Secretary Daley. We are against new taxes on the Internet
    and new taxes that will stymie the Internet. We saw an
    explosion this past holiday season of sales on the Internet
    that just were astonishing to most--e-tailing, as it is called,
    went from $3 billion in sales in 1997 to $9 billion in 1998
    during the holiday season.
        Senator Hollings. Would the chairman yield?
        Senator Gregg. I am about to turn it over to you, so I will
    turn it over to you.
        Senator Hollings. No, I would yield then to Senator Inouye.
        Senator Inouye. No.
        Senator Hollings. When you talk about taxes on the
    Internet, that sounds like a neat political expression. Nobody
    wants to tax anything. But I have observed over my years in
    this game that when WalMart moved in, they closed up Main
    Street substantially. I can tell you that right now. They just
    went out on the edge of town, plenty of parking places, poured
    some concrete, put the trusses so the snow wouldn't crush the
    roof, and everybody shops there.
        Senator Gregg. Does it snow in South Carolina?
        Senator Hollings. Yes. We have some down there now.
        What happens now with this Internet and the sales on it is
    that cities have not been collecting taxes because they have
    not bothered with trying to keep the records. But with this
    volume that the Secretary points out--and I am looking at the
    trend--business will increase that volume, and you will find
    that Main Street stores will say wait a minute, let me order
    this for you on the Internet and avoid the 8 percent sales tax.
    They start putting themselves out of the tax equation. If you
    want to buy a suit, they will order it for you over the
    Internet.
        What happens is these cities and States lose all this
    revenue and it is a serious problem, because all the laws
    pertaining to sales and use tax--and I happened to write one of
    those back in 1950 and it is for use in your particular State
    of New Hampshire. Of course, you do not have anything up there.
    You all do not believe in----
        Senator Gregg. Taxes.
        Senator Hollings. In Government, come on. [Laughter.]
        Senator Gregg. This is true, too.
        Senator Hollings. It's just a rally. I have been to
    Concord. It is a wonderful event. Give everybody $100 and then
    free tickets to everything. No kidding. The nicest people in
    the world.
        I did not mean to interrupt, but you are going to have to
    make some kind of arrangement. And I do not know whether the
    burden is on the salesman in interstate commerce, but some kind
    of records for the collection of taxes will have to be
    developed. Cities and States are going to have to be ready for
    this type of commerce otherwise I can tell you, it is going to
    be devastating. It really is, because that is the principal
    support of education funding.
        For us playing catch-up ball in the south, sales tax is for
    public education, we are trying to get better schools, and pay
    teachers more. If we start cutting into that just because we in
    Washington cannot tax the Internet, I can tell you, it is going
    to be a serious problem.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Gregg. Thank you, Senator. Did you have an opening
    statement or anything?
        Senator Hollings. No. I apologize----
        Senator Gregg. On the order of arrival, I think Senator
    Campbell would be next.
        Senator Campbell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Sorry I was a
    little bit late.
        Senator Gregg. I am sorry, Senator Campbell, I did not see
    the Chairman of the committee here. It is our tradition----
        Senator Stevens. No, I am here for the duration, so I will
    just wait my turn.
        Senator Gregg. Go ahead.

                            Canadian cattle dumping

        Senator Campbell. I would like to ask the Secretary a
    little about cattle dumping. Earlier this year on January 19,
    the International Trade Commission determined that Canadian
    cattle dumping is injuring U.S. producers, and of course in our
    part of the country we have a lot of producers in the American
    west. They also called for imposing countervailing duty.
        They are supposed to, as I understand it, the Commerce
    Department is going to have a preliminary report out May 3. I
    was wondering what message you could give for me to take back
    to a lot of the cattle producers that have complained to us?
    Can that be accelerated? What progress is being made now? What
    do you expect to come out of that published report?
        Secretary Daley. To be honest with you, Senator, I do not
    believe we can accelerate that process. I think the schedule
    that has been outlined for a May date may even be statutorily
    required.
        This is a unique case. It is the first case of its kind
    where a dumping case has been filed on a product that has four
    legs and moves. So it has presented a unique situation for us.
    We take the case very seriously. We have had a very aggressive
    period over the last 6 months on dumping cases being filed and
    we are looking at this because it may set a precedent for other
    sorts of commodities that have not historically used the
    dumping laws and countervailing duty laws as a remedy. So it
    presents a real unique challenge for us. But we are taking it
    seriously. We will have the report. If we can issue it sooner,
    I assure you that we will.
        Senator Campbell. In my view living out there is that some
    of the effects they are facing now, ranchers, with the dumping
    is really a result of some of the international trade
    agreements that we got ourselves into without making sure that
    we had some protections.

                      assistance to Distressed communities

        Let me ask you one other thing, too. You mentioned that
    assisting distressed communities, in your testimony, is a
    priority, but there is decreased funding for the Economic
    Development Administration. Would not some of the extra trade
    money, could that not be used to help distressed communities?
        Secretary Daley. There is a request that is lower than past
    years, than what was appropriated last year. It is the largest
    amount that we have ever requested. We are moving $20 million
    of the EDA funds into distressed areas for purposes of trying
    to relieve pain and disruptions that were caused by some of the
    trade dislocations that have occurred. So we think that we are
    addressing both the impacts in communities based upon some of
    the trade issues. Obviously, EDA is a very popular program, one
    that has served communities well. But as I say, we are
    requesting this year the most we have ever requested of the
    Congress.
        Senator Campbell. My notes may be wrong.

                   assistance to Native American communities

        One last question, Mr. Chairman. I think it is of interest
    to Senator Stevens and I because we both represent Native
    American communities. You probably know, the unemployment rate
    on many reservations is like 70 percent. Almost no jobs, no
    industry, and almost Third World conditions on some of the
    reservations.
        We did a hearing in the Indian Affairs Committee on the
    2000 budget request, and we in fact invited someone from your
    Department to testify, but they did not show up. I introduced a
    bill called S. 401; you might want to look at. It deals with
    Native American business development, trade promotion, and
    tourism.
        I would like to know, without looking at it, I would like
    to know if you would support that kind of a concept. It is
    going to try and find alternative ways for the little industry
    there is on the reservations to do some promotion on the
    international level.
        Secretary Daley. First of all, I apologize that somebody
    was not at your hearing, and I will find out why. But I think
    trying to get our export assistance centers, we have 100 around
    the country, let me see which ones would be located closest to
    the reservations so that we could see if we can----
        Senator Campbell. Apparently there is very little knowledge
    on how to access those centers. If you have some ideas how we
    can do that that we could pass on to those communities, we
    would appreciate it.
        Secretary Daley. I will get back to your office, Senator.
    And let me say, you were right in your comment that our request
    this year on EDA is less than what was appropriated last year.
    So you were not wrong in your statement. We are requesting the
    most we, as an Administration, have ever requested for EDA's
    Public Works program.
        Senator Campbell. I see. Thank you.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Gregg. Senator Inouye.
        Senator Inouye. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
        I would like to join my chairman in welcoming you, Mr.
    Secretary. I would like to shift gears a little; instead of
    complaining, say a few nice words about the Department.
        I wish to thank you for the participation of your Deputy
    Secretary Mr. Mallett at our recent coral reef meeting in
    Hawaii. Most people in the United States do not realize that
    over 83 percent of the coral reefs of this Nation happen to be
    in Hawaiian waters. These reefs play an important role in the
    maintaining of our fisheries, which as you know, are beginning
    to deplete. So I want to thank you for the role that your
    Department has been playing and the role that your Deputy
    Secretary Mr. Mallett has been showing. He has shown great
    leadership, and we look forward to something good coming out of
    this.
        The other matter that I am most grateful to your Department
    is the public broadcasting initiative, changing from analog to
    digital broadcasting. This would be a real help to the rural
    areas, and as you know, we have a lot of rural areas. So thank
    you very much.
        Secretary Daley. Thank you, Senator.
        Senator Inouye. That is all I have, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Gregg. Thank you, Senator.
        Senator Stevens.

                          Stellar sea lion population

        Senator Stevens. Mr. Secretary, sorry I am a little late. I
    did look over your comments, and I just have a few questions.
        First--about the stellar sea lion--there is a decrease from
    last year, and one of the real problems we have now with
    commercial fisheries from Portland north is the great question
    of whether the decrease in the stellar sea lion is something
    that is caused by man or by other conditions; and really
    whether it is something that should be addressed from the point
    of view of reducing the pressure on the biomass of the north
    Pacific as far as fisheries is concerned. So I just mention it
    to you. I am going to do my best to increase that if we can, to
    take it back up, because I think it is the most significant
    problem that we face in the north Pacific fisheries--the Gulf
    of Alaska fisheries--is the question of what is happening to
    the stellar sea lion. I just mention it to you. I do not know
    if you have a comment. I think I wrote to you about it as a
    matter of fact.
        But it is a very serious thing so that requested decrease
    at the same time that other portions of the Administration are
    rising--its really saying we should slow down commercial
    fishing because of this, and we do not have the basic science
    to deal with it yet on stellar sea lions.
        Secretary Daley. I know, Mr. Chairman, that we are working
    with the council to try to come up with some ways to address
    the problem of the stellar sea lion, but let me see if we can
    address your concerns as far as the appropriation.
        Senator Stevens. You and the Secretary of Interior share
    with the president of the University of Alaska, the
    responsibility for approving a plan for spending the money that
    we set aside for scientific studies in the north Pacific. He is
    coming in today. I am going to ask him to get together with you
    and see if we can try to use some of that money to augment what
    you have got, because I think it is the number one problem that
    we have in fisheries.

                   National Undersea Research Program funding

        Secondly, we have had a decrease in the funding for the
    National Undersea Research Program. We said that should be
    allocated proportionately among the centers. Again, this is one
    of the reasons that the president of the University of Alaska
    is coming in. Our center believes that it has been given,
    unfortunately, a very sizable portion of that reduction--much
    out of line to what we in the Congress intended. Again, I have
    written you a letter on that. I hope you will take a look at
    that. It is a very important program for us now. I do not know
    if you know this, the National Geographic is undertaking a
    study with Dr. Earl, who is going into a whole study of the
    outer continental shelf. Eighty percent of the outer
    continental shelf if off our State, and if our center is going
    to be able to participate at a time when others are putting a
    heavy emphasis on what is going on out there on the outer
    continental shelf off Alaska, I think that program, that
    undersea research program, should not be reduced to the extent
    it is.
        If we can find some extra money, maybe we can increase that
    one a little bit this year. Have you had any chance to look at
    that program?
        Secretary Daley. We have. We have tried to do a fair
    allocation amongst all of the centers. The university, which
    does an excellent job, receives about $2.4 million per year. It
    is the most of any of the centers.
        Senator Stevens. We have half the coastline of the United
    States. If you are talking about undersea or continental shelf,
    you are talking about Alaska. Eighty percent of that
    continental shelf is off one State. The money is being spread
    around to a lot of places, and they do not have any undersea to
    research really in comparison to what we have.
        I would want to urge you to try and partner with what the
    National Geographic is going to do, because I think they are
    going to get us a lot of information about the resources that
    may be available on the outer continental shelf and what we
    should do about them.
        Senator Campbell. Give them Colorado's portion of the
    money.
        Secretary Daley. Wish there was some money in Colorado to
    give them.
        Senator Stevens. Record that, Mr. Chairman. Colorado will
    give up their undersea research money. [Laughter.]
        Secretary Daley. I know there have been discussions between
    your staff and ours, Mr. Chairman. We will sit down with them
    and see if we can address that.

                         Seafood marketing legislation

        Senator Stevens. Last, let me inform my colleagues about
    this. I have been working on a bill, and I am going to
    introduce it soon. It deals with seafood marketing. We have had
    a terrible time, really, competing in the world with seafood
    marketing. Alaska has the Alaska Seafood Marketing Institute.
    The rest of the country really does not.
        We believe that we ought to promote our seafood industry.
    We do have the cleanest and safest seafood in the world, and we
    want to try to utilize a portion of the Saltonstall-Kennedy
    funds. Originally that Saltonstall-Kennedy fund was for the
    purpose of assisting the seafood industry to market their
    product, and we have gotten away from that. I would like to
    urge you to direct some of those funds, once again, to benefit
    the industry and to stabilize their markets.
        The foreign seafood producers are advertising in our
    country at an alarming rate. You have a marketing council for
    beef; you have one for pork; you have one for chicken; you have
    one for a lot of other things. It is not in our agency. It is
    over in Agriculture. But this product is under your
    jurisdiction and not under Agriculture, and of course, they
    have resisted for a long time our trying to create a seafood
    industry promotional concept using agricultural money. So I
    have decided to descend on your Department and see if we cannot
    find some way to institute a real marketing program for
    American seafood. Not just Alaskan, but American seafood.
    Whatever helps the seafood market for the Nation will help us,
    because we produce half the seafood in the United States. And
    we have a difficult time getting out of our State with
    promotions.
        So I just urge you to take a look at this bill, and hope
    you will consider having your people take a good, hard look at
    it and help us. If Agriculture is involved as much as they are
    in assisting the marketing of the land-based meat producers, I
    think that it is a role that Commerce and NOAA could well take
    on to assist promotion in promoting our total national seafood
    industry.
        It is lagging. It really is lagging. We are being
    overwhelmed with imports at a time when our product is much
    better than theirs. We are marketing wild salmon. They are
    marketing salmon that comes from pens and from various
    facilities, like they have in Chile, where really they are
    farming salmon. We are catching wild salmon. As my wife would
    say, salmon savage, that is the best salmon in the world. And
    we do not market it.
        I see Scott Gudes [former minority clerk of the
    subcommittee] is smiling back there. You have taken one of our
    best salmon fisherman down there, and we will have to have him
    detailed for a month or two this summer.
        Secretary Daley. I will volunteer for that job.
        Senator Stevens. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Gregg. I think the whole committee would be happy
    to. [Laughter.]
        Senator Stevens. It has been a long time since we took this
    committee up to Alaska.
        Senator Gregg. I think the committee should go up there and
    see if we can find some of these wild salmon.
        Senator Stevens. I do not know if Senator Hollings went
    along, but Senator McClellan, when he was chairman of this
    committee, took every member--and in those days, if a chairman
    suggested it was time to go on a trip, everyone went. Those
    things have changed a little bit right now. But he took us all,
    and we had a three-week trip to Alaska. We went by train, by
    bus, and by air. And we went to the villages, but he did a
    little bit of scientific research about what creatures exist in
    the waters of Alaska. We might plan that.
        Senator Gregg. That sounds pretty good to me.
        Senator Stevens. I hope you will look at----
        Secretary Daley. We will look at the bill and try to work
    with the industry to see if we can come up with a program.
        Senator Stevens. Thank you very much.
        Senator Gregg. Senator Leahy.
        Senator Leahy. Thank you. I must say, the last time I went
    to Alaska with Chairman Stevens, I caught the largest fish I
    had ever caught in my life.
        Senator Gregg. That is because you do not fish in New
    Hampshire.
        Senator Stevens. It was not as big as the one your wife
    caught. [Laughter.]
        Senator Leahy. You were not supposed to remember that, Ted.
    But anyway, if you want to set up a trip, I will go.
        Mr. Secretary, you should know your Department has been
    very helpful in Vermont with the EDA grants in Burlington, and
    NOAA has helped with Lake Champlain, and I am pleased with what
    you have done on the Internet domain name study. I think as the
    Internet expands, it is extremely important.

                     National Technical Information Service

        I do have a concern though about the National Technical
    Information Service, NTIS. I do not have a problem with the
    Federal Government having a clearinghouse for America's review
    of scientific, technical, and other business related material.
    But I think the role and products of the NTIS have gone beyond
    that scope.
        I have raised concerns with the Department in the past, and
    I had hoped somebody would look at those because NTIS is
    marketing subscription products that compete directly with
    private companies that are providing nearly identical services.
    In full disclosure, I would note that the private company that
    does that most extensively is in a small town in Vermont.
        But the Department of Commerce which promotes private
    business development is actually marketing, in this case, a
    product that competes directly and almost exactly with existing
    services in the private sector, and I do not think that is what
    they should be doing. There has been a request for a $2 million
    increase in the budget for NTIS.
        You say you are preparing legislation to clarify the NTIS
    mission, for giving it greater flexibility. I am going to be
    looking at that very, very closely. I do not want to see it
    continue to compete with the private sector, and I will look
    very carefully at the request.
        Secretary Daley. My understanding, Senator, is that the
    service that we have provided for 20-some years, and now that
    it has gone on the Internet, is obviously being taken advantage
    of, and appropriately so, by the private sector.
        As far as NTIS is concerned, we have raised our concern
    about the future of NTIS. I think we in the Department and the
    Congress have to figure out how we continue, if we continue.
    They are unable to compete with the private sector, to be frank
    with you. It is in a financial situation that is totally
    unacceptable, and I think there is going to have to be a
    decision made on how, if any way, this organization continues.
        NTIS has a statutory mission. We are looking at options for
    its future and will come back to the committee and come back to
    the Congress and ask for direction on whether we ought to be
    continuing with this service that is, no doubt about it now,
    being in direct competition with the private sector.
        Senator Leahy. When NTIS was created it was a different
    world. NTIS was needed to go out and collect all of these
    articles out of archives, papers, and so on, but now with so
    much online, it is a lot different. It is something we could
    probably even carry on more conversations about, but it is
    something that I am very concerned about.

                       United States-European Union trade

        Last year you expressed concern about implementation of
    privacy standards by the European Union with regard to
    electronic trade and personal trade. Do you think their privacy
    standards have a potential for disrupting trade between the
    United States and the European Union?
        Secretary Daley. I do. There is no question that if the
    directive that was put out last October was implemented, it
    would have a serious impact on trade between Europe and the
    United States. We got the E.U. to agree to a standstill over
    the last 90 days. That directive did not go into place. We have
    been in intensive negotiations. As a matter of fact, Ambassador
    Aaron, the Undersecretary for International Trade, is meeting
    this weekend with Director General Mog of the European Union.
        We have, as I say, basically a standstill now until the
    summer. And we are optimistic. There has been progress, but the
    member states of the European Union, as I understand it, are
    having problems with this kind of freezing where we are at, and
    staying in the standstill, and they are beginning to push for
    action, individual member states, which will create problems.
    We have got to reach some agreement on this or else we could
    have a serious impact on the trade flows.
        For those companies that do business, send information,
    from payroll information to customer information, their
    businesses could be severely impacted. So it is a serious issue
    for us and one that, quite frankly, is getting to a delicate
    point in negotiations right now.
        Senator Leahy. I am getting a lot of inquiries, wearing my
    Judiciary Committee hat, from companies. Everybody is worried
    about 6 months from now, or 8 months from now, where are we
    going to be? Are we suddenly going to find things closed off?
    Which ironically, is something that will not be all that
    helpful to the European Union either. Whether this is a cut off
    your nose to spite your face, I do not know. But I would
    encourage you--and I do not think I need to encourage you
    because you are obviously doing it, but this has to be a major
    priority.
        Secretary Daley. They have, the Europeans take a much more
    government-led position. We have reached out to the private
    sector to get them to address the privacy concerns of the
    consumers. If privacy is not addressed, this Internet and doing
    business electronically will not succeed anywhere near to the
    level that we hope and expect.
        We think we have prodded the U.S. industry to take some
    steps. There is a whole host of alliances; the Online Alliance,
    which is a number of major companies who have stepped forward
    with privacy principles and a self-regulatory process.
        But the Europeans, to this point, take a much more
    government-led, regulatory-led position than we do. We are
    trying to get them to understand our attitude and our private
    sector-led, self-regulatory-led efforts so that they could be
    basically safe-harbored and be accepted by the Europeans. That
    if you meet our standards, our self-regulatory, private sector-
    led standards, you would be--those actions would be acceptable
    in Europe.
        At this point, even though we have the standstill, it is
    getting difficult, to be frank with you. But we will continue
    to let you know as we move forward with the negotiations.
        Senator Leahy. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Gregg. Senator Hollings.

                                   NOAA fleet

        Senator Hollings. Thank you.
        Mr. Secretary, I will take a page from Senator Inouye's
    book and thank you for the rejuvenation of our NOAA fleet. We
    had not had any real requests from a Secretary of Commerce for
    20 years. We did force-feed, a few years back, the research
    vessel. Ron Brown----
        We only have nine vessels left. They are over 30 years of
    age, technologically obsolete. So I am glad to see that you are
    putting that money in, because we have under the Magnuson Act,
    the added responsibilities in fisheries, and we just cannot do
    the work unless we begin to modernize that fleet.

                       International Trade Administration

        Otherwise on the International Trade Administration, is
    well-organized and doing an outstanding job and I have
    recommended long since to abolish the International Trade
    Commission. Let the same entity; namely, ITA, that has to make
    a finding of whether or not there is a dumping violation--like
    the same jury that finds the guilt, let them find the sentence.
    Similarly, as they find a dumping violation, they ought to also
    find the injury and what action should be taken.

                                 Steel imports

        Regarding steel, you have right this minute an export
    quota, import quota bill on steel that has passed the House, or
    will pass it, and it will arrive in the Senate next week or the
    following week. That comes about because one entity of
    Government does not look at the other. Namely, the World Bank
    runs all over the world telling every emerging Third World
    country that you cannot be a nation-state unless you can
    produce the steel for the weapons of war and the tools of
    agriculture. So they build 2 percent steel mills everywhere.
    This is being done over in China right this minute.
        As a result, steel is being dumped on the docks right in my
    hometown. I can look out and see the steel coming in to the
    southeast for less than we can produce it here in the United
    States.
        Under President Kennedy we had a hearing to determine the
    importance of steel to our national security. There was a
    provision in law that before the President could take executive
    action he had to find that the commodity or product that was
    necessary to our national security. So we had hearings. The
    Secretary of Commerce, State, Defense, Agriculture, and Labor
    came together and found that steel was the most important to
    our national security.
        And we are just putting ourselves out of business because
    we are saying free trade, free trade, but there is no such
    thing. Every day we are thinking up some new regulation, some
    new provision whether it is minimum wage, Medicaid or Medicare,
    Social Security, Clean Air, Clean Water, plant closing notice,
    parental leave. Anything I can do on it. And then, by the way,
    you run around there with a white tent and put over NAFTA. I am
    losing jobs at an alarming rate.
        With regard to China, this is the whole point. We ship more
    to Holland than we do to China. We ship more to Singapore in
    exports than we do to China. It has gone from, at the beginning
    of the decade, from $5 billion to $57 billion, $58 billion in a
    deficit. And you and secretaries preceding you and others on
    both sides of the aisle keep doing that, and the deficit keeps
    going worse.

                        Trade mission to Korea and China

        So I wish you well in that trip you are going on later this
    month. But I hope you will understand that we must do better.
        Now by contrast, the Europeans have a balance. They do not
    have a deficit. Surplus with Japan. We are financing the
    rejuvenation of $1.2 billion. Well, I am going to ride home
    tonight and go down past the State Department and you will see
    the hungry poor sleeping on the steam coming up from the
    streets. We have the homeless and the hungry, and we have
    problems, crime and drugs, in this country. But you know, it is
    free trade, so we just send and send and we keep going out of
    business. All our manufacturing jobs are gone.
        Be a hard-card Charlie over there rather than just a
    giveaway like Santa Claus.
        Secretary Daley. I appreciate your direction, Senator, and
    I do hope that on this trip to China and Korea we are able to
    get some deals for U.S. companies that will increase our
    exports. No doubt we share your same concern that our exports
    have not been better to China. We did see a 10 percent increase
    last year, which started at such a low base that it is just
    unacceptable.
        We are trying to push them. We see tremendous
    opportunities. U.S. businesses continue to see opportunities to
    sell their products there, if we can get in the market. We
    hopefully will have some success on this trip and see that.
        I would point out, there is no question that there are
    impacts that are negative to free and fairer trade. Markets are
    not open around the world to products that are manufactured in
    your State and in others. In steel, it is one area that I do
    think we have taken a strong step over the last 90 days in
    having a dramatic impact in reducing the imports. We have cut
    the imports about 70 percent from what was coming in last year.
        We think that is important, and we have sent a strong
    message to the rest of the world that they should not look to
    dump their goods or steel into this country without strong
    action by the Commerce Department, and we will continue to do
    that on steel. It is a very difficult situation.
        We are the envy of the world right now. Our economy is the
    only one that is humming along at 4.5 percent unemployment. Our
    standard of living has gone up. Even last month, for the first
    time in a long time, our manufacturing jobs have increased,
    which was a positive sign. So compared to the rest of the
    world, we are doing very well, and the goal of all of ours, I
    know, is to try to keep this economy strong but not be taken
    advantage of by others.

                           loss of Manufacturing jobs

        Senator Hollings. But how we are hollowing out our
    manufacturing sector is the real thing to look at. You have the
    security of the country, and it stands on a three-legged stool.
    You have the values as a Nation unquestioned, you have your
    military might. Your economic leg has been fractured. We are
    down from 26 percent 10 years ago of the population workforce
    in the manufacturing, down to less than 13 now.
        We lost--I saw all the publicity on the market jumping up
    to 9,770 or something close to it. But we lost 50,000
    manufacturing jobs and this is very bothersome. It does not
    come out in your unemployment statistics because everybody is
    trying to get at least part-time work or whatever it is. I have
    in Lee County unemployment at 7 percent or 8 percent. I can go
    over to Marlboro County, and to other counties. I can go up to
    Greenville, you are right, it is down to 3.5 percent. But I
    have lost 28,000 jobs since NAFTA.
        And Washington claims reeducate and retrain so we can get
    them a skill job in computers. Go down there to Oneida, for
    example, in Andrews, South Carolina where they had 487 workers.
    They were making good pay and everything; they had been there
    30-some years. The jobs these people had went to Mexico. So the
    age average is 47 years of age, and if we do it Washington's
    way, you have 47 year-olds retrained as computer operators.
        Now are you going to hire a 21-year-old computer operator
    or a 47-year-old computer operator? You are not going to take
    on the health costs, the retirement costs of the 47-year-old.
    If you are a good, corporate, competitive entity you are going
    to say, give me the 21-year-old. I am not going to take on that
    burden. So even retraining, they are high and dry. They are
    out. They just get out of the system.

                                Decennial census

        And it is going on not just in South Carolina, but all over
    the country. And we are whistling through the graveyard, which
    gets me to the main point, the census. We are whistling through
    the graveyard on that one.
        Now because I am intimate to the budget, I know that what
    is being played is a budget charade. We have a messy charade.
    The Republicans want tax cuts and a little bit on education.
    Democrats want to take care of Social Security, and leave more
    on education and more for Medicare. Neither one is talking
    reality.
        The reality is that we spent $12 billion above the caps. We
    broke the caps last year, $12 billion. We broke the caps this
    year, $21 billion. But we never changed the fiscal year 2000
    cap. So in order to comply with that 2000 cap, defense must cut
    $31 billion or $32 billion to start off with. So I am starting
    off, what do I do? I ask $18 billion more for defense and $2.5
    billion more in a supplemental for agriculture.
        We are doing the same thing with the census. We are not
    getting a figure. I agree that you cannot use it for
    reapportionment. But in the other cases you must use some
    sampling if we are going to avoid the lawsuits. We had that in
    1990. We just cannot sit around and say, do not count them.
        Everybody--this is a Republican solution. I was here with
    President Bush when he gave it to the National Science Academy.
    Experts have saved the law on both sides of the aisle. That is
    the only way to get the best count. But they clothe themselves
    with the Constitution, everybody should be counted. That never
    did happen. In the old Constitutional days the marshals ran out
    and shouted, anybody? And they put down some figures.
        So we are trying. If they have a better way than sampling,
    I will adopt that. But we must use it to avoid those court
    cases, and we need to get a figure from you to get going. What
    is your figure?
        Secretary Daley. As I mentioned, Senator, we have a figure
    that is in the 2000 budget that was before the court case in
    late January. We are in the process right now of trying to
    finalize what additional funds would be needed by now having to
    go out to 45 million homes instead of 30 million, and doing a
    whole host of other activities because of the Supreme Court
    decision.
        We hope that this master activity schedule, which is about
    4,000 different items--but the actual schedule of how this
    would be implemented will be done in mid-April. But we are in
    the process right now of scrubbing the numbers to try to come
    up with a number for 2000, additional, to give to you. We will
    give it to you as soon as we have it, but at this point I do
    not have it.
        Senator Hollings. That will be a figure for both the
    sampling and the enumeration?
        Secretary Daley. It would be what is needed on top of what
    we have requested in order to do the entire census, which would
    be the full enumeration for apportionment purposes, and then an
    accuracy evaluation program, which would include sampling, for
    reapportionment and distribution of Federal funds purposes and
    meet the statutory requirements of getting information to the
    States by April 1st.
        Senator Hollings. Obviously, we will be meeting many more
    times on this issue, Mr. Chairman. So thank you very much.
        Senator Gregg. Yes, obviously we have a disagreement here.
    I mean, we do not agree to funding of sampling. I do not want
    Dick Morris doing the census. I want to count the people.
        Senator Hollings. I agree with you on Dick Morris. I do not
    want him doing anything. [Laughter.]
        Senator Gregg. That is why we do not like sampling.
        Senator Hutchison.
        Senator Hutchison. I promise not to ask you a question
    about Dick Morris.
        Secretary Daley. Thank you.

                        Victoria, Texas weather station

        Senator Hutchison. Mr. Secretary, I want to, first of all,
    thank you for the outstanding work you did with the National
    Weather Service and how it would be allocated and administered.
    I really, frankly, have never seen a Secretary listen to what
    the people underneath said, determine that you were not getting
    the full picture, hire someone from the outside to come in and
    do a total scrubbing of the organization to see what the facts
    were, and then basically change a decision that you had made,
    based on the facts. I commend you for it, and appreciate very
    much that you did that.
        I do want to ask you a question regarding the Victoria
    weather station. Last Friday, I was in Victoria and Cuero, two
    of the hardest hit areas in the recent floods in Texas. As you
    know, Texas is probably the most weather-active State in
    America. We have not only the normal sorts of things, but
    hurricanes and tornado alley where we sit cause us to have more
    disruptions. This last year we had the worst of all
    possibilities, which was a terrible drought followed by a huge
    flood.
        Victoria, Cuero, and Gonzales were particularly hard-hit,
    and the Victoria weather station has been severely hit. It has
    not yet been fully closed because you are looking at it. But
    they believe that had they had better warning they would have
    been able to protect more of their livestock loss. The
    livestock loss was huge, not to mention homes and the property
    damage. It is in the hundreds of millions. And they do not
    have, obviously, the capacity to replenish that, particularly
    because agriculture and ranching is in such bad shape because
    of the droughts.
        So my question is, what is the status of the Victoria
    weather station, and what can you do to try to make sure that
    they do have the appropriate equipment with the radar that
    would anticipate these kinds of--of course, they get hit by
    hurricanes too, but in this case it was the drought followed by
    the flood.
        Secretary Daley. First of all, thank you for your comments
    about our actions in the past, and I thank you for pushing us,
    to be frank with you, to make sure that we did take all the
    information into account before we made a mistake. And we were
    on the road to making a mistake.
        As far as Victoria is concerned, you are right, that office
    is one that has been on the list to be closed. We have closed
    139 offices around the country, out of the total amount of 164
    I believe it is, of offices from the original modernization
    program to be closed. As a result of the flooding, we have done
    an assessment of how we acted, what our warnings were. That
    assessment is to be finished, my understanding is, sometime
    late this week. Obviously, we are at Thursday, so it is
    probably going to be tomorrow or early next week.
        Then off of that we will see whether or not there ought to
    be a review of a decision that had been made previously on that
    station. And if we were to close that office and there was
    another situation like that, would we be able to stand up and
    say there is no degradation of service if we do close the
    office? So we will contact your office as soon as we have the
    assessment in hand, go through it with your office. Then we are
    going to make some decisions off of that. I have not made a
    final decision on closing that office.
        Senator Hutchison. I really would appreciate knowing what
    you find. The tornado in Jarrell 2 years before, the quick
    response of the southern regional office down to the emergency
    personnel in Austin, as much as you can ever say actually can
    be shown to have saved lives. Because they had a 30-minute
    warning where that tornado was going, they were able to get the
    sheriff's office out there. They were on the radio stations
    throughout that area.
        And although there were a number of people killed, it was
    people who just had not been able to be contacted. But the
    people who were saved were the ones that because, for instance,
    the HEB food store was aware because of the radio and the
    sheriff's activity. They were able to put every person in their
    food store back into a place that was protected.
        When you went into that HEB store, you saw the whole roof
    was gone and everything in that store except where the people
    were was totally dilapidated. So you could see that the warning
    really made a difference, which I think is a testament to your
    keeping that southern regional administrative system in place.
        So I think that we did save lives there, and I just worry
    that Victoria being another very active weather place, is going
    to really be hurt without that instant warning system that is
    there with the radar. So I will be interested in hearing what
    you have to say, and hope very much that we can look at that
    carefully.
        Secretary Daley. As I say, as soon as we have the
    assessment we will share it with your office. Then I am sure
    there will be a public comment period after that, and then off
    of the process of moving forward on whether or not we close the
    office. But a lot will depend on the assessment that is done by
    this report.
        Senator Hutchison. All right, thank you.
        Secretary Daley. Thank you, Senator.
        Senator Gregg. Yes?
        Senator Inouye. Mr. Chairman, I have one question.
        Senator Gregg. Yes.

                       treating Tuna with carbon monoxide

        Senator Inouye. Mr. Secretary, I forgot to bring this up,
    but I was reminded of it by Senator Stevens. We are having a
    strange development occurring in the Pacific area. There are
    wealthy enterprises involved in doctoring tuna by using carbon
    monoxide. So you can get old tuna, bathe it with carbon
    monoxide, and it comes out pinkish-red. So the consumer looking
    at that would think that this is fresh from the ocean, when it
    is not.
        Obviously, it concerns us, not only from the standpoint of
    commerce, but also from the standpoint of health. I do not know
    what to do about this. I do not know who has jurisdiction over
    this.
        Secretary Daley. We have the seafood inspection program,
    which is in NOAA. Let me--is this being imported from countries
    around----
        Senator Inouye. Japan has passed a law banning all of this.
    It is coming primarily from Asia, and it has already reached
    the west coast. So if you are going to have sushi out there,
    you had better watch it.
        And the last thing is that it is good to see Scott there.
    He usually sits in the back. But now he's a deputy
    undersecretary.
        Secretary Daley. I will ask NOAA to look at this issue and
    see what we can do, Senator.
        Senator Inouye. I would appreciate that.
        Senator Hollings. Yes, we had a big debate about that.
    Relative to the Department of Agriculture, they are not as
    stiff on inspections as we were in Commerce. We tried to take
    it all over into Commerce. But if you can get with Dan Glickman
    and find out about it immediately, that would be a big help,
    Mr. Secretary.
        Secretary Daley. OK. It is the first time we have heard of
    the problem with the tuna, but we will get on it and see if
    there is anything we can do. Or where, if it is not us, where
    it should be.
        [The information follows:]

        The Department of Commerce looked into the matter and
    determined that the National Marine Fisheries Service is aware
    of the doctoring of tuna by using carbon monoxide. The Food and
    Drug Administration is addressing the problem.

        Senator Gregg. I do have a few further questions. Do you
    have anything further?
        Senator Hollings. No.

                                Decennial census

        Senator Gregg. We gave the Department of Commerce $27
    million last year to give us basically estimates on the census,
    and now we are still waiting for an estimate on the census, on
    the enumeration number. Can you give us a specific date when we
    will get a number from you? We have heard numbers as high as
    $6.5 billion. I would like a specific date when we can get a
    number.
        Secretary Daley. Mr. Chairman, I wish I could give you a
    date and say that this is a firm date that we would have for
    the 2000 additional funds that will be needed. We do plan on
    having the master activity schedule completed, which would
    obviously require that we have a number by mid-April. But I am
    optimistic that it would be before that, and we are pushing
    both the Census Bureau and OMB as we move forward, to try to
    get this as fast as possible.
        I know the dilemma you are in as you try to move forward
    with putting the Commerce Department budget together, forget
    the overall budget of the Government, with such a potential
    hole. But I cannot give you a specific date because I could not
    be guaranteed that I could live up to the promise that on a
    date certain I would have it to you.
        I do say that by the middle of April we do expect to have
    the master activity list finished, but my goal is to have a
    number for you much sooner than that.
        Senator Hollings. If the gentleman would yield? The
    Secretary, I have been on him, too. Just like you, I want to
    know how much this is going to cost. And he has been trying.
    The best I can understand it, the White House and OMB cannot
    agree upon an offset for the amount. That has been the hold-up.
    And I would like to have it, and I know the Secretary would
    like to have it this morning to deliver to you as chairman. But
    that is what is in the workings right now. I am trying to find
    that figure. If I find out any more, I will----
        Senator Gregg. I would appreciate it. It is constructive if
    they are looking for offsets. So congratulate them for that.
        I notice that there is a proposal on the enumeration side
    to expand significantly the amount of money spent on media and
    the amount of money spent on specialists, outreach specialists.
    I heard that 100 additional ones are being talked about.

                  advertising to increase Census response rate

        Now the last time we went through the census process a lot
    of money was spent on media. Allegedly 93 percent of America
    knew there was a census going forward and that did not have too
    much of an impact on compliance. Compliance is the wrong word--
    on people participating since there is no legal obligation to
    comply.
        The problem arises again, why should we spend all this
    money on media and a bunch of consultants, 100 consultants, who
    are going to tell us basically what we already know, rather
    than spending it on hiring people to go out there and count?
        Secretary Daley. I think, Mr. Chairman, we will end up
    doing both. In 1990, as in previous decennials, the advertising
    that was done was donated by the media to us. I think the sense
    was that most of the advertising that was given to us was in
    weird hours, you know 1:00 a.m. to 4:00 a.m. sort of periods in
    the morning and on kind of off the main prime time sort of
    where we would reach the most people.
        So a decision was made to try to do a paid advertising
    campaign for the first time by the census and get very
    aggressive, and also targeting into the historically
    undercounted areas with the message that would both educate
    people and then try to motivate them on participating in the
    census. Obviously we save money and we save time the more
    people that fill out the questionnaire or respond when there
    are people at the door. So the decision was made, and I think
    it was right.
        We have had a brief rundown of the media campaign that will
    be done by Young & Rubicon as the principal contractor, and we
    expect that this will continue to help us in getting greater
    participation at the front end of this.
        But I think there was a general consensus that the media
    that was done in the past, which was all donated, was not of
    the quality that one needs today when it is even more difficult
    to address people. And as we all know, media seems to be the
    medium in which people get motivated today. It is very
    difficult to do it just on civic pride, and we have to get out
    there on the television, on radio, and magazines, and
    billboards around America. We need to get them in the prime
    locations as opposed to those that were just given to us kind
    of off the beaten path both timewise and location-wise in the
    past.
        Senator Gregg. I would like to get the numbers on what you
    are planning for in this area, and what the game plan is in
    this area.

                      second Census questionnaire mailing

        Secretary Daley. OK.
        Senator Gregg. Also I notice you are not sending out a
    second letter?
        Secretary Daley. The decision on not doing a second
    questionnaire was--our original plan was to do that. One of the
    things we did learn in the dress rehearsal was that the
    difficulties of the second questionnaire, following up, and the
    costs associated, and the potential for a large overcount by
    people getting two questionnaires and sending them back, was
    just too taxing management-wise on the census and did not add
    to an increase.
        We are better off after the first questionnaire with the
    right sort of run-up to it, up to the first questionnaire with
    advertising, with a better mailing list, address list, that we
    would go immediately after that first questionnaire into the
    door to door direct enumeration. Again, because we have to do
    45 million homes instead of 30 million, it is even going to
    make it more difficult.
        But I think the decision was made by the people at the
    Census that a second questionnaire just caused us potentially
    more cost and most confusion, and a potential higher overcount
    by duplication.
        Senator Gregg. What has been the historical experience with
    the second questionnaire? In the 1990 census, I thought the
    second questionnaire increased the count by about 7 percent or
    8 percent.
        Secretary Daley. To be honest with you, I do not know the
    amount it increased it. Do you know, Rob?
        Mr. Shapiro. There was no second mailing in 1990.
        Secretary Daley. There was no second mailing in 1990?
        Senator Gregg. I thought there was a second mailing.
        Secretary Daley. 1980 was the last time we did a second
    mailing?
        Mr. Shapiro. We have never done a second mailing.
        Secretary Daley. We have never done a second mailing?
        Mr. Shapiro. We have never done a second mailing.
        Secretary Daley. Surprise to me.
        Senator Gregg. A surprise to me. I had some numbers.
    Obviously I was inaccurate.
        Secretary Daley. But we tested a second mailing in the
    dress rehearsal?
        Mr. Shapiro. We tested it in the 1995 test.
        Secretary Daley. This is Rob Shapiro, the Under Secretary
    for Economic Affairs which the Census Bureau is under.
        Mr. Shapiro. We have never used a second mailing in the
    full census. It was tested in the 1995 test, and it did raise,
    the estimate is that it did raise the mail response rate.
    However, as was found in the dress rehearsal, a very large
    share of that additional response were duplicate responses. In
    this year's dress rehearsals, 40 percent of the additional
    response produced by the second mailing were duplicate
    responses.

                      Technology Administration structure

        Senator Gregg. Thank you. Now I have often wondered why we
    have this Under Secretary of Technology Policy when we have
    NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology). That
    seems to be a lot of duplication. I mean, you have got NIST
    with a $647 million budget, and the undersecretary there has
    about a $9.5 million budget. Isn't the director of NIST really
    the person who is setting technology policy?
        Secretary Daley. No. He works with the Under Secretary. The
    Under Secretary in the Technology Administration helps our
    Administration and the Government lay out a technology policy
    broader than just the NIST. NIST is overseeing much of the
    specific research that is done, scientific research on behalf
    of the Government, in our labs.
        Senator Gregg. Could we not just fold that office into
    NIST, give the director of NIST the title? It is an even higher
    title than he has even though that person has more
    responsibility in the area of dollars, dramatically more
    responsibility, and eliminate a level of bureaucracy and have
    the person who is running NIST manage the issues?
        Secretary Daley. I think to broaden the portfolio of NIST
    to some of the other issues that the Under Secretary for
    Technology is involved with would probably change the nature of
    NIST.
        We have tried to cut the duplication and tried to cut some
    areas where we think the NIST organization functions best and
    not let the Technology Administration dabble in their business
    too much. But at this point we think the Under Secretary plays
    an important role in the overall Administration, along with the
    science advisor to the President.

                         International Trade Commission

        Senator Gregg. How do you feel about Senator Hollings' idea
    on ITC?
        Secretary Daley. I would probably want to consult with my
    colleagues in the Administration before I advocate doing away
    with the ITC. I think they serve a function. It is a bipartisan
    organization, appointed Democrats, Republicans. I probably
    would not want to take a position on doing away with the ITC
    when we have so much activity before them right now. Maybe
    after I leave I will have an opinion, but we do a lot with them
    and it may not be----
        Senator Hollings. If the chairman would yield? It is the
    same activity we have before the ITA. That is the whole thing.
    It's the same situation all over again. And that fact that it
    is bipartisan, that is a bipartisan fraud, just like the Center
    for Democracy?
        Senator Gregg. NED.
        Senator Hollings. National Endowment for Democracy. They
    have not only both political parties, they have labor and the
    Chamber of Commerce. We just distribute the money around and
    say it is a wonderful thing.
        Senator Gregg. We try not to. [Laughter.]

           termination of the National Technical Information Service

        Unfortunately, others disagree with us.
        How about this idea that Senator Leahy had of basically
    eliminating NTIS?
        Secretary Daley. I think that is a real option. I think
    because we have a statutory obligation to perform those
    functions, to get out of that business, I think it is an option
    that Congress and we ought to be seriously looking at.
        Senator Gregg. Of course, it is a revolving fund situation,
    so we do not have a whole lot of appropriating authority except
    in a year like this where they need a couple million dollars.
        Secretary Daley. But the difficulty here, and why we have
    to get, to be frank with you, Mr. Chairman, Congress and us
    together on this is because we are going to continue to have to
    request more money because this business, they cannot compete
    with the private sector. The question is whether they ought to
    be competing.
        My opinion right now is we should not be coming back asking
    for more money on a losing proposition, and we have got to find
    another solution to it. So getting out of that business or
    transferring it to the Library of Congress, or GAO, or the
    Government Printing Office are among our other options. But we
    have got to do something quick or else we are going to be back
    here too often asking for more money for a business that is
    basically going out of business.
        Senator Gregg. Anybody else have any thoughts or questions?

                                 Census hearing

        Senator Hollings. Mr. Chairman, could we have a hearing on
    the census? I forget the gentleman's name, but maybe----
        Senator Gregg. Prewitt.
        Senator Hollings. Prewitt. Yes, bring him over sometime and
    get the full subcommittee at least and we get to find out how
    the census works, what our suspicions are, and clear up any
    misunderstandings. Then when we get down to the wire we will
    just have a money question. We will then be informed and all
    speaking from the same hymnal.
        Senator Gregg. That might be very valuable. Until I can get
    a hard dollar number though from the Department, I would be
    reticent to have him here.
        Senator Hollings. That is all right.
        Senator Gregg. Because I would like to have something to
    talk to him about besides hypothetically.

                         Additional committee questions

        Senator Hollings. Yes, we are not trying to preempt that. I
    am just trying to find a hard dollar, too.
        [The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
    were submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the
    hearing:]
                Questions Submitted by Senator Pete V. Domenici
                  public telecommunications facilities program
        Question. Secretary Daley, I am pleased to see that the
    Administration's fiscal year 2000 budget does not again propose to
    terminate or significantly reduce funding for the Public
    Telecommunications Facilities Program (PTFP), which provides grants to
    public radio and TV stations for equipment. The PTFP program was funded
    at $15.25 million in fiscal year 1997; Congress provided $21 million
    for each of fiscal year 1998 and fiscal year 1999. As recently as
    fiscal year 1995, PTFP received $29 million.
        Mr. Secretary, I have been a longtime supporter of the Public
    Telecommunications Facilities Program because it is an important source
    of funding to rural states like New Mexico. PTFP grants enable local
    broadcasting stations to provide quality programming to populations
    that are generally underserved.
        The budget includes $35.1 million for PTFP for fiscal year 2000, an
    increase of $14.1 million above 1999. The budget justification
    documents indicate that the Administration expects the additional
    funding ``to assist public broadcasters with an orderly transition to
    digital broadcasting.'' Am I correct that the Administration's budget
    supports the basic PTFP program at the existing level of $21 million
    for the next fiscal year?
        Answer. The Administration's request for PTFP's total funding is
    principally for public television's digital conversion; however, PTFP
    would continue the program's historical support for the basic equipment
    replacement and emergency needs of public television and public radio
    stations. The Federal commitment to supporting public radio
    applications through the PTFP represents about $3 million in funds each
    year. These funds assist public radio in extending their service to
    areas of the country currently not receiving a public radio signal and
    for equipment replacement.
        PTFP plans to continue to set aside between $2 and $3 million more
    for public television equipment replacement projects, whether for
    emergency situations, i.e., applications resulting from emergencies or
    catastrophic damage such as from a natural or man-made disaster, or for
    the replacement of existing analog equipment. PTFP will continue to
    work with the Corporation for Public Broadcasting's Digital Task Force
    to identify replacement needs for analog equipment between now and
    fiscal year 2006. These replacements also assist the digital transition
    because much of the replaced equipment is digital compatible. In this
    regard, there is not a clear split between PTFP's ``traditional''
    funding program and the digital transition funding.
        Question. How much does the Administration budget assume will be
    needed for the administrative costs for the ongoing PTFP program? Are
    those funds included in the salaries and expenses account for NTIA, or
    are they assumed to come out of the overall $21 million provided for
    PTFP grants?
        Answer. The Administration's budget requests $3.5 million in fiscal
    year 2000 for administrative costs, consisting of $2 million for base
    program costs and an additional $1.5 million for the digital
    transition. These funds are included as part of the Administration's
    $35 million request for PTFP; however, the administrative costs for
    digital transition represent only a small portion of the full
    initiative. We do not anticipate a substantial increase in the
    administrative costs in the outyears. These funds will allow the
    program to add resources and staff necessary to assist public
    broadcasters with the transition in a timely manner. The program will
    be able to accept significantly more applications on a rolling basis
    and disperse funds quarterly. In addition, many small stations simply
    do not have the expertise on staff to complete the conversion task. The
    Department will be proactive in providing engineering and other
    technical assistance with stations to assist them in determining
    locally-tailored equipment and conversion plans.
        Question. Last year, the Administration proposed that PTFP work
    ``in coordination and cooperation with the Corporation for Public
    Broadcasting (CPB),'' to concentrate on the transition from analog to
    digital broadcasting, and proposed the digital conversion funding
    through CPB. Why has the Administration changed its thinking on the
    digital conversion issue, and what is the rationale for providing these
    funds through PTFP rather than the larger CPB?
        Answer. The Administration remains committed to the $450 million
    digital conversion initiative for public broadcasting. Over the past
    year, the Administration has re-examined PTFP and CPB's role in this
    effort. The Administration believes that funding through PTFP will be
    the most efficient mechanism to ensure that stations are able to meet
    the May 1, 2003 deadline to pass through a digital signal.
        While CPB has not been authorized to carry out this initiative,
    PTFP's current statutory language and rules allow NTIA to award digital
    conversion grants. The program, if adequately appropriated, will help
    ensure that every station completes the transition according to the
    Federal mandate.
        PTFP has a proven record of assisting public broadcasters with
    facilities purchases. For 35 years, the program has funded projects
    that extended the delivery of public telecommunications services to
    over 95 percent of the American public and strengthened the
    capabilities of existing public television and radio stations. In
    accordance with the program's Congressionally mandated objectives, NTIA
    has recognized technology advances in the industry and these benefits
    on station operations. Over the past five years, the PTFP program has
    been funding digital equipment as part of public television and radio's
    funding requests.
        Question. What is the Administration's current estimated cost for
    public broadcasters to make the transition from analog to digital
    broadcasting?
        Answer. The Administration wants to ensure that all public
    broadcasters meet the Federal Communications Commission's requirement
    to ``pass through'' a digital signal by May 2003. Public broadcasters
    will require core digital transmission and base equipment necessary to
    ``pass through'' a network signal from the PBS satellite. The equipment
    included in the PTFP plan also provides stations with the capability to
    insert local programming using encoders and aspect ratio converters.
    This equipment will permit stations to use existing analog production
    equipment to broadcast local programs on the digital channel.
        The Administration estimates that the cost of the conversion to
    meet ``pass-through'' requirements is $703 million. This figure
    includes $506 million for converting transmission equipment plus $197
    million for converting master control equipment required to pass
    through a digital signal. The Administration's estimates do not include
    other associated costs that are part of a broadcasting operation, such
    as personnel, buildings, and other administrative costs not
    historically funded by the Federal Government. Other costs related to
    programming production and distribution are included in CPB's portion
    of the Administration's initiative.
        Question. Does the budget request anticipate that PTFP in making
    grants for digital conversion will include public broadcasting entities
    other than those participating in the PTFP program?
        Answer. Every public broadcasting station will be eligible for
    digital conversion funding. Non-public broadcasting entities, such as
    various distance learning projects that PTFP has supported, have no
    requirement to convert to digital broadcasting technology. Hence, they
    would not be eligible for digital conversion grants. Although the funds
    the Administration has proposed are principally for public television's
    digital conversion, PTFP funds will remain available for all other
    authorized purposes of the program, including distance learning, public
    radio and analog television service during the transition period.
        Question. These grants are stated to be ``competitive.'' What
    criteria does the Department plan to use in making these awards
    competitive?
        Answer. NTIA will award funds for digital conversion using the same
    merit- and need-based criteria that PTFP has used over three decades.
    These criteria have proven to be a highly effective means of meeting
    public broadcasting's needs within funding limits. The program will
    consider the merits of a proposed project when evaluated against a set
    of established criteria. These criteria, which are attached, have been
    published in the PTFP Rules and include such factors as project
    objectives, implementation plans, urgency, technical considerations and
    whether the applicant has the necessary financial resources to meet the
    project requirements. Since Congress has mandated that public
    television stations must convert to digital broadcasting, any public
    television applicant applying for that purpose would meet the basic
    criteria. The urgency of a project would depend on the local conditions
    in each market. We will monitor events in local markets, especially
    those with commercial operators already on the air broadcasting in
    digital, to ensure that public broadcasters are keeping pace.
        PTFP's needs-based criteria address the level of Federal assistance
    offered to projects which merit funding. As a needs-based grant
    program, PTFP will be able to award public television stations up to 75
    percent of eligible project costs for their digital conversion
    projects. PTFP also will provide stations with the opportunity of using
    funds from the CPB as all or part of their local matching funds upon
    showing of ``clear and compelling'' need. PTFP intends to work with the
    CPB Digital Task Force to determine what criteria would establish
    ``clear and compelling'' needs.
        Question. The budget in brief states part of this program is also
    to ``promote consolidation and efficiency'' within the public
    broadcasting system.'' What do you envision as the result of this
    process? Does the Administration intend to reduce the number of public
    broadcasters serving the nation?
        Answer. Although the budget in brief stated that NTIA would promote
    consolidation and efficiency within the public broadcasting system, the
    statement does not imply that NTIA will encourage a reduction in the
    number of public broadcasting stations. PTFP has always promoted the
    efficiency of public broadcasting operations. The transition to digital
    technologies provides public broadcasting stations with new
    opportunities to increase the efficiency of their operations. PTFP not
    only encourages the purchase of more efficient equipment, but the
    program also encourages the sharing of facilities whenever possible.
    For example, PTFP funded a single routing switcher which serves both
    public television stations in Denver. In funding this routing switcher,
    PTFP encouraged the efficient use of both Federal and local funds. This
    facilities consolidation concept is intended to increase the efficiency
    of the existing public television station's ability to serve their
    audiences and is not intended to reduce the number of public
    broadcasters serving the nation. Both stations will continue to
    operate, each at lower costs.
        Question. Do you think that public broadcasting infrastructure in
    New Mexico and throughout the country, especially in rural areas, can
    be sustained without Federal support?
        Answer. Federal support has played an important role in maintaining
    and extending the public broadcasting infrastructure, especially in
    rural areas such as New Mexico. For the digital transition, it will be
    critical. Although difficult for all public broadcasters, the digital
    transition creates a severe hardship for rural stations. In many of
    these situations, transition costs will equal two to three times a
    station's annual revenue. Under current regulations, public stations
    that do not meet the 2003 deadline must go off the air. The initiative
    will ensure that Federal funding is available for all of the 353 analog
    public television facilities to construct new digital transmission
    systems.
        Question. What benefits will digital conversion have to those who
    listen to and watch public broadcasting stations?
        Answer. Digital systems will give public broadcasting stations the
    ability to increase the services they provide to the community and
    fulfill its mission of providing diverse educational and cultural
    programming in new and innovative ways. The digital system will have
    three main benefits: high definition television, multicasting, and data
    transmission.
        High definition television (HDTV) will provide the viewer with a
    higher resolution and clearer picture than standard television. In
    addition, HDTV can provide CD-quality sound, providing the viewer with
    a ``home theater'' experience.
        Broadcasters will be able to transmit simultaneously four or more
    channels of standard definition television programming when they are
    not transmitting high definition programs. This is called multicasting.
    Multicasting will allow stations to tailor their programming to
    distinct audiences. For example, a station can broadcast workforce
    training, college course work, children's programming, and cultural
    programs at the same time.
        Because the signal is digital, public broadcasters can transmit
    data to the home television during regular program broadcasting. The
    public will be able to obtain data such as curriculum materials,
    educational children's games, photographs, and other public interest
    information without interrupting their video programming.
                     advance appropriations--noaa and ptfp
        Question. Mr. Secretary, the President's fiscal year 2000 budget
    includes an unprecedented $37.4 billion in proposed advance
    appropriations for fiscal year 2001--spending the Administration wants
    to commit to but that won't fit within the spending caps for fiscal
    year 2000. My own Energy-Water Subcommittee is requested to provide the
    lion's share--$12.7 billion or 34 percent of the advances requested for
    2001. The Labor-HHS Subcommittee is not far behind with $10.8 billion
    or 29 percent of the 2001 advance appropriations. This Subcommittee is
    requested to provide $1.021 billion in fiscal year 2001 advance
    appropriations with 71 percent within the Department of Commerce--$611
    million for NOAA procurement and $110 million for PTFP digital
    conversion.
        Secretary Daley, why did the Administration request such a
    significant amount of advanced appropriations for fiscal year 2001 and
    beyond?
        Answer. The request for advance appropriations in Commerce's budget
    responds to the requirements of the Federal Acquisition Streamlining
    Act of 1994 and the Information Technology Management Reform Act of
    1996. Including advanced appropriations in the budget request is
    consistent with and supports the Administration's capital asset policy
    for multi-year projects.
        Question. I note that the NOAA procurement advance appropriations
    are proposed through 2018 when many of us will no longer be in the
    Congress. Is the Administration seriously entertaining the notion that
    this Congress would commit taxpayer dollars and future Congresses to
    significant expenditures through 2018?
        Answer. The Administration will continue to support full funding
    for all multi-year capital asset acquisitions as part of an ongoing
    attempt to improve performance and reduce procurement costs. We would
    note that many types of legislation impose outyear funding decisions.
        Question. Why does the Administration believe that the federal
    government should commit to the purchase of NOAA satellites on such a
    long-term basis?
        Answer. The National Polar-orbiting Operational Environmental
    Satellite System (NPOESS) is a joint NOAA/DOD program that merges the
    operational requirements of both the DOD's Defense Meteorological
    Satellite Program (DMSP) and NOAA's Polar-orbiting Environmental
    Satellite Program (POES). The amount included for advanced
    appropriations is NOAA's share of the total funding required to
    develop, build, and launch five satellites that will meet both
    agencies' needs through 2018. The first satellite of this series is
    planned for launch availability in 2008.
        This system is required by both DOD and NOAA to provide the
    necessary environmental data for both national security and civilian
    needs. The request for advanced appropriations supports full funding
    and ensures that this priority mission is implemented and is
    accountable to congressional oversight.
        Question. For PTFP and digital conversion, the budget request
    includes $110 million, a significant increase above the $14.1 million
    proposed for the fiscal year 2000 bill that this Subcommittee will
    write in just a few months. If the Administration is committed to this
    project, why didn't it request the funding for fiscal year 2000?
        Answer. Not all public television stations will be ready to convert
    their facilities in fiscal year 2000. Digital transition funding is
    significantly increased in 2001 and 2002 to match anticipated increases
    in demand as the deadline approaches. The request for an advanced
    appropriation of $110 million in 2001 is a significant increase. The
    fiscal year 2000 request for $35 million will allow NTIA and public
    broadcasters to prepare for the out-years of the initiative. Conversion
    will be dependent on local circumstances such as a tower requirement or
    the ability to work with local commercial broadcasters, as well as the
    availability of local and state matching funds. Each station and each
    state will present a unique challenge, and each will arrive at its own
    solution to digital conversion. Our experience in funding hundreds of
    public broadcasting projects is that there will be many revisions,
    starts, and stops along the way.
        The Administration is seeking advance appropriations for a multi-
    year program to promote planning and certainty in the public
    broadcasting system's transition to digital broadcasting. Advance
    appropriations will provide assurances to the public television
    stations that there will be Federal assistance available to make the
    conversion to digital, especially since each applicant may have
    different time frames to meet the May 1, 2003 deadline. PTFP plans to
    provide grants on a rolling basis. If the amount of digital transition
    funding is set now for 2001, 2002, and 2003, both PTFP and the public
    television stations will be able to plan for the future with some
    certainty. Stations that will not need to convert and also cannot
    afford to convert until 2002 will be assured of available funding at
    that time, if Congress makes the commitment to advance appropriations
    now.
        Question. So you know the burden placed on our distinguished
    Subcommittee Chairman, the proposed advanced appropriations for the
    Department of Commerce must compete with some major commitments through
    the State Department. The President's budget also requests $3 billion
    over the next five years for embassy security upgrades, and $1 billion
    for aid to the nations signing the Wye River Middle East peace
    memorandum. Is this a legitimate way to budget, or is this a promise to
    pay for commitments another day by mortgaging future spending caps?
        Answer. Yes, this is a legitimate way to budget. Advanced
    appropriations for multi-year capital asset acquisitions are designed
    to account for the full Federal liability for procurement of the assets
    involved. Full funding of projects or divisible segments, will improve
    the decision-making process by allowing agency managers, OMB and
    ultimately members of Congress, to understand the full cost of project
    implementation when making budget year funding decisions. In addition,
    advanced funding improves the procurement process by allowing
    acquisition managers to achieve cost efficiencies in contract
    negotiations and procurement of parts and other supplies requiring a
    long-lead time.
        Question. Do you realistically expect this Subcommittee and this
    Congress to entertain these requests for significant future funding
    commitments through advanced appropriations?
        Answer. The Administration hopes that this Subcommittee and the
    Congress will seriously consider this method of making appropriations
    available to agencies for multi-year capital asset acquisitions.
    Advanced appropriations allows incremental funding of projects or
    divisible segments of projects, over the acquisition period. However,
    despite full funding up-front for these projects, these multi-year
    appropriations are scored in the year the funds become available to the
    agency. In addition, Congress has the opportunity to revise the out-
    year budgets for these projects annually as part of the appropriations
    process.
                                    geostorm
        Question. What would the proposed GEOSTORM I satellite do to
    minimize the impact of these space weather events?
        Answer. Having a monitoring spacecraft upstream of Earth is the
    only way to tell whether a solar storm will hit Earth and, if so, how
    strong it is. Before real-time solar wind data were available there was
    very poor advanced warning of the onset of geomagnetic storms, with
    prediction accuracy a dismal 30 percent. NASA's Advanced Composition
    Explorer research satellite currently provides solar wind data,
    enabling nearly 100 percent accurate warnings with up to an hour of
    lead time. GEOSTORM will double the lead-time (up to two hours) while
    maintaining its predecessor's nearly perfect accuracy. After just one
    year of availability, real-time solar wind data have already become
    irreplaceable. Power companies and other vulnerable industries count on
    products based on these observations to trigger preventive measures.
    For example, electric utilities in the Northeast U.S. used the warnings
    on May 4, 1998 to help prevent a geomagnetic storm from causing
    widespread grid failures. While warnings are critically important, they
    are only half of what GEOSTORM will provide. Real-time solar wind data
    are necessary to initialize many of the geomagnetic forecast models the
    National Space Weather Program invested millions of dollars to develop.
    Without data to drive them, the models' outputs are highly questionable
    or not available.
        Question. How would you rank this satellite project as a priority
    for NOAA vis-a-vis the procurement of other proposed satellites?
        Answer. Within NOAA, the GOES and Polar satellites have higher
    priorities than GEOSTORM. However, power company representatives, the
    National Academy of Sciences, and the agencies in the National Space
    Weather Program all list as the number one national priority for space
    weather activities the continuation of upstream, continuous, real-time
    solar wind monitoring. The National Security Space Architect's plan for
    space weather in the new millennium acknowledges the need to monitor
    the solar wind operationally and incorporates it in its target
    architecture. NASA's Advanced Composition Explorer (ACE) satellite
    currently provides these data. No satellite near Earth (e.g., not GOES,
    POES, nor the proposed (NPOESS) can provide the necessary data).
        Question. Does the Administration's budget include an advance
    appropriation request for the GEOSTORM I satellite as part of the
    procurement account? If so, how much and in what years?
        Answer. The Administration's request for fiscal year 2000 includes
    the first year of funding for a new series (GEOSTORM) of operational
    satellites. This request can be found in NOAA's Procurement,
    Acquisition and Construction (PAC) account. The GEOSTORM I acquisition
    is a tri-agency program involving NOAA, NASA, and DOD/USAF. The
    satellite will be built, launched and operated by NASA, NOAA's
    contribution to the total acquisition cost is 25 percent. The NOAA
    contribution to the NASA/NOAA/USAF GEOSTORM partnership will be $4.34
    million in fiscal year 2000, $6.16 million in fiscal year 2001, and
    $6.58 million each for fiscal years 2002-2004. Included in this budget
    is a request for advanced appropriations through fiscal year 2002 only,
    $6.16 million for fiscal year 2001 and $6.58 million for fiscal year
    2002.
                   improving the nation's economic statistics
        Question. Secretary Daley, let me commend you on the initiatives
    that the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) has taken to improve our
    national statistics.
        Unfortunately, it is getting harder to produce accurate data as our
    economy becomes more service oriented. We are already seeing examples
    of these difficulties--for instance, we have markedly different
    measures of national output if we measure it as the sum of all outputs
    or the sum of all incomes. Theoretically, output should be the same no
    matter how we measure it.
        I understand that the BEA has a very interesting proposal to deal
    with [the statistical] discrepancy and to enhance other aspects of the
    national accounts. Could you tell us a bit about this and what
    dividends you think this program could deliver?
        Answer. As you point out, the rapid growth and increasing
    complexity of the American economy makes the job of producing an
    accurate and comprehensive statistical picture of the economy
    significantly more difficult. Dramatic evidence of this difficulty is
    the difference between gross domestic product (GDP), which is measured
    as total final expenditures for goods and services produced by the U.S.
    economy, and gross domestic income (GDI), which is the total of costs
    incurred and incomes earned in producing those goods and services. In
    theory, these measures should be equal, but in fact, there is a
    persistent and troubling discrepancy between them.
        Much of this statistical discrepancy is attributable to the fact
    that the source data used to compile GDP and other economic accounts
    estimates are woefully inadequate. For example, there is an alarming
    absence of comprehensive and consistent data on rapidly growing sectors
    such as computer software and certain financial services. Structural
    changes in the economy, resulting from corporate downsizing,
    technological change, and the devolution of Federal government
    functions to state and local government have added new complexities and
    rendered source data increasingly out-of-date. BEA proposes to address
    the statistical discrepancy and other issues affecting the accuracy and
    coverage of its economic accounts by developing new concepts and
    indirect estimates, using existing and new source data, that will be
    used now to improve its existing estimates and, in the future, to form
    the basis for expanded Census surveys. Such improvements would provide
    the users of BEA's estimates with a more accurate picture of economic
    activity and with better data on which to base their decisions.
        Question. What might be the consequences of not acting now to
    improve our national statistics? How could inaccuracies in GDP data
    impact Federal budget estimates for instance?
        Answer. Failure to move ahead now with corrective actions will lead
    to an erosion of quality in our most basic measures of economic
    activity and will require more costly solutions in the future. BEA's
    data are vital ingredients for decision-making by business, government,
    and individuals, and as the quality of the data declines, these users
    will receive increasingly less accurate economic information. This
    inevitably will lead to poor decisions, unsound planning, and
    inappropriate policies, all of which will weaken the Nation's economic
    performance. For example, with the level of GDP between $8 and $9
    trillion, an error of one-half of 1 percent in the estimate would lead
    to an error in Federal budget forecasting over the next 5 years on the
    order of $200 billion.
        It is hard to overstate the importance of accurate economic
    statistics. The Federal Government, the Federal Reserve, and all
    businesses rely on these statistics heavily. It is hard to imagine a
    case where such a small investment of money now could yield such
    enormous benefits for all Americans. I believe that BEA's $4.5 million
    request for its National Accounts Enhancement program could yield just
    such enormous benefits.
                                     ______

               Questions Submitted by Senator Frank R. Lautenberg
                          patent and trademark office
        Question. As you know, Secretary Daley, for many years now I have
    been vocal in my opposition to the diversion of funds collected by the
    Patent and Trademark Office for use outside the PTO. Last year, this
    was remedied by the enactment of a cap on the amount of surcharges the
    PTO could collect. This year, I understand that the PTO will collect
    $160 million more than it will spend in fiscal year 2000. Yet at the
    same time, your budget proposes collecting an additional $20 million in
    the form of a surcharge to cover the post-retirement benefits of PTO
    employees.
        First of all, why is the PTO the only fee-supported Federal agency
    that contributes to the post-retirement benefits of its employees? Do
    you think this should be the norm for fee-supported agencies?
        Answer. The Department supports the Administration's policy that
    fee-funded agencies should pay the ``full-freight'' costs of operations
    including indirect post-retirement costs. Currently, the expenses
    associated with post-retirement life and health benefits for PTO
    employees are paid by the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) from
    general taxpayer revenues.
        The Administration has deemed this to be a pilot so that the
    policy's implementation can be assessed before expanding it to other
    fee-funded agencies.
        As a Performance Based Organization, the PTO should be responsible
    for all its costs, including the costs of accruing post-retirement life
    and health benefits of PTO employees. The Administration's policy, as
    embodied in OMB Circular A-25, is for user fees to recover both direct
    and indirect costs associated with providing a specific benefit such as
    patent and trademark protection. As a fully fee-funded agency, aligning
    fees with costs has been one of the PTO's key objectives.
        Question. Secondly, if the PTO will collect $160 million more than
    it can spend in fiscal year 2000, why is it necessary to impose a
    surcharge to collect an additional $20 million for these benefits?
        Answer. In determining the need for fee adjustments, the PTO
    examines the long-term revenue and spending forecasts--currently
    through fiscal year 2005. This approach is necessitated by the fact
    that requests for products and services are paid in advance, with the
    end product or service not delivered until a future time. Thus, fees
    can be paid in one fiscal year while the costs of delivering the
    requested products and services ultimately will be incurred in a
    subsequent fiscal year.
        Fiscal responsibility dictates taking a multi-year funding
    management strategy focused on keeping fees as low as possible and
    ensuring funding stability by banking some current year fees for future
    requirements. The PTO is projecting to carry forward $160 million to
    fiscal year 2001 to help offset increased costs associated with space
    consolidation, replacement of required information technology
    infrastructure, and anticipated increases to the labor force to process
    incoming work. As a business-like agency, having carryover has served
    the PTO's customers well in the past. For example, in fiscal year 1996
    when a large portion of the government shut down because of an absence
    of appropriations, the PTO continued to operate because of prior year
    carryover.
        The proposed fee surcharge, estimated to be about two percent in
    the aggregate, would enable PTO to meet its fiscal responsibility as a
    fully-fee funded agency to pay all direct and indirect costs without
    having to make reductions in its operating budget.

                              subcommittee recess

        Senator Gregg. This hearing will therefore be recessed, and
    the subcommittee next meets on Tuesday, the 16th and we will
    hear from the FBI, INS, and the DEA.
        Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary.
        Senator Hollings. Thank you.
        Secretary Daley. Thanks, Senator.
        [Whereupon, at 11:16 a.m., Thursday, March 11, the
    subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene at 10 a.m., Tuesday,
    March 16.]

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

                                  ----------

                            TUESDAY, MARCH 16, 1999

                                           U.S. Senate,
               Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The subcommittee met at 10 a.m., in room SD-628, Dirksen
    Senate Office Building, Hon. Judd Gregg (chairman) presiding.
        Present: Senators Gregg, Stevens, Hutchison, Campbell,
    Inouye, and Leahy.
        Also present: Senator Kyl.

                             DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

                     Immigration and Naturalization Service

    STATEMENT OF DORIS MEISSNER, COMMISSIONER
    ACCOMPANIED BY:
            MARY ANN WYRSCH, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
            MICHAEL A. PEARSON, EXECUTIVE ASSOCIATE COMMISSIONER, FIELD
                OPERATIONS
            ALLEN ERENBAUM, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF CONGRESSIONAL RELATIONS
            JEFFREY M. WEBER, ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, BUDGET
            KATHY ST. DENIS, COUNSELOR TO THE COMMISSIONER

                                opening remarks

        Senator Gregg. We will begin the hearing. I understand
    Senator Hollings is not going to be able to join us today. We
    welcome the Commissioner. We appreciate her time. Rather than
    having opening statements, we will go right to the
    Commissioner's statement and then to questions.

                    opening statement--commissioner meissner

        Ms. Meissner. Thank you. Good morning. Mr. Chairman,
    members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to
    appear before you today to discuss the President's fiscal year
    2000 budget request for the Immigration and Naturalization
    Service. I appreciate your continuing efforts to provide INS
    with the support and resources that are necessary to strengthen
    the enforcement of our Nation's immigration laws and I look
    forward to working with you in the 106th Congress to expand
    what has been a productive partnership to address the many
    immigration issues that are of concern to us all.
        Since 1993, the Clinton administration and Congress have
    worked together diligently to reverse decades of neglect that
    have hampered INS's efforts to enforce the Nation's immigration
    laws and to provide legal benefits to legal immigrants. Through
    your strong support, we have received record increases in
    personnel, equipment, and advanced technology. We have
    supported these unprecedented resources with coherent
    strategies that ensure that the resources are deployed in the
    most efficient and effective manner possible. As a result, we
    have strengthened significantly the enforcement of immigration
    laws at our borders and in the Nation's interior while
    improving the delivery of services to legal immigrants.
        The President's fiscal year 2000 budget will allow INS to
    consolidate and to build on these successes. I have provided a
    detailed written account of the budget request, so let me
    highlight the major points.

                                 INS successes

        I would like to begin by telling you about some recent
    successes that we have achieved as a result of the committee's
    continued support. Our greatest accomplishments have come in
    the area of border management, where more has been achieved in
    the past 5 years than had been done in decades. Nowhere else is
    the success of our strategic approach to enforcement more
    evident than along the Southwest border. Before 1993, there was
    no comprehensive plan for controlling this 2,000-mile frontier
    and it showed. Illegal immigrants came across the border
    undeterred, as did illicit drugs, while traffic entering the
    country legally encountered interminable delays at ports of
    entry.
        To bring control and safety to the border, we developed a
    comprehensive multi-year Southwest border strategy. Our goal is
    a border that works. That is a border that deters illegal
    migration, drug trafficking, and alien smuggling while
    facilitating legal migration and commerce.
        To meet this goal, we initiated unparalleled growth in
    personnel and resources, including doubling the number of
    Border Patrol agents to more than 8,000 as of today. The vast
    majority are stationed along the Southwest border. To reach
    this level, we hired 1,900 agents in fiscal year 1998 alone and
    trained them at facilities in Charleston, South Carolina, and
    Glynco, Georgia. These new agents have been backed by
    substantial state-of-the-art force multiplying equipment and
    technology, as well as by infrastructure improvements.
        Operation Rio Grande in South Texas and New Mexico shows
    how deterrence works. In fiscal year 1998, apprehensions in
    Brownsville declined by 35 percent. In addition, local law
    enforcement officials credit our operation for having
    contributed significantly to falling crime rates in Laredo,
    Brownsville, San Diego, and elsewhere.
        The border control strategy integrates activities between
    ports of entry with work at the ports of entry. Both are vital
    to the Nation's economy, just as they are potential entry
    points for criminals and contraband. By working cooperatively
    with other Federal agencies, we have achieved impressive
    results.
        At the San Ysidro port of entry, the world's busiest, we
    have worked very successfully with the Customs Service and have
    reduced the average waiting time, which had been running almost
    2 hours, to under 20 minutes, while enhancing our enforcement
    results at the same time. We are replicating this record all
    along the border at other ports.
        A necessary companion to enhanced border management is an
    effective approach to combatting illegal immigration in the
    Nation's interior. We have now developed and begun to implement
    a new interior enforcement strategy. Here, our priority is
    investigating alien smuggling, human rights abuses, and other
    criminal violations. Linking large-scale anti-smuggling
    operations with worksite enforcement is producing unprecedented
    results.
        Last November, we announced the dismantling of 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.
    Less than three weeks later, we announced the crippling of the
    largest global alien smuggling operation on the northern
    border.
        We have also strengthened our capacity to detain and remove
    aliens who have committed serious criminal offenses. Today, we
    have more than 14,500 criminal aliens in detention. That is
    quadruple the 1994 number. And the number of criminal aliens
    that we have removed reached 56,100 last year, double the
    number removed in 1993.
        Our top priority in the deliberation area of immigration
    services has been revitalizing the Nation's citizenship
    program. Beginning with restoring integrity to the process, our
    emphasis now is on reducing the historically high backlog of
    pending applications. In fiscal year 1998, we opened more than
    120 new fingerprinting sites in immigrant communities across
    the country, implemented additional quality assurance
    procedures to continue to address integrity, and expanded
    access of our customers to information that they need.
        The comprehensive effort to overhaul the entire
    naturalization process prevented INS from reaching the high
    levels of productivity we had hoped to achieve during the first
    quarter of this year, but we have set performance targets for
    which our managers are being held accountable. With the new
    staff that is now being hired and continued improvements in our
    conversion to automated processes, we believe we will meet very
    ambitious goals that we have set in naturalization for this
    year.
        The progress that we have made on these and many other
    fronts demonstrates that we can achieve 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.

                             Restructuring the INS

        Since last spring, we have been developing the details of a
    proposal to restructure our agency by dividing its primary
    functions of enforcement and service into distinct chains of
    command. INS established an Office of Restructuring and hired a
    nationally renowned consulting firm to provide design support
    and best practices from other public and private organizations.
    The restructuring team has talked to more than 900 of our
    employees and a broad range of external stakeholders, including
    other law enforcement and government agencies, trade groups,
    and community-based organizations.
        Because the processes of gaining legal status and losing
    that status are intertwined in statute and in practice,
    immigration enforcement and services are closely interrelated
    at both policy and operational levels. Some have suggested
    assigning enforcement and service to separate agencies. We
    believe that such proposals would fragment and seriously weaken
    the government's ability to administer immigration law
    effectively and to be accountable for immigration matters. By
    separating INS's structure into separate chains of command for
    enforcement and for service, we would establish a single point
    of accountability for performance in each of our primary
    functions while keeping the interconnected, interdependent
    functions that they represent under one roof.
        Our proposal represents fundamental reform in the culture
    and 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 case adjudication needs of local communities
    and the Nation. We will seek your views on our draft blueprint
    in the weeks ahead.

                        fiscal year 2000 Budget request

        The fiscal year 2000 budget request, which totals $4.27
    billion, 8 percent more than fiscal year 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 our fiscal year 2000 budget is to
    expand ongoing initiatives while maximizing the efficiency of
    current resources. It would allow us to strengthen our
    successful border management strategy, deter illegal
    immigration, combat illegal alien smuggling to the interior of
    the country, and remove criminal and other unauthorized aliens
    from the United States while continuing to address the
    naturalization backlog and improve the services we provide. I
    stand ready to work with you to ensure that the fiscal year
    2000 budget provides INS with the resources necessary to meet
    our obligations to the American people.

                               prepared statement

        Thank you very much. Thank you for your continued support
    and cooperation, and I am pleased to answer your and the
    committee's questions.
        Senator Gregg. Thank you, Commissioner.
        [The statement follows:]
                      Prepared Statement of Doris Meissner
                                  introduction
        Thank you Mr. Chairman, Senator Hollings and Members of the
    Subcommittee for the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss
    the President's fiscal year 2000 budget request for the Immigration and
    Naturalization Service (INS). I appreciate your past efforts to provide
    INS with the support and resources necessary to strengthen the
    enforcement of our nation's immigration laws, and I look forward to
    working with you in the 106th Congress to expand our productive
    partnership to address the many immigration issues of concern to all of
    us.
        INS is charged with both enforcing the nation's immigration laws
    and providing benefits to legal immigrants. This mission has always
    been far-reaching and complex, but in recent years, as a result of
    sweeping social, economic, and political changes at home and abroad,
    the challenges we face have grown in scope and nature--even since I
    began my tenure as Commissioner more than five years ago.
        Since 1993, the Clinton Administration and Congress have worked
    together diligently to reverse decades of neglect, providing INS with
    unprecedented increases in personnel, equipment, and advanced
    technology. We have supported these record levels of resources with
    coherent strategies that establish priorities and ensure that our
    resources are deployed in the most efficient and effective manner
    possible. As a result of these efforts, we have strengthened
    significantly the enforcement of immigration law at our borders and in
    the nation's interior, while improving the delivery of services to
    legal immigrants. The fiscal year 2000 budget I present to you today
    will allow INS to consolidate and build on these successes.
        Before I provide a more detailed account of the budget request, let
    me highlight the major points. I would like to begin by telling you
    about some of the recent successes we have been able to achieve as a
    result of your continued support.
        Without question, our greatest successes have come in the area of
    border management, where we have achieved more in the past five years
    than had been accomplished in decades. Nowhere else is the success of
    our strategic approach to enforcement more evident than along the
    Southwest border. Before 1993, there was no comprehensive plan for
    controlling this 2,000-mile frontier--and it showed. The number of
    Border Patrol agents and Inspectors stationed there was insufficient,
    and those we did have were ill-equipped. As a result, illegal
    immigrants came across the border undeterred, as did illicit drugs,
    while traffic entering the country legally encountered interminable
    delays at ports of entry.
        To bring integrity and safety to the Southwest border, we developed
    a comprehensive, multi-year Southwest border strategy. Its goal is
    unambiguous: a border that works; one that deters illegal migration,
    drug trafficking, and alien smuggling, while facilitating legal
    migration and commerce. To meet this goal, we initiated unparalleled
    growth in personnel and resources. Since fiscal year 1993, we have more
    than doubled the number of Border Patrol agents to approximately 8,000,
    as of February 13, with the vast majority stationed along the Southwest
    border. To reach this level, we hired 1,900 agents in fiscal year 1998
    alone and trained them at facilities in Charleston, S.C., and Glynco,
    Ga. These new agents have been backed by infrared scopes, underground
    sensors and other force-multiplying equipment and technology, as well
    as by infrastructure improvements. To ensure maximum effectiveness and
    efficiency, the new resources are deployed to operations, such as Rio
    Grande and Gatekeeper, which target traditional illegal immigration
    corridors.
        Operation Rio Grande in South Texas and New Mexico has proven
    deterrence works. In fiscal year 1998, apprehensions in Brownsville
    declined by 35 percent. But, apprehension numbers aren't the only
    measure of the positive impact of enhanced border control. Our border
    operations have also contributed to falling crime rates in Laredo,
    Brownsville, San Diego, and elsewhere.
        Our border control strategy integrates activities between ports of
    entry with those taking place at the ports, which we recognize as both
    vital to the nation's economy and potential entry points for criminals
    and contraband. By working cooperatively with other Federal agencies,
    we have achieved impressive results. In the San Ysidro Port of Entry,
    the world's busiest land port, we've reduced the average waiting time,
    which was recently two hours, to under 20 minutes, while strengthening
    our enforcement capabilities.
        We are now adapting the strategic approach to enforcement that has
    greatly enhanced border control to combating illegal immigration in the
    nation's interior. We have developed a comprehensive interior
    enforcement strategy to complement our border efforts. It seeks to
    create seamless enforcement that extends from the border to the
    worksite by increasing internal coordination among the various INS
    enforcement disciplines and by forging closer ties with other Federal
    agencies and state and local law enforcement.
        We have given priority to investigations of alien smuggling, human
    rights abuses and other criminal violations. Linking our worksite
    enforcement activities with anti-smuggling operations produced historic
    results in 1998. In November, we announced the dismantling of 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. Less than three
    weeks later, we announced the crippling of the largest global alien-
    smuggling operation on the northern border, an operation that smuggled
    100-150 aliens per month into the country for at least two years at an
    average cost of $47,000 per person.
        At the same time that we have enhanced our ability to identify and
    disrupt criminal enterprises that engage in egregious violations of
    human rights and immigration law, we have strengthened our capacity to
    detain and remove aliens who have committed serious criminal offenses.
    The number of criminal aliens in detention has quadrupled from about
    3,300 in 1994 to more than 16,300 today, while the number of criminal
    aliens we have removed doubled from 28,000 in 1993 to 55,200 last year.
    These dramatic improvements underscore our commitment to restoring
    credibility to the nation's immigration law.
        By adapting for the delivery of services the same aggressive
    approach taken to fulfill our enforcement responsibilities, we have
    been able to move closer to our goal of creating a world-class service
    agency that provides high-quality, customer-friendly service on a
    consistent basis nationwide.
        Our top priority has been revitalizing the nation's citizenship
    program, with particular emphasis on reducing the backlog of pending
    applications. We opened 129 fingerprinting sites in communities across
    the country, implemented additional quality assurance procedures to
    further ensure integrity, and expanded our customers' access to
    information. The comprehensive effort to re-engineer the entire process
    prevented INS from reaching the high levels of productivity we had
    hoped to achieve, but we have established performance targets for which
    our managers will be held accountable.
        The progress we have made in enforcing the nation's immigration
    laws and providing services to legal immigrants demonstrates that, when
    we are given the resources and develop focused strategies, we can
    achieve results. However, there is a barrier to achieving even greater
    success that no amount of resources or strategic planning can
    surmount--INS's current structure. We have been developing a detailed
    blueprint to fundamentally restructure the agency by dividing its
    primary functions of enforcement and service into distinct, separate
    chains of command, each with a single point of accountability for
    performance, while keeping these inter-connected and interdependent
    functions under a single roof. This is a bold initiative that would
    fundamentally reform INS from Headquarters all the way down to field
    offices by eliminating the current field structure and bringing the
    right mix of staff and skills to local service caseload and enforcement
    needs.
        Because our immigration laws provide ways for both gaining legal
    status and losing that status, these processes are intertwined in
    statute and practice. As a result, immigration enforcement and services
    are closely interrelated at both policy and operational levels.
    Assigning them to separate agencies would seriously fragment and weaken
    the government's ability to administer the immigration laws
    effectively.
        Since last spring, we have made significant progress on
    restructuring. INS established a temporary Office of Restructuring and
    hired a nationally renowned consulting firm to provide design support
    and best practices from other public and private organizations. The
    Restructuring Office staff has talked to more than 900 INS employees
    during field site visits and headquarters interviews and has consulted
    with a broad range of external stakeholders, from other law enforcement
    and government agencies to business and trade groups to community-based
    organizations. We will be sharing a detailed proposal with you in the
    coming weeks.
        The fiscal year 2000 budget request, which totals $4.27 billion, 8
    percent more than fiscal year 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 our
    fiscal year 2000 budget is to extend the initiatives that we have in
    place while maximizing the efficient use of resources following the
    dramatic growth we have managed in recent years. It would allow us to
    strengthen our successful, multi-year strategy to deter illegal
    immigration, combat alien smuggling, and remove criminal and illegal
    aliens from the United States, while continuing to reduce the
    naturalization backlog and improve customer service.
                               border enforcement
        In 1994, the Attorney General and I announced a comprehensive
    border enforcement strategy, which focuses on enforcement efforts,
    along with improved facilitation of legal traffic. We continue to
    concentrate resources on critical operational areas of the southwestern
    border, in support of this strategy.
        Our border management efforts from 1993 to 1996 concentrated on El
    Paso, Texas and western San Diego County in California. In 1997, we
    began to expand our focus to eastern San Diego county and Imperial
    county, south Texas, Arizona, and New Mexico. ``Operation Rio Grande,''
    launched in August 1997 in Brownsville, Texas, was a special multi-year
    operation designed to gain and maintain control of specific border
    areas through a combination of new technology and additional staffing.
    At the start of the operation, 69 Border Patrol agents were detailed to
    Brownsville in August 1997 to intensify existing enforcement efforts.
    In September 1997, we began deploying special response teams to those
    ports-of-entry where we expected increased numbers of fraudulent entry
    attempts. In fiscal year 1998, 260 new Border Patrol Agents were added
    to McAllen Sector and 205 Agents to Laredo Sector. An important feature
    of ``Operation Rio Grande'' has been the integration of a broad range
    of INS enforcement operations. Border Patrol agents, Inspectors at
    ports-of-entry, Investigators, Intelligence analysts, and Detention and
    Deportation Officers are all contributing to the operation. We are
    seeing lower apprehension and reduced local crime rates as a result of
    the operation, indicating the effectiveness of our deterrence strategy.
    The crime rate in Brownsville alone dropped by more than 20 percent in
    fiscal year 1998, and the overall apprehensions for McAllen Sector
    decreased by 17 percent compared to the previous year.
        In fiscal year 1998, INS extended ``Operation Gatekeeper'' through
    the El Centro initiative to address changes in smuggling and illegal
    crossings occurring along the border in El Centro Sector. The
    initiative includes detailing additional agents to the immediate border
    areas of Calexico and El Centro, California, to deter alien smuggling
    operations in those areas. The El Centro Sector is also receiving an
    additional 78 new agents in fiscal year 1999 to bolster the efforts of
    the 134 new agents deployed in fiscal year 1998. As an indication of
    the positive effect on border control already attributable to this
    initiative, during the first quarter of fiscal year 1999, the sector
    experienced its first quarterly drop in apprehensions after four
    straight years of continuous increases. While, the rate of
    apprehensions is still fluctuating up and down, which is to be expected
    in the early stages of improved border control in any area. But it is
    clear that the initiative is having an impact, in both deterrence and
    control.
        In June, INS launched a Southwest border-wide public safety
    initiative designed to educate migrants about the severe dangers
    associated with illegal crossings and to assist those who are in
    danger. The initiative was developed in cooperation with the Mexican
    government and state and local officials in border communities.
        The President's fiscal year 2000 budget maintains Border Patrol
    staffing at the fiscal year 1999 level of nearly 9,000 agents, which
    represents a 122 percent increase and approximately 5,000 agents over
    the fiscal year 1993 level of 3,965 agents. INS has worked extremely
    hard over the last few years to meet its hiring goals for the Border
    Patrol. In the last two years (fiscal years 1997-98), in which Congress
    added funding for 2,000 agents, INS agent strength actually increased
    by 2,040 agents. The extent of this accomplishment is demonstrated by
    the fact that, in order to reach this level of new agents, INS had to
    hire and train more than 3,600 agents to compensate for attrition rates
    for those positions. A strong employment market has challenged INS's
    recruitment results during the current fiscal year, leading INS to
    develop an even more aggressive plan targeting a variety of employment
    markets. Currently, nearly 48 percent of our Border Patrol agents have
    less than three years of experience, and law enforcement experts
    indicate that it is risky to allow an agency's overall ratio of
    inexperienced to experienced officers to exceed 30 percent. With a year
    of consolidation, INS will be able to ensure that we maintain our
    current authorized strength, while continuing to safeguard the highest
    standards of law enforcement professionalism for this new workforce by
    building their experience and effectiveness.
        In addition to providing the essential personnel enhancements
    needed for an effective border enforcement strategy, this
    Administration, with your assistance and support, has outfitted agents
    with the equipment and technology necessary to perform their jobs more
    efficiently and safely. Focusing additional resources on new Border
    Patrol personnel and equipment has yielded significant results.
    Apprehensions have dropped dramatically in targeted areas, indicating
    increasingly effective deterrence. Operations such as ``Hold the
    Line,'' ``Gatekeeper,'' ``Safeguard'' and ``Rio Grande'' have
    significantly disrupted illegal immigration and alien smuggling in El
    Paso, San Diego and other strategic areas along the Southwest border.
    For example, in San Diego, historically the most heavily crossed area
    of the border, apprehensions are at an 18-year low.
        In September 1998, INS, in partnership with the U.S. Customs
    Service, launched the Border Coordination Initiative, a comprehensive
    effort by INS, Customs and other Federal agencies to create seamless
    immigration and narcotics enforcement and facilitation processes at and
    between border ports of entry, from Brownsville to San Diego, over the
    next five years.
        As mentioned earlier, our progress along the border is also evident
    at the Ports-of-Entry. At San Ysidro Port-of-Entry, one of the world's
    largest and busiest ports, not long ago, commuters had been waiting
    over two hours to cross the border into San Diego. Today, the average
    wait has been reduced to 20 minutes. The Inspections program staff is
    working on incorporating the best practices from San Ysidro into other
    ports-of-entry.
        Overall, from fiscal year 1992 through fiscal year 1998, full-time
    Immigration Inspectors increased by 1,891 (67.6 percent), to a total
    Inspector strength of 4,687. An additional 100 Immigration Inspectors
    will be deployed to air ports-of-entry in fiscal year 1999. The
    increased number of Inspectors will facilitate the travel of passengers
    and emphasize INS's dedication to meeting the processing time
    requirements at our international airports. To strengthen border
    security while facilitating the flow of traffic through remote ports-
    of-entry on the northern land border, INS last year installed Automated
    Permit Ports (APP) in Bridgewater and Limestone, ME; and Mooers, NY. In
    fiscal year 1999, INS plans to install additional APP's in Sweetgrass,
    MT; and Nighthawk, WA.
        Along the northern border, INS has targeted the increased use of
    the Remote Video Inspection System (RVIS) in fiscal year 1999 and
    fiscal year 2000. The RVIS system allows for remote inspection through
    the use of video equipment, biometric identifiers, and other forms of
    technology, through which an inspector can verify the identity and
    documents of a traveler without having to be physically present. RVIS
    allows the inspector to see and talk with a person at an unstaffed
    Port-of-Entry. The inspector can observe, remotely, the interior of the
    vehicle, the trunk, under the hood, etc. Documents can also be examined
    in detail. RVIS even includes provisions for communicating with the
    hearing impaired using a Telecommunication Data Display (TDD) device.
    Since there is a manual inspection, like at a staffed Port-of-Entry,
    the traveler does not have to be preapproved to participate in the
    RVIS. This program supports the INS objective of reducing the
    inspection time for travelers along the U.S.-Canadian border.
        None of these accomplishments would have been possible without the
    continued support of the Subcommittee.
                           removal of illegal aliens
        The removal of criminal and other deportable aliens is an essential
    component of INS's comprehensive strategy to prevent and deter illegal
    immigration. During fiscal year 1998, INS removed more than 169,000
    criminal and other illegal aliens, an increase of more than 50 percent
    over 1997.
        Total criminal alien removals exceeded 55,200 in fiscal year 1998,
    10 percent above the previous year. Of the criminal aliens removed, 84
    percent had convictions for crimes considered aggravated felonies under
    immigration law. Drug convictions accounted for 46 percent of the
    criminal alien removals.
        Much of the overall increase, however, was driven by non-criminal
    removals, which reached almost 115,400 last fiscal year, up 83 percent
    from fiscal year 1997. The expedited removal process, established by
    the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996
    (IIRIRA), accounted for a large majority of this increase, producing
    more than 76,000 mostly non-criminal removals in its first six months
    of implementation.
        In addition to the 169,000 of aliens formally removed, INS also
    removed about 70,000 aliens without formal proceedings in fiscal year
    1998. This category included several methods of removal, but most were
    aliens who were living in the United States and were permitted to
    voluntarily return to their home countries. The combination of formal
    and informal removals, amounted to more than 240,000 removals. In
    addition, an estimated 1.5 million aliens were apprehended and returned
    at the border without detention.
        The INS removed a total of 13,864 criminal aliens through the
    Institutional Removal Program (IRP) in 1998, a procedure which involves
    identifying and processing deportable inmates prior to their release
    from Federal, state and local institutions. This facilitates the prompt
    removal of deportable inmates once their criminal sentences are
    complete, saving resources that would otherwise have to be used by INS
    to keep the criminal aliens in custody. While removals through the IRP
    program in fiscal year 1998 lagged behind fiscal year 1997 levels, this
    is the temporary result of investments in systemic changes that INS has
    undertaken to improve management of the program, such as improved data
    integrity and implementation of a program redesign in June 1998. These
    investments will produce important, lasting benefits.
        In fiscal year 1999, INS is already experiencing greater
    production. Through January 1999, we have removed nearly 6,000
    criminals through the IRP, and expect to meet this year's target of
    16,800 IRP removals, an increase of 23 percent over last year. INS has
    eliminated the backlog of unidentified criminal aliens awaiting
    interviews in six of the seven states with enhanced IRP programs
    (excepting only California), and is finalizing IRP improvement plans in
    each of those states.
        Even successful IRP cases, however, often require INS detention
    until departure arrangements are completed. Approximately 1,100 of the
    approximately 3,000 long-term criminal detainees held by INS began as
    IRP cases, but INS has been unable to return these individuals because
    of difficulties in obtaining travel documents from foreign governments
    to allow for their return. We are working with the Department of State
    to address this issue. INS's local jail programs successfully identify
    thousands of criminal aliens, but due to the brief sentences actually
    served, in most cases they are taken into INS custody after finishing
    their criminal sentences for completion of removal proceedings.
        Additional tools used to maximize the efficiency of the IRP program
    include full use of administrative removal and reinstatement of prior
    orders of removal. As a result of these tools, there is an expectation
    that the average length of detention will decrease, which will give INS
    the capacity to detain more criminal aliens.
        In fiscal year 1998, INS increased its use of the Justice Prisoner
    and Alien Transportation System (JPATS) to move aliens to available
    detention space and to remove them from the United States. In fiscal
    year 1999, it is estimated that INS will move more than 69,000 aliens
    by JPATS.
        The INS's ability to remove aliens from the United States is
    directly linked to our ability to detain and transport them. Over the
    past few years, INS, pursuant to Congressional direction and funding,
    has rapidly expanded the number of detention beds used to detain
    removable aliens. While about 5,500 aliens were in detention in fiscal
    year 1994, more than 16,300 are detained today. The percentage of
    detainees with criminal records has also increased substantially during
    this period, from 60 percent in 1994 to more than 90 percent today.
    Increases continued to occur during a period when custody decisions
    were governed by the INS's Transition Period Custody Rules (TPCR),
    structured regulations which mandated detention in many circumstances
    and outlined the factors to be considered in weighing release in other
    circumstances.
        As you know, the TPCR ceased to be effective on October 8, 1998,
    when the mandatory detention provisions of IIRIRA took effect.
    Mandatory detention requires the custody of a broader class of aliens
    than the TPCR, and does not permit any consideration of release in
    those cases. Soon after the TPCR expired, INS received from Congress
    its fiscal year 1999 appropriation, which, due to increased detention
    costs, funded only 14,250 beds, nearly 500 less than the average daily
    population in fiscal year 1998. At about the same time, INS stayed the
    removal of nationals of the four Central American nations devastated by
    Hurricane Mitch. Many criminal aliens from these nations who would
    otherwise have been returned have instead remained in INS custody.
    While these stays were lifted for criminal aliens in early January,
    this stay prevented the turnover of existing bed space, and thus
    further reduced the number of new detainees that could be accommodated.
        As a result of these factors, and despite the fact that INS removes
    an average of 4,600 criminal aliens per month, the number of aliens
    currently in INS custody exceeds the funded bed space level for fiscal
    year 1999. I recognize that the INS budget request for fiscal year 1999
    did not include an adequate request for detention space. One major
    reason for this shortcoming in the budget was that INS was hoping that
    the TPCR would be extended. Ultimately this did not happen. The
    Department of Justice and INS are working aggressively to alleviate
    this situation, and are exploring all administrative, legislative and
    funding options in an effort to fulfill INS's statutory
    responsibilities. Among the administrative options being explored and
    nurtured by INS are the following:
        Administrative Removal.--The INS is currently revising and
    standardizing these procedures, which enable INS to remove non-lawful
    permanent resident aliens who are aggravated felons without a hearing
    before an Immigration Judge. The INS intends to couple the revised
    manual's issuance with field training.
        Streamlining Appeals.--This regulation, which is scheduled to be
    published next week, will allow a single Board of Immigration Appeals
    member to review the record and affirm the immigration judge decision
    without issuing an opinion. In addition, the INS General Counsel has
    agreed to allow simultaneous briefing by both the alien and the INS in
    those cases where a detained alien appeals his or her case to the Board
    of Immigration Appeals. These actions will reduce the time required
    during the appellate process by reducing the briefing period by 30
    days.
        Hub Concept.--Under this INS program, aliens are transported to
    pre-designated hub sites for administrative hearings and removal. The
    sites are selected based upon exhibited efficiencies necessary to the
    removal process (e.g., access to immigration judges, consulates, and
    international transportation). This program is currently in the process
    of being implemented in the INS Central Region and will likely be
    expanded.
        On February 16, 1999, as part of the Administration's comprehensive
    response to Hurricane Mitch, INS requested an additional $80 million
    for detention bed space to mitigate the effects of migration relating
    to the devastation in Central America. The request will ensure that all
    Central American criminal aliens, and others subject to mandatory
    detention, are detained and removed and none are released from
    detention. It will also ensure a credible border deterrent is in place
    to send the message that the U.S. border is not open to illegal border
    crossers, while recognizing that the United States does not want to
    overwhelm the Central American countries by returning too many people
    too fast. In addition, the Justice Department and INS are working on a
    request to the Congress seeking permission to reprogram existing INS
    and DOJ funds and to ensure that INS will continue to detain every
    alien subject to mandatory detention, as well as thousands of others
    subject to discretionary detention, throughout this fiscal year.
                     automation and technology improvements
        Technology improvements have played a key role in the success of
    INS enforcement and facilitation functions.
        In fiscal year 1998, we exceeded, by 87 percent, our IDENT
    deployment goal of 100 sites, deploying the system at 187 new sites,
    primarily in California, Arizona, New Mexico, Texas and Florida. IDENT
    allows agents to identify criminal aliens and repeat crossers who were
    previously apprehended. IDENT deployment has continued in fiscal year
    1999 to smaller sites as well as new sites along the Southwest border.
        In fiscal year 1998, INS began installing the Integrated
    Surveillance Intelligence System (ISIS), a state-of-the-art force
    multiplier that continues our commitment to provide cutting-edge
    technology to our Border Patrol agents. This field-tested technology
    consists, in part, of poles to which daytime and night vision cameras
    are attached. The camera sites are linked to centrally located command
    centers equipped with video monitors allowing a single person to
    monitor a vast area of terrain. The ISIS system also includes ground
    sensors. By linking these technologies, when a ground sensor is
    triggered, a signal is sent, the designated camera receives the signal,
    and the camera then trains on the triggered ground sensor. At the
    centrally located video monitoring site, the person monitoring the
    video screens is alerted to which sensor/camera has been triggered, and
    can immediately view the site. The technology significantly enhances
    the Border Patrol's ability to maximizes effectiveness and officer
    safety, since the camera may reveal anything from armed drug smugglers
    requiring immediate dispatch of a team of agents to wild animals
    requiring no response at all. ISIS has been deployed in Nogales,
    Arizona, and El Paso and Laredo, Texas; and additional sites are
    planned in fiscal year 1999 for Texas, New Mexico, Arizona and
    California on the southwest border, and Buffalo, New York and Blaine,
    Washington, on the northern border. The system is expected to be
    particularly effective in those remote and relatively inaccessible
    areas that have been, in the past, difficult to patrol on a regular
    basis. The technology will provide a deterrent and enforcement presence
    while the Border Patrol more effectively deploys and builds the
    experience base of the agents it has hired and trained over the past
    several years.
        In fiscal year 1999, INS expects to install the next increment of
    58 ISIS systems. In addition to ISIS, the Border Patrol is assisted in
    its mission by a variety of other high-tech tools, including personal
    night vision equipment (goggles and pocket scopes), long-range infrared
    scopes (both vehicle and aircraft-mounted), state-of-the-art encrypted
    radios, and Geosynchronous Positioning System (GPS) locators.
        Through the efforts of joint agency cooperation, the Secure
    Electronic Network for Travelers Rapid Inspection (SENTRI) Team
    successfully deployed Dedicated Commuter Lanes (DCL) at the Buffalo,
    Detroit and Otay Mesa Ports-of-Entry. These DCL's enable Inspectors to
    use advanced technology to quickly screen frequent, low-risk commuters
    enrolled in the program. In addition, the SENTRI Team has continued its
    efforts to deploy the secure, automated DCL to two additional sites
    along the southwest border. Lanes are scheduled to be deployed at San
    Ysidro and El Paso later this fiscal year. In addition, a similar
    program, known as a Pre-enrolled Access Lane (PAL) was developed for
    use at Border Patrol checkpoints. The prototype PAL is currently in use
    at the San Clemente Border Patrol Checkpoint in California.
        Section 110 of IIRIRA requires INS to develop ways to automatically
    gather entry and exit information at all ports-of-entry in the United
    States. During fiscal year 1998, INS began testing an automated arrival
    and departure Form I-94 in the major public airport environment. Upon
    arrival in the United States, a traveler presents the new machine-
    readable form to an Immigration Inspector who records the arrival
    information. The Inspector then provides the traveler with a machine-
    readable departure card which the traveler returns when he leaves the
    United States. The automated I-94 System is currently in operation at
    three U.S. airports--Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, and St. Louis--in
    cooperation with US Airways and TWA.
        In fiscal year 1998, INS expanded the Datashare initiative with the
    Department of State (DOS). The increase in the exchange of data between
    DOS and INS has streamlined the Inspections and Immigration
    Adjudication process. A pilot program for Immigrant Visa automation and
    sharing of information is now planned or operating at 15 consular posts
    and 16 ports-of-entry. The 16 ports-of-entry handle more than 75
    percent of all Immigrant Visas issued by Datashare posts. We are
    currently working on the Non-Immigrant Visa phase of the Datashare
    program.
        Progress was also made in fiscal year 1998 on the implementation of
    a new Border Crossing Card (BCC), mandated by Section 104 of IIRIRA. As
    of April 1, 1998, adjudication responsibility for the BCC was shifted
    to the Department of State (DOS), and INS became responsible for
    production of the card. Five production machines are now operational,
    as is a new production facility at Corbin, Kentucky, and total BCC
    demand is expected to reach approximately 1.6 million in fiscal year
    1999. Under the auspices of INS's Integrated Card Production System
    (ICPS), these five machines (one each at the California, Nebraska and
    Vermont Service Centers, and two at the Corbin facility) have enabled
    INS to come current with the State Department's BCC requirements, as
    well as the Employment Authorization Documents (EAD) that are another
    of INS's card mandates. The ICPS was able to maintain currency for the
    EAD's despite the needs generated by the Temporary Protective Status
    afforded to certain Central Americans in support of aid efforts to
    countries affected by Hurricane Mitch. INS is presently examining a
    variety of options to meet growing, and highly sophisticated card
    production requirements of its other cards, including the Permanent
    Resident Cards (PRC). Total annual production demand on the ICPS is
    expected to reach nearly 5.7 million cards by the end of fiscal year
    2001.
        INS continues to improve and expand its INTERNET Web site for the
    public. To date, the INS site is serving in excess of 335,000 users per
    month and is currently averaging about 11,200 visits a day. INS is
    serving customers from 131 different countries and U.S. cities
    representing all 50 states. We are also in the process of developing an
    e-mail function, which will allow the public yet another way of
    communicating with the INS.
        The INS special Web page for naturalization information allows the
    user to look at naturalization eligibility requirements, get forms, and
    even take an online self-administered practice test of U.S. history and
    government. The new site has been extremely successful in the two years
    that it has been operational. Currently the site is viewed by 5,000
    users per day, and more than 4,000 users per month are taking the self-
    test.
        In fiscal year 1998, we also continued work on improving standard
    office automation infrastructure and educating INS users about new
    automation. The INS held 2,450 training sessions with 17,780 attendees
    on basic automation so that INS staff can effectively use the new
    equipment. Initial deployment of office automation workstations to all
    INS sites will be completed in fiscal year 1999.
                              interior enforcement
        Interior enforcement is an essential complement to border
    management in forming the Administration's overarching immigration
    enforcement strategy. INS's formal Interior Enforcement Strategy was
    presented to staff of the Appropriations Subcommittee in January 1999.
    The Strategy establishes the following priorities: identify and remove
    criminal aliens, and minimize recidivism; deter, dismantle and diminish
    smuggling or trafficking of aliens; respond to community reports and
    complaints about illegal immigration and build partnerships to solve
    local problems; minimize immigration benefit fraud and other document
    abuse; and block and remove employers' access to undocumented workers.
    Anti-Smuggling and Worksite Enforcement
        With the progress of our border enforcement strategy in deterring
    illegal immigration and regaining control along the border, we have
    seen unfortunate increases in organized alien smuggling. Concurrently,
    as the border becomes more difficult to cross illegally, the demand for
    fraudulent immigration documents increases. Aliens are now also showing
    up in the work forces of industries that previously were not part of
    the illegal labor stream. We are broadening our efforts to deal with
    these changes.
        Our accomplishments demonstrate our commitment to interior
    enforcement. In November 1998, INS agents put out of business what is
    believed to be the largest U.S.-based criminal enterprise producing
    fraudulent documents when they seized more than two million fake
    documents in Los Angeles with a street value of at least $800 million.
    To protect against fraud such as this and help employers to comply with
    the immigration law, INS introduced a new ``Green Card'' in April.
    Incorporating myriad security features, the new card is one of the most
    sophisticated, counterfeit resistant documents produced by the Federal
    government.
        In fiscal year 1998, worksite enforcement cases directed against
    industries and major employers with a known history of noncompliance
    with the employer sanctions provisions of immigration law represented
    59 percent of all worksite cases completed. In addition, in November
    1998, the INS entered into agreements with the Department of Labor to
    share information from worksite enforcement operations and employer
    compliance investigations that will ensure that employers will not
    benefit by exploiting and intimidating illegal workers.
        In fiscal year 1998, INS continued a variety of inter- and intra-
    agency pilot programs, including joint efforts with the Social Security
    Administration, to test systems designed to quickly and accurately
    verify whether new employees are eligible to work in the United States.
    The INS began seeking employers to participate in three IIRIRA-mandated
    programs in September 1998, in addition to our continued operation of
    the pre-IIRIRA employer verification and joint verification pilot
    programs.
        In fiscal year 1998, INS presented 1,547 principal smugglers for
    prosecution of alien smuggling violations, a 19 percent increase over
    fiscal year 1997. Criminal alien cases include large-scale
    organizations involved in ongoing criminal activity or individual
    aliens involved in drug smuggling or terrorism.
        We achieved impressive results in connection with major smuggling
    cases. In an effort to deter global migrant trafficking, INS has
    established a permanent presence of criminal investigators and
    intelligence analysts overseas to work on deterring migrant trafficking
    in source and transit countries. Our overseas offices, working closely
    with host governments, were instrumental in crafting legislation
    criminalizing migrant trafficking in several Latin American and
    Carribean countries.
        Operation ``Seek and Keep'' demonstrates one of our greatest
    successes in combating international alien smuggling and provides a
    good example of the kinds of cases we intend increasingly to bring.
    Over a three-year period, the targeted smuggling ring had brought more
    than 10,000 illegal aliens into the United States, providing
    undocumented workers to employers in the United States who actively
    sought out cheap labor. In the course of its operations, the
    organization was believed to have collected in excess of $220 million
    in illicit fees. This was the largest, most complex and sophisticated
    alien smuggling operation ever identified by the INS, and was also the
    first INS-conducted Title III (wiretapping) operation. The
    investigation, which is ongoing, also demonstrates our ability to work
    effectively with a diverse mix of other Federal agencies. Along with
    our own agents, this investigation has involved personnel and resources
    from the FBI, U.S. Customs Service, Internal Revenue Service and the
    Department of State.
        Also in November, INS announced the success of operation ``Over the
    Rainbow II,'' which has crippled the largest alien smuggling operation
    ever encountered on the northern border. For at least two years, the
    ring smuggled 100-150 Chinese nationals per month into the United
    States at an average cost of $47,000 per person.
    Cooperation with State and Local Law Enforcement and Communities
        As you have directed, INS will establish Quick Response Teams (QRT)
    in fiscal year 1999, to work with law enforcement officers at local and
    district levels in areas specifically identified as having a growing
    illegal immigration problem. The QRT's will be made up of special
    agents and detention enforcement officers. Certain of the teams will
    include a supervisory special agent, and, in addition, deportation
    officers will be deployed to INS District Offices and selected cities
    to coordinate detention and removal operations. The teams are not
    independent organizations within INS, but rather are to be part of the
    present organizational enforcement structure. The INS District Officers
    will ensure that the teams respond to calls in a timely manner and that
    removal of QRT-processed aliens is a priority.
        The Law Enforcement Support Center (LESC) was expanded during
    fiscal year 1998. The LESC, which is located in Burlington, Vermont,
    was started in fiscal year 1995 to respond to inquiries from Federal,
    state and local criminal justice agencies concerning aliens charged
    with aggravated felonies. The LESC currently responds to approximately
    8,000 queries a month. The following locations currently have access to
    the LESC: Arizona; Iowa; Nebraska; Utah; Vermont; Puerto Rico; Florida;
    Colorado; Wyoming; South Dakota; Kansas; Missouri; Illinois; Kentucky;
    Massachusetts; El Paso, TX; Dallas, TX; Harris County, TX; Atlanta, GA;
    San Diego County, CA; Imperial County, CA; San Mateo County, CA;
    Anaheim City Jail, CA.
        The INS brought increasing attention to bear on improving community
    relations in fiscal year 1998. The agency created the community
    relations officer (CRO) position to help identify and address
    immigration-related community issues and concerns and to educate the
    public on new immigration laws and regulations. By the end of fiscal
    year 1998, CRO's were on-board in key INS district and sector offices.
    The CRO's have dealt with a variety of issues, from responding to the
    public's need for information on IIRIRA implementation and the effects
    of welfare reform, to responding to citizen reports of alien
    trafficking patterns and requests for information. CRO's also
    implemented a major community relations operation in coordination with
    ``Operation Rio Grande'' along the Southwest border. In Illinois, the
    CRO helped resolve immigration-related conflicts and expanded state and
    city library citizenship outreach projects. In New York, the CRO has
    conducted conferences and public education seminars with various
    community groups and local government representatives.
        In fiscal year 1998, INS held meetings with community groups from
    California and Texas to explain the issues of concern to INS that
    underlie day labor site problems. The INS also consulted with state and
    local law enforcement officers in Utah, Florida and Iowa on the
    designation of immigration enforcement functions.
        Mr. Chairman, I realize that the Subcommittee has expressed
    concerns about several areas of INS's Immigration Services operations.
    I believe that we have made great strides in addressing the problem
    areas and in ensuring the integrity of our efforts.
                          naturalization improvements
        As it has been for the past two years, rebuilding the
    naturalization system is our top priority. The agency's focus has been,
    and will continue to be, improving customer service while ensuring the
    integrity of the naturalization process we have developed. To that end,
    the INS has laid the groundwork over the past year for significant
    changes to the naturalization process.
        First, the agency began by restoring the integrity of the system by
    implementing the mandated in-house fingerprinting of applicants and
    opening INS fingerprinting sites across the country. In parallel,
    Naturalization quality procedures were begun along with appropriate
    oversight mechanisms to further ensure integrity. An outside auditor,
    KPMG Peat Marwick, has validated the success of INS's quality assurance
    procedures.
        Having strengthened the integrity of the program, INS has begun its
    efforts to provide better service to customers by implementing direct
    mail of applications to improve efficiency, installing new technology
    to ensure consistency, hiring more adjudicators, and developing
    strategies for dealing with the backlog. The Immigration Services
    Division (ISD) is currently implementing the reengineering the
    naturalization process. Under ISD and its predecessor, the Executive
    Office of Naturalization Operations (EONO), INS has implemented strict
    quality assurance procedures to improve processing, ensure consistent
    practices nationwide and increase accountability.
        Under ISD leadership, as of March 1999, INS opened 129 Application
    Support Centers (ASC) in or near immigrant communities. All of these
    ASC's are currently open and taking fingerprints. For those who cannot
    reach the fingerprint sites, a fleet of 42 vans are serving as mobile
    fingerprint centers, or the applicants are directed to designated law
    enforcement agencies (DLEA's) operating under sole source agreements
    with the INS. All DLEA's use INS fingerprint equipment and receive INS
    customer service training.
        We have also made significant progress with the Direct Mail
    program. Through the program, certain applications and petitions for
    benefits are mailed directly to an INS service center for initial
    processing, rather than requiring applicants to come to local INS
    district offices or suboffices to submit applications. By using Direct
    Mail, INS standardizes processing, enhances processing controls and
    accuracy, and improves the quality of status information on cases
    provided to the public. All of the INS district offices have
    transitioned to Direct Mail for all new naturalization applications (N-
    400).
        As a result of these efforts, the agency showed steady improvement
    in production during the first four months of fiscal year 1999. We
    completed more than 305,000 naturalization applications in this time
    period, a 70 percent increase over the previous four month period, and
    a 101 percent increase over the same four month period in fiscal year
    1998.
        While this upward trend is encouraging, the completion numbers are
    not as high as we had projected. We continue to encounter production
    problems and are experiencing frustrating delays in achieving solutions
    to production issues. Some of the most important problems we are
    addressing include high turnover of non-permanent staff as well as full
    coordination of new computer systems with older automation environments
    still in use. We are on the way to resolving these issues, but they
    have slowed our production somewhat. In addition, quality and
    production standards are being incorporated into the performance work
    plans of naturalization managers, and all field and regional directors
    are being held accountable for specific production goals. Additional
    managers are also being assigned to field offices to oversee backlog
    reduction efforts in key cities.
        The naturalization program received a major boost when you
    approved, as part of INS's $3.95 billion budget for fiscal year 1999,
    the full $171 million reprogramming request to support naturalization
    activities plus an additional $5 million for records initiatives. The
    funding includes existing INS and Department of Justice funds and, for
    the first time, $60 million in appropriated resources. It will provide
    for the hiring of 200 term adjudicators, 100 Immigration Information
    Officers, begin expansion of INS telephone centers into a comprehensive
    national customer service center, and begin centralizing INS's 25
    million paper files that are currently located in 80 offices throughout
    the country.
                               asylum processing
        Five years ago, INS initiated and completed the first large-scale
    reform of the asylum system, whose inefficiency and backlogs once made
    it a magnet for fraud and abuse. As a result, new claims have fallen
    from 124,000 in fiscal year 1994 to 35,000 in fiscal year 1998, which
    is the lowest level in 10 years. All cases that the INS Asylum Corps
    refers to the Executive Office of Immigration Review (EOIR) must be
    completed and submitted within 60 days of the asylum application's
    filing date. The EOIR Immigration Judge then has an additional 120 days
    to make an adjudication. Of the 16,624 cases referred by the Corps, 73
    percent met the 60-day goal. In addition to keeping current with new
    applications, the Corps reduced the pending asylum caseload by 10
    percent, from 400,000 to 360,000.
                             inspect and integrity
        Another example of our commitment to addressing problem areas and
    ensuring integrity is the INS Program for Excellence and Comprehensive
    Tracking (INSpect). INSpect is a top-to-bottom review process by the
    Office of Internal Audit (OIA) that focuses on assessing field office
    effectiveness; determining compliance with applicable laws,
    regulations, and procedures; measuring performance against established
    standards; and providing a means to share local successes and solutions
    applicable to service-wide problems. The program now consists of a
    corps of more than 800 subject matter experts who serve on INSpect
    teams on a rotating basis. During fiscal year 1998, INSpect reviewed 19
    INS offices, which accounted for 44 percent of INS's field employees,
    and issued 11 final INSpect reports. The reports presented a total of
    884 recommendations for corrections and improvements and 23 best
    practices or local successes with INS-wide applicability.
        Our Office of Internal Audit visited INS field offices to follow up
    on INSpect recommendations and recommendations made by outside audit
    agencies. During fiscal year 1998, the OIA issued seven follow-up
    reports, and closed 328 recommendations where follow-up confirmed that
    corrective actions had been completed. This was the first full year of
    such follow-up reviews; they will continue in fiscal year 1999.
                                 restructuring
        The challenges of immigration have changed dramatically over the
    course of the past several years. The growth of a global economy,
    public policy debates over immigration in the United States, and new
    legislative mandates, including the sweeping changes enacted in the
    1996 immigration law, have made unprecedented enforcement and service
    demands on INS. The breadth of these changes, coupled with the agency's
    explosive growth, demands a change in the INS's structure to more
    effectively meet the challenges of the 21st century.
        In early 1998, the Administration established a new framework for
    improving the INS through restructuring, which I shared with you last
    year. Our goals for restructuring are greater accountability, enhanced
    customer service, seamless enforcement, and insuring a coherent
    immigration system. The new structure would separate the enforcement
    and service-delivery functions of INS into two distinct chains of
    command under the roof of a single agency. This is a bold initiative
    that would fundamentally reform INS from Headquarters all the way down
    to field offices. It would eliminate the current field structure in
    which regional and district offices serve both enforcement and service
    functions and will replace it with separate enforcement and service
    offices that bring the right mix of staff and skills to local service
    caseload and enforcement needs. It would also establish clear career
    paths with a single focus, either law enforcement or immigration
    services delivery, and corresponding training to ensure a professional
    workforce sensitive to the treatment of INS customers.
        I believe that separating the functions but keeping them within one
    agency led by one person who is accountable on a full-time basis for
    the management of our nation's immigration system will result in the
    most effective and efficient use of the infusion of resources the
    Administration and Congress have provided INS over the past five years,
    and represents the most reliable approach to insuring that our nation's
    immigration law and policies are implemented in a coherent, balanced
    way.
        As you know, our immigration laws allow ways for those who are
    residing in the United States illegally to gain legal status and
    outline how those who are here legally can lose that status. Because
    these processes are intertwined in statute and practice, immigration
    enforcement and services are closely interrelated at both policy and
    operational levels. Assigning them to separate agencies would seriously
    fragment and weaken the government's ability to administer the
    immigration laws effectively.
        Implementing the law effectively and coherently requires access to
    comprehensive information on all aspects of an alien's immigration
    history, which includes enforcement and benefit-granting actions.
    Properly managing our immigration system requires policy processes and
    decision-making that balance the national interest in deterring
    improper migration flows and practices while upholding our tradition of
    individual rights and humanitarian commitments. In both realms, these
    objectives are most reliably achieved through one agency where there is
    a single, full-time locus for managing the enforcement and services
    sides and the attention, expertise, and accountability that flow from
    it.
        INS has made significant progress on planning for restructuring
    since last spring. In the fall of 1998, INS established an Office of
    Restructuring and contracted with PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC), for
    design support, to develop a detailed draft proposal of how the INS
    would look and operate under the Administration's plan.
        The planning has involved wide-ranging consultation with INS field
    and headquarters staff. Last fall, the restructuring team talked to
    more than 900 INS employees during field site visits and headquarters
    interviews, and established an electronic mailbox and intranet site for
    continuous communication with our employees. We have also held two
    meetings with all of our senior field managers to elicit their feedback
    on proposed design concepts.
        The restructuring team has also engaged in extensive consultations
    with our external stakeholders, ranging from other government and law
    enforcement entities to trade and international business organizations
    to community-based organizations. We have done this primarily through a
    stakeholder advisory board as well as through specific briefings on the
    restructuring effort. At the same time, we have regularly met with
    staff from this Committee and others in Congress for their input.
        Earlier this year, the Restructuring team used this extensive
    internal and external input, analysis of the structures of other
    Federal law enforcement and service provision agencies, and PwC's
    change management expertise and experience with best practices in other
    public and private sector organizations, to develop several specific
    organizational concepts for INS enforcement, immigration services, and
    support operations components. These concepts were then shared with our
    employees and managers, our external stakeholders, and Congress for
    additional input. We are now finalizing our draft proposal which
    reflects the distillation of all these efforts.
        We realize there are differing views on this, including the views
    of some on this committee and elsewhere in the Congress. However, for
    the reasons outlined above, we believe our proposal represents
    fundamental reform that will strengthen the immigration system. We
    should not let the frustration we share lead us to weaken our
    institutions and our ability to carry out responsibilities in both
    enforcement and benefit-granting that are mutually reinforcing, not
    fundamentally incompatible.
        In the coming weeks, INS will share with this Committee and others
    in Congress its draft proposal for how a new INS would look and
    operate. I look forward to working with you this year to move this
    important issue forward.
                            fiscal year 2000 budget
        Now I will turn to the fiscal year 2000 budget and initiatives
    included in our request. For fiscal year 2000, we are seeking a total
    budget of $4.270 billion and 31,249 positions for INS to further
    strengthen the Administration's comprehensive immigration strategy. The
    fiscal year 2000 budget represents a $298 million increase in funding
    over the anticipated fiscal year 1999 spending level, $150 million
    above the projected fiscal year 2000 base level, and adds a total of
    306 positions.
        The INS budget for fiscal year 2000 continues to support the
    immigration goals and strategies that the Administration and the
    Service have pursued so effectively over the past several years. The
    thrust of this budget is to further extend the initiatives aimed at
    controlling our borders--encouraging and accommodating lawful commerce
    while simultaneously discouraging and preventing the unlawful entry of
    illegal border-crossers and dangerous drugs. The INS intends to build
    on its successful multi-year strategy to regulate the border
    effectively, both at and between the ports-of-entry, to deter illegal
    employment in the interior of the United States, to combat and punish
    the smuggling of people and narcotics, as well as other immigration-
    related crime, and to remove criminals and other deportable persons
    quickly. At the same time, concentration on the border areas will be
    linked with the enforcement of the immigration laws at interior
    locations.
        The intent of the INS fiscal year 2000 budget is to provide the INS
    with the most professional workforce possible, and to give those
    employees the modern tools essential to the performance of their vital
    mission in the safest and most effective manner possible.
                               border management
        The fiscal year 2000 budget includes 101 positions and $56 million
    which will continue the escalation of our efforts to control the
    nation's borders and facilitate lawful commerce while deterring and
    denying the illegal movement of people and drugs.
        A total of an additional $50 million is requested to support the
    Border Patrol. The Border Patrol has proven that it can control
    targeted sections of the border, and has achieved dramatic results in
    areas like San Diego County in California and the urban El Paso area in
    Texas. Recent expansion of efforts into the Texas and New Mexico
    border, most notably Operation Rio Grande, will continue. At the same
    time, INS will neither neglect nor abandon its successful regulation
    and enforcement operations in those border sectors now under control.
        The Service's Border Patrol Agents are assisted in the successful
    accomplishment of their very difficult and demanding mission by state-
    of-the-art technology. The fiscal year 2000 budget provides 14
    positions and $50 million for development and deployment of the
    Integrated Surveillance Intelligence System (ISIS). As previously
    noted, the ISIS system extends the efficiency and effectiveness of the
    line-watch Border Patrol Agents, especially in the more remote and
    desolate regions, helping to deny these areas to illegal aliens and
    drug smugglers. The ISIS system links ground sensors with night and day
    surveillance cameras, that are in turn linked to central controllers,
    where Border Patrol agents can be instantly dispatched to remote
    locations, with full knowledge of exactly who, what and how well armed
    their targets may be. Not only are ``false alarms'' all but eliminated,
    but overall officer safety and law enforcement effectiveness are
    increased immensely.
        In addition, the Service requests 87 positions and $6 million to
    staff three new land border ports-of-entry in Texas--Eagle Pass, Los
    Tomates, and Laredo.
        Furthermore, in fiscal year 2000, the INS is requesting $48.1
    million to support new Border Patrol construction requirements. This
    request will provide $34 million for the construction of seven Border
    Patrol facilities. An additional $8.1 million is being requested in
    fiscal year 2000 for the planning, site development, and design work
    required to support the future construction of 12 new facilities and 10
    checkpoint systems. The INS is also requesting $6 million for military
    (JTF-6) projects. The record increases in Border Patrol staff have far
    outpaced facility construction. These resources will allow us to begin
    to address the facility requirements to accommodate the growth in
    Border Patrol operations over the last several years.
               implement integrated interior enforcement strategy
        The fiscal year 2000 Budget includes $20 million to support 185 new
    positions to address the presence and consequences of illegal migration
    in the interior of the United States. The Interior Enforcement Strategy
    for fiscal year 1999 complements INS's Border Control Strategy to
    apprehend those who have eluded INS's front line of deterrence.
        A total of 155 positions and $16.8 million are requested to expand
    INS's national transportation system, for transportation of aliens and
    other required detention functions. This includes $5 million to support
    continued INS movement of illegal aliens by JPATS, thereby reducing the
    need to remove aliens by commercial aircraft.
        INS has included in this request $20.5 million for the construction
    of two detention projects to be completed in fiscal year 2000. An
    additional $2 million is being requested for the planning, site
    development, and design work required to support three new detention
    projects scheduled for future construction.
                              immigration services
        In order to continue enhanced efforts to improve customer service,
    the fiscal year 2000 budget request includes $124 million to maintain
    enhanced staffing for backlog reduction and advance customer service
    initiatives, including a national customer service center.
                                   conclusion
        These new fiscal year 2000 resources will give INS the personnel
    and tools needed to carry out the Administration's effective
    immigration strategy. I look forward to continuing to work with the
    Subcommittee. With your support of this budget request, we can carry
    forward the improvements made during the last few years. We have made
    great strides in addressing problem areas and working to ensure the
    agency's integrity. I want to work with you as we continue our efforts
    to make this nation's immigration system the best that it can be.
        This concludes my formal statement on the fiscal year 2000 budget
    request for INS. I would be happy to answer any questions which you,
    Mr. Chairman, and Members of the Subcommittee may have.

                       strategy to target criminal Aliens

        Senator Gregg. Senator Campbell?
        Senator Campbell. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me ask
    maybe a very general one and then one specific to Colorado,
    Commissioner Meissner.
        I am sure you are aware of the Monday, March 15, story in
    the Washington Post about the INS shifting its strategy to
    target criminal aliens. I would like you to comment a little
    bit on that. I know our office, like all of the offices, was
    under tremendous fire for awhile from people that wanted more
    and more pressure put on the illegal aliens, and at the same
    time, getting a quiet heat from businesses who said they could
    not survive without them in tourism and agriculture and a
    number of other industries.
        With this shift, we are already starting to get some mail,
    some people saying that it is probably a good idea and other
    ones saying you are relaxing it and you are, in fact, going to
    encourage more illegal aliens if you do this new strategy.
    Could you comment a little bit on that for me?
        Ms. Meissner. I am happy to do that, because the issue of
    how we enforce the law in the interior of the United States is
    a critical companion to our work at the border. We all know
    that the centerpiece of an effective immigration enforcement
    program must begin with deterrence at the borders to prevent
    and deter people from coming into the country illegally in the
    first place. But at the same time, it cannot be done solely at
    the border. There must be an effective effort and deterrence in
    the interior of the country.
        The interior enforcement strategy that we have put forward
    is an effort to connect in the best way that we believe we can
    that border activity with interior enforcement. We have become
    increasingly effective at the border, and what we are finding
    is increasingly sophisticated organized efforts to move people
    past the border and to exploit document laws and so on.
        Senator Campbell. I understand that and I support that part
    of it. As I understand it, and tell me if I am wrong here, as I
    understand it, you will be relaxing the unannounced visits to
    businesses and farms in areas that have a high degree of
    illegal immigrants working in those industries?
        Ms. Meissner. I would not characterize it as relaxed at
    all. I would characterize it as being far more strategic in our
    workplace enforcement efforts vis-a-vis the smuggling of aliens
    into the country. That is best illustrated by a number of cases
    that we have made recently that show that there are very clear
    connections between employment practices and particular
    employers, and industries with smuggling. Those are the cases
    we want to make.
        We made a case last year where we were able to indict the
    smugglers coming across the border along with the employer who
    was employing them. That was a multi-State case that
    originated, actually, in New Mexico. It ultimately ended up in
    indictments in Georgia in a factory that was employing illegal
    immigrants. That is a very effective way to get impact.
        We are right now, for instance, pursuing employer leads
    that resulted from a major case of indictments that were
    announced last, I think, November or December. This is the case
    I referred to in my testimony that brought thousands of aliens
    into the country, and millions of dollars of profit. The
    follow-up to that case is now 1,000 employer leads of companies
    around the country that employed the people brought in through
    that smuggling. We are following up on all of those leads in
    order to sanction those employers.
        But that kind of workplace effort connected to very
    seriously abusive practices brings us, we believe, to a much
    more strategic approach in the interior of the country.

                   assistance in Special naturalization case

        Senator Campbell. I know it is a tough question. I am sure
    most of us in the Western States that are high growth States,
    we have unemployment below 3 percent in Colorado. People are
    making $12 an hour working in McDonald's and there are just so
    many jobs going left unfilled. No one supports illegal
    immigration, but at the same time, those States that have that
    real low unemployment and a massive amount of jobs going
    unattended seem to be prime targets for people that would come
    in illegally and I would just hate to see businessmen get
    caught in the middle, where they have to be the policemen, so I
    thank you for clarifying that.
        One question, if I might take a minute, Mr. Chairman,
    specific to our State that I would like your personal
    involvement in. We have a lady by the name of Mrs. Steinman who
    married an American some years ago. In fact, she came here in
    1986 the first time and married her husband in 1993. He is a
    third-generation Coloradan. His parents were raised in
    Colorado. His grandparents were raised in Colorado.
        Six years ago, she applied for citizenship, for
    naturalization, and it has been one endless mismanaged bungled
    mess after another and she is still waiting after 6 years. She
    sent her application in, did all the paperwork. They lost it,
    even though she had a receipt that was signed for when she
    turned it in. She has been sent, twice, over hundreds of miles,
    because she lives pretty far out in Colorado, to get the
    immigration records, but they were lost, too.
        It has kind of been one thing after another, and I like to
    think that this is really an exception to the rule and that
    most people who are trying to be responsible and immigrate to
    the United States through the normal, legitimate, legal
    process, I hope they are not all treated like that.
        We have this funny kind of a dichotomy, Mr. Chairman, where
    people that immigrate illegally seem to find all kinds of
    avenues for staying here and the ones that try their best to
    conform with the law often find it more and more difficult to
    stay here, and it is the darndest thing I have ever seen.
        But if you would write her name down, her name is Steinman,
    spelled S-t-e-i-n-m-a-n, and I will get you her first name and
    address, but I would appreciate if you would look into that and
    try to find out what the heck has gone wrong, because for 6
    years, this lady has been trying to get her paperwork
    processed. Would you do that for me?
        Ms. Meissner. Absolutely.
        Senator Campbell. I appreciate that. I will get you her
    address and all the particulars on it.
        Ms. Meissner. We certainly want to do everything that we
    can to overcome those problems. We have had some difficulties
    in our naturalization program that we are addressing, but I
    would be very pleased to try to rationalize that case.
        Senator Campbell. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        [The information follows:]

                     Status of Mrs. Steinman's Application

        Mrs. Steinman's I-485 (Application for Permanent Residency)
    application was approved on March 18, 1999. The application has
    been sent to the INS card-processing center in Lincoln,
    Nebraska, where all documentation will be subject to a final
    review, after which Mrs. Steinman's Permanent Resident Card
    will be issued.
        Although it was 6 years between the date Mrs. Steinman
    filed her I-130 (Petition for Alien Relative) and when the
    Immigration and Naturalization Service approved her adjustment
    of status I-485, she did not file her I-485 until February
    1997, 25 months (2 years) after the approval of her I-130. In
    actuality, her adjustment took about 25 months from the filing.

                               Immigration policy

        Senator Gregg. Senator Leahy.
        Senator Leahy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Commissioner, I
    told you before that I do not envy you your job. I think when
    you were appointed, I offered my congratulations and
    condolences. I know you have one of the most difficult jobs in
    the government. We have seen illegal immigration across our
    southern border increase exponentially, but you have been faced
    with at the same time implementing immigration bills that have
    become the most contentious in our history.
        You cannot say this, but I can. This administration's
    schizophrenic approach to immigration policy has made your job
    even more complicated. The number of changes in policies that
    Congress and the White House have asked you to implement, some
    in direct contradiction to each other, would drive any sane
    person crazy. It is a testament to you that you have stayed and
    worked so hard at being Commissioner. I think you have done a
    remarkable job.
        But let me give you an example of how this one-upmanship in
    immigration policy directed, as I said, by both the Congress
    and by the administration, has led to policies which result in
    decorated war veterans, U.S. decorated war veterans, being
    deported without any meaningful opportunity to be heard.
        Under the Immigration Reform Act of 1996, Congress passed
    and the President endorsed a broad expansion of the definition
    of a criminal illegal alien. In the rush to be toughest on
    illegal immigration, the bill also provided expedited
    deportation proceedings, which the administration has pushed
    you to implement, with a severe curtailing of administrative
    discretion.
        Well, the zealousness of Congress and the White House to be
    tough on aliens, to show who could be more macho, I guess, has
    successfully snared permanent residents, among them people who
    spilled their blood for our country in foreign wars. As INS
    prepares to deport these American veterans, we have not even
    been kind enough to thank them for their services with a
    hearing to listen to their circumstances.
        That is a cold and ugly side of our tough immigration
    policy, the human consequences of legislating by 30-second
    political ads. Unfortunately, the checks and balances of our
    government have failed these veterans because Congress and this
    administration are determined not to be outdone by each other.
    Tough in this case means blinding ourselves to the personal
    circumstances of these people. It means substituting discretion
    with a cold rubber stamp that can only say no.
        I am going to give you and ask to have in the record some
    examples of people, including one veteran with a silver star
    and others who are being deported with no chance to really be
    heard. I also have a number of other questions I will submit
    for the record.

                                 Reorganization

        I do want to ask you about the reorganization of the INS.
    We have, on the one hand, an effort to centralize that should
    give more uniform policy implementation. But now I also
    understand that you are considering a reorganization of the
    regional operation centers, to move them from three national
    regional centers to a dozen or so regional areas. Is this
    contradictory? Is the INS centralizing and is that making it
    better? Is the INS decentralizing and going to regional areas?
        Ms. Meissner. What we are proposing is a splitting of our
    operations along the lines of enforcement and service so that
    we have distinct chains of command that improve our
    accountability, and strengthen our operational effectiveness by
    focusing our managers on less tasks per manager. We are in the
    final stages of developing our thinking on these ideas and we
    will want to consult with you before we finalize them.
        We do believe that there are distinct differences in the
    work and skills involved in the enforcement responsibility that
    we carry from the immigrant granting responsibilities that we
    carry. Our district offices at the present time are charged
    with both of those responsibilities, as compared, for instance,
    to the Border Patrol, which is responsible solely for
    enforcement activities. We need to and we believe that we would
    be a far more effective agency if those who are dealing with a
    mixture of responsibilities, in fact, are allowed to focus on
    what they are trained for, know best to do, and are operating
    in a culture that promotes the values that underlie the
    enforcement and the benefit granting, some of which are
    different.
        As to centralizing/decentralizing, we are really talking
    about a mixture of those activities. It is not either/or. It is
    both/and.

                    profile of victim of Immigration policy

        Senator Leahy. I will submit more of this for the record,
    but let me just give you the profile of one of these people I
    spoke of. Danny Kazuba immigrated to the United States from
    Canada at the age of five. He has been a legal permanent
    resident for 41 years. He served 6 years in the U.S. military,
    served in active duty, was honorably discharged. His family
    consists of a mother, five siblings, and a U.S. citizen wife.
    They all live in the United States. He has no ties in Canada.
    He owns and operates his own commercial kitchen installation
    business. He has been in business for 19 years, a lot of
    American families employed by him.
        He went through a period where he was battling an
    addiction. He was convicted 12 years ago of possession of a
    controlled substance. He plea bargained, was sentenced to
    probation. He was subsequently convicted of possession of a
    controlled substance. He plea bargained again. The substance,
    incidentally, was less than a half-a-gram. He was never
    informed that his conviction could result in deportation. After
    his release, he was psychologically evaluated by the Board of
    Pardons and Parole, determined to be free from risk of
    addiction again. He has led a rehabilitated life for over 10
    years.
        He was originally granted relief from deportation because
    of unusual and outstanding factors in this case, including
    service in the military. The INS appealed that. Then that
    languished in the courts for 2\1/2\ years until the new
    immigration laws were passed. They were retroactive. Now, he
    goes.
        We have a whole lot of other cases like that. You could
    have somebody who has a silver star, could pass a bad check, be
    a legal immigrant, and be kicked out without a ``by your
    leave''. That is what the law says.
        Ms. Meissner. Senator, we all know, I think, that the 1996
    law did strengthen the immigration enforcement in ways that
    were important and were needed. However, we, too, are troubled
    by some of the results of the deportation provisions,
    particularly in the kinds of cases that you are citing. We are
    aware of many cases that are very sympathetic, as well,
    principally where lawful permanent residents are concerned who
    have lived in this country for some while.
        We do think that there is room for some work on some of
    these provisions without undercutting the important enforcement
    strengthening that did occur in the 1996 law. We would very
    much welcome working with the Congress on the ideas that we
    have in connection with those kinds of cases.
        Senator Leahy. I hope we can make some changes, because I
    think that too much of it got wrapped up in who could be
    tougher for the 30-second ads and not so much what works well,
    and I think some of the experiences you have seen, your advice
    could be very helpful to us in that.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Gregg. Thank you, Senator.
        Senator Kyl? We go in order of arrival.
        Senator Kyl. OK. Not being a member of this particular
    subcommittee----
        Senator Leahy. I arrived ahead of everybody here. I was in
    the room when you guys came in.
        Senator Gregg. I did not see you or we would have had you
    go first.
        Senator Leahy. That is all right. That is OK. I have
    enjoyed listening.
        Senator Gregg. I thought Ben was here first. You will
    notice, I did not even ask questions.

                              Border Patrol agents

        Senator Kyl. OK. Fine. Thank you. I very much thank you for
    allowing me to sit in on this panel, Mr. Chairman.
        Doris, how are you?
        Ms. Meissner. Good morning, Senator.
        Senator Kyl. In your statement, on page two, you talk about
    the goals and said, ``we initiated,'' and I have underlined
    ``we'', meaning the administration, obviously, ``initiated
    unparalleled growth in personnel and resources. Since fiscal
    year 1993, we have more than doubled the number of Border
    Patrol agents.'' You also said later that the progress that you
    have made demonstrates that when we are given the resources and
    develop focused strategies, we can achieve results.
        I think the ``we'' in this case really is more this
    committee than the administration, with all due respect. In
    1996, the Act you just referred to that was passed by the
    Congress, requires the--requires--it says shall, not is
    authorized to, but shall--hire 1,000 additional Border Patrol
    agents each year between 1997 and 2001. Except for fiscal year
    1998, the administration has not complied with the law and has
    requested only 500 agents, or as is the case for its fiscal
    year 2000 request, has completely ignored the law, requesting
    zero. It has been up to this committee to put the funds back
    in, and for that, I am very, very grateful.
        At the same time that you are outlining your strategy for
    combatting illegal drugs and, as you put it, effectively
    securing the border, you are requesting zero additional Border
    Patrol agents and zero additional Customs inspectors and
    agents, even though we know that 70 percent of illegal drugs
    enter the United States through the Southwest border. In fact,
    if current trends continue in Arizona, the Tucson Border Patrol
    will seize over 220,000 pounds of drugs this year.
        Illegal immigration is also at all-time highs. In Arizona
    alone, just in the Tucson sector, just last month, 49,000
    illegal immigrants were apprehended. Who knows how many were
    not. If that is sustained at that level, then the Tucson sector
    Border Patrol will apprehend over 500,000 illegal immigrants in
    1999.
        In my conversations with Border Patrol Chiefs Association
    President Ron Sander and other chiefs, none of them agree with
    your assessment that we should take a time out from hiring
    additional Border Patrol agents in the year 2000. They say
    there are no widespread problems as a result of newer agents on
    the line. In fact, according to press accounts, there is little
    statistical relationship between the experience of a Border
    Patrol agent and the number of disciplinary problems.
        Indeed, former U.S. Border Patrol Chief and now
    Representative Sylvester Reyes has information indicating that
    many sectors do not have close to the 39 percent of agents with
    2 years or less experience, as you estimate. In fact, in the
    Tucson sector, 80 percent of the agents have 2 or more years of
    experience, and 100 percent of the agents in Miami and New
    Orleans have 2 or more years of experience.
        So the first question I have, and I will make one more
    brief statement and then ask you to respond, is why not train
    now and deploy to the areas that have these kinds of ratios,
    which even by your understanding do not result in an
    inappropriate number of untrained agents? The Tucson sector
    clearly needs the personnel and its levels of untrained agents
    do not yet meet the level that you are concerned with.
        General McCaffrey, when he testified before the Treasury
    Appropriations Subcommittee, indicated that his budget--in
    fact, he said that the initial INS requested budget did include
    funding for additional Border Patrol agents and also reiterated
    his view that 20,000 Border Patrol agents are needed on line to
    effectively stop drugs from entering the country.
        The second question I would be interested in is whether or
    not your initial budget did, in fact, include money for agents
    and was simply scrubbed by OMB?
        And finally, if you could pull the other chart up, since I
    do not want to take all my time on this, the University of
    Texas at Austin study, which I am sure you are familiar with, a
    thorough 50-page comprehensive report, indicates that the
    Southwestern border needs at least 16,133 agents to effectively
    stop illegal immigrants and drug runners there. For example, in
    Yuma, we currently have 236 agents. They say we should have 787
    there. The Tucson sector has 1,032. They say we need 2,512. The
    red bars are what they say are needed. The blue and green are
    what we have or will have under your budget.
        Based upon this study, these statistics, the other numbers
    that I have indicated to you, can we not put some money in this
    budget this year? Would you not support this committee again
    overriding the recommendation of the administration, including
    budget for the training, recruiting, and training and
    deployment of more agents, particularly in those sectors where
    the percentage of inexperienced agents do not approach the
    level that you suggest is a problem, and particularly since
    people on the line say that it will not be a problem in any
    event?
        Ms. Meissner. Well, let me begin to answer that question by
    emphasizing the extraordinarily dramatic growth that has
    occurred in the Border Patrol. Over the last 4 years, the
    Border Patrol has more than doubled in size, going from about
    3,900 to today over 8,000, and this year, with the fiscal year
    1999 agents, we will get to 9,000. We are confronting some
    issues in recruiting those 1,000 new agents which we can talk
    about, but there is a very, very dramatic increase that has
    taken place.
        We have been able to support that increase by totally
    overhauling our recruiting and training procedures. We have
    been able to be successful in hiring up these people on time,
    deploying them, including opening a new training academy in
    Charleston, which this committee supported, and the hiring
    actually has required many more than 1,000 a year in order to
    keep up with attrition.
        So we are able to deal with this level of growth. We have
    been able to attract very high quality new personnel. We have
    insisted on very high standards. We have been able to maintain
    those standards and we will be able to do that. We have the
    capacity to be able to continue this build-up.
        Now, we do have a new workforce. We have gone through very
    dramatic growth and the administration did make the decision in
    this budget round to take a breather for a year. The money that
    is in the budget for the Border Patrol represents almost half
    of the budget request that the administration sent forward.
    That is money which is to be directed at facilities and at
    force multiplying technology.
        Our facilities needs are very serious where the Border
    Patrol build-up has taken place. We simply cannot put the
    facilities out there as quickly as this personnel growth has
    occurred, and so we find ourselves with a serious shortfall
    which this budget by no means closes but makes some strong
    progress at dealing with.
        And where the technology is concerned, there is a request
    for $50 million to expand a very, very advanced state-of-the-
    art system of video surveillance, that is included in this
    budget. It is not a substitute for agents. However, it is a
    very effective force multiplier for the agents that are out
    there. It will, particularly in places like the remote areas of
    Arizona, and the more remote areas of Texas that Senator
    Hutchison and I have visited, be of enormous assistance to the
    agents. It will enable them to see who is actually coming
    across the border, and to dispatch people. It does this by
    connecting our sensors with cameras, with command centers that
    surveil the border and allow an operator to see what is
    happening over vast expanses of territory and then dispatch
    agents where necessary.
        So this budget does have very, very strong support for the
    Border Patrol's work. What I think I would want to say to this
    committee is that I personally as Commissioner, and the INS as
    an agency, is strongly committed to the border strategy that we
    have put into place and to continuing that border strategy. We
    know that it works. We see the results where the resources and
    the equipment and the technology have been applied. We are
    managing this as aggressively as we possibly can and this
    committee has been of enormous support in that effort. I want
    to continue to work with you in advancing that strategy because
    it is a multi-year strategy which does need to continue in the
    years ahead.

                          Border Patrol agent request

        Senator Kyl. Mr. Chairman, I do not think you have a 5-
    minute rule, but I took a long time, so let me just conclude
    this round with this statement. I appreciate the fact that you
    described the need. You correctly noted that the addition of
    agents has had tremendous positive results. I totally concur
    with that. It has brought crime down. It has also resulted in
    more apprehensions. It does good.
        You also indicate that we have the capacity to train these
    agents, but you concluded that the administration decided to
    take a breather. Well, nobody else at the border is taking a
    breather, and if we have the capacity and if we know the need
    is there and if we know that it gets results, then I reiterate
    my two questions to you. Did you request more agents and was it
    scrubbed out by OMB, and would you be supportive of this
    committee's addition of money to continue the training and
    recruitment of agents, since it appears that we can do that and
    there are plenty of sectors along the border that do not
    approach the inexperience level that you suggest creates a
    problem, particularly in my State, where these agents could,
    obviously, with great results, be deployed?
        Ms. Meissner. We did request 1,000 agents, both the INS and
    the Justice Department did. As I said in my testimony, at the
    administration level, a decision was made to do differently.
        Senator Gregg. Senator Inouye.

                          gratitude to Honolulu staff

        Senator Inouye. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. As you
    know, at this moment, the Committee on Labor and Health is
    having a hearing, the Subcommittee on Military Construction,
    and this subcommittee, so I find myself floating back and
    forth.
        I wanted to be here, Madam Commissioner, because Donald
    Radcliffe, your man in Hawaii, has been very helpful to us and
    I wanted to express my gratitude to your staff in Honolulu. As
    you know, Honolulu is one of the major ports of entry for the
    United States, and as a result, we have a lot of business and
    your staff in Hawaii has been extremely helpful, cooperative,
    and very patient with us. So I wanted to come by to thank you
    personally.
        I have questions, Mr. Chairman, on your activities with the
    Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands. You are having a
    joint effort there to teach them how to set up a system. I just
    wanted to know what the status was, and second, on your
    immigrant investor visa program. These are technical questions.
    If I may, I would like to submit them.
        Ms. Meissner. Thank you. Thank you. We will be happy to
    respond.
        Senator Inouye. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
        Ms. Meissner. And thank you for bringing that compliment.
        Senator Inouye. It makes it easier for you.
        Ms. Meissner. Well, we have lots of very, very good people
    and they do a very good job.
        Senator Inouye. Mr. Radcliffe is a good man.
        Ms. Meissner. Thank you. I will pass that on to him.

                             INS problems in Alaska

        Senator Gregg. Thank you, Senator.
        It is the tradition in this committee, anyway, to recognize
    the chairman of the full committee on his arrival.
        Senator Stevens. You are very courteous and I thank you
    very much. We have six subcommittees meeting at the same time
    this morning.
        I do have some questions I would like to submit for the
    record, but I just want to comment along with them that it does
    seem to me that we have an inordinate number of INS problems
    coming up in Alaska. I think we are suddenly becoming a
    destination for a lot more immigrant people and it is very
    difficult for us to handle with a small population base. I
    would hope that you would review these questions that I am
    going to submit about the number of people that are in Alaska
    to handle INS-type issues, and I would like to discuss it with
    you at some time if we could. Thank you very much for your
    courtesy.
        Ms. Meissner. I would be happy to do that. I will be in
    touch with you.
        Senator Gregg. Senator Hutchison.

                     Border patrol agents in budget request

        Senator Hutchison. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I
    appreciate what Senator Kyl was saying as I came in. I had
    another hearing, as well, and I want to say how much I
    appreciate the chairman of the subcommittee not only holding
    this hearing but standing strong for the Border Patrol and the
    number of agents that we have had in the past.
        Let me take us back to 1997, when it was the first year
    after we had authorized 1,000 new Border Patrol agents per year
    and the Justice Department and INS came in asking for only 500
    after we had authorized 1,000. The same argument was made 2
    years ago that we needed to take a breather because we had so
    many new agents. This was a time when the border in Texas was a
    sieve. There were literally ranchers walking into their front
    yards in the morning and seeing people with AK-47s crossing
    their lawns and they were defenseless.
        After you and I and Janet Reno talked about this along with
    Sylvester Reyes and Senator Gramm and others, I give you credit
    because you came in and said, OK, we will go along with the
    1,000 after the subcommittee forced the issue. You have
    increased it by 1,000 for 2 years, although, of course, this
    year, as you have said, there are recruiting problems.
        But what is troubling, and I think that the chart that
    Senator Kyl has shows much of the problem, is that the theory
    for the Border Patrol as outlined by General Reno and yourself
    was to start in California, which was the biggest trouble spot,
    and try to do the full treatment for California, and then after
    California came under control, you moved to Arizona and gave
    full treatment to Arizona. And then the next was New Mexico,
    which is very closely tied to Texas because there is really
    only one small New Mexico station and a lot of New Mexico is
    covered in El Paso.
        When we started talking in 1997, Texas still did not have
    as many Border Patrol agents as California, even though Texas
    has 1,200 miles and California has 400. But you said, now is
    the time to start dealing with Texas. So we come in and we
    start beefing up Texas. We got, thanks to Senator Gregg and
    Senator Hollings, we were able to get 666 of the first 1,000
    and then 500, so that we began to start building.
        So you can imagine the disappointment that we felt when we
    were just beginning to come into some improving situations to
    see this year's budget with zero. I very much appreciate your
    answer, which was direct, which I know is tough for you, and
    that is that you asked for 1,000, that you were keeping your
    word, that you were staying with the strategy and it got cut
    out at a higher level, and so you are being a good soldier, as
    you must be.
        But the fact of the matter is that your original decision
    was the right one, because we still have huge problems along
    the Texas border which are not just Texas problems. Those
    cartels, two of the major ones come right through Texas and
    they go to New Hampshire and they go to South Carolina and they
    go to Chicago right from those two cartels.
        Senator Gregg. It is too cold in New Hampshire.
        Senator Hutchison. Well, I know you have no problems in New
    Hampshire, but I promise you, if we do not increase Border
    Patrol agents, you will.
        So we have got this problem that we are just beginning to
    see an improvement occurring and all of a sudden, we stop. So I
    want to say that the line that is being given, that we need a
    breather, is not the answer. The answer is to continue the
    strategy because it is not yet finished. You cannot stop at
    California, Arizona, New Mexico, and then halfway do Texas,
    which is the largest border, and finish the strategy so that we
    really do see some results.
        Let me finish one other point, and that is General
    McCaffrey has said that the United States needs 20,000 in the
    Border Patrol force. We are at 8,000 now, so we are by no means
    anywhere close to what he says, and also, he is based by a
    University of Texas study performed by the Center for U.S.-
    Mexico Border and Migration Research, which says that more than
    16,000 agents would be required to stop illegal immigration and
    drug flows across the Southwest border.
        So we are about a third of the way there. I want to ask you
    if you will help us if this committee does push for the full
    1,000 for the next 3 years for this strategy, to go where you
    say the problems are, recruitment and training, and help us
    finish the strategy that you started, which cannot be stopped
    midway.
        Ms. Meissner. I will continue to work with the subcommittee
    on this in every way, collectively and individually. I have
    very much appreciated your willingness to work with me on this
    as a joint effort because it takes that kind of partnership.
        Let me reiterate the very, very strong abiding commitment
    that we have to the strategy. We believe that it works. We
    believe that it is a long-term responsible response and we want
    to continue with it. We can continue with it.
        In addition to that, we are ourselves looking very
    carefully now at what the sort of end game number there is for
    the size of the Border Patrol. Numbers have been put out, as
    you have cited. General McCaffrey has a number. The Texas study
    cites a number. Each of them have weaknesses in the way that
    they were derived.
        We are looking now virtually station by station across the
    border at what the optimum number is, given the technology and
    the equipment that balances and gives tools to the agents. We
    think we will have that number in the coming round of budget
    discussions. It is a very careful look at what the best
    investment is, but it is for certain that we are not there yet.
    We would absolutely agree with you.
        So what I want to impart is that we most certainly will
    work with the Congress on this in this and subsequent budgets.
    We are very committed to the continuation over the long term of
    the strategy that we have put into place, and adjusting it as
    needed based on the experience that we have along the way. And
    finally, we hope to be able to bring you our best analysis, as
    well, of what the ultimate costs and investments here are
    needed in order to get the control that we all want to have.
        Senator Hutchison. Mr. Chairman, you have been very
    patient. Do I have time for a follow-up, or would you like to
    go forward?
        Senator Gregg. Go ahead. I have not asked any questions
    yet, but I have some on this exact point, so why do you not do
    your follow-up questions.

                         number of Border patrol agents

        Senator Hutchison. Let me just say that under any
    circumstances, can you see that there would be fewer than
    11,000, which is what we already have in our 5-year plan, that
    would be necessary for a full contingent? UT says 16,000.
    General McCaffrey says 20,000. Our 5-year plan says 11,000. Can
    you foresee that it could ever be under 11,000 with the
    problems that we are facing?
        Ms. Meissner. Well, I have not really looked carefully--or
    it is not ready for me to look at yet, the analysis that our
    people are working on. I do know that we need more. I think I
    would rather reserve judgment on an exact number, but we
    certainly do need more, and once we have implemented the 1999
    funding, we will be at 9,000, so we will be getting close to
    11,000. I know we need more. How much more, I would rather not
    say right now because I do not know.

                      three tier system for Border control

        Senator Hutchison. Well, let me just say this. In a 1,200-
    mile border, we are not going to have the density that they
    have in California and Arizona. We understand that. But I also
    want to just put out a red flag on the issue of equipment being
    any kind of a substitute for people, because while it is
    helpful and while we are going to have to have that in 1,200
    miles, nevertheless, when someone calls because the infrared
    shows that there are crossings on the border 25 miles away, the
    chances of actually getting there in real time are not
    terrific.
        So I would like to ask you to be looking at the three-tier
    system, where you have your border agents and you do not stop
    there. You have the second tier that catches the ones that fall
    through the cracks or perhaps the 25-mile trek that you have
    got to take because you see it on the infrared, and then the
    third inland port that is going to catch the next wave. That is
    what has worked in California and I would like to see you in
    the continuation of the strategy start putting that in key
    parts of Texas, as well.
        Mr. Chairman, I thank you for your patience and for your
    leadership. I do not think it has to be said that you have been
    a statesman on this issue. New Hampshire does not have the
    problem of illegal immigration that Texas does, but you have
    nevertheless remained very firm that this is an issue that we
    must address for all of America and I appreciate it.

                    problems recruiting Border Patrol agents

        Senator Gregg. Thank you, Senator.
        Let me follow up on this issue, and there are a lot of
    other issues I want to discuss with you, Commissioner, but on
    this specific issue, we are not just talking lack of people. We
    are talking attracting people into the service. You have had a
    significant problem filling the 1,000, primarily because of
    pay, I presume. Is the entry-level pay about $24,000?
        Ms. Meissner. The entry-level pay for the Border Patrol is
    GS-5, and it is in the mid-20s.
        Senator Gregg. Is it correct to state that we are having
    trouble recruiting people to fill the 1,000 slots?
        Ms. Meissner. We are coming against issues this year that
    we have not experienced in past years. We have, as I said
    earlier, been very aggressive and very successful in our hiring
    and recruiting over the last 4 years. We have met our goals. We
    have put the management into place.
        Senator Gregg. What are the issues this year?
        Ms. Meissner. But this year, those same methods are not
    yielding the results that we have wanted.
        Senator Gregg. Why?
        Ms. Meissner. For a variety of reasons. The first reason is
    a government-wide experience that is taking place in the
    military and in other law enforcement agencies, as it is in
    ours. It is the labor market, the low unemployment and the
    difficulty of competition in this labor market.
        The second reason, we think, is that we are probably the
    most difficult in our requirements. We are the only Federal
    agency that requires a foreign language, and that is Spanish.
    We train in that foreign language and people must pass in order
    to ultimately make it to the field. That language requirement,
    along with the length that it requires in training to get that
    language requirement met, sets us at a different level from
    other government agencies. We have the longest training, 19
    weeks for the Border Patrol, of any of the Federal law
    enforcement agencies.
        We also are finding that we are having many more problems
    with the people that make it through the initial test. In other
    words, we have almost half of our people right now, this year,
    who have their background investigation for security clearances
    or their medical suitability on hold because of problems. We
    are absolutely not going to change our standards and not going
    to lower our standards, but most likely a high proportion of
    those people actually will not make it through. Based on the
    thousands that we start out with, we are getting less actual
    yield at the end of the hiring process.
        And then, finally, there is the issue of pay. In our grade
    structure, although people start typically at the same grade
    levels that they do in other law enforcement agencies, the
    level to which you can advance in the Border Patrol is not as
    high a grade level as it is in some other occupations. So if
    given choices, they will often go with where they have a better
    opportunity.
        We are addressing that. We have had a very careful review
    of our grade structure and of our pay structure underway for
    some while. We are discussing within the administration the
    results of that review and hope to be talking with the Congress
    about that in the future.
        Senator Gregg. Do we give any sort of extra compensation as
    a result of requiring a second language?
        Ms. Meissner. We do not.

                               Equipment problems

        Senator Gregg. Also, do we not have significant equipment
    problems, with just the physical equipment? I understand we
    only have 4 percent of the pocket scopes, we have 22 percent of
    the goggles, 28 percent of the fiber optics, 4 percent of the
    hand-held search lights, 12 percent of the infrared scopes, 2
    percent of the global positioning receivers, and only 4 percent
    of the vehicle infrared cameras.
        Ms. Meissner. I think that the numbers that you are citing
    are from a technology report that we submitted to the Congress
    at the Congress' request, and it shows what in an ideal world
    would be the equipment that we would have. So we certainly are
    not in an ideal situation.
        Senator Gregg. At current spending levels, when would you
    be able to fill up these shortfalls?
        Ms. Meissner. Well, I think what we have to look at is the
    incredible increases in equipment and technology that have come
    in. We have in the last 5 years increased our number of scopes
    ten times. They are the single most valued piece of equipment
    by our Border Patrol, and I am sure Senator Kyl and Senator
    Hutchison, when you go out, that is validated by the agency. It
    certainly is when I talk to them. We have more than doubled our
    sensor capacity along the entire Southwest border, so there has
    been a tremendous investment in that and that now will be
    hooked up to computers so that they can automatically follow
    that.
        Senator Gregg. I know what we have done. What I want to
    know is what is the lead time to get to the point where we have
    adequate equipment in the hands of the agents and adequate
    technology on the border to support the agents. What is the
    lead time?
        Ms. Meissner. I would say that there is, of course, a lead
    time where procurement is concerned because these are all
    procurement items, but that procurement is working very, very
    well. We have been able to meet our deadlines and our
    procurement costs. We have built into all of our budget
    requests very substantial equipment increases. I think we are
    building up at a very, very aggressive rate. Could we do more?
    Could we do it faster? Yes, we could, but that is always the
    issue of proportion with the numbers of personnel.

                                     Scopes

        Senator Gregg. Let us take a specific item. Let us take
    scopes. What is the projected time frame within which the
    Department expects that every agent on the border will have an
    adequate support in the area of scopes?
        Ms. Meissner. Well, the scopes are very big pieces of
    equipment and they are very expensive. They are somewhere
    around $50,000 each, so we are talking about a very, very
    substantial outlay. Our ideal on the number of scopes is in the
    technology report that we have provided. I am not going to pick
    out the column here because I might get the wrong one, but we
    could probably--in 5 years, we have increased our scopes by ten
    times. We could probably do that again to good effect because
    the scopes are such a force multiplier for our agents. I think
    probably the best thing for me to do on that is to follow up
    and give you precisely what we think we can accomplish in the
    next couple of years optimally.
        Senator Gregg. Yes. I think what I would like is first, a
    statement of what you need in order to have the full complement
    of equipment and technology on the borders, and then a time
    frame within which acquisition of that should be made,
    anticipating technology changes, and the cost so that we could
    as a committee be able to see just what you need, when you are
    going to need it, and how much it is going to cost us to fund
    it.
        Ms. Meissner. We can do that work and I would be happy to
    provide it. I would also add that the $50 million that is in
    this budget for 2000 is a very aggressive technology infusion
    of cutting-edge technology that will very dramatically expand
    the effectiveness of the people that are currently out there.

                              Construction backlog

        Senator Gregg. Is there not also a large backlog, multiple
    hundreds of millions of dollars in backlog, in construction?
        Ms. Meissner. That is correct. Construction is the most
    difficult thing to accomplish at the rate that we bring
    personnel in, with the rates that we have been bringing them in
    with the funding that you have provided in the last 4 years. We
    have a substantial construction backlog. This budget asks for
    $48 million to work away at that backlog. It will not clear
    that backlog in construction.
        Senator Gregg. Is not the backlog almost $500 million?
        Ms. Meissner. Let me validate that number, but it is a
    substantial amount in addition to the money that we have asked
    for in 2000 and it is necessary in order to house and give
    proper facilities to the agents that are already on staff, as
    well as to repair deteriorating facilities that are currently
    in our inventory.
        Senator Gregg. At a $48 million a year request, you are
    talking 10 years before we get the backlog that presently
    exists, not including the backlog that is going to be added to
    it by a result of more agents being added, are you not? I mean,
    this is an underfunded account, along with the number of
    agents.
        Ms. Meissner. It is, and these are all balancing decisions
    that need to be made about what is the best way to move the
    whole effort forward as aggressively as possible but still keep
    a balance with all of the support needs and equipment and in
    construction that are required for this force.

                          problem with Budget request

        Senator Gregg. This is the problem I see with this budget
    as it was presented, and it was not necessarily your doing. In
    fact, I suspect it was not your doing at all. In fact, it was
    done over at OMB.
        We received a budget from the White House that underfunded
    the agents by 1,000 agents from what the law required be done.
    It underfunded the equipment the agents need who are already in
    the field to do the job of protecting the border. It
    underfunded the construction accounts significantly, so that
    the borders, which are a primary responsibility of the Federal
    Government--is there anybody else who is responsible for the
    border besides the Federal Government? I mean, it is our
    responsibility, right?
        Ms. Meissner. That is correct.
        Senator Gregg. We cannot kick this one over to Texas or
    Arizona or New Hampshire.
        Ms. Meissner. It is a Federal responsibility.
        Senator Gregg. The borders are our responsibility. We are
    grossly underfunding our responsibility to the effect that we
    get 49,000 people crossing the border in Arizona who are
    caught. That does not count the number who are not caught and
    the drugs and everything else that comes across the border
    illegally.
        At the same time that this primary responsibility of law
    enforcement of the Federal Government is being grossly
    underfunded by this administration, we get from the
    administration a request for $600 million for a new program,
    essentially a new program, and that is the 21st century
    policing program to effectively replace the COPS program. The
    original understanding of the COPS program was that we were
    going to put 100,000 cops on the street. We have done that. We
    paid for that and we did it. We are up to 92,000, and we will
    be at 100,000 pretty soon.
        This administration, with its press conference approach to
    law enforcement, held a press conference and said, we are going
    to increase this number from 100,000 to 150,000, and then they
    sent us up this request which took $600 million and put it into
    the COPS program, which was not originally planned, which is an
    add-on, which is essentially a new COPS program on top of the
    COPS program which was successful and has been completed. Where
    did they get that $600 million is my question as chairman of
    this committee? Where did they find that $600 million?
        Well, I think I know where they found it. They found it in
    your accounts. They took the money out of the Border Patrol,
    which is our responsibility, and a number of other things, to
    say the least. They took it out of LEA, and they took it out of
    Byrne grants, and they put it into the 21st century policing
    program.
        You are not the person to ask this question to, but I asked
    the question of the administration: What is the responsibility
    of the Federal Government? Is it to defend the borders or is it
    to put a police officer on the street in Epping, New Hampshire?
    I happen to think it is to defend the borders. If the town of
    Epping wants a new police officer, that is great, but that is
    the town of Epping's decision. Just because this administration
    wants to wander around the countryside putting out press
    releases in every town that they deliver police officers to is
    not an excuse for eviscerating our attempts to bring the Border
    Patrol up to speed.
        So this is not a statement directed to you, Commissioner,
    because you actually supported it in the budget which was
    responsible, I suspect, to the OMB, and then it got savaged.
    But that is what happened. I mean, when my friends from the
    border ask, where are the agents? Where is the equipment? Where
    is the construction? Well, it is in a press release that Al
    Gore is putting out in New Hampshire when he shows up and says,
    I got you 20 more police officers in this town I just visited
    because I am trying to run for election. That is what is
    happening. It is that simple.

                              Detention bed space

        Moving on to another topic, because I think we have reached
    the point of no return on that topic, is the detention bed
    space issue which is tied into the Border Patrol. I should have
    mentioned this in where the money came from for the 21st
    century policing program. We estimate that there is a $165
    million shortfall in detention bed space numbers as was
    presented in this budget. Is that an accurate estimate?
        Ms. Meissner. In the fiscal year 2000 budget, there is a
    shortfall in detention given the mandatory detention
    requirements and given the costs that we now see.
        Senator Gregg. Is $165 million about right?
        Ms. Meissner. We are working on this issue right now in
    terms of the 2000 budget. As the Attorney General, I think,
    told you, she has been in communication with OMB Director Jack
    Lew, and we are working on a series of management issues, and
    we are working with OMB on what the funding mechanisms might
    be. So I would reserve judgment on the actual number, but the
    number is a substantial number.
        Senator Gregg. Well, we know it is a substantial number,
    and we think it is $165 million. We know you are going to have
    to come to this committee and ask for money because you have
    got to retain these people under the law. So where are you
    going to find the offsets in your account as we move through
    this next budget cycle, this next funding cycle, to pay for
    this account where it is underfunded? I mean, it is
    underfunded. It has to be paid for.
        This reminds me a lot of what I used to get when I was
    Governor [of New Hampshire]. Departments would send me their
    budgets and they would underfund things like health care for
    people who they already had on board, you know, the premiums
    that we had to pay. Then they would spend it on something else.
    In your case, you probably did not spend it on anything else.
    But I would know that I had to find that money sometime during
    the year because they were going to come to me with a request.
    They were going to say, we have got to pay the health bill.
        Well, I know at some point during this year you are going
    to come to me and say, we have got this number of aliens that
    we have to detain, and it is going to cost this amount of
    money. We knew this at the beginning of the year, but we
    underfunded the account. So rather than going through that
    exercise 3 or 4 months from now or 6 months from now, why do
    you not tell us right now where you are going to find the
    offset?
        Ms. Meissner. I cannot answer you today on where the
    offsets will be. What I can tell you is that we are working
    very intensively on this within the administration with OMB in
    order to address it. I also must say that in the case of
    detention, the growth in detention, too, has been an
    extraordinary growth supported by the subcommittee, over 140
    percent growth in staffing and in space.
        Solving the detention problem is both a question of money
    and a question of management, and where the questions of
    management are concerned, the INS has some very concentrated
    work underway to be certain that people coming into our bed
    space are only the ones that need to come into our facilities.
    We are doing as much as we possibly can with States to deport
    people from State institutions when they have completed their
    sentences. We have done some very good overhauling of our own
    procedures and will continue to do so during this year so that
    the pressure on our facilities is truly from the cases that
    must come into our custody.
        We will be coming back to the subcommittee, as you have
    suggested, and we will come back as soon as we possibly can
    with our analysis of needs, the offsets, and the management
    improvements that we have underway.
        Senator Gregg. Well, that is important, because if you do
    not, we will, and I am not going to underfund this account. My
    reaction is that if I have to find money for this, it is going
    to come from the administrative accounts both at your
    Department and at the Attorney General's level. So I can assure
    you that nobody is going to be happy about that. So I suggest
    you come up with the money first, suggest to us where you are
    going to get the offsets, rather than us coming up with it,
    because our priorities will be much less attractive than yours.
        Ms. Meissner. That is the effort we are making, and just if
    I could loop back for one moment on the construction issue. The
    construction backlog as we calculate it at the present time is
    about $150 million.
        Senator Gregg. I may have the wrong numbers here. That is
    new construction. We have a one-time backlog of building out of
    $180 million on top of that and then a backlog in repair and
    alterations of $191 million.
        Ms. Meissner. The repair and alterations are an additional
    element.
        Senator Gregg. In fact, if I add up all the Border Patrol
    areas where we are underfunded, another 1,000 agents would cost
    us $100 million. Backlog, I guess is an issue, but my estimates
    are it is somewhere around $400 to $500 million. Detention is
    around $165 million, and the equipment could be anywhere from
    $100 million plus. So we get to the $600 million that went to
    new police officers and press releases pretty quickly.

                        utilization of State facilities

        Senator Hutchison. Could I ask a question just on that
    point?
        Senator Gregg. Yes.
        Senator Hutchison. On the detention issue, are you fully
    utilizing State facilities where you could pay a per diem
    rather than building facilities or finding bricks and mortar?
        Ms. Meissner. Absolutely. Actually, the vast share of the
    growth in our detention capacity has been in using State and
    local facilities, and that is particularly the case in Texas,
    where we have a strong, broad network of relationships with
    prison authorities in order to buy that space.
        Senator Hutchison. Well, good, because the last thing we
    ought to be doing is making huge brick and mortar Federal
    prison investments for alien criminals that eventually are
    going to, hopefully, be eliminated when we have enough Border
    Patrol agents to keep illegal immigrants out.
        Ms. Meissner. I mean, we have been expanding INS
    facilities, as well, but most of the funding has gone into that
    space that we have bought from others.
        Senator Hutchison. Thank you for letting me jump in there.
        Senator Gregg. I am going to move on to nationalization
    issues. Do you have any more questions you want to direct on
    the Border Patrol question?

                                 SCAAP funding

        Senator Kyl. Mr. Chairman, I just, on this last point,
    would note that my figures here under the SCAAP funding, which
    was funded at $500 million in 1996, States and localities were
    reimbursed 60 cents on the dollar for incarceration of illegal
    criminal aliens in our State and local prisons and jails. In
    1998, with $585 million, with the additional people, we were
    reimbursed 39 cents on the dollar. It is estimated that the
    criminal incarceration of illegal aliens cost States and
    localities a total of $1.7 billion in 1998, my own State, $38
    million, and it was reimbursed $15 million.
        Senator Gregg. You may be interested to know that another
    account that this administration zeroed out was the State-side
    prison construction funds, which I think includes SCAAP money.
        Senator Kyl. Well, SCAAP actually is only funded in the
    budget, as I understand it, to $500 million, even though you
    put in for the last 2 years at $585 million.
        Senator Gregg. $740 million for prison grants was
    eliminated by the administration when they sent up their
    budget.
        Senator Kyl. I appreciate your pointing out the problem of
    adding funds to programs that are not Federal responsibilities
    and taking the money away from programs that have a unique
    Federal responsibility, and I appreciate your attention to that
    matter.
        Senator Gregg. Does anybody else have anything before we
    move on?
        Senator Hutchison. One other question. I would like to ask
    if the Commissioner would submit the budget that she submitted
    to the OMB to the committee.
        Ms. Meissner. I will certainly inquire whether I can do
    that and I certainly will if that is cleared.
        Senator Hutchison. I would assume that is public
    information or subject to public information.
        Ms. Meissner. I will follow up and find out.
        Senator Gregg. I presume it will be submitted.
        [Clerk's note.--The information was submitted to the
    Committee as requested.]

                             Citizenship USA costs

        Senator Gregg. There is a large backlog in naturalization.
    Before we get into that, though, have we figured out how much
    Citizenship USA has cost us in order to try to correct that
    problem?
        Ms. Meissner. We can provide that information to you. We
    are continuing to deal with those cases that have required
    revocation and those cases are all moving forward.
        Senator Gregg. Of the 7,000, approximately, felons who
    received citizenship, how many of them have had their
    citizenship revoked?
        Ms. Meissner. Well, there are actually far fewer than that
    number that were clearly naturalized improperly and those are
    the first target of revocation.
        Senator Gregg. How many is that number, by your estimate,
    if it is not 7,000? I thought it was 7,000, but----
        Ms. Meissner. It is actually about 300 cases that were
    clearly improperly granted. There are, in addition to that,
    about 6,000 cases where there were misstatements made by the
    alien about the criminal record, which we did not catch as a
    result of the background check not being completed.
        Senator Gregg. I guess that is where the number must come
    from. Of the 6,300, then, how many have had their citizenship--
    --
        Ms. Meissner. They are all in various stages of citizenship
    revocation. I do not have it with me right now, but I can
    provide the subcommittee with the records on that.
        Senator Gregg. I would like to know that, and I would like
    to know how much it has cost us.
        Ms. Meissner. We can calculate that.
        [The information follows:]

        On July 21, 1997, the INS began reviewing approximately
    7,000 cases for potential administrative revocation of
    naturalization. The projected cost of the revocation process
    associated with Citizenship USA activities through fiscal year
    1999 is $9,550,954.
        Prior to July 9, 1998, the date of the preliminary
    injunction in Gorbach v. Reno, the INS had issued final
    decisions administratively revoking naturalization in 27 cases.
    Sixteen of these cases were identified in the Service's audits
    of Citizenship USA cases. The other eleven cases were
    identified from sources other than the Citizenship USA audits.
    Since July 9, 1998, the Service has been precluded by the
    injunction from administratively revoking naturalization.

                            Naturalization backlogs

        Senator Gregg. Now, on the naturalization side, how close
    are you coming to your targets, in your estimate, of where you
    want to be on naturalization?
        Ms. Meissner. We have put together a 2-year effort at
    reducing this naturalization case backlog. Two years to get to
    timeliness, in other words, being able to process
    naturalization cases within the 6-month time period that we
    believe is legitimate, from beginning to end. This year, we
    hope and have set the goal of adjudicating 1.2 million
    applications. We are somewhat short in the first quarter of
    being able to meet that goal. However, we have held and will
    continue to hold to the goal because of the various changes
    that we are making this year in order to reach it.
        The most important thing, I think, about the production is
    that the new staffing which the subcommittee provided in the
    last appropriation is currently in the process of being hired.
    Those personnel, by and large, arrive in our offices, both
    adjudicators and clerical staff, in March and April, fully in
    April, so that their productivity is going to then be available
    to us in the latter part of the year.
        We are finding problems, again, with this labor market,
    resulting in very high turnover with the term slots that we
    have for naturalization. We believe that we have a solution to
    the problem. We believe that if we can bring that solution into
    place with those term adjudicators, we will be able to reduce
    the attrition and the training costs that go with that.
        We are also with naturalization in the midst of an entire
    conversion to computer-based processing for naturalization.
    That conversion is a massive effort which is not easy to do and
    which necessarily or inevitably brings with it some
    difficulties. We are managing our way through those
    difficulties. That conversion is taking place at the same time
    that we are handling this record caseload and have set very
    high performance targets for our managers and for ourselves.
        So what I would say to the subcommittee, bottom line, is
    that we expect to complete 1.2 million cases this year. We have
    a great deal of work to do in order to be able to achieve that.
    We have set out the targets and we have the conversions to
    automated processes taking place in a way that is working
    through a series of problems as systematically as we can. We
    are doing that on a base of having installed entirely new
    integrity procedures so that we can be sure that the process is
    sound, that the proper people are being naturalized, the
    improper ones are not being naturalized, and also on a base of
    having entirely redesigned the fingerprint process that led to
    the problems we experienced. All of that fingerprint process is
    working. We have 120 or more new fingerprint sites in place.
    Our rejections of fingerprints have dropped from what was
    running around 45 to 50 percent to less than 5 percent. So
    there is a very steady record of progress here, but we need to
    stick with it because it is a very big job.
        Senator Gregg. Well, it is, and obviously, at least for the
    first 3 months, you are well behind the 1.2 million, but I
    guess what you are saying is you are going to be able to get up
    to the 100,000 a month level fairly soon.
        Ms. Meissner. That is what we are committed to doing. We
    are working this extremely hard. We have a lot of people
    focused on it and we are dealing with it virtually on an
    office-by-office basis, particularly in our large offices,
    because there are five offices that account for literally half
    of this caseload.

                               Quality assurance

        Senator Gregg. I do think it is important that you continue
    to stress, as you have just said, that you do not reduce
    quality of the review in order to try to get the 100,000.
        Ms. Meissner. The quality assurance here is a very, very
    high standard of review. Our people are paying very close
    attention to it. It is the foundation of it all and we insist
    on that, and we are monitoring that very closely. I mean, we
    have internal auditing capabilities that are constantly
    checking that and reviewing it to be certain it is functioning
    the way it should.
        Senator Gregg. I know you are going to keep the committee
    posted on your progress on that, on the numbers, on a monthly
    basis.
        Ms. Meissner. That is correct.

                          underestimation in Detention

        Senator Gregg. When we went through the supplemental, we
    suggested a series of offsets to pay for the $80 million needed
    to take care of the underestimation in detention, representing
    $65 million, and your Department sent out a memo which was
    broadly circulated and in this memo there are a number of
    statements made relative to the offsets we suggested.
        One of the statements was this cut would force the INS to
    stop recruitment, hiring, training--I guess they dropped the
    ``to'', so I will put in the ``to''--this cut would force the
    INS to stop recruitment, hiring, training of 1,000 new Border
    Patrol agents as well as those needed to keep pace with
    attrition. This would result in a net decrease in the Border
    Patrol agents' strength. It is unlikely that this fact could be
    kept from the illegal immigrant community, so an increase in
    land border violations and drug smuggling would be expected.
    This was from our $45 million decision. We were going to
    basically destroy the border.
        Then the further statement was made that the INS would have
    to forgo or stop work on many of the improvements planned for
    this year, including the National Records Center in Missouri,
    and the Telephone Center in Kentucky. In addition, INS may also
    have to reduce the number of contractors who support and
    facilitate various aspects of processing. That was because of
    the $25 million decision on the naturalization side.
        The INS is in the process of leasing negotiations with the
    National Records Center in Lees Summit, Missouri. INS will not
    be able to move forward with the establishment of the records
    center if the resources are rescinded. The National Records
    Center is an essential component of the reengineering of the
    naturalization program.
        So the rescissions which we proposed, $45 million on the
    Border Patrol account, which I think is a $2 billion account,
    and $25 million on the INS account, on the naturalization
    account, which is probably about $1 billion, we are going to
    destroy both agencies, as a memo from your office reflected,
    sent out by fax to, I suspect, all news agencies and certainly
    all members of the Southwestern border States.
        I will tell you this. I found this to be one of the most
    insulting things that I have seen in my career in government.
    It was an attempt to hyperbole a situation. It was an attempt
    to basically throw gasoline on a minor match in order to burn
    down the building in order to make a claim. It was not good
    governance, and it certainly reflected an agency which, in my
    opinion, has serious management issues if it cannot handle
    those types of offsets in a more comprehensive and constructive
    way. I would be happy to hear your thoughts on this memo.
        Ms. Meissner. Well, Mr. Chairman, I must tell you that I
    did not see the memo before it went, although I certainly take
    responsibility for what takes place in the agency.
        Senator Gregg. Well, where did it go from? What division of
    your agency put this out?
        Ms. Meissner. My understanding is that it was information
    requested within the administration. I am not certain how it
    was transmitted.
        Senator Gregg. It is entitled, ``Talking points on the
    impact of rescinding $65 million from the INS 1999
    appropriation,'' and it does not come from OMB, which would be
    an OMB-type memo. It comes from a fax machine at the
    Immigration and Naturalization Service.
        Ms. Meissner. Well, I am sure that it came from that fax
    machine. I think what I would like to tell you is that there
    has since been a letter that you and Senator Hollings have sent
    on this issue. We have developed a response to that memo, which
    I believe we will be able to transmit today. It goes through in
    detail attempting to analyze what the impact of the rescission
    would be.
        I think that the rescission proposal is a proposal which
    would create serious difficulties for INS because it would not
    be against our entire budget. If one does take the $65 million
    as against $4 billion, it seems to be manageable. But given the
    accounts and the way that our accounts are set up, there are
    certain accounts that would not be able, for proper reasons, to
    be subject to this offset and, therefore, a much higher
    percentage of difficulty would come about as a result of that
    amount of money against the pool that would be available for
    rescission.
        We do have, I think, a very carefully developed impact
    statement, if one would want to call it that, for you that
    explains the accounts that would be available for a rescission
    action. They would cut into salaries and expenses in areas such
    as inspections and in some of the areas that are supporting our
    naturalization work. I do recognize that these are decisions
    ultimately that the Congress will make, but we will try to
    inform you as dispassionately as we can of what it would mean
    for us.
        Senator Gregg. Well, they really are not decisions Congress
    should have to make. The point is, that is the way it should be
    done. It should be done dispassionately and with objectivity.
    The point is, we knew this $80 million in detention
    underfunding had occurred. You knew this a long time before the
    crisis arose, just like we know the $165 million, which is our
    estimate of what the underfunding of detention is for next
    budget, is going to occur.
        So there should have been from your office and from the
    administration an offset. There was not. There was a stonewall
    on offsets from this administration on this issue. So we had to
    come up with the offsets here.
        Now, I am perfectly happy to offset it in other areas of
    your accounts. You tell us where you want it offset and we will
    use the accounts that you think are going to make the most
    sense for running the agency. That is the way it should be
    done. It should not be done by sending out inflammatory
    statements like this. It should not be done by us unilaterally
    doing it. It should rather be done by the administration
    acknowledging that they underestimated this account.
    Regrettably, they have underestimated again, so we are going to
    go through this exercise again, it appears, in the next budget
    unless we can get offsets and get it straightened out earlier.
        But either way, we need your input as versus having us
    doing it unilaterally, and we need it to be something other
    than a letter that says that we are about to burn down the
    building.
        Ms. Meissner. Let me, on the issue and on the need, tell
    you that, apparently, the information that you are talking
    about was requested by subcommittee members. I do not know
    which subcommittee members and it was provided through our
    Congressional Relations Office and I am apologetic for the way
    in which it was written. But we will certainly want to work
    with the subcommittee on the proper way to do this if an offset
    is required.

                                   Hurricane

        In the detention budget for this year we do have a very
    important need in relation to the hurricane. The hurricane
    situation was one that obviously could not be anticipated. That
    effect of staying deportations of people from Central America
    for several months has created a real difficulty for us in our
    detention resources and that has converged, of course, with the
    requirement for mandatory detention of criminals which created
    a planning issue for the INS that was not fully covered in this
    year's funding.
        So I do appreciate your willingness to work with us on this
    overall. We would, of course, hope that this is a situation
    that is able to be resolved without offsets.
        Senator Gregg. Well, there will be offsets. This Congress
    is going to offset this spending. It is not an emergency. This
    hurricane argument really does not hold a whole lot of weight.
    So there will be offsets.
        Ms. Meissner. Well, we will work with the committee and we
    will try to work together with you to identify what would be
    the best approach.

                         Additional committee questions

        Senator Gregg. I think that is important, and it is going
    to be important that we anticipate next year's problem with the
    shortfalls and specifically detention. We will try to come up
    with some money in that account. Somehow, we have to make sure
    that we do not have this issue again next year.
        Ms. Meissner. I will do everything that I can to assure
    that.
        [The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
    were submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the
    hearing:]
                   Questions Submitted by Senator Ted Stevens
                            new office in kodiak, ak
        Question. At my request, Chairman Gregg and Senator Hollings
    included language in the fiscal year 1999 Senate Report directing the
    INS to open a new office in Kodiak to serve the growing immigrant
    population there. I am advised by the Alaska District Office that it
    has not followed this congressional directive because it lacks the
    $25,000 necessary to do so. However, your office has advised this
    subcommittee that the money would be made available. I would appreciate
    your taking whatever action is necessary to get the funds transferred
    to Alaska so that the office can be opened before the fishing season
    begins, which generates much of the INS caseload in Kodiak.
        Answer. The Kodiak office space and start-up costs have been fully
    funded. An expedited space request was sent to the General Service
    Administration (GSA) on March 9, 1999. The GSA expects that the INS
    office in Kodiak will be fully staffed and in service prior to the end
    of this fiscal year. The proposed office space request includes 1,488
    sq/ft and 2 parking spaces to house one full time employee and 2
    intermittent (circuit ride) employees from the Anchorage office.
      report on office space needs in anchorage, fairbanks, and juneau, ak
        Question. Office space seems to be an increasing problem for the
    INS in Alaska with space shortages in Anchorage, Fairbanks, and Juneau.
    Would you please review the space requirements of those offices and
    report back to me on what is needed to address the work space needs in
    those communities?
        Answer.

    Juneau International Airport

    Current Staff.....................................................     2
    Projected fiscal year 2001 Staff.................................. \1\ 2

    \1\ If workload does not change.

        Canadian flights are being encouraged to increase air traffic into
    Juneau and, if this occurs, additional inspections staff may be
    required subject to any projected workload increases.
        Current Inspections space in the airport is 300 sq/ft, plus a
    counter where the inspector can stand to check passengers. Current off-
    site Inspections office space consists of 100 sq/ft co-located within
    900 sq/ft of space leased by the U.S. Customs Service.
        Requirements: A total of 605 sq/ft is required in the Juneau
    airport facility. In addition to the existing 300 sq/ft, 80 sq/ft is
    required for an interview room, an additional 100 sq/ft is needed for a
    holding room, and an additional 125 sq/ft is needed for an Inspections
    office.
        An increase in Canadian flights into Juneau will require an
    increase of approximately 200 sq/ft for the waiting area for
    inspections.

    Fairbanks International Airport

    Current Staff.....................................................     1
    Projected fiscal year 2001 Staff..................................     2

        Current Inspections space in the Fairbanks airport is 2,400 sq/ft
    of space, and is rated to hold 50 passengers at one time. There are
    four inspection lanes.
        Requirements: In addition to the existing 2,400 sq/ft of space,
    additional space is required for an interview room (80 sq/ft), a
    holding room (100 sq/ft), and for Inspections office space (125 sq/ft);
    totaling 2,705 sq/ft.

    Anchorage International Airport

    Current Staff.....................................................    17
    Projected Fiscal Year 2001 Staff..................................    18

        Current Inspections space in the FIS facility is 3,204 sq/ft.
        Requirements: In Anchorage airport, space for four inspection
    booths having a total processing capacity of approximately 400
    passengers/hr., plus an administrative space requirements of 3,335 sq/
    ft (offices, conference rooms, equipment, general and secure storage);
    secondary inspection space (2,775 sq/ft) (supervisors office, passenger
    waiting/processing, Alien Documentation Identification
    Telecommunication (ADIT) lab, interview rooms, search room, juvenile
    detention area, male & female detention rooms); and a support functions
    requirement of 1,900 sq/ft (training room/lunch/break room, male/female
    locker rooms, locker facilities and showers) are all required. This
    totals to approximately 8,010 square feet.
           report on housing requirements for the alcan port-of-entry
        Question. Housing costs in remote communities in Alaska are often
    astronomical. It is almost impossible to attract top caliber personnel
    to man federal facilities when there is no adequate housing for their
    families. The INS staff at Alcan Port-of-Entry (POE), at one of only
    four road entries into Alaska, has quadrupled since the INS housing was
    built there, so there is a long waiting list for adequate housing. I
    request that you have your staff examine the housing requirements for
    the Alcan POE and report back to this subcommittee on what would be
    required to provide adequate employee housing in the area.
        Answer. The extremely remote location, the increase in staffing,
    and the need to accommodate families at the Alcan Port-of-Entry (POE)
    requires the INS to provide additional residential facilities to house
    the inspectors and their families. Although the INS currently
    discourages families with school age children from locating at Alcan,
    it is prudent to provide residential units that are adequately sized to
    accommodate families. At a minimum, housing units should include three
    bedrooms and an attached single-car garage. Because of the harsh winter
    environment, which can last over half of the year, and the remoteness
    of the Alcan facility, extension of the tunnel system to the new
    residential units should also be considered. Construction quality is
    also very important. It is very expensive to build in remote locations,
    with construction seasons very limited because of harsh weather
    conditions, but it is even more expensive to repair buildings that are/
    were not originally built to withstand extreme environmental
    conditions. The first set of duplex housing (1971) is extremely well
    constructed. The second set of housing units constructed in the 1980s,
    which were not designed or built to stand up to the environmental
    conditions, are failing. Any new housing should be of the quality of
    the original design, or better. It is important that the garage is
    heated and that there is adequate space for long-term food storage.
        Adding new residential units, whether individual structures, a
    triplex, or a fourplex, will require ground preparation and utility
    extension work before construction can begin. Given the relatively
    short period of favorable weather for construction, considerable
    attention and coordination needs to take place to ensure that on-site
    construction activity begins at the earliest possible date. Ongoing
    coordination of delivery of building materials will be necessary to
    ensure that delays are avoided and construction can be accomplished
    within the minimum possible length of time. Design review prior to
    construction needs to determine that existing utilities can be extended
    to and meet the requirements of the added capacity demand.
        The INS submitted its Request for Space to GSA for two housing
    units in November 1997. The request included two houses of
    approximately 1,530 square feet each, including a heated garage. The
    INS submitted a signed 10-year Occupancy Agreement to GSA for the two
    Alcan housing units in October 1998. The GSA indicated in a letter to
    INS, dated March 15, 1999, that they are not able to commit funds to
    the Alcan project at this time. We will attempt to obtain funding for
    construction in the fiscal year 2001 budget process.
                      additional position in anchorage, ak
        Question. My office generates a tremendous amount of casework for
    the INS office in Anchorage. I receive hundreds of requests for INS
    assistance from Alaskans each year. The workload from visa requests for
    foreign adoptions alone is staggering. The Director of the INS office
    in Anchorage has cheerfully taken the time to issue the visas for these
    children. I've had the good fortune to see personally how these
    Romanian, Russian, Korean, Chinese and other foreign babies thrive once
    they arrive in the arms of loving Alaskan parents. In fact, many of my
    staff have adopted children from overseas and prevailed on Robert Eddy
    to help them get the necessary visas when the call comes that a baby is
    available and waiting. All Alaskans would appreciate an additional
    position in Anchorage to handle the tremendous caseload.
        Answer. The Anchorage District Office remains one of INS's most
    productive offices, having completed more cases in recent years than
    actually received. Currently, the Anchorage District has four permanent
    District Adjudications Officers (DAO), one permanent Application
    Support Center (ASC) Manager, one permanent Quality Assurance (QA)
    Analyst and one temporary clerical position authorized, representing
    0.37 percent of the total INS adjudication program positions. With
    respect to overall workload, the Anchorage District has received a
    total of 4,004 applications since fiscal year 1998, representing 0.12
    percent of the INS total receipts. During this same period, the
    District completed 4,147 cases. These workload figures highlighted the
    fact that the Anchorage District is adequately staffed in proportion to
    its workload. In terms of its current I-600: Petition to Classify
    Orphan as Immediate Relative; I-600A; Application for Advance
    Processing of Orphan Petition; and N-643; Application for Citizenship
    on Behalf of Adopted Child workload, the Anchorage District has
    received a consistent level of application receipts for each document
    type. Moreover, Anchorage has completed on average over the past 18
    months, 82 percent of all such applications received. Workload
    indicators will continue to be monitored and should additional
    resources become available, the needs of the Anchorage District will be
    evaluated in relation to all other INS district workload factors to
    determine if an enhancement in personnel resources is justified.
                                     ______

                Questions Submitted by Senator Daniel K. Inouye
                                  ident system
        Question. For several years, the INS has been working with the
    government of the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI)
    to develop a more effective immigration system.
        Please provide a status report on this joint effort, including what
    mechanisms and technology are being used to keep track of immigrants to
    the CNMI.
        Answer. The CNMI Labor and Immigration Department is currently
    utilizing the Labor and Immigration Identification and Documentation
    System (LIIDS) program. The INS provided assistance in the development
    of LIIDS, which provides work permits to immigrant workers.
        Question. The CNMI has expressed interest in acquiring an IDENT
    system, as used by the INS, to document the arrival and departure of
    immigrants to the CNMI. Does the INS support this effort and, if so,
    what is the INS doing to facilitate it?
        Answer. The INS has been talking with senior CNMI officials about
    the creation of an entry-exit control system and training issues
    related to the introduction of such a system. IDENT is an element in
    those discussions, but there has been no decision yet as to whether it
    is the best and most cost-effective approach to entry-exit control in
    the CNMI.
                     immigrant investor visa (eb-5) program
        Question. The INS has focused on the issue of ``at risk''
    investments using standards which are not customary in normal business
    transactions or in the major international and U.S. financial markets.
    Why is the INS not able to rely on the ``at risk'' standards of the
    Internal Revenue Service which has long experience and expertise in
    dealing with this issue?
        Answer. The INS analysis of whether an investment has been placed
    ``at risk'' is entirely consistent with customary standards. A
    transaction or arrangement in which there is no realistic possibility
    that the investor will lose money on the investment does not place that
    investment ``at risk,'' under either INS or Internal Revenue Service
    standards.
        Question. If an investor can show that it has actually invested
    $500,000 or $1 million in the United States, placed the investment at
    risk, and created 10 direct or indirect jobs, why is the INS relying on
    complicated analyses which are not related to the primary intent of the
    EB-5 statutes to delay or prevent the immigration of the alien?
        Answer. In adjudicating EB-5 petitions to obtain conditional lawful
    permanent resident status, or to remove conditions, the INS's sole
    purpose is to ensure that the investors have met the requirements
    established by the relevant provisions of the Immigration and
    Nationality Act and by the implementing regulations. Relevant criteria
    for making these determinations include: whether the petitioners have
    invested the statutorily required amount of capital; whether the
    petitioners own and have lawfully obtained the capital which they are
    investing; whether the petitioners have established a new commercial
    enterprise or engaged in an enterprise permitted by the applicable law;
    and whether the new commercial enterprise created by the applicant has
    generated the statutorily required amount of employment.
        The INS has not imposed burdens on petitioners other than those
    necessary to establish their eligibility for the immigration benefits
    they seek.
        Question. Assuming the INS can resolve the backlog of EB-5 cases by
    March 31, 1999, what is the targeted adjudication time for EB-5 cases
    at the Service Centers?
        Answer. The INS targeted adjudication time for EB-5 cases at the
    Service Centers is 60 days.
        Question. What specific guidelines did the INS rely on to
    adjudicate EB-5 cases prior to December 1997? Why has the INS used
    inconsistent field memoranda, memorandum decisions and internal policy
    guidelines instead of the formal rule making process to set the
    standards of adjudication? When does the INS anticipate promulgating
    new rules for the EB-5 program?
        Answer. Both before and after December 1997, INS has relied upon
    the applicable provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act and
    the implementing regulations as the framework for EB-5 adjudication. As
    is typical in any agency adjudicative process, legal and policy
    questions regarding proper interpretation of the statute and
    regulations, either generally or with respect to particular cases, have
    arisen from time to time, and have been addressed by policy memoranda,
    legal opinions, or by non-precedent or precedent decisions from the INS
    Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) in cases under adjudication, as
    appropriate for the particular issue or case. As the EB-5 program
    evolved, the INS learned from its experience with the program, and as a
    result clarified its positions with respect to certain issues. In
    particular, the INS Office of General Counsel clarified in detail in
    December 1997 its legal interpretation of a variety of questions of
    statutory compliance raised by a number of petitions, concluding that
    certain business arrangements did not comply with the law. In addition,
    several precedent decisions issued by the AAO during the summer of 1998
    determined whether certain petitions containing such business
    arrangements met the requirements of the law, and concluded that they
    did not. The AAO relied solely on the language of the statute and
    regulations in adjudicating these petitions. The INS has concluded that
    improved regulations regarding the requirements for EB-5 petitions will
    assist petitioners in complying with the law, and the INS is currently
    in the process of drafting them. At this time, INS is unable to state
    with certainty when those regulations will be promulgated.
        Question. The INS has questioned investors regarding the relation
    of the investments to the issue of export thus making the State of
    Hawaii certifications meaningless. While the EB-5 statutes permit the
    use of economic studies to prove indirect job creation, the INS still
    requires proof of the creation of 10 direct jobs. The State of Hawaii
    is unique as an island state which is primarily based on tourism as an
    export. It appears the INS is applying standard rules of export which
    go against the intent of the statutes and may affect only manufacturing
    states on the mainland. The foreign tourist who brings monies to Hawaii
    and spends for goods and services is equivalent to a mainland factory
    which ships its products to a foreign country and gets paid. In both
    cases, a U.S. made good is purchased with foreign monies. Why does the
    INS continue to question whether the investments are export-related
    when the entire State of Hawaii is designated as a regional center and
    certifies qualifying projects?
        Answer. With respect to investments in regional centers, the INS
    does not require evidence of direct job creation. However, the fact
    that a petitioner has invested in a regional center does not relieve
    the petitioner from producing evidence that the new commercial
    enterprise which he or she established is responsible, either directly
    or indirectly, for the creation of at least ten positions. The INS must
    adjudicate each individual petition on its own merits regardless of
    whether or not it falls within a regional center.
        The INS continues to question whether certain investments in Hawaii
    are export related because, regardless of Hawaii's status as a regional
    center, individual investments by petitioners in Hawaii must still meet
    the legal requirements of the EB-5 program. Hawaii's designation as a
    regional center simply means that EB-5 petitioners in the State of
    Hawaii and certified under the Hawaii regional center program may
    establish a job creation requirement by showing indirect job creation
    through export-related activity rather than by showing direct job
    creation. As noted above, INS is responsible for adjudicating all EB-5
    petitions, regardless of whether they involve a regional center and
    must therefore examine each petition individually to determine if it
    meets the legal requirements.
        Question. In implementing the Immigrant Investor Visa Program (EB-5
    Program), the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) set forth a
    position (8 C.F.R. 204.6(m)(7)) that the investor can provide indirect
    job creation only by showing revenues generated from increased exports
    rather than relying on the broader stated intent of the statute (106
    STAT. 1828) for the ``promotion of economic growth.'' Please explain
    the inconsistency between the expressed statement and the intent of the
    statute and the implementing regulation and practice of the INS. Will
    the INS amend said regulation to clarify this discrepancy between the
    statute and the implementing regulation?
        Answer. There is no inconsistency between the statute (section 610
    of the Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and
    Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1993, Public Law 102-295, 106
    Stat. 1874 (Oct. 6, 1992)) and the regulations at 8 C.F.R. Sec. 204.6
    as they relate to the requirement that regional centers promote
    exports. The statute specifies that the pilot program ``shall involve a
    regional center in the United States for the promotion of economic
    growth, including increased export sales, improved regional
    productivity, job creation, and increased domestic capital investment''
    (emphasis added). Furthermore, the section 610(c) clearly directs that
    the agency should permit petitioners ``to establish reasonable
    methodologies for determining the number of jobs created by the pilot
    program, including such jobs which are estimated to have been created
    indirectly through revenues generated from increased exports resulting
    from the pilot program'' (emphasis added). Section 610(c) makes it
    clear that the ``indirect job creation'' option applies only to export-
    related jobs and not to the other goals of the pilot program. INS
    followed the text. In its April 15, 1994, final rule, the INS responded
    to the single commenter on the rule by confirming its interpretation of
    the statute as specifically requiring that the investment in the
    regional center create jobs through increased exports.
        The INS has no specific plans to amend section 204.6 of the
    regulations to take a contrary position, but in the course of any
    future rule making on the Immigrant Investor Pilot Program, the INS
    will consider the concerns that have been raised about the export-
    related requirements of that program, and examine possible regulatory
    changes to the extent they are consistent with the guiding statute.
                                     ______

               Questions Submitted by Senator Frank R. Lautenberg
                      lautenberg amendment implementation
        Question. Several groups which settle refugees in the U.S. have
    brought to my attention Embassy Moscow's steadily decreasing approval
    rate for refugee status for Jews and other persecuted religious groups.
    This is happening at a time when anti-Semitism in Russia is tragically
    again on the rise. Could you explain the basis for this decline in
    approving refugee status under the Lautenberg Amendment?
        Answer. We have been watching with concern, reports of the recent
    resurgence of anti-Semitism in Russia and other countries in the former
    Soviet Union as well as new restrictions on the practice of certain
    Protestant faiths. The Office of International Affairs in INS
    Headquarters and the Moscow office have been actively exchanging such
    reports. Our refugee adjudicators in Moscow have been instructed to
    give careful consideration to current country conditions in evaluating
    refugee claims.
        Since January 1999, we have noted a significant rise in refugee
    approval rates in Moscow, which we believe is in direct correlation to
    the deteriorating country conditions for some Jews and Evangelical
    Christians. (Note: new applicants for refugee status reach the INS
    interview stage three or four months after submitting their preliminary
    applications to the Washington Processing Center. Accordingly, those
    applicants who applied for the refugee program as a direct consequence
    of the backlash against religious minorities following the collapse of
    the ruble, were first seen by INS in January.)
                               newark ins office
        Question. On April 16, 1998, roof repair workers found asbestos on
    the 16th floor of the INS office in Newark, New Jersey. Employees were
    evacuated and the entire floor, including the records room was
    quarantined. This added to an already considerable backlog in
    processing green card and citizenship applications.
        Why did the clean up process not begin until January 20, 1999, nine
    months after the problem was identified?
        Answer. The INS Newark District Office lost access to the files on
    June 1, 1998, due to asbestos contamination. After consulting with
    experts in the field, it was determined that this was a unique problem
    with no precedent. A committee was formed to develop a protocol to
    clean the 400,000 plus files. The committee members were
    representatives of U.S. Public Health Service (USPHS), the
    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the INS and the General Services
    Administration (GSA). EPA had regulatory oversight authority and
    approved the clean up plan in August 1998. Subsequently, GSA sent out
    the contract for bid and they awarded it on September 23, 1998.
    Contract employees were then subject to Department of Justice security
    clearance requirements because they would be handling A-files. This was
    completed and the contractor began in December 1998 to build the
    necessary clean rooms and take other measures for the asbestos cleanup.
    Work on cleaning the A-files began on January 20, 1999.
        Question. Thus far, only about half of the files in Newark's 16th
    floor records room have been cleaned and transferred to examination and
    adjudications units. When will the rest of the files be available for
    processing, and when will the cleanup be completed?
        Answer. The Newark District Office completed cleaning all of the
    contaminated files in the 16th floor records room and transferred them
    to a reconstructed file room in another location. This major project
    was completed before the end of May 1999. The files are now fully
    available for use by district office personnel.
        Question. INS District Director Andrea Quarantillo has worked hard
    to move delayed cases along, but more needs to be done. What measures
    are you undertaking to expedite applications for which the records were
    inaccessible? How will you ensure that applicants are not disadvantaged
    by these delays?
        Answer. Throughout this project, the District has maintained lists
    of files that are needed on a priority basis. The specific files came
    as referrals from Community Based Organizations, the American
    Immigration Lawyers Association, Congressional offices, from all
    branches of the Newark District Office and from other INS offices.
        As the Newark District Office gains access to files, these files
    will be located and action to complete the pending application or
    Service initiative will be taken. Additionally, there were a large
    number of naturalization applications that were in this area and that
    have been identified, cleaned and are now accessible. These
    applications are currently being processed and will be interviewed on a
    priority schedule as soon as all preliminary clearances are completed.
                                     ______

                Questions Submitted by Senator Patrick J. Leahy
                               ins reorganization
        Question. It is my understanding that the Immigration and
    Naturalization Service (INS) is preparing a Reorganization Strategy for
    the INS. As I mentioned at the hearing, you worked closely in the past
    with Congress on the reorganization of the Administrative Centers where
    the INS felt is was necessary to centralize responsibilities. According
    to your staff, the preliminary reorganization plan will propose a
    decentralization of responsibilities from the Regional Operations
    Centers. If this is the case, why has INS chosen to centralize the
    Administrative centers but decentralize operations functions?
        How will the reorganization affect responsibilities, services and
    personnel levels at the Regional Operations Centers? Will INS include
    in the cost to implement this proposal?
        Answer. In April 1998, the Administration announced its intention
    to pursue fundamental structural change in INS to provide improved
    performance and increased results for those who depend on the Nation's
    immigration system. The new proposal, described in the document,
    Framework for Change, would restructure INS immigration services and
    enforcement functions into two separate chains of command, yet retain
    these functions within one agency to provide the coherence needed to
    effectively administer U.S. immigration laws.
        The INS Restructuring Team is currently finishing a design proposal
    that provides information about this new structure for the agency. This
    proposal will be provided to members of Congress and their staffs for
    discussion in June 1999. At that time, we will be pleased to discuss
    the impact of the proposal on all INS offices and clarify why the
    proposal should not be categorized as a decentralization of operations.
        Information requested on the specific impact on positions in each
    office and the cost to complete the restructuring will be available
    once detailed planning is completed.
        It is important to note that the restructuring under consideration
    would have minimal impact on the approximately 1,400 employees
    (including contractors) in Vermont. Where there are changes in office
    mission, existing offices will receive priority consideration for the
    new functions. This approach will keep costs to a minimum and also
    reduce the impact on employees. In addition to the offices currently
    located in Vermont, the National Debt Management Center (located in the
    new LESC building) in Williston will continue to enhance the INS's
    presence in Vermont.
        The Restructuring Team has kept employees informed about
    restructuring events through several different communication methods.
    In response to specific questions about the impact on employees, a set
    of guidelines, Restructuring Human Resources Principles, was developed
    and distributed in December 1998 and again in January 1999 These
    principles outline the INS's commitment to its employees to minimize
    the impact on the individual while optimizing the operation of the
    agency as a whole.
                             detention of veterans
        Question. As a result of the IIRIRA of 1996, many legal permanent
    residents, including those who have served in the U.S. armed forces are
    being subjected to mandatory detention and mandatory deportation for
    past convictions. I have heard of such cases involving veterans who
    suffered permanent physical and psychological injury during active
    combat duty in Vietnam and the Gulf War. Some of these veterans have
    been living in this country for decades, and have U.S. citizen children
    and grandchildren. They now face detention and deportation for as few
    as one conviction, incurred years ago, for which they spent little or
    no time in prison. Do you believe this is an appropriate and efficient
    use of the INS's budget resources?
        Answer. The Immigration and Nationality Act does not provide
    specific language or exceptions for veterans in its provisions on the
    removal and detention of persons convicted of aggravated felonies.
    However, a District Director has the authority to consider the merits
    of an individual case in deciding whether to proceed with removal
    proceedings. Once the criminal alien is placed in proceedings, the
    Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA)
    provides local District Directors with no discretion to release him if
    he is subject to mandatory detention despite any individual merits of
    the case. However, while not a frequent occurrence, a detained person
    who served honorably in the U.S. armed forces could request the
    District Director's discretion for release, and his military service
    would be considered as a positive or favorable equity provided that he
    is not subject to mandatory detention by law.
        Question. Do you have any objection to District Directors granting
    deferred action to veterans?
        Answer. Notwithstanding the impact of the mandatory detention
    provisions of IIRIRA on District Directors' discretion regarding the
    detention of aliens, they do have latitude in their discretion whether
    to institute or continue removal proceedings (i.e., prosecutorial
    discretion). In cases where the underlying conviction was comparatively
    minor, occurred many years in the past and stands alone, District
    Directors may exercise their discretion not to pursue removal and to
    grant deferred action. Ideally, each case should be considered on its
    individual merits as well as the potential risk to the community as a
    whole. In a case where the District Director has determined that it is
    appropriate to pursue an alien's removal despite any equities in the
    case, the INS must detain the person if required by statute. Even if
    detention is not required by statute, it is still proper for the INS to
    hold the person in custody if he presents a threat to the community or
    is a flight risk.
        These forms of prosecutorial discretion are not ideal to address
    the kind of situation you describe. The Department and the INS would
    like to work with Congress to restore the Attorney General's statutory
    discretion to release from custody low-risk aliens who have been
    lawfully admitted to the United States and to grant relief from removal
    to long-term lawful permanent residents with relatively minor criminal
    convictions.
        Question. In the past, the INS operations instructions provided
    additional review procedures and protections for veterans who have
    served this country. What procedures has the INS substituted for the
    rescinded operations instructions to review the cases of veterans so
    that they are not routinely subjected to mandatory detention and
    deportation?
        Answer. Specifically the INS develops Operation Instructions to
    address special circumstances that are not covered in Title 8 Code of
    Federal Regulations. Presently, the Immigration and Naturalization
    Service has promulgated Interim Enforcement Procedures. Interim
    Enforcement Procedure Number V(D)(8) requires approval from the
    Regional Director prior to issuing a notice to appear against any
    current or former member of the armed forces. At this time, there are
    no regulations or operating instructions relating to the detention or
    deportation of veterans.
        Question. It is my understanding that two district courts have
    recently ruled that mandatory detention is unconstitutional, including
    a case which involved a Vietnam veteran who grew up in Oregon (Van
    Eeton v. Beebe). What if anything is the INS doing to ensure that
    veterans and others are not being unconstitutionally detained?
        Answer. Two federal district courts have ruled recently that
    mandatory detention under Section 236(c)(1) of the Immigration and
    Nationality Act is unconstitutional. In one case, Martinez v. Greene, a
    federal judge in Colorado ruled in December 1998 that ``due process
    requires an individualized consideration of whether each alien detained
    pursuant to Section 236(c)(1) presents a flight risk and a threat to
    the community's safety.'' Three of the aliens in that specific case
    were lawful permanent residents who were deportable based upon
    convictions for aggravated felonies, and the fourth was a lawful
    permanent resident with a firearms conviction.
        The second case, Van Eeton v. Beebe, was decided by a federal judge
    in Portland, Oregon, in February 1999. In that case, the alien was, in
    fact, a veteran, but also an aggravated felon, with both drug and
    firearms convictions. However, the judge made no mention of the alien's
    veteran status during the hearing. The judge stated that he agreed with
    the reasoning in Martinez v. Greene (above) and ordered a bail hearing.
    At the bail hearing, the alien was ordered released on $5,000 bond,
    under the additional conditions that he possess no firearms, illegal
    weapons, or drugs.
        However, other courts have disagreed with the decisions of the
    courts in these cases. Most recently, the Seventh Circuit Court of
    Appeals, ruled in Parra v. Perryman that Section 236(c) is not
    unconstitutional.
                         law enforcement support center
        Question. The Law Enforcement Support Center (LESC) has become a
    valuable enforcement tool for local law enforcement agencies throughout
    the country to identify criminal illegal aliens. INS has continued to
    expand the number of local law enforcement agencies and states, which
    are linked to the LESC through the National Law Enforcement
    Telecommunications System (NLETS). What states are currently linked to
    the LESC and what is the timetable to complete links with all 50
    states?
        Answer. The following 26 states are currently linked to the LESC:
    California; Arizona; Utah; Colorado; Wyoming; Texas; South Dakota;
    Nebraska; Iowa; Kansas; Illinois; Missouri; Ohio; Kentucky; Tennessee;
    Georgia; Florida; North Carolina; Alabama; West Virginia; Maine; New
    Hampshire; Vermont; Connecticut; Massachusetts; and Hawaii. The LESC
    plans on establishing the electronic link with the other 24 states this
    fiscal year, with the states providing the funding through NLETS.
    Although the Center will not have staffing to conduct training in all
    states or process queries from all states, the electronic link will be
    established.
        Question. How much did INS request for the LESC in fiscal year 2000
    and what does that translate into additional linkages with states? How
    many personnel will be required to handle the expected additional
    inquiries from the new linkages?
        Answer. The fiscal year 2000 Budget did not request additional
    funding for the LESC. The fiscal year 2000 Budget includes a request
    for 25 positions and $1.262 million to be used for the data entry of
    qualifying records into the National Crime Information Center (NCIC) at
    the field level.
        Question. What is the number of queries that the LESC has received
    over the past year? Please list a month by month tally and if possible,
    the number of queries by state and number of criminal aliens
    identified.
        Answer. The total number of queries received from law enforcement
    agencies for the period of March 1998 to February 1999, by month, is as
    follows:

            Month                                              Total Queries

    March 1998....................................................     8,509
    April.........................................................     8,188
    May...........................................................     8,643
    June..........................................................     7,741
    July..........................................................     6,962
    August........................................................     7,237
    September.....................................................     8,023
    October.......................................................    11,132
    November......................................................    13,024
    December......................................................    14,290
    January 1999..................................................    25,584
    February......................................................    36,926

        The LESC's FBI Rapsheet Unit began operations in August 1998.
    Queries related to rapsheets have significantly increased monthly
    workload totals since that time.
        The number of queries received from Law Enforcement Agencies for
    the period of March 1998 to February 1999, by state, as well as the
    number of prior deportations and aggravated felons is identified as
    follows:

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       Prior      Aggravated
                  State                  Total     Deportations    Felonies
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Arizona.........................       23,691         1,998        2,174
    California......................       23,462         1,894        2,483
    Colorado........................          125            20           17
    District of Columbia............          131            12            8
    Florida.........................       35,119           521        3,679
    Georgia.........................        1,372            37           57
    Iowa............................        1,377            99          130
    Kansas..........................          782            42           45
    Kentucky........................           41  ............  ...........
    Massachusetts...................        1,932            72          413
    Missouri........................           29  ............            1
    Nebraska........................          698            44           66
    New Hampshire...................           10  ............  ...........
    New Jersey......................           36            25           30
    Pennsylvania....................           43             1            7
    Texas...........................          882            73          100
    Utah............................        1,392            79           91
    Virginia                                   20             4           11
    Vermont.........................           78             2            2
    West Virginia...................          527            67           37
    Related to the Brady Bill.......       91,747         4,990        9,351
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Note.--Numbers from states where the LESC is not yet available statewide
      reflect queries from federal agencies who send a text message, as our
      message screen is not yet formatted and available in those states. The
      National Crime Information Center (NCIC) state codes are used rather
      than postal service codes.

        Question. Are there other queries that the LESC conducts which are
    not prompted by local law enforcement agencies? For example, in the
    past the LESC has provided assistance to states with regard to prison
    populations? Please provide a list of these projects and the number of
    queries involved as well as the number of criminal aliens identified.
        Answer. The following is a list of special projects completed by
    the LESC during the preceding calendar year. Not all statistics are
    available for every project.

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       Prior      Aggravated
     Date            Project             Total     Deportations    Felonies
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
      1/98 INS 340 Project (no      ...........  ............  ...........
            data available)
      2/98 GAO IHP Follow-up              7,017  ............  ...........
      3/98 DFF/NCIC Boston          ...........  ............  ...........
            Revalidation
      7/98 Florida Department of            690            17          179
            Law Enforcement Sexual
            Predators Project
      9/98 INS SFR Domestic                  44  ............  ...........
            Violence/Sexual
            Predator Project
     10/98 Boston Probation         ...........  ............  ...........
            Project (no data
            available)
     10/98 Huntsville IHP                   491           290  ...........
     10/98 California Department            900  ............  ...........
            of Corrections
     11/98 BOS OIG Project (no      ...........  ............  ...........
            data available)
     11/98 Miami Project--                1,200  ............  ...........
            Suspension of
            Deportation
            Conditional Grants \1\
     12/98 RNACS FBI Fingerprint          5,556  ............  ...........
            Project BOS/ERO
     12/98 California I-213                 622  ............  ...........
            Project
      2/99 BOS INV/BOS PD                   200  ............  ...........
      3/99 Los Angeles County Jail          200  ............  ...........
            Admission Analysis
                                   -----------------------------------------
                 TOTAL                   11,468  ............  ...........
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
           \1\ The total (1,200) represents a 10 percent criminal hit rate.

        Question. The current LESC tracking system is ``named'' based. Has
    the INS considered upgrading the LESC system to include fingerprint
    search capability? Would a fingerprint search capability improve the
    capability to identify criminal illegal aliens?
        Answer. The INS has considered upgrading the LESC system to include
    a fingerprint search capability. A true automated fingerprint
    identification system would improve INS's ability to identify criminal
    aliens. Based on joint efforts of the Department of Justice, the INS
    and the FBI, this capability will eventually be provided through the
    FBI's Integrated Automated Fingerprint Information System (IAFIS).
                                     ______

                     Questions Submitted by Senator Jon Kyl
                         inexperienced workforce issue
        Question. Commissioner Meissner, in my conversations with Border
    Patrol Chiefs Association President Ron Sanders and other chiefs, none
    of them agree with your assessment that we should take a ``time out''
    from hiring additional Border Patrol agents in the year 2000. They say
    there are no widespread problems as a result of newer agents being on
    the line. I understand there is little statistical relationship between
    the experience of a Border Patrol agent and the number of disciplinary
    problems (205 agents were disciplined in 1998) reported to INS from
    Border Patrol.
        Will you please provide to my office the number of years experience
    of each agent who was disciplined in 1998? If there is little
    statistical relationship, isn't the problem one of training? What
    evidence do you have that the expert opinion of current and former
    Border Patrol chiefs is inaccurate? If none, then why not provide
    funding for more agents?
        Answer. Our current personnel data system does not allow us to
    track disciplinary actions in conjunction with years of service as a
    Border Patrol Agent. However, let me emphasize that our concerns about
    the extremely rapid influx of new agents are far broader than conduct
    meriting formal disciplinary action. Rather, our broader concerns
    relate to our ability as an institution to assimilate this extremely
    large proportion of inexperienced officers. The current rapid influx is
    placing a severe strain on the ability of the system to orient, train,
    guide, evaluate and otherwise support such a high proportion of new
    officers. Not only is there an unprecedented high proportion of
    unseasoned Border Patrol Agents in the field, but the level of
    experience of the first-line supervisors we rely on to mentor and guide
    those agents is concomitantly much lower than ever before. These
    factors involve inherent risks that are likely to manifest themselves
    in results much broader than any disciplinary statistics. Judgments
    made by law enforcement officers who lack sufficient experience may not
    necessarily constitute misconduct, but they can still have tragic
    results for the officers and others. We take our responsibilities for
    these matters seriously and, while we value the advice of the Border
    Patrol Chiefs Association, we have received considerable feedback from
    within the organization indicating serious concerns over matters
    related to assimilation of these new agents. We don't want to
    overemphasize these problems, but neither do we believe that they
    should be ignored.
        Question. Former U.S. Border Patrol chief and current
    Representative Silvestre Reyes (TX-D) has information indicating that
    many sectors do not have close to 39 percent of agents with two or less
    years experience, as you estimate. In fact, in the Tucson sector, 80
    percent of the agents have two or more years experience and 100 percent
    of the agents in Miami and New Orleans have two or more years
    experience.
        Why not train and deploy to areas with these ratios and where there
    is a need? (Tucson, Arizona)?
        Answer. A further review of personnel staffing information for the
    Tucson Sector indicates that as of March 27, 1999, almost 40 percent of
    the Border Patrol Agents on-board have two years or less experience.
    Overall, on that date, approximately 35 percent of all Border Patrol
    Agents stationed on the Southwest border had two years of job
    experience or less.
        Our agent deployment strategy is an extension of our border control
    strategy; new agents are assigned to locations with the highest level
    of illegal entry. Assigning new agents based on the average experience
    level of the receiving location would slow the progress of our border
    control strategy.
        The fiscal year 1999 deployment plan does provide for an additional
    350 agents to be assigned to the Tucson Sector, and 50 new agents for
    the Yuma Sector in Arizona. The Border Patrol recognizes that there are
    many stations throughout the country with higher years of experience
    levels; however, the Patrol must deploy as its first priority to the
    station locations which are experiencing the greatest need for
    additional resources to counter the highest levels of illegal entry
    activity. The placement of inexperienced agents in locations that have
    high levels of experienced agents will be an ineffective use of the
    additional agents if the focus of the deployment does not significantly
    contribute towards the goal of gaining control of illegal immigration
    along the entire southern border.
        Question. What type of supervisory training does INS employ?
        Answer. In March 1996, the INS established the Leadership
    Development Center (LDC) in Dallas, Texas. The LDC was established to
    address the supervisory and managerial training needs of the INS. With
    the growing ranks of new supervisory positions created by retirements
    and the hiring initiative, it was deemed imperative that fundamental
    training be made available to individuals who face new supervisory
    responsibilities. The Center currently offers twelve courses in
    management and supervision.
        The LDC has also been actively working with Headquarters Border
    Patrol for the past year to develop a technical module to complement
    the core curriculum for first-line Border Patrol supervisors. The core
    curriculum focuses on skills for first-time supervisors such as
    diversity, preventing sexual harassment, labor relations, discipline,
    performance counseling, communication, developing effective teams,
    motivating others and stress management.
        Question. Is the problem that you don't have a good field training
    component in your program?
        Answer. No. Larger sectors along the Southwest border (i.e., San
    Diego Sector) have a Field Training Officer (FTO) program in place.
    This program served as a model for the 1998 initiative for a Western
    Region FTO program for all Border Patrol Sectors in that region.
    Sectors in the Central Region currently have, or are planning to
    implement, FTO programs.
        The INS Training staff have recently completed an evaluation of the
    San Diego FTO program, and FTO programs of State and local law
    enforcement agencies for the purpose of implementing a national FTO
    program.
        Question. Who are the law enforcement analysts and experts who say
    that a workforce with more than 30, or is it 40, percent of its troops
    with less than two years experience is dangerous? Any who say 20
    percent is too many? With attrition at 1,000 per year, how can we keep
    up unless we deploy at least 1,000 per year?
        Answer. The International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP)
    was asked to conduct a study on Border Patrol growth in 1995. The IACP,
    in the position paper, which they submitted to the Border Patrol,
    cautioned that a workforce with too many inexperienced officers and
    supervisors could pose serious risk. In its discussion of hiring
    options the IACP stated: ``[this option] would create a core in which
    almost 30 percent of members have no experience. This seems to pose
    unacceptable risks.'' We are not aware of any experts citing that a
    workforce with 20 percent of its members having less than two years
    experience is dangerous.
        The rate of attrition of our Border Patrol Agents had definitely
    had a negative impact on INS meeting the staffing goals it had hoped to
    achieve. For fiscal year 1999, while 503 new Border Patrol Agents had
    entered duty as of April 10, during the same period Border Patrol lost
    444 agents, resulting in a net gain of 59 agents.
                   inexperienced agent and recruitment issues
        Question. In the President's weekly radio address, he said he is
    deeply concerned by questionable shootings by urban police departments,
    and is requesting $20 million to fund police ethics and training at all
    30 Justice Department policing institutes, rather than at just two of
    them. He has also asked for $20 million for scholarships for police
    officers and $5 million to expand ``citizen police academies.'' The
    Administration's budget requests $600 million in fiscal year 2000 to
    add ``30,000 to 50,000'' new police officers over the next five years.
        Why couldn't we do this for INS and Customs inspectors and agents?
    They are a federal responsibility, while local police are state and
    local responsibilities.
        Answer. While we are not in the position to address all of the
    concerns you have expressed, we can assure you that basic training for
    INS employees in our officer corps and related occupations, at both the
    Border Patrol and Immigration Officer Academies, emphasizes discipline,
    integrity, professionalism, and judgement, as well as technical skills
    and firearms training. Advanced training conducted at the academy in
    Artesia, New Mexico, also contains instruction on ethics and integrity,
    as well as firearms training.
        Question. If the logic follows, should President Clinton and Ms.
    Reno suggest we ``take a time out'' on helping to hire new police
    officers? President Clinton has not proposed that, on the contrary, he
    has requested additional funding for more police and for more training.
    How do you reconcile the discrepancy in the two positions.
        Answer. By advancing community policing and helping communities put
    additional officers on the street, the Community Oriented Policing
    Service program has contributed to the lowest crime rate in a quarter
    of a century. However, crime is still too high. We need to continue to
    add officers to the beat, particularly in the areas that have not
    benefitted from the recent drop in crime.
        Question. With regard to recruiting, are you doing so in logical
    locations, such as San Diego, Phoenix, Tucson? Have you thought of
    requesting money for a 1-800 number for Border Patrol? Have you thought
    about asking for money to target public service ads for areas such as
    San Diego? If you are having a problem recruiting, why didn't you
    include funding in the budget for more recruiting? How could your
    existing recruiting efforts be improved? Will you please provide a
    summary of your recruiting program to Chairman Judd Gregg and the rest
    of the Appropriations Committee?
        Answer. The INS has developed a strong, effective hiring and
    recruiting program that has met ambitious Border Patrol hiring goals in
    recent years. However, with the strong economy and very low
    unemployment rate, applicants have multiple job opportunities. The
    military and other law enforcement agencies are also experiencing
    significant recruitment problems similar to INS. Because of this labor
    market and the sheer numbers needed, one approach or a specific labor
    market will not give us the number of hires needed.
        The National Recruitment Program (NRP) staff has focused efforts on
    increasing public awareness of job opportunities in the Border Patrol.
    There is often little public awareness of the Border Patrol occupation
    outside of the Southwest border states. We hope to increase awareness
    of job opportunities in the Border Patrol in the rest of the United
    States, as well as continuing our efforts in the Southwest Border
    states. Using this approach, we hope to attract well-qualified and
    diverse candidates.
        We have continued our efforts in the home states of our successful
    recruiting efforts, based on our tracking information. We track all of
    our ads with a predetermined code to determine which ads draw
    candidates. We are also tracking the colleges our new agents graduate
    from, the college majors they pursued, their hometowns and the
    magazines they read. All of this information helps us to better
    understand where we need to build awareness of the Border Patrol, and
    where we currently have a strong awareness and some recruiting success.
    The five states that most of our Border Patrol agent applicants come
    from are California, Texas, New York, Arizona and Florida.
        In fiscal year 1999, concentrated hiring events were held in El
    Paso, Tucson, and the New York metro area. Additionally, over the last
    year (April 1998 to April 1999) we have placed advertisements for
    Border Patrol jobs in Tucson and San Diego. For Tucson, we did a media
    blitz in December placing the Border Patrol ad in 8 major newspapers on
    two weekends in both the classified and sports sections, and ads in 2
    minority targeted publications and 2 military base papers. All papers
    selected were within a 400 mile radius of Tucson. We also aired a radio
    ad 14 times on 2 Tucson stations. Additionally, we placed a 4-Color
    Display ad in the Arizona Highway Patrolman in their March 1999 issue
    and in the Tucson Star Citizen on March 21, 1999, in a general media
    blitz. In San Diego, ads appeared on April 11 and 18 in nine major
    newspapers within a 400 mile radius of San Diego. Additionally, the INS
    recruits at military bases, colleges and universities in or near San
    Diego, Phoenix and Tucson.
        In fiscal year 1999, the NRP will participate in 200 events
    including job fairs, career days, employer workshops, transitioning
    military seminars, classroom presentations, conference exhibits and
    community events (fairs, festivals, Native American celebrations,
    etc.).
        The INS is actively recruiting on college campuses. We plan to
    recruit at 120 key colleges based on student demographics and/or law
    enforcement curriculum. The INS has already participated in 4
    interactive student events (Campus Fests--sponsored by Sports
    Illustrated attracting thousands of students from all academic
    disciplines) on college campuses this year. We are not hiring as many
    applicants who substitute experience for college education; more and
    more of our new hires are college graduates who can meet our rigorous
    hiring standards. Also, the INS will target recruitment efforts at key
    military bases identified by installation population and the number of
    separations each month; and 40 identified organizations based on the
    mission and target audience of the organization.
        New Border Patrol classified and display ads have been developed
    and placed in hundreds of newspapers (classified and sports sections),
    college placement manuals, Black Collegian and Newsweek magazines
    (metro NYC edition) and a wide variety of other journals and magazines.
    In addition, we routinely fax job vacancy flyers to campus career
    planning and placement offices, criminal justice faculty, military base
    transition offices, and INS offices nationwide.
        The INS created a Border Patrol Careers Website and is starting to
    increase Internet advertising with links to this website. In fiscal
    year 1998, nearly 50 percent of our applicants applied to take the
    Border Patrol test on line and 50 percent used the TAPS phone system.
    This year, the number of those applying over the Internet has increased
    to 70 percent. Internet application is quicker, less expensive, and
    more pleasant for the applicant than the telephone process. It is also
    less expensive for us than the TAPS line or a 1-800 number to apply for
    testing. We are, however, in the process of establishing a 1-800 job
    information line in the National Hiring Center in Twin Cities. We
    expect it to be in use in approximately one month. We also started a
    direct mail campaign to separating military service members through use
    of the Department of Defense (DOD) Transition Bulletin Board and
    Defense Outplacement Referral Service (DORS). As of April 14, we will
    have job postings on the following Internet recruitment sites: Tribal
    College Journal; College Grad Hunt; Job Web; Monster Board; America's
    Job Bank; Excite Career Network; Federal Jobs Digest; Great Outdoor
    Recreation; Cool Works; Black Voices, and Diversity Career Fair. The
    time they remain posted varies from site to site. This is just a
    beginning as we hope to expand this in the near future.
        Through May 31, we have spent approximately $750,000 on Border
    Patrol recruitment and advertising. As a result, we have tripled the
    number of campus visits from last year, doubled the number of military
    visits, and placed nearly as many ads as all of last year. However, we
    have attracted slightly fewer applicants. In fiscal year 1998 through
    April 30, 1998, we had 27,600 applicants. This fiscal year through
    April 30, we have had 27,400 applicants. As a result, we are
    significantly increasing our recruitment efforts by earmarking an
    additional $2.2 million for the following initiatives:
        Up to 200 Border Patrol Agents will be identified as recruiters.
    They will focus their recruitment efforts on local college campuses,
    military bases and other recruitment events. They will be backed up by
    an extensive ad campaign. Recruiter training is scheduled to be on June
    28.
        Compressed testing started on May 20 in San Diego and will be
    expanded to six other sites over the next two months. Sites include
    Tucson, El Paso, McAllen, San Antonio, Buffalo, and New York City.
    Compressed testing will allow applicants to receive immediate test
    results and could reduce the total hiring process to as little as two
    months.
        A 1-800 job information line has been created. The job information
    line provides recorded information on a variety of Border patrol
    subjects. It also allows an applicant to have information faxed to him
    or her. Finally, applicants can speak directly with a hiring
    representative for further information. We are averaging 50 calls per
    day and the volume is growing daily.
        In addition, public service announcements will be developed.
    Finally, we plan to enhance our Internet website by making it
    interactive, allowing applicants to ask questions to a Border Patrol
    Agent on line.
        Question. As you know, we just raised salary levels for our
    military personnel. What is the current GS grade level for a first year
    Border Patrol agent? What are your views on raising the salary level
    for Border Patrol agents? Benefits?
        Answer. The entry level for Border Patrol Agents is at the GS-05
    and GS-07 levels. Providing the same percentage increases to both
    military members and Federal civilian employees would have positive
    effects on Border Patrol starting salaries. The following chart shows
    average compensation for Border Patrol Agents projected for fiscal year
    1999.

                      AVERAGE COMPENSATION FOR BORDER PATROL AGENTS PROJECTED FOR FISCAL YEAR 1999
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                               OTHER
                                                                                              OVERTIME
                                GRADE                             BASE SALARY      AUO       (Includes      TOTAL
                                                                                               FLSA)
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    05..........................................................      $27,220       $1,845       $1,386      $30,451
    07..........................................................       30,901        7,019        4,611       42,531
    09..........................................................       35,937        8,914        6,229       51,080
    11..........................................................       44,873       11,089        7,117       63,079
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    NOTES:
    AUO: Administratively Uncontrollable Overtime. An annual premium pay equal to 10-25 percent of base salary
      payable to employees in positions, the duties of which cannot be controlled administratively, and which
      require substantial amounts of irregular or occasional overtime work with the employee generally being
      responsible for recognizing, without supervision, circumstances which require the employee to remain on duty.
    FLSA: Fair Labor Standards Act. Provides that employees covered by the provisions of the Act are to be paid time
      and one-half for all overtime hours above a specified standard.
    Agents enter at grades GS-05/07.
    Journey level grade for Border Patrol Agents is GS-09.
    Agents entering at the GS-05 level are promoted to GS-07 in 6 months and to GS-09 within 18 months of entering
      on duty. Agents entering on duty at GS-07 level are promoted to GS-09 within 12 months of entering on duty.
    Senior level GS-11 positions are filled under competitive procedures. Approximately 26 percent of non-
      supervisory Border Patrol Agents are at the GS-11 level.

                     ins budget before being amended by omb
        Question. When General McCaffrey testified before the Treasury
    Appropriations subcommittee on March 4th, he said the initial INS
    request did include funding for additional Border Patrol agents, and,
    that as head of ONDCP, he certified the pre-OMB INS budget. He also
    reiterated his view that 20,000 Border Patrol agents are needed on-the-
    line to effectively stop drugs from entering the country.
        Did your fiscal year 2000 budget submission to the Office of
    Management and Budget include funding for Border Patrol agents in
    fiscal year 2000? How many agents did it include?
        Answer. INS's fiscal year 2000 budget submission to the Office of
    Management and Budget included a requested increase of 1,000 agents and
    140 support positions for the Border Patrol program.
       university of texas at austin study outlining need for additional
                           agents on southwest border
        Question. Researchers at the Center for U.S.-Mexico Border and
    Migration Research at the University of Texas have concluded in a 50-
    page comprehensive report that the southwestern border needs at least
    16,133 agents to effectively stop illegal immigrants and drug runners
    there. These researchers visited all nine Southwestern sectors and
    worked with Border Patrol chiefs and agents there.
        The researchers found that every sector on the southwestern border
    needs significant increases in Border Patrol agents. For example, Yuma
    currently has 236 agents--the researchers said that Yuma should have
    787 agents. The Tucson sector, which currently has 1,032 agents, needs
    2,512 agents.
        Question. How do you respond to this study?
        Answer. The INS has not undertaken a formal review of the study.
    The INS is currently in the process of developing a nationwide Border
    Patrol Resource Effectiveness Model that will integrate the
    relationships between resources in adjoining border locations and the
    effect of those resource deployments on the effectiveness of
    controlling the border against any illegal entry attempts. Border
    Patrol field managers across the country have been directly involved in
    the development of the resource model in an effort to determine the
    appropriate levels of staffing and technology to produce the optimum
    sustained deterrence effect against illegal entries occurring along the
    entire border. The extent to which the University of Texas study,
    limited in scope to the Southwest border, can contribute valid
    information in the formation of the Border Patrol's nationwide resource
    model is unknown at this time. However, the study will be reviewed for
    possible attributes to be considered by the Border Patrol within their
    nationwide model.
        Question. Commissioner Meissner as we have pointed out, we disagree
    with your administration's assessment that 1,000 additional agents
    cannot and should not be deployed next year. Having said that, when the
    State Department estimates that 60 percent of the cocaine entering the
    U.S. from Colombia comes via Mexico, and HHS estimates illegal drugs
    cost 16,000 lives each year, how can your administration, and your
    attorney general, with a straight face say we need a year to catch up?
    Will you take our recommendations to the Attorney General and the
    President and ask him to resubmit his Justice Department budget so that
    it reflects an increase of 1,000 agents for fiscal year 2000?
        Answer. The Attorney General and the INS have clearly stated since
    the beginning of the Border Patrol buildup in 1994 that gradual growth
    in the agent force is essential for effective management of the hiring,
    training, supervision and equipping of the agents. Such a process will
    enable the INS to maintain the highest professional standards in this
    agent corps. After six years of sustained yearly growth in the Border
    Patrol ranks, with an increase of over 5,000 agents by the end of 1999,
    it is imperative that these new agents assimilate and gain critical
    field experience. Moreover, INS must be allowed to expand advanced
    training and supervision, and build the infrastructure to maintain the
    existing agent force.
                state criminal alien assistance program (scaap)
        Question. I have just finished a productive round of meetings with
    the Arizona Association of Counties and Arizona League of Cities. In
    addition, I will be holding a meeting with the newly formed Border
    Counties Coalition on Thursday to discuss the federal government's
    responsibility to reimburse states and localities for the unreimbursed
    costs to states to deal with illegal immigration. Adequate funding for
    SCAAP is a primary priority for all of the groups I just mentioned.
        As you know, the President requested only $500 million for this
    program for fiscal year 2000. It was funded last year at $585 million
    (SCAAP was authorized in the 1994 Violent Crime Control Act at $650
    million per year). The last two years the Congress has provided $585
    million for SCAAP, even though the Administration only requested $500
    million.
        When SCAAP was funded at $500 million in 1996, states and
    localities were reimbursed 60 cents on the dollar for incarceration of
    illegal criminal aliens. In 1998, with $585 million, but with more
    localities applying, states and localities were reimbursed on 39 cents
    on the dollar. It is estimated that criminal incarceration of illegal
    criminal aliens cost states and localities a total of $1.7 billion in
    1998 (Arizona and its localities incurred costs of over $38 million
    last year and were reimbursed $15 million).
        How can the Administration justify its budget request of only $500
    million given the situation I just illustrated?
        Answer. With regard to the fiscal year 2000 funding level for the
    State Criminal Alien Assistance Program, the Administration developed a
    budget request within the funding caps set under the balanced budget
    act. In order to stay within the caps, we had to make choices about
    what we could afford with our limited funding. The 2000 budget includes
    a 32 percent decrease in overall state and local law enforcement
    assistance funding, consistent with the 2000 crime bill authorization
    for state and local enforcement assistance, which drops off because of
    the reduction in the authorization of Public Safety and Community
    Policing Grants Program.
        Our budget request does not really trade-off one grant program for
    another, but it uses the limited funding we have available in 2000 for
    state and local assistance to help communities combat crime and to
    bolster the technological capabilities of law enforcement in a way that
    focuses on specific weaknesses that the law enforcement community has
    told us exist. We do not believe that there was ever any intent to fund
    all the programs authorized in the 1994 Crime Act, forever. As a
    result, we put together a package of state and local assistance that
    responds to specific needs.
                   gallegly ventura county local jail program
        Question. Why, when Congress appropriated an extra $10 million last
    year for national expansion of the pilot program in Ventura County, CA,
    that place local INS officials in local jails to identify illegal
    immigrants, has not one INS agent been placed in another local jail?
    And why did the administration not request any money to comply with the
    provisions of the law in its fiscal year 2000 budget?
        Answer. In fiscal year 1999, Congress earmarked $10 million from
    existing funds for implementation of Public Law 105-141. A review of
    current jail programs and analysis of the impact of redirecting base
    funding to implement the provisions of Public Law 105-141 has been
    completed. The review, analysis and related recommendations are
    currently under review.
        Five Immigration Agents staff the Ventura County Jail and
    coordinate their presence with the Ventura County Sheriff's Office to
    provide maximum coverage at the institution. These agents are also
    responsible for identifying and processing criminal aliens at the
    California Youth Authority Facility, Paso Robles Youth Facility, and
    the Work Furlough Facility at Camarillo.
        We did not request additional funding for local jail programs in
    fiscal year 2000 pursuant to Public Law 105-141, as we are still
    assessing the effectiveness of pre-arraignment alien identification
    programs at local jails and their potential for deterring criminal
    aliens from returning to local communities.
                         reduction of processing times
        Question. As part of the June 11, 1998 Senate Immigration
    Subcommittee, I asked you to inform me what steps the INS was taking to
    reduce processing times across the board for all immigration benefits,
    especially in the Phoenix District, and in INS Districts and INS
    Service Centers throughout the country. You confirmed backlogs have
    risen at the four Service Centers during the last year and that, as a
    partial remedy, INS allocated $1 million in overtime to service centers
    to be directed towards backlog reduction. However, we now see, at least
    in the California Service Center, backlogs growing increasingly longer.
    For example, as of the end of 1998, applications filed by U.S. citizens
    to immigrate a spouse took an estimated three-quarter of a year to
    adjudicate. Adjustment of status cases weren't much better at 225 days.
    Would you agree that the increase in processing times at the Service
    Centers is inappropriately long? If so, what is the agency doing to
    remedy the problem? How long might it take for the public to see an
    appreciable affect? Might additional adjudications personnel be a
    solution to the problem? If so, how much money has INS requested in the
    fiscal year 2000 budget to accomplish this?
        Answer. The INS agrees that certain processing times at the Service
    Centers need to be shortened. The INS is taking incremental steps to
    improve productivity, including buying new netframes at the Service
    Centers to increase the speed and reliability of the CLAIMS4 case
    processing system. In fiscal year 1999, INS is focusing much of its
    resources on addressing the pending naturalization caseload. A total of
    100 information officer positions, contained in the fiscal year 1999
    Appropriations Act, have been allocated to the Service Centers to
    support their role in processing naturalization applications. As of
    April 30, 1999, 75 candidates had been selected, and 61 were on-board.
        The INS does not anticipate reducing processing times for most
    other applications this fiscal year. To improve service to our
    customers, INS will focus on ensuring that processing times for each
    application are consistent among the four Service Centers. Further, the
    Service Centers have been instructed to focus on meeting processing
    goals for applications for which long processing times would negatively
    affect our business community or cause extreme hardship. These
    applications include the I-129, I-765, I-130, I-140, I-526, and the I-
    131.
        In fiscal year 2000, as processing times for naturalization
    applications are reduced, INS will look to reallocate resources to
    focus on lowering processing times for other applications. In support
    of this, the President's fiscal year 2000 budget annualizes $124
    million of the Naturalization initiative funded beginning in fiscal
    year 1999.
        Question. This problem of increasing processing times also extends
    to INS districts; again, Phoenix in particular. As I've previously
    expressed to you and the INS Phoenix District Director, it's important
    to me that the INS take necessary steps to reduce processing times to a
    more reasonable level. For example, adjudicate primary petitions before
    derivative benefits expire--typically one year. It seems no coincidence
    that processing times for naturalization and adjustment of status
    applications increased significantly with the implementation of the
    Citizenship USA project, passage of the Welfare Reform legislation of
    1996 and the sunset of IA Section 245(i). As with the Service Centers,
    might not additional adjudications personnel be helpful to the
    Districts in reducing these specific processing times and processing
    times for all immigration benefits? If so, has the INS explored the use
    of ``term'' employees which, as I understand, may be hired for short
    periods of time, say 2-4 years. If the cause of the problem is
    temporary, would not temporary help be useful?
        Answer. The INS was appropriated resources for 400 term district
    adjudications officer (DAO) positions in fiscal year 1998, and 200 term
    DAO positions in fiscal year 1999 to support naturalization application
    processing. The increased staff received in fiscal year 1998 has helped
    INS increase production. The fiscal year 1999 personnel increase is
    expected to increase production further. The attrition rate for the
    fiscal year 1998 term positions, however, has reached as high as 44
    percent in certain cities. To ensure the best use of our resources, INS
    would prefer to receive authorization for permanent DAOs where
    possible. To that end, we have recently converted 300 term positions to
    full-time permanent positions.
        The situation for support staff is much different. The INS is
    relying on temporary and contract staff to perform much of the data
    entry and clerical activities in District Offices. In most offices,
    temporary and clerical staffing has worked well. The INS could use more
    temporary or contract support staff to help process the high level of
    pending cases.
        Question. Please advise me if INS queried the California Service
    Center and Phoenix District Office about the need for additional
    personnel to reduce processing times. If so, please advise me of the
    monetary figures INS incorporated into the fiscal year 2000 budgetary
    request for these two offices.
        Answer. All of INS's offices, including the California Service
    Center and the Phoenix District Office, have requested more funds to
    address their pending caseload in a more timely fashion. Within the
    current funding level, INS has focused existing and new resources on
    naturalization activities. In fiscal year 1999, the Phoenix District
    Office has been allocated approximately 2.5 percent of INS's DAO
    positions, a level equal to its share of the Service-wide application
    level. Further, the Phoenix District Office has been allocated 12 new
    contract clerks (Phoenix--6, Las Vegas--3, Tucson--2, Reno--1) to help
    address the pending naturalization caseload in the district. In fiscal
    year 1999, the California Service Center has received 38 new
    Information Officer positions to support its role in naturalization
    application processing.
        To augment the application fees that INS receives, the President's
    fiscal year 2000 budget requests an annualization of $124 million of
    the Naturalization initiative initially funded in fiscal year 1999 to
    ensure that INS can maintain these and other positions.
        proposed construction of a new douglas, az border patrol station
        Question. I am concerned about the low priority assigned to the
    construction of a new Border Patrol Station in Douglas, Arizona. The
    existing 5,837 square foot facility was built in 1987 for a capacity of
    35 agents, and an additional 6,600 square feet of work space has since
    been added in modular buildings. Currently, there are 315 people
    working out of that station with another 100 employees expected in
    fiscal year 1999.
        I understand that there are plans to build a new facility
    (according to the Tucson Sector Border Patrol, INS has said it will
    request $15.3 million in the fiscal year 2001 budget for construction
    of the new Douglas facility), but the Douglas project will not be
    completed until 2004. The agents and support personnel in Douglas
    cannot wait until 2004 for relief of this unprecedented overcrowding.
    Also, we must remember that Douglas continues to be the hot spot for
    illegal crossings on the Southwest border.
        With the high level of overcrowding and the importance of the
    mission in Douglas, is it possible for the construction of a new
    station to be reprioritized for completion by the end of fiscal year
    2002?
        Answer. In order to have the project completed in the third Quarter
    of 2002, the Douglas Border Patrol Station would have to be fully
    funded with construction funding in fiscal year 2000, instead of the
    present time-frame of fiscal year 2001. Fully funding the project
    includes the $300,000 in design funds in the fiscal year 2000 budget,
    plus $15,293,000 required to complete the construction. However, to
    more effectively manage its construction resources, INS requests
    initial design resources in one year, and the construction-phase
    resources in a subsequent fiscal year.
        Question. Out of a total $48 million fiscal year 2000 INS budget
    request for construction of Border Patrol facilities in Texas,
    California, and Arizona, why did the INS only request $2.3 million for
    Arizona, and only in site design and planning and not actual
    construction?
        Answer. The fiscal year 2000 Border Patrol construction projects
    were prioritized in accordance with the strategic needs of the INS. The
    INS has a backlog of over $400 million in construction projects to
    support the Border Patrol. Most of these requirements are due to the
    same conditions that exist in Arizona. Only a portion of these projects
    can be funded each year. The requirements and needs of the Arizona
    Stations have been recognized. In an effort to meet this need, INS
    reprogrammed $307,000 to start the Douglas Border Patrol Station
    project. Additional funding was requested in fiscal year 1999 for
    design of the Douglas, Yuma and Tucson Border Patrol Stations. The
    actual construction funds were to be requested in the fiscal year 2000
    budget. However, no design-phase funds were provided in fiscal year
    1999, so these projects have been moved back one year.
                     interim douglas border patrol facility
        Question. I understand that there is a 40,000 square foot building
    (the Breed Technology building) available in the area which would be
    suitable as an interim facility after its renovation. There is
    precedent for interim facilities within the Tucson Sector--the Tucson
    Station recently moved to the old Tucson Police Academy site while
    awaiting construction of its new station. The cost of renovating the
    Tucson Police Academy for interim use was $1.2 million.
        If the construction of a new station cannot be moved up, is it
    possible for the Douglas Station to move into an interim facility until
    the construction of a new building is completed?
        Answer. Leasing an interim facility has been discussed as a
    potential option. However, the costs associated with leasing,
    particularly outside of larger urban areas with strong commercial real
    estate markets, make leasing an uneconomical and costly alternative.
    For example, the estimated costs for build-out, cabling, phones,
    furniture and security for a lease facility of the size required to
    house the Douglas Border Patrol Station would be approximately
    $4,400,000, with the first year rent estimated at $1,800,000. This
    makes the first year cost to the Border Patrol $6,200,000. Over a six-
    year lease period, the Border Patrol will have spent $15,200,000, an
    amount equal to the cost of constructing a permanent Government-owned
    Border Patrol Station.
        As an alternative to short-term leasing, we will be assessing the
    potential use of modular, mobile construction units. We believe that
    these units could be acquired and installed quickly to meet expansion
    needs on an interim basis. Once the permanent Border Patrol Station
    construction has been completed, these units could be relocated to
    support other Border Patrol Stations facing similar circumstances
    elsewhere along the Southwest border. However, this option, like those
    above, requires time consuming compliance with the National
    Environmental Protection Act.

                              subcommittee recess

        Senator Gregg. OK. I thank you for your time and appreciate
    it.
        Ms. Meissner. Thank you, and thank you for your continued
    support. Again, thank you very much.
        Senator Gregg. Have a good day.
        [Whereupon, at 11:31 a.m., Tuesday, March 16, the
    subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene subject to the call of
    the Chair.]

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

                                  ----------

                             FRIDAY, MARCH 19, 1999

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

                             DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

                National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

    STATEMENT OF DR. D. JAMES BAKER, UNDER SECRETARY FOR
                OCEANS AND ATMOSPHERE
    ACCOMPANIED BY:
            TERRY D. GARCIA, ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR OCEANS AND ATMOSPHERE
            SCOTT GUDES, DEPUTY UNDER SECRETARY
            PAUL ROBERTS, CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
            NANCY FOSTER, ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR FOR OCEAN SERVICES
            JOHN KELLY, JR., ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR FOR WEATHER SERVICES
        Clerk's Note.--The following items were submitted for the
    hearing record of March 19, 1999 regarding the budget request
    of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.]
                    Prepared Statement of Dr. D. James Baker
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the Subcommittee, for this
    opportunity to testify on the President's fiscal year 2000 Budget
    Request for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
        I am accompanied today by Terry Garcia, Assistant Secretary for
    Oceans and Atmosphere, Scott B. Gudes, Deputy Under Secretary for
    Oceans and Atmosphere, and Paul F. Roberts, Chief Financial Officer/
    Chief Administrative Officer.
        Before I begin, let me state that because of investments championed
    by this subcommittee, NOAA is a world leader in weather and climate
    research and forecasts, environmental monitoring and research,
    fisheries management, and sustainable use of the coast. This proposed
    budget is a good budget for NOAA; this is a good budget for the
    Department of Commerce; this is a good budget for America.
        This budget demonstrates our commitment to meeting our
    responsibilities for investing in and maintaining our infrastructure.
    The challenge of investing strategically in the Nation's future
    requires continuing investments in NOAA's infrastructure, including
    investments in our people. The fiscal year 2000 budget request includes
    essential funding to meet these investment needs. Most notably, the
    budget request:
      --includes funding to address our data acquisition needs by providing
            for the first of four new Fisheries Research Vessels (FRV's),
            while at the same time increasing the number of days-at-sea by
            245 for University-National Oceanographic Laboratory System
            (UNOLS) ship time for critical data collection needs for the
            Global Ocean Ecosystem Dynamics (GLOBEC) and Ecology and
            Oceanography of Harmful Alagal Bloom (ECOHAB) programs.
      --provides funding to maintain our supercomputing capacity at the NWS
            Central Computing Facility in Suitland, Maryland, and the
            Forecast Systems Lab (FSL) in Boulder, Colorado while acquiring
            a massively parallel, scalable computer to be located at OAR's
            Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Lab (GFDL), in Princeton, New
            Jersey.
      --provides increased recurring lease and/or operations costs at a
            number of NOAA facilities coming on-line in fiscal year 1999
            and fiscal year 2000, such as the Santa Cruz and Kodiak
            Fisheries Laboratories, the Marine Environmental Health
            Research Laboratory in Charleston, South Carolina and the David
            Skaggs Research Center in Boulder, Colorado. At the same time
            funds are requested to complete the planning and design of a
            new state-of-the-art NMFS research facility near Juneau,
            Alaska.
      --provides adjustments-to-base for pay related and inflationary cost
            increases to the National Weather Service, as well as for the
            fiscal year 2000 pay raise for the remaining Line Offices.
      --includes funds to begin replacing outdated observing equipment in
            order to maintain continuity of core data and services and
            provides funds for continuing technology infusion for systems
            developed for the Weather Service Modernization;
      --reflects the Administration's plans to restructure and maintain the
            NOAA Corps and includes Payments for Retired Pay for
            Commissioned Officers as mandatory funding;
      --includes $1 million to establish educational training relationships
            through a joint partnership with a consortium of Historically
            Black Colleges and Universities (HBCU). These efforts would not
            only result in the education of new marine, atmospheric and
            environmental scientists, but would also assist many coastal
            communities in the development of new business and
            environmental engineering alternatives to support sustainable
            economic development; and,
      --provides funds to accelerate the implementation of the Commerce
            Administrative Management System (CAMS), which is critical to
            meeting NOAA's financial management requirements.
        We, at NOAA, know that performance is what counts. Therefore, our
    fiscal year 2000 budget includes measures that will track results to
    the level of investment.
        NOAA's fiscal year 2000 request is for $2.6 billion in total budget
    authority which includes $2.5 billion in discretionary budget
    authority. This request collectively represents a 12.9 percent increase
    over the total budget authority appropriated for fiscal year 1999.
        The request is predicated on the need to ensure the continued
    delivery of essential science, technology and services to the Nation.
    The President's Budget Request also allows NOAA to perform an essential
    role in a number of Departmental, interagency and Presidential
    initiatives, including the Lands Legacy Initiative and other important
    components of the Ocean 2000 Initiative, the Natural Disaster Reduction
    Initiative, the Climate in the 21st Century Initiative, and building
    the capacity of the Nation's Historically Black Colleges and
    Universities (HBCU's). Let me take a moment to say a few words about
    some of these important activities.
                                   ocean 2000
        Ocean and coastal resources are the foundation of the Nation's
    coastal and regional economies. One-third of the U.S. GDP and one-half
    of the Nation's jobs are produced in the coastal zone through
    industries such as fishing, tourism, and marine transportation. With
    increasing national attention on the value of the ocean and coastal
    resources and the important role of ocean navigation and shipping, the
    $317.6 million Ocean 2000 initiative will increase the protection,
    restoration and sustainable use of the Nation's ocean and coastal
    resources.
        The Ocean 2000 crosscut integrates the Administration's Lands
    Legacy programs and initiatives supporting the Year Of The Ocean
    (YOTO), Resource Protection, South Florida ecosystems restoration and
    research, and implementation of NOAA's responsibilities under the Clean
    Water Action Plan.
                                  lands legacy
        NOAA's fiscal year 2000 budget requests $105 million of new funding
    to fulfill the environmental goals outlined in the Administrations
    Lands Legacy Initiative.
        The economic and environmental well-being we derive from the
    abundant and essential natural resources and the beauty provided by
    coastal ecosystems is being undermined by the very critical economic
    and aesthetic uses that make these diverse areas so valuable to the
    Nation. Escalating losses and degradation of coastal wetlands,
    fisheries habitat, and coral reef ecosystems must be reversed.
        NOAA has the vision, expertise and partnerships to successfully
    confront this challenge. The request includes funding for targeted
    investments to: strengthen and expand protection of the Nation's most
    significant ocean and coastal areas; restore critical coastal habitat
    and vibrant coral reef ecosystems; and provide states and coastal
    communities with the tools and resources for environmentally-sound and
    economically-sustainable ``smart growth.'' Some examples of our
    investments include: $32 million for Coastal Zone Management of which:
    $28 million will help states and localities, through Section 310 of the
    Coastal Zone Management Act, to implement community-based solutions to
    restore or enhance coastal resources and community revitalization; $2
    million for coastal non-point pollution control program development
    (Section 6217); and $2 million for Section 309 Grants for coastal non-
    point pollution control program implementation.
        NOAA will work with 32 Coastal Zone Management state partners and
    coastal communities by providing grants and technical assistance to
    improve land use and address impacts of increased development and urban
    sprawl on coastal resources.
        An increase of $15 million will be used to strengthen the nation's
    only system of marine protected areas, the National Marine Sanctuary
    program. The Sanctuary System will be enhanced by bolstering
    operational capabilities at the twelve existing sites, expanding
    Sanctuary educational and outreach opportunities, and positioning the
    System for the future by beginning the planning process in consultation
    with states and communities to identify possible new sites. This
    represents growth in the Marine Sanctuary Program funding by a factor
    of four since fiscal year 1993 (a total of $29 million).
        In addition an increase of $14.7 million will be used to enhance
    the protection of critical estuaries by providing funds to states and
    communities for the acquisition of lands from willing sellers in and
    around the existing National Estuarine Research Reserves System ($19
    million total), as well as strengthening existing management and
    upgrading facilities at these sites.
        More than 95 percent of U.S. overseas trade by tonnage (excluding
    Mexico and Canada) passes through U.S. ports and harbors. It is often
    necessary for our ports and harbors to dredge deeper channels to
    accommodate larger and larger sized cargo ships. Such efforts must be
    undertaken in a way that protects the environment, including a
    continued commitment to environmentally sound dredging and safe
    disposal or reuse of dredged materials. An increase of $10 million is
    requested for NOAA to work with the Corps of Engineers, other federal
    and state agencies, and coastal communities to help them avoid costly
    delays in the dredging process and to determine ways to use material
    dredged from ports and shipping channels to restore important coastal
    habitats.
        Coral reefs are exquisite yet endangered ecosystems which sustain
    tourism, recreation and fishing industries worth billions of dollars in
    economic activity. New funding of $10 million will enable NOAA, by
    working with states and other agencies, to restore injured reefs in
    Puerto Rico, Florida, Hawaii, U.S. territories and the commonwealths.
    Funding will be provided for: development and implementation of
    emergency restoration activities; restoration of small to moderate-
    sized injured sites; development of coral nurseries to provide donor
    material for restoration projects; monitoring to evaluate restoration
    effectiveness; and the transfer of restoration technologies to other
    coastal stewards. This request complements and supports the $2 million
    Coral Reef Protection increase requested under the Year of the Ocean
    Initiative.
        Finally under this Initiative, NOAA requests $22.7 million to
    increase the number and geographical scope of community-based habitat
    restoration efforts that generate quality coastal or river habitat to
    improve survival of many salt water fish species nationwide.
        It is the intention of the Administration that funding for the
    Lands Legacy Initiative be derived from the Land and Water Conservation
    Fund. Although the fund has traditionally been used to fund programs
    within the Department of Interior, there is clear authority for it to
    be used for certain NOAA programs.
                               year of the ocean
        At the 1998 National Ocean Conference in Monterey, California, the
    President launched a series of major initiatives to explore, protect
    and restore America's vital ocean resources. Highlighting the important
    role the ocean plays in the daily lives of all Americans, the
    Administration introduced measures to promote new scientific insight
    into the oceans, sustain use of fisheries and other marine resources,
    provide new opportunities for economic growth, and protect fragile
    coastal communities and ecosystems, such as coral reefs, from damage
    and environmental degradation.
        NOAA's fiscal year 2000 budget request ($78.1 million) for the Year
    of the Ocean (YOTO) Initiative includes increases of:
      --$5.2 million to promote safe and efficient navigation, through
            balanced investment that will improve the competitiveness of
            U.S. ports and exports while lowering the risk of marine
            accidents and resulting pollution. Within this amount, an
            increase of $2.75 million will enable NOAA to fully develop and
            implement quality assurance and modernization capabilities
            required to support the installation of additional Physical
            Oceanographic Real-Time Systems (PORTS) through cost sharing
            partnerships.
      --$4 million to better understand the role of oceans in shaping our
            weather and climate. Finer measurements of ocean data are
            needed to track climate shifts, understand the interaction of
            the oceans and atmosphere, and predict severe weather and the
            regional impacts of global climate change. Funds will be used
            to construct, deploy and operate an array of 1,000 profiling
            autonomous floats for data collection in the Pacific and
            Atlantic Oceans.
      --$58.2 million for Fisheries Data Collection Capacity, Stock
            Assessments and Fisheries Conservation, and Management,
            including:
        --$51.6 million to construct the first of four new state-of-the-art
                research vessels necessary to conduct essential stock
                assessment surveys and monitor fish and marine mammal
                species, assess ecological changes and provide the best
                available data to rebuild sustainable fisheries. These new
                ships will be both calibrated and acoustically quiet to
                mitigate disturbance of sea-life under study. The ships
                will complement our increasing charters with research
                partners in industry and academia and will modernize NOAA's
                aging fleet of research vessels.
        --$2.6 million for NOAA to carry out requirements of the Magnuson
                Stevens Fisheries Conservation and Management Act.
        --$2 million for enhanced observer coverage to carry out increased
                observer workload mandated in the Act.
        --$2 million to support work on fisheries oceanography to improve
                stock predictions by identifying and assessing critical
                environmental processes controlling long-term trends in the
                Nation's fishery production. A network of bio-physical
                moorings in the North Pacific Ocean will provide data on
                key oceanographic indicators and give greater insight into
                environmentally-induced shifts in the productivity of
                commercially important fish stocks.
      --$4.6 million for NOAA, in cooperation with industry, Federal, and
            State partners, to develop and promote an environmentally
            friendly and commercially viable domestic marine Aquaculture
            industry. Of this amount, $3.6 million will support an OAR
            program on Mariculture, and $1 million is for NMFS to work with
            industry to develop environmentally sound Aquaculture
            standards.
      --$2 million in order to work with the states, U.S. territories and
            commonwealths, and local communities, to carry out important
            research, monitoring, management and mapping of the Nation's
            coral reef system. These funds will be used to better
            understand the state of this fragile ecosystem and help
            identify solutions to protect this vital resource.
      --$4.1 million to unravel deep-sea mysteries, discover new
            opportunities in the ocean, and better understand how to
            protect marine resources. These funds will launch a program to
            map and explore U.S. ocean waters with advanced underwater
            technology, and support an economic evaluation of the
            contribution that the oceans vast resources provide to the
            Nation's economy and environment.
                              resource protection
        Development is posing an increasing threat to numerous marine
    species and their habitat. The number of species either listed by NOAA
    under the Endangered Species Act or under consideration for listing is
    growing. Stemming this crisis of extinction is one of NOAA's greatest
    challenges. NOAA is committed to preventing the extinction of at-risk
    marine species, and restoring their habitat and ecosystems.
        Our ongoing efforts to protect and conserve our natural resources
    include establishing greater public involvement in conservation
    planning, creating incentives for landowners and states to protect
    species and their habitat in order to prevent the need to list, and
    entering into long-term conservation plans with landowners.
        NOAA's fiscal year 2000 budget request includes over $130 million
    to support the Resource Protection Initiative, including:
      --$100 million to establish a Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery account
            for grants that will bolster salmon recovery through a new
            partnership agreement that will double the federal dollars with
            matching non-federal contributions. The Presidential initiative
            focuses on improving federal conservation activities and
            building crucial federal-state-tribal partnerships to share
            limited resources while improving scientific information to
            ensure a lasting recovery of salmon. Many salmon runs are at
            risk of extinction in California, Oregon, Washington, and
            Alaska.
      --$2.6 million to characterize and map biodiversity and protected
            species habitat. These efforts will permit the identification
            of crucial habitat for the conservation of at-risk species and
            will identify increased conservation efforts under the ESA.
      --$27.5 million for Endangered Species Act (ESA) Recovery Planning to
            stem the decline of highly endangered species including
            Atlantic and Pacific Salmon, leatherback and loggerhead
            turtles, Hawaiian monk seals, and North Atlantic right whales
            through protecting and restoring critical habitat; eliminating
            incidental take in commercial fisheries and conducting research
            and monitoring to determine species status and habitat
            requirements.
                                 south florida
        NOAA's fiscal year 2000 budget request includes $5.1 million to
    address issues related to the South Florida Everglades Restoration
    effort--an increase of $1.6 million over fiscal year 1999 to support an
    integrated effort among federal, tribal, state and non-governmental
    partners to halt the degradation and restore the healthy function of
    the South Florida ecosystem.
        NOAA supports the portion of the South Florida Everglades
    Initiative exclusively devoted to restoring and protecting the coastal
    and marine portions of the South Florida ecosystem such as fisheries
    habitat and coral reefs.
        The Initiative has already produced significant accomplishments in
    this area. Continued investment is necessary to restore and maintain
    the marine ecosystem and the associated economies of South Florida Bay,
    and the Florida Keys.
                          clean water initiative (cwi)
        NOAA's fiscal year 2000 budget request includes a total of $22
    million to support the Administration's Clean Water Initiative, an
    increase of $5.8 million over fiscal year 1999. This Initiative will
    help protect coastal communities from toxics and reduce the flow of
    pollution into coastal waters from nonpoint sources (e.g., runoff from
    agricultural fields, city streets, and other areas). Polluted runoff is
    now a major source of coastal water pollution and one of the primary
    factors associated with outbreaks of harmful algal blooms (e.g.,
    pfiesteria) and the spread of hypoxic zones in U.S. coastal waters.
        Communities, businesses and human health are increasingly
    threatened by polluted runoff and the symptoms of polluted coastal
    waters. For example, every year degraded water quality causes warnings
    or closures of thousands of beaches resulting in losses to tourism and
    recreation industries. Degraded water quality continues to close or
    restrict the use of nearly 30 percent of U.S. shellfish growing areas.
    This includes 4.5 million acres or 50 percent of the shellfish growing
    area in the Gulf of Mexico, the Nation's top shellfish-producing
    region.
        Over the past 20 years, harmful algal blooms have affected nearly
    every coastal state and produced an estimated $1 billion in economic
    losses. The increasing frequency and magnitude of these problems
    suggests that significant action is required now to reduce the costs
    and symptoms of nonpoint source pollution, and improve the quality of
    U.S. coastal waters.
        An increase of $4 million under the Clean Water Initiative (also
    presented under the Lands Legacy Initiative CZM component), will
    address polluted runoff by providing CZM states with additional
    resources to develop and implement coastal non-point control programs.
    At this point, I want to highlight to the Committee our strong
    opposition to the $2 million rescission in the fiscal year 1999
    Emergency Supplemental for non-point source pollution funds. These
    funds are important to the nation's coastal states as they develop and
    implement plans to alleviate and mitigate this expensive problem of
    non-point pollution. $2 million, half of the fiscal year 1999
    appropriation, is a small but crucial amount of money that goes to the
    states.
        An increase of $1.8 million will enable NOAA to increase its
    efforts in national pfiesteria research and monitoring. The increase
    will also allow NOAA to assist states, universities and communities in
    the development of detection and assay technologies essential for
    pfiesteria and other types of harmful algal bloom outbreaks.
        Each of these components, integrated in the Ocean 2000 Initiative,
    is essential for ensuring the long-term health of our Nation's oceans
    and coastal areas. The fiscal year 2000 budget reflects NOAA's
    commitment to meeting these needs and fulfilling our mission as the
    Nation's leader in ocean and coastal stewardship.
                  natural disaster reduction initiative (ndri)
        Natural hazards related to severe weather (hurricanes, tornadoes,
    winter storms, droughts and floods) or geophysical activity (volcanoes,
    geomagnetic storms, earthquakes, and tsunamis) threaten lives, property
    and the stability of local and regional economies throughout the United
    States.
        In fiscal year 2000, NOAA requests a net increase of $42.1 million
    for the Natural Disaster Reduction Initiative (NDRI) to implement a
    second phase of the Department's multi-agency strategy, which includes
    NOAA, EDA and NIST, to reduce and mitigate against the impacts of
    extreme natural events. The strategy calls for an end-to-end approach
    to natural disaster mitigation, from research to improve prediction and
    understanding of extreme events, to advances in developing response and
    recovery plans, to assessment of vulnerabilities of communities and
    infrastructure, and providing information, technology, and training to
    reduce vulnerability before and after natural disasters.
        The modernization of the Weather Service represents a significant
    commitment by the Administration. The modernization effort has made
    considerable progress in providing more accurate and timely weather
    warnings and forecasts services. The National Weather Service (NWS)
    vision of becoming a ``no surprise weather service'' is becoming more
    and more a reality today. The NWS has significantly improved its
    services since the 1974 super-tornado outbreak. Just in the past five
    years, NWS has more than doubled tornado warning lead-times from 5
    minutes in 1993 to approximately 11 minutes in 1998. These extra
    minutes have saved lives. In order to ensure that these improvements
    are sustained the fiscal year 2000 Budget includes:
      --an adjustment to base of $20 million in pay-related and
            inflationary cost increases and $12.3 million in programmatic
            changes to the National Weather Service to ensure the
            continuation of quality accurate and timely weather warnings
            and forecasts services to the public.
      --$25.8 million to expand operation and maintenance support for the
            entire NWS Advanced Weather Interactive Processing System
            (AWIPS) network and fund systems evolution activities.
      --$2.7 million to support AWIPS operations and Weather Forecast
            Office (WFO) Facilities Construction at offices established as
            the result of mitigation actions per the Secretary's Report
            Team recommendations on the adequacy of NEXRAD Coverage and
            Degradation of Weather Services under National Weather Service
            Modernization for: Caribou, Maine and Key West, Florida; and
            continue current operations at Erie, Pennsylvania; and
            Williston, North Dakota. An additional $1 million for
            mitigation activities is included in the Operations and
            Research request.
      --$3.7 million for other NWS systems activities such as product
            improvement initiative and acquisition closeout activities for
            Automated Surface Observing System (ASOS) and Next Generation
            Weather Radar (NEXRAD) and to provide commercial aircraft
            observations from the ARINC Communication Addressing and
            Reporting System (ACARS) for operational use in numerical
            weather prediction models.
      --$3.7 million for Weather Forecast Office Construction and
            Maintenance activities such as: construction of Alaska housing
            in remote areas and the implementation of corrective and
            preventive maintenance actions at selected WFO's across the
            country; in addition to continuing facility retrofit projects
            necessary to meet current usage requirements as well as safety
            and fire code regulations.
        The request includes an increase of $30.1 million for NOAA's share
    of the Polar Convergence (NPOESS) program, for a total request of $80.1
    million in fiscal year 2000. In fiscal year 2000, the NPOESS program
    will continue Phase I design and development of five key sensors and
    initiate Phase II production of these sensors in fiscal year 2001. This
    program will be jointly and equally funded by NOAA and DOD.
        The request also includes an increase of $6.8 million for GOES N-Q
    spacecraft acquisition (a total program of $189.5 million for fiscal
    year 2000), including development funds for advanced instruments to be
    ready for the GOES-Q satellite, and the upgrading and replacement of
    aging ground systems that will remain operational through the life of
    GOES-Q.
        The fiscal year 2000 Request also provides increases for
    maintaining the operational support for the on-orbit satellites and
    expanding the use of satellite data.
      --$1.7 million will fund Satellite Operational Control Center (SOCC)
            non-discretionary labor and non-labor costs increases in order
            to avoid serious risk to the health and safety of the current
            operational satellites. This increase will also maintain
            adequate operational data processing capacity and engineering
            support for satellites data streams; and,
      --$2 million will be used to establish an integrated Global Disaster
            Information Network (GDIN) to improve all phases of disaster
            management. This will be a public/private partnership to
            develop a comprehensive information system for those who manage
            and those who are affected by disasters.
        The fiscal year 2000 budget also includes funding for other
    projects that will enhance observation and prediction capabilities,
    such as:
      --$6.4 million to continue the replacement and modernization of the
            obsolete upper air radiosonde network that provides critical
            upper air observations which are the principal data source for
            all weather forecasts. Modern radiosondes and ground receiving
            equipment will permit more efficient use of radio frequency
            spectrum and ensure reliable and consistent upper air data
            acquisition.
      --$2.2 million to initiate the national implementation of the
            Advanced Hydrologic Prediction System (AHPS), an integrated
            real-time modeling and data management/analysis system for
            flood forecasts, in the upper Mississippi, including the Red
            River of the North and the Ohio River Basin. AHPS will expand
            and improve forecasts of river levels from days to several
            months in advance.
      --$4.3 million will be used for the GEOSTORM satellite, a follow-on
            to the Advanced Composition Explorer (ACE) satellite. This
            multi-agency program leverages the interests and requirements
            of NOAA, NASA and the Air Force to increase the lead time of
            warnings currently provided to power companies and other
            industries vulnerable to solar storms. These industries have
            told us to make GEOSTORM our number one priority as they now
            depend on solar wind warning products to trigger preventative
            measures that help avert wide-spread power blackouts and
            satellite failures.
      --$0.4 million will be used to provide for a second flight crew for
            NOAA's G-IV high altitude jet to meet the operational
            requirement of 24-hour storm surveillance. This funding will
            allow the jet to be flown on high priority back-to-back
            missions (12-hour intervals) during land-falling hurricanes. It
            will also permit storm tracking for long duration hurricanes
            when crew rest limitations may ground the aircraft.
        Finally, an increase of $1 million is requested to expand work with
    coastal states and communities to develop coastal risk atlases and
    provide new remote sensing data in a more timely and effective manner.
    This will enable coastal communities to better prepare for and recover
    from natural disasters.
                          climate in the 21st century
        Over the past two years, climate variability has emerged as one of
    the most urgent, long-term strategic environmental security issues
    facing the United States. The demand for scientifically sound climate
    information by decision-makers and the public is accelerating. For this
    reason, as the Department prepares to enter the 21st century, NOAA
    requests $19.1 million to meet the Nation's climate service needs.
        Underlying NOAA's ability to improve climate and weather models is
    maintaining state-of-the-art computer capabilities for world-class
    research. Included in this request is $5.7 million to acquire a
    massively parallel processing computer to improve forecasts of El Nino
    events, model climate variability, and make better hurricane
    predictions. Procurement of this computer will help close the computing
    gap between the U.S. and European climate centers.
        Four key components of this initiative will provide critical
    funding for NOAA's unique responsibility to obtain long-term
    observations of the ocean and atmosphere and maintain national data
    archives. They are:
      --$1.2 million to restore and maintain operations at its baseline
            atmospheric observatories in Alaska, Hawaii, Samoa, and
            Antarctica,
      --$3 million to begin the modernization of the Cooperative Reference
            Network and Rain Gauge Network ($1.5 million in NWS and $1.5
            million in NESDIS). At present, NOAA uses paper punch tapes
            which are processed on a machine for which, there are no spare
            parts. It is one of two such machines in the world. We must
            move forward technologically on this,
      --$0.9 million for NESDIS to meet the increased demand for near real-
            time products, data, and information related to unusual
            weather, climate, and environmental events, and
      --$1.6 million to make long-term measurement of carbon dioxide in the
            ocean, develop new ocean data assimilation methods, and improve
            existing climate models.
        NOAA is requesting $6.7 million for fiscal year 2000 in the Climate
    and Global Change Program to launch new climate research projects.
    These will provide critical data to deepen our scientific understanding
    of, and thus our ability to predict, climate variability and change.
    The successful forecast of the 1997-1998 El Nino and the subsequent La
    Nina events demonstrated dramatically that this kind of research can
    realize tangible benefits. A well-documented predictive understanding
    of the El Nino Southern Oscillation (ENSO) and other aspects of how our
    climate works is needed to determine the effects of climate anomalies
    on our daily lives, and is also needed to guide potential decisions
    regarding the role human influences play in climate change.
        Beyond the waters of the tropical Pacific--where the ENSO signal is
    measured--are similar climate cycles that are as important to weather
    and climate patterns over North America as ENSO. NOAA plans to
    investigate and forecast these other key climate signals--the North
    Atlantic (or Arctic) Oscillation to learn its effects on hurricane
    tracks and strengths in the Atlantic; and the Pacific Decadal
    Oscillation and its impact on the Northwest salmon fishery. Learning
    more about these cycles will enable NOAA to improve both climate and
    weather forecasts and predict their impacts at regional levels. In
    turn, these predictions can be used by the effected populations to
    guide a range of decisions from emergency management to agriculture and
    fisheries.
        NOAA also plans to investigate the recently-identified ``North
    American carbon sink'', describing on a regional scale the
    characteristics that lead to the net uptake of atmospheric carbon by
    the land. This will be done by sampling the atmosphere from aircraft
    flying at low altitudes, measuring carbon dioxide levels to see how
    they vary according to vegetation type and other terrestrial
    characteristics. NOAA will conduct similar experiments on tropospheric
    (low-altitude) ozone, measuring variations in its concentration to
    determine the importance of this gas in regional warming scenarios
    relative to carbon dioxide.
                               conclusion/wrap-up
        In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, the fiscal year 2000 request builds on
    the progress we have made, with your assistance and support over the
    past years. NOAA's environmental stewardship and assessment missions
    are essential to securing our Nation's success in the 21st Century.
        In meeting our mission, NOAA continues to focus the efforts of
    government on what matters to the American people. Success in this
    changing world increasingly depends on partnerships with business and
    industry, universities, state and local governments and international
    parties. NOAA continues to develop these partnerships to leverage
    resources and talent, and provide the means for meeting program
    requirements more effectively. For example:
      --The Penobscot Bay Collaborative, a multi-year pilot demonstration
            funded by the National Environmental Satellite, Data and
            Information Service (NESDIS) of NOAA, is demonstrating the
            applicability of environmental satellite oceanographic data to
            develop predictive tools for understanding lobster abundance in
            Penobscot Bay in the Gulf of Maine. In a cooperative effort
            with the State of Maine, local universities and the private
            sector, the project is helping to help provide improved
            environmental data and information to resource managers to help
            them understand and respond to changing ecological dynamics in
            both near-shore waters and coastal environments. A new
            generation of resource management tools using satellite ocean
            remote sensing data is being developed and tested for their
            suitability in building sustainable marine resource
            utilization.
      --The Penobscot Bay Collaborative is also contributing to
            complementary growth in Maine's emerging information
            technologies economic sector. The NOAA-NESDIS effort is being
            joined by a new economic development initiative being promoted
            by Angus King, Governor of Maine. Known as ``Jobs From the
            Sea'', this State initiative is seeking to foster new and
            expanded opportunities related to Maine's tremendously
            productive marine waters. A statewide bond issue of $20 million
            has recently been approved to leverage the State's investment
            for jobs development in the technology sector.
      --Through this unique partnership between Federal, State and private
            organizations, the NESDIS-Maine Penobscot Bay Collaborative not
            only promotes Maine's emerging technology intensive sector
            (particularly in spatial information products and satellite
            application technologies), but also is envisioned to foster
            more sustainable management of Maine's natural resource-based
            industries. If successful, the goal is to enable resource
            managers, technology entrepreneurs, and private citizens will
            use environmental satellite data as routinely as they do now
            weather reports.
        The fiscal year 2000 budget is an investment for the 21st century,
    a step toward a more viable, economically sound, and ecologically
    sustainable future--where environmental stewardship, assessment and
    prediction serve as keystones to enhancing economic prosperity and
    quality of life, better protecting lives and property, and
    strengthening U.S. trade.
        Thank you again for the opportunity to appear. I would be pleased
    to respond to any questions members of the Subcommittee may have.
                                     ______

                           Letter From D. James Baker
                  United States Department of Commerce,
                 The Under Secretary for Oceans and Atmosphere,
                                          Washington, DC, May 13, 1999.
    The Honorable Judd Gregg,
    Chairman, Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, State, the Judiciary, and
            Related Agencies, Committee on Appropriations, United States
            Senate, Washington, D.C.
        Dear Mr. Chairman: I would like to thank you and the members of the
    Subcommittee for the opportunity to testify on the President's fiscal
    year 2000 Budget Request for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
    Administration (NOAA). I request that this letter and clarifying
    comments be included in the formal record of the hearing.
                               fisheries vessels
        NOAA continues to work with the Navy and other Federal agencies to
    determine if surplus vessels can meet our mission needs. We believe
    that there are two excess Navy torpedo test vessels that potentially
    could be converted and used to replace our coastal research vessels.
    Unfortunately, these vessels have no trawl capability, limited range
    and endurance, and inadequate seakeeping (unsafe) for operations in
    Bering Sea or North Atlantic waters.
        However, the fiscal year 1999 appropriations bill and our program
    provides for modernization of about half the NOAA fisheries fleet with
    acoustically quiet fisheries research vessels (FRVs) that will improve
    the science supporting fisheries management, and have the endurance
    needed for extended projects. This core fleet of purpose-built FRVs
    will conduct NOAA Fisheries' primary research and monitoring missions
    and will be used to calibrate supplemental vessels chartered from the
    University-National Oceanographic Laboratory System and private fleets.
    Because of their quieting, speed, and capability, we will be able to
    quickly survey more area. The 40-day endurance makes this vessel
    especially capable of operating in harsh environments like the Bering
    Sea and the North Atlantic.
        Improved data collection from acoustic quieting will result in less
    conservative stock assessments, providing greater opportunity to
    commercial fishing. In addition, the noise reduction technology
    developed for our fleet could be transferred to commercial industry,
    decreasing search time and increasing fishing time. It is vital that
    fisheries stay sustainable; in areas like New England, we need to
    rebuild fisheries that have been part of our culture for centuries.
        NOAA has one remaining T-AGOS ship, the ADVENTUROUS, which is in
    inactive storage. It is estimated that $10 million in upgrades may be
    required to enable the T-AGOS for light to medium duty trawling, marine
    mammal surveys and classical oceanography. However, the T-AGOS would
    have no mid-water trawling nor deep water slope trawling capability,
    have insufficient towing power (1,600hp vs. 3,000hp FRY), and cannot
    meet the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea noise and
    speed specifications for acoustic surveying (11 knots) requiring the
    ship to go slower during acoustic surveys making it an inadequate
    alternative to the FRVs. In addition, T-AGOS cannot accomplish multi-
    mission cruises requiring a return to dock to switch out gear at an
    additional cost of research days-at-sea, and have substantially reduced
    transit speed to survey area and between stations. Nevertheless, there
    may be missions for which this vessel would be appropriate, such as the
    marine mammal observations and long line surveys in the Pacific
    currently conducted by the TOWNSEND CROMWELL.
                                     awips
        Within the $550 million funding cap, the Advanced Weather
    Interactive Processing System (AWIPS) program will successfully deploy
    152 systems and complete the development and operational field test of
    software Build 4.2. These activities, planned for completion by the end
    of June, will enable removal of the legacy system known as Automation
    of Field Operations and Services. Software Build 4.2 code is complete
    and currently undergoing testing.
        Other demonstrated capabilities for streamlining National Weather
    Service (NWS) operations and significantly improving severe weather
    warning services are planned to be implemented in two years immediately
    following completion of Build 4.2. Our acquisition budget request for
    fiscal year 2000 ($22.6 million) is primarily for Build 5.0, which will
    allow the NWS to further enhance the system and reduce the NWS
    workforce by 69 additional positions. Build 5.0 was reviewed and
    endorsed by an Independent Review Team chaired by the Air Force, and
    established after consultation with the Congress. Continued investment
    to refresh AWIPS system software and hardware is planned throughout the
    system's service life to avoid obsolescence and the need for a total
    system replacement in the foreseeable future. Further enhancements to
    AWIPS are similar to the product improvements that are being
    implemented with NEXRAD. NOAA is migrating NEXRAD to an open systems
    architecture, rehosting the system software, and redesigning and
    retrofitting system hardware components. Once completed, the NEXRAD
    Product Improvement Program will provide dramatic increases in system
    capacity. This will allow NWS to utilize recent development in radar
    algorithms, providing significant improvements for weather warning and
    forecast services.
                            pacific salmon recovery
        Included in the fiscal year 2000 budget request is a new $100
    million Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery Fund to be available for
    distribution to the Governors of the four states of California, Oregon,
    Washington and Alaska on an equitable basis. This fund was developed to
    ensure that the states have the resources they need to develop their
    recovery plans to address species listed or proposed for listing.
    Coastal tribes would also be eligible for up to ten percent of the
    total appropriation for the fund, to be made available to appropriate
    coastal tribal fishery agencies or to individual coastal tribes in
    Oregon or California. For the states, these funds are to be matched
    dollar for dollar. This fund will also apply virtually every dollar to
    the task of Pacific coastal salmon recovery because administrative
    costs will be kept to a minimum, approximately 1 percent for the
    Federal government and 4 percent for the states.
        NOAA has been working successfully with State, tribal and local
    entities in numerous salmon conservation efforts. With the recent ESA
    listings of chinook salmon in urban areas of Washington, NOAA has been
    actively involved in assisting a coalition of local governments, treaty
    Indian tribes, businesses, and community groups around Puget Sound to
    develop and implement conservation plans to benefit salmon and minimize
    impacts on local economies. Recovery and conservation of these at-risk
    salmon populations and their habitat is possible only with local
    participation. State-level conservation plans in Washington, Oregon and
    California, such as Washington's ``Extinction Is Not An Option'' plan,
    have been cooperatively developed with NOAA's technical input and
    advice. NOAA also has successfully worked with local entities to
    develop ``Habitat Conservation Plans'' that protect and restore salmon
    habitat on private lands which are essential for salmon recovery in
    some areas. In California's central valley, NOAA has been instrumental
    in CalFED (state/federal cooperative) efforts on water projects to
    protect water quantity and quality needed for salmon. Also, NOAA has
    worked with local power and irrigation entities to provide passage and
    access to habitat above dams in many rivers and tributaries coastwide.
    One such example is Butte Creek in California where the salmon
    populations have increased from 500 spawners to 15,000 spawners due to
    removal of barriers and restoration of flows.
        The funding will be provided as single grants to each state, but
    will be based on a grant proposal that describes the state/local
    activities and projects to be undertaken with Federal and state funding
    to the states of California, Oregon, Washington, and Alaska. The
    Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery Initiative bolsters and deploys
    existing and new Federal capabilities to assist in the conservation of
    Pacific coastal salmon runs, some of which are at risk of extinction.
    This proposal responds to current and proposed listings of coastal
    salmon and steelhead runs under the Endangered Species Act by forming
    lasting partnerships with states, local and tribal governments, and the
    public for saving Pacific salmon and their important habitats.
        NOAA has developed broad guidelines on the types of projects that
    will be funded by these grants. Examples of the types of projects that
    this fund will support are: salmon habitat conservation; watershed
    assessments; science and research activities directly related to salmon
    conservation; monitoring and evaluation activities; public education;
    tribal capacity and infrastructure support; and other efforts directly
    related to salmon conservation.
        NOAA will establish specific reporting requirements and other
    measures to ensure full accountability of the available funds to meet
    the purposes of the fund.
        Active and constructive discussions are underway among the four
    governors, the affected tribes, and the Administration on the details
    of the funding distribution and the terms of eligibility. This
    initiative consists of three fundamental components and the
    establishment of a Pacific Salmon Conservation Fund. The fundamental
    components are: (1) improved coordination of Federal activities that
    may affect salmon and their habitats; (2) increased support to make
    available the extensive Federal scientific capabilities among the major
    departments for building a science foundation; and (3) increased
    coordinating capabilities for Federal, state, tribal, and local
    entities to ensure close partnership in recovery efforts. Improved
    coordination of Federal programs and activities are part of a lasting
    solution to the salmon problem.
        Our salmon initiative will also contain an important science
    component through which it will seek to marshal and make available to
    state, local, and tribal governments the extensive Federal scientific
    capabilities for building a science foundation upon which to construct
    a lasting recovery effort.
                              northeast fisheries
        In addition to NOAA's budget request to recover West Coast salmon,
    our budget request also includes funding which would provide up to
    $45.2 million in assistance to help rebuild overfished and
    overcapitalized northeast fisheries, including groundfish and scallops.
    The additional funding will be used to implement rebuilding plans
    developed for such fisheries as required by the Magnuson-Stevens
    Fishery Conservation and Management Act.
        This funding is targeted specifically for use in the Northeast
    because of the seriousness of the problem, the near collapse of the
    groundfish fishery, and the overfished status of the scallop fishery.
    The stringent management measures needed to recover these stocks and
    the Sustainable Fisheries Act's mandate to address the impacts of
    management actions on the fishing communities in the Northeast warrant
    a significant, targeted request.
        The funding for Northeast fisheries includes $5.18 million to
    expand the industry/government cooperative research surveys. For
    example, 5 to 6 additional surveys would be conducted by chartered
    fishing vessels in the scallop and clam fisheries to measure abundance
    and distribution. This funding will also expand stock assessments in
    the Northeast, including Atlantic herring and mackerel survey, and
    expand the current, limited inshore survey program to additional areas
    in cooperation with the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission and
    the States. Data for this program is necessary for effective management
    of these areas.
        NOAA will also use these funds to increase the number of external
    scientists involved in the review of stock assessments. This external
    review is needed to ensure that the data upon which management measures
    are based is accepted by the scientific and fishing communities.
    Additional funding would be used to expand NOAA's ability to analyze
    economic and social data and determine the impact of changing
    regulations and the decline in fishery stocks on fishing communities
    and the behavior of fishing fleets.
        Finally, this funding will be used to improve administrative and
    monitoring programs and public outreach and education of fisheries
    management activity. Funding will also be used to increase enforcement
    resources for new management programs. The efficacy of these management
    programs is directly tied to our ability to enforce, monitor, and
    administer them. If the efficacy of these programs is compromised, it
    will be necessary to continually add new management provisions to
    compensate for the ineffectiveness of the existing programs.
        In addition, the Fisheries Finance Program account includes $8.32
    million to provide a $40 million buy-out program to reduce the
    harvesting capacity in the scallop fishery. The budget proposes to fund
    $8 million in direct payments and provide a $0.32 million subsidy for
    $32 million in loans. The loans awarded as part of this program will be
    repaid by the industry.
                            lands legacy initiative
        As you know, NOAA's budget includes $105 million in new funding to
    fulfill the environmental mandates outlined in the Administration's
    Lands Legacy Initiative. This initiative will significantly strengthen
    our efforts to protect America's valuable ocean and coastal resources,
    and bolster the tools and resources necessary for state and local
    communities to achieve economically sustainable smart growth. The
    economic and environmental well-being derived from our Nation's ocean
    and coastal resources are being undermined by the very critical
    economic and aesthetic uses that make these diverse areas valuable to
    the Nation. This initiative was developed to meet the challenge of
    escalating losses and degradation of coastal wetlands, fisheries
    habitat, and coral reef ecosystems. It enhances the National Marine
    Sanctuary Program, the National Estuarine Research Reserve Program, and
    the state Coastal Zone Management Program. In addition, NOAA will work
    with the Corps of Engineers, other Federal and state agencies and
    coastal communities to help them determine ways to use dredging
    material to restore important coastal habitats.
        The fiscal year 2000 President's Request proposes to use the Land
    and Water Conservation Fund as a source of the $105 million. It is the
    Administration's position that NOAA has authority to use this fund. The
    Land and Water Conservation Fund is an unappropriated special fund
    within the Treasury Outer Continental Shelf revenues and are deposited
    into the Treasury throughout the year. The general purposes of the Land
    and Water Conservation Fund Act, found at Section 4601-4, provide that
    the Fund is to assist in preserving, developing, and assuring
    accessibility to all U.S. citizens to outdoor recreation resources by
    (1) providing funds for Federal assistance to the states for planning,
    acquisition, and development of land and water areas and facilities;
    and (2) providing funds for the Federal acquisition and development of
    certain lands and other areas. The NOAA programs to be funded by the
    Fund all serve purposes similar in nature to those currently funded out
    of the Fund. Both the Department of Interior and case law have broadly
    defined what constitutes outdoor recreation resources. In addition,
    Section 4601-5(c)(2) states that moneys from receipts under the Outer
    Continental Shelf Lands Act shall remain in the Fund until appropriated
    by the Congress to carry out the purposes of the Act.
        Therefore, through the appropriation process, NOAA's programs may
    be funded by the Land and Water Conservation Fund. If the Committee
    disagrees and determines that Land and Water Conservation Funds cannot
    support these activities, it is my hope that the Committee will still
    consider these priority issues and fund them at the level requested in
    the President's fiscal year 2000 budget.
        I am available to answer any additional questions you may have.
    Thank you for your time and continued support of NOAA.
                Sincerely,
                                                        D. James Baker.
                                     ______

                Questions Submitted by Senator Daniel K. Inouye
                             land legacy initiative
        Question. I was very pleased to learn of the Administration's Land
    Legacy proposal to restore, protect, conserve and manage our precious
    natural resources. I support the administration's efforts.
        With more than 83 percent of America's coral reefs in Hawaiian
    waters, I am particularly interested in working with the Administration
    on its coral reef initiatives. As you know, the Administration's Coral
    Reef Task Force met in Hawaii two weeks ago.
        What mechanisms are in place to coordinate the Commerce
    Department's efforts with those of the Interior Department?
        In your view, what do you feel is an appropriate role, if any, for
    the Interior Department to play in the protection of ocean resources?
        The Interior Department has apparently proposed creating marine
    reserves to protect important ocean ecosystems. What will marine
    reserves accomplish that cannot already be accomplished through the
    Commerce Department's Sanctuaries and Reserves program administered
    through the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration?
        Answer. The Commerce Department's National Oceanic and Atmospheric
    Administration (NOAA) coordinates efforts with the Interior Department
    (DOI) through a number of mechanisms. For coral reef activities, the
    Coral Reef Task Force (CRTF) is the primary mechanism for coordinating
    federal and state agencies efforts. The CRTF has initiated a number of
    efforts to coordinate federal activities on specific topics such as
    mapping and monitoring of the nation's coral reefs. The CRTF is also
    coordinating federal and state efforts through development of a
    comprehensive Action Plan to protect and sustainably use the nation's
    coral reefs. The Action Plan will be presented at the next CRTF meeting
    scheduled for October 1999.
        Several other state-federal Task Forces help coordinate interagency
    activities on other topics such as restoration of the South Florida
    Ecosystem (South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Task Force) and control
    and prevention of non-indigenous species (Aquatic Nuisance Species Task
    Force).
        The Interior Department has several important roles to play in
    protection of ocean resources, including management of ocean mineral
    resources and management of National Parks and National Wildlife
    Refuges with marine habitats. There are several National Parks and
    National Wildlife Refuges that include coral reef areas within their
    boundaries. Like National Marine Sanctuaries, these Parks and Refuges
    can play important roles in protecting U.S. coral reef resources and
    educating the public about the value of marine ecosystems.
        However, many of these protected areas still need to establish
    specific, coordinated programs to better monitor and manage coral
    reefs. Other than the CRTF, there currently is no formal mechanism to
    ensure coordination between NOAA and DOI in areas such as ocean and
    coastal monitoring, or the designation and management of marine
    protected areas. NOAA has much experience and knowledge about the
    design and management of marine protected areas and marine resources
    that is available to federal and state partners and could be better
    utilized in DOI efforts.
        The Coral Reef Task Force has begun to make some progress in this
    area. Through the CRTF, NOAA, DOI and other federal and state agencies
    are developing the blueprint to link existing coral reef protected
    areas into an integrated network to better monitor, assess and improve
    the condition of U.S. coral reefs.
        Marine reserves can be beneficial and important tools for
    protection and sustainable use of ocean and coastal resources. NOAA has
    been a leader in designing and evaluating the role of marine reserves
    in the U.S. waters. NOAA is currently evaluating the role of different
    types of marine reserves in several areas including the Florida Keys
    National Marine Sanctuary, and some fishery management plans.
        To be successful, marine reserves must comply with other laws
    governing the use of marine resources such as the Magnuson-Stevens
    Fishery Conservation and Management Act, the National Marine Sanctuary
    Act, and the Coastal Zone Management Act. In developing marine
    reserves, DOI should coordinate efforts with NOAA and make use of
    NOAA's available information, tools and expertise in this area. How
    best to identify and use marine reserves will be one of the most
    challenging and important areas for improving management of marine
    resources over the next five years. Greater coordination is both
    welcome and needed in this area.
        NOAA is currently working with the Interior Department on a joint
    marine reserve (Tortugas 2000) in areas within the Florida Keys
    National Marine Sanctuary and the Dry Tortugas National Park. Because
    marine reserves can provide special benefits when used within already
    established marine protected areas, we anticipate that NOAA and the
    Interior Department will continue to research and test the impacts of
    marine reserves within National Marine Sanctuaries as well as National
    Parks and/or National Wildlife Refuges with marine waters. NOAA's
    system of 12 National Marine Sanctuaries cannot begin to address the
    many needs and uses of special marine areas. Appropriate use of marine
    reserves by state and federal agencies can improve the condition of
    many marine habitats including coral reefs.
                            highly migratory species
        Question. I am concerned about the sustainability of tunas,
    billfishes, oceanic sharks, mahimahi, wahoo, and other Pacific pelagic
    species. I believe these commercially and recreationally valuable
    highly migratory species warrant increased and improved data collection
    efforts and stock assessments.
        What is the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration doing
    domestically to increase and improve fisheries data collection efforts
    and stock assessments, especially with regard to highly migratory
    species?
        Is funding a limiting factor? If so, what would be an appropriate
    level of funding for these activities?
        Answer. Current data collection efforts needed to support stock
    assessments for Atlantic highly migratory species (HMS) include the
    Large Pelagic Survey, which originally focused on bluefin tuna but has
    evolved into a broader survey. A review committee will soon begin to
    explore methods to better tune this survey to meet stock assessment
    requirements for these HMS species. Current efforts to improve
    collection of commercial fishery data for HMS stock assessments include
    refining data base protocols between different NMFS offices,
    establishing quality assurance procedures, and standardizing data
    reporting formats and requirements. Ongoing observer programs for
    pelagic lone line and shark driftnet fisheries also furnish data used
    in stock assessments for HMS. The Atlantic Coastal Cooperative
    Statistics Program is a state and Federal partnership to organize and
    share fisheries data sets. NMFS is an active participant in the
    development of this program that will support stock assessments for HMS
    fisheries by unifying Atlantic fisheries data sets.
        There is an increasing need for data collection for central and
    western Pacific Ocean, HMS especially in light of international efforts
    to develop a convention for the conservation and management of highly
    migratory species in the central and western Pacific. This process,
    known as MHLC (Multilateral High Level Conference) has resulted in a
    set of draft articles for the convention. If such convention is put in
    place the U.S. will need to expand its data collection efforts for
    highly migratory species that will be under the jurisdiction of the
    convention. In addition very little is known about the stocks being
    fished or effects of the U.S. fishery on those stocks. NOAA is
    investigating the possibility of reallocating existing resources so
    that the information needed to understand the effects of NOAA's
    management strategy and effort in the fishery.
        In general, collecting information about and conducting scientific
    research on fisheries is resource intensive. The recent activities
    noted above in both the Atlantic and Pacific are limited by available
    funding for all NMFS data collection and stock assessment activities.
    The fiscal year 2000 President's request includes base funding of
    approximately $2.5 million currently allocated for HMS.
                          pacific islands area office
        Question. I am concerned about the lack of base funding for the
    Pacific Islands Area Office (PIAO) of the National Marine Fisheries
    Service. Much time has passed since the NMFS established this office,
    but its mission, purpose, and responsibilities still remain largely
    undefined today. This situation is compounded by the fact that despite
    commitments by the Southwest Regional Director to attend regional
    meetings in March to discuss and finalize the strategic plan for the
    PIAO, he canceled his trip at the very last minute with little
    explanation. I am further concerned because I understand the current
    Regional Director will be reassigned to another region in the near
    future.
        What do you feel is the appropriate role for the PIAO and what are
    your funding and support plans for the PIAO?
        How do you see the PIAO fitting into the NOAA organization overall?
        Answer. The Pacific Islands Area Office (PIAO) was created to
    manage and administer NOAA's fisheries programs related to the Western
    Pacific Fishery Management Council and the U.S. island jurisdictions in
    the central and western Pacific Ocean. The Administrator of the PIAO
    represents the Regional Administrator, serves as the principal day-to-
    day contact for the Council and other constituent groups, and is the
    principal source of advice and guidance on matters relating to domestic
    and international fisheries, habitat conservation, and protected marine
    resources in the Pacific Islands area. We view the mission of the PIAO,
    acting on behalf of NOAA's National Marine Fisheries Service, as the
    interpretation and implementation of U.S. fisheries policies in the
    western and central Pacific Ocean. We are in the process of
    transferring all responsibilities related to the management of living
    marine resources in the western and central Pacific Ocean from Long
    Beach to the PIAO.
        Future PIAO activities might include: 10 percent observer coverage
    for the Hawaii longline fishery; studies to reduce or avoid the
    incidental take and mortality of sea turtles associated with the
    longline fishery; full utilization of sharks and socio-economic studies
    for baseline data needed for regulatory action; data collection and
    monitoring for fisheries for highly migratory species; support to State
    Department for the multilateral high-level conference (MHLC) process
    and the South Pacific Tuna Treaty; intern program; mapping and removing
    marine debris; and initiate work on coral reefs. Recently, the Deputy
    Assistant Administrator for Fisheries visited this office to learn more
    about its programmatic needs. The Southwest Region and NOAA fisheries
    headquarters are working on developing a ``base budget'' for PIAO. We
    will work through the administration's budget process to develop
    funding proposals for these proposals. The fiscal year 2000 President's
    request includes base funding of approximately $1.1 million for the
    PIAO.
                  cooperation with fishery management councils
        Question. The Magnuson Act was amended several years ago to allow
    Fisheries Management Council staff members access to confidential
    information.
        Why have the Honolulu National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) Lab
    and the Long Beach (NMFS) staff refused to give the Western Pacific
    Regional Fisheries Management Council (WPRFMC) staff confidential
    information to draw Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) maps?
        I am informed the Southwest Region's contractor for this project
    spent most of his time working on the Pacific Council's (EFH) amendment
    and provided little or no support to the WPRFMC. Is this information
    accurate?
        What kind of support has NMFS provided to the Councils in the
    development of Sustainable Fisheries Act amendments?
        Answer. First, we (NMFS Honolulu Laboratory and NMFS SWR Long
    Beach), did indeed make a mistake in interpreting confidentiality
    statutes concerning access to confidential fisheries data by the
    Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council's (WPRFMC)
    Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) private contractor in the Spring of 1998.
    We regret our error and our Honolulu Laboratory has subsequently worked
    with the WPRFMC, the NMFS Pacific Islands Area Office, and the NOAA
    Southwest Region General Counsel to make on-going arrangements for
    access to confidential data to the WPRFMC staff and its contractors.
        The Honolulu Laboratory did at that time (Spring and Summer of
    1998) provide a broad spectrum of non-confidential data to the
    contractor, provided for on-site use of confidential data by the
    contractor (an offer which was not taken up), and relied on the
    Southwest Region, Long Beach's EFH contractor to provide other non-
    confidential coverages to the WPRFMC's contractor. We also offered to
    provide confidential data to Council staff for their own analysis.
        Finally, we would note that the EFH portions of the WPRFMC's
    Sustainable Fisheries Act (SFA) amendments were approved by NMFS.
        Support was provided to the WPRFMC. According to the contractor's
    billing statement, about two-thirds of the contractor's (Tierra Data
    Systems) time was spent working for the Pacific Council and one-third
    of their time was spent working for the WPRFMC. However, the Southwest
    Region also sent additional funds to the WPRFMC to assist in collecting
    EFH information, a portion of which was spent on the hiring of a
    graphical information system (GIS) consultant. Because of this
    additional GIS assistance, NMFS redirected more of the contractor's
    time to the Pacific Council needs at that time. Overall, more money,
    $36.0 thousand, was spent to support the WPRFMC compared to the Pacific
    Council, $27.0 thousand.
        NMFS Honolulu Laboratory staff provided Western Pacific Regional
    Fishery Management Council (WPRFMC) staff with detailed scientific
    documentation as input into the WPRFMC's proposed over-fishing
    definitions for the Lobster, Bottomfish and Seamount Groundfish, and
    Pelagic FMPs. This material was based on the extensive research and
    analysis on stock assessments conducted by the Honolulu Laboratory over
    the history of these fisheries, most of which was the basis for the
    original FMPs for these fisheries and their subsequent amendments.
    Honolulu Laboratory staff also engaged in a series of meetings,
    consultations, and subsequent discussions with WPRFMC staff as the
    WPRFMC staff drafted their over-fishing amendments.
        Honolulu Laboratory staff were also involved in consultations with
    the WPRFMC staff and contractors on the Essential Fish Habitat (EFH),
    By-Catch, and Fishing Communities portions of the SFA amendments. The
    Lab also provided some data and documentation directly to the WPRFMC on
    these portions of the SFA amendments, and provided additional
    information to the NMFS SWR's EFH contractor.
        Honolulu Laboratory staff also serve as the chairpersons of the
    WPRFMC's plan teams for these three FMPs and for input into the SFA
    amendments, and two Honolulu Laboratory staff also serve on the
    WPRFMC's Scientific and Statistical Committee which reviewed the
    WPRFMC's proposed SFA amendments.
        We believe we provided a broad range of support to the WPRFMC on
    the SFA over-fishing amendments (although these amendments were
    subsequently disapproved by the agency). We also attempted to provide
    advice to the extent possible on the other portions of the SFA
    amendments.
                             recreational fisheries
        Question. Having recently reviewed the NMFS 1997 Recreational
    Fishery Resources Conservation Plan Accomplishment Report and the 1996-
    2001 NMFS-Specific Plan to Meet the Goals and Objectives of the
    Recreational Fishery Resources Conservation Plan, I note very little
    mention of efforts being carried out under the Recreational Fishery
    Resources Conservation Plan in Hawaii and the other U.S. territories
    and possessions in the Western Pacific.
        What is the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration doing
    to identify, acquire, quality control, and analyze data on recreational
    fisheries throughout the Pacific Basin?
        Answer. NOAA's National Marine Fisheries Service has been an active
    participant in planning and coordination of fisheries statistics for
    the Pacific basin through its membership and leadership on the Western
    Pacific Fisheries Information Network (WestPacFIN), a partnership of
    state, federal, island governments and the fishing industry and
    university community in Hawaii and the U.S. trust territories and
    possessions.
        In the area of recreational fisheries, the NMFS Marine Recreational
    Fisheries Statistics Survey, a comprehensive data collection and
    analysis program on recreational and subsistence fishing, was conducted
    in this area in 1979-1981. This region was dropped from the program in
    1982 because of shifting funding priorities. However, in 1998, NMFS
    staff and the Executive Director and staff of the Western Pacific
    Fisheries Management Council began planning efforts to re-initiate
    sampling of marine recreational fishing throughout the Pacific Basin.
    The NMFS Office of Science and Technology is providing seed money this
    year (fiscal year 1999) to the Pacific Basin to prototype
    methodological approaches and implement planning efforts begun in 1998.
    This initial planning will be used to establish what types and amounts
    of sampling are needed. The $1 million resource requirement has been
    outlined in a Report to Congress submitted by NOAA in January 1999
    titled ``Proposed Implementation of a Fishing Vessel Registration and
    Fisheries Information System.'' The report was prepared in response to
    a Congressional request for a nationwide plan for a comprehensive,
    integrated fisheries statistics system that would meet the need of
    federal and state resource managers.
                           ocean floor observatories
        Question. At the National Oceans Conference and in the fiscal year
    2000 budget request, NOAA is requesting an increase of $3.1 million to
    expand shallow water observatories, develop new deep-sea observatories,
    and enhance vehicles through the use of advanced technologies to
    explore and understand the undersea environment.
        As you know, the Hawaii Undersea Research Laboratory (HURL), funded
    through the National Undersea Research Program (NURP), has an ocean
    floor laboratory to gather data from Loihi, an underwater volcano off
    the Island of Hawaii. I am concerned about recent press reports that,
    due to budget cuts in the NURP program, HURL for the first time in 12
    years, will not have sufficient funds for dives to Loihi. Assuming that
    Congress funds the President's request, will HURL be eligible for funds
    from this account?
        Answer. The Hawaii Undersea Research Laboratory (HURL) is not
    planning to carry out its normal dives on Loihi this year due, in part,
    to a shift in focus of their research program. To make their research
    more relevant to pressing management needs of NOAA, the research center
    has begun a program in cooperation with the Honolulu Laboratory of the
    National Marine Fisheries Service to carry out research on fisheries
    and corals important to Hawaii. Last summer, for the first time, the
    specialized skills and technologies employed by HURL to study Loihi,
    were applied to study corals and the elusive deep water fisheries.
    These studies are continuing this year, and coupled with necessary
    maintenance on the HURL facilities, precluded Loihi dives this year.
        Regarding the request for funding of sea floor observatories from
    the National Oceans Conference, the HURL sea floor observatory will not
    be directly funded by this item, although it will benefit from
    technologies developed to enhance and support sea floor observatories
    in general. The requirements of HUGO will be taken into account as
    development is planned for the four observatories to be included in
    this package.
                     international pacific research center
        Question. The International Pacific Research Center (IPRC) was
    established within the School of Ocean and Earth Science Technology at
    the University of Hawaii at Manoa in October of 1997 within the
    framework of the U.S.-Japan Common Agenda for Cooperation in Global
    Perspective. Its mission is to provide an international, state-of-art
    research environment to improve understanding of the nature and
    predictability of climate variability and regional aspects to global
    environmental change in the Asia-Pacific area.
        What level of support can we expect from NOAA for the IPRC?
        Answer. NOAA has provided approximately $68,000 in support of the
    IPRC for fiscal year 1999. It supported two conferences that the IPRC
    held in Honolulu: (1) Equatorial Theoretical Panel Meeting, March 22-
    March 24, 1999; and (2) U.S.-Japan Workshop on Indo-Pacific Climate
    Observations, April 12-April 14, 1999.
        The Equatorial Theoretical Panel Meeting held at the East-West
    Center in Honolulu from March 22-24, 1999 was sponsored by NOAA through
    the Joint Institute for Marine and Atmospheric Research (JIMAR) at the
    University of Hawaii, one of NOAA/OAR's 11 University partnerships.
    NOAA contributed approximately $40,000 to support this event.
        NOAA's contribution to the IPRC's Indo-Pacific Climate Observations
    workshop at the East-West Center in Honolulu (April 12-14) is through
    the Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory (PMEL), one of OAR's 12
    Environmental Research Laboratories. NOAA's Office of Global Programs
    (OGP) transferred approximately $28,000 in grant funds to PMEL to
    specifically support this activity.
        The IPRC has indicated interest in expanding its activities with
    NOAA, which would most likely be funded through the OGP competitive
    grants process.
                         carbon monoxide injected tuna
        Question. During the Department of Commerce budget hearing on March
    11, 1999 at which Commerce Secretary Daley testified, I raised my
    concerns about the importation of tuna which has been injected with
    carbon monoxide. Secretary Daley indicated he would ``ask NOAA to look
    at this issue and see what we can do * * *.''
        What action has NOAA taken to look into this matter? Do you have
    any recommendations on how to best address this problem?
        Answer. During the past few years, there has been an apparent
    increase in the practice of exposing tuna products such as steaks or
    sashimi cuts to carbon monoxide (CO) gas treatment to fix or enhance
    the natural color of the product. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration
    has historically considered the product which has been subjected to
    such a process to be adulterated under the provisions of Sec. 402(b) of
    the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act in that damage or inferiority
    has been concealed, and/or that a substance has been added to make it
    appear better or of greater value than it is.
        In 1997, NOAA became aware of a process which employed what the
    company termed ``tasteless smoke'' using wood smoke origin gas. The
    purpose of its application was to retard the development of the brown
    color that rapidly occurs in tuna flesh after it has been cut. Although
    CO was a component of the ``tasteless smoke'' gas, it was at a
    concentration found in normal wood smoke. Unlike other processes that
    result in the color of the product being enhanced or brightened and
    fixed through the use of higher concentrations of CO, this process did
    not enhance the natural color and the color of the flesh degraded over
    time. The importer provided data to FDA through correspondence and
    meetings to support the acceptability of its process.
        FDA has chosen not to take regulatory action against a product
    which has received the ``tasteless smoke'' process. NOAA has
    implemented policy within its voluntary Seafood Inspection Program to
    only inspect and certify products which have originated from firms that
    NOAA has verified employ acceptable process controls.

                              subcommittee recess

        Senator Gregg. The subcommittee will stand in recess.
        [Whereupon, at 10:35 a.m., Friday, March 19, the
    subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene subject to the call of
    the Chair.]

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

                                  ----------

                             MONDAY, MARCH 22, 1999

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

                         SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

    STATEMENT OF AIDA ALVAREZ, ADMINISTRATOR
    ACCOMPANIED BY:
            GREG WALTER, DEPUTY CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
            RICHARD HAYES, ASSOCIATE DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR FOR GOVERNMENT
                CONTRACTING AND MINORITY ENTERPRISE DEVELOPMENT

                                opening remarks

        Senator Gregg. I think it is just going to be you and I,
    Ms. Administrator.
        Ms. Alvarez. We are in good company.
        Senator Gregg. I will let you make any statement you want
    to make, and then I have some questions. Obviously, you have
    your statement, so, please.
        Ms. Alvarez. All right. I am not going to read the whole
    thing. I am just highlighting it.
        Mr. Chairman, thank you for inviting me here today, and you
    do have my written testimony. I would like to talk briefly
    about the SBA budget for the year 2000 which is a request of
    $994.5 million and, which I believe, is a sound blueprint for
    the SBA in the 21st Century to help small businesses succeed.
        This is a modest budget. It actually requests nearly level
    funding for the current programs. Because, while the
    appropriation required to maintain the programs at current
    levels is greater this year, it is largely because we have a
    lack of carry-over funding that was available in previous
    years; carry-overs that were due primarily to the fluctuations
    in the demand for disaster and 7(a) loans.
        But with what is essentially level funding, we will be able
    to offer unprecedented levels of credit and capital, $10.5
    billion for 7(a), up from $10 billion; $3.5 billion for 504;
    and $2.4 billion for the SBIC program, which is an increase of
    $1 billion.
        We also are hoping to carry out a number of statutorily
    mandated programs, including $9 million to support the expanded
    Women's Business Center Network and $4 million for the HUBZone
    Program, which we are kicking off today. I believe that you
    have a package that goes into some detail about the HUBZone
    Program. We actually have a very sophisticated way of getting
    folks on-line, typing in their address, and making an instant
    determination as to whether they qualify or not. There are also
    going to be electronic applications.
        The budget contains a modest request to carry out the New
    Markets Initiative. The New Markets Initiative is essentially
    focused on filling the critical gap for small businesses. Last
    year, our average loan size was $229,000. That loan size is
    growing. We believe those businesses need those loans but those
    are not small-sized loans. The critical gap is providing more
    smaller-sized loans for the newer businesses.
        In addition, recognizing that they also need equity
    investments, not simply debt, and that investment has to be
    accompanied by technical assistance.
        We believe this is a sound, fiscally prudent budget. It
    continues the trend toward lower subsidy rates. Since the
    beginning of the Clinton Administration we have 18 percent
    fewer employees. This fiscal year 2000 budget would reduce our
    operating budget by an additional $10 million.
        With significantly fewer employees, we are doing more than
    ever before. We are relying heavily on credit decisions by our
    lending partners for about 75 percent of our loan portfolio. In
    fact, what we have seen is fewer employees and more out-
    sourcing of decision making to our private sector partners. The
    SBA portfolio has actually grown to almost 500,000 loans worth
    about $40 billion, which is nearly double what it was 6 years
    ago, when it was about 260,000 loans worth just over $20
    billion.
        This budget contains a request for $8 million to continue
    the systems modernization, which we began in fiscal year 1998.
    We are hoping to continue to better identify and manage
    portfolio risk. We want to integrate the SBA system with those
    of our private sector lenders. We are looking for staff
    training that goes along with the modernized systems.
        I am proud to say that SBA was the first credit agency in
    the Federal Government to receive an unqualified opinion from
    an independent auditor and that it is an opinion that we have
    received 2 years in a row. In the meantime we are trying to
    make some of the necessary changes. The $8 million will help us
    with the modernization aspects. As the Government goes forward,
    and other agencies are facing the same challenge, there are
    revised and expanded financial accounting requirements and we
    are working on that with our latest audit.
        As you are aware, we have requested $761.5 million in
    regular appropriations; $233 million in emergency contingent
    funds for disaster assistance. This budget also includes $1.4
    million for the Office of Advocacy and $11 million for the
    Office of the Inspector General.

                               prepared statement

        I think that, as I said, this is a fiscally sound blueprint
    for the future, and I look forward to working with you and the
    committee to meet the needs of America's small businesses. I
    welcome any questions.
        [The statement follows:]
                       Prepared Statement of Aida Alvarez
        Mr. Chairman, Senator Hollings, and Members of the subcommittee,
    thank you for inviting me here today.
        I am very proud to present the U.S. Small Business Administration
    (SBA) fiscal year 2000 budget request of $994.5 million. It is a budget
    that provides a blueprint for the SBA and how we will prepare small
    businesses to succeed into the 21st Century. With this budget, we will
    provide record levels of assistance for small businesses; provide
    targeted assistance to smaller, newer firms; and we will do it with
    fewer staff and lower costs.
     sba's fiscal year 2000 budget: preparing small businesses to succeed
                             into the 21st century
        The budget offers good news for America's small businesses. In
    fiscal year 1999, SBA provided record levels of financial support to
    America's small businesses. The fiscal year 2000 budget again would
    offer small businesses unprecedented levels of credit and capital:
    $10.5 billion for the 7(a) general business loan guarantee program, up
    from $10 billion in fiscal year 1999; $3.5 billion in SBA-backed loans
    under the Section 504 Certified Development Company Program; and $2.4
    billion--compared to $1.4 billion in fiscal year 1999--in equity
    assistance and debenture leverage under the Small Business Investment
    Company program.
                      targeting smaller, newer businesses
        While our record shows we have done a good job helping small
    businesses succeed faster and easier, our job is far from done. Because
    of bank consolidation, centralized processing, credit scoring and other
    changes in the marketplace, smaller loans are harder to get.
        The average SBA guaranteed loan is around $229,000 and growing. But
    whether you are black or white, male or female, urban or rural, if your
    business is newer, if your financing needs are smaller, if you lack
    sufficient equity, you are more likely to be turned down. We must
    ensure that our smaller, newer firms can get the smaller loans they
    need. Last fall, we improved and expanded two of our loan programs to
    meet the needs of smaller, newer businesses. We now average a 36-hour
    turnaround time for SBA LowDoc loans and we have expanded SBAExpress
    from 17 to in excess of 300 lenders. We have raised the loan limit to
    $150,000 for both programs.
        This year's budget would further encourage loans under $150,000. It
    would cut the guarantee fee from three to two percent for loans between
    $100,000 and $150,000, saving small businesses up to $1,000 on each
    loan. It reduces the servicing fee for lenders on these loans from 50
    basis points to 30, providing a greater incentive for lenders to make
    the loans. For non-SBAExpress loans, the proposal also would increase
    the maximum guarantee percentage for loans between $100,000 and
    $150,000 from 75 to 80 percent. The guarantee percentage for Export
    Working Capital loans will remain 90 percent.
        The budget increases support for our smallest businesses. Four
    million dollars of new budget authority, combined with an expected
    carryover from fiscal year 1999, would provide $60 million in direct
    loans and $16 million in loan guarantees under the Microloan program.
    Thirty-two million dollars for technical assistance would nearly double
    last year's funding and would allow us to expand the number of
    microloan intermediaries to 200.
                             new markets initiative
        Since President Clinton took office, the economy has created nearly
    18 million new jobs. Yet even during one of the greatest periods of
    sustained growth in American history, there remain areas of untapped
    potential.
        In his fiscal year 2000 budget, the President announced a New
    Markets Initiative, a sweeping new public/private partnership designed
    to boost business opportunities in distressed rural and urban areas.
    Key elements of the initiative include: tax credits; loan guarantee
    incentives; targeted investments by private venture capital companies;
    technical assistance; and mentoring programs. All of these are designed
    to meet the unmet needs of small businesses.
        I would like to emphasize why this initiative is so important to
    small businesses. Just last week, Federal Reserve Chairman Alan
    Greenspan, in a speech to the Federal Reserve System Research
    Conference on Business Access to Capital and Credit, stated: ``I would
    emphasize that credit alone is not the answer. Businesses must have
    equity capital before they are considered viable candidates for debt
    financing. Equity acts as a buffer against the vagaries of the
    marketplace and is a sign of the creditworthiness of a business
    enterprise. The more opaque the business operations, or the newer the
    firm, the greater the importance of the equity base.''
        A recent study by SBA's Office of Advocacy estimates that each year
    50,000 small firms need start-up equity financing. In 1996, SBIC's and
    private venture firms together invested in only about 4,000 firms. As
    you well know, the problem is particularly acute in economically
    distressed areas--from rural Main Streets to our inner cities--where
    perceived risks overshadow the real opportunities that exist there.
        To address this problem, SBA's fiscal year 2000 budget includes a
    number of proposals, developed in consultation with venture capital
    experts, to make it more attractive for Small Business Investment
    Companies (SBIC's) and Specialized SBIC's to invest in distressed rural
    and urban areas.
        The Low- and Moderate-Income (LMI) Investment initiative
    complements our existing SBIC Program by offering a special LMI
    debenture. The new tool allows SBIC's to defer interest payments on LMI
    debentures for five years, giving SBIC's more time to nurture their
    investments in small businesses before they have to start making
    payments on the money they used to finance them.
        To qualify, investments must be in small businesses that are
    located in LMI areas, or that hire at least 35 percent of their
    workforce from residents of LMI areas. LMI areas will include HUBZones,
    Empowerment Zones, Enterprise Communities and counties with persistent
    poverty.
        While we want to expand equity investments in LMI areas, we also
    want to provide the specialized technical assistance that must go with
    it. To do this, the SBA is proposing the creation of between 10 and 20
    New Market Venture Capital Companies (NMVC's), which will target
    investments in the range of $50,000-$300,000.
        Modeled on the existing SBIC program, which typically supports
    investments between $300,000 and $5 million, NMVC's will be a new and
    separate venture capital network. The program will offer a combination
    of equity financing through debentures and unique, specialized equity
    technical assistance in LMI areas.
        For the NMVC initiative, we are requesting $15 million in budget
    authority for a program level of $100 million. Another $30 million is
    requested for technical assistance grants that would be matched by the
    NMVC's over a five-year period.
        SBA has organized a series of workshops to recruit SBIC investors
    and management teams with investment experience in LMI areas. Beginning
    in late March, workshops are scheduled for Chicago, Kansas City, New
    York, Atlanta, Dallas, San Francisco and Los Angeles.
        In further support of the New Markets Initiative, SBA will work
    with the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) on the
    America's Private Investment program. That program would leverage
    government guarantees of debt against private investment to allow
    investments in larger firms with the opportunity to grow. The funds for
    this program are contained in HUD's budget request.
                       modernization and lender oversight
        We know to be effective we must continue to modernize. SBA is
    delegating greater authority to its lending partners than ever before.
    Today, with 19 percent fewer employees than in 1992, we rely on the
    credit decisions of our lending partners for about 75 percent of our
    loan portfolio. The total SBA portfolio has grown to almost 500,000
    loans worth around $40 billion, nearly double that of as little as six
    years ago, when it consisted of around 260,000 loans worth just over
    $20 billion.
        The budget includes $8 million to continue the systems
    modernization efforts SBA began in fiscal year 1998. When completed, we
    expect the system will enable us to better identify and manage
    portfolio risk. It also will allow us to integrate SBA's system with
    those of private sector lenders. Included is critical funding to carry
    out the staff training that goes along with the modernized systems.
        To protect your investment in small business and to protect the
    public trust, we also have:
        Established a Risk Management Committee to assess loan risks and
    design strategies for assuring program soundness. Implemented a
    comprehensive program for reviewing our Preferred Lenders Program
    (PLP's). Designed and implemented a new Small Business Lending Company
    (SBLC) oversight program to assure the safety and soundness of the 14
    non-depository, non-regulated lenders that participate in the SBA's
    7(a) loan program. Designed a new database to evaluate the portfolios
    of each Certified Development Company. Implemented regulations to
    govern the securitization, or sale, of the unguaranteed portions of
    7(a) loans. The final rule was published in the Federal Register in
    January.
        I am proud to say that the SBA was the first credit agency in the
    federal government to receive an unqualified opinion from an
    independent auditor, the highest rating attainable. In fact, the SBA
    has received an unqualified opinion for two years in a row. We are
    confident that this year's audit will find the SBA to be in substantial
    compliance with appropriate accounting standards.
        The $8 million requested for systems modernization in fiscal year
    2000 will also enable us to continue our efforts to meet the federal
    government's revised and expanded financial accounting requirements.
    Today, all federal credit agencies are striving to meet the challenges
    of the new requirements, which will result in greater accountability
    throughout the government.
           business development, contracting and technical assistance
        The fiscal year 2000 budget is strong on business development and
    technical assistance. It proposes $62 million for the Small Business
    Development Centers (SBDC's) which, combined with our proposal to
    permit SBDC's to charge nominal fees for services, would support
    current levels. It calls for $9 million to support an expanded Women's
    Business Center network. There is $10 million for 20 new One Stop
    Capital Shops in the recently announced Round II Empowerment Zones. It
    also includes $5 million for Section 7(j) technical assistance, $1
    million for Native American outreach, and $615,000 for veterans'
    outreach.
        The budget contains $6.5 million for increased federal contracting
    initiatives to help meet the increased government-wide small business
    goal of 23 percent (previously 20 percent). Included is $4 million for
    the HUBZone Empowerment Contracting (HUBZone) program, which will allow
    us to build on the extensive work we have done already in preparation
    for the program's rollout, which we are kicking off today. In its first
    year alone, the HUBZone program is expected to create as many as 25,000
    new jobs in America's inner cities and rural areas. By the year 2003,
    around $6 billion worth of Federal contracts should be available to
    HUBZone firms each year. There also is $500,000 for PRO-Net and $2
    million for promoting small business use of electronic commerce.
                              other key provisions
        Included in the budget request of $994.5 million is $761.5 million
    in regular appropriations and $233 million as contingent/emergency
    appropriations for disaster assistance. This compares to the fiscal
    year 1999 appropriated level of $820 million, which included a $101
    million contingent/emergency appropriation for disasters. The budget
    also includes $1.4 million for the Office of Advocacy and $11 million
    for the Office of the Inspector General.
                                   conclusion
        SBA's fiscal year 2000 budget proposal is a fiscally sound
    blueprint for how SBA will help America's small business prepare for
    the 21st Century. I am particularly excited about the New Markets
    Initiative, which will couple much needed equity investments with
    easier to access, less expensive loan dollars. Mr. Chairman, I look
    forward to working with you to meet the needs of America's small
    business community, to stimulate small business growth and expand
    opportunities. Thank you again for inviting me to appear today. I will
    be happy to answer any questions you have.

                                  Audit issue

        Senator Gregg. Thank you.
        Well, you mentioned several areas I want to find out a
    little bit about, starting with the audit issue. The audit for
    1998 has not been completed. Why is that?
        Ms. Alvarez. Greg Walter can certainly speak in detail to
    that, but we have a whole series of new questions that we need
    to answer and it is really tied to the modernization effort.
        Senator Gregg. Well, what? Was it not supposed to be done
    by March 1?
        Mr. Walter. I am Greg Walter, the Deputy CFO. The
    Government Management Reform Act a few years ago required audit
    statements be produced by March 1. This year, the Office of
    Management and Budget [OMB], who defines the financial
    statements for the agencies that are to be audited, doubled the
    number of statements that need to be included in the audit
    process.
        SBA, like most of the other credit agencies has had a very
    difficult time trying to produce those additional statements.
    The reason for the delay is that we have not been able to
    produce the statements yet, that must now include budgetary
    resources, in addition to traditional statements that we have
    been producing.
        The remainder of the audit has been completed by the
    auditors. They have been working with us hand-in-glove for
    about 6 months and they are now just waiting for us to deliver
    the final statements to them so that they could complete their
    audit cycle.
        Senator Gregg. Well, when do you expect them to complete
    the audit?
        Mr. Walter. We are probably still a couple of months away
    from completing the audit, sir.
        Senator Gregg. That is not going to do us too much good to
    get an audit half-way through the year, is it?
        Ms. Alvarez. Well, I think unfortunately, or fortunately,
    we are trying to modernize and it is not business as usual for
    us in terms of this audit. I think OMB understands that. We
    have no reason to believe that the agency is any less sound
    from a safety and soundness standpoint, and we think that when
    all is said and done, we will get the sort of report that we
    have gotten in the past couple of years from the independent
    auditor, which is a good report. But in the meantime we are
    trying to implement these changes.
        Senator Gregg. I noticed in reading the report from 1997
    that they expressed a number of concerns, one of which was that
    the agency lacks a comprehensive plan of preparing financial
    statements, including identification of all requirements; funds
    balances with the Treasury reconciliation adjustments were not
    completed; and the subsidy rates that are re-estimated were not
    completed until January 1998. Incorrect data were used in
    several re-estimate cash flows, spread sheets, including
    incorrect discount rates and incorrect cell references and
    incorrect formulas occurred in several re-estimate spread
    sheets.
        It seems to me that even though it was an unqualified
    statement, there were a lot of fairly significant complaints in
    this audit about fiscal structure and where the money was going
    in accounting.
        Do you have any thoughts on that?
        Mr. Walter. Sir, most of those findings dealt with the re-
    estimate process under credit reform and last year, it is true,
    we did not have written procedures and controls in place for
    how we conducted the re-estimate process. This year, working
    with the auditors, we have put those in place. There were some
    things, from last year, that have been corrected throughout
    this year. So, we do now have greater----
        Senator Gregg. So, when we see the audit this year we are
    not going to see those types of reservations on this statement?
        Mr. Walter. You will not see that the procedures are not in
    place this year, that is correct.
        Senator Gregg. Can you get us what you have had audited so
    far? Is there a preliminary?
        Mr. Walter. The auditors have not provided us anything in
    writing on this. We can give you a status report on what parts
    of the audit they have completed from our perspective, but they
    have not provided anything to us that we would be able to turn
    over to you as far as the results of their audit. They have
    reserved that to the end.
        Senator Gregg. OK.
        Well, here is my concern. I think that an agency like
    yours, which is essentially a private lending agency--that is
    the way I look at it--that the audit is absolutely critical and
    that we need that information. We need to get it on a timely
    basis because for all we know you could have contingent
    liabilities in immense proportions that are coming due as a
    result of your issuing so much debt.
        There could be a liability here that we do not know about
    that is coming at us. And, so, how do we get this audit
    structure so we can get the results in a timely way?
        Mr. Walter. Sir, a major piece of it is, as the
    Administrator mentioned, that our systems, themselves, lack
    some of the accounting capabilities that have been required of
    us recently by the JFMIP and the new FASAB. Those folks require
    that we embed budgetary accounting into the agency's financial
    structure and our systems. However, these systems are so old
    and outdated that they do not contain that information. So,
    this year, we have to manually go back and create the general
    ledgers from 1992 forward to include those entries.
        Our systems modernization plan, which is a multi-year plan,
    will include replacement of the financial systems to have those
    types of entries embedded in the system. We are still a couple
    of years away from completing that system.
        Senator Gregg. Now, we have given you about $8 million over
    the last 2 years for that modernization effort, I think.
        Mr. Walter. Eight in the last 2 years, each, that is
    correct.
        Senator Gregg. So, what are we getting for that if you are
    not up to speed yet?
        Mr. Walter. The first part of the effort is to comply with
    the Clinger-Cohen Act which requires us to go through eight
    planning steps to make sure that we have completed requirements
    analysis, benchmarking, and all the data analysis before we
    actually start acquiring or developing systems. We will have
    completed all these planning steps by May of 1999. And at that
    point in time, we will have an actual acquisition plan so that
    starting in the fall of this year we will be able to acquire
    and develop the systems. Most of these efforts will really take
    place mostly in fiscal year 2000.
        Senator Gregg. Well, I would like to get a time-line
    listing the areas where you are now being asked to produce
    documentation that you do not have the structure for, and the
    time-line as to when you are going to have in place systems
    that will allow you to produce that information in a timely
    way.
        Mr. Walter. OK.
        Senator Gregg. With costs.

                              additional Employees

        Now, on the employee side, I notice you have added about
    120 employees. You say you are in a freeze mode. Where did
    these 120 employees come from?
        Ms. Alvarez. We have some new requirements which we are
    trying to meet, like the HUBZone Program, and the Small
    Disadvantaged Business certification. And in addition, we have
    increased the Women's Business Centers.
        We have actually had a hiring freeze for 5 of the past 6
    years. And the hiring has been done on a mission-related basis
    where we need to hire people to meet legislative requirements
    or who are essential to carry out our function. Otherwise,
    there has been no material increase.
        Senator Gregg. Well, of the 120 people, how many of them
    are assigned to you from other agencies that you get
    reimbursements relative to those people, if any?
        Ms. Alvarez. That is the Small Disadvantaged Business [SDB]
    piece. Otherwise, we have hiring that has occurred for the Low/
    Doc Centers, for the One-Stop Capital Shops. For fiscal year
    2000 we are proposing to do some increased hiring in the
    investment division. As we increase our Small Business
    Investment Company Program, we want to make sure that we have
    the staff to execute that.
        Senator Gregg. I guess my question is, if you have a hiring
    freeze, how do you hire 120 people?
        Ms. Alvarez. Well----
        Senator Gregg. If you do not really have a hiring freeze,
    you basically have a permanency hiring freeze.
        Ms. Alvarez. The hiring freeze going forward, this year is
    partly due to the fact that we have to contend with a budget
    that goes to June 15 and after that we need to see where we
    are.
        Senator Gregg. You have enough money to get you through to
    the end of the year?
        Ms. Alvarez. We have been very conservative, yes, sir.
    Anticipating that we might not have enough money to get through
    the year so we have been very careful about that.
        There is a discussion right now going on about how to fund
    the emergency funding for the supplemental for Central America
    and there is talk about taking some of that funding out of our
    budget, at least $5 million. I am really reviewing all of our
    processes for budgets because right now we have 130 different
    locations where decisions are made about hiring people, and I
    do not think that is the way to run a railroad. And, so, we are
    revisiting that because unless I put a stop to it right now,
    130 different offices might decide that they were all going to
    hire people which they feel they need but which, in the scheme
    of things, we cannot afford. That is the reason we have a
    hiring freeze.
        We have a process now where we have centralized the
    decision making, and people are presenting their proposals and
    justifying on a priority basis who needs to be hired to fulfill
    the mission.
        Senator Gregg. So, of these 120 new employees, these are
    almost all on your payroll? You are not getting reimbursements
    on many of these from any other agency?
        Ms. Alvarez. That is right, with the exception of SDB
    certification.
        Senator Gregg. And you mentioned LowDoc, is that what it is
    called?
        Ms. Alvarez. Right.

                               Microloan program

        Senator Gregg. And you have the microloan program?
        Ms. Alvarez. Yes. We are looking to expand that microloan
    program.
        Senator Gregg. You have this New Markets Venture Capital
    program?
        Ms. Alvarez. That is right. We are proposing a new program
    called the New Markets Venture Capital program which we believe
    will meet some of the equity investing needs of smaller-sized
    businesses, smaller amounts of equity investments accompanied
    by technical assistance.
        Senator Gregg. Is there not significant overlap in some of
    these programs? I mean, we seem to be developing a plethora of
    little programs here.
        Ms. Alvarez. No. I do not think so. I mean the only new
    proposal is the New Markets Venture Capital. The reason is that
    our loans keep getting bigger and bigger.
        But what happens to many of the rural businesses, women-
    owned businesses, minority-owned businesses and just plain old,
    small businesses that are the future for our country? They are
    having a harder time.
        Now, there are lots of reasons why that is happening.
    Certainly the bank mergers have an effect and probably credit
    scoring has an effect. The fact that smaller loans are not as
    profitable as bigger loans has an effect. So, we have tried to
    look structurally at our existing programs and figure out how
    we create some incentives for the banks to do smaller loans.
        And we are looking to try to reduce, for example, the fees
    for the smaller-sized loans, we are looking to also create an
    incentive for the lenders by reducing their costs. We have
    expanded SBAExpress which has only a 50 percent guarantee. So,
    actually there is less exposure for us, but it allows the
    lenders to make credit decisions without SBA paperwork for
    loans $150,000 or smaller.
        The only real new proposal requiring legislation is the New
    Markets Venture Capital program because the structure is
    somewhat different than the Small Business Investment Companies
    [SBIC]. The SBIC investments are in the range of $250,000 to $5
    million. New Markets Venture Capital would fund investments in
    the range of about $50,000 to $300,000. It is really a totally
    different need.
        Senator Gregg. What has been the default rate on the
    microloans?
        Ms. Alvarez. There have been no losses for us in the
    microloan program. The micro lenders all have a reserve fund
    and they have to make good decisions because losses come out of
    that reserve fund. We have not lost anything.

                                  7(j) program

        Senator Gregg. The 7(j) program, why is it taking so long
    to get those dollars awarded?
        Ms. Alvarez. I have been very hard on our folks in the past
    because I believe we need 7(j) dollars desperately, and I do
    not think we have done a good enough job of both evaluating how
    we spend the existing money and justifying going forward.
    However, I know we need those dollars because it is the only
    targeted assistance that we have for our 8(a) programs to help
    them with business development.
        As a result, they are doing a thorough evaluation, and in
    the process, they have held off allocating the funding. We have
    talked about this, and they are going to go ahead and certainly
    fund some of the university programs. The Amos Tuck Program is
    a terrific one, the others are not all equally good. We have to
    go ahead and spend some of that money but I want some hard-
    nosed justification for how to spend those dollars.
        Senator Gregg. Well, I understand that, but it does seem to
    me that in terms of at least the Amos Tuck Program, you know, I
    mean there was a letter from your office----
        Ms. Alvarez. I saw that letter. I did not like that letter.
    I thought that was not a very responsive letter, and we are
    acting on that immediately.
        Senator Gregg. Because I do think that these folks have to
    have some lead time.
        Ms. Alvarez. Absolutely. I agree.
        Senator Gregg. You cannot get applicants to participate in
    the program if you are going to wait until June to give them
    the go-ahead to do the programs.
        Ms. Alvarez. I think we do have time because it is a summer
    program, but I agree with you.
        Senator Gregg. Plus, the applications are unsolicited and
    are coming in every year.
        Ms. Alvarez. That is right. That is right.
        Senator Gregg. For the SBDC programs you have a reduction
    here, a significant amount of dollars, which is a $20 million
    reduction. How do you expect them to make up for that?
        Ms. Alvarez. Every year the funding for SBDC goes up and up
    and up. It is a terrific program, but we are operating under
    some serious belt-tightening at SBA as we try to meet more
    needs with fewer dollars. We believe that they ought to be able
    to make up the difference by charging fees.
        We are concerned that there is legislation that says, by
    law, they should not charge fees, because I think most Federal
    programs should be able to charge fees if needed. In addition,
    they already do charge fees in some areas. They charge fees for
    training small businesses. Last year they generated $5.8
    million in income from fees for training. They charge fees for
    prequalification for loans. They also refer clients to
    resources who charge fees. And SBDCs receive funding from other
    sources, Federal sources that do not require a match: the
    Occupational Safety and Health Administration, Internal Revenue
    Service, Environmental Protection Agency, Department of
    Defense, and so forth.
        We are very supportive of SBDCs but we really believe that
    they can charge a modest fee which their clients will be able
    to pay, and in the process generate some income just as all of
    our other programs have to do.
        Senator Gregg. Would you agree that we could do 20 percent
    in other parts of the agency?
        Ms. Alvarez. We would have to sit down and work with the
    SBDCs and see what is reasonable but we think that they can,
    given the amount of counseling that they do, make up the
    difference.
        Senator Gregg. They are authorized to charge fees and
    collect them and keep them in their own accounts?
        Ms. Alvarez. They have done so for the training program. By
    law they are not supposed to charge fees for counseling but
    they are allowed and do charge fees for training for small
    businesses and for the prequalification efforts. And they use
    them--we do not see them--they plough them back into their own
    accounts.
        Senator Gregg. Well, the fee increase would be fairly
    significant. I mean that was not 20 percent--it is actually 25
    percent, $20 million of $80 million. And the base over which it
    could be spread is pretty narrow, is it not? That is basically
    a small part of their activity that they could actually charge
    fees for.
        Ms. Alvarez. Well, their own studies say that they have
    counseled over a million customers last year. So, even if
    you're talking about a $15 counseling session which is not a
    lot, even if you multiply that by 8 or 10 sessions, it is not a
    lot for a customer.
        Right now, the training is usually for the newest
    businesses. Counseling is for businesses that are further along
    and probably have a greater capacity to pay. Training is for
    those who walk through the door, very basic information and
    their customers are paying them now.

                                Counseling fees

        Senator Gregg. Can you assess fees on counseling?
        Mr. Walter. Not today, Senator.
        Ms. Alvarez. Not given the law, that is why I am concerned
    that we have language that prohibits the charging of fees. Even
    though they are charging fees for training.
        Senator Gregg. So, you are assuming the law is going to be
    changed in order to collect this $20 million?
        Ms. Alvarez. The law would have to be changed, yes.
        Senator Gregg. So, where do we get the $20 million?
        Ms. Alvarez. We believe the law should be changed, and we
    believe that it is reasonable, especially in this day and age,
    for any Federal agency to ask that the customers, the users,
    contribute something.
        Senator Gregg. Well, that may be but I suspect by the time
    we mark this budget up the law will not have been changed. And,
    so, we will have to find $20 million somewhere or some
    percentage of that and, so, you might give some thought as to
    where that should come from.
        This contingency fund that you suggested, I do not think we
    can appropriate a contingency fund. The law does not allow us
    to do that.
        Ms. Alvarez. Well, that is a bigger discussion than the
    discussion of our budget in terms of contingency funding. We
    believe that, in fact, since credit reform, disasters have been
    funded through contingency funding and the breakout of that
    funding is historically along the same lines as the proposal
    that we are making, about a third on budget and two-thirds off
    budget.
        We also believe that given the unpredictability of disaster
    spending that rather than tie up an allocation in advance and,
    in the process, forego other valuable programs, it is best to
    do the funding in an emergency contingency fund.
        Senator Gregg. But you cannot have a contingency fund and
    not have it scored against a direct appropriation. So, there is
    no advantage to calling it a contingency fund. From the
    standpoint of your appropriation, it will still be scored
    against this committee and, therefore, against your agency.
        You cannot create an emergency fund under the present
    structure and fund it and have it outside the caps. So, my
    question to you is, you have $39 million in here for funding of
    disasters, and what is a reasonable number for that account
    assuming no contingency fund?
        Ms. Alvarez. Well, sir, the Administration's position is
    that this should be funded out of a contingency fund and that
    is where we are right now with our proposal.
        Senator Gregg. Well, that may be but we are not going to do
    it that way. So, you know, we are asking----
        Ms. Alvarez. I cannot act----
        Senator Gregg. Because we cannot do it that way.
        Ms. Alvarez. I have to act within the context of OMB and
    the Administration position. So, this is a discussion that we
    definitely need to have but right now--this is the President's
    proposal.
        Senator Gregg. Well, unfortunately, the President has made
    a lot of proposals in this budget that are gamesmanship of the
    worst order. He has zeroed-out accounts that he knows are not
    going to be zeroed-out, and spent money on accounts he knows he
    cannot afford to spend it on because he has zeroed-out these
    accounts which he knows are going to have funding.
        If your agency is unwilling to give us suggestions in this
    area that are within the context of the present budgeting
    structure, then we will simply go forward and do it
    unilaterally and that is not going to be constructive to you
    because it is going to end up coming out of accounts that you
    might not be comfortable with.
        I think that you have sent up a budget for talking points.
    I suggest you send up one for substance on these points, the
    SBDC and this contingency fund. If you do not, we will have to
    act unilaterally and that I do not think is constructive, and I
    do not think it is a good way to go. So, can you give us any
    specifics?
        Ms. Alvarez. We are here to work with you but I would have
    to go back to OMB and work with them.
        Senator Gregg. Well, maybe you should.

                         Minority business development

        The Minority Business Development Agency (MBDA) in the
    Commerce Department, does that do anything substantively
    different than your own minority business development?
        Ms. Alvarez. Richard is here and can speak to it. First of
    all, MBDA, which is an office in the Department of Commerce,
    helps large businesses and medium-sized businesses. These are
    outside of the scope of what we can do, and their
    responsibilities are really somewhat different from ours.
        For example, our budget for Government Contracting Minority
    Enterprise Development is used to ensure, for example, that the
    23 percent set aside for small businesses is implemented. A
    significant part of our activity is directed at ensuring that.
        We also have a responsibility for the 8(a) program which is
    meant to be a business development program. However, SBA does
    not have funding for business development training except for
    the 7(j) program and that is a very small amount of money. It
    is, I think, $2.6 million.
        So, the fact that MBDA has a pot of money for counseling
    and business development is helpful to these minority
    businesses. Since we cannot afford it and we like to work
    closely with them and refer people to them for assistance. In
    this regard we work side-by-side in a cooperative way.
        Senator Gregg. Do you know what the administrative costs
    are of your small business development activities as a
    percentage of the amount of money?
        Ms. Alvarez. For the set aside part for the 23 percent?
        Senator Gregg. For your overhead.
        Ms. Alvarez. The total budget for GC/MED is $20.6 million.
    I think MBDA has a budget of about $25 million. So, with our
    $20 million we complement not duplicate each other.
        I do not know if you want to speak to it, Richard?
        Mr. Hayes. I am Richard Hayes. I am the Associate Deputy
    Administrator for Government Contracting and Minority
    Enterprise Development. Their MBDA focus is really medium-sized
    and larger-sized businesses. For example, they provide export
    assistance to firms engaged in exporting. They have Phoenix, an
    electronic Internet system, that they use to try to find
    business opportunities for the middle-sized and larger-sized
    companies registered with them.
        Our dollars are used to provide assistance to small,
    minority, and women-owned businesses. There is a need for
    different ways of providing assistance to the smaller- and mid-
    sized and larger-sized minority firms.
        They are the only agency in the Federal Government whose
    mission is solely dedicated to serving minority businesses. And
    we work very closely together in carrying out a variety of
    activities, such as Med-Week, in September, when minority
    businesses come to Washington to be honored for their
    activities and participate in a variety of training activities.
        So, again, as opposed to duplicating what is going on, we
    think they help us meet the greater need that is out there.
        Our businesses, once they finished the 8(a) program and do
    not meet SBA size standards can acquire additional assistance
    from MBDA through its network of centers.
        So, we view our efforts as collaborative.
        Senator Gregg. What is the size criteria? What would be the
    size of a business that moved into MBDA?
        Mr. Hayes. All of our businesses have to meet the SBA small
    business size standards that vary depending upon what industry
    category the firm happens to be in. It can be a dollar limit,
    it can be an employee limit. If you are in petroleum, it is
    actually barrels pumped per day.
        All of our activities are really geared towards small
    businesses.
        We offer, for example, PRONET in which small firms can
    register for various procurement activities. The Federal
    agencies can use PRONET to find small firms eligible for
    business opportunities too. But those are all small businesses.
        MBDA does not have that constraint. They tend to relate to
    mid-sized and larger-sized businesses.
        Senator Gregg. Well, what size would MBDA be dealing with?
    What, in terms of dollar amounts.
        Mr. Hayes. Again, it depends upon the industry. For
    manufacturers, for example, a small business is anything less
    than 500 employees. For management consulting, it is $3.5
    million averaged over 3 or 4 years. Anything below that is a
    small business, anything above that is a large business. And,
    again, we gear our activities toward small businesses. And, the
    size standards really depend upon the industry. Small business
    activities can be as much as $15 million averaged again over 3
    years.
        It is dependent upon the industry that the assistance is
    being provided to.
        Senator Gregg. OK.
        Is there anything else that the committee needs to know?
        Ms. Alvarez. I think that overall SBA is doing a very good
    job in meeting small business needs. My concern with any budget
    is that it be future oriented. That the budget is a document
    that is not just about what we have done well but it is about
    what we need to do for future generations. That is why we have
    spent a lot of effort thinking through on this New Markets
    concept. Because if we are just continuing to help those who
    have and are not gearing ourselves towards those that could be
    the future bigger businesses, then we are making a mistake.
        We have seen the growth that is occurring with women-owned
    businesses, and there is a lot of activity with minority-owned
    businesses.
        If you just look at demographic projections from the Census
    Bureau, which project that by the year 2050 there will be no
    single majority in this country. This means collectively all
    these minorities will be a significant presence in this
    country. And, so, part of what we are trying to do is ensure
    that we provide the sort of assistance that they need to have
    to be contributing to the nation's bottom line.
        We will not see a terrific economy in the future if we just
    continue to help those who have had and not recognize that
    there is demographically a huge change in this country.
        That is what the New Markets proposal in part attempts to
    do, and given what we can do nowadays electronically and so
    forth, there are an awful lot of opportunities that we have not
    explored for rural communities. And that we can do more in a
    decentralized way with the right kinds of programs and the
    right kinds of systems.
        We are very focused at the SBA. When I took this position I
    focused on both the growing small business population, the
    newer segments that were growing, and also on the modernization
    of the SBA. We are working on that. We are very serious about
    that. It has to be an effective and efficient agency,
    otherwise, good programs will not go anywhere. So, we have both
    of those in the front of our minds at all times.

                         Additional committee questions

        Senator Gregg. Thank you.
        Ms. Alvarez. Thank you.
        Senator Gregg. I appreciate your time.
        Ms. Alvarez. Thank you.
        [The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
    were submitted to the Administration for response subsequent to
    the hearing:]
                   Questions Submitted by Senator Ted Stevens
        Question. Last year, $5 million was provided to the Small Business
    Administration to be administered as emergency loans to small business
    concerns impacted by the fishery failure in Western Alaska. Since that
    time, I have heard reports that SBA has had difficulty approving loans
    under this program to many Alaskan business concerns. Please provide
    this subcommittee a breakdown of loan applications from Alaskan
    companies under this program. I would like to know how many
    applications have been approved and denied. For each application that
    is denied, please provide a detailed justification for SBA's actions.
        Answer. The funds have been used for the needs of Alaska's small
    businesses. On September 19, 1998 I issued an economic injury
    declaration covering much of Alaska as a result of the El Nino
    currents. The filing deadline for that disaster is June 1, 1999. Thus
    far (to March 16, 1999), we have received 1,061 applications and
    completed action on 1,015. Of these, 55 were withdrawn prior to
    decision, 553 were approved for $23.2 million and 517 have been
    declined. The average processing time was 14.75 days and 98 percent
    were processed within our 21 day goal.
        Of those declined, 58 percent were for lack of repayment ability,
    21 percent for inadequate working capital before the disaster, 17
    percent because of no demonstrated economic injury and 13 percent
    because of unsatisfactory credit reflected in their credit reports.
    (Note: some cases were declined for more than one of these stated
    reasons.)
        Question. Does the SBA have sufficient regulatory flexibility
    within the emergency loan program to take into account the unique
    circumstances presented by the two consecutive years of fishery
    failures in Alaska? Specifically, how does two consecutive years of
    losses affect the ability of a company to qualify for a loan under this
    program?
        Answer. We are aware of the difficulties they face. I assure you
    that we are being very flexible in processing these loans.
        The approval rate (of loans with completed action) in Alaska is 62
    percent, which is higher than the approval rate in most economic injury
    disasters.
        The Economic injury loan program is a limited one. It is not
    intended to cover all of the financial ills of a business. It is
    intended to permit the business to help it pay the ordinary and
    necessary operating expenses that it could have paid had there not been
    a disaster but now cannot meet because of the disaster. The disaster in
    this case is limited to the effects of the El Nino that began in May,
    1997. Problems that preexist the disaster or were caused by other
    factors are not covered by the program.
        The fishing industry, as with most industries, changes considerably
    during a 4 or 5 year period. As reasonably prudent lenders, when
    considering repayment ability for a business, we must look at the way
    it has operated in the most recent predisaster period. For example, a
    continued downtrend in the past few years (predisaster) that leads to
    questioning of repayment ability may indicate a need for more capital
    rather than additional debt in the form of a disaster loan.
        While the economic injury program cannot cover many areas of need
    for a fisherman (e.g., refinancing existing debt, upgrading of
    equipment), the Agency's regular business programs (7(a)) are available
    through the Anchorage District office.
        Question. Administrator Alvarez, the SBA contacted Small Business
    Development Centers (SBDCs) in August 1998 asking them to submit
    proposals for what they were told was $6 to $8 million in extra money
    available in fiscal year 1998. Many SBDCs submitted proposals, and many
    went out into their communities to raise matching funds for these
    proposals. The SBA finally told the SBDCs that these funds would not be
    available one week ago (March 1999). What happened to the $6 to $8
    million? Why were the SBDCs told this money was available when it was
    not going to be made available? Is there a General Counsel's opinion
    saying that the funds could not be made available? If so, can you
    furnish the Subcommittee with a copy of these legal opinions?
        Answer. In August 1998, SBA believed that there may be additional
    funds arising from a comprehensive de-obligation process identifying
    unused funds. To the extent such funds were identified, SBA anticipated
    the possibility of supplemental grant funding. SBA wanted to provide
    the SBDCs with as much time as possible to provide proposals if funding
    became available. In an e-mail to all State SBDC Directors, dated
    August 20, 1998, the Associate Administrator for SBDCs described a
    financial reconciliation process of fiscal year 1997 SBDC grant funds
    underway in SBA's Denver Financial Center, and stated, ``It appears
    that there may be additional funds available for delivery of services
    by SBDCs * * *.'' This e-mail communication then requested SBDCs to
    submit proposals.
        Near the end of fiscal year 1998, SBA identified over $5 million in
    SBDC funding that had not been expended and that SBA believed could be
    de-obligated and made available for re-obligation in fiscal year 1999.
    To be sure SBA used the funding in a manner consistent with Section 21
    of the Small Business Act and appropriations law, however, we conducted
    an exhaustive examination of our fiscal records and a careful legal
    review.
        Upon completion of this examination, it was determined that of $5.3
    million originally identified and thought to be available, $4.2 million
    was actually an accumulation of funds from fiscal year 1994 through
    fiscal year 1996, and thus, was not available for obligation in fiscal
    year 1998. The remaining $1.1 million is available for expenditures
    arising out of appropriate fiscal year 1998 obligations. However, we
    believed until February 1999 that all $5.3 million could be used for
    new obligations in fiscal year 1999. In our efforts to be prudent
    before obligating this money, additional SBDC billing and accounting
    reviews were required before a final decision could be made. SBA
    determined that funds, which were appropriated in prior funding years,
    could not legally be made available for supplemental grants. The Office
    of General Counsel has not issued a formal written legal opinion on
    this matter.
        Notwithstanding these events, all SBDCs were fully funded for their
    last year's matching grant.

                              subcommittee recess

        Senator Gregg. Our next hearing will be on Wednesday, with
    the Director of the FBI and the DEA Administrator.
        Thank you.
        [Whereupon, at 10:38 a.m., Monday, March 22, the
    subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene at 10 a.m., Wednesday,
    March 24.]

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

                                  ----------

                           WEDNESDAY, MARCH 24, 1999

                                           U.S. Senate,
               Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The subcommittee met at 10 a.m., in room SD-124, Dirksen
    Senate Office Building, Hon. Judd Gregg (chairman) presiding.
        Present: Senators Gregg, Stevens, and Hollings.

                             DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

                        Drug Enforcement Administration

    STATEMENT OF THOMAS A. CONSTANTINE, ADMINISTRATOR

                        Federal Bureau of Investigation

    STATEMENT OF LOUIS J. FREEH, DIRECTOR

                                opening remarks

        Senator Gregg. We will begin this hearing of the Federal
    Bureau of Investigation and DEA and rather than doing opening
    statements we will proceed right to hearing from the witnesses,
    and it is nice to have both the Director and the Administrator.
    So why do you not go ahead, Mr. Constantine.
        Mr. Constantine. Well, Senator, thank you very much for
    this opportunity. Of all the presentations that I make before
    the House or the Senate, I have always thought the most
    important one that I make is before this committee. It is an
    opportunity for me where I can, to act as an advocate for
    thousands of DEA agents, task force officers, and support
    personnel who I think sacrifice so much for all of us in this
    country.
        The quality of people that we have been able to bring into
    law enforcement, with all of your help, continues to amaze me.
    I have been in law enforcement for almost 39 years now.
    Virtually every 5 or 6 weeks I meet with 50 young new DEA
    agents and they are absolutely the epitome of the type of
    people that you would like to have come into public service. I
    know many of the FBI agents that are coming in also, and I see
    the same results. I want to thank you and the members of the
    committee for all of the help you have provided to us for the
    last 5 years.
        Your efforts to enhance our resources have really improved
    our ability to pursue and bring to justice the leaders of
    increasingly powerful drug syndicates and to reduce the
    violence associated with drugs and crime. We have tried to use
    these assets as well as we possibly can. We pursue
    international organized crime syndicates that are responsible
    for virtually all of the major trafficking within America. And
    we have in fiscal 1999, as in other years, had a series of
    substantial results.

                                 DEA successes

        In targeting these major organizations, it is more than
    statistics that tell the story because what we do is we arrest
    the leaders of the organizations, both in the United States,
    and where we can find them in other countries. We have them
    apprehended and sent to the United States to bring them to
    justice. I want to give you a sense of the scope of one of our
    major investigations and how we coordinate the activities of
    all of the law enforcement agencies participating in a case.
    One major case involved the DEA and the FBI, the Texas
    Department of Public Safety and the Michigan State Police over
    a substantial period of time. We used Title III wire
    intercepts, a very sophisticated investigative technique,
    throughout the United States. Our efforts resulted in the
    arrest of 41 major principals, seven tons of cocaine seized,
    and $11 million in cash seized.
        To give you another sense of the scope of these operations,
    a cooperating witness in that investigation had advised us that
    he had brought 90 tons of cocaine into the United States during
    an 18 month period of time and had delivered $100 million in
    cash back to the leaders of the organization in Mexico. The key
    investigative event that made this so successful was a highway
    stop by two troopers of the Texas Department of Public Safety,
    who worked with the FBI and DEA to conduct the investigation.
        This Pipeline program, in which state police officers,
    highway patrol officers, and deputy sheriffs are trained to
    look out for certain indicia of trafficking, is probably the
    most successful interdiction program in the United States. In
    10 years, these officers have seized 116 tons of cocaine, 872
    tons of marijuana, and $510 million in cash and often provided
    us with the names of the individual responsible for this
    trafficking.
        So statistical accomplishments in and of themselves are not
    often always the measure of success, but they are significant
    when the seizures are tied to the leaders of the organization.
    We have had some dramatic successes over the last 5 years with
    your help. Our arrests have gone up from 22,000 in 1997 to
    39,000 in 1998. Our seizures of cocaine went up 21 percent,
    heroin 40 percent, methamphetamine 70 percent, and
    methamphetamine laboratories 78 percent.
        But the figure that I think is most impressive is what we
    have done to reduce the violence associated with drug
    trafficking. In 1995 we embarked on a strategy of targeting
    drug trafficking groups that were responsible for the
    significant amount of violence in communities throughout the
    United States. With the increased agent positions that you
    provided us, we have deployed 250 special agents in 24 teams
    across the country.
        Since 1995, we have deployed these teams to 203 cities,
    towns, and counties throughout America. Often these are the
    cities and towns that are dealing with violent drug trafficking
    gangs but at the same time have limited resources to deal with
    such major operations. As a result of that, we have arrested
    over 8,000 individuals who are often the most violent
    traffickers in those local communities. We have done a study of
    a 6 month pre-deployment and 6 month post-deployment.
    Unfortunately, because of the rolling dates that occur, we have
    only studied 126 of the 203 deployments, but the figures I give
    you I think are very impressive.
        We have reduced murders in those communities by 127,
    robberies by 3,644, and assaults by 3,183. If those figures
    were to continue for the rest of the deployments, in just the 6
    month period of time, it is very possible that over 200 lives
    would have been saved. And if the communities can continue that
    type of interest and reduction in crime over a long term, it
    would be obviously easy to see that those numbers would
    multiply over a period of time.

                    migration of Drugs to small communities

        One of the things that we are seeing, and I have talked
    about with both of you, is a migration of the drug abuse and
    drug trafficking problem from the major urban centers to the
    smaller cities, suburban areas, and rural communities
    throughout the United States. Many people see the drug problem
    and the violence associated with it as limited to New York,
    Chicago, and Los Angeles. Nothing could be farther from the
    truth. This shift now represents a threat to communities that
    often have limited resources.
        On February 23 of this year, we brought together 200 police
    officials from cities, towns, villages, and counties from
    throughout the United States and we had a four day symposium of
    both instruction and workshops in which they told us what their
    problem looks like. They have told us that over the last 5
    years there has been a dramatic increase in drug activity in 70
    percent of their communities. And in 50 percent of the
    communities, there has been a dramatic increase in violent
    crime associated with it.
        They also have told us that 95 percent of the drug
    trafficking organizations that are selling in their communities
    come from outside of their community, usually a major city or
    someplace distant throughout the United States. They also have
    told us that 70 percent of the people responsible for selling
    drugs in these mid-sized communities are coming from outside
    the United States, primarily Colombia and Mexico.
        Our strategy in dealing with that has been threefold. One
    is the congressional resources that you have given us in the
    new regional enforcement teams, which will be starting up this
    summer, one in Charlotte, North Carolina and one in Des Moines,
    Iowa. Second, we are trying to get as many of our agents, new
    agents and redeployed agents, out to district offices, resident
    offices, and posts-of-duties that need our services more often
    than sometimes the major cities, and third, the mobile
    enforcement teams and task forces.

                               DEA budget request

        Our budget request this year is fairly simple. It is $9
    million for 27 new positions to enhance our Special Operations
    Division. This is a coordinated effort on the part of DEA, FBI,
    Customs, and the Department of Justice. It is the primary
    coordinator of these major long-term investigations that occur
    across the United States. Their target is the powerful
    organized crime systems that control the distribution. Their
    ability to investigate these syndicates depends to a large
    degree on our ability to interdict their technology and
    communication systems.
        The new positions along with equipment that we will get
    with this will allow us to do that better in an area where
    technology is key and changes rapidly, constantly having to do
    with new two-way pagers, calling cards, Internet systems,
    encryption, decryption, all of which tax the technology that we
    have available to us. We do much of this in concert with the
    expertise of the FBI. We also will be having positions to
    enhance the security of that operation, because there are 860
    major investigations every year being coordinated by this
    particular group.
        We are asking an additional $13 million for our internal
    computer systems called the FIREBIRD System. It runs the entire
    case management and the internal communication system within
    DEA. It is a worldwide system. Now presently where that is
    available, a DEA agent can at the end of his tour prepare his
    investigative report with all of the names, addresses, phone
    numbers, license plates, and informant information, and within
    days that will become part of a central data file for all DEA
    agents who have to access that information.
        That is compared to an old paper and word processor system
    and a central collection, central analysis, central data entry
    that often takes as long as 100 days to enter and really is not
    effective. At the end of this year, almost 4,000 of our agents
    will have the system available to them. We are trying to
    expedite that as quickly as we can because the remaining 600
    agents are often in the smaller district offices. So we have 81
    offices that have been completed and we also have 131 more
    offices that we have to reach. A smaller amount is coming from
    the drug diversion control fee account to increase our
    resources and our ability to handle resources for 980,000
    registrants that increase by 25,000 every year.
        Again, I thank you for the opportunity to testify today,
    and I look forward to answering any questions. The one thing
    that I believe with all of my heart is that law enforcement has
    proven absolutely without a doubt over the last 5 years that we
    can make a difference. The dramatic drop in violent crime in
    this country is not accidental. It has happened as a result of
    effective and aggressive law enforcement strategies often
    against violent drug gangs. DEA has played a major role in
    these improvements and we are now trying to focus our assets on
    those mid-sized suburban rural communities that have become the
    targets of these same drug organizations and same amount of
    violence.

                               prepared statement

        I believe that a well staffed and a well supported DEA can
    continue to reduce crime and improve the quality of life in
    every community in the United States. Thank you very much,
    Senator.
        Senator Gregg. Thank you, Administrator.
        [The statement follows:]
                  Prepared Statement of Thomas A. Constantine
        Mr. Chairman, Members of the Subcommittee: I appreciate this
    opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the fiscal year 2000
    budget request for the Drug Enforcement Administration. Before
    providing the committee with the details of this budget, on behalf of
    the men and women of the DEA, I would like to express our appreciation
    for the ongoing support of this Subcommittee and the U.S. House of
    Representatives. Without this support, the difficult job carried out by
    DEA agents and support staff around the world would be made even more
    arduous.
        In my testimony this morning, I will provide the subcommittee with
    information on how the resources provided to DEA last year have been
    used to improve the quality of life in American communities; how DEA
    sees the threat our nation is facing as a result of the operations of
    powerful, international drug trafficking organizations; and how DEA's
    fiscal year 2000 budget request will help us further our goal of
    targeting and dismantling the major drug trafficking organizations
    which impact our nation.
                           dea's 1998 accomplishments
        In fiscal year 1999, the Congress generously provided DEA with a
    budget of $1.3 billion and the resources to hire 617 additional
    personnel, including 297 Special Agents. This was the third year that
    DEA received significant increases in our budget, helping us to become
    even more effective in carrying out our important mission. DEA's
    strategy is to target and immobilize trafficking organizations that are
    operating: first, at the highest level of the drug trade from
    headquarters overseas; second, through those national drug trafficking
    and distribution networks responsible for bringing cocaine, heroin,
    methamphetamine and marijuana to American communities; and third,
    through the violent drug trafficking organizations that are selling
    drugs in cities and towns around the nation, and committing acts of
    violence in furtherance of their goals.
        With the resources Congress has provided us, DEA was able, in 1998,
    to seize more drugs and arrest more traffickers than ever before. We
    were effective in targeting and arresting traffickers operating
    overseas, in major U.S. cities, and in smaller communities targeted by
    drug trafficking organizations. DEA's overall arrests have increased
    steadily since 1994, with our 1998 arrest figures representing an
    increase of 11 percent over the previous year. Since 1995, DEA arrest
    totals have doubled. In 1998, 45 percent of DEA's arrests were for
    cocaine violations, and almost 21 percent were for methamphetamine
    violations. It is important to note that the percentage of DEA's
    methamphetamine arrests has doubled since 1995, keeping pace with the
    escalation of methamphetamine production, trafficking and abuse across
    the nation. Later in my testimony, I will provide further detail on the
    methamphetamine situation, which is critical in too many states and
    communities across the United States.
        During 1998, DEA seizures also reached an all-time high.
    Methamphetamine seizures increased from 1,503.6 to 2,568.5 kilograms.
    Cocaine seizures rose from 58,262.8 kilograms in 1997 to 70,440.9 in
    1998. DEA seized 624.6 kilograms of heroin in 1998, compared with 446.3
    the previous year. Marijuana seizures rose from 359,843.9 kilograms in
    1997 to 364,081.1 in 1998. These seizure totals reflect both DEA
    unilateral seizures, as well as those made in conjunction with our
    state and local law enforcement partners.
                 reducing violent crime in american communities
        Through joint enforcement programs, such as our Mobile Enforcement
    Team (MET) program, carried out with our state and local law
    enforcement counterparts, DEA has made a significant contribution to
    lowering the national crime rate.
        Over the course of the past several years, during which the
    national crime rate has dropped significantly in major urban areas such
    as New York, Los Angeles, Boston and Houston, the nexus between drugs
    and crime has become increasingly evident. Through programs such as the
    Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring Program (ADAM) which is administered by
    the National Institute of Justice (NIJ), the public has learned that 67
    percent of the males arrested on various offenses were using drugs at
    the time they were arrested. We also know that, historically, homicide
    rates skyrocketed during the crack epidemic which began in the mid-
    1980's and peaked in 1992. During this time period, violent crime rates
    increased by 50 percent and murders increased by 31 percent.
        DEA's MET's are elite units that, in conjunction with our state and
    local law enforcement partners, target violent drug trafficking gangs
    throughout the United States. Since 1995, when the program was
    established, DEA has arrested over 8,000 individuals in the course of
    assisting over a hundred communities across America. In order to assess
    the impact of our Mobile Enforcement Team program, DEA conducted a
    study to determine whether the work of the MET's resulted in decreased
    violent crime rates in the cities where deployments were carried out.
    The results of this study were impressive: 113 less homicides, 3,276
    less robberies, and 2,419 fewer assaults took place in the six months
    after the deployments than in the six months before.
        Statistics alone do not tell the whole story of how the MET's have
    positively affected communities around the nation. The following are
    just a few examples of how violent drug traffickers have significantly
    diminished the quality of life in communities, terrorizing
    neighborhoods as they carry out their narcotics trafficking.
      --Benton Harbor, Michigan.--Despite the fact that the violent crime
            rate in Michigan dropped in 1997, Benton Harbor, a city in the
            Southwestern part of the state, still had a significant crime
            problem. With a population of 13,500 and a crime rate of 16.5
            per 100 residents, Benton Harbor was the most violent city in
            Michigan. A murder spree left 10 people dead in a twelve-day
            period. Individuals living in Benton Harbor described it as a
            Dodge City, where kids were afraid to play in the streets and
            elderly people couldn't walk their dogs. Residents routinely
            heard gunshots night after night. But after the intervention of
            law enforcement officers--from state, local and Federal
            agencies--Benton Harbor was being brought back to life.
            Beginning early in 1997, the Michigan State Police sent
            troopers into Benton Harbor to patrol the streets, train local
            law enforcement officers and enhance their ability to protect
            the community. They brought a sense of stability to the area
            which had become a haven for violent fugitives.
          During the period between June and September 1998, DEA sent its
            Mobile Enforcement Team into Benton Harbor at the invitation of
            the law enforcement officials there. DEA's team pursued a
            violent drug trafficking organization directed by Yusef
            Phillips, whose organization was responsible for distributing
            multi-kilogram quantities of cocaine and crack in inner city
            housing projects in Benton Harbor. Eventually, 42 individuals
            were arrested and a quantity of drugs--including crack and
            heroin--and $31,000 were seized. After the MET team's
            investigation was complete, Public Safety Director Milton Agay
            estimated that the Yusef Phillips group was responsible for 90
            percent of the violent crime that had impacted Benton Harbor.
      --Opa-Locka, Florida.--On January 22, 1998, the DEA Miami Field
            Division MET concluded a deployment to Opa-Locka, Florida where
            the primary target was Rickey Brownlee, the head of a violent
            drug trafficking organization allegedly responsible for several
            drug-related murders and the distribution of significant
            amounts of cocaine and heroin in Opa-Locka. During the MET
            assessment, both police and community civic leaders described
            Brownlee's organization as extremely violent and known for its
            daily intimidation of the Opa-Locka citizenry. Through murders,
            shootings, aggravated assaults and extortion, Brownlee held the
            Opa-Locka community hostage. The DEA MET deployment culminated
            with the arrest of Brownlee and key members of his criminal
            organization. In a letter to the Attorney General of the United
            States, the Mayor of Opa-Locka thanked DEA for its dedication
            and expertise in dismantling one of South Florida's most
            notorious criminal enterprises. To further show their
            appreciation, the Mayor and the City Commission proclaimed
            March 19, 1998 as Drug Enforcement Administration/Mobile
            Enforcement Team Day.
      --Pueblo, Colorado.--In recent years, the Pueblo Police Department
            recorded a dramatic increase in drug trafficking and drug-
            related violence attributed to a local cocaine trafficking
            organization headed by Martin Acosta-Hernandez. This
            organization, made up of several brothers, controlled cocaine
            trafficking in the Pueblo area with violence and intimidation
            as their signature. The organization had acquired sizeable drug
            profits and operated freely without concerning themselves with
            the efforts of local law enforcement. The members of the
            Acosta-Hernandez organization were also allegedly responsible
            for the murder of a local drug dealer.
          At the invitation of local authorities, the Denver Field Division
            MET was deployed to Pueblo, Colorado on August 10, 1998. With
            the assistance of over 100 officers from various state, local
            and Federal agencies, the MET operation culminated on November
            2, 1998, with 55 arrests, which included key members of the
            Acosta-Hernandez organization, bringing the total arrested
            during the deployment to 76. Assets seized included 41
            vehicles, over $150,000 in U.S. currency, and real property
            valued in excess of $300,000.
        Targeting International Drug Trafficking Organizations Impacting
    the United States.--All of the cocaine and heroin, and most of the
    methamphetamine available in the United States is controlled by drug
    traffickers whose headquarters are located in Mexico, Colombia and in
    some Asian nations. These traffickers have a direct impact on the drug
    and crime situations that plague American communities across the
    country. As the drug trade grows more sophisticated and powerful every
    year, it is increasingly difficult for DEA and other law enforcement
    organizations to bifurcate strategies into domestic and international.
    The reality of today's drug trade is that despite the fact that the
    heads of the world's major drug trafficking syndicates are living
    overseas, their surrogates and employees are working on a daily basis
    in large U.S. cities and smaller communities, communicating the details
    of their operations to mafia leaders in Guadalajara and Cali.
        It is critical for the DEA to develop and carry out strategies
    which allow us to effectively target the drug organization bosses,
    while we investigate and arrest their workers in the United States. The
    resources provided to DEA have allowed us to increase our presence in
    U.S. communities and overseas, in essence developing an enforcement
    model which mirrors the seamless continuum employed by the
    international drug trafficking organizations operating today. These
    resources include additional Special Agent positions to investigate
    major cocaine, heroin and methamphetamine trafficking organizations and
    additional resources provided to us through the emergency funding that
    was authorized by the Western Hemisphere Drug Elimination Act.
        DEA has been able to enhance our presence in communities along the
    East Coast of the United States affected by drug trafficking
    organizations based in the Caribbean; along the Southwest border and in
    other communities adversely impacted by the increase in methamphetamine
    production and trafficking; and in locations suffering the effects of
    high purity, cheap heroin from Colombia and Mexico. Since 1996, DEA has
    increased overseas staffing in seven source countries--Colombia,
    Mexico, Bolivia, Peru, Thailand, Pakistan and Burma--allowing us to
    reach an 88 percent fill rate in overseas Special Agent jobs in these
    important countries. Resources for programs such as the Vetted Unit
    program, as well as the overall increase in personnel in these
    countries are critical because they enhance our ability to work with
    our law enforcement partners, coordinating investigations against high-
    level drug traffickers operating abroad and in the United States.
        The majority of the international investigations that DEA has
    conducted traditionally begin with law enforcement information
    generated within the United States, for instance, as part of a seizure,
    a traffic stop or from a case investigated by state and local law
    enforcement. This information frequently leads investigators to higher
    levels of the drug trade, oftentimes to the leaders of the
    organizations who are headquartered in foreign countries.
        During 1998, DEA's collaborative efforts with our international law
    enforcement partners resulted in the arrest of Alberto Orlandez-Gamboa
    ``Caracol,'' the most powerful and ruthless of the Colombian North
    Coast traffickers, and the CNP's number one target, who was responsible
    for sending multi-ton loads of cocaine into the U.S. In August 1998,
    Fernando Florez-Garmendia, one of the remaining associates of the
    Rodriguez-Orejuela organization, was arrested. He was responsible for
    coordinating the cocaine trafficking operations of the jailed Cali
    mafia leaders.
        Two major Mexico-based traffickers, who are under indictment in the
    United States, were arrested by Mexican authorities in 1998. Brothers
    Luis and Jesus Amezcua-Contreras are major methamphetamine traffickers
    and are responsible for running an organization which has supplied
    large amounts of methamphetamine to the U.S. The organization is also
    involved in cocaine and marijuana trafficking, and securing huge
    amounts of ephedrine, a necessary ingredient in methamphetamine
    production. These two traffickers remain in prison in Mexico, and are
    being held pending consideration of the U.S.'s extradition request.
        During 1998, in numerous investigations within the United States,
    DEA worked with other Federal, state and local law enforcement partners
    to arrest members of the international drug trafficking syndicates'
    infrastructure who were operating on U.S. soil. In a series of
    cooperative investigations which linked trafficking organizations in
    Mexico, Colombia and the Dominican Republic to their operatives in New
    York, Los Angeles, Atlanta, and a variety of other U.S. locations, over
    1,200 individuals were arrested; almost 13 tons of cocaine, two and a
    half tons of methamphetamine, 127 pounds of heroin, and almost $60
    million in U.S. currency were seized.
        Addressing Drug Problems on a Regional Basis.--In fiscal year 1999,
    Congress provided DEA with the resources to enable the agency to become
    more effective in addressing the drug threat on a regional basis. We
    were provided with the resources necessary to establish Regional Drug
    Enforcement Teams, receiving 32 Special Agent positions, 14 support
    positions and $13 million for this purpose. It is more and more
    apparent that drug trafficking organizations are supplying cocaine,
    methamphetamine and heroin to various regions around the nation,
    necessitating a regional response capability by DEA as we target the
    leaders of these organizations. In order to assist communities in the
    Midwest as they confront the growing problem of methamphetamine
    production and trafficking, DEA is establishing a regional team of 16
    Special Agents based in Des Moines, Iowa. A second team of 16 Special
    Agents will be based in Charlotte, North Carolina, to provide
    additional law enforcement capabilities to communities targeted by
    international cocaine organizations. Both of these teams will have the
    flexibility to respond to drug trafficking problems which affect
    jurisdictions nationwide, and they will not be attached to specific DEA
    Division offices, operating instead under DEA headquarters supervision.
        Improvements in Technology and Infrastructure.--Additional
    resources have allowed DEA to improve our technological edge and
    address some critical infrastructure needs that support our
    investigations. With the growing sophistication of today's
    internationally-based and national drug trafficking organizations, law
    enforcement, including DEA, relies heavily on investigative tools such
    as Title III wiretaps to successfully investigate major drug
    trafficking organizations. DEA has also developed sophisticated methods
    to compile investigative information which ensures that all leads are
    properly followed and coordinated through our Special Operations
    Division (SOD). This mechanism allows all DEA field divisions and
    foreign offices to capitalize on investigative information from various
    sources as cases are being developed. Numerous major cases have been
    developed with the assistance of the SOD, which is increasingly a
    central player in cocaine, methamphetamine and heroin investigations.
        Another tool that is critical to DEA's day-to-day business is our
    computer system. Over the years, DEA has received generous resources,
    including enhancements for our FIREBIRD system last year, which have
    allowed us to provide a state-of-the-art information system to our
    8,000 employees. This system combines the tools that are necessary for
    daily communications (e-mail, word processing and office automation)
    with the special enforcement requirements of the agency. These
    requirements include an electronic file room, the Narcotics and
    Dangerous Drugs Information System (NADDIS) and other specific systems
    which allow agents, intelligence analysts and other DEA employees to
    access investigative reports, data bases and other information critical
    to conducting investigations against high-level drug traffickers.
        By the close of fiscal year 1998, Phase I implementation of the
    FIREBIRD system was complete, with total network access available
    throughout DEA Headquarters and in all 21 DEA Field Division offices.
    Additional resources provided to the agency in fiscal year 1999 and
    2000 will assist us in accelerating Phase II deployment of the Firebird
    network to all remaining district, resident and foreign field offices,
    as well as the El Paso Intelligence Center, DEA Airwing, and forensic
    laboratories. With the continued support of the President and the
    Congress, our hope is for the completion of the FIREBIRD project by the
    close of calendar year 2001.
        The Justice Training Center, another major infrastructure project,
    will be completed later this spring. This long-held dream of the Drug
    Enforcement Administration would not have been possible without the
    support that Congress provided to us. It is a modern facility that
    enables DEA to provide training to Basic Agents, DEA employees and
    supervisors, law enforcement officers from around the nation, and our
    international law enforcement partners. For several years, both the DEA
    and FBI have been unable to meet all of our training needs because we
    lacked the space and flexibility needed to provide the best possible
    training to our employees and other law enforcement representatives. As
    agreed, the Justice Training Center will be used by both agencies, with
    DEA and the FBI working closely to ensure that both agencies' needs are
    met now and in the future.
        DEA's forensic laboratories provided critical operational and
    analytical support to drug law enforcement at the Federal, state, local
    and international levels of operation. A number of DEA's laboratory
    facilities, which average 21 years length of service, no longer meet
    the agency's operational requirements and are severely overcrowded.
    Because of the poor environmental conditions found in these
    laboratories, DEA is being forced to operate at an unacceptably high
    risk and liability level. In an effort to rectify this situation,
    beginning in fiscal year 1997, DEA was provided with the resources
    necessary to begin replacing a total of five of the agency's aging
    forensic laboratories. To date, we have begun the design and
    construction process for each of these laboratories, with actual
    completion of the facilities taking anywhere from three to five years,
    to include time for lease acquisition. Upon completion, we anticipate
    that the new laboratories will yield up to thirty-years of useful life.
                                  drug threat
        Today's international criminal organizations pose a greater
    challenge to law enforcement than any previous criminal group in our
    history. While there are numerous characteristics that these
    international groups have in common with traditional organized crime--
    their penchant for violence, their reliance on corruption and
    intimidation as tools of their business--their sheer power, influence
    and sophistication put them in a category by themselves.
        As I stated before, the vast majority of the drugs available in the
    United States originate overseas. The international drug trade is
    controlled by a small number of high echelon drug lords, who reside in
    Colombia and Mexico. Most Americans are unaware of the vast damage that
    has been caused to their communities by international drug trafficking
    syndicates, most recently by organized crime groups headquartered in
    Mexico. At the current time, these traffickers pose the greatest threat
    to communities around the United States. Their impact is no longer
    limited to cities and towns along the Southwest Border; traffickers
    from Mexico are now routinely operating in the Midwest, the Southeast,
    the Northwest and increasingly, in the Northeastern portion of the
    United States. Because of the grave threat that these traffickers pose,
    my comments will focus predominantly on their influence on criminal
    activities and drug trafficking within our nation.
        On any given day in the United States, business transactions are
    being arranged between the major drug lords headquartered in Mexico and
    their surrogates, who have established roots within the United States,
    for the shipment, storage and distribution of tons of cocaine and
    hundreds of pounds of methamphetamine and heroin to trafficking groups
    in the United States. In the past, Mexico-based criminal organizations
    limited their activities to the cultivation of marijuana and opium
    poppies for subsequent production of marijuana and heroin. The
    organizations were also relied upon by Colombian drug lords to
    transport loads of cocaine into the United States, and to pass this
    cocaine on to other organizations who distributed the product
    throughout the U.S. However, over the past seven years, Mexico-based
    organized crime syndicates have gained increasing control over many of
    the aspects of the cocaine, methamphetamine, heroin and marijuana
    trade, resulting in increased threats to the well-being of American
    citizens as well as government institutions and the citizens of their
    own country.
        DEA arrests of Mexican nationals within the United States increased
    65 percent between 1993 and 1997. Most of these arrests took place in
    cities that average Americans would not expect to be targeted by
    international drug syndicates in Mexico--cities such as Des Moines,
    Iowa; Greensboro, North Carolina; Yakima, Washington; and New Rochelle,
    New York.
        The damage that these traffickers have caused to the United States
    is enormous. Cities and rural areas from the East Coast to the West are
    living with the havoc and erosion of stability that these individuals
    and organizations have caused. To understand how organized crime groups
    in Mexico have infiltrated communities here, it is helpful to examine
    their role in the distribution of cocaine, and in the production,
    trafficking and distribution of heroin, marijuana and methamphetamine.
        Approximately two-thirds of the cocaine available in the United
    States comes over the U.S.-Mexico border. The remainder is shipped
    through the Caribbean and other secondary routes. Typically, large
    cocaine shipments are transported from Colombia, via commercial
    shipping and ``go fast'' boats, and off-loaded in Mexican port cities.
    The cocaine is transported through Mexico, usually by trucks, where it
    is warehoused in cities like Guadalajara or Juarez, for example, which
    are operating bases for the major organizations. Cocaine loads are then
    driven across the U.S.-Mexico border and taken to distribution centers
    within the U.S., such as Los Angeles, Chicago or Phoenix. Surrogates of
    the major drug lords wait for instructions, often provided over
    encrypted communications devices--phones, faxes, pagers or computers--
    telling them where to warehouse smaller loads, who to contact for
    transportation services, and where to return the eventual profits.
    Individuals sent to the United States from Mexico, often here
    illegally, contract with U.S. trucking establishments to transport
    loads across the country. Once the loads arrive in an area which is
    close to the eventual terminal point, safehouses are established for
    workers who watch over the cocaine shipments and arrange for it to be
    distributed by wholesale dealers within the vicinity. These
    distributors have traditionally been Colombian nationals or individuals
    from the Dominican Republic, but recently, DEA has evidence that
    Mexican nationals are becoming more directly involved in cocaine
    distribution throughout the United States.
        Methamphetamine trafficking works in a similar fashion, with major
    organized crime groups in Mexico obtaining the precursor chemicals
    necessary for methamphetamine production from sources in other
    countries, such as China and India, as well as from ``rogue'' chemical
    suppliers in the United States. ``Super labs,'' capable of producing
    hundreds of pounds of methamphetamine on a weekly basis, are
    established in Mexico and California, where the methamphetamine is
    provided to traffickers to distribute across the United States. It is
    now common to find hundreds of traffickers from Mexico, again, most of
    them illegal aliens, established in communities like Boise, Des Moines,
    Omaha, Charlotte and Kansas City, distributing multi-pound quantities
    of methamphetamine.
        The impact of methamphetamine trafficking and abuse on numerous
    communities has been devastating. In Iowa, health experts have
    expressed grave concerns over the 4,000 infants affected by drugs, 90
    percent of which were exposed to methamphetamine. An expert associated
    with Marshall County Iowa's Juvenile Court Services estimated in 1998,
    that one-third of the 1,600 students at Marshalltown High School had
    tried methamphetamine. Nationally, data indicated that in 1997, 17,200
    individuals were admitted to emergency rooms for methamphetamine-
    related problems. By comparison, in 1991, only 4,900 emergency room
    mentions of methamphetamine were recorded.
        The public safety is also affected by methamphetamine production.
    There have been numerous incidents where children have been injured or
    killed by explosions and fires resulting from their parents'
    methamphetamine cooking. In a significant DEA investigation, a working
    methamphetamine laboratory established by traffickers from Mexico was
    discovered in an equestrian center where children were taking riding
    lessons. In another case investigated by the DEA, an operational
    methamphetamine lab, capable of producing 180 pounds of
    methamphetamine, was discovered within a thousand feet of a junior high
    school.
        Just a few weeks ago, the DEA office in Fresno, working with the
    California Bureau of Narcotics Enforcement, discovered working
    methamphetamine laboratories in Squaw Valley and Fresno. Six Mexican
    nationals were arrested, only one of whom was in the United States
    legally. Over 46 pounds of methamphetamine were seized, and we learned
    that the ultimate destination for the methamphetamine was Oregon,
    Washington and other states in the Midwest.
        The heroin that is available in the United States is now coming
    predominantly from Colombia and Mexico. In recent years, heroin
    overdose deaths have increased significantly. Today's heroin mortality
    figures in the U.S. are the highest ever recorded, exceeding even those
    of the mid-1970's, when deaths reached a high point of just over 2,000.
    Close to 4,000 people have died in each of the last four years from
    heroin-related overdoses across the country.
        Heroin from Colombia now represents 74 percent of the heroin seized
    in the United States. It is highly pure and cheap, and available in
    most of the cities along the East Coast, particularly New York, Boston
    and Philadelphia. Colombian heroin comes into the U.S. through small
    body carries and luggage.
        Heroin from Mexico now represents 14 percent of the heroin supply
    seized in the United States, and it is estimated that organized crime
    figures in Mexico produced a total six metric tons of the drug last
    year. A current study being conducted by DEA indicates that as much as
    29 percent of the heroin being used in the U.S. is being smuggled in by
    the Mexico-based organized crime syndicates. Mexican ``black tar''
    heroin is produced in Mexico, and transported over the border in cars
    and trucks. Like cocaine and methamphetamine, it is trafficked by
    associates of the organized criminal groups in Mexico, and provided to
    dealers and users in the Southwest, Northwest and Midwest United
    States. At one time, it was commonplace for couriers to carry up to two
    pounds of heroin into the United States; recently, quantities of heroin
    seized from individuals have increased, as is evidenced by larger
    seizures in a number of towns in Texas. This heroin is extremely
    potent, and its use has resulted in a significant number of deaths,
    including the deaths of 25 individuals in Plano, Texas within the last
    18 months.
        Mexican ``black tar'' heroin is also common in the Pacific
    Northwest. Last January, officers from the California Highway Patrol,
    working near Sacramento, stopped a speeding car driven by a sixteen
    year old Mexican national. He and a passenger were from Michoacan,
    Mexico. A search of the car yielded six kilogram packages of Mexican
    ``black tar'' heroin intended for distribution in Yakima, Washington.
        Seattle, Washington has suffered from a dramatic increase in heroin
    overdose deaths. According to health experts, heroin deaths increased
    in 1998 to a total of 138. This figure is triple the number of heroin
    deaths in Seattle during the 1980's. Experts also estimate that there
    are 20,000 heroin addicts in Seattle and the surrounding area.
    Traffickers from Mexico use the I-5 corridor to bring their product to
    the cities and suburbs of Washington State.
                          future threat and direction
        Over the course of the next several years, I believe it will be
    imperative for Federal law enforcement agencies to work collaboratively
    with state and local law enforcement in mid-size communities to help
    them address the problems of drugs, crime and violence. With a
    reduction in the crime rate in a number of our major U.S. cities,
    international drug trafficking organizations have begun to target
    smaller cities, rural areas and suburban communities, challenging law
    enforcement organizations that lack the resources and expertise to deal
    with the vast array of drug-related criminal activities.
        In an effort to address this growing problem, on February 23, 1999,
    DEA hosted a symposium in Herndon, Virginia entitled ``Crisis in Middle
    America: A National Conference on Drugs, Crime and Violence in Mid-
    Sized Cities.'' This conference brought together law enforcement
    officials from more than 80 middle sized cities around the country to
    discuss the impact that foreign-based drug trafficking organizations
    from Colombia and Mexico are having on our communities.
        Responding to a survey sent to participants before the conference,
    law enforcement representatives were asked to report on the nature and
    severity of the drug problems they are currently facing. The most
    significant drug problems identified were cocaine and methamphetamine
    trafficking, use and abuse, with a number of cities reporting that
    heroin was their most serious drug problem. Roughly 68 percent of the
    law enforcement representatives surveyed reported that the drugs
    available on their streets were trafficked by drug trafficking
    organizations controlled by groups outside the United States; 48
    percent of the respondents stated that their communities were being
    impacted by drug traffickers from Mexico; 80 percent indicated that
    they were experiencing moderate or high levels of violence in their
    communities; and finally, according to 76 percent of those surveyed,
    the drug problems their communities are facing have increased, and in
    many cases, increased significantly compared to the activity level of
    five years ago.
        In response to the concerns voiced by the conference attendees and
    the clear threat posed to our country by the major international drug
    trafficking organizations, I am prepared to redouble DEA's efforts to
    assist smaller communities with programs such as our Mobile Enforcement
    Teams and Regional Enforcement Teams. These programs are geared to help
    state and local law enforcement organizations overcome their resource
    and manpower challenges as they attempt to address the violence and
    drug trafficking activities of organizations which often have foreign
    sources of supply. The Mid-Size Cities Conference was the first step in
    working to broaden our plan of attack, by developing a comprehensive
    strategy that combines law enforcement, research and prevention to
    reach out to communities that are currently facing their drug problems
    the best they can. By working to attack the drug problem from many
    angles, we can spare our nation's smaller cities and communities the
    drug-related nightmare that our major urban areas endured for well over
    a decade.
               advancing the drug enforcement training curriculum
        Another way in which we work to meet the ongoing threat posed by
    the major trafficking organizations is to ensure that our employees and
    our law enforcement counterparts have the highest-quality training and
    best field preparation available today. In order to meet this goal, DEA
    conducted an extensive review of the training needs and practices of
    our basic and in-service training programs. This review resulted in a
    complete restructuring of DEA training programs, allowing the agency
    to: implement a structured plan to ensure that entry-level personnel
    receive on-the-job training after graduation from basic training;
    provide oversight and evaluation of employees during their probationary
    period; implement in-service training programs to ensure that all
    employees receive updated information on integrity, legal issues,
    internal regulations, and contemporary personnel issues; implement a
    program to identify the type or quantity of specialized training
    employees require; and provide additional programs to determine which
    employees should receive specialized training. These program changes
    will ensure that we safely meet the challenges of dealing with complex,
    violent and sophisticated drug trafficking organizations, both now and
    in the future.
        In addition, the need for enhanced training facilities was also
    identified. I am proud to announce that in April of this year, through
    the generous assistance of the President and U.S. Congress, DEA will
    open the doors on a new, expanded training facility in Quantico,
    Virginia. This state-of-the-art facility features a 250-bed dormitory,
    a variety of classrooms, office space for the staff, and a cafeteria.
    Special facilities will include an international classroom with three-
    language translation capabilities and a separate building for
    conducting clandestine laboratory training for DEA and state and local
    officers involved in this special area of law enforcement.
        Through our relationship with the University of Virginia, an
    enhanced program will also be underway to strengthen the faculty with a
    new instructor development program and a Master's degree program in
    adult education for the staff. We will invite instructors from state
    and local agencies to join the staff for one-to-two years to ensure
    that the staff reflects all drug law enforcement expertise and needs.
    In addition, the Drug Unit Commanders Academy will also be conducted at
    the new center and its graduates will be called upon to participate in
    annual risk management reviews for drug law enforcement. The new center
    will produce standardized lesson plans, with state and local input, for
    use throughout the drug law enforcement community. These plans would
    cover such areas as drug identification, informant management, raid
    planning for drug cases and clandestine laboratory training.
        Finally, the new training center will be the venue for state-of-
    the-art drug intelligence-related courses for the law enforcement and
    intelligence communities. Several years of course development are
    envisioned. DEA has developed a concept that will provide drug
    intelligence training for Federal, state, local, and foreign agencies.
    The opening of the new training center at Quantico affords us the
    opportunity to forge a unique and innovative program dedicated to
    improving the quality of drug intelligence training programs in the
    United States. The curriculum will cover the full spectrum of drug
    intelligence-related subjects at the basic, intermediate, advanced,
    specialized, and Master of Science Degree levels. An Advisory Board,
    drawn from executives in Federal, state, and local government, and from
    academic institutions, will provide the guidance and support necessary
    to ensure the program reflects its customers' drug intelligence
    training needs.
                           fiscal 2000 budget request
        In fiscal year 2000, DEA is requesting a total of 9,078 positions
    (4,535 Special Agents) and $1.469 billion. This request includes
    program enhancements of 52 positions and $23.1 million. The additional
    resources we are requesting for fiscal year 2000 are broken into three
    strategic funding initiatives, including: Domestic Enforcement,
    Infrastructure and Drug Diversion Control.
        Our Domestic Enforcement Initiative includes a total of 27
    positions and $9 million to continue the development of key DEA SOD
    initiatives by providing the program with the assets necessary to
    enhance Title III support of priority drug investigations. DEA's SOD is
    a multi-agency program consisting of 170 DEA, FBI and U.S. Customs
    agents and support personnel. Operating at a classified level, SOD's
    mission is to provide criminal investigators with the capability to
    fully exploit Federal law enforcement's investigative authority under
    Title III of the U.S. Code.
        Given the tremendous success of SOD's investigations and the
    resultant increase in demand for SOD support from Federal drug law
    enforcement, SOD's operational requirements are expanding rapidly. With
    the impact of the rapid technological advancements taking place within
    the telecommunications industry, DEA's base resources for this program
    are currently insufficient and must be significantly enhanced.
        Through this initiative, DEA will establish a Telecommunications
    Section to organize and consolidate all technical activities related to
    Title III investigations; ensure that all of DEA's intercept equipment/
    technology and resources to conduct electronic surveillance are kept
    current with technological advancements; and support the growing
    security and administrative demands of DEA's burgeoning Title III Wire
    Intercept program.
        DEA's Infrastructure Initiative, includes a total of $13 million
    dedicated to continuing Phase II deployment of the agency's FIREBIRD
    office automation system, therein providing critical support for the
    agency's drug enforcement operations. Funding for this system would
    work to provide integrated computer network resources to over 200 DEA
    district, resident and foreign offices, as well as the El Paso
    Intelligence Center, the DEA Air Wing, and agency's forensic
    laboratories.
        In tandem with improving our ability to effectively target major
    drug violators, we have also taken measures to use technology to
    improve the way DEA does business. As part of our effort to maximize
    investigative resources and take advantage of current technological
    advances, DEA began deployment of the FIREBIRD computer network in
    fiscal year 1995. This project, in its fourth year of deployment, is
    designed specifically to support our drug enforcement mission. FIREBIRD
    integrates computer capabilities used by modern businesses, e.g., E-
    mail, centralized word processing, and file sharing, with DEA
    investigative resource requirements, e.g., Electronic File Room,
    Electronic Library, and the Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs Information
    System (NADDIS). Once fully deployed, FIREBIRD will allow the agency's
    components located around the world, to act as one cohesive unit
    through real-time access to critical law enforcement and intelligence
    information.
        As previously indicated, Phase I implementation, installation of
    network equipment in DEA Headquarters and 21 Division Offices, was
    completed in 1998. Phase II, installation to over 200 district,
    resident and foreign offices, has begun and, pending additional
    resources in the fiscal year 2000 and 2001 budget requests, is
    projected to be completed by the close of calendar year 2001. Given the
    wide range of investigative and communication tools that FIREBIRD
    provides to DEA investigative personnel, as well as serious concerns
    over the continued dependability of the agency's Legacy communications
    equipment (which FIREBIRD replaces), DEA is requesting the funds
    necessary to accelerate FIREBIRD deployment. Any delay in the
    installation of this vital equipment clearly diminishes DEA's ability
    to fulfill its mission by denying field investigative staff with full
    connectivity and access to FIREBIRD tools and intelligence/information.
        Finally, through our Drug Diversion Control Initiative, DEA is
    requesting an additional 25 positions and $1.1 million through the
    agency's Drug Diversion Control Fee Account (DDCFA). The requested
    resources will enable DEA to improve customer service by re-engineering
    current business processes, using state-of-the-market technology, and
    ultimately reducing the amount of time it takes to collect and transfer
    drug registrant information.
        The requested resources will allow us to eliminate our current
    backlog in drug reviews, and complete scheduling actions more promptly
    with the hiring of additional Drug Science Specialists,
    Pharmacologists, and support staff. In addition, the resources provided
    will help us to be more responsive to requests for diversion
    information from field personnel (especially Diversion Investigators),
    the general public, Congress, other federal and state agencies,
    professional associations, and drug industry organizations.
        The primary objectives our Diversion Control Initiative are
    threefold: to reduce formal inquiry response time for DDCFA registrants
    to under four days and reduce telephonic response time to just a few
    seconds; to eliminate the backlog of pending drug reviews and cases in
    the areas of domestic drug scheduling and production quotas; and to
    conduct targeting and analysis from new and existing sources of
    information to identify violations of the Controlled Substances Act in
    order to prepare viable and useful leads and trends for the field.
        This concludes DEA's fiscal year 2000 request for additional
    program resources. I would like, once again, to thank you, the members
    of the Subcommittee, for both your time and efforts on DEA's behalf and
    would be happy at this time, to take any questions you may have
    regarding our portion of the President's budget request.

                          STATEMENT OF LOUIS J. FREEH

        Senator Gregg. Director Freeh.
        Mr. Freeh. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Senator Hollings. It is
    a pleasure to be before you again and a pleasure to appear with
    my friend and colleague, Tom Constantine, whose leadership and
    integrity in law enforcement is a great model for all of us.
        Mr. Chairman, you have my submitted statement. What I
    thought I would do just very briefly is highlight a few of the
    larger issues facing the FBI, and then, with respect to our
    budget request, itemize several areas and certainly take up any
    more detail that you wish after that. We, as you know, just
    celebrated our 90th anniversary in the FBI. It was a good time
    to look forward and also to look backward in terms of our
    mission and the manner in which that mission has changed.
        One of the striking aspects of surveying our mission today
    is how technology but also how the transcending trends in law
    enforcement have impacted what we do; whether we talk about the
    globalization of crime; whether we talk about the impact of
    technology on what we do; whether we talk about the changing
    mission that not only requires overseas assets and deployments
    such as we saw in East Africa, but really the routine
    interchanges that we have with our counterparts around the
    country and around the world.
        We just completed a deployment of some agents to Bosnia
    where we were asked to provide technical assistance on a
    bombing of a high government official. We have been asked to
    make several agents available for an investigation in Northern
    Ireland of a recent assassination. All of these matters
    highlight for us the expanding role and the mission that
    American law enforcement agencies play, not only around the
    world, but here in the United States.
        I was out in Albuquerque yesterday on one of my scheduled
    field office visits and during the course of the day I met with
    12 of the State sheriffs and chiefs of police, and various
    leaders of the State law enforcement community. It was really
    gratifying to see how many activities our Albuquerque office is
    working in tandem with our State and local partners. We have in
    that division eight separate task forces ranging from hate
    crimes to domestic terrorism to infrastructure protection to
    violent gang activity to crimes on Indian reservations to
    environmental task forces where we combine our resources with
    our State and local partners to not only assist them but to use
    the very scarce public safety resources in a coordinated and
    effective way.
        Our agency is being impacted by all of these forces, which
    is why in the last several budgets this committee has been
    generous in understanding the significance that technology has
    in terms of our mission. We have asked, as you know, in several
    years past and in this continuing budget for assistance and
    support in infrastructure building, in technology acquisition,
    in getting the people and tools we need on board to operate in
    technical areas of law enforcement, whether those be computer
    crimes, pedophiles on the Internet, or preservation of our
    ability to enforce court orders for telecommunications access.
    All of these things go to the central but very changing mission
    of law enforcement. I want to again thank you, Mr. Chairman,
    for your leadership, Senator Hollings, the other members of
    this committee for really helping the FBI move into the 21st
    century with respect to competence, technology and the
    resources that we need to do a job which is still in its
    essence a fairly simply defined one: the protection of the
    people that we serve and the protection of our Constitution.
        But the means by which we carry out that mission have
    become exceedingly complex, which is why we ask for assistance
    in information technology, in the deployment of FBI resources
    around the world to places where they can assist not so much
    our foreign counterparts, although they do that also, but to
    help investigations in the United States that impact directly
    on our citizens and the people that we protect. Having that
    line of defense as an early warning system, so to speak,
    enables us to deal with forces such as Eurasian organized
    crime, which is very different from the traditional organized
    crime problems that we have had here in the United States.
        All of these things will prepare us to do our mission in
    the coming years where, I think, technology will impact more
    directly on law enforcement than perhaps most sectors of our
    government because we are in the business of acquiring lawfully
    information, evidence, and the technology changes which are
    occurring at an ever faster pace. We are not talking about
    technology cycles of 5 years. We are talking about technology
    cycles, in some cases involving software, of 18 months to 24
    months, which impacts our systems, whether they be NCIC 2000 or
    IAFIS, both of which will be up and running in July of this
    year. We do not just build them, pull the switch on, and then
    operate them. The changes that will be necessary to further
    improve and keep efficient those systems will require upgrades
    and revisiting areas of technology control and acquisition.
        And I very much appreciate not only the time but the
    attention and the comprehension which has been shown,
    particularly by this committee and your counterpart in the
    House, to recognize that we do not just need people. Of course,
    we need agents. We need scientists. We need people who
    understand computer codes. We need CART examiners, agents and
    technicians who can investigate forensically a whole new venue
    of criminal activity which is the computer. Now, agents return
    to the grand jury, in the process of serving a search warrant,
    not just boxes of records and ledgers as I did as a young
    agent, they also bring back hard drives and disks. There is a
    whole new technology involving forensics which has to be
    perfected if we are to have the competence to operate in a very
    different venue.
        So a lot of the highlights of our budget, particularly the
    increase requests for 2000, have to do with technology, have to
    do with infrastructure, have to do with the basic tools that we
    need to perform our operation. The other thing I want to
    highlight, which again was emphasized in my meeting with the
    chiefs and sheriffs yesterday, this is not just technology
    which resides in the FBI. If the requests have to do, as they
    do again in the 2000 budget, with CALEA, with encryption
    technology, with CART examiners, that technology goes not only
    to the FBI but also to the entire law enforcement community.
        When we make the request, as the Attorney General has in
    her budget, for resources to be used for spectrum and radio
    capability, enabling the law enforcement and public safety
    telecommunications networks to prevail after 2006 when we are
    all required to move to half the megahertz, that is technology
    and assistance which ultimately goes to every law enforcement
    and, actually, every public safety department in the country.
    Requests that have to do with training and equipment for the
    preparation of first responders to deal with an incident
    involving a chemical toxin or a biological agent will be
    distributed to public safety agencies in the United States.
    CALEA, although, the FBI has taken the leadership in terms of
    coordinating the distribution of this technology, as well as
    the legislative authority that we need, this goes to every
    district attorney, every police department in the country.
        Some of the questions I was getting at lunch yesterday from
    the chiefs and the sheriffs were questions like: can we get
    assistance in examining computer evidence and hard drives and
    forensics? What will your laboratory be able to provide to us
    in terms of fiber and hair analyses? What will the new
    interface between our CODIS profiles and the expected Federal
    data base provide to us in terms of enhanced investigative
    ability? What is going to happen if we do not fix the
    telecommunications access issue with respect to CALEA? Will
    encryption make it impossible for a small sheriff to deal with
    a kidnapping situation where they cannot get a ``trap or
    trace'' to find the location of the victim?
        So many of these technologies, much of the assistance,
    although in the Department of Justice budget, and in the FBI
    budget in particular, will go far afield beyond us and benefit,
    as our counterterrorism resources have benefitted, we believe,
    not only people in this country, but people all over the world.
        Rather than highlight all of the individual items, which
    are well known to the committee and, of course, are very
    detailed in my opening statement, I would just close by
    thanking the committee once more for its assistance, for its
    support. We believe that the changing technologies, the
    changing burdens, the changing challenges will not deter either
    the FBI or the law enforcement community from carrying out its
    functions. But those functions will be markedly different
    several years from now as they are today, just as they are very
    different today, than when I was a very young agent back in
    1975.

                               prepared statement

        And I want to thank you for your support and for addressing
    the issues of technology and infrastructure which are very
    complex. In some cases, you have to appropriate with a little
    bit of confidence and perhaps a little bit of risk that those
    resources will be used appropriately in the years to come. And
    I will do everything I can, as the Attorney General will, to
    ensure that we use those resources properly to preserve our
    mission and also assist our State and local partners, which is
    a central part of our mission. Thank you very much.
        [The statement follows:]
                      Prepared Statement of Louis J. Freeh
        Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee. I
    welcome this opportunity to appear before the Subcommittee to discuss
    the President's fiscal year 2000 budget request for the Federal Bureau
    of Investigation (FBI). I am also pleased to be joined by my colleague,
    Administrator Tom Constantine of the Drug Enforcement Administration.
        I am most appreciative of the support the Subcommittee has provided
    the FBI over the past several years. That support, in terms of the
    additional staffing and resources provided, allows us to do what the
    FBI does best: catch criminals, drug traffickers, terrorists, and
    spies; provide training, investigative assistance, and forensic and
    identification services to our law enforcement partners; and develop
    new crime-fighting technologies and techniques.
        This past year, the FBI celebrated its 90th anniversary. We
    acknowledged that occasion by reflecting upon the successes of our past
    and by dedicating ourselves to carrying the FBI's proud heritage into
    the future. Having reached the mid-point in my tenure as Director of
    the FBI, I want to be sure that the Bureau of the 21st Century is
    rooted solidly upon our successful past and that our mission and
    priorities, as well as our core values and competencies, prepare us for
    the challenges of today and the years to come.
                           challenges facing the fbi
        Before discussing our fiscal year 2000 budget request, I would like
    to highlight for the Subcommittee several of the challenges facing the
    FBI, and the strategic planning and management initiatives that we are
    undertaking to prepare the FBI to enter the 21st Century. These
    initiatives are especially important given the challenges and changes
    facing the FBI.
        Increasingly, the crime problems and national security threats
    facing the FBI are transcending the traditional investigative programs
    under which the FBI operated. For example, the Southwest Border and
    East Caribbean crime plans are based upon a coordinated attack against
    drug traffickers (organized crime/drugs program), violent crimes and
    gangs (violent crimes program), and public corruption (white-collar
    crime program). Emerging criminal enterprises from Eastern Europe and
    Eurasia tend to be involved not only in ``traditional'' organized crime
    activities, such as extortion, loan sharking, and street crime, but
    also complex money laundering, tax evasion schemes, medical fraud, and
    other ``white-collar'' offenses.
        We are also facing a growing internationalization of crime.
    Increasingly, cases being worked by FBI Agents on the streets of
    America are developing leads that take us to foreign lands for
    resolution. Recent events, such as the abductions and brutal murders of
    Americans in Uganda and Colombia, required the FBI to exercise its
    statutory extraterritorial jurisdiction and deploy investigative teams
    overseas. Organized criminal enterprises are often involved in related
    illegal activities on several continents. Communications networks allow
    criminals in foreign countries to commit thefts in the United States
    without leaving their homelands.
        To respond to these types of emerging crime problems and national
    security issues more quickly, the FBI must focus its efforts and
    resources along broader investigative strategies.
        Another challenge facing the FBI is the changing demographics of
    our workforce. With respect to agents, nearly 31 percent of all FBI
    Special Agents have been on the job for less than five years--nearly
    double the rate in 1993.
      --In October 1995, 9 percent of the 8,410 on-board field
            investigative agents were at the GS-10 entry level; by February
            1999, the percentage of GS-10 entry level agents has nearly
            doubled to 17 percent of the 9,477 on-board field investigative
            agents.
      --At the same time, we are also experiencing a significant loss in
            investigative experience. In October 1995, 74 percent of the
            8,410 on-board field investigative agents were at the GS-13
            journeyman level; by February 1999, the percentage of
            experienced, journeyman agents had decreased to 61 percent of
            the 9,477 on-board field investigative agents.
        Keeping current with the fast pace of technology and more complex
    crime problems and issues requires a more technically trained and
    competent workforce. This applies not only in terms of our
    investigators, but also with respect to the scientists, engineers,
    analysts, and other support staff who help our agents do their jobs. We
    are also recognizing that technically trained specialists are becoming
    an increasingly important part of our investigative teams. For example,
    this year we are requesting 79 forensic computer examiners to assist
    agents with computer evidence identification, collection, and analysis.
    I want to acknowledge the Subcommittee's assistance in providing us
    with the special authority to recruit, hire, and compensate persons for
    select critical skill positions. We will use that authority to bring on
    board the specialists and technical staff needed to support our
    investigations.
        Emerging technologies present both a challenge and an opportunity
    for the FBI to develop new methods and capabilities for preventing and
    investigating crime and protecting the national security. We must be
    able to upgrade existing investigative techniques and technologies and
    to take advantage of emerging technologies to develop new capabilities
    to keep abreast of changing criminal problems and national security
    issues.
        The infrastructure necessary to support the FBI also presents
    challenges. The FBI employs nearly 28,000 employees, located in 56
    major field offices, approximately 400 smaller resident agencies, four
    information technology centers, a fingerprint identification and
    criminal justice information complex, a training academy, an
    engineering research facility, and FBI Headquarters. We also operate
    legal attache offices in 37 foreign countries. Tying these offices
    together are large, complex radio communications and telecommunications
    networks. In addition, we also operate and maintain nationwide systems
    and services, such as the National Crime Information Center, the
    Combined DNA Identification System, and fingerprint identification
    systems, that provide connectivity with state and local law
    enforcement.
                         fbi strategic plan, 1998-2003
        This past May, I issued the FBI Strategic Plan, 1998-2003. This
    plan represents the culmination of work performed over a year's time by
    a strategic planning task force under the personal direction of Deputy
    Director Robert M. Bryant. This group conducted strategy sessions with
    every FBI investigative program, both criminal and national security,
    and met with FBI Special Agents in Charge and other field office
    representatives. In doing so, the task force not only identified the
    strategic direction and national priorities for the FBI, but it also
    performed a self-assessment of the FBI's capacity to achieve these
    goals. This self-assessment identified deficiencies and performance
    gaps that must be improved or completely eliminated if we are to be
    successful in dealing with emerging crime problems and more challenging
    threats and issues related to protecting the national security. Some of
    these deficiencies and performance gaps can be corrected by
    reengineering processes and implementing policy decisions, while others
    will require funding and resources to mitigate.
        Guiding the implementation of our national priorities is a
    statement of core values for performing the mission of the FBI, which I
    personally wrote. Briefly, the core values that I have established for
    FBI employees can be summarized as follows: rigorous obedience to the
    Constitution; respect for the dignity of all those we protect;
    compassion; fairness; and uncompromising personal and institutional
    integrity.
        To accomplish the mission of the FBI, we must follow these core
    values. The public expects the FBI to do its utmost to protect people
    and their rights. As I have told FBI employees, observance of these
    core values is our guarantee of excellence and propriety in meeting the
    Bureau's national security and criminal investigative responsibilities.
        The FBI Strategic Plan, 1998-2003 identifies three major functional
    areas that define the FBI's strategic priorities. These three national
    priorities are: national and economic security; criminal enterprises
    and public integrity; and individuals and property. Within these three
    functional areas, the FBI has identified nine strategic goals
    emphasizing the FBI's need to position itself to prevent crimes and
    counterintelligence activities, rather than just reacting to such acts
    after they occur.
        National and Economic Security.--Our highest national priority is
    the investigation of foreign intelligence, terrorist, and criminal
    activities that directly threaten the national or economic security of
    the United States. We have established four strategic goals for this
    area: Identify, prevent, and defeat intelligence operations conducted
    by any foreign power within the United States, or against certain U.S.
    interests abroad, that constitute a threat to U.S. national security;
    Prevent, disrupt, and defeat terrorist operations before they occur;
    Create an effective and ongoing deterrent to prevent criminal
    conspiracies from defrauding major U.S. industries and the U.S.
    Government; and Deter the unlawful exploitation of emerging
    technologies by foreign powers, terrorists, and criminal elements.
        Criminal Enterprises and Public Integrity.--Our second national
    priority is crimes that affect the public safety or which undermine the
    integrity of American society. These investigations are often targeted
    at criminal organizations, such as the La Cosa Nostra, cartels and drug
    trafficking organizations, Asian criminal enterprises, and Russian
    organized crime groups, that exploit social, economic, or political
    circumstances. Another focus within this area is public corruption and
    civil rights. For this area, we have established four strategic
    objectives: Identify, disrupt, and dismantle existing and emerging
    organized criminal enterprises whose activities affect the United
    States; Identify, disrupt, and dismantle targeted international and
    national drug-trafficking organizations; Reduce public corruption at
    all levels of government with special emphasis on law enforcement
    operations; and Deter civil rights violations through aggressive
    investigative and proactive measures.
        Individuals and Property.--Our third national priority is crimes
    that affect individuals and property. Within this area, we will develop
    investigative strategies that reflect the public's expectation that the
    FBI will respond to and investigate serious criminal acts that affect
    the community and bring those responsible to justice. Our strategic
    goal for this area is: Reduce the impact of the most significant crimes
    that affect individuals and property.
        To achieve these strategic objectives, we have developed five
    operational support strategies that are designed to build enhanced
    investigative capabilities. These operational support strategies are:
    intelligence; information technology; applied science and engineering;
    management; and assistance to support our state, local, and
    international law enforcement partners. With respect to FBI management
    strategies, we were recently notified that the FBI was afforded an
    ``unqualified'' rating for the Department's Inspector General financial
    audit of fiscal year 1998. An ``unqualified'' is the highest rating an
    agency can receive.
        For the fiscal year 2000 budget, FBI program managers used the
    Strategic Plan, 1998-2003, and the five operational support strategies
    as guides for developing their resource requirements. Through an
    integrated strategic planning and budget framework, the FBI has
    significantly sharpened its focus for allocating resources based upon
    national priorities and strategic objectives that concentrate on the
    most significant crime problems and threats to the Nation.
                  overview of fiscal year 2000 budget request
        For fiscal year 2000, the FBI is requesting a total of
    $3,293,664,000 in direct budget authority, 26,519 permanent positions
    (11,339 agents), and 25,576 direct workyears for its Salaries and
    Expenses/Violent Crime Reduction Program and Construction
    appropriations. This request includes direct program increases totaling
    268 permanent positions (60 agents) and $109,159,000 in five budget
    initiatives: Information Collection and Analysis; Counterterrorism;
    Technology and Cyber Crimes; Law Enforcement Services; and
    Infrastructure.
        In addition to direct funded resources, the FBI proposes a total of
    2,646 reimbursable positions (454 agents) and 2,454 reimbursable
    workyears for fiscal year 2000. This represents increases of 89
    positions for the National Instant Criminal Background Check System
    (NICS) and 77 positions (35 agents) for health care fraud enforcement.
    The fiscal year 2000 budget reflects the transfer of FBI resources
    previously funded under the Interagency Crime and Drug Enforcement
    appropriation to Salaries and Expenses.
                      information collection and analysis
        The Information Collection and Analysis budget initiative focuses
    upon one of the most critical needs identified by FBI program managers,
    namely, the ability to collect, process, analyze, and disseminate
    information obtained during investigations, from other agencies, and
    from public sources. For fiscal year 2000, the FBI is requesting an
    increase of 56 positions and $48,917,000 for information collection and
    analysis activities in three areas: Information Sharing, Collection
    Management, and Investigative Information Services.
        Information Sharing.--Last year, the Committee supported funding
    for the Information Sharing program which is a critical cornerstone to
    all of the operational strategies identified by the FBI in its
    Strategic Plan, 1998-2003. What the FBI needs most is to move away from
    its current collection of ``stove-pipe'' databases and stand-alone case
    management systems that cannot talk to each other and implement an
    enterprise-wide case management system. The Information Sharing project
    will break down those information and case management stove-pipes.
        We are taking a measured approach to implementing the Information
    Sharing project. This multi-year information technology investment is
    comprised of three sequential phases, each builds upon the preceding
    phase. The first phase would upgrade the existing information
    technology architecture to support electronic case management in all
    FBI locations. The second phase would introduce analytical tools that
    will allow FBI agents, analysts, and specialists to perform high-level
    analysis of the information contained in electronic case files. The
    third phase envisions the capability of securely sharing FBI electronic
    case information with other members of the law enforcement and
    intelligence communities.
        Each major phase of the project represents a separate set of
    functionalities and capabilities so that if funding is not available
    for the subsequent phases, the investment provides benefit to the FBI.
    While the overall cost of all three phases will require a substantial
    investment over several years, our future requests will be dependent
    upon satisfactory progress being realized in the phases funded to date.
        In response to the Committee's direction, we have prepared a five-
    year plan for the Information Sharing project. That plan is being
    reviewed within the Administration for clearance and will be submitted
    to the Congress upon approval from the Office of Management and Budget.
    Until we receive your concurrence to this plan, the FBI is unable to
    expend any funding in 1999 to implement the Information Sharing
    project.
        With funding made available for fiscal year 1999, including
    $20,000,000 of direct appropriation and $40,000,000 from the
    Department's Working Capital Fund, the FBI would begin Phase I of the
    plan.
        For fiscal year 2000, the FBI requests a total of $58,800,000 to
    continue implementation of the Information Sharing project, including a
    program increase of $38,800,000. This funding would allow us to
    complete Phase I, which permits electronic case file capabilities with
    access from all FBI locations. Additionally, work would begin on Phase
    II of the plan to provide a common set of analytical tools to all FBI
    locations that would provide the electronic capability to analyze case
    information on a single-case basis. The availability of these
    analytical tools would allow FBI agents, analysts, and specialists to
    perform link analysis, telephone toll analysis, visual investigative
    analysis, geographic analysis, and the ability to analyze large volumes
    of data related to a single case at a single location. The Phase II
    ability to perform analysis on investigative case information
    represents a significant first step toward achieving the type of
    analytical capabilities needed to support the operational objectives
    identified in the Strategic Plan for 1998-2003.
        Collection Management.--During the development of the FBI's
    Strategic Plan for 1998-2003, virtually every program manager
    acknowledged that FBI intelligence analysis capabilities, across all
    investigative and national security programs, were deficient. Principal
    deficiencies most commonly cited were the absence of systematic
    intelligence collection requirements from Headquarters program managers
    to field offices, the lack of a systematic validation of sources and
    their information, the absence of a mechanism for sharing of
    information internally within the FBI across programs, and the absence
    of a mechanism for sharing information outside the FBI with other law
    enforcement and intelligence community partners based on agreed upon
    policies and guidelines.
        The FBI Strategic Plan identifies a number of near-term actions
    that are already taking place to begin building an effective collection
    management capability. Among the steps already taken are the
    designation of a staff at FBI Headquarters with the responsibility for
    developing and implementing an organization-wide intelligence strategy.
    This staff is also working with the Criminal Investigative and National
    Security Divisions at FBI Headquarters to develop collection management
    protocols and policies, a training curriculum and promotion standards
    for FBI analysts, and to ensure available analytical technologies are
    fully exploited by the FBI.
        This year, we also initiated a pilot program in our Washington
    Field Office to develop procedures and protocols for sharing
    intelligence information between two programs, national security and
    Russian organized crime.
        To further implement an effective collection management capability
    that will service all FBI investigative and national security programs,
    the fiscal year 2000 budget requests an enhancement of $3,682,000 to
    hire 56 new Intelligence Operations Specialists to serve as collection
    management officers in FBI field offices. The establishment of these
    positions is a critical element of our overall intelligence strategy.
    In each field office, these individuals will serve as the focal point
    for intelligence reporting and dissemination for criminal and national
    security programs and be responsible for validating the reliability of
    sources and their information. Also requested is $2,110,000 to build
    upon a prototype data analysis capability we are beginning this year
    that supports FBI Russian organized crime and counterterrorism
    programs. This effort would be adapted later to include other FBI
    investigative programs and crime problems and is compatible with the
    Information Sharing project.
        Investigative Information Services.--The FBI subscribes to various
    commercial on-line databases, such as Lexis/Nexis, Dun & Bradstreet,
    and others, to obtain public source information regarding individuals,
    businesses, and organizations that are subjects of investigations.
    Information obtained includes credit records, real property and tax
    records; boat, plane, and motor vehicle registration records; business
    records, including filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission
    and bankruptcy filings; articles of incorporation; financial
    information; rental records; news articles; concealed weapons permits;
    and hunting/fishing licenses. In 1998, more than 53,000 inquiries were
    made of these databases. Information from these inquiries assisted in
    the arrests of 393 fugitives wanted by the FBI, the identification of
    more than $37 million in seizable assets, the locating of 1,966
    individuals wanted by law enforcement, and the locating of 3,209
    witnesses wanted for questioning. Over 97 percent of the inquiries made
    produced new investigative information for follow-up action by agents
    and investigators.
        Subscription to these databases allows FBI investigative personnel
    to perform searches from computer workstations and eliminates the need
    to perform more time consuming manual searches of federal, state, and
    local records systems, libraries, and other information sources.
    Information obtained is used to support all categories of FBI
    investigations, from terrorism to violent crimes, and from health care
    fraud to organized crime. To meet increased subscription costs
    associated with accessing these public source databases, an increase of
    $4,325,000 is required for fiscal year 2000.
                                counterterrorism
        The bombings of the World Trade Center in 1993, the Murrah Federal
    Building in 1995, U.S. military facilities in Saudi Arabia in 1995 and
    1996, the Atlanta Olympic Games, clinics, and bars in the Southeast
    United States in 1996, 1997 and 1998, and, most recently, U.S.
    embassies in Tanzania and Kenya, are dramatic reminders of the
    devastation and toll in human lives that can result when terrorists and
    criminals use improvised explosive devices. Bombs--either conventional
    or unconventional--are considered the most likely threat to United
    States' citizens and interests from either international or domestic
    terrorists.
        Since 1981, the FBI has operated the Hazardous Devices School, the
    only formal, domestic training program where state and local bomb
    technicians can learn to locate, identify, render safe, and dispose of
    improvised explosive devices, as well as learn to use specialized
    equipment and protective clothing needed for the safe disposal of
    explosive materials. With your support, the FBI has adjusted its
    training program at the Hazardous Devices School to meet the challenge
    of today's terrorist and criminal threat, to include devices containing
    materials classified as weapons of mass destruction, and to train
    enhanced levels of bomb technicians.
        During fiscal year 1998, we trained 838 state and local students
    through the Hazardous Devices School, including 247 in basic bomb
    technician courses, 152 in recertification courses, 386 in weapons of
    mass destruction courses, and 53 in executive management courses. We
    also provided basic or recertification courses for 125 FBI Special
    Agent bomb technicians.
        For fiscal year 2000, the FBI requests $9,000,000 for the
    modernization of facilities at the Hazardous Devices School, which is
    located at Redstone Arsenal, Alabama. This funding will be used to
    construct improvements related to practical exercise areas, several
    mock villages, and required infrastructure. These improvements and mock
    villages will permit bomb technician trainees the opportunity to apply
    techniques and training learned in the classroom in a realistic
    training environment. Improved facilities at the Hazardous Devices
    School is one of the strategies identified under the Attorney General's
    Five-year Counterterrorism and Technology Crime Plan that was submitted
    to the Congress in December 1998.
                           technology and cyber-crime
        The growing use of technology by criminals, terrorists, and foreign
    intelligence agents to commit acts or to thwart the efforts of law
    enforcement investigating illegal activities is one of the serious
    challenges facing the FBI now and in the future. The Technology and
    Cyber-crime budget initiative focuses upon the resources needed to meet
    this challenge. For fiscal year 2000, the FBI is requesting an increase
    of 207 positions (60 agents) and $36,742,000 to enhance its
    capabilities for preventing, detecting, and investigating computer
    crime and protecting the critical infrastructure of the United States.
        National Infrastructure Protection Center (NIPC).--The NIPC serves
    as a national resource for critical infrastructure protection. Critical
    infrastructures are those physical and cyber-based systems essential to
    the minimal operations of the U.S. economy and government. The national
    security of the United States depends largely on cyber-based systems
    and the rapid, consistent, secure, and reliable movement and storage of
    data which they provide. Presidential Decision Directive (PDD)-63
    assigns to the FBI and the Department of Justice the responsibility for
    the Emergency Law Enforcement services sector and lead agency
    responsibility for law enforcement and internal security.
        The FBI supports these responsibilities through the activities of
    the NIPC. The mission of the NIPC is to identify and investigate
    threats and unlawful acts targeting the critical infrastructures of the
    United States and prevent illegal intrusions into government computer
    networks, protected civilian computers, and the national information
    infrastructure, consistent with PDD-63 and federal statutes. Under PDD-
    63, all Executive Departments and agencies are instructed to share
    information about threats and warnings of attacks, as well as actual
    attacks, on critical government and private sector infrastructures with
    the NIPC. The NIPC is directed to process law enforcement and
    intelligence information for inclusion into analyses and reports which
    the NIPC provides in appropriate format to other federal, state, local
    government agencies and private sector agencies.
        The NIPC is staffed by FBI employees, as well as representatives
    from the United States Secret Service, the United States Postal
    Service, Department of Defense, Department of Energy, Oregon State
    Police, and others. Efforts are underway to include private sector
    participation in NIPC.
        For fiscal year 2000, an increase of $1,656,000 is requested for
    the NIPC to support training, liaison, and outreach initiatives.
        Field computer crime and intrusion squads.--Computers, the
    Internet, and other new information technologies are an integral
    element of how we conduct business, perform research and development,
    engage in personal communications, and educate and entertain ourselves.
    However, as society has moved on-line, so have criminals. Crimes
    facilitated by the use of computers and the Internet include the
    defrauding of senior citizens, dissemination of child pornography,
    theft of credit card numbers, money laundering, insurance fraud, stock
    market manipulation, and theft of bank funds. On-line larceny has
    become a lucrative business due to the Internet's widespread
    availability and the growing popularity of electronic commerce.
        Computers and computer networks are also the target of hackers and
    others who illegally gain access in an effort to deny or disrupt
    service, steal data, alter computer code, and plant destructive viruses
    and Trojan horses. A 1998 Computer Security Institute study reported
    that 64 percent of its survey respondents experienced a computer
    security breach and that losses associated with computer intrusions
    totaled $136 million.
        By 2000, the FBI will have established and equipped specialized
    computer crime and intrusion squads in 10 FBI field offices:
    Washington, D.C., New York City, San Francisco, Chicago, Dallas, Los
    Angeles, Atlanta, Charlotte, Boston, and Seattle. The FBI needs this
    capability in each of its field offices. To provide that capability,
    the fiscal year 2000 budget request includes 108 new positions (60
    agents) and $11,390,000. When combined with existing positions, it will
    allow us to staff and equip 18 additional computer crime and intrusion
    squads and to provide equipment to establish a baseline computer crime
    and intrusion capability in 28 smaller field offices. This request will
    enable the FBI to have a computer crime capability in each of its 56
    field offices.
        Computer Analysis Response Teams.--Crucial evidence is increasingly
    being found in electronic form. The use of computers and computer
    storage media by criminals, terrorists, and foreign intelligence
    agents, is very well documented. The FBI and law enforcement must have
    the capability of recovering evidence and data from computers and
    computer storage media. This is becoming a very time-consuming and
    resource intensive process due to the growth in both the availability
    of computers and the size and capacity of computer storage media.
        The FBI established the Computer Analysis Response Team (CART)
    program under the FBI Laboratory to provide data forensic services. We
    currently have trained and equipped 95 field CART examiners and 26
    Headquarters examiners. Last year, in fiscal year 1998, these examiners
    conducted over 2,600 examinations. We project the demand for
    examinations to more than double by 2000.
        The FBI is working with state and local law enforcement to share
    data forensic laboratory techniques and expertise. For example, we are
    establishing a pilot regional computer forensic laboratory capability
    in the FBI's San Diego field office. The multi-agency laboratory will
    be staffed by examiners and technicians from the FBI and state and
    local agencies and serve as a resource for that region. We have also
    developed the Automated Computer Examination System (ACES), which is an
    automated forensic search capability for locating computer evidence on
    seized computers and computer storage media. We hope to make ACES
    available to other law enforcement agencies.
        For fiscal year 2000, the FBI is requesting $9,861,000 to hire and
    train 79 new computer forensic examiners, 17 for the FBI Laboratory and
    62 for assignment directly to FBI field offices and computer crime and
    intrusion squads, and for CART program equipment, supplies, and
    training. Unless we increase our capacity for performing data forensic
    examinations, investigators and prosecutors will be denied timely
    access to valuable evidence that will solve crimes and support the
    successful prosecution of child pornographers, drug traffickers,
    corrupt officials, persons committing fraud, terrorists, and other
    criminals.
        Technical support for investigations.--The widespread use of
    digital telecommunications technologies and the incorporation of
    privacy features/capabilities through the use of cryptography pose a
    serious technical challenge to the continued ability of the FBI and law
    enforcement to access and process information obtained pursuant to
    court-authorized electronic surveillance. In today's telecommunications
    environment, the FBI must contend with layers of protocols, formatting,
    compression, and proprietary encoding applications that can have the
    effect of masking or hiding the content of lawfully intercepted
    communications. For example, the expansion of electronic commerce and
    concerns for privacy have brought about new concepts and deployments in
    affordable and robust encryption products for private sector use.
        Terrorists, both abroad and at home, are using technology to
    protect their operations from being discovered and to thwart the
    efforts of law enforcement to detect, prevent, and investigate such
    acts. Ramzi Yousef, convicted for his role in the World Trade Center
    bombing and for conspiracy to destroy numerous United States airliners,
    used encryption to protect his computer files. Convicted spy Aldrich
    Ames was told by his Russian handlers to encrypt his computer files.
    International drug traffickers and child pornographers are using
    encryption to avoid detection by law enforcement.
        For fiscal year 2000, increases totaling 20 positions and
    $13,835,000 are requested for technical support to investigations. To
    handle a growing workload of requests from FBI field offices for
    protocol analysis and processing support for court-approved Title III
    and Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act intercepts, $6,835,000 is
    needed to hire and train 20 technicians, acquire technical equipment,
    and develop signal processing and network intercept tools to assist
    technicians and investigators. Additionally, $7,000,000 is requested to
    develop and enhance FBI counter-encryption technology and support
    services that will allow law enforcement access to the plain text of
    encrypted communications and computer files lawfully seized pursuant to
    court-authorization and search warrants.
                            law enforcement services
        Later this summer, the FBI will bring on line the new National
    Crime Information Center (NCIC) 2000 and the Integrated Automated
    Fingerprint Identification System (IAFIS). Both of these systems will
    offer state and local law enforcement an array of new, long-awaited
    features and capabilities. For example, NCIC 2000 will offer the
    capability of transmitting a single fingerprint from a squad car to
    help verify the identification of a person stopped for a traffic
    violation. One of the features of IAFIS is a latent search capacity
    that will allow state and local agencies to directly submit
    fingerprints for matching against the FBI's database. Another key IAFIS
    feature is the two-hour response time to criminal fingerprint cards
    submitted electronically. These two systems will help us catch wanted
    persons and prevent the release of fugitives before their true
    identities can be learned. Yet, the real success of these systems
    depends upon state and local law enforcement possessing the equipment
    that will allow them to take advantage of these tools. I am hopeful
    that state and local governments will make these investments now that
    our systems are coming on line.
        The Law Enforcement Services budget initiative encompasses three
    critical requests totaling 94 positions (5 direct and 89 reimbursable)
    and $9,500,000 that will allow the FBI to provide better forensic and
    information services to federal, state, and local law enforcement.
    These items are: the implementation of the Federal Convicted Offender
    DNA database; improved telecommunications network connectivity between
    the FBI and other federal, state, and local forensic laboratories that
    support users of the Combined DNA Information System (CODIS) and the
    National Integrated Ballistics Information Network; and the National
    Instant Criminal Background Check System. These requests directly
    support the state and local assistance strategy of the FBI Strategic
    Plan, 1998-2003.
        Federal Convicted Offenders DNA database.--The Anti-Terrorism and
    Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 authorized the FBI to ``expand the
    CODIS to include Federal crimes and crimes committed in the District of
    Columbia.'' No other federal agency or crime laboratory is authorized
    to establish such a capability. In December 1998, the FBI submitted to
    the Congress a plan, requested in the 1998 Justice Appropriations Act,
    to support the implementation of a program that requires a federal
    prisoner convicted of a federal offense involving a victim who is a
    minor or a sexually violent offense to provide a DNA sample for
    inclusion in a law enforcement DNA database prior to the prisoner's
    release from incarceration. That report included draft legislation
    which requires Congressional enactment for the FBI to implement the
    plan. The draft legislation also clarifies the authority for
    implementing the Federal Convicted Offender DNA database authorized by
    Congress in 1996.
        The FBI requires 5 positions and $5,336,000 in fiscal year 2000 to
    implement the Federal Convicted Offenders DNA database. This database
    would include DNA samples from offenders convicted in federal,
    military, and District of Columbia courts. While all 50 states have
    enacted laws allowing the collection of DNA samples from persons
    convicted in state court for qualifying offenses, there is no
    collection of DNA samples from persons convicted in federal, military,
    or District of Columbia courts. Consequently, when state and local law
    enforcement check DNA evidence recovered from a violent sexual assault,
    murder, or child molestation, there are no profiles in CODIS of
    convicted federal offenders who may have been released and are now
    residing in that community. The proposed legislation and the Federal
    Convicted Offenders DNA database would close this gap resulting from
    the lack of a federal DNA collection program.
        Forensic laboratory connectivity.--One of my goals for the FBI
    Laboratory is the development and transition of new and improved
    forensic examination capabilities and crime-fighting tools to state and
    local forensic laboratories and law enforcement agencies. Two such
    tools are the National Integrated Ballistics Information Network
    (NIBIN) and CODIS.
        NIBIN is a computer database system which allows forensic examiners
    within a region or large metropolitan area to exchange and match
    cartridge casings and bullets, thereby linking serial shootings
    incidents and recovered firearms. CODIS is the national DNA database
    system containing indices of DNA profiles from convicted offenders and
    unsolved crimes. CODIS permits state and local crime laboratories to
    exchange and compare DNA profiles electronically, thereby linking
    serial violent crimes, especially rapes, and identifying suspects by
    matching DNA from crime scenes to profiles from convicted offenders.
        Growth in the number of user locations, database records, and
    queries is outstripping the existing capabilities of the FBI
    telecommunications network supporting NIBIN and CODIS. We have
    developed a plan to consolidate these separate networks and provide
    secure communications, path redundancy, and improved access to NIBIN
    and CODIS users. Under this plan, the FBI would migrate NIBIN and CODIS
    telecommunications services to the wide area network established for
    the Criminal Justice Information Services Division. To facilitate
    consolidation, an increase of $4,164,000 is requested in fiscal year
    2000.
        National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS).--The
    Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act required the Attorney General to
    establish a NICS that any federal firearms licensee may contact for
    immediate verification on whether the receipt of a firearm would
    violate federal or state law. The NICS system became operational on
    November 30, 1998. Since starting operations, the FBI NICS operations
    center has processed more than 2 million background checks. More than
    22,000 gun purchases have been denied to convicted felons and other
    ineligible persons. NICS has been successful in keeping guns out of the
    hands of criminals, while facilitating the sale of firearms to those
    who are not prohibited by law from purchasing a gun.
        Presently, 15 states and territories serve as full points of
    contact for the NICS system. As such, these states and territories
    perform NICS checks for the purchase of both handguns and long guns.
    Another 11 states serve as partial points of contact for the purchase
    of handguns only. For the remaining 27 states and territories who are
    not serving as points of contact and for long-gun checks in partial
    point of contact states, the FBI performs NICS checks. For fiscal year
    2000, the FBI estimates it will perform approximately 6.6 million NICS
    checks for non-point of contact states and territories, while state
    points of contact will perform approximately 5 million checks.
        An additional 89 reimbursable positions will be required by the FBI
    in fiscal year 2000 to process the projected NICS workload. The FBI's
    workload for NICS in fiscal year 2000 could be affected by decisions
    made by states serving as points of contact to cease performing that
    service.
        For fiscal year 2000, the Administration is proposing to fund the
    cost of FBI NICS operations through the collection of user fees that
    would be paid by persons desiring to establish their eligibility to
    purchase a firearm. At this time, we estimate the fee will be between
    $11.00 and $13.00. We anticipate that a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
    for the fee will be published in the Federal Register in either April
    or May. The Final Rule must be published prior to September 1, 1999, so
    that the fee can be implemented effective with the beginning of fiscal
    year 2000 on October 1, 1999.
        Most recently, on March 3, 1999, the Department of Justice
    published a proposed rule in the Federal Register to shorten the NICS
    records retention period from its current six months to 90 days. This
    represents the minimum time period that would be needed to detect
    prohibited felons who assume the identity of a qualified person to buy
    guns illegally and to identify individuals who misuse the NICS system
    to perform background checks unrelated to gun purchases. Retention of
    records for this limited time period will allow the FBI to conduct
    audits that protect against invasions of privacy that could result from
    misuse and abuse of the NICS system. These audits are essential to
    safeguard the security and privacy of personal information, such as
    criminal and arrest histories, mental health information, and military
    service background information, that is part of NICS. I want to state
    unequivocally that the Department is not using this information to
    establish a national gun registry and that records of eligible
    purchasers will be destroyed after 90 days.
                                 infrastructure
        The FBI anticipates awarding a contract for the construction of its
    new Laboratory facility at the FBI Academy in Quantico, Virginia, by
    mid-April. While occupation of the new FBI Laboratory will not occur
    until late 2001, it will be necessary to begin acquiring specialized
    scientific and laboratory equipment, cabling, and furnishings for the
    new facility in fiscal year 2000 so that these items can be installed
    prior to occupancy. Some specialized equipment that will be needed for
    the FBI Laboratory is not made on a production line; rather, it is
    produced on an application basis. Manufacturers require a substantial
    lead time to produce, test, validate, and calibrate new instruments
    before shipping for installation. To begin the acquisition of
    specialized equipment for the new FBI Laboratory, an increase of
    $5,000,000 is requested.
                     related departmental funding requests
        I would like to comment briefly on several related Department
    funding requests that directly affect the FBI in 2000, including: the
    Telecommunications Carrier Compliance Fund (TCCF), the Narrowband
    Communications Fund, and state and local bomb technician equipment
    funding.
        TCCF.--Within the General Administration appropriation, a total of
    $15,000,000 is requested under the TCCF to continue reimbursements to
    telecommunications carriers and service providers as authorized by the
    Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (CALEA).
        Narrowband communications.--Also within the General Administration
    appropriation, an enhancement of $45,979,000 is requested for
    Departmental narrowband radio equipment and services. Of this amount,
    approximately $32,435,000 would be made available to the FBI for
    acquiring replacement hand-held, mobile, and other radio communications
    equipment that complies with narrowband requirements issued by the
    National Telecommunications and Information Administration. Under these
    requirements, the FBI must replace its existing VHF radio
    communications equipment and system with new technology that operates
    on one-half the current bandwidth.
        The FBI has nearly 12,400 hand-held radios and over 11,000 mobile
    radios that are not compatible with narrowband technology and which
    must be replaced. Our field offices have identified a need for nearly
    3,400 hand-held radios and 3,100 mobile radios above current inventory
    to support FBI and task force operations. We also operate the largest,
    civilian land-based mobile radio communications infrastructure in the
    United States that will also need to be replaced to accommodate the new
    narrowband radio technology.
        State and local bomb technician equipment.--Finally, within the
    Office of Justice Programs, a total of $45,000,000 is requested for the
    FBI to continue a program of providing chemical and biological
    detection technology and other equipment to state and local bomb
    technicians and bomb squads. This funding builds upon initiatives
    supported in prior years by the Subcommittee to enhance training for
    the bomb technician community and to train and equip these technicians
    and squads for dealing with large, improvised explosive devices,
    including devices involving chemical toxins and biological agents.
                             legislative proposals
        Mr. Chairman, the fiscal 2000 budget request includes several
    legislative items proposed for the FBI, including: danger pay
    authority, foreign cooperative agreement authority, extension of the
    Title 5 demonstration project, and a new demonstration project for the
    defensive arming of a limited number of non-agent surveillance
    specialists.
      --Section 114 would extend to me the same authority that DEA
            Administrator Constantine currently enjoys for authorizing
            danger pay for personnel assigned to high risk overseas
            locations. For the FBI, this is both a pay equity issue for FBI
            Agents assigned to DEA Country Offices and a recognition of the
            increased threat facing FBI personnel performing
            extraterritorial investigations in foreign locations due to our
            counterterrorism efforts. At times, FBI personnel are deployed
            to overseas locations where they face a threat or danger that
            does not always extend to all members of the United States
            diplomatic team in a particular country. This authority would
            allow me to recognize those situations.
      --Section 115 would extend from three years to five years the
            duration of the limited exemption from Title 5 for critical
            skill positions. That limited exemption was granted by the
            Congress in 1998. An extension is needed so the operating plan
            for the demonstration project, which was approved by the
            Subcommittee in January 1999, can run for the full three years
            originally envisioned.
      --Section 116 would allow the FBI to credit to its appropriation,
            funding that is received from friendly foreign governments for
            that country's share of joint, cooperative projects.
      --Finally, Section 123 proposes a demonstration project to evaluate
            the feasibility of arming, for defensive purposes only, up to
            50 members of FBI Special Surveillance Group teams, that
            provide surveillance support in counterintelligence and
            counterterrorism investigations. This is a safety issue. Our
            surveillance teams are operating in more dangerous and hostile
            environments and against individuals who are more unpredictable
            in their behavior. I am concerned for the safety of these
            highly trained specialists who are finding themselves in harm's
            way as they perform their duties in support of our
            counterterrorism and counterintelligence programs. The proposal
            includes specific safeguards with respect to qualifications,
            selection, training in firearms proficiency and deadly force
            policy for individuals selected for the demonstration project.
        Last year, the Committee was supportive of several legislative
    provisions, including an emergency procurement authority for the
    Attorney General and authority to extend payments for relocation
    expenses for Department of Justice personnel transferred to Puerto Rico
    and other territories. I would like to extend my sincere thanks for
    your assistance on these issues, and particularly for helping us
    address one of the quality of life issues that we believe will help
    attract and retain fluent Spanish-speaking agents for our San Juan
    Field Office.
                                    summary
        I am especially proud of the work being performed every day by the
    men and women of the FBI. Their ability to do that work is a reflection
    of the strong support given to the FBI by this Subcommittee. I believe
    our strategic vision and plan of action will position the FBI to deal
    with the challenges we face from increasingly complex and changing
    crime problems and national security threats. The budget initiatives
    proposed for fiscal year 2000 will help us implement our Strategic Plan
    and give us the opportunity to achieve the strategic objectives that we
    have identified for ourselves. I believe our priorities and objectives
    reflect the expectations for the FBI that are held by the American
    public, as well as the Congress.
        Again, I thank you for this opportunity to appear before the
    Subcommittee.

                 management of Chinese espionage investigation

        Senator Gregg. Thank you, Director. And let me say that
    this committee has great admiration for both your departments
    and we have tried to support you aggressively and make sure
    that you have in the context of a balanced budget the resources
    you need to do the job because we know you do a good job with
    the dollars that we give you. That is just a general statement
    of the way I view your activities, and I am sure Senator
    Hollings joins me in that view.
        Turning to a couple of specific issues, though, that I
    would like to take up, and we will go back and forth between
    myself and Senator Hollings, a salient issue which is not a
    budget issue, but which interests me, is the Chinese issue
    involving specifically the investigation relative to Wen Ho Lee
    and his activities. My question to you, Director Freeh, is do
    you feel that the management of that espionage event was
    handled correctly by the Department of Energy and the Security
    Council?
        Mr. Freeh. If I could avoid talking about the specific
    case, that is the criminal case, because as you know that is an
    active investigation and I would not want to say anything that
    might prejudice or jeopardize a prosecution. So I just need to
    be a little bit careful about the actual specifics of the
    investigation. With respect to the general issue of
    counterintelligence in the laboratories and as managed by the
    Department of Energy, which is a little bit broader, but I
    think equally a central question, as I testified last week
    before Chairman Rogers' committee, the counterintelligence
    vulnerability in the national laboratories managed by the
    Department of Energy, going back at least 10 years and perhaps
    longer than that, has been a very serious weakness in our whole
    national security system.
        The inability to have established and then manage an
    effective counterintelligence program has been well
    acknowledged, not just by the Department of Energy, but by
    various committees of the Congress. In fact, Senator Glenn in
    1988 held hearings and issued a report documenting and also
    recommending essential changes that would have to be effected
    if the Department of Energy management of its laboratories was
    to be effective and safe and protected against
    counterintelligence.
        That report was followed by at least eight other reports,
    some by the FBI, some by the Director of Counterintelligence,
    some by intelligence committees as well as the General
    Accounting Office. So this vulnerability, going back many, many
    years, has been quite severe, quite significant. What has
    changed in that regard and changed, I might point out, was an
    initiative by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. They
    commissioned the FBI to do yet another report, which we
    published in April of 1997, which we gave to the then Secretary
    of Energy. We then watched a Presidential Decision Directive
    process take place which resulted, in January of last year, in
    a historic change in the Department of Energy. For the first
    time in several years, many, many years, they established an
    effective counterintelligence program. I sent my top
    counterintelligence expert, Ed Curran, over there, who now is
    their director of Counterintelligence.
        They started to take control of the laxity in the various
    laboratories, particularly the weapons laboratories. They have
    hired new CI directors, most of whom were former FBI agents.
    They have accountability. They have reporting. They have
    training. They have things which were never implemented despite
    many, many recommendations.
        So the short answer to your question is, I think the CI
    issue was managed quite poorly by the department for many, many
    years. To their credit, and to Secretary Richardson's credit,
    they have corrected that, and I believe the program in place,
    although in need of more resources which he is asking his
    committee to consider, for the first time historically has the
    capability that it never had before to not only deter
    espionage, but also assist in the detection and investigation
    of those cases.

                              Loral investigation

        Senator Gregg. Well, that is good news that we appear to be
    on top of the problem. However, it has taken awhile to get
    there, and my question is more about the role of the Chinese
    government in this event and in other events. Going back to the
    Loral sale of technology, did the FBI investigate that?
        Mr. Freeh. We did not, Mr. Chairman. That was a Customs
    investigation. We were not involved in that. We did get
    involved in the part of the investigation which was designed to
    detect whether some of that technology was heretofore sent, but
    the actual investigation was and still is a Customs
    investigation.
        Senator Gregg. To the extent you were involved in that
    investigation, was it your determination that China ended up
    with the technology?
        Mr. Freeh. I cannot make that determination. It is just not
    my expertise. We had agents who were detailed to Congressmen
    Dixon and Cox's committee and assisted in the accumulation of
    facts. But I am not in the position to make that determination.
    Others, including Department of Defense people, have done so.

                      Campaign contributions investigation

        Senator Gregg. Relative to the investigation of Mr. Wong,
    Mr. Trie, and Mr. Chung, there was a representation that some
    of the funds that at least one of those individuals was using
    in their activities originated with Chinese military operatives
    or members of the Chinese government. Did your agency
    investigate that?
        Mr. Freeh. Yes, sir, we did.
        Senator Gregg. And was it your determination that some of
    these funds did arise from somewhere in China's government
    structure?
        Mr. Freeh. We did make determinations with respect to that
    and I have testified at length before both of the Intelligence
    Committees setting forth both the basis and the caveat for that
    determination. I would be happy to do it with you, but I prefer
    not to do it in this session because some of it is classified.

                            Los Alamos investigation

        Senator Gregg. The information which Mr. Wen Ho Lee at the
    Los Alamos Lab is believed to have passed on to the Chinese
    government, that information it is presumed went to the Chinese
    government; is it not?
        Mr. Freeh. That is the presumption which people have made.
    Again, this is an active criminal investigation that we are
    conducting, and nobody has been charged with a crime. Nobody
    has been arrested. That is not to say that the investigation
    will not progress to certain decisions at that point, at some
    point. But those allegations, as you define them, have been in
    the newspapers. It is unfortunate that a lot of this has been
    in the newspapers because it has, in effect, impaired our
    investigation in part, and I do not think I can give an opinion
    as to whether or not information was passed at this point.
        Senator Gregg. Well, just as an aside, let me say looking
    at it from a distance as a citizen versus an expert in this
    area, it appears to be sort of a triangulation here of
    activity: Loral, the funds flowing through the operatives like
    Mr. Wong and Mr. Trie and Mr. Chung, and now this activity at
    our labs. There does appear to be a source for this, and it
    does appear to involve China. And it does not appear to be for
    the purposes of improving our relations with China but rather
    for the purposes of improving China's capability of penetrating
    our country's strategic knowledge and using that to benefit
    their strategic knowledge, which is not necessarily helpful to
    us. Is that true?
        Mr. Freeh. Those are serious concerns and some of those
    allegations are, in fact, parts of the various investigations I
    have alluded to, although I know I have not answered your
    questions directly this morning.
        Senator Gregg. Well, I understand that. I understand you
    are not going to answer my questions directly because you are
    interested in getting convictions. You are interested in
    pursuing the espionage, but I do think that there are some
    areas that can be highlighted and which a layman like myself
    can reach fairly logical conclusions from. Is it inappropriate
    of me as a layman to reach those conclusions in light of those
    facts?
        Mr. Freeh. I would not say so, no.

                           National Security Council

        Senator Gregg. Thank you. When did the National Security
    Council, or maybe this is something you also do not want to
    talk about--I believe it has been reported publicly--when were
    they advised, the leader of the National Security Council, Mr.
    Berger, of the Chinese penetration of the Los Alamos lab?
        Mr. Freeh. Again, the reports, and some of it has been
    confirmed in public statements by people with knowledgeable
    bases, I think Mr. Berger has talked publicly about being
    briefed first in 1996 and then more fully in 1997. Some of the
    briefings that he refers to came from the Department of Energy.
    In fact, the earlier ones were by the Department of Energy.

                        DOE efforts to correct problems

        Senator Gregg. But the adjustment in the Department of
    Energy's counterintelligence efforts which you feel now are
    moving in the right direction did not occur until the last few
    months; is that not correct?
        Mr. Freeh. That is correct. The PDD was signed in February
    of 1998. The actual changes in implementation were taking place
    as late as the fall of last year.
        Senator Gregg. So it is safe to assume that from the period
    1996 until 1998 that even though the National Security Council,
    the head of the National Security Council, had been advised of
    the serious penetration that there was no, not no, but that the
    efforts necessary to correct the problem were not occurring?
        Mr. Freeh. Some efforts occurred early on. Some did not
    occur until later. For instance, in March of 1998, George Tenet
    and I addressed the laboratory directors of all the national
    laboratories, particularly the directors of the weapons
    laboratories, and gave them a very extensive brief as well as
    guidelines and requests to begin implementation of parts of the
    PDD at that stage. So some of these things were being done up
    to and including things in the fall of 1998.
        Senator Gregg. But I do think it is safe to assume from
    your prior statement that the necessary counterintelligence
    activities really were not up and running until the fall of
    1998.
        Mr. Freeh. That is correct. Until the fall of 1998, the
    fully implemented PDD, which was really based on our
    recommendations from April of 1997, were not put into place.
        Senator Gregg. This is not necessarily your bailiwick, but
    is not espionage occurring at the national labs a significant
    enough issue so that we should not have a 2-year time lag
    between when the highest levels of government are informed of
    it and when we actually take the corrective actions to cause it
    stop?
        Mr. Freeh. Well, I would say as the person responsible for
    counterintelligence in the United States that the vulnerability
    of the laboratories should have been addressed in 1988. At that
    point, there was enough information not very different from
    some of the information today that put really everyone on
    notice that this was a huge vulnerability and that things had
    to be done to correct processes like the visitation of foreign
    scientists, the residency of foreign national scientists in
    very significant programs, the lack of a centralized
    counterintelligence program, the lack of maintaining basic
    records and data on the people working some of these programs.
    So I think these should have been corrected 10 years ago.
        Senator Gregg. Well, that is a fairly considerable lapse;
    is it not?
        Mr. Freeh. Very significant.
        Senator Gregg. And we do not know what the damage is?
        Mr. Freeh. The DCI in conjunction with some other people
    are doing that now and we await the results of that study,
    several studies, two studies.

                          exchange problems with China

        Senator Gregg. I notice that there are some initiatives
    going forward here to have some very in depth exchanges with
    the People's Liberation Army involving the Pentagon, their plan
    to go forward in the near future. Do you think that it is wise
    to pursue that type of exchange in light of--not only what
    happened at the labs but what has happened with Loral--what has
    happened with the Johnny Chung situation?
        Mr. Freeh. I do not know the extent of those exchanges or
    the significance of detail or access that they would involve. I
    think any time we bring over, just to use an example, a foreign
    national scientist, particularly one connected with a country
    that, if not on a State Department watchlist, is a country
    whose interests are adverse to those of the United States, that
    visit, any exchanges that derive from that, including
    informational exchanges, ought to be carefully controlled.
    Maybe they are not prudent given the scope of what is going to
    be transacted.
        And in any case, all of those visits should come within the
    ambit of a counterintelligence program that works, which means
    there are debriefings, there is detection, there is follow-up,
    there are interviews, there are investigations that go with
    those visits if they are sensitive enough to require that kind
    of attention.
        Senator Gregg. Well, do you know if that structure is in
    place for these planned----
        Mr. Freeh. I do not know, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Gregg. I appreciate the Senator from South
    Carolina's patience. I took more than my 5 minutes to start
    things off, but you go ahead and take such time as you want.
        Senator Hollings. Well, that is all right. I do not have
    knowledge about Wen Ho Lee, but it is obvious what the chairman
    was getting at, Director Freeh. Who was President in 1988?
        Mr. Freeh. I believe, well, I guess, no, it was President
    Reagan.

                          National laboratory security

        Senator Hollings. President Reagan in 1988. You see that is
    what really interests me because the FBI is professional and
    these other entities, the other departments and agencies
    couldn't care less. Their primary functions have to do with
    Energy or with diplomacy as is the case with the Department of
    State. This subcommittee dealt with the Moscow Embassy
    situation. They were actually having parties up there with the
    KGB inside the embassy and the ambassador did not seem to be
    alarmed, which brings me to the real point of getting something
    done.
        Do you think that maybe the FBI should be responsible for
    security and take over the security mission of the national
    labs of the Department of Energy? What do you think of that?
        Mr. Freeh. I think----
        Senator Hollings. In other words, you have 10 years of
    weakness and everything else, and, yes, you have Bill
    Richardson in there now who is right on top of it. How long is
    that going to last? You know they will come around with their
    budgets stating that we need so much more for more scientists
    and other things. I have watched it. You learn something after
    32 years up here. Would you test the weakness there that we
    found for ten--well, excuse me--you said that Senator Glenn
    gave his report in 1988. So that was the previous 10 years. And
    so it has gone on for 20 years in the Department of Energy even
    though we had World War II and so many atomic secrets stolen
    for the Soviets during that timeframe. Same act, same scene. We
    are not making any progress.
        And I am not too impressed with what they are doing at the
    Department of Energy right now because certainly they will step
    it up. The headlines are on to it. And we will really give it a
    lot of attention for awhile, and then the budget constraints
    will take over. What about the FBI? It is professional and I
    agree with the chairman's comment with Constantine and
    yourself. You all are doing outstanding jobs, and I want to
    give you every support, but I want to solve problems rather
    than go around and around in a circle. Could you take over the
    security requirements? Could the FBI do that?
        Mr. Freeh. Yes, sir, we could.

                       U.S. Customs Service investigation

        Senator Hollings. I think we ought to look into it because
    you do not get Energy people really worried about security, you
    know. As scientists they are supposed to do studies and they
    have these visitations and they discuss what it is they are
    working on so they really are not conscious of security
    requirements. What about Customs? Are they doing a good job
    right now? You said--what case is that?
        Senator Gregg. Loral.
        Mr. Freeh. It's the Hughes-Loral case.
        Senator Hollings. Oh, the Loral case. Does Customs do a
    good job regarding security?
        Mr. Freeh. The specific objective of the investigation is
    to determine whether technology was transferred during the
    course of consultations between the Chinese scientists on the
    Long March rocket and the Hughes and Loral scientists. They are
    doing that investigation. I am not privy to the details of it
    or whether or not it is moving along as they wish it to be. I
    just do not know.
        Senator Hollings. When that breach was discovered, it was
    immediately reported to the FBI, wasn't it?
        Mr. Freeh. It was actually reported, as I understand it, to
    State Department and then Customs, though the U.S. Attorney's
    office commenced the investigation.
        Senator Hollings. I see. To Customs then. Well, we ought to
    look into that because we only have limited resources. You are
    doing a good job here and I wonder about abroad. What is the
    policy? In other words, the chairman and I, we have been
    handling this budget, and in 10 years, it has gone from $4
    billion to $21 billion for the Justice Department. You know we
    cut spending and cut spending, but this is a growth industry,
    law enforcement, prisons, U.S. attorneys, judges, marshals,
    right on down the line. Well, you enjoy a popularity, both
    departments, and we can get the money for DEA and we can get
    the money for the FBI. I do not think we will have much
    difficulty. But then we have to use measured judgment on how
    much we obtain.

                          FBI overseas investigations

        With respect to overseas operations, what is the policy if
    you receive a call from say Bosnia or Ireland, that some target
    was blown up. I hope you are not called to provide assistance
    against the mafia in Russia. You would have to take your whole
    crowd with you to Moscow. I mean we must have some limits
    obviously.
        Mr. Freeh. We do have limits, Senator. For every one of
    those that is done, there are probably, you know, a dozen that
    are not done or are turned down. We get the request from the
    State Department. The State Department will ask the Attorney
    General if, in response to a particular country's request, we
    can furnish assistance usually on a very limited basis and very
    episodic event. In other words, we send over a couple of
    technicians to look at a device or a crime scene and we furnish
    a report back, and then we are removed from that investigation.
        But if we get such a request from the State Department, the
    Attorney General will decide whether or not it should be done
    and then we will send some resources over. But it is not, I can
    assure you, that frequently done. There are many times when we
    do not do it and the resources are fairly small in terms of the
    serving of those requests.
        Senator Hollings. Many times you do not do it and you turn
    it down as a matter of policy as the director of the FBI?
        Mr. Freeh. Yes, sir. That's correct.
        Senator Hollings. Because you need to have some judgment
    there, too, because when you investigate in Ireland, for
    example, you are going to be taking sides. When you are
    investigating in Bosnia on who blew up whom, you are going to
    be taking sides. And even though it might be--probably it is--a
    successful investigation, you must be careful.
        Mr. Freeh. No. You are absolutely right, which is why our
    investigation assistance would be limited to telling them
    perhaps what the explosive mixture was in a device based on a
    forensic examination, not recommending who they ought to
    investigate.
        Senator Hollings. Very good. I have some other questions,
    but let me yield back to you, Mr. Chairman, and then we can get
    this other----
        Senator Gregg. We do not want to let Mr. Constantine go
    here. We got to make sure we give him some questions.
        Senator Hollings. Well, I have a lot of questions for him.
    Have you met the Attorney General?
        Mr. Constantine. Yes, I have.
        Senator Hollings. You all talk a different language.

                   impact of apprehensions on Crime reduction

        Senator Gregg. Which brings me to a question I do have for
    you which follows up on that. I am not sure it is different
    language, but the language you talk is the language which I
    agree with, which is you are essentially saying that these
    numbers you have discussed reflect fairly significant increases
    in apprehension both in the drugs and in individuals behind the
    drugs. You see that being a function of people that you have--
    the fact that you have been able to increase the number of
    people you have on the street and basically increase law
    enforcement and the ability to reduce crime. You said murders
    are down in communities, robberies are down in communities,
    drugs being sold are down in communities. This is a function of
    how many DEA agents you can put into a community and the
    function of a local community's law enforcement capacity to
    address that. Is that a simplified reaction or is that true?
        Mr. Constantine. There is a direct line correlation between
    the identification of criminals, apprehending them,
    incarcerating them and a reduction of crime. I have studied
    this professionally and academically for 39 years. When you
    specifically target a group of criminals who were committing a
    great deal of violence and selling drugs or whatever, and were
    able to arrest them, indict them, convict them and send them
    away to prison, you have an immediate impact on that community.
    I have seen that again and again, especially in my previous job
    in the New York State Police.
        And our agents, just like a trooper or a police officer,
    are our most important asset because it is the agent who
    conducts the surveillance, finds the informants, and makes the
    apprehension.
        Senator Gregg. Well, I think looking at it from an
    anecdotal standpoint, as again just somebody who has been
    following this on this committee, that that makes sense. You
    know that you take more bad guys off the street and you reduce
    the crime, and, in fact, in a few discussions I have had with
    professionals in this area like yourself, it seems that there
    are in many instances just a few bad, really bad people who
    need to be removed. And sometimes in the instances of gangs,
    for example, if you take the core out of the gang, you reduce
    the effectiveness of the gang exponentially versus when there
    may be 100 people in the gang, but if you take five of them out
    of it, you have reduced their impact by 20 times versus the
    five that you reduce, removed out of the gang. Is that true?
        Mr. Constantine. That is true. I believe the numbers of
    people who engage in this activity are finite. I think if the
    system deals with them aggressively and expeditiously, you can
    make a difference. If you do not, then the numbers of crimes
    occur at the exponential rate and the system breaks down and
    you are unable to solve all of those homicides and murders. The
    classic example is New York state. I watched that state go from
    482 murders when I first started my police career in 1960 to
    2,600 murders in 1990 and there was no change in the
    population. And the armed robberies went from 7,000 to 120,000.
    There was a decision in the fall of 1990, with the death of
    that kid from Utah, that we had to do something about crime in
    that state. There was a hiring of eventually 8,000 more
    policemen and a very aggressive reaction to it. In 1990, there
    were 2,252 murders in that city; last year, there were 629
    murders. That means, I have told people, in 1 year alone, there
    are 1,600 people who are alive who would not have been alive if
    law enforcement had not dealt with criminal activity so
    aggressively. So I do believe that it works. I always believed
    it because I witnessed it up front as a detective or a
    lieutenant or a captain. But it becomes all more obvious to me
    right now when I look at the results over the last 7 or 8 years
    in this country and how we have done with violent crime.
        We have begun to reduce crime at levels that I never would
    have believed possible. Everybody can come up with a different
    idea. You know they say that success has a thousand fathers and
    failure is an orphan. So there are a thousand fathers claiming
    credit for the success in reducing crime, but the real success,
    I believe, is the law enforcement community. There have been no
    big intervening variables that change the demographics or
    change the population.
        Senator Gregg. So you are referring to the city of New York
    and when the city decided to significantly increase the number
    of officers on the street, the crime went down, and when they
    started to enforce aggressively laws in the city, crime went
    down.
        Mr. Constantine. I know the numbers. And since 1994, the
    drug arrests in the city of New York went from 64,000 to
    130,000. Since 1994, the index crimes, the crimes that are
    reported to the FBI in the Uniform Crime Report, I believe
    there are seven of them now, the most serious crimes in the
    country, have been reduced from 400,000 to 200,000. And there
    are cumulative numbers in between 1994 and 1995 that in the
    aggregate make those things even bigger and the experts tell me
    that there are 700,000 less crime victims in that city in the
    last seven years. And anybody who has been there and knew----
        Senator Gregg. 700,000 less crime victims?
        Mr. Constantine. 700,000 less crime victims.
        Senator Gregg. In New York City in the last how many?
        Mr. Constantine. In the last 7 years.
        Senator Gregg. That is a staggering number.
        Mr. Constantine. And that is why when you go there, you can
    see how the quality of life and everything has improved. I also
    see that in Los Angeles.
        Senator Gregg. Maybe I should go back and visit again.
        Mr. Constantine. I see it in Los Angeles, Chicago, San
    Antonio, Boston, any number of places and they all have
    different variations of the strategy. But, the law enforcement
    community is always the key, whether they are working within a
    community organization or in a strict law enforcement mode.

                       Drug problem and Mexican influence

        Senator Gregg. Well, that is pretty impressive testimony.
    On this point of your problem, however, you mentioned Mexico a
    couple of times. What percentage do you see of the drug problem
    that we have on the east coast as being a function of Mexican
    influence?
        Mr. Constantine. On the east coast probably 25 to 30
    percent of the east coast's drug problem is attributed to
    traffickers from Mexico. Nationally, probably 50 percent of all
    of the cocaine in the United States today is being somehow
    organized by criminal mafias based in Mexico. About 90 percent
    of all of the methamphetamine being distributed in the United
    States is directly connected to these criminal organizations in
    Mexico.
        Senator Gregg. 90 percent?
        Mr. Constantine. About 90 percent. Now that does not affect
    the northeast quadrant of the United States significantly other
    than Philadelphia and in some places in New Hampshire where you
    have the motorcycle rallies in the summertime and gangs that
    have always been somewhat connected to methamphetamine cooking.
    We have done a study, what we call a ``signature analysis'' of
    drugs. Our original results show--and these were dramatic
    changes over the last 5 or 6 years--that about 75 percent of
    all of the heroin in the United States being used today, which
    is substantial, is coming from Colombia and 15 percent from
    Mexico.
        Now we have had a Harvard group called the ABT Associates
    go through our data and they have given us preliminary results.
    Their indications are that 29 percent of all the heroin being
    used in the United States today is black tar heroin coming from
    Mexico. So since I have been here as Administrator of DEA,
    their dominance in the drug trafficking has been amazing to me
    and has always been of serious concern because I can watch it
    year by year as they grow increasingly more powerful in the
    markets in the United States.
        Senator Gregg. So you are saying the Mexican influence is
    significant, has now become dominant and is continuing to grow?
        Mr. Constantine. It dominates the methamphetamine traffic.
    It is growing in the area of heroin. It looks like about one-
    third and probably about half of all of the major cocaine
    distribution in the United States today is controlled by groups
    from Mexico. That is totally different than when I was sworn
    in.
        Senator Gregg. And it is growing, and are you saying that
    the Mexican influence is continuing to grow?
        Mr. Constantine. It continues to grow really at a dramatic
    rate if you look at it over the last 5 years.

                 number of agents investigating cases in Mexico

        Senator Hollings. Mr. Constantine, how many investigative
    personnel--I know that we have DEA agents/personnel at each of
    the embassies for communications coordination, informational
    material, but with respect to actually the agents out
    investigating cases in Mexico, abroad, and otherwise, how many
    agents/personnel of DEA are out there?
        Mr. Constantine. A ballpark figure would be around 400
    agents total. Most of them are stationed in what we call source
    countries: Bolivia, Peru, Mexico, Thailand and the Caribbean.
        Senator Hollings. You mentioned Bolivia. I was down there
    with a fellow from the DEA and the two people standing by him
    were chewing on pieces of coca plant. Come on. I started with
    burning the poppy fields in Turkey, breaking up the factories
    in Marseilles, and going out to the Golden Triangle. We had a
    big meeting at Chiengmai, and we had the DEA, the Japanese, the
    Australians, all gathered around, and we were going to discuss
    the situation and options for action. And I said then let us go
    out now and see it. I was told oh, no, Senator, you cannot; you
    will get killed. In Burma, the drug trafficking organizations
    had total control and you could not go out into the areas where
    the plants were grown. They had their own armies and security
    forces.
        Now that is Mexico to me in 1999. The experience in Burma
    was 20 some years ago, back in the 1970s. So why not bring the
    400 back to the United States and use them here. I like this
    program of sending 24 special agents into the big cities and
    then going into the mid-size towns. We can let the other
    countries grow what they want to grow and shoot each other if
    they want. The government has taken over. That is according to
    you, and as we have just said, the corruption is unparalleled
    to anything I have seen in 39 years of law enforcement. That is
    why I asked you about the Attorney General. The Attorney
    General comes up here and says everything is just tip-top down
    in Mexico, we ought to certify they are doing a great job.
        But it permeates the government and the people, the defense
    minister and so forth that we try to rely on, and we give them
    the information. It just would suit law enforcement better to
    just get out of there and let us try to control it at the local
    level like you are doing. I think you are doing a good job. And
    let us put the money here rather than for agents outside the
    country who can get killed and injured. They killed the
    monsignor. I agree with you--corruption is unparalleled to
    anything that you have seen in 39 years and anything I have
    seen in 32 years up here. And I have been a member of the
    Mexican-American Interparliamentary Union.
        The United States went down there long ago and we have been
    through every one of these presidents. The last president--I
    will never forget the debate, Mr. Chairman, in NAFTA, what a
    wonderful job he was doing, Salinas. American Enterprise made
    him the international industrialist of the year that December.
    We got NAFTA and voted on it in November and December. The
    Secretary-Treasurer of Mexico came up to the United States and
    said this was a prototype for emerging trade policy. Salinas is
    now a fugitive. He is a fugitive in Havana, Cuba, if you are
    looking for him.
        Pull that 400 and let us put them in the mid-size and small
    towns in New Hampshire. There are no big cities there. You have
    to get something for the chairman. [Laughter.]
        Senator Gregg. You have been very kind to us.

                           Special agent strike teams

        Senator Hollings. Yes, sir. So in all candor, Mr.
    Constantine, let us see if we cannot get--how much have you
    asked for to embellish and enlarge upon this 24 teams of
    special agents that go in and so forth?
        Mr. Constantine. There is none in the budget, sir.
        Senator Hollings. There is none in the budget?
        Mr. Constantine. No, sir.
        Senator Hollings. Well, I hope we can enlarge that because
    it gets results. We do not get any results from all this
    international effort. They just monitor and talk to each other.
    And I get briefings when I go there, but nothing really
    happens. The drugs just keep coming in. We might as well put
    some down on 14th Street here in the District and get better
    enforcement here in our own hometowns, but let me yield there.
    I thank you, Mr. Chairman, because you say those percentages,
    but according to the seizures of cocaine that is supposed to be
    from two years ago down 35 percent, the seizures----
        Senator Gregg. That is in Mexico.
        Senator Hollings. Yes.
        Senator Gregg. That is in Mexico.
        Senator Hollings. Yes, you are right, sir. The seizures of
    opium gum down 54 percent, destruction of clandestine labs down
    one less than the previous year. Of course, that was General
    McCaffery and the Attorney General that everything was just
    tip-top coming up modernized in Mexico, just doing a great job.
    So I am glad that you are here and I hope the public is
    covering it because it is getting worse and worse. I will just
    hold there, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Gregg. Well, I agree with your concerns. Did you
    not ask for any more because you did not want any more of these
    strike teams or because you did not feel you could fit it
    within the budget, or did you ask for them and OMB knocked them
    out?
        Mr. Constantine. It is my understanding that OMB reduced
    the request. We had put in for I think 400 agents and it
    eventually came out as a request for 100 agents to go to OMB.
    The remaining budget that we are dealing with is technology for
    the Special Operations divisions but no new agent positions.
        Senator Gregg. And how many more of these strike teams than
    the 24 do you feel you can handle?
        Mr. Constantine. Well, from what these police executives
    from around the country have told us is that as this problem
    spreads into many of these areas, and we will be producing a
    report on that shortly, the one asset that they really need in
    many places is new agents. We just opened an office at
    Beaufort. They were interested in putting agents there. And we
    see this continually. Sometimes if you can put two or three
    agents in an area that may only have total in a geographic area
    of 150,000 to 200,000 people, those two or three agents can be
    a tremendous asset. They help local law enforcement to be able
    to address their drug problems. I think I have told you, almost
    90 percent of them tell us that the source of their drugs and
    the headquarters for the source of their drugs is outside of
    their local communities. So they really need those DEA or FBI
    agents to be able to make a connection one to the other for
    continuity of the investigation.
        Senator Gregg. Well, we will see if we cannot address that
    for sure.
        Senator Hollings. Yes.

                              Diallo investigation

        Senator Gregg. Are either of you involved in the
    investigation of the Diallo situation in New York City?
        Mr. Freeh. Yes, sir, we are in the FBI.
        Senator Gregg. And how are you folks involved?
        Mr. Freeh. We have been asked by the District Attorney,
    Bronx County District Attorney, as well as the police
    department to conduct some investigations. We have done
    forensic examinations. We have actually worked on the crime
    scene on some trajectory analyses.
        Senator Gregg. Have you come to conclusions yet that you
    can share with us?
        Mr. Freeh. We have furnished a lot of forensic results and
    conclusions back to the District Attorney's Office which is
    now, as you know, presenting the matter before a grand jury. So
    I do not think I could comment on the conclusions. But as in
    many similar cases like, you know, the Rodney King case, even
    the Crown Heights case, we opened up our own investigation at
    the request of the U.S. Attorney. And it does two things. One,
    we monitor the progress of the case, keeping in mind our civil
    rights jurisdiction. We also supply forensic assistance when
    requested. In this case, it has been several requests that I
    mentioned to you.

                        reducing Crime in New York City

        Senator Gregg. Do you agree with Administrator
    Constantine's assessment of the reduction of crime in the New
    York City area over the last few years and the cause for it?
        Mr. Freeh. Yes, sir, I do.
        Senator Gregg. So this 700,000 figure that estimates
    instances of crime that have not occurred, violent crime, over
    7 years as a result of more police officers on the street is a
    reasonable number?
        Mr. Freeh. I am not familiar with that particular figure,
    but I assume if you count assaults and robberies and
    burglaries, all the potential victims, it probably is that
    substantial. I just do not know the figures myself, but I do
    not disagree with them.
        Senator Gregg. So somebody is doing something right there?
        Mr. Freeh. Well, again, the addition of police officers or
    DEA agents or FBI agents makes a critical difference. As I said
    in my opening statement, which was a little bit skewed toward
    the technology and infrastructure side, none of that makes any
    difference if there is not shoe leather and feet on the ground
    where they can make a difference. So I think the conclusions
    that the Administrator talks about are very sound.

                             Rudolph investigation

        Senator Gregg. Speaking of shoe leather, do we have any
    idea how much the Eric Rudolph manhunt has cost us?
        Mr. Freeh. The entire investigation going back to inception
    of the investigation has been--we have totaled an amount of
    approximately $17 million expended between January of 1998 and
    the current date. That involves personnel compensation, travel,
    various services and equipment.
        Senator Gregg. I notice you are scaling it back now or
    there was a report to that effect?
        Mr. Freeh. Yes. I testified last week that we are going to
    modify some of the activity down there, including a reduction
    in the number of officers present and we are making those
    determinations now. We want to make sure we leave enough
    resources there to make the fugitive pursuit effective and
    also, as I said last week, we believe a lot of the effort,
    which has been substantial, has probably prevented the
    commission of further acts, including bombings. We think that
    as the Ashville newspaper editorial said last month that the
    pressure engendered by that investigation has probably
    prevented some additional bombings by a person who has been
    charged now with six bombings.
        Senator Gregg. Now that $17 million, most of that would be
    overhead that you would incur anyway; is that not right?
        Mr. Freeh. The personnel costs would be, yes, sir.

                         Information sharing initiative

        Senator Gregg. Now, I want to spend a couple seconds on the
    ISI, the Information Sharing Initiative. This is sort of like
    IAFIS and NCI 2000. This is a huge undertaking, a lot of money.
    Conceptually a good idea. I think the point that you have been
    discussing is that we have been focusing very much on manpower
    and increasing the manpower in both your agencies, to some
    degree, I suspect without putting an equal concentration on the
    technology side, which is critical. So this is an initiative
    that we need to take forward.
        My question is how do we take it forward? First, does the
    FBI have e-mail? I mean if I am an agent in Pocatello, Idaho,
    or in Colebrook, New Hampshire, would I have the capacity to
    get on the local network, to take my notebook with me and write
    a letter, a note to you saying there is a real crisis in
    Colebrook, at least across the border?
        Mr. Freeh. Yes, sir, we do have e-mail, but only since
    October, so it is a technology that we have but did not have
    for a long time.
        Senator Gregg. So all your agents now have the capacity to
    communicate by e-mail, and is it a secured e-mail? How do you
    manage that issue?
        Mr. Freeh. It is secure, all of it. I was not sure if there
    was a component, but it is all secure, I am told.
        Senator Gregg. But everybody has that capacity within the
    agency?
        Mr. Freeh. Yes, sir.
        Senator Gregg. OK. So on the ISI initiative, which as I
    understand it, would essentially give an agent the ability to
    have much more information at hand instantaneously which I
    presume would require that they also have the capacity to run a
    computer.
        Mr. Freeh. Yes.
        Senator Gregg. The complexity of this seems to be pretty
    high. Our view is, and you know this, is that we should start
    out slow and see if it works before we do the whole package.
    You folks want to do the whole package rather than doing a
    pilot approach. I want to hear your thoughts on your position
    versus our position.
        Mr. Freeh. Well, thank you very much. We understand your
    position and your concerns. They are quite valid given the
    history of other projects that we have managed ultimately
    successfully, but in the two cases you mention, with a great
    degree of setbacks and running over our budget.
        What is distinguishable about this system is that we are
    not inventing a system. We are not creating new software. We
    are not writing a new system as we were with IAFIS and NCIC
    2000, which were very complex precisely because we were
    inventing, or our contractors were inventing, a whole new
    technology. What this does is it gives the agents, as you
    mentioned, the ability to access on a broad enterprise basis
    information relating to a particular case which relates perhaps
    to several different cases.
        Our information systems right now are stovepiped not only
    between cases, but even between the programs. So someone
    working a Russian organized crime case in San Francisco and New
    York City will only know exactly what is coming up in terms of
    subjects and bank accounts and phone numbers by speaking to
    each other almost on an informal basis, exchanging LHMs or
    teletypes or briefings or conferences. This system would give
    us the ability to breach that stovepipe and have all of that
    relevant information on a wide enterprise basis accessible. We
    are doing and have done some pilot programs. For instance, the
    campaign contributions case, which is a good example, uses the
    technology and the format which would be used on the ISI
    implementation, and the significance of that is there are about
    1.8 million documents in the CAMPCON database.
        If we were managing that system under our current
    capacities, only several hundred thousand of the 1.8 million
    records would be entered in there because we can only enter in
    the records we create. All the other information would have to
    reside someplace else. That case management, which has been
    very successful, has actually tested out what would be done on
    a broader basis with the ISI.
        We have it in three stages with 14 separate modules. Each
    stage has great value in itself so if we were not to go beyond
    that stage, we still would be far advanced beyond our current
    capacity. Both the OMB advisory board, the Justice Management
    board, have suggested that we proceed in these increments,
    these three phases so we can, one, make sure that the system--
    --
        Senator Gregg. Has GAO taken a look at that?
        Mr. Freeh. No.
        Senator Gregg. Have you had an outside consultant take a
    look at that as the approach?
        Mr. Freeh. Yes, we have had----
        Senator Gregg. And who was that?
        Mr. Freeh. Could I ask Carolyn Morris to answer that? She
    is our assistant director for the division.
        Mrs. Morris. We have a company called HBTI that did the
    technical architecture definition which is the very foundation
    for all of the concepts in ISI.
        Senator Gregg. But has anybody taken a look at what they
    did? I mean they designed it.
        Mrs. Morris. Yes, sir.
        Senator Gregg. Has somebody like Arthur Andersen or Pete
    Marwick taken a look at it?
        Mrs. Morris. We have two sets of contractors supporting the
    project management office for ISI who have already reviewed the
    original ISI concept and concur with that. The vendors that bid
    it, the ISI proposal, also confirmed that the approach that we
    were using was very doable and realistic.
        Senator Gregg. Well, I am sure they would because they got
    the bid or they are bidding. I am not sure the director is
    finished on this point.
        Senator Hollings. Yes, go right ahead.
        Senator Gregg. Had you finished on your point?
        Mr. Freeh. Senator, we are going to proceed very, very
    carefully. We learned a lot of lessons, painful in some cases,
    with the IAFIS and the NCIC 2000. But I think what should give
    us some confidence here is that this technology is available,
    it is on the shelf, not all the interconnectivity, but all the
    component pieces. If I go to my friends' office in the private
    sector, they already have this system. Unfortunately, they have
    had it for many, many years. And it is not that we are
    inventing it or creating a brand new system, which is
    problematic. I mean this is technology that is there. We just
    do not have it and we think this is a planned and phased
    acquisition where we can proceed carefully and make a mid-
    course correction if we have to without wasting money.
        Senator Gregg. So you are saying you could buy it today?
        Mr. Freeh. The component parts are available, yes.
        Senator Gregg. So why do you not just buy it?
        Mr. Freeh. Well, that is what the money from the 1999
    budget and the 2000 budget would do. But it also gives us a
    contractor who would provide the services of the connectivity
    that we are not able to do that ourselves.
        Senator Gregg. And the contractor is Novell?
        Mr. Freeh. There are three bidders now. We have not awarded
    the bid yet because we are awaiting approval.
        Senator Hollings. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Constantine,
    once again to complete the thought on this drug problem. I am
    absolutely persuaded that you are going to have to go to the
    user end to get results rather than the source. I know the
    tendency, for example, back years ago in higher education, I
    learned that the quality of higher education comes from the
    top. If I can pay the outstanding professor even more than the
    governor, which we did for 9 months, then the associates and
    assistants were even perhaps a little less paid, want to teach
    under him. Smart students that come in want to study under him,
    and as a result, of course, this last year, you can see the
    outstanding international business school is not at Stanford or
    at Harvard, but at the University of South Carolina.
        Now, how do we solve this drug problem? There is no
    question in my mind I have got to go not to the source but to
    the use and to the result. You are doing a great job with
    respect to the use and result. The dramatic figures you give
    where they just in one city put 8,000 more personnel on and
    that saved 1,600 murders plus other crimes and everything else.
    You had 8,000. Why do we not give you 16,000? Just forget about
    those overseas because it is going to come in one way or the
    other. We have tried it every way in the Lord's world to stop
    it and it just does not do us any good. We act like we are
    doing something down in Mexico, but let us stop the act and get
    into the action that you have going and at least give the
    committee, if you do not mind, these special teams that have
    gone into the big cities, now going into the medium-size, see
    what you could really absorb and get done, give us a figure on
    that if you do not mind.
        Mr. Constantine. Yes, sir.

                             Cyber crime initiative

        Senator Hollings. The other part of the use, of course, is
    education. In the past I came to these meetings with the
    ashtrays and the smoke in the room. Now we have learned that
    tobacco kills you and we need to learn the same thing about
    drugs. We need educational programs starting in the primary
    grades. The only way we are going to get on top of the drug
    problem is with your work and us beefing up education.
        Director Freeh, with respect to this cyber crime
    initiative, as I understand it, you propose 12 computer
    intrusion squads. Now last year, I do not know where that
    figure was, but I think they had 250,000 attacks on Department
    of Defense computers. I take it they have their own system
    working as much as it possibly can. Is this realistic and how
    do we stay on top of that kind of volume of attack? There are
    smart kids just sitting around and putting words in the
    computer until something works.
        They really do not want to get in and find out the secrets
    of the Department of Defense, but it is a challenge. And the
    American mind-set is to play the game and whatever it is. Are
    the laws sufficient with respect to these attacks in cyberspace
    and do you have enough when you say 12 squads to attack this
    problem? This is just in the defense side of 250,000 attacks
    according to GAO. I am thinking of the banks and other
    institutions on the civilian side.
        Mr. Freeh. It is, as you point out, Senator, a huge and
    exponentially increasing problem. We do a lot of the
    investigations on referral by the Department of Defense, by
    universities, by companies. We have now approximately 10 of
    these squads around the country. The budget request for 2000
    asks, as you mention, for some additional resources. We think
    that within a year, the number of computer cases that we look
    at including intrusion cases will double from 2,500 to 5,000,
    which is also why we are asking for the CART examiners, the
    computer forensic expert examinations.
        [The information follows:]

                  Clarification on Computer Intrusion Workload

        The FBI projects that the number of computer intrusions
    reported to the National Infrastructure Protection Center
    (NIPC) and field National Infrastructure Protection and
    Computer Intrusion (NIPCI) squads will increase from 2,500 in
    1998 to 5,000 in 1999 and 12,000 in 2000.

        Mr. Freeh. There are two answers to the very serious
    problem that you have identified. One is a hardening of
    structures and systems. In other words, defensive mechanisms to
    protect particularly national security systems, Department of
    Defense systems, law enforcement systems, health records,
    companies' trade secrets. Another part is the enforcement part
    which this request attempts to address.
        Another point is an educational function that we perform
    around the country with the private industry. For instance, in
    Albuquerque where I was yesterday, we have an INFRAGARD
    program, we call it, and we have FBI agents who are trained in
    this particular program out talking to the banks, the power
    companies, the transportation companies, all the sectors that
    have informational systems that are very vulnerable. So we can
    make sure we respond if we are notified when they have an
    intrusion of some significance. But it is a problem that the
    country, not only the FBI--but all of us will need to dedicate
    many more resources in the years to come to because this is, as
    you said, not just people committing crimes or terrorists
    trying to commit destruction, but people just entertaining
    themselves and becoming very, very dangerously involved in
    these things.
        Senator Hollings. And the $36.7 million, that is for 60
    agents for 12 of these national infrastructure protection and
    computer intrusion squads? Is that what it is?
        Mr. Freeh. Part of it is for that, Senator. Part of it is
    for what we call senior reports officers, people for each of
    our divisions.
        Senator Hollings. Well, is that non-defense? I mean you are
    not duplicating what the Department of Defense does?
        Mr. Freeh. We are not duplicating what the Department does.
    In fact, they refer matters to us that we investigate.
        [The information follows:]

              Clarification on Technology/Cyber-Crimes Initiative

        The FBI's fiscal year 2000 budget request includes a
    Technology/Cyber-crimes initiative for which an increase of 207
    positions and $36,742,000 is requested. This initiative
    consists of the following: National Infrastructure and Computer
    Intrusion (NIPCI) squads, 108 positions (60 agents) and
    $11,390,000; Computer Analysis and Response Teams (CART), 79
    positions and $9,861,000; National Infrastructure Protection
    Center (NIPC), $1,656,000; and technical support for
    investigations (cryptanalysis and network intercept), 20
    positions and $13,835,000. The request for NIPCI squads would
    allow the FBI to staff and equip 18 additional field squads
    using both new and existing positions, and provide equipment to
    establish a baseline computer crime investigative capacity in
    28 other FBI field offices.
        The FBI's fiscal year 2000 budget also requests for 56
    senior intelligence analysts, referred to by Director Freeh as
    senior reports officers. These positions are included in the
    Information Collection and Analysis initiative, for which a
    total increase of 56 positions and $48,917,000 is requested.

                      sale of Drivers' license photographs

        Senator Hollings. And if the distinguished chairman will
    permit me, we have a New Hampshire-South Carolina problem, and
    there is nothing wrong with New Hampshire. It is the state
    policy in South Carolina. They passed a law to sell--and this
    is why I am asking you, Director Freeh--to sell the drivers'
    licenses to an entity up in New Hampshire that was working with
    the Secret Service. The Secret Service apparently provided
    money to help them get this compendium of names and
    identification with pictures so that in the department store if
    somebody came and presented the credit card, you could
    immediately look at the computer to get a picture and find out
    whether that was the individual.
        That was how it has been explained generally in the press.
    I have not been briefed on it. I am not trying to find fault
    except I am trying to learn whether or not there is a
    duplication. We have cut it out or at least broken the
    contract--the governor did recently--when they found that
    children's pictures were being sent, not just driver's
    licenses. What kind of effort for identification nationally is
    going on with the FBI and with the Secret Service? Where does
    the Secret Service come in and where do you come in and is
    there duplication or are you getting everybody's picture, too?
    Are you all in a foot race?
        Mr. Freeh. No, Senator, we are not. We are not acquiring
    that. We have not acquired that. That is not a database that we
    are interested in.
        Senator Hollings. Why is the Secret Service in it? What are
    they doing in it?
        Mr. Freeh. I cannot speak for the Secret Service.
        Senator Hollings. Oh, yeah, you could tell us. [Laughter.]
        Mr. Freeh. I am actually not familiar with it. I mean I
    have heard about the matter and read about it, but I do not
    understand it. I am not in a position to give you my two cents
    on it.
        Senator Hollings. But you do not have that kind of effort?
        Mr. Freeh. We do not, sir.
        Senator Hollings. So there is no duplication?
        Mr. Freeh. No. I mean we have photo image databases, but
    they are based on convicted felons. They are part of NCIC.
        Senator Hollings. Not just drivers in America with driver's
    licenses?
        Mr. Freeh. No, no such database.
        Senator Hollings. And the children, I guess--I do not know
    where they got the children in.
        Mr. Freeh. No, we do not have anything like that and do not
    need anything like that.
        Senator Hollings. Thank you very much.

                          critical skill hiring in FBI

        Senator Gregg. On this issue of cyber and specifically
    terrorism, where do you stand in your ability to hire people
    who have the capacity to address the various technology threats
    which we have?
        Mr. Freeh. Senator, thanks to the pilot program that was
    approved by the Congress and particularly worked on by you and
    your colleagues, your staff, and your counterparts in the
    House, we have begun hiring individuals outside of the Title V
    strictures and requirements which gives us the ability to bring
    into the FBI what we had represented to be the case, and which
    now is turning out to be the case, outstanding scientists and
    technicians who cannot only run some of these very complex
    systems but give us the guidance and the confidence to ensure
    that we are working them efficiently, ensuring that we progress
    along with the technology.
        We have two individuals just recently hired, the first of
    many in the next few weeks. Many individuals are in background,
    not yet having come aboard the FBI. But two of the
    individuals--if I could just generally describe them to you,
    one has a Ph.D. in computer science; another one is a Ph.D. in
    forensic chemistry--coming from, in one case a very large
    corporation; in the other case, I believe a very large
    university. We could never have gotten either of these
    individuals into the FBI without the Title V exemptions, which
    we are now using thanks to your support.
        So we are extremely confident that not only will we fill
    more and more of these positions as our hiring progresses, but
    that they will add to our ability and our technology and
    scientific base in a way that we could never have done. If we
    were hiring them as a GS-9 chemist, for instance, we could
    never in a million years attract some of these people. And I
    have a list of some of the resumes of people both on board and
    in background investigations. I will be happy to furnish those
    to you. I think you will be extremely impressed with the talent
    and the caliber of people who we will get in thanks to this
    program.

                                     CALEA

        Senator Gregg. How do we stand with CALEA? Are we going to
    reach an understanding?
        Mr. Freeh. I can report for the first time in many years
    some very good news in that regard. The status of the CALEA
    situation, let me summarize it very briefly. We have signed a
    letter of intent just within the last few weeks with a major
    manufacturer where we will purchase the software CALEA
    solution. Once we do that, we can furnish that to all the
    carriers who use that particular switching base.
        This is a watershed development in the implementation of
    the 1994 CALEA statute. It is the first time we have reached an
    agreement with a major manufacturer who will furnish a solution
    which will be distributed free of charge to any carrier using
    that platform. We also have been talking, and are talking, to
    other manufacturers. The carriers are extremely interested in
    pursuing additional contracts. We are going to use the $100
    million-plus appropriation for the specific purchase that I
    have just described. We are also going to phase in the CALEA
    solution in a manner that will do several things. First, we
    will protect the small rural carriers because in many cases
    they do not have enough business with the Federal or local law
    enforcement agencies to require a significant upgrade and a
    major cost, so we are going to defer that by a number of
    different mechanisms, one by addressing the high priority
    switches and platforms first, which would result in about 85 to
    95 percent of the historical traffic that is required for
    access.
        We are also going to flexibly describe ``significant
    upgrade'' so it will minimize the cost to companies of
    complying with the solution by the 2000 date. We are also going
    to use the exemption, the reasonably achievable exemption,
    again liberally, to protect the small carriers. So I think for
    the first time, we are making tremendous progress and we will
    be able to report more once the implementation goes forward.
        Senator Gregg. Do you know how much that is going to cost
    us?
        Mr. Freeh. We still believe that the cost of the
    implementation will be under the $500 million authorization. Of
    course, we have not received that appropriation and we have in
    the 2000 budget a request for $15 million, which I believe is
    inadequate, particularly at a time when we have other
    manufacturers and carriers who are anxious to achieve the
    solution.
        But leaving that aside, I believe that the implementation
    will be done in a cost efficient manner. All of the agreements,
    in terms of the purchasing of the solution, that occur will be
    in themselves greatly beneficial and will start by including
    the 14 main platforms where we have to operate and where our
    State and local counterparts have to operate.

                            Crisis response aircraft

        Senator Gregg. Senator Stevens, nice to have you join us.
        Senator Stevens. Thank you. I was just talking to Jim [the
    clerk of the subcommittee] about the aircraft that we thought
    we had provided, and I understand, Mr. Freeh, there is some
    problem. Could you tell us about that?
        Mr. Freeh. We have hit some problems with it, Senator. I
    spoke to Secretary Cohen [of the Department of Defense]
    actually Monday in an attempt to resolve this. We cannot agree
    with the Department of Defense on the specifications that the
    FBI believes it needs with respect to that aircraft.
        Senator Stevens. Well, let me tell you it is your aircraft.
    We made it very plain to them it is not their aircraft. They
    are just to fly it. So if you have any problems about their
    specifications, just tell them I would like to have the meeting
    in my office as soon as possible.
        Senator Gregg. That should settle it.
        Mr. Freeh. I would like to do that, Senator, because we do
    not have that capacity right now, and they were talking last
    week about beginning a purchase that would get the aircraft in
    18 months and we just cannot do that.
        Senator Stevens. Well, and I think you could, we will be
    pleased to put something in the supplemental as it comes out.
    We will give you the authority to lease until there is one
    available to buy, if you like. The only thing we wanted was to
    have a unit there at Andrews AFB that could maintain and fly
    those aircraft for you and for the others who are going to have
    aircraft in that pool, so that they would be sort of fungible.
        You might need two at once and someone else might need one.
    But that is an Air National Guard operation to fly aircraft for
    you. The Department of Defense, we are going to use their
    field, and we are going to use their National Guard people, but
    it is your airplane and if you tell us you want different
    specifications, I will be glad to tell the Secretary it is your
    airplane. It is not for their use at all. It is not even going
    to be available to members of Congress or anyone else. It is
    for the three designated agencies and that is the only way we
    can do it and save money and accomplish the goals. So I think
    the committee agrees with me.
        Senator Gregg. Absolutely.
        Senator Stevens. I hope they do.
        Senator Hollings. I do.
        Senator Stevens. And we will be glad to see to it that we
    can work together to eliminate that difficulty.
        Mr. Freeh. Well, thank you, Senator.
        Senator Stevens. There are planes available for lease right
    now, and I do not know if the specifications you have are so
    permanent a change in the structural interior that would lead
    to them not being able to lease them. But we will talk about
    that because I think you can lease most airplanes today and the
    interior is just like a sleeve. You just put it in there and
    that is all. We can help you work on that. But you certainly
    ought to be able to get an airplane within this fiscal year.
        Mr. Freeh. Thank you, Senator.
        Senator Stevens. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Gregg. Any other questions?
        Senator Stevens. No. I hope that works. I think you need
    those airplanes.
        Mr. Freeh. I think it will work.
        Senator Stevens. In view of what is going on now you are
    probably going to need it sooner than the end of the fiscal
    year, unfortunately.
        Mr. Freeh. Thank you very much, Senator.
        Senator Gregg. It would be nice to straighten that out.
        Senator Stevens. Thank you very much.
        Senator Gregg. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for coming by and
    offering to do that. Did you have anything else?

                         Additional committee questions

        Senator Hollings. No. I think we will just submit some
    questions for the record, and I do appreciate it, Mr. Chairman,
    and let the record show that President Reagan was in in 1988.
        Senator Gregg. Well, it has been a long time and there have
    been a lot of people who have had the responsibility for this
    who failed. It is inexcusable.
        Senator Hollings. It is congenital. I have seen it in
    government for a long period of time, and they just will not
    pay attention. And you cannot get good personnel on the
    security side when we got the best of the best in the FBI and
    DEA. And I really am persuaded that the bureau ought to really
    take over the security particularly for Energy.
        Senator Gregg. I think maybe we should have a hearing on
    that specific issue.
        Senator Hollings. That is for sure. Yes.
        Senator Gregg. Some sort of evidentiary event. We also want
    to thank Mr. Houk who I understand is going to be moving on and
    enjoying life after so many years of keeping us well informed
    and doing such a good job for the bureau. We thank him for his
    public service. It has been exceptional, and we very much
    appreciate it.
        Mr. Freeh. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Yes, he has been
    outstanding.
        Senator Gregg. Thank you, gentlemen.
        Mr. Constantine. Thank you, Senator.
        [The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
    were submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the
    hearing:]
                        Drug Enforcement Administration
                Questions Submitted by Senator Pete V. Domenici
                          methamphetamine trafficking
        Question. Director Constantine, we've had a chance to meet recently
    to discuss an issue of great concern to me. That issue is the serious
    ``black tar'' heroin problem that is plaguing several northern New
    Mexico counties. I appreciate your willingness to look into this matter
    for me.
        I remain deeply concerned, as do many members of this Congress,
    over the rapid increase in the production and trafficking of
    methamphetamine. In fiscal year 1998, the Congress approved the $11.05
    million and 54 Special Agents DEA requested to target this serious
    problem. In the Fiscal Year 1999 Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency
    Supplemental Appropriations Act, Congress provided $24.5 million and
    223 positions (including 100 Special Agents) for anti-methamphetamine
    trafficking activities. I appreciate the Subcommittee's strong action
    to combat this serious problem, but it is an uphill battle.
        Would you please give the Subcommittee a progress report on the use
    of these resources to combat methamphetamine production and use?
        Are these resources being targeted at those states that are the
    most significantly impacted by methamphetamine? I would count New
    Mexico among those states, and I would like, for my information, a
    detailed report of the resources targeted to New Mexico both in fiscal
    year 1998 and fiscal year 1999 and how this compares to estimated
    expenditures in other states.
        Answer. In fiscal year 1998, DEA received a total of 74 positions
    (60 Special Agents) and $11.046 million for the agency's
    Methamphetamine Initiative. Special Agent positions provided to DEA
    through this initiative were allocated as follows:

    Atlanta Division..................................................     4
    Chicago Division..................................................     1
    Dallas Division...................................................     3
    Denver Division...................................................     2
    Detroit Division..................................................     4
    Headquarters......................................................    10
    Los Angeles Division..............................................     3
    Newark Division...................................................     2
    New Orleans Division..............................................     4
    New York Division.................................................     1
    Philadelphia Division.............................................     3
    Phoenix Division..................................................     2
    San Diego Division................................................     3
    San Francisco Division............................................     4
    Seattle Division..................................................     4
    St. Louis Division................................................     8
    Washington Division...............................................     2

        Funding for DEA's fiscal year 1998 Methamphetamine Initiative
    included a total of $8.766 million for the modular personnel-related
    expenses for 60 Special Agent positions dedicated to targeting major
    methamphetamine trafficking organizations operating in the United
    States and abroad and $2.27 million for the modular personnel-related
    expenses for 12 chemist and 2 Diversion Investigator positions to be
    used to address critical health, safety and hazardous material removal
    issues relating to the production of methamphetamine. No new
    methamphetamine-related position enhancements were provided for New
    Mexico in fiscal year 1998.
        In fiscal year 1999, DEA received a total of 223 positions (100
    Special Agents) and $24.5 million for the agency's Methamphetamine
    Initiative. Special Agent positions provided to DEA through the fiscal
    year 1999 Methamphetamine Initiative have been allocated as follows:

    Atlanta Division..................................................    11
    Chicago Division..................................................     6
    Dallas Division...................................................     5
    Denver Division...................................................    10
    Detroit Division..................................................     3
    El Paso Division..................................................     3
    Houston Division..................................................     1
    Los Angeles Division..............................................    11
    Miami Division....................................................     2
    New Orleans Division..............................................     7
    Philadelphia Division.............................................     1
    Phoenix Division..................................................     5
    San Diego Division................................................     4
    San Francisco Division............................................     8
    Seattle Division..................................................     9
    St. Louis Division................................................    10
    Washington Division...............................................     4

        The majority of funding for DEA's Methamphetamine Initiative ($20.3
    million) has been used for personnel-related expenses. Remaining funds
    have been used for the purchase of clandestine laboratory vehicles
    ($1.0 million); continued development of the EPIC Clandestine
    Laboratory Database ($392,000); and the cleanup of clandestine
    methamphetamine laboratories ($4.1 million).
        In fiscal year 1999, DEA's newly instituted El Paso field division
    assumed operational responsibility for the State of New Mexico. This
    change in DEA's Table of Organization was undertaken specifically to
    address the significant growth of drug trafficking, including
    methamphetamine trafficking, in the Southwestern United States. In
    1999, the El Paso division received a total of three positions through
    the agency's Methamphetamine Strategy program enhancement, one of which
    was specifically directed at fighting the growth of methamphetamine
    trafficking, use and abuse in New Mexico.
        DEA also has increased its enforcement efforts directed at
    methamphetamine trafficking in New Mexico by assigning a unit in the
    DEA Albuquerque district office to address this problem. This unit is
    comprised of two special agents and four state and local task force
    officers, each of which will add years of experience in the
    investigation of clandestine laboratories.
        Since the beginning of fiscal year 1998, DEA has also been provided
    a total of $10.5 million ($4.5 million in fiscal year 1998 and $6.0
    million in fiscal year 1999) in Community Oriented Police Services
    (COPS) funding, to be used to provide state and local law enforcement
    across the United States with necessary methamphetamine related
    clandestine laboratory training and equipment.
        Funding for COPS training in fiscal year 1998 was limited to the
    Midwest and East Coast Methamphetamine initiatives; therefore, no state
    and local law enforcement officials have been trained in New Mexico.
    DEA will begin training students from New Mexico with its fiscal year
    1999 COPS training resources beginning in July, and anticipates
    training a total of 10 state and local officers from New Mexico by the
    close of CY 1999. Each state and local law enforcement officer trained
    through COPS resources receives safety attire and equipment at the
    completion of the training course valued at approximately $2,000.
        Since 1998, DEA also has been provided with a total of $10.0
    million ($5.0 million in both fiscal year 1998/99) through the COPS
    program to assist state and local law enforcement nationwide with the
    cleanup of clandestine laboratory sites. Funding provided to DEA for
    this purpose has been used by the agency to pay certified hazardous
    waste contractors to undertake the cleanup of the dangerous and
    oftentimes environmentally lethal substances found at clandestine
    laboratory sites. Since fiscal year 1998, DEA has cleaned-up a total of
    75 clandestine laboratories in the State of New Mexico (27 in fiscal
    year 1998 and 48 through the second quarter of fiscal year 1999) at a
    total cost of $264,000.
        The following includes other programs which have been developed by
    DEA's New Mexico offices to specifically target the growing threat
    posed by regional methamphetamine trafficking:
    Chemical Watch Program
        DEA's New Mexico Offices are addressing the methamphetamine problem
    in state through the development of a Precursor Chemical Watch Program.
    This program includes the identification of drug sources and chemical
    suppliers in addition to standard drug targeting and interdiction
    operations. During fiscal year 1998, the Precursor Chemical Watch
    Program helped DEA agents and intelligence analysts identify over 100
    suspected methamphetamine laboratory operators, which resulted in the
    seizure of 22 methamphetamine laboratories. This program continues to
    operate in fiscal year 1999, with DEA's New Mexico Offices opening a
    total of 59 new methamphetamine-related cases, to date. In addition, a
    total of 135 methamphetamine cases in state are currently in an active
    status.
    Identification of Methamphetamine Manufacturers
        DEA's New Mexico offices are continuing to work in concert with
    state and local law enforcement statewide, to identify organizations
    manufacturing and trafficking methamphetamine in New Mexico.
        Over the past several years, DEA has aggressively worked, in
    support of the National Drug Control Strategy and the National
    Methamphetamine Strategy, in the Southwest, and other regions of the
    country, to thwart the growing specter of methamphetamine trafficking,
    use and abuse. In doing so, DEA has focused its intelligence and
    enforcement efforts against the Mexican drug trafficking organizations,
    independent domestic methamphetamine traffickers and rogue chemical
    companies responsible for the smuggling, production, and distribution
    of methamphetamine throughout the United States. Through our demand
    reduction efforts, training of state and local law enforcement officers
    and major investigative efforts, DEA is committed to ensuring that
    methamphetamine does not become the ``crack'' cocaine of the 1990s.
        Question. The Administration request for fiscal year 2000 appears
    to me to be refocused. The Administration highlights requests of a
    little more than $11.0 million through DEA for drug law enforcement
    initiatives relating to telecommunications and other investigative
    support operations. What does DEA hope to accomplish with these
    additional resources, if approved? How will these resources generally
    be targeted to build upon the resources being utilized this year and in
    the past year?
        Answer. DEA is committed to combating the real and dangerous
    threats posed by drug trafficking and production in the United States,
    including that posed by methamphetamine. Overall increases in
    methamphetamine use and the amount of clandestine laboratory activity
    in the United States, particularly in the Southwest, are a major
    concern.
        DEA is an acknowledged leader in methamphetamine drug enforcement
    and has taken many steps, such as Mobile Enforcement Team deployments,
    clan lab training programs, increased investigative activities, etc.,
    to combat the threat posed by this drug at the national level. These
    efforts, thanks to strong Congressional support, have been expanded
    through the allocation of additional resources for methamphetamine
    enforcement.
        Certainly, DEA feels strongly that additional resources are
    necessary to combat the rising threat of methamphetamine in the United
    States. In fiscal year 2000, the Department's approach is to fully
    implement DEA's fiscal year 1999 personnel resources through full
    hiring and implementation of fiscal year 1999 enhancements. This would
    be augmented in the Congressional budget process through the expansion
    of DEA's Special Operations Division (SOD) and FIREBIRD programs.
    Through both of these initiatives, DEA hopes to provide its agents and
    partners in drug law enforcement with the enhanced capabilities
    necessary to keep pace with the major drug traffickers.
        The SOD program, which focuses on coordination, information
    exchange and intelligence dissemination, is designed to act
    specifically as a force multiplier in drug enforcement by allowing
    agencies to act collectively and cohesively against specific targets.
    Providing SOD with the additional technical, operational and
    administrative support resources requested in DEA's fiscal year 2000
    budget (totaling $9.0 million) are essential to the program's ability
    to keep pace with rapid changes in communications technology, and
    foster a heightened level of investigative cooperation and integration
    in America's overall approach to drug law enforcement.
        SOD is actively participating and supporting numerous
    methamphetamine investigations, particularly against organizations
    based in Mexico and major domestic targets. Through its access to the
    latest, real time intelligence, this unique and innovative program will
    allow the federal government to maximize its existing investigative
    resources against the methamphetamine threat.
        DEA is also requesting additional resources for the FIREBIRD
    computer network, a project that also expands DEA's investigative and
    communications capabilities. The $13.0 million request will help DEA to
    accelerate deployment of the project, which will ultimately link all
    DEA field offices world-wide into one global communications network.
    This network will serve as a conduit for providing DEA special agents
    with access to the latest case information and intelligence, and
    support additional communication services such as e-mail and instant
    messaging. This heightened level of communication and information
    exchange is already allowing DEA to better coordinate regional and
    national investigations, as well as significantly easing the
    administrative burdens of managing DEA's global enforcement efforts.
        Both SOD and FIREBIRD fully support DEA and the mission of drug law
    enforcement by serving as invaluable tools for maximizing limited
    investigative resources. DEA urges strong consideration for these
    initiatives for the agency's fiscal year 2000 appropriation.
        Question. Do you see any success in slowing the spread of this
    dangerous drug? What are the developing trends in the manufacture of
    methamphetamine within the United States and how does that compare with
    estimates of the drug coming into the United States illegally?
        Answer. The majority of the United States methamphetamine
    production and distribution is controlled by criminal organizations
    based in Mexico utilizing large-scale laboratories in Mexico and
    California. The illicit manufacturing of methamphetamine can occur
    anywhere an operator can set up laboratory equipment to synthesize the
    product (e.g., motel rooms, apartment complexes, industrial areas,
    farms, mobile homes, etc.), but most clandestine laboratory operators
    prefer to utilize remote rural areas because the seclusion and privacy
    of these settings make it less likely that the smell of the chemical
    products and activities involved in the cooking of the product will be
    detected.
        In recent years, the rural Midwest, Rocky Mountain, and Southeast
    regions of the United States have seen a spiraling increase in the
    number of small scale, non-Mexican methamphetamine laboratories. Some
    areas of the Midwest (Missouri, Arkansas, Oklahoma, Kansas, and Iowa)
    have seen especially dramatic increases in methamphetamine laboratory
    seizures.
        In 1992, only two clandestine lab seizures in Missouri were
    reported to DEA. In 1998, 679 clandestine lab seizures were reported.
    Although the quantities of production were relatively small in
    comparison to the Mexican-national methamphetamine production
    operations in California and Mexico, it is noted that in terms of
    numbers only--more clandestine laboratories were seized in Missouri in
    1997 (on a per capita basis) than in any other state. In 1998, Nevada
    ranked number one and Utah and Missouri were tied for second in per
    capita clandestine laboratory seizures. In addition, the States of
    Arkansas, Iowa, Oklahoma, Oregon, Kansas and Arizona each seized in
    excess of 200 methamphetamine laboratories in 1998.
        In some respects, the methamphetamine problem is synonymous with
    the clandestine laboratory problem (over 98 percent of clandestine labs
    seized are now methamphetamine labs) and this issue has been the focus
    of much media attention in recent months. Although the methamphetamine
    problem and the clandestine lab problem are both part of the same drug
    abuse mosaic, in reality, they are somewhat different issues which may
    require a different law enforcement response in order to successfully
    combat the spiraling increases in both arenas.
        In 1998, only 71 (4.4 percent) of the 1,623 clandestine drug labs
    seizures in which DEA participated, involved methamphetamine labs which
    we classify as ``super labs''. A ``super lab'' is a clandestine
    laboratory operation which is capable of producing 10 pounds or more of
    methamphetamine in a single production cycle, which is indicative of
    operations by a structured organization. In 1998, 71 of these ``super
    labs'' were seized nationwide, and 57 of these ``super labs'' were
    seized in the State of California alone.
        Increased law enforcement efforts have achieved many successes in
    combating the ``methamphetamine problem'' in relation to the Mexican
    organized crime groups operating ``super labs'' in California and
    Mexico. As a federal law enforcement agency, DEA's primary focus is the
    investigation of the large methamphetamine trafficking organizations
    who operate these ``super labs.'' In recent months, several DEA offices
    in the Midwest and California have reported that the purity of Mexican
    methamphetamine has significantly dropped in the majority of controlled
    purchases and seizures. Many law enforcement agencies in the Midwest
    and California are now reporting that the previous high purity (80
    percent+ range) of Mexican methamphetamine has now dropped to less than
    30 percent. We are cautiously optimistic that our chemical control
    efforts, combined with aggressive anti-methamphetamine law enforcement
    efforts in the local police arena, have been the catalyst for this
    decrease.
        Success in combating the smaller lab-based methamphetamine problem
    may be much more difficult to achieve. The dawn of the Internet has
    released a plethora of methamphetamine formulas for the public to
    choose from, and everything that is needed to manufacture
    methamphetamine can be purchased at your local department store.
        The organized crime groups' distribution of significant quantities
    of methamphetamine created an ever increasing methamphetamine addict
    population, many of which are now attempting to manufacture their own
    methamphetamine in ``mom and pop,'' small-scale production labs across
    the country. Although chemical interdiction efforts may achieve
    successes in the interdiction of the large quantities of precursor
    chemicals utilized in ``super labs,'' these numerous small ``mom and
    pop'' labs utilize such small quantities of improvised and/or converted
    chemicals and glassware that law enforcement agencies will have a much
    more difficult time in achieving success in this arena.
        Combating the small scale production, ``mom and pop'' lab problem
    is a public safety issue as well as a unique challenge to local, state,
    and federal law enforcement. Some local jurisdictions have experienced
    limited success in interdicting ``mom and pop'' lab production through
    undercover enforcement programs which have targeted the department and
    convenience stores in their region which violate the law by providing
    ephedrine/pseudo-ephedrine products in excess of the 24 gram threshold
    mandated by the Methamphetamine Control Act of 1996.
        In sum, the methamphetamine problem that our nation currently faces
    has many facets and poses unique problems for drug law enforcement that
    do not mirror the trafficking and distribution patterns of the other
    major drugs we have struggled with in the past. DEA and its federal,
    state and local law enforcement counterparts will continue to work to
    slow the spread of this dangerous drug, before the nation is engulfed
    in an epidemic the likes of which have not been witnessed since the
    crack cocaine plague of the 1980's. Continued resources to assist law
    enforcement in this endeavor are critical to the long-term success of
    the nation's methamphetamine strategy.
        Question. How would you characterize the collaboration of U.S. law
    enforcement agencies and their Mexican counterparts on this difficult
    problem? Have there been any improvements in this area?
        Answer. I would not limit the issue to just methamphetamine,
    instead I would prefer to comment on the full spectrum of cooperation
    between DEA and our Mexican counterparts.
        During the past year, the DEA and the GOM equivalent to the DEA,
    the Fiscalia Especializada Para la Atencion de Delitos Contra la Salud
    (FEADS), have conducted joint investigative endeavors throughout
    Mexico. These joint investigations were conducted with the two primary
    investigative components of the FEADS Vetted Units, which are the
    Sensitive Investigative Units (SIUs) and the Base Intelligence Units
    (BIUs).
        Despite these efforts, the threat posed by Mexican trafficking
    organizations has continued to escalate. We have identified the
    leadership of the major Mexican drug trafficking organizations, as well
    as in most cases, the key members of their command and control
    structure. The combined investigations of DEA, FBI, the U.S. Customs
    Service, and members of state and local police departments have
    resulted in the seizure of tons of drugs, millions of dollars in drug
    proceeds and most importantly, the indictment of virtually every one of
    the leading drug lords. Despite this evidence of the crimes they have
    committed within the United States, and the notoriety these traffickers
    have gained, they have been able to continually evade arrest and
    prosecution and operate with impunity from Mexico.
        Based on the absence of any sustained enforcement action against
    the major drug traffickers by the GOM, and the recent discovery that
    corrupt relationships existed between trusted high-level Mexican law
    enforcement officials and the syndicate leaders, I have serious
    concerns about our future ability to operate effectively with the
    Mexican units that were created to dismantle these drug trafficking
    organizations.

                              subcommittee recess

        Senator Gregg. Appreciate your time. We are going to have
    another hearing on Thursday. It will involve the FCC and the
    SEC.
        [Whereupon, at 11:35 a.m., Wednesday, March 24, the
    subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene at 10 a.m., Thursday,
    March 25.]

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

                                  ----------

                            THURSDAY, MARCH 25, 1999

                                           U.S. Senate,
               Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The subcommittee met at 10 a.m., in room S-126, the
    Capitol, Hon. Judd Gregg (chairman) presiding.
        Present: Senators Gregg and Stevens.

                       SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

    STATEMENT OF ARTHUR LEVITT, CHAIRMAN
    ACCOMPANIED BY JAMES McCONNELL, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR

                                opening remarks

        Senator Gregg. Well, we will get started because I
    understand Senator Hollings is not going to be here for a few
    minutes, and I know that you folks have important things to do
    to keep the markets under control and keep the airwaves under
    control.
        So Mr. Chairman, I will not have any opening statement. Why
    don't you tell us what you want to tell us and then we will
    have some questions.
        Mr. Levitt. I have about 5 minutes of prepared statement
    for you, but I think I will send that in separately.

                                 Budget request

        We are asking for $360.8 million for fiscal year 2000. I
    must say as I begin this that I want to thank you and Senator
    Hollings and the other members of the subcommittee for the
    support that we have gotten. One of the aspects of the agency
    that we are most proud of is the fact that we are totally
    nonpartisan. In our dealings with the legislative branch, we
    have been treated as such, and the issues--since I have been
    there at least, and my predecessors tell me the same--never
    break down in terms of partisan considerations.
        The money that we are asking for creates 42 new staff
    positions. As I look at the magnitude of what we are faced with
    in terms of enforcement issues, the Internet, accounting
    problems, microcap fraud, and other issues, I have to say this
    is an absolute drop in the bucket.
        Before I came here I met with our Director of Enforcement
    and talked to him about his needs, and he said we have no
    trouble finding cases. We are desperately short-handed of
    people in terms of bringing those cases. The types of cases are
    also new and more complex than ever before because of
    electronic trading and electronic access.

                               prepared statement

        But I recognize the reality of where we are, and I think
    the budget proposal that we have made is fair and reasonable,
    and I hope you do, as well.
        [The statement follows:]
                      Prepared Statement of Arthur Levitt
        Chairman Gregg, Ranking Member Hollings, and Members of the
    Subcommittee: I appreciate this opportunity to testify in support of
    the Securities and Exchange Commission's (SEC or Commission) fiscal
    year 2000 budget. The current market environment can best be
    characterized by precedent-setting trading volume, tremendous growth,
    increasing complexity and volatility, and globalization. In addition,
    the nation's capital markets are undergoing major changes as a result
    of technological innovations. The Internet is already having a profound
    impact on both individual investors and institutions. Alternative
    trading systems using on-line technology are changing the structure of
    our trading markets. Expanded trading hours to meet the demands of a
    global marketplace are also nearly upon us.
        Technological innovations have lowered transactions costs and
    increased the ease and speed of trading, encouraging an influx of new
    investors into the markets. Moreover, on-line trading--despite its
    popularity--is not without its problems, and the number of complaints
    from investors about on-line brokerage services received by the SEC
    increased 330 percent in the past year alone. There are also an
    enormous number of messages sent to the Commission about potential
    frauds conducted through the Internet. The Commission has been creative
    and diligent in leveraging its existing resources to continue working
    to protect investors and promote the integrity and efficiency of our
    markets. It is abundantly clear, however, that the Commission needs
    additional staff and funding to keep pace with market changes.
        These challenges come at a time when other areas of SEC
    responsibility require an increased commitment of our resources as
    well. For example, in the past year we have focused on the erosion in
    the quality of financial reporting, which directly impacts the success
    of our disclosure-based system. In addition, we continue to expend a
    significant amount of resources promoting the Y2K readiness of the
    securities industry and the SEC as the year 2000 approaches.
        The challenges facing the SEC are enormous and underscore the
    agency's need for sufficient resources to promote the continued
    integrity, efficiency, liquidity, and resiliency of U.S. capital
    markets. Accordingly, the President's fiscal year 2000 request seeks an
    appropriation for the SEC of $360.8 million, $19.5 million, or 5.7
    percent, above the Commission's fiscal 1999 spending level of $341.3
    million. The $360.8 million will fund 2,899 staff years, an increase of
    55 staff years (1.9 percent) over our current staffing level.
                       current challenges facing the sec
    Extraordinary Market Growth and Technological Change
        More Americans than ever before invest in the securities markets,
    and today many are investing through the Internet. The Internet has
    given individual investors the ability to trade stocks unheard of only
    a few years ago, encouraging many new and inexperienced investors to
    enter the markets. Whether through tuition funds or retirement
    accounts, our collective stake in U.S. markets continues to grow, and
    we are increasingly dependent on the success and integrity of those
    markets. Consider the following statistics:
      --Approximately 5 million people trade on-line on a typical day,
            accounting for approximately 25 percent to 30 percent of all
            retail stock trades.
      --More than 100 firms now offer on-line brokerage services, with
            approximately 7.5 million on-line brokerage accounts, up from
            only 1.5 million in 1996.
      --Approximately 37 percent of all households invest in mutual funds
            today, up from 6 percent in 1980.
      --Assets in mutual funds increased 24 percent in calendar year 1998,
            reaching a record $5.5 trillion.
      --Issuers registered a record $2.55 trillion in securities with the
            Commission in 1998, a 77 percent increase over the $1.44
            trillion registered in 1997.
        Technological innovation has resulted in market developments that
    were unknown just a few years ago, including on-line brokerages, day
    trading, and alternative trading systems, among others. The Internet
    has not only become a medium for investors to send orders to their
    brokers, but also a source of information for investors, placing at
    investors' fingertips a tremendous amount of investment information.
    For example, the Internet links investors to a growing number of
    services that provide immediate access to market information, as well
    as company press releases, SEC filings, and research reports. In
    addition, investors are using the Internet to communicate with other
    investors--more than 30,000 messages are posted to the four largest
    stock message boards on a typical day. While the SEC has been adept at
    staying abreast of these developments, we are concerned about our
    ability to continue to adequately oversee their impact on investors.
    Combatting Fraud
        The Commission's enforcement staff conducts investigations into
    possible violations of the federal securities laws, and prosecutes
    civil suits in the federal courts as well as in administrative
    proceedings. The Commission continues to be vigilant in prosecuting
    violations of the federal securities laws and to look for ways to
    leverage existing resources. For example, in 1998, the staff began to
    focus on important areas such as Internet and accounting fraud in an
    attempt to maximize the impact of the Commission's enforcement
    activities. The SEC continues to try to adapt its enforcement program
    to respond to these dynamically changing market conditions.
        Internet Fraud.--Much of the remarkable expansion and momentum of
    the markets is a reflection of the current, ongoing technological
    revolution. By providing a medium for cheap, quick, and relatively
    anonymous access to vast numbers of potential investors, the Internet
    has breathed new life into old schemes to defraud investors, including
    offering frauds, market manipulations, and touting. The Commission has
    been active in addressing these challenges. For example:
      --We created an Internet Enforcement Unit in July 1998 to centralize
            enforcement activities relating to the Internet.
      --The Commission stepped up its efforts to combat fraud committed
            over the Internet by forming the ``cyberforce,'' a specially
            trained nationwide group of approximately 125 staff attorneys,
            accountants, and analysts who spend a portion of their time
            monitoring the Internet for fraudulent activities.
      --The enforcement staff has used a ``sweep'' approach to Internet
            fraud, in which multiple investigations are coordinated and
            culminate in the filing and announcement of numerous cases on
            the same day, thereby achieving a potent deterrent effect. We
            announced the first sweep in October 1998, when we filed 23
            enforcement actions against 44 defendants. A follow-up sweep
            was announced last month, in which we brought 4 enforcement
            actions against 13 individuals and companies.
      --The Commission has brought approximately 66 Internet-related
            enforcement actions to date.
      --The Commission has coordinated its efforts with other law
            enforcement authorities, including the Department of Justice,
            the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Federal Trade
            Commission, the U.S. Secret Service, and a range of other civil
            and criminal law enforcement authorities.
        These efforts show that the Commission is well aware of the
    potential use of the Internet to perpetrate frauds, and that it has
    been vigilant in developing proactive and flexible responses to those
    abuses. Our greatest problem in fighting Internet fraud is one of
    resources, as staff size has remained relatively constant in the face
    of the phenomenal growth of the Internet.
        Accounting Fraud.--The integrity of financial reporting is a
    fundamental building block of the full and fair disclosure that gives
    investors confidence and trust in our markets. To promote the continued
    integrity of financial reporting, pursuit of accounting fraud is one of
    the Commission's top enforcement priorities. Financial fraud cases are
    generally complex and resource intensive. Among other things, the SEC
    has been focusing on the professionals involved, especially the
    auditors, who stand as the watchdog of the integrity of the reporting
    process.
        Microcap Fraud.--The market shows signs of continued abuses in low-
    priced or ``microcap'' stocks. Microcap stocks are issued by companies
    with lower capitalizations and are usually quoted on the National
    Association of Securities Dealers Over-the-Counter Bulletin Board, the
    pink sheets operated by the National Quotation Bureau, and the Nasdaq
    SmallCap Market. This part of the market provides legitimate
    opportunities for small and new businesses to raise capital. However,
    it can also provide opportunities for criminals using small, unknown
    stocks to prey on innocent investors. Microcap fraud often is
    accomplished using abusive sales practices such as high-pressure cold
    calling, unauthorized trading in customer accounts, and stock
    manipulation schemes that enable the manipulator to reap profits while
    investors suffer losses after the manipulation stops. The Commission
    has been active in this area as well. For example:
      --This past year, the Commission filed 5 enforcement actions against
            58 defendants as a result of an undercover investigation into
            bribery and illegal manipulation of microcap securities.
      --Our examination staff intensified its examinations of broker-
            dealers and performed a ``sweep'' of brokers trading in
            microcap securities.
      --We increased our coordination of enforcement efforts with criminal
            authorities, the states, and self-regulatory organizations.
      --The Commission implemented a number of trading suspensions in
            stocks for which there was suspicious activity.
      --The Commission is considering additional regulatory steps to
            strengthen disclosure requirements to reduce opportunities for
            microcap fraud.
        Insider Trading.--The torrid pace of mergers and acquisitions
    activity continues to present opportunities for insider trading. The
    agency brought 49 insider-trading cases in fiscal 1998, 27 of which
    involved mergers, acquisitions, or corporate reorganizations.
        International Fraud.--An increasing number of the SEC's enforcement
    cases have substantial international dimensions, such as securities
    transactions initiated outside U.S. borders. The Commission continues
    to negotiate information sharing agreements with foreign regulators to
    minimize the extent to which borders are used to escape detection and
    prosecution of fraudulent securities activities. These information
    sharing agreements and less formal arrangements provide a framework for
    the SEC to seek and provide assistance to foreign jurisdictions.
        Preventing Fraud through Investor Education.--With the
    proliferation of on-line trading and Internet and microcap fraud, the
    number of investor complaints has been increasing. Our Electronic
    Enforcement Complaint Center now receives between 200 and 300
    complaints each day, many related to possible instances of Internet and
    other types of fraud. Many of the complaints are also related to
    problems with on-line brokerage services.
        The best defense to any securities scam is an informed and alert
    investing public. The Commission has several initiatives to help
    investors detect and avoid potential fraudulent schemes.
      --The staff publishes an Internet Advisor Alert on our website that
            contains an analysis and discussion of on-line investment fraud
            and abuse together with suggestions for investors on how to
            avoid becoming the next victim.
      --Our guide, ``Microcap Stocks: A Guide for Investors,'' informs
            investors about microcap stocks, how to find information about
            them before investing, and what ``red flags'' investors should
            watch out for.
      --The Commission posts relevant information on Internet forums where
            such information may reach actual and potential investors of a
            specific security. For example, the Commission posted press
            releases concerning recent trading suspensions and copies of
            the actual suspension orders in discussion forums dedicated to
            discussing the stocks subject to suspension.
      --The SEC has held 28 Investors' Town Meetings to date. Last year
            alone, we organized 6 investors' town meetings and 32
            educational seminars on investing wisely.
    Promoting Fair and Successful Markets
        Technological innovations and globalization are changing and
    increasing competition in U.S. securities markets. We continue to see
    increasingly complex financial instruments, greater trading volume and
    volatility, and new trading mechanisms that present new and demanding
    challenges to the SEC. For example, electronic communication networks
    (ECN's) continue to proliferate, growing from one a few years ago to
    nine currently. ECN's represent an increasing proportion of trading
    volume. For example, the nine ECN's accounted for approximately 26
    percent of Amazon.com's January trading volume. In addition, the
    globalization of capital markets is leading to an expansion of trading
    hours here in the United States and possible ties between foreign
    markets and U.S. markets. The New York Stock Exchange has proposed to
    expand its trading day beginning in 2000 in an attempt to remain
    competitive with markets in Europe and Asia for foreign company
    listings. It would be logical to surmise that 24-hour trading is not
    far behind. The Commission will need to devote an increasing amount of
    resources to respond to these and other changes in U.S. securities
    markets.
        The SEC seeks to be flexible in adapting its regulations to
    encourage innovative products and services, consistent with investor
    protection. The Commission has several initiatives to promote
    improvements and competition in market structures and operations and
    respond to technological advances. The implementation of these new
    measures will require significant staff hours over the next few years,
    as our market structure continues to evolve. The Commission has
    adopted:
      --a new regulatory framework for alternative trading systems,
            allowing these systems significant regulatory flexibility,
            including the choice to register as exchanges instead of as
            broker-dealers,
      --several measures designed to help registered exchanges better
            compete with alternative trading systems and foreign markets,
            including allowing them to operate as for-profit entities, and
      --rules that implement an alternative regulatory structure for over-
            the-counter derivatives dealers that will allow these entities
            to compete more effectively in global over-the-counter markets
            while remaining subject to U.S. regulatory oversight.
        The Commission also continues to address soft dollar issues, as
    well as pay-to-play both in the municipal securities market and in the
    public pension fund arena. In addition, the Commission has identified
    improved investment company governance as one of its top priorities.
        Proposals to invest a portion of the Social Security Trust Fund in
    the markets, either directly by the government or through individual
    Social Security accounts, would pose additional challenges to the
    Commission. Although the Commission has not yet expressed an opinion on
    any particular Social Security reform proposal, we will continue to
    work with Congress to address the market integrity, investor
    protection, and corporate governance issues in the reform debates and
    any reform legislation.
    Improving Financial and Non-Financial Disclosure
        An important facet of investors' confidence in our markets is their
    access to reliable information about investments. The Commission
    continually strives to promote fair, equal, complete, and quick access
    to useful information. Towards that end, the Commission: overhauled the
    prospectus disclosure requirements for mutual funds to provide
    investors with clearer and more understandable information about funds;
    permitted mutual funds to offer investors a new disclosure document
    (the profile) that summarizes key information about the fund;
    implemented plain English disclosure rules to improve the readability
    of the prospectuses of public companies, including mutual funds; and
    awarded a three-year contract to modernize EDGAR, our electronic filing
    and dissemination system.
        Additionally, the Commission recognizes that the securities
    offering system needs to be flexible enough to adapt to changes in the
    capital markets of today and the future. In November 1998, we published
    proposals to modernize the regulation of capital formation and provide
    significant benefits to public investors, issuers of securities, and
    securities professionals. The process of refining and revising this
    proposal will also consume significant staff time.
        In the past year I have expressed my deep concern about the erosion
    in the quality of financial reporting. We will devote significant
    resources in the coming year to the promotion of high quality
    accounting standards and transparency by focusing on inappropriate
    earnings management, auditor independence, and the role of audit
    committees. The staff has established an Earnings Management Task Force
    to coordinate and focus efforts on detecting and challenging
    deterioration in financial reporting practices. The efforts of the Task
    Force will focus on public companies that announce restructurings and
    major write-offs, as well as provide interpretive guidance on revenue
    recognition. We are also working together with the financial community
    on these issues. For example, a ``blue ribbon'' panel organized by the
    New York Stock Exchange and the National Association of Securities
    Dealers announced a ten-point plan in February to strengthen the role
    of audit committees in overseeing the corporate financial reporting
    process.
    Year 2000
        Overseeing and reviewing the industry's preparations for the year
    2000 is one of our highest priorities. To accomplish this role, we:
      --issued staff guidance to the public and industry on disclosure
            obligations arising from year 2000 conversion,
      --required broker-dealers, investment advisers, mutual funds, and
            non-bank transfer agents to provide detailed reporting on their
            progress,
      --brought enforcement actions against entities that failed to report
            or that reported inadequately,
      --conducted on-site reviews of the year 2000 plans and activities of
            regulated entities,
      --worked closely with the securities industry to promote their year
            2000 readiness, and
      --are now focusing our efforts in working with industry participants
            on developing contingency plans.
    Globalization
        The SEC operates in a global marketplace. It works bilaterally and
    multilaterally in the international arena to promote cooperation and to
    encourage the development of high standards of securities regulation.
    The international financial crises of the past year continue to
    underscore the connections among markets around the world. Many of the
    SEC's international regulatory activities have focused on responses to
    these crises and ways to strengthen the international financial
    architecture. The SEC also is active in global regulatory initiatives
    in many other areas. In the past year, the SEC's international
    activities included developing a set of core principles for regulation
    of securities markets, addressing issues related to year 2000
    preparedness, developing international disclosure standards, and
    commenting on the development of international accounting standards.
        We believe that the Commission has been successful in carrying out
    its broad mandate, and investor confidence in our markets is high.
    Investor confidence must remain high if our markets are to continue to
    grow. Limited resources, however, may pose a threat to investor
    protection and market integrity. In recent years, the Commission has
    targeted its existing resources carefully to maintain effective
    performance levels. The Commission's request for additional funds is
    necessary for it to continue to protect investors and promote market
    integrity and fairness.
               priorities and allocation of additional resources
        The SEC currently operates with 2,844 staff years. The agency is
    able to accomplish its objectives by regulating, to a large extent,
    through a public-private partnership. This system of shared regulation
    among the SEC, state regulators, self-regulatory organizations, and the
    industry is markedly different from the approach taken by other federal
    regulators. It enables the Commission to leverage its resources with
    the efforts of state regulators and the private sector. Even so,
    additional resources are urgently needed to keep up with market
    developments.
        Just in the last few years, industry growth has far surpassed our
    growth in resources. Between 1995 and 1998, the number of SEC
    authorized positions remained flat at 3,039 positions. For the same
    period, assets under management of investment companies and investment
    advisers increased 70 percent and 42 percent, respectively. If you look
    at the change over a longer period of time, SEC positions increased 45
    percent between 1980 and 1998, but investment company assets increased
    over 2,000 percent and investment adviser assets increased over 3,300
    percent.
        We were able to maintain a vigorous program at the SEC with flat
    staffing between 1995 and 1998 through fiscal restraint, conservative
    management, and the reallocation of existing resources. The 2 percent
    increase in staffing we received in 1999, while appreciated, will not
    be enough for us to keep pace with market expansion. Additional
    resources will allow us to continue to address existing priorities and
    enable us to meet new challenges.
    Law Enforcement
        Combatting Fraud.--As discussed above, changing markets present new
    challenges for the Commission. Use of the Internet to commit securities
    fraud is but one example of the challenges. Additional staffing for our
    law enforcement activities will better enable us to detect and take
    action against fraudulent securities activity on the Internet and other
    on-line information services, as well as respond to continued growth
    and change in electronic forms of communication. Additional staffing
    will also enable us to commit more resources to investigate a broad
    range of potential misconduct, including accounting fraud, microcap
    fraud, and insider trading. We will further our efforts to help
    investors avoid problems by using the Internet to quickly and widely
    disseminate investor alerts on potential fraudulent schemes.
        Additional personnel are also needed to litigate the cases that the
    Commission brings. Our increased litigation also requires increased
    funding for expert witnesses, electronic document management, and other
    litigation support services. These costs have increased significantly
    in recent years due, in part, to the effects of the Securities
    Enforcement Remedies and Penny Stock Reform Act of 1990. As more
    defendants choose to litigate rather than face these stiffer penalties,
    it is crucial that the agency devote sufficient resources to continue
    the SEC's outstanding law enforcement record.
        Inspections and Examinations.--The SEC expects to meet its
    inspection goals in 2000. These goals include inspecting each of the
    large investment advisers that are qualified for federal registration
    and investment company complexes at least once every five years. A
    portion of the additional funding request for automation initiatives
    will be used to continue a multi-year effort to develop and implement
    important new automated examination tools to help us meet these goals.
    We will expand a recently developed tracking system to include
    examination data from self-regulatory organizations. These automated
    examination tools will leverage our existing resources by helping us
    better target examinations of broker-dealers and investment advisers.
        We will also continue to work on improving our efficiency by
    concentrating on the areas of greatest risk in our examinations of
    self-regulatory organizations, broker-dealers, transfer agents, and
    investment companies and advisers. Examiners will continue to identify
    areas to be covered in examinations as well as the most appropriate
    examination techniques by considering the unique characteristics of
    each registrant and the presence or lack of effective internal controls
    and compliance procedures. In addition, we will further enhance
    cooperation with foreign, federal, and state regulators and self-
    regulatory organizations.
    Disclosure and Promoting Honest and Efficient Markets
        With additional staffing in 2000, we will initiate integrated
    reviews of selected disclosure filings of mutual funds. These reviews
    will focus on whether a fund is investing in accordance with its stated
    objectives and policies. The staff also will continue developing an
    electronic filing and dissemination system for investment advisers.
        New staff will support the supervision and regulation of securities
    markets by monitoring the industry's final preparations for the year
    2000, fostering competition in the new electronic trading environment,
    and further responding to ongoing changes in the markets' structure.
    Improved Technology
        We will continue to rely on outside contractors with technical
    expertise to enable us to better address the challenges presented by
    the fast pace of technological change and the pressure to quickly
    deliver computer products and services. Outsourcing allows the
    Commission to leverage private sector expertise and shift staff focus
    from day-to-day operations to contract and project management, as well
    as oversight and strategic planning.
        Additional funding ($5.9 million) is requested to support the SEC's
    automation efforts to improve efficiency and productivity through the
    use of automated PC-based computer applications. The funding will
    enable the SEC to conduct the final year 2000 testing and respond to
    any problems experienced, continue the multi-year effort to develop and
    implement important new tools for the inspections and examinations
    activity, develop an electronic filing and dissemination system for
    investment advisers, and maintain an adequate infrastructure
    replacement program. Priority initiatives include improving the capital
    planning process, researching hardware leasing alternatives, exploring
    solutions for document and electronic records management, matching
    information technology application development with Government
    Performance and Results Act goals, and finding better ways to access
    and manage the vast amounts of data filed with the Commission.
                               funding structure
        The President's fiscal 2000 budget proposes total funding for the
    SEC of $360.8 million, from two funding sources: $230 million from
    fiscal 2000 offsetting fee collections and $130.8 million in carryover
    from fiscal 1998 offsetting fee collections. The proposed budget is
    consistent with the declining fee rates established in NSMIA. However,
    this approach continues the SEC's reliance on a combination of excess
    fee collections from prior years and new collections, thereby
    continuing to postpone the shift to a full appropriation.
                                   conclusion
        The SEC plays a vital role in protecting U.S. securities markets
    from fraud, manipulation, and other practices that continually threaten
    to undermine the integrity of our markets. The Commission has requested
    additional resources to enable us to target those areas of market
    growth and change where our efforts can have the greatest impact. This
    request recognizes that important work lies ahead of us. The challenges
    we face over the coming year include: aggressively combatting fraud
    both on and off the Internet and maintaining public confidence in the
    markets; maintaining the integrity of financial reporting; and
    maintaining vigilant oversight of traditional and alternative trading
    systems, as well as developments in on-line brokerage and day trading.
        As the 21st century approaches, the U.S. must be ready to meet the
    challenges presented by a changing marketplace in order to maintain the
    leadership of its markets. To take on new challenges and to continue
    the Commission's excellent record of effective investor protection, law
    enforcement, and market oversight, the Commission needs the increased
    resources requested today.
        I do not expect that the resources we are requesting for fiscal
    2000 will be sufficient to deal with all the challenges facing the
    agency. For the next several years, I envision staffing requests with
    increases in excess of that identified for this year. We recognize the
    constraints faced by this Subcommittee and the competing demands for
    funding, and I can assure you we do not make this request casually. You
    can be certain that requested increases will be supported by both our
    achievements and a compelling justification.
        The Commission looks forward to working with the Subcommittee in
    its continuing efforts to promote the effectiveness of the SEC and the
    strength of our markets.

                           Adequacy of Budget request

        Senator Gregg. Well, I do and we will certainly fund your
    budget at the requested amount. My concern is this, though.
    Have you asked for enough?
        Mr. Levitt. No, we have not.
        Senator Gregg. And that is what I need to know because my
    concern is that your agency represents the integrity of the
    American capital markets, which is the essence of our
    prosperity. You do a superb job but you are confronting an
    exponential rate of growth in electronic transactions and the
    Internet and 24-hour-a-day trading and scams that result from
    Internet activity.
        It just seems to me that you are going to be asked to do
    things you have never even thought of doing and at levels of
    intensity that you have never thought of doing. Are you ready
    to do that with the dollars and the people you have, or do you
    really need to reorganize and retool and significantly expand
    your activities?
        Mr. Levitt. We are always looking at ways to reorganize. We
    have already rethought the responsibilities that have changed
    so dramatically with different kinds of markets, different
    kinds of fraud.
        As you know, we are constrained by the administration's
    budget proposal.
        Senator Gregg. Well, we are not.
        Mr. Levitt. Right.
        Senator Gregg. So what we would like to get from you is
    what you need in an optimum world to address the new problems
    that are created by Internet trading and the electronic
    transactions. How much more in the way of staffing do you need
    and how much more in the way of support do you need in order to
    make sure that our capital markets are maintaining the
    integrity which they are famous for, which is why worldwide
    capital flows here? Can you give us a number on that?
        Mr. Levitt. I think the number that we have here is
    probably realistic until I can try to persuade OMB and OPM that
    our needs are different today than they have ever been before.
    I intend to try to do that in the course of the coming weeks.
        Senator Gregg. Well, we would like to have a number. I
    recognize you are constrained by OMB, but we are an independent
    branch, and I do not want to end up unilaterally putting money
    into your account to add people if you do not want it, but my
    view would be that that is where it should go if you do need
    it.
        Mr. Levitt. Let me think about that, if you will allow me
    to, and decide whether we should go beyond the $361 million.

                              Electronic commerce

        Senator Gregg. Is it possible for you to manage the
    Internet under the present structure?
        Mr. Levitt. I do not think it is possible for us ever to be
    totally confident in our ability to deal with electronic
    commerce, but I think it is possible for us to do more and to
    do it better. It is not just dollars. It is the way we use
    those dollars.
        But clearly, we need more people to deal with the
    increasing number of cases that we are finding. We are getting
    as many as 300 complaints a day, many of which develop into
    cases. And the Enforcement Division desperately needs more
    people.
        Senator Gregg. Well, tell us what you need. This is a
    priority for myself, and, hopefully, I can convince the rest of
    the committee of it.
        We also have this Section 31 issue. I read your testimony
    before Senator Gramm's committee [the Senate Committee on
    Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs]. I am sympathetic to your
    viewpoint, as you know.
        I guess my question is the way this works, as I understand
    it, because of scoring vagaries, 70 percent of this revenue is
    pay-go, which means we would have to find $9 billion to replace
    it, so that is unlikely. But 30 percent is not pay-go and in
    that 30 percent is the most contentious part, which is the
    trader-to-trader trading activities of NASDAQ, which I guess is
    running about, by our estimates, $560 million above what you
    use to operate. Is that correct?

                              SEC fee collections

        Mr. Levitt. Yes, I think so. Is that the number, Jim?
        Mr. McConnell. Our estimate for this year is $416 million
    in discretionary collections.
        Senator Gregg. $416 million? I thought it was 560.
        Mr. McConnell. Fiscal year 2000?
        Senator Gregg. Yes. What is your estimate of how much you
    are taking in in excess of what your operating costs are in the
    discretionary part of Section 31?
        Mr. McConnell. According to CBO estimates for the year 2000
    budget, it is $416 million in discretionary collections
    available for the offset and $140 million in excess of
    operating costs.
        Senator Gregg. My staff tells me this number is moving so
    fast because the number of transactions is changing and going
    up so fast that we estimate that the projected discretionary
    collections would be decreased by $565 million in the next 7
    years if they were to be brought in line with what the annual
    funding levels are.
        Mr. McConnell. That is correct. That is a multi-year
    decrease, with the fees going down. The current mechanism, the
    single amount----
        Senator Gregg. That is what we would lose? That is what we
    would have to replace?
        Mr. McConnell. That is correct.
        Senator Gregg. Well, that seems to me to be the issue from
    an appropriating standpoint.
        So once again my question is, and I know you have dealt
    with this extensively and talked about it yesterday. What
    resolution do you suggest we take on this?
        Mr. Levitt. It is a terribly complex issue because there
    are so many parties involved. I am sympathetic to the notion
    that there is an obvious excess. I do not believe that excess
    has distorted the markets or works a particular hardship on
    investors. Investors pay less than a penny or so per
    transaction for this, and I do not think that is a meaningful
    factor in making investment decisions.

                           alternative Fee structures

        I guess one of the better ways that I can think of to
    address the issue might be some sort of flexible cap. The
    problem with a cap, however, is that if it lacks flexibility;
    and, if the market activity declines, as it most certainly will
    one of these days, I do not want to face the situation that I
    faced in 1995. I had to meet my staff on a Friday afternoon and
    tell them that it was questionable whether they could come to
    work on Monday. That is enormously demoralizing.
        So, my priority obviously is seeing to it that a funding
    mechanism is devised that assures the predictability and
    continuity of staff being paid. That is my first priority. If
    that can be done and we can rationalize the overage, that is
    great, and I will try to work with you. We have come up with
    some suggestions, and indeed we will already be saving about
    $15 million a year in discontinuing NASDAQ's double-counting
    fees, and we will work on some more.
        But the key issue here is how do we harmonize the interests
    of the six committees that play a role in this?
        Senator Gregg. Well, I would be interested. If you have
    language on this flexible cap, get it to us.
        I guess another question to that is assuming we adjust it
    in a way that reduces the fee to be more reflective of what it
    is paying for, which is the operation of the SEC, do you expect
    that the money that will be saved will flow back to the
    investors or is it just going to stay at the trader level?
        That $15 million you have saved so far in double-counting,
    how much of that do you think flows back to the investors and
    how much of it went to bonuses?
        Mr. Levitt. Jim, how much of the $15 million comes back? I
    don't think any of it does, does it?
        Mr. McConnell. It has not actually happened yet. It just
    passed yesterday. It will be implemented in a month. Investors
    probably will not see much of that.
        Senator Gregg. The investors will not see that savings.
        Mr. Levitt. It is the transaction charges that would flow
    back to investors, and that is the argument proponents have
    made. Specialists have a different interest.
        Senator Gregg. Well, I would hope that any proposal that
    you come forward with would somehow substantiate the fact that
    the consumer, the investor, would get the benefit of this
    reduction.
        Mr. Levitt. I would certainly hope that we could do
    something that would make them a major beneficiary. I think
    that is where it should go, even though whatever we do would be
    modest in terms of each transaction.
        Senator Gregg. Have you considered, rather than being tied
    into a flexible cap, some sort of contingency fund, a fund that
    you could have these fees paid into that would be like a
    sinking fund that would be available if the market went down,
    so we would have cash in reserve?
        Mr. Levitt. I do not think we have worked with that idea. I
    will certainly look into it.

                    resources needed for Electronic commerce

        Senator Gregg. You might have CBO scoring problems.
        I would like to get from you a reestimate of how much you
    need in order to meet electronic threats. That may be the wrong
    word. Actually, it is the wrong word. The electronic activity
    which expanded the market to so many more people.
        Mr. Levitt. It encompasses not just the fact that the
    Internet is being used for good and bad purposes, but it also
    encompasses the array of new markets. The competition between
    electronic markets and existing markets raises whole new areas
    of issues for our Division of Market Regulation and our
    Enforcement Division. How do you inspect those markets? What
    are their responsibilities? What is a level of fair competition
    between electronic markets and existing markets?
        Senator Gregg. Well, my view is that maintaining the
    integrity of the financial markets and the capital structure of
    this country is one of the primary responsibilities of
    Congress, and, obviously, you are charged with it and your
    budget is minuscule compared to what you represent relative to
    the prosperity of this Nation. So do not hesitate to tell us
    how much you need.

                                   conclusion

        Mr. Levitt. I really appreciate your understanding of this,
    and I will get back to you shortly.
        Senator Gregg. Great. Thank you very much. We appreciate
    your time.
                       FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

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

                               summary statement

        Senator Gregg. We will proceed the same way. Tell us what
    you think.
        Mr. Kennard. Thank you very much for this opportunity, Mr.
    Chairman. I have, of course, full testimony which I would like
    to submit for the record.
        It seems like just yesterday that I was here appearing
    before you in my first hearing before this subcommittee and in
    the year since, I believe we have accomplished a lot at the
    FCC, and I wanted to thank you for the support that you and
    this committee have given us at the FCC to continue our
    mission.
        As you know, we are involved in a very important time at
    the FCC as we are trying to transition our law and regulation
    from an era of monopoly to an era of competition. And as we
    make that transition, not only are the markets changing, I
    think in positive ways, but also the FCC is changing in
    positive ways. We are in the process of restructuring and
    refocusing the agency's mission so that it is more relevant to
    a competitive market. Last week I unveiled a five-year plan for
    the agency which I would ask to be submitted with this hearing
    record.
        In order to continue our mission we are requesting a fiscal
    year 2000 budget of $230 million. That will allow us to
    continue at our current staffing level of 1,930 funded full-
    time equivalents. That is, we are not requesting any additional
    staff.
        The increase does represent over a $38 million increase
    over last year's budget, but no increase in staffing. And, of
    that $38 million, most of it is related to our relocation to
    the new headquarters building for the FCC in Southwest
    Washington. About $20.3 million is directly related to that
    relocation.
        The balance is related to increases for mandatory salary
    and benefit increases and CPI increases.
        The total amount to be collected from regulatory fees would
    increase from $172.5 million in fiscal year 1999 to $185.7 in
    fiscal year 2000.
        In addition, we are asking that this committee give us the
    tools to continue our efforts to restructure the agency. We are
    asking for buy-out authority so that we can become more
    efficient and redeploy and retool some of our human resources.
        We are also asking that the committee support our efforts
    to amend the bankruptcy code to allow us to have a more
    effective auction program so that we can pull licenses that
    have been mired in bankruptcy litigation and reauction them. In
    fact, as we speak we are having a reauction of C block PCS
    licenses.
        Senator Gregg. Have you sent us up language?
        Mr. Kennard. I believe so, yes.
        Overall, I think we have a very encouraging story to report
    about what is happening in the telecommunications marketplace.
    All the economic indicators are up. Job growth is up. Revenues
    are up. Stock values are up. Revenues in the communications
    sector of the economy have grown by over $140 billion since the
    Telecom Act was passed.
        And there are a lot of really exciting things happening out
    there. We are just on the verge of seeing the deployment of
    high-speed Internet access services to residential consumers in
    the country, and it is our view that this will open up a whole
    new horizon for electronic commerce for the country.
        You have heard earlier that that poses some problems with
    the SEC in particular with on-line trading for example, but
    overall these are very positive developments for the economy.
    We very much want to work with you to transition the
    marketplace to a more competitive environment while preserving
    our fundamental bedrock commitment to universal service and
    making sure that no Americans are left behind as we move to a
    more competitive environment.
        Finally, Mr. Chairman and Senator Stevens, I wanted to
    update you on our efforts on Y2K compliance. Internally, we are
    on track to make sure that all of our internal systems are
    compliant by October. Externally, we have been working very
    aggressively with the industry to make sure that those systems
    are compliant.
        My colleague, Michael Powell at the Commission, has headed
    up a very successful task force in that area. So I think in the
    Y2K area we are in pretty good shape.

                               prepared statement

        We have a very busy agenda for the coming year and I am
    hopeful that with your support and your continued guidance, we
    will be able to accomplish a lot.
        [The statement follows:]
                    Prepared Statement of William E. Kennard
        Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, and Members of the Subcommittee,
    thank you for the opportunity to discuss with you today the fiscal year
    2000 Budget Estimates of the Federal Communications Commission.
        This morning I would like to: summarize our fiscal year 2000 Budget
    Estimates; highlight the growing impact of the Telecommunications Act
    of 1996, and what remains to be done to achieve competition now that
    the Supreme Court has affirmed the FCC's authority to implement the
    core local competition provisions of the Act; note some of our other
    accomplishments; discuss our plans to assist the Congress as it
    considers reauthorization of the FCC later this year; report to you on
    the progress we have made in our Year 2000 remediation program; and
    share with you my agenda for the rest of 1999.
    A 21st Century Vision
        Before I address the major points of my testimony, however, I want
    to note that this is the final appearance before you this century of an
    FCC Chairman seeking your support and funding. Therefore, I want to
    describe for you my vision of an FCC for the 21st century.
        We are standing at the threshold of a new century, a century that
    promises to be as revolutionary in the technology that affects our
    daily lives and the future of our country as the inventions and
    innovations that so profoundly shaped the past 100 years. Just as the
    internal combustion engine, the telephone, and the railroad brought
    about our country's transformation from an agricultural to industrial
    society, the microchip, fiber optic cables, and satellites are fueling
    our transition from an industrial to an information-age society.
        With the passage of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, we began
    the process of updating the rules for this New Economy, an economy
    centered on skilled workers, broad access to technology, and
    entrepreneurial markets. By opening up the marketplace to more
    competitors, we have a communications industry that is the envy of the
    world. Every major economic indicator in every sector of the
    communications industry is up: job growth, revenue, investment, and
    stock values are all at record levels. This growth has enriched the
    nation, and Americans are beginning to reap the benefits of competition
    with more choices and lower prices.
        In the opening years of the next century, the telecommunications
    marketplace will change dramatically. Phone wires will deliver movies,
    cable lines will carry telephone calls, and the airwaves will carry
    both. This convergence of technologies will transform how we live,
    work, shop, and play. It will blur traditional industry lines. It will
    reshape our society.
        As the marketplace changes, so must the Federal Communications
    Commission. The top-down regulatory model of the Industrial Age is as
    out of place in the New Economy as the rotary telephone. As competition
    and convergence develop, the FCC must streamline its operations and
    continue to eliminate regulatory burdens. Technology is no longer a
    barrier, but old ways of thinking are.
        As we re-direct the FCC's focus for a competitive age, the
    Commission must reform itself. Already, we have taken some initial
    steps on the road towards re-engineering the FCC. We are re-focusing
    and consolidating our enforcement and consumer information functions,
    as well as automating and streamlining our licensing processes across
    the entire agency. But these steps are only the beginning.
        Congress' review this year of the FCC presents an important
    opportunity to continue the discussion on how the FCC should respond to
    this transformation and what its role should be in the 21st century
    marketplace.
        Our primary role must be to continue opening markets to competitors
    to bring more choices at affordable prices to all Americans. The
    Telecom Act requires that telecommunications monopolies open up their
    networks to allow new entrants to compete with them. With the recent
    Supreme Court decision affirming the FCC's role in implementing these
    provisions, we will continue working with the states and industry to
    accomplish this task. In addition, we must continue to ensure that all
    Americans have access to the wonders of the communications revolution.
        As competition develops, we must re-focus our efforts on those
    functions that are appropriate for a competitive age. For example, we
    will take strong action against those who would rather cheat than
    compete for consumers. We will work to ensure that Americans are
    provided with clear information so that they can make sense of these
    new technologies and services and choose the ones best for them. We
    will enforce the law, resolve industry disputes, manage the spectrum,
    and work on international coordination. And finally, we will monitor
    the competitive landscape on behalf of the public interest,
    implementing important policies such as universal service in ways
    compatible with competition.
        Just as the telecommunications industry and other sectors of our
    economy are constantly adapting to change and competition, so must we.
    We look forward to working with Congress--as well as industry,
    consumers, state and local governments, and others--on a critical
    assessment of what the ``new'' FCC should look like, and how we can get
    there.
        A new century and new economy demand a new FCC. We must plan for
    the future, while continuing to work on the challenges we face today to
    promote competition, foster innovation, and help bring the benefits of
    21st century telecommunications to all Americans.
    Overview of Fiscal Year 2000 Budget Estimates
        To help the FCC begin to realize this 21st century vision, the
    Commission proposes a fiscal year 2000 budget of $230,887,000, and a
    staff of 1,930 funded full-time equivalents (FTEs). This represents an
    increase of $38,887,000 over the FCC's fiscal year 1999 funding level,
    but no increase in staffing.
        Of the $38.8 million increase, $20.3 million is directly related to
    the FCC's relocation to the Portals Building. This includes $9.6
    million for higher rent, $.5 million for increased Federal Protective
    Service charges, $1.5 million for extended guard services due to the
    lease requirement to allow the public to enter the building at all five
    entrances, and $8.7 million to reimburse the General Services
    Administration for the costs it incurred to relocate the FCC to the
    Portals.
        The remaining increase covers $6.8 million for mandatory salary and
    benefit increases, $.7 million for Consumer Price Index adjustments in
    contract services and $11.3 million for automation enhancements.
    Without adequate automation funding, the Commission will be unable to
    carry out our basic functions of awarding licenses to applicants for
    communications services, overseeing the implementation of new services
    for the public, and reviewing and updating existing rules and
    regulations. In view of the importance of these services to the economy
    of the United States, this investment in technology is critical. Since
    the automation enhancements will directly benefit the Commission's
    licensees, we propose that all of this increase be paid for by an
    increase in regulatory fees.
        The total amount to be collected from regulatory fees would
    increase from $172,523,000 in fiscal year 1999 to $185,754,000 in
    fiscal year 2000.
    The Growing Impact of the Telecommunications Act of 1996
        Turning now to the growing impact of the Telecom Act, I am very
    pleased to report that the Act is working: consumers are beginning to
    see competitive choices in local telecommunications services,
    competitive deployment of advanced broadband services is well underway
    and the stage is therefore set for less regulation as competition
    expands.
        I also note that by every measure, the telecommunications industry
    is thriving. Since the passage of the Telecom Act, revenues of the
    communications sector of our economy have grown by over $140 billion.
    Stock values of the companies in the telecommunications sector are up,
    indicating that Wall Street sees a future of a rapidly enlarging pie
    that is big enough for all, not a zero sum game.
        One-fourth of our country's economic growth has come from the
    information technology sector. For 1998, it is estimated that the
    communications sector of our economy will have revenues in excess of
    $500 billion. This growth has touched the lives of almost every
    American. Now, a growing number of American families across this nation
    have a choice of a vast array of high-tech communications services,
    services that now cost less.
        This growth comes not only from established providers but, since
    the passage of the Telecom Act, we can now clearly see benefits flowing
    from the new competitors. The revenues of new local service providers
    more than doubled in 1997, and they increased substantially again in
    1998. And this growth has meant new jobs for thousands of Americans.
        In the wireless industry, capital investment in 1998 has more than
    tripled since 1993, with more than $50 billion of cumulative investment
    through 1998. Similarly, the wireless industry generated almost three
    times as many jobs as in 1993. All this while the cost of service to
    the consumer has dropped. A cell phone is no longer a luxury for the
    privileged, for with the advances in cellular service and the advent of
    digital, personal communications services, mobile phones are now a
    common communications tool for over 60 million people every day.
        AT&T, BellSouth, MCI Worldcom, Ameritech, Sprint, SBC, Bell
    Atlantic and US West are all among the top 20 telecommunications
    companies, by revenue, worldwide. Similarly, GE Americom, Hughes, Loral
    and Panamsat are among the top 20 satellite service providers, by
    revenue, worldwide. And U.S. satellite manufacturers such as Hughes,
    Lockheed Martin, Loral, Motorola and Orbital Sciences, maintain a
    strong lead in contracting and subcontracting satellite systems
    worldwide.
        These are just a few examples of how the telecommunications economy
    and market are thriving, and are doing so in an increasingly
    competitive environment engendered by the Telecom Act.
    From Courts to Cooperation and Competition
        In recent months, the FCC's implementation of the Telecom Act also
    has been upheld repeatedly by the courts. Most recently, in January
    1999, the United States Supreme Court affirmed the FCC's landmark
    decision implementing the core local competition provisions of the
    Telecom Act. In AT&T v. Iowa Utilities Board, the Supreme Court
    specifically: affirmed the FCC's fundamental jurisdiction to issue
    uniform national rules to facilitate competition for local telephone
    service; affirmed the FCC's interpretation concerning new competitors'
    rights to share parts of the incumbent carriers' networks without
    having to provide their own facilities; affirmed the FCC's rule that
    incumbent carriers may not dismantle their existing networks in ways
    that disadvantage new entrants and raise entry costs; affirmed the
    FCC's ruling that the Telecom Act enables new entrants to avail
    themselves of all or portions of existing interconnection contracts
    between incumbents and other competitors; affirmed the FCC's
    identification of a number of network elements designed to facilitate
    entry by new competitors; and directed the FCC to revisit its rule
    designating specific network elements that must be unbundled pursuant
    to the Telecom Act.
        The FCC's legal victories at the appellate court level also have
    been significant over the past 14 months. For example, the Commission
    worked closely with the Department of Justice to defend successfully
    the integrity of the core market-opening provisions of the Telecom Act
    against repeated constitutional attacks. Thus, two different federal
    courts of appeal in the past year have issued three separate decisions
    upholding the constitutionality of specific provisions of the Telecom
    Act governing the Bell Operating Companies. In December 1998, the D.C.
    Circuit rejected contentions that Section 271 of the Act--a key
    provision that governs Bell Company participation in the long distance
    market--was an unconstitutional ``bill of attainder'' or punishment.
    The Supreme Court also declined to review a similar decision from the
    Fifth Circuit.
        The Commission has had other court victories as well. In January
    1998, the D.C. Circuit affirmed the FCC's interpretation of two key
    provisions of Section 271 which will help achieve Congress' goals to
    ensure local markets are opened to competition and enhance competition
    in the long distance market. In August 1998, the Eighth Circuit Court
    of Appeals affirmed a Commission decision reforming interstate ``access
    charges''--the rates that local telephone companies charge long
    distance companies for the right to originate and terminate all long
    distance calls. Finally, in January 1999, the D.C. Circuit affirmed the
    FCC's rules establishing benchmarks for rates that U.S. carriers pay to
    foreign carriers to complete international calls, a decision which
    should reduce the prices consumers have to pay for international calls.
        Now that the courts have upheld most aspects of the FCC's
    implementation of the Telecom Act, we must ensure that the Supreme
    Court's decision in AT&T v. Iowa produces momentum behind the market-
    opening mandates of the Telecom Act instead of more delay and
    confusion. First and foremost, that means making sure that each of the
    three pathways to competition spelled out in the Telecom Act are open:
    facilities-based competition, resale, and unbundled network elements.
        We know that the Supreme Court's decision requires the FCC to
    revisit one of these pathways: the FCC's interpretation of which
    network elements must be made available to competitors. We must not
    allow uncertainty on this point to slow the momentum toward
    competition.
        This is why the Commission was pleased to learn last month that
    each of the regional Bell operating companies and GTE have agreed to
    fulfill their current obligations, as set forth in existing
    interconnection agreements, to provide unbundled network elements while
    the FCC revisits its interpretation of this key provision of the
    Telecom Act.
        The law requires all of the stakeholders to cooperate. It requires
    parties to negotiate on interconnection and collocation. It requires
    state and federal regulators to collaborate. So the irony of the
    Telecom Act is that cooperation is the prerequisite to competition. I
    welcome these good faith gestures of the incumbent carriers. This pie
    is big enough for everyone to have a slice.
        Now that the Supreme Court has given us greater clarity on these
    major outstanding issues, we must move forward immediately to settle
    any remaining ambiguities. I am committed to finalizing the standard
    for the network elements by early summer. We must put this matter to
    rest. The marketplace needs stability.
        I will continue to link arms with my colleagues in the states to
    implement the Telecom Act in a fair, clear, and pro-competitive way. We
    now have three years of experience on which to build the future. It is
    a strong foundation, and together, we are going to complete the job
    that Congress gave us. And, we can now move quickly.
    Other FCC Accomplishments
        I would like to turn now to other areas of accomplishment since I
    became Chairman of the FCC in November 1997. Throughout my tenure, I
    have sought to: transform the agency to assure that all Americans will
    benefit from the communications revolution and the opportunities it
    brings; stress the importance of promoting competition while making
    sure it is not at the expense of the disadvantaged and those who need
    extra help; advocate eliminating unnecessary regulation where
    sufficient competition exists; and take a market-based, common sense
    approach to telecommunications policy that promotes deregulation where
    possible while at the same time ensuring that rules are in place and
    are enforced to protect consumers.
        I believe that during my Chairmanship, the Commission has stood for
    promoting competition, fostering new technology and creating
    opportunity while streamlining the agency and getting rid of
    unnecessary regulation. The Commission is also dedicated to making sure
    that the burgeoning digital revolution does not become a digital
    divide. This is evident in many of our efforts since I became Chairman:
    for example, in the Broadband Task Force, my ``opportunity agenda,'' my
    views on universal service, my advocacy of the E-rate, the FCC's
    outreach to the disabled community, overseeing implementation of DTV,
    promoting low power FM, my views on implementation of Section 271, the
    FCC's efforts to protect consumers against cramming and slamming,
    greater inclusion of state regulators, and the FCC's holding field
    hearings around the country with different groups.
        Recognizing that access to technology is essential for future jobs
    and an important step necessary to eradicate the digital divide, I have
    also consistently advocated the Congressionally-created universal
    service support for service to classrooms and libraries--the so-called
    E-rate. Under my tenure, the Commission finalized implementation of the
    E-rate and prioritized assistance so that the most needy would receive
    the biggest benefit. Moreover, the Commission ensured that strong
    program controls were in place. No funding commitment letters were
    permitted to be sent until the program was reviewed both by an
    independent auditor and the General Accounting Office. I am pleased to
    report today that funding commitment letters totaling $1.66 billion now
    have been sent to over 30,000 school and library applicants, which
    completes the funding commitment process for the first year of the
    program. In addition, the Universal Service Administrative Company has
    begun accepting applications for the second year of the program. The
    FCC also is continuing to work to simplify the application process to
    make it both simpler and faster for schools and libraries.
        Central to our first year achievements is the creation of a
    Bandwidth Task Force, a pro-active, cross-bureau, cross-disciplinary
    group whose responsibility is to identify for the Commission issues of
    bandwidth constraint within the nation's telecommunications
    infrastructure. I have highlighted the current bandwidth constraints as
    one of the most important issues to be addressed in the field of
    telecommunications policy and regulation. Current bandwidth constraints
    include: access to the information superhighway for the mass market,
    (the ``last mile'' issue); connectivity to high bandwidth backbone by
    the nation's small-to-medium size towns and communities; and inside
    wiring issues (the ``last 100 feet''). The Bandwidth Task Force also
    has the responsibility of prioritizing achievable means to facilitate
    the deployment of competitive alternative high-bandwidth technologies
    and the ability of all consumers to obtain broadband interconnections
    and assisting the different areas of the agency in realizing these
    goals.
        We have also created a cross-agency task force to assess how to
    stay ahead of the rapid consolidation of industry in the
    telecommunications area. I began the Technology Advisory Committee,
    another intra-agency group headed up by the Chief of the FCC Office of
    Engineering and Technology and comprised of engineers, economists,
    scientists and technologists. During my tenure, the DTV task force,
    headed by Commissioner Ness, was established to address tower siting
    issues for DTV. The FCC also launched a vigorous effort, led by
    Commissioner Powell, to educate communications industries about Year
    2000 compliance issues and to monitor industry efforts to address Y2K
    compliance. Finally, we established the Opportunity Working Group, a
    cross-agency task force charged with ensuring that all Americans
    receive the benefits of the communications revolution.
        Similarly, I have sought to strengthen the cross-agency
    Disabilities Issues Task Force to highlight, among other things, the
    importance of making technology available to everyone. For example, we
    have: strengthened closed captioning rules so that persons who are deaf
    or hard-of-hearing will have access to more programs on television;
    proposed new rules for telecommunications relay services and proposed
    to require the provision of speech to speech relay service; advocated
    that industry provide solutions to the problem of compatibility between
    digital wireless phones and TTYs; and proposed rules to make
    telecommunications services and equipment accessible to persons with
    disabilities. Moreover, I have tried to raise the profile of the needs
    of persons with disabilities in the telecommunications area through
    speeches, statements, and demonstrations at the FCC of equipment and
    how persons with disabilities would benefit from it. We have also
    sought to ensure that the voices of people with disabilities and their
    advocates are heard at the FCC.
        Over the past 14 months, the Commission has also focused on ways to
    increase competition in the telecommunications area. Toward this end,
    some of the Commission's achievements include: beginning a rulemaking
    to establish a pro-competitive, pro-innovative framework for advanced
    telecommunications services offered by incumbent local telephone
    companies and by new entrants; adopting a competitively neutral
    mechanism for long-term number portability cost recovery; lowering
    barriers to non-U.S. licensed satellites providing service within the
    U.S.; implementing the WTO Agreement on Basic Telecommunications
    Services, lowering barriers to entry by foreign carries in the United
    States; adopting rules requiring set top boxes, cable modems and other
    navigation devices be available ``over the counter'' as well as from
    cable companies; conducting 800 MHz, LMDS and 220 MHz auctions, and
    issuing 1,608 licenses; reopening review of access charges; and issuing
    a bandplan for the 18 Ghz band, segmenting the band to allow new
    satellite services to operate without interfering with terrestrial
    operations.
        I have also sought to refocus the Commission on the importance of
    community and empowering people and the public safety community. For
    example, we have: issued technical standards for implementation of the
    ``V-Chip'' and approved industry-developed plans for a television
    rating system; allocated and adopted service and licensing rules for 24
    MHz of spectrum for use by public safety entities, such as police, fire
    and ambulance services; and adopted an Order extending the deadline for
    compliance with electronic surveillance assistance requirements of
    CALEA to allow enough time to develop the technologies necessary to
    provide law enforcement officials with the tools they need to perform
    authorized wiretaps.
        In the area of consumer protection, the Commission: proposed more
    than $13 million in fines for ``slamming,'' including the first
    slamming fine of over $1 million; for the first time ever, revoked a
    carrier's license to provide interstate services because of slamming
    abuses; brokered and endorsed industry-developed guidelines to stop
    ``cramming;'' issued rules empowering consumers to protect themselves
    against outrageous payphone long distance charges; and issued rules to
    protect consumer privacy concerning the use and disclosure of personal
    information to marketers.
        As Chairman, I have also emphasized the importance of strengthening
    agency enforcement as essential to protect consumers and enhance
    competition. As a result, the FCC since I became Chairman has:
    investigated and shut down or fined hundreds of companies that engaged
    in ``slamming;'' shut down 261 unlicensed ``pirate'' radio operations,
    including five which were interfering with air traffic control or were
    otherwise endangering human life; established a ``fast-track''
    complaint process for resolution of complaints that are important to
    maintaining fair rules of competition; promptly adjudicated and stopped
    long distance marketing arrangements that violated and attempted to
    evade the market-opening long distance provisions of the Telecom Act;
    and issued the first-ever Temporary Restraining Order halting alleged
    violations of the pro-competition provisions of the Communications Act.
        Finally, over the past 14 months, I have stressed the importance of
    removing unnecessary, burdensome regulations. Our efforts to streamline
    regulations include: adopting rules to auction mutually exclusive
    applications for broadcast licenses; streamlining the broadcast
    application processes to reduce the number and length of forms;
    simplifying the equipment authorization process; implementing
    electronic filing for authorization requests for common carrier tariffs
    and comments and pleadings in most notice and comment rulemakings; and,
    as part of the 1998 biennial regulatory review, proposing specific
    streamlining initiatives in over two dozen areas.
    FCC Reauthorization
        This year the House and Senate Commerce Committees have announced
    their intentions to consider legislation to reauthorize the Commission.
    The FCC's last authorization legislation was signed into law in
    September 1990 and authorized the FCC through September 30, 1992. See
    Public Law 101-396 (H.R. 3265), the ``Federal Communications Commission
    Authorization Act of 1990.''
        As a result, since 1992, the FCC has been technically a ``non-
    authorized'' agency, dependent for its congressional policy guidance on
    annual appropriations legislation and other major legislation such as
    the Cable Act of 1992, the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993,
    the Telecommunications Act of 1996, and the Balanced Budget Act of
    1997.
        To assist Congress in its current FCC reauthorization effort, the
    Commission has already begun re-engineering itself for the new century.
    Our actions to date and plans for the future will be detailed in a
    comprehensive report we plan to submit this summer to you, to our
    authorizing committees, and to other Members of Congress as well as to
    the public.
        Over the next few months, we intend to undertake a comprehensive
    self-assessment of our core mission and goals, what steps we must take
    to achieve our goals, how to better measure our performance and
    effectiveness, and how to use that information to make fundamental
    improvements in the way we operate. We want to involve both our staff
    and our many stakeholders in this self-assessment, including you and
    other Members of Congress, companies, industry associations, consumer
    groups, academics, state and local governments, and the public. The
    result of this effort will be a draft Strategic Plan covering a five
    year period which we will release in July 1999, and on which we will
    seek additional public comment.
        The FCC is viewing this reauthorization process as an excellent
    opportunity to assess and reform the goals, structure and processes of
    the agency as we plan for a new FCC that fits the telecommunications
    marketplace of the future.
        Moreover, a restructured and streamlined FCC must be in place once
    competition arrives so that we can focus on providing consumers
    information and protection, resolving industry disputes and enforcing
    the law, allocating spectrum and other scarce resources, working with
    other nations to open their markets, and protecting universal service
    and other public interest objectives that may not be met by normal
    market forces.
        In sum, we will seek to be structured to react quickly to market
    developments, to work more efficiently in a competitive environment,
    and to focus on bottom-line results for consumers. As competition
    increases, we must place greater reliance on marketplace solutions,
    rather than on traditional regulation of entry, exit and prices; and on
    surgical intervention rather than complex rules in the case of
    marketplace failure.
    We Also Need the Right Tools
        As I testified in June 1998 before the Senate Commerce Committee,
    we cannot create a ``leaner and smarter'' FCC by ourselves. We need
    Congress to give us the full range of tools necessary to reshape the
    Commission and its staff.
        This is why we were all pleased to read in the Congressional Record
    of February 23, 1999, the following statement by Senate Majority Leader
    Lott (R-MS) which he made as part of longer remarks on the third
    anniversary of enactment of the Telecom Act of 1996:
        ``During this continued period of transition, it will be important
    for Congress to make sure that the Federal Communications Commission is
    properly structured. That it has the right tools to foster and further
    the ongoing evolution. Chairman Kennard's analogy--old regulatory
    models are a thing of the past, much like the old, black rotary
    phones--rings true. The FCC indeed must change, and Congress should
    start empowering the FCC rather than criticizing its individual
    decisions.'' (Emphasis added.)
        One such empowering tool is buyout authority for which we have
    proposed legislative authority in our fiscal year 2000 draft
    appropriations language. We need this authority to buyout permanent
    employees and to replace them with employees who have the appropriate
    mix of skills to handle our changing workload demands.
        We also need legislation as again presented in our fiscal year 2000
    appropriations language to ensure that the goals of Section 309(j) of
    the Communications Act are met, and that our auctions/licensing process
    is not completely undermined by the bankruptcy courts.
    Year 2000 Compliance
        I am pleased to report to you today that the FCC has made
    substantial progress in alleviating Year 2000 (Y2K) problems for our
    internal application software systems, networks, and hardware. The
    Commission is on schedule to achieve 93 percent compliance by April 30,
    1999 and has achieved 73 percent compliance to date. The Commission's
    ongoing relocation to the new Portals office facility has had some
    minimal adverse impact on FCC Y2K remediation efforts. However, the
    Portals move has also resulted in major progress on our achieving Y2K
    compliance for the FCC's headquarters infrastructure.
        I have continued to stress the great importance of achieving Y2K
    compliance for both the FCC and telecommunications industry systems. I
    also want to commend Commissioner Michael Powell, who as a member of
    the President's Council on Year 2000 Conversion, has lead the
    Commission's internal Y2K compliance program while carrying out his
    important leadership role in the FCC's industry outreach effort.
    1999 Agenda
        The transition from monopoly regulation to open markets, from
    today's technologies to tomorrow's breakthroughs, is not yet complete.
    Therefore, as we look forward to the upcoming new century, the
    challenge before this Commission is clear: to promote competition, to
    foster new technologies, to protect consumers, and to ensure that all
    Americans have access to the wonders of the communications revolution.
    These goals are the will of the American people and of Congress, set
    forth in the Telecom Act. And we at the FCC will continue to work hard
    to bring these benefits to every American.
        These goals will guide us as we review the major mergers now before
    this Commission. They will be in our minds as we continue our work in
    opening local phone markets to competition, so Americans have choice in
    local phone service. They will guide us as we work to make our
    communications network accessible to all Americans, especially the 54
    million Americans with disabilities.
        Our agenda for this year which I have attached to my testimony is a
    full one. It is also an important one, fully justifying the resources
    we have requested from you in our fiscal year 2000 budget submission.
    Conclusion
        The agenda for this year continues on the foundation laid last
    year--competition, community, common sense. We have a lot of work to
    do, and we have the will to do it well. With your support of our fiscal
    year 2000 budget request, we will succeed:
      --We will promote competition in all sectors of the marketplace. We
            will reform access charges, and ensure that proposed mergers
            are pro-competitive and benefit consumers.
      --We will continue to deregulate as competition develops, eliminating
            any unnecessary regulatory burdens, reducing reporting
            requirements, streamlining rules and our own internal
            functions.
      --We will continue to protect consumers from unscrupulous
            competitors, and give customers the information they need to
            make wise choices in a robust and competitive marketplace. We
            will continue our policy of ``zero tolerance'' for those
            competitors who would rather cheat than compete.
      --We will work to ensure that the Act's provisions on RBOC entry into
            the long distance marketplace are implemented in a manner that
            promotes competition and consumer welfare and that is fair to
            all of the parties.
      --We will ensure broad access to communications services and
            technologies for all Americans, no matter where they live. We
            will complete universal service reforms, continue oversight of
            the schools and libraries and rural health care universal
            service programs, encourage accessibility of emergency
            information via closed-captioning and video description, and
            ensure that the 54 million Americans with disabilities can use
            and have access to the communications network.
      --We will foster innovation, working to ensure that America remains
            the world's leader in innovation. We will continue to promote
            the development and deployment of high speed Internet access,
            promote compatibility of digital video technologies with
            existing equipment and services, and promote competitive
            alternatives to cable and broadcast TV.
      --Finally, we will advance these concepts worldwide, serving as an
            example and advocate of telecommunications competition
            worldwide. We will work to encourage the development of
            international standards for global interconnectivity, work to
            promote the fair use of spectrum through the WRC 2000, and
            aggressively work on the worldwide adoption of the WTO
            Agreement for Basic Telecommunications. We will continue to
            assist other nations in establishing conditions for
            deregulation, competition, and increased private investment in
            their telecommunications infrastructure so that they too, can
            share in the promise of the Information Age, and become our
            trading partners.
        During this time the ground rules we set now will structure
    competition and the telecommunications industry for years to come.
    Decisions we make today will determine whether or not all Americans--
    irrespective of where they live, their race, their age, or their
    special needs--can share in the promise of the Information Age.
        This concludes my testimony. I'd be pleased to answer your
    questions.
                       chairman kennard's agenda for 1999
    Promote Competition
        We will promote competition throughout the communications
    marketplace.
      --Ensure all communications markets are open.
      --Reform access charges mechanisms to promote the development of
            competition and preserve affordable rates.
      --Scrutinize merger proposals to ensure that they are pro-competitive
            and benefit consumers.
      --Allow the Regional Bell Operating Companies into the long-distance
            market when they have opened their own local markets to
            competition, as required by law.
      --Promote competition and choice in the video marketplace.
      --Promote alternatives to wire line technology in the local telephone
            market.
    Deregulate As Competition Develops
        We will adapt the Commission, its rules, and procedures to the
    competitive future.
      --Aggressively continue our efforts to eliminate any unnecessary
            regulatory burdens.
      --Reduce burden of reporting and accounting requirements where no
            longer necessary to further the public interest.
      --Allow access pricing flexibility where competition has developed.
      --Streamline rules for the certification of telephones and other
            equipment.
      --Streamline our internal functioning so that we can issue licenses
            faster, resolve complaints quicker, and be more responsive to
            the competitors and consumers in the marketplace.
    Protect Consumers
        We will protect customers from unscrupulous competitors, and give
    customers the information they need to make wise choices in a robust
    and competitive marketplace.
      --Ensure consumer bills are truthful, clear and understandable.
      --Show zero tolerance for perpetrators of consumer fraud such as
            slamming and cramming.
      --Simplify the process for consumers to file complaints by phone or
            over the Internet.
      --Cut our complaint resolution time in half.
      --Remain vigilant in protecting customer privacy.
    Ensure Broad Access to Communications Services and Technology
        We will ensure that all Americans--no matter where they live, what
    they look like, what their age, or what special needs they have--have
    access to new technologies to take advantage of the enormous
    opportunity created by the communications revolution.
      --Complete Universal Service Reform to ensure affordable, available
            communications services nationwide.
      --Ensure that the 54 million Americans with disabilities can use and
            have access to the communications network.
      --Encourage the accessibility of emergency information via closed-
            captioning and video description.
      --Assure reliable wireless compatibility with E911.
      --Continue oversight of the Schools and Libraries and Rural Health
            Care universal service programs to ensure their efficient
            operation.
      --Preserve free, over-the-air broadcast services and ensure satellite
            coverage in underserved areas.
      --Open low-power radio frequencies for local use.
      --Promote the participation of people of all backgrounds in
            broadcasting and other communications media.
    Foster Innovation
        We will work to ensure that America remains the world's leader in
    innovation.
      --Promote the development and deployment of high-speed Internet
            connections to all Americans.
      --Promote compatibility of digital video technologies with existing
            equipment and services.
      --Promote competitive alternatives to cable and broadcast TV.
      --Clear regulatory hurdles so that innovations, and markets for them,
            can flourish.
    Advance Competitive Goals Worldwide
        We will serve as an example and advocate of telecommunications
    competition worldwide.
      --Encourage the development of international standards for global
            interconnectivity.
      --Promote fair spectrum use through the WRC 2000.
      --Aggressively work for the worldwide adoption of the WTO Agreement
            of Basic Telecommunications.
      --Assist other nations in establishing conditions for deregulation,
            competition, and increased private investment in their
            telecommunications infrastructure so that they can share in the
            promise of the Information Age and become our trading partners.
                                     ______

          A New Federal Communications Commission for the 21st Century
     the federal communications commission and the changing communications
                                  marketplace
    Introduction
        Congress enacted the Communications Act of 1934 to provide for the
    widest dissemination of communications services to the public. Section
    1 of the Communications Act states that the purpose of the Act is to
    ``make available * * * to all the people of the United States, without
    discrimination * * * a rapid, efficient, Nation-wide, and world-wide
    wire and radio communication service * * * at reasonable charges.''
        This goal remains vibrant today. What has changed since 1934 is the
    means to get to this goal. With the passage of the Telecommunications
    Act of 1996 (Telecom Act), Congress recognized that competition should
    be the organizing principle of our communications law and policy and
    should replace micromanagement and monopoly regulation. The wisdom of
    this approach has been proven in the long distance, wireless, and
    customer premises equipment markets, where competition took hold and
    flourished, and consumers receive the benefit of lower prices, greater
    choices, and better service.
        The imperative to make the transition to fully competitive
    communications markets to promote the widest deployment of
    communications services is more important today than ever before. In
    1934, electronic communications for most Americans meant AM radio and a
    telephone, and sending the occasional Western Union telegram. Today, it
    means AM and FM radio, broadcast and cable TV, wireline and wireless
    telephones, faxes, pagers, satellite technology, and the Internet--
    services and technologies that are central to our daily lives.
    Communications technology is increasingly defining how Americans
    individually, and collectively as a nation, will be competitive into
    the next century. It is increasingly defining the potential of every
    American child. So the goal of bringing communications services quickly
    to all Americans, without discrimination, at reasonable charges,
    continues to be of paramount importance. Competition is the best way to
    achieve this goal, while continuing to preserve and protect universal
    service and consumer protection goals.
        To accomplish this goal, our vision for the future of
    communications must be a bold one. We must expect that in five years,
    there can be fully competitive domestic communications markets with
    minimal or no regulation, including total deregulation of all rate
    regulation in competitive telephone services. In such a vibrant,
    competitive communications marketplace, the Federal Communications
    Commission (FCC) would focus only on those core functions that cannot
    be accomplished by normal market forces. We believe those core
    functions would revolve around universal service, consumer protection
    and information; enforcement and promotion of pro-competition goals
    domestically and internationally; and spectrum management. As a result,
    the traditional boundaries separating the FCC's current operating
    bureaus should no longer be relevant. In five years, the FCC should be
    dramatically changed.
        We are working to transition the FCC to that model--based on core
    functions in a competitive communications market--now. We are writing
    the blueprint for it, beginning with this report describing the steps
    we are already taking. After receiving input from our key stakeholders,
    we plan to develop this report into a five-year Strategic Plan which
    will outline precisely our objectives and timetable year by year for
    achieving our restructuring, streamlining, and deregulatory objectives.
    We must work with Congress, state and local governments, industry,
    consumer groups, and others to ensure that we are on the right track,
    and that we have the right tools to achieve our vision of a fully
    competitive communications marketplace.
    The State of the Industry
        In the Telecom Act, Congress directed the FCC to play a key role in
    creating and implementing fair rules for this new era of competition.
    Over the course of the past three years, the FCC has worked closely
    with Congress, the states, industry, and consumers on numerous
    proceedings to fulfill the mandates of the Telecom Act.
        By many accounts, the Telecom Act is working. Many of the
    fundamental prerequisites for a fully competitive communications
    industry are now in place, competitive deployment of advanced broadband
    services is underway, and the stage is set for continued deregulation
    as competition expands.
        Furthermore, by many measures, the communications industry is
    thriving. Since the passage of the Telecom Act, revenues of the
    communications sector of our economy have grown by over $100 billion.
    This growth comes not only from established providers, but also from
    new competitors, spurred by the market-opening provisions of the
    Telecom Act. (See Appendix A, Charts 1 and 2) This growth has meant new
    jobs for thousands of Americans.
        In the wireless industry, capital investment has more than tripled
    since 1993, with more than $50 billion of cumulative investment through
    1998. Mobile phones are now a common tool for over 60 million people
    every day, and the wireless industry has generated almost three times
    as many jobs as in 1993. (See Appendix A, Chart 3)
        Consumers are beginning to benefit from the thriving communications
    sector through price reductions not only of wireless calls, but also of
    long distance and international calls. (See Appendix A, Charts 4 and 5)
    Consumers are also beginning to enjoy more video entertainment choices
    through direct broadcast satellites, which are becoming viable
    alternatives to cable. We are also at the dawn of digital TV, which
    offers exciting new benefits for consumers in terms of higher quality
    pictures and sound and innovative services. (See Appendix A, Charts 6
    and 7) As we enter this digital age, broadcast TV and radio is still
    healthy, ubiquitous, and providing free, local news, entertainment, and
    information to millions of Americans across the country.
        Beyond the traditional communications industries, the Internet has
    truly revolutionized all of our lives. According to a recent study, at
    least 38 percent of American adults (79.4 million) already are online
    and another 18.8 million are expect to go online in the next year. In
    1998, 26 percent of retailers had a website, over three times the
    number in 1996, and it is estimated that they generated over $10
    billion in sales. On-line sales for 1999 are projected to be anywhere
    from $12 to $18 billion.
        Communications markets are also becoming increasingly globalized as
    the Telecom Act's procompetitive policies are being emulated around the
    world. Other countries are modeling their new telecommunications
    authorities after the FCC. As other countries open their communications
    markets and increase their productivity, new services and business
    opportunities are created for U.S. consumers and companies, as well as
    for consumers and companies worldwide.
    Communications in the 21st Century
        Even more change is expected in the telecommunications marketplace
    of tomorrow. In the new millennium, millions of consumers and
    businesses will be able to choose from a range of services and
    technologies vastly different from those available today. Packet-
    switched networks, running on advanced fiber optics and using open
    Internet Protocols to support seamless interconnection to transport
    immense amounts of information, will be ubiquitous. Millions of homes
    and businesses will be linked to this ``network of networks'' through
    ``always on'' broadband connections. Outside the wired confines of the
    home or office, ``third generation'' wireless technologies will provide
    high-speed access wherever a consumer may be. Satellite technology will
    increase the ability to transfer data and voice around the world and
    into every home.
        Electronic commerce will play an even more central role in the
    economy of the 21st Century. Americans in the next century will be
    connected throughout the day and evening, relying on advanced
    technologies not only to communicate with others, but also as a vital
    tool for performing daily tasks (such as shopping or banking), for
    interacting with government and other institutions (such as voting, tax
    filing, health, and education), and for entertainment (such as video,
    audio, and interactive games).
        In the marketplace of tomorrow, it is expected that traditional
    industry structures will cease to exist. The ``local exchange'' and
    ``long distance'' telephone markets will no longer be distinct industry
    segments. Video and audio programming will be delivered by many
    different transmission media. In a world of ``always on'' broadband
    telecommunications, narrow-band applications--such as our everyday
    phone calls--will represent just a tiny fraction of daily traffic.
    Cable operators, satellite companies, and even broadcast television
    stations will compete with today's phone companies in the race to
    provide consumers a vast array of communications services. In addition,
    telephone and utility companies may be offering video and audio
    programming on a wide-scale basis. As cross-industry mergers, joint
    ventures, and promotional agreements are formed to meet users' demand,
    the traditional distinctions between these industry segments will blur
    and erode.
    Impact of Industry Convergence
        Convergence across communications industries is already taking
    place, and is likely to accelerate as competition develops further.
    Thus, in addition to refocusing our resources on our core functions for
    a world of fully competitive communications markets, the FCC must also
    assess, with the help of Congress and others, how to streamline and
    consolidate our policymaking functions for a future where convergence
    has blurred traditional regulatory definitions and jurisdictional
    boundaries.
        The issues involved in thinking about convergence and consolidation
    are complex. Prior to the Telecom Act, the core of the Communications
    Act was actually three separate statutes: it incorporated portions of
    the 1887 Interstate Commerce Act (governing telephony), the 1927
    Federal Radio Act (governing broadcasting), and the 1984 Cable
    Communications Policy Act (governing cable television). Telephony is
    regulated one way, cable a second, terrestrial broadcast a third,
    satellite broadcast a fourth. As the historical, technological, and
    market boundaries distinguishing these industries blur, the statutory
    differences make less and less sense. Maintaining them will likely
    result in inefficient rules that stifle promising innovation and
    increase opportunities for regulatory arbitrage.
        Some argue for developing regulatory principles that cut across
    traditional industry boundaries. For example, the policies of
    interconnection, equal access, and open architecture have served
    consumers well in the wireline context, a traditionally regulated
    industry. Similarly, concepts of connectivity, interoperability, and
    openness are the lifeblood of the Internet, an unregulated industry.
    While these similar principles appear to cut across these different
    media, it is unclear whether and how the government should be involved,
    if at all, in applying these principles in a world where competition
    will largely replace regulation.
        At the very least, as competition develops across what had been
    distinct industries, we should level the regulatory playing field by
    leveling regulation down to the least burdensome level necessary to
    protect the public interest. Our guiding principle should be to presume
    that new entrants and competitors should not be subjected to legacy
    regulation. This is not to say that different media, with different
    technologies, must be regulated identically. Rather, we need to make
    sure that the rules for different forms of media delivery, while
    respecting differences in technology, reflect a coherent and sensible
    overall approach. To the extent we cannot do that within the confines
    of the existing statute, we need to work with Congress and others to
    reform the statute.
                    the 21st century: a new role for the fcc
    The Transition Period
        As history has shown, markets that have been highly monopolistic do
    not naturally become competitive. Strong incumbents still retain
    significant power in their traditional markets and have significant
    financial incentives to delay the arrival of competition. Strong and
    enforceable rules are needed initially so that new entrants have a
    chance to compete. At the same time, historical subsidy mechanisms for
    telecommunications services must be reformed to eliminate arbitrage
    opportunities by both incumbents and new entrants.
        The technologies needed for the telecommunications marketplace of
    the future are still evolving, and developing them fully requires
    significant time and investment. Moreover, there is no guarantee that
    market forces will dictate that these new technologies will be
    universally deployed. The massive fixed-cost investments required in
    some industries will mean that new technologies initially will be
    targeted primarily at businesses and higher-income households. Even as
    deployment expands, the economics of these new networks may favor heavy
    users over lighter users, and in some areas of the country deployment
    may lag behind.
        At the same time, consumer preferences will not change overnight.
    The expansion of communications choices is already leading to greater
    consumer confusion. Especially in a world of robust competition,
    consumers will need clear and accurate information about their choices,
    guarantees of basic privacy, and swift action if any company cheats
    rather than competes for their business.
        While the opportunities for the United States and the world of a
    global village are enormous, they can only be realized if other
    countries follow our lead in fostering competition in national and
    world markets. People all over the world benefit as more countries
    enter the Information Age and become trading partners. Thus, as we
    continue on our own course of bringing competition to former domestic
    monopoly markets, we must also continue to promote open and competitive
    markets worldwide.
        In sum, although the long-term future of the telecommunications
    marketplace looks bright, the length and difficulty of the transition
    to that future is far from certain. To achieve the goal of fully
    competitive communications markets in five years, we must continue to
    work to ensure that all consumers have a choice of local telephone
    carriers and broadband service providers, and that companies are
    effectively deterred from unscrupulous behavior. We must also continue
    to promote competition between different media, promote the transition
    to digital technology, and continue to ensure that all Americans have a
    wide and robust variety of entertainment and information sources.
    The FCC's Role During the Transition to Competition
        During the transition to fully competitive communications markets,
    the FCC, working in conjunction with the states, Congress, other
    federal agencies, industry, and consumer groups, has six critical
    goals, all derived from the Communications Act and other applicable
    statutes:
        Promote Competition.--Goal number one is to promote competition
    throughout the communications industry, particularly in the area of
    local telephony. The benefits of competition are well documented in
    many communications sectors--long distance, wireless, customer-premises
    equipment, and information services. The benefits of local telephone
    competition are accruing at this time to large and small companies, but
    not, for the most part, to residential consumers. We must work to
    ensure that all communications markets are open, so that all consumers
    can enjoy the benefits of competition.
        To meet this goal, we must continue our efforts to clarify the
    provisions of the Telecom Act relating to interconnection and unbundled
    network elements, work with the Bell Operating Companies (BOCs), their
    competitors, states and consumer groups on meeting the requirements of
    the statute related to BOC entry into the long distance market, reform
    access charges, and, as required by Sections 214 and 310(d) of the
    Communications Act and section 7 of the Clayton Act, continue to review
    mergers of telecommunications companies that raise significant public
    interest issues related to competition and consumers.
        In the mass media area, we must continue the pro-competitive
    deployment of new technologies, such as digital television and direct
    broadcast satellites, and the maintenance of robust competition in the
    marketplace of ideas. To meet these goals, we must continue rapid
    deployment of new technologies and services and regular oversight of
    the structure of local markets to ensure multiple voices, all the while
    updating our rules to keep pace with the ever-changing mass media
    marketplace.
        Deregulate.--Our second goal is to deregulate as competition
    develops. Consumers ultimately pay the cost of unnecessary regulation,
    and we are committed to aggressively eliminating unnecessarily
    regulatory burdens or delays. We want to eliminate reporting and
    accounting requirements that no longer are necessary to serve the
    public interest. Also, where competition is thriving, we intend to
    increase flexibility in the pricing of access services. We have already
    deregulated the domestic, long distance market as a result of increased
    competition, and we stand ready to do so for other communications
    markets as competition develops. We have also streamlined our rules and
    privatized some of the functions involved in the certification of
    telephones and other equipment. We are currently streamlining and
    automating our processes to issue licenses faster, resolve complaints
    quicker, and be more responsive to competitors and consumers in the
    marketplace.
        Protect Consumers.--Our third goal is to empower consumers with the
    information they need to make wise choices in a robust and competitive
    marketplace, and to protect them from unscrupulous competitors.
    Consumer bills must be truthful, clear, and understandable. We will
    have ``zero tolerance'' for perpetrators of consumer fraud such as
    slamming and cramming. We will make it easier for consumers to file
    complaints by phone or over the Internet, and reduce by 50 percent the
    time needed to process complaints. Further, we will remain vigilant in
    protecting consumer privacy. We will also continue to carry out our
    statutory mandates aimed at protecting the welfare of children, such as
    the laws governing obscene and indecent programming.
        Bring Communications Services and Technology to Every American.--
    Our fourth goal is to ensure that all Americans--no matter where they
    live, what they look like, what their age, or what special needs they
    have--should have access to new technologies created by the
    communications revolution. Toward this end, we must complete universal
    service reform to ensure that communications services in high-cost
    areas of the nation are both available and affordable. We must also
    ensure that our support mechanisms and other tools to achieve universal
    service are compatible and consistent with competition. We must
    evaluate--and if necessary, improve--our support mechanisms for low-
    income consumers, and in particular Native Americans, whose telephone
    penetration rates are some of the lowest in the country. We must make
    certain that the support mechanisms for schools, libraries, and rural
    health care providers operate efficiently and effectively. We must make
    sure that the 54 million Americans with disabilities have access to
    communications networks, new technologies and services, and news and
    entertainment programming.
        Foster Innovation.--Our fifth goal is to foster innovation. We will
    promote the development and deployment of high-speed Internet
    connections to all Americans. That means clearing regulatory hurdles so
    that innovation--and new markets--can flourish. We must continue to
    promote the compatibility of digital video technologies with existing
    equipment and services. Further, we will continue to encourage the more
    efficient use of the radio spectrum so that new and expanding uses can
    be accommodated within this limited resource. More generally, we will
    continue to promote competitive alternatives in all communications
    markets.
        Advance Competitive Goals Worldwide.--Our sixth goal is to advance
    global competition in communications markets. The pro-competitive
    regulatory framework Congress set forth in the Telecom Act is being
    emulated around the world through the World Trade Organization
    Agreement. We will continue to assist other nations in establishing
    conditions for deregulation, competition, and increased private
    investment in their communications infrastructure so that they can
    share in the promise of the Information Age and become our trading
    partners. We must continue to intensify competition at home and create
    growth opportunities for U.S. companies abroad. We will continue to
    promote fair spectrum use by all countries.
    The FCC's Core Functions in a Competitive Environment
        As we accomplish our transition goals, we set the stage for a
    competitive environment in which communications markets look and
    function like other competitive industries. At that point, the FCC must
    refocus our efforts on those functions that are appropriate for an age
    of competition and convergence. In particular, we must refocus our
    efforts from managing monopolies to addressing issues that will not be
    solved by normal market forces. In a competitive environment, the FCC's
    core functions would focus on:
        Universal Service, Consumer Protection and Information.--The FCC
    will continue to have a critical responsibility, as dictated by our
    governing statutes, to support and promote universal service and other
    public interest policies. The shared aspirations and values of the
    American people are not entirely met by market forces. Equal access to
    opportunity as well as to the public sphere are quintessential American
    values upon which the communications sector will have an increasingly
    large impact. We will be expected to continue to monitor the
    competitive landscape on behalf of the public interest and implement
    important policies such as universal service in ways compatible with
    competition.
        In addition, as communications markets become more competitive and
    take on attributes of other competitive markets, the need for increased
    information to consumers and strong consumer protection will increase.
    We must work to ensure that Americans are provided with clear
    information so that they can make sense of new technologies and
    services and choose the ones best for them. We must also continue to
    monitor the marketplace for illegal or questionable market practices.
        Enforcement and Promotion of Pro-Competition Communications Goals
    Domestically and Worldwide.--As markets become more competitive, the
    focus of industry regulation will shift from protecting buyers of
    monopoly services to resolving disputes among competitors, whether over
    interconnection terms and conditions, program access, equipment
    compatibility, or technical interference. In the fast-paced world of
    competition, we must be able to respond swiftly and effectively to such
    disputes to ensure that companies do not take advantage of other
    companies or consumers.
        The FCC is a model for other countries of a transparent and
    independent government body establishing and enforcing fair, pro-
    competitive rules. This model is critical for continuing to foster fair
    competition domestically as well as to open markets in other countries,
    to the benefit of U.S. consumers and firms and consumers and firms
    worldwide. There always will be government-to-government relations and
    the need to coordinate among nations as communications systems become
    increasingly global. As other nations continue to move from government-
    owned monopolies to competitive, privately-owned communications firms,
    they will increasingly look to the FCC's experience for guidance.
        Spectrum Management.--The need for setting ground rules for how
    people use the radio spectrum will not disappear. We need to make sure
    adequate spectrum exists to accommodate the rapid growth in existing
    services as well as new applications of this national and international
    resource. Even with new technologies such as software-defined radios
    and ultra-wideband microwave transmission, concerns about interference
    will continue (and perhaps grow) and the need for defining licensees
    and other users' rights will continue to be a critical function of the
    government. We will thus continue to conduct auctions of available
    spectrum to speed introduction of new services. In order to protect the
    safety of life and property, we must also continue to consider public
    safety needs as new spectrum-consuming technologies and techniques are
    deployed.
    Coordination with State and Local Governments and other Federal
            Agencies
        In order to fulfill our vision of a fully competitive
    communications marketplace in five years, we need a national, pro-
    competitive, pro-consumer communications policy, supplemented by state
    and local government involvement aimed at achieving the same goal. The
    Telecom Act set the groundwork for this goal, and the Commission is
    fulfilling its role of establishing the rules for opening
    communications markets across the country, in partnership with state
    regulators. The Commission must continue to work with state and local
    governments to promote competition and protect consumers. Toward this
    end, we have instituted a Local and State Government Advisory Committee
    to share information and views on many critical communications issues.
        The importance of working and coordinating our efforts in the
    communications arena with other federal agencies will also continue. We
    work particularly closely with the Federal Trade Commission on consumer
    and enforcement issues, and with the Department of Justice on
    competition issues. We also work with other federal agencies on public
    safety, disability, Y2K, reliability, and spectrum issues, just to name
    a few. We see our role vis-a-vis other federal agencies as cooperative
    and reinforcing, where appropriate.
                 the 21st century: a new structure for the fcc
    The FCC's Evolving Structure
        The FCC must change its structure to match the fast-paced world of
    competition and to meet our evolving goals and functions, as derived
    from our authorizing statutes. Our transition goals must be
    accomplished with minimal regulation or no regulation where appropriate
    in a competitive marketplace. Moreover, a restructured and streamlined
    FCC must be in place once full competition arrives, so that we can
    focus on providing consumers information and protection, enforcing
    competition laws, and spectrum management.
        In sum, we must be structured to react quickly to market
    developments, to work more efficiently in a competitive environment,
    and to focus on bottom-line results for consumers. As competition
    increases, we must place greater reliance on marketplace solutions,
    rather than the traditional regulation of entry, exit, and prices; and
    on surgical intervention rather than complex rules in the case of
    marketplace failure. We must encourage private sector solutions and
    cooperation where appropriate. But we also must quickly and effectively
    take necessary enforcement action to prevent abuses by communications
    companies who would rather cheat than compete for consumers.
    Ultimately, throughout the agency, we must be structured to render
    decisions quickly, predictably, and without imposing unnecessary costs
    on industry or consumers.
    Current Restructuring Efforts
        The FCC is currently structured along the technology lines of wire,
    wireless, satellite, broadcast, and cable communications. As the lines
    between these industries merge and blur as a result of technological
    convergence and the removal of artificial barriers to entry, the FCC
    needs to reorganize itself in a way that recognizes these changes and
    prepares for the future. A reorganization of the agency, over time,
    along functional rather than technology lines will put the FCC in a
    better position to carry out its core responsibilities more
    productively and efficiently.
        As the first step in this process, in October 1998, Chairman
    Kennard announced plans to consolidate currently dispersed enforcement
    functions into a new Enforcement Bureau and currently dispersed public
    information functions into a Public Information Bureau. The
    consolidation of these two key functions that are now spread across the
    agency will improve efficiency and enhance the delivery of these
    services to the general public and to industry. The consolidation of
    these functions will also encourage and foster cooperation between the
    two new bureaus, other bureaus and offices, and state and local
    governments and law enforcement agencies. The end result will be
    improvements in performance of both these functions through an improved
    outreach program, a better educated communications consumer, and a more
    efficient, coherent enforcement program.
        The new Enforcement Bureau will replace the current Compliance and
    Information Bureau and, likewise, the new Public Information Bureau
    will include the current Office of Public Affairs. Therefore, the total
    number of bureaus and offices at the Commission will remain the same.
        The Commission is also investing in new technology to process
    applications and licenses faster, cheaper, and in a more consumer
    friendly way through electronic filing and universal licensing. Our
    goal is to move to a ``paperless FCC'' that will result in improved
    service to the public. Examples of these efforts include universal
    licensing, streamlined application processes, revised and simplified
    licensing forms, blanket authorizations, authorization for unlicensed
    services, and electronic filing of license applications and
    certifications.
                Enforcement Bureau
        Since the Telecom Act was passed, telephone-related complaints have
    increased by almost 100 percent. In 1996, the Common Carrier Bureau
    received over 28,000 complaints; in 1998, that number increased to over
    53,000 complaints. With the increase in competition, we expect even
    more complaints to be filed as consumers grapple with changes in both
    service options and providers. While we have been implementing
    streamlined, electronic processes to address this burgeoning workload,
    we have also determined that the consolidation of the Commission's
    currently dispersed enforcement functions into one Enforcement Bureau
    is a necessary and important step to providing better service to the
    public.
        The Commission currently has four organizational units dedicated
    principally or significantly to enforcement--the Compliance and
    Information Bureau, the Mass Media Bureau Enforcement Division, the
    Common Carrier Bureau Enforcement Division and the Wireless
    Telecommunications Bureau Enforcement and Consumer Information
    Division. Consolidating most enforcement responsibilities of these
    organizations into a unified Enforcement Bureau will result in more
    effective and efficient enforcement. The Enforcement Bureau will
    coordinate enforcement priorities and efforts in a way that best uses
    limited Commission resources to ensure compliance with the important
    responsibilities assigned to the FCC by Congress.
        The consolidation of various FCC enforcement functions also
    responds to the fact that the need for effective enforcement of the
    Communications Act and related requirements is becoming even more
    important as competition and deregulation increase. As communications
    markets become increasingly competitive, the pace of deregulation will
    intensify. Those statutory and rule provisions that remain in an
    increasingly competitive, deregulatory environment will be those that
    Congress and the Commission have determined remain of central
    importance to furthering key statutory goals--e.g., providing a
    structure for competition to flourish, assisting customers and users of
    communications services in being able to benefit from competitive
    communications services, ensuring that spectrum is used in an efficient
    manner that does not create harmful interference, and promoting public
    safety.
        As unnecessary regulation is eliminated and the demands of the
    marketplace increase, the Commission must focus its resources on
    effective and swift enforcement of the statutory and regulatory
    requirements that remain. The consolidation of our enforcement
    activities will allow us to do just that in a streamlined, centralized,
    and more effective way.
                Public Information Bureau
        Consumer inquiries at the Commission have increased dramatically
    since 1996. In 1998, we received over 460,000 phone calls to telephone
    service representatives, and over 600,000 calls to our automated
    response system. There were on average over 266,000 hits on the FCC's
    web site a day, totalling over 97 million in 1998 (up over 400 percent
    from 21 million in 1996). We expect these numbers to increase as more
    consumers seek information regarding the ever growing array of services
    and providers in the communications marketplace.
        Currently, consumer inquiries are handled by several different
    offices and bureaus throughout the Commission and the methods used to
    handle these inquiries vary widely. While each office has a small
    contingent of staff handling inquiries, they have had varying degrees
    of success in meeting the ever increasing volume. Although the
    Commission established a National Call Center in June 1996, current
    processes still require a great number of consumers seeking information
    to contact other offices and bureaus directly to get their questions
    answered.
        The creation of the Public Information Bureau allows the Commission
    to better serve the public by establishing a single source organization
    as a ``one-stop'' shop or ``FCC General Store'' for handling all
    inquiries and the general expression of views to the Commission,
    thereby better meeting the public's information needs. Merging the
    resources of the Office of Public Affairs, which includes public
    service and inquiry staffs, public notice distribution, and the
    management of the FCC web site, with the FCC Call Center will provide a
    streamlined, more efficient, and consolidated information source for
    the public. Consumers would only have to contact one source, whether by
    telephone (1-888-CALLFCC) or by E-mail or the Internet
    (FCCINFO@FCC.GOV). The Public Information Bureau also plans to
    establish one source for mailing inquiries to the FCC (for example,
    P.O. FCC).
        The creation of the Public Information Bureau will encourage more
    public participation in the work of the Commission. The staff of the
    Public Information Bureau will conduct consumer forums across the
    country to inform and solicit feedback from consumers about the
    Commission's policies, goals, and objectives. This feedback will be
    shared with other bureaus to help ensure that Commission rules are
    fair, effective, and sensible, and that they support competition while
    responding to consumer concerns. The Public Information Bureau also
    plans to share its databases with state and local governments as
    appropriate, to coordinate our respective abilities to respond to
    consumer complaints and track and address industry abuses.
        The creation of the Public Information Bureau supports the
    Commission's efforts to foster a pro-competitive, deregulatory, and
    pro-consumer approach to communications services. The staff of the
    Public Information Bureau will provide consumers with information so
    that consumers can make informed decisions regarding their
    communications needs. The staff of the Public Information Bureau will
    also work with other bureaus to issue consumer alerts and public
    service announcements to give consumers information about their rights
    and information to protect themselves from unscrupulous individuals and
    firms. Finally, the Public Information Bureau will provide easy public
    access to FCC information as well as a convenient way for the public to
    make its views known, thus supporting the Commission's efforts to
    assist communities across America in dealing with complex
    communications issues and to provide opportunities for a wide range of
    voices to be expressed publicly.
                Streamlining and Automating the FCC Licensing Process
        The Commission's ``authorization of service'' activities cover the
    licensing and authorization through certification, and unlicensed
    approval, of radio stations and devices, telecommunications equipment
    and radio operators, as well as the authorization of common carrier and
    other services and facilities. The Commission has already begun
    automating and reengineering our authorization of service processes
    across the agency by reengineering and integrating our licensing
    databases and through the implementation of electronic filing.
        The Universal Licensing System (ULS) project is fundamentally
    changing the way the Commission receives and processes wireless
    applications. ULS will combine all licensing and spectrum auctions
    systems into a single, integrated system. It collapses 40 forms into
    four; allows licensees to modify online only those portions of the
    license that need to be modified without resubmitting a new
    application; and advises filers when they have filled out an
    application improperly by providing immediate electronic notification
    of the error. During the month of February 1999, 75 percent of receipts
    (916 applications) filed under the currently implemented portions of
    ULS were processed in one day.
        Universal licensing is an example of how we are working to change
    the relationship between the Commission, spectrum licensees, and the
    public by increasing the accessibility of information and speeding the
    licensing process, and thus competitive entry, dramatically. Universal
    licensing is becoming the model for automated licensing for the entire
    agency.
        In the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, electronic filing has
    been fully implemented throughout the Land Mobile Radio services,
    antenna registration, and amateur radio filings. More than 50 percent
    of the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau's filings are now
    accomplished electronically. Significant service improvements are
    evidenced by the fact that 99 percent of Amateur Radio service filings
    are now processed in less than five days, with most electronically
    filed applications being granted overnight. The Wireless Bureau also
    has an initiative to transfer the knowledge used by license examiners
    in manually reviewing applications to computer programs so that
    applications can be received, processed, and licenses granted in even
    less time.
        The Mass Media Bureau is implementing a similar electronic filing
    initiative. In October, the FCC issued rules that substantially revise
    the application process in 15 key areas, including sales and license
    renewals, in order to effectuate mandatory electronic filing for
    broadcasters. When fully implemented, the new electronic filing system
    will reduce the resources required to process authorizations,
    accelerate the grant of authorizations, and improve public access to
    information about broadcast licensees.
        The Common Carrier Bureau has also implemented electronic filing of
    tariffs and associated documents via the Internet. The Electronic
    Tariff Filing System enables interested parties to access and download
    documents over the Internet, and to file petitions to reject, or
    suspend and investigate tariff filings electronically. Since July 1,
    1998, over 10,000 electronic tariff filings have been received,
    replacing approximately 750,000 pages of information.
        The results of all these streamlining efforts include a more
    economical use of FCC personnel resources, improvement in processing
    times, the ability of our customers to file via the Internet or through
    other electronic filing mechanisms, and the ability to provide our
    customers with immediate status reports on their applications as well
    as real time access to on-line documents. It is estimated that our move
    toward a ``paperless FCC'' will save the public approximately 700,000
    hours of paperwork in this fiscal year alone.
                Budget and Workforce Impact
        In anticipation of the expected increased efficiencies our
    restructuring plans and other streamlining and automation improvements
    will produce, the FCC is confronting the issue of how it should look
    and operate in fiscal year 2000 and beyond. We expect that our re-
    engineering and restructuring efforts will yield increased efficiencies
    and streamlining opportunities, particularly in the area of
    authorization of service, due to automation and regulatory changes.
    However, these efforts will also result in the potential displacement
    of staff in certain locations and a need to retrain and reassign other
    staff.
        Buyout authority is a tool that will enhance the Commission's
    ability to alter the skills mix of its workforce to carry out its
    changing mission more effectively. Targeted buyouts for staff would
    facilitate our restructuring efforts in a cost-effective manner. The
    Commission has requested buyout authority in its budget request for
    fiscal year 2000.
        The Commission is dedicated to keeping staff informed and involved
    in our restructuring and streamlining efforts, and to minimizing
    workplace disruption that may result from these efforts through staff
    retraining, reassignment, and other methods. It is critical, as we
    consider ways to restructure and streamline Commission operations, that
    we continue to recognize and respect the hard work of our employees,
    many of whom have been with the Commission for many years. Change is
    always difficult, and it is imperative that our staff understands and
    supports the necessary changes that are taking place--and will continue
    to take place--at the Commission. Accordingly, we are working closely
    with the National Treasury Employees Union (NTEU) to ensure that staff
    is involved in all these issues and that their views are incorporated
    into the Commission's planning process.
                Restructuring Process and Timeline
        Planning for the Public Information Bureau began in late November
    1998 and for the Enforcement Bureau in mid-December 1998. A Task Force
    comprised of both managers and staff from relevant Bureaus and Offices,
    as well as NTEU representatives, has been meeting regularly since early
    January to consider such issues as the appropriate functions of each of
    the Bureaus and their organization. Efforts have also been made on an
    informal basis both inside and outside the Commission to ensure that a
    wide range of ideas are considered during the planning process. A
    proposed reorganization plan should be formally submitted to the
    Commission for its consideration in Spring, 1999. Upon approval by the
    Commission, it will be formally submitted to the NTEU and appropriate
    congressional committees.
    Restructuring to Reflect Industry Convergence
        As the traditional lines dividing communications industries blur
    and eventually erode, the traditional ways of regulating or monitoring
    these industries will also have to change. The FCC must think about the
    complex issues resulting from converging communications markets from
    both a policy and structural perspective. How the FCC should be
    structured to address issues arising from a more competitive, converged
    communications marketplace is inextricably tied up with the policy
    choices that will be made on how to address the blurring of regulatory
    distinctions.
        From a structural perspective, as noted in our fiscal year 2000
    budget submitted to Congress, there are a number of steps we are
    committed to take. We will continue to evaluate whether certain
    regulations are no longer necessary in the public interest and should
    be repealed or modified as required by Section 11 of the Communications
    Act. We will continue to use our forbearance authority where
    appropriate. We will continue our efforts to reduce reporting
    requirements and eliminate unnecessary rules, and to level regulation
    to the least burdensome possible, consistent with the public interest.
    In addition, in our fiscal year 2000 budget, we have committed to
    reviewing our cable services and mass media functions.
        We recognize that much additional analysis is needed to consider
    the impact of industry convergence on the FCC's policies and rules and
    on our structure. We will continue to meet with Congress, our state
    regulatory partners, industry, consumer groups, and others to solicit
    input and feedback on our restructuring, streamlining and policy
    initiatives and the impact of industry convergence.
                        substantive deregulation efforts
        As telecommunications markets become more competitive, we must
    eliminate regulatory requirements that are no longer useful. We are
    already engaged in an ongoing process of reviewing our entire
    regulatory framework to see which rules should be eliminated or
    streamlined.
    FCC Biennial Review of Regulations
        In November 1997, the Commission initiated a review of the
    Commission's regulations, as required by Section 11 of the Telecom Act.
    Beginning in 1998 and in every even-numbered year thereafter, the FCC
    must conduct a review of its regulations regarding the provision of
    telecommunications service and the Commission's broadcast ownership
    rules. The Telecom Act charges the Commission with determining whether,
    because of increased competition, any regulation no longer serves the
    public interest.
        Chairman Kennard announced in November 1997 that the Commission's
    1998 Biennial Review would be even broader than mandated by the Telecom
    Act. In addition, at the Chairman's direction, the Commission
    accelerated the Congressionally-mandated biennial review requirement by
    beginning in 1997 rather than in 1998. As part of the 1998 Biennial
    Review, each of the operating bureaus, together with the Office of
    General Counsel, hosted a series of public forums and participated in
    practice group sessions with the Federal Communications Bar Association
    to solicit informal input from the public. The Commission also hosted a
    web site on the biennial review and asked for additional suggestions
    via e-mail.
        After input from the public, the Commission initiated 32 separate
    biennial review rulemaking proceedings, covering multiple rule parts,
    aimed at deregulating or streamlining Commission regulations. The
    Commission devoted substantial attention and resources to the biennial
    review. Roughly two-thirds of the proceedings involved common carrier
    deregulation or streamlining. The Commission also instituted a broad
    review of its broadcast ownership rules. To date, the Commission has
    adopted orders in ten of the 1998 biennial review proceedings, with
    others to be forthcoming. (See Appendix B)
        From the outset, the focus of the Biennial Review has been on
    regulating in a common sense manner and relying on competition as much
    as possible. The Chairman and the other Commissioners have worked
    together to make the biennial review a meaningful force for
    deregulation and streamlining. The 1998 review was the Commission's
    first biennial review, and was being conducted while the Commission was
    still in the process of implementing the Telecom Act. The Chairman and
    the Commission intend to build on the 1998 review so that the 2000
    review and future reviews will produce even more deregulatory actions.
    Continued FCC Deregulation Efforts
        As we move toward our goal of fully competitive communications
    markets, our efforts to streamline and eliminate unnecessary rules must
    be increased and expanded. Accordingly, the 2000 Biennial Review will
    be a top priority for the Commission.
        As we did with the 1998 review, we plan to start the 2000 review
    early, by putting a team in place in 1999 to work with the
    Commissioners and the Bureaus and Offices on planning and structuring
    the review. We will also continue to keep our review broad in focus.
    The team would evaluate the success of the 1998 review and consider
    whether changes are necessary for the 2000 review. The team would also
    consider whether any changes are needed in the methodology we have used
    to review our regulations. The team would again solicit input and
    recommendations from state regulators, industry, consumer groups, and
    others, to ensure that the 2000 review is a major force for
    deregulation.
        In short, we will be guided by one principle: the elimination of
    rules that impede competition and innovation and do not promote
    consumer welfare.
                           strategic planning efforts
    Background
        The Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 (Results Act)
    provides a useful framework for a federal agency to develop a strategic
    plan. The Results Act recommends including as part of such a plan: a
    comprehensive mission statement; a description of the general goals the
    agency wants to achieve and how they will be achieved; a discussion of
    the means, strategies and resources required to achieve our goals; a
    discussion of the external factors that could affect achievement of our
    goals; and a discussion of the consultations that took place with
    customers and stakeholders in the development of the plan.
        The Results Act also recommends that an agency establish measurable
    objectives and a timeline to achieve the goals specified in the
    strategic plan. The agency would consult with Congress and solicit
    input from its customers and stakeholders. The purpose of the Results
    Act is to bring private sector management techniques to public sector
    programs.
    FCC Implementation of the Results Act
        When the Results Act was passed, the FCC was already hard at work
    implementing similar management initiatives. In 1993, we began the work
    of reinventing ourselves, streamlining and restructuring the agency to
    meet the challenges of the Information Age. In the process we created
    the Wireless Telecommunications and the International Bureaus. In 1995,
    we issued a report--``Creating a Federal Communications Commission for
    the Information Age''--that included numerous recommendations for
    administrative and legislative changes, many of which were subsequently
    adopted.
        Each of our bureaus and offices developed their own mission
    statement, identified their customers and surveyed them on their needs.
    Benchmark customer service standards were established for each of their
    policy and rulemaking, authorization of service, enforcement and public
    information service activities. These standards were published on their
    websites and customers were periodically surveyed to determine whether
    their service goals were being met.
        We also volunteered to participate in Results Act implementation
    pilot projects, naming the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau's Land
    Mobile radio and the Office of Engineering and Technology's Equipment
    Authorization activities as the agency's two participants. We organized
    a Steering Committee with an ambitious schedule for completing the
    requirements of the Results Act.
    Impact of the Telecom Act
        Enactment of the Telecom Act in February 1996 had a profound impact
    on the FCC. Pursuant to the Telecom Act, the FCC was required to
    initiate numerous rulemakings, many with statutorily mandated and
    expedited notice and comment period. The impact of implementing the
    Telecom Act affected every aspect of the FCC--its resource allocations,
    its schedule for rulemakings, and its very organizational structure--
    for more than two years.
        Enactment of the Telecom Act also changed the scope and level of
    our Results Act planning effort. We had to reformulate our mission and
    performance goals in light of the Telecom Act. We decided for the first
    three years after passage of the Telecom Act to marry the major goal of
    the Act--to ``promote competition and reduce regulation in order to
    secure lower prices and higher quality services for American
    telecommunications consumers and encourage the rapid deployment of
    telecommunications technologies''--with the FCC's four major budget
    activities of policy and rulemaking, authorization of service,
    compliance, and public information services.
        This approach worked well during the major period that the FCC was
    implementing the Telecom Act. Under this approach, however, the
    performance goals for each of the individual Bureaus remained a
    somewhat disconnected patchwork of objectives reflecting a collection
    of individual Bureaus' efforts to implement the Telecom Act. Since
    passage of the Telecom Act, with the traditional distinctions between
    over-the-air broadcasting, cable, wireless, wireline and satellite
    becoming less distinct, it is becoming clear that the FCC must conceive
    a new approach to our mission and our structure.
    New FCC Strategic Plan
        The FCC has determined that we need a new regulatory model and a
    new Strategic Plan that will serve as the Commission's blueprint as we
    enter the 21st Century. We need a new Strategic Plan to point the way
    to where we want to be and the means and resources by which we will get
    there.
        We are generally structuring our Strategic Plan based on our future
    core functions: universal service, consumer protection and information;
    enforcement and promotion of pro-competition communications goals
    domestically and internationally; and spectrum management. Our
    strategic planning efforts are thus tied into the restructuring and
    streamlining efforts that are already on-going. In addition, as noted
    above, we must take a hard look at how to organize ourselves for the
    New Media age. The convergence of technologies and industries require
    that we examine and change our stovepipe bureau structure, and we plan
    to address those issues in our Strategic Plan as well.
        Key senior managers will be responsible for developing the
    strategic objectives and performance goals for the Strategic Plan. As
    our work on restructuring proceeds, we will convene strategic objective
    planning sessions to develop a planning document for each of our core
    activities. We will also develop a schedule, based on fiscal years, on
    how we will achieve our objectives.
        The Strategic Plan will represent the cooperative work of the
    entire FCC, reflecting input from the Commissioners, Bureau management,
    agency staff, and others affected by or interested in the FCC's
    activities. In developing our Strategic Plan, we have already started
    to seek input from a wide variety of FCC stakeholders and intend to
    intensify our efforts in the next few months. These include other
    Commissioners, Commission staff, Members of Congress and their staff,
    the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), industry groups, consumer
    groups, academia and others. Suggestions will be gathered on both the
    draft Strategic Plan and on the steps to implement it--including
    deregulatory actions, restructuring and realignment of FCC functions
    and management. In addition, we plan to incorporate comments on this
    document, ``A New FCC for the 21st Century,'' into the draft Strategic
    Plan.
        Our draft Strategic Plan, along with any implementation proposals,
    will be made public and we will actively solicit comment. We will issue
    a Public Notice encouraging the public to comment on our draft plan,
    which will be displayed on our Internet Home Page by July 1999. We will
    hold a series of meetings with interested groups to gain their insight
    into how we can better serve the public interest. We will make
    particular efforts to discuss the draft plan with Congress, the states,
    industry, and with consumers and small companies affected by our work.
    We plan to submit a more final plan to Congress and OMB in September
    1999.
                                   conclusion
        Just as the communications industry and other sectors of our
    economy are constantly adapting to change and competition, so must the
    FCC. A new century and new economy demand a new FCC. We must plan for
    the future, while continuing to work on the challenges we face today to
    promote competition, foster innovation, and help bring the benefits of
    the 21st century to all Americans. We look forward to working with
    Congress, industry, consumers, state and local governments, and others
    on a critical assessment of what the ``New FCC'' should look like, and
    how we can get there.
                                   Appendix A
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T11MA25.001

                                   [Chart 1]
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T11MA25.002

                                   [Chart 2]
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T11MA25.003

                                   [Chart 3]
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T11MA25.004

                                   [Chart 4]
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T11MA25.005

                                   [Chart 5]
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T11MA25.006

                                   [Chart 6]
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T11MA25.007

                                   [Chart 7]

                                   Appendix B
                        1998 biennial regulatory review
                 proceedings initiated/completed--orders issued
    Telecommunications Providers (Common Carriers)
        Streamline and consolidate rules governing application procedures
    for wireless services to facilitate introduction of electronic filing
    via the Universal Licensing System. 1998 Biennial Regulatory Review--
    Amendment of Parts 0, 1, 13, 22, 24, 26, 27, 80, 87, 90, 95, 97, and
    101 of the Commission's Rules to Facilitate the Development and Use of
    the Universal Licensing System in the Wireless Telecommunications
    Services, WT Dkt No. 98-20, NPRM, FCC 98-25 (rel. March 19, 1998), R&O,
    FCC 98-234 (rel. Oct. 21, 1998).
        Streamline the equipment authorization program by implementing the
    recent mutual recognition agreement with Europe and providing for
    private equipment certification. 1998 Biennial Regulatory Review--
    Amendment of Parts 2, 25 and 68 of the Commission's Rules to Further
    Streamline the Equipment Authorization Process for Radio Frequency
    Equipment, Modify the Equipment Authorization Process for Telephone
    Terminal Equipment, Implement Mutual Recognition Agreements and Begin
    Implementation of the Global Mobile Personal Communications by
    Satellite (GMPCS) Arrangements, GEN Dkt No. 98-68, NPRM, FCC 98-92
    (rel. May 18, 1998), R&O, FCC 98-338 (rel. Dec. 23, 1998).
        Eliminate rules concerning the provision of telegraph and telephone
    franks. 1998 Biennial Regulatory Review--Elimination of Part 41
    Telegraph and Telephone Franks, CC Dkt No. 98-119, NPRM, FCC 98-152
    (rel. July 21, 1998), R&O, FCC 98-344 (rel. Feb. 3, 1999).
        In addition to addressing issues remanded by the Ninth Circuit,
    reexamine the nonstructural safeguards regime governing the provision
    of enhanced services by the Bell Operating Companies (BOCs) and
    eliminate the requirement that BOCs receive pre-approval from the FCC
    on their Comparably Efficient Interconnection (CEI) plans. Computer III
    Further Remand Proceedings: Bell Operating Company Provision of
    Enhanced Services; 1998 Biennial Regulatory Review--Review of Computer
    III and ONA Safeguards and Requirements, CC Dkt Nos. 95-20 and 98-10,
    FNPRM, FCC 98-8 (rel. Jan. 30, 1998), R&O, FCC 99-36 (rel. March 10,
    1999).
    Other
        Amend cable and broadcast annual employment report due dates to
    streamline and simplify filing. 1998 Biennial Regulatory Review--
    Amendment of Sections 73.3612 and 76.77 of the Commission's Rules
    Concerning Filing Dates for the Commission's Equal Employment
    Opportunity Annual Employment Reports, MO&O, FCC 98-39 (rel. Mar. 16,
    1998).
        Streamline broadcast filing and licensing procedures. 1998 Biennial
    Regulatory Review--Streamlining of Mass Media Applications, Rules and
    Processes, MM Dkt No. 98-43, NPRM, FCC 98-57 (rel. Apr. 3, 1998), R&O,
    FCC 98-281 (rel. Nov. 25, 1998).
        Provide for electronic filing for assignment and change of radio
    and TV call signs. 1998 Biennial Regulatory Review--Amendment of Part
    73 and Part 74 Relating to Call Sign Assignments for Broadcast
    Stations, MM Dkt No. 98-98, NPRM, FCC 98-130 (rel. June 30, 1998), R&O,
    FCC 98-324 (rel. Dec. 16, 1998).
        Simplify and unify Part 76 cable pleading and complaint process
    rules. 1998 Biennial Regulatory Review--Part 76--Cable Television
    Service Pleading and Complaint Rules, CS Dkt No. 98-54, NPRM, FCC 98-68
    (rel. Apr. 22, 1998), R&O, FCC 98-348 (rel. Jan. 8, 1999).
        Modify or eliminate Form 325, annual cable television system
    report. 1998 Biennial Regulatory Review--``Annual Report of Cable
    Television System,'' Form 325, Filed Pursuant to Section 76.403 of the
    Commission's Rules, CS Dkt No. 98-61, NPRM, FCC 98-79 (rel. Apr. 30,
    1998), R&O, FCC 99-12 (rel. , 1999) [Adopted Feb. 1, 1999].
        Streamline and consolidate public file requirements applicable to
    cable television systems. 1998 Biennial Regulatory Review--Streamlining
    of Cable Television Services Part 76 Public File and Notice
    Requirements, CS Dkt No. 98-132, NPRM, FCC 98-159 (rel. July 20, 1998),
    R&O, FCC 99-13 (rel. , 1999) [Adopted Feb. 1, 1999].
                         proceedings initiated/pending
    Telecommunications Providers (Common Carriers)
        Deregulate radio frequency (RF) lighting requirements to foster the
    development of new, more energy efficient RF lighting technologies.
    1998 Biennial Regulatory Review--Amendment of Part 18 of the
    Commission's Rules to Update Regulations for RF Lighting Devices, ET
    Dkt No. 98-42, NPRM, FCC 98-53 (rel. Apr. 9, 1998).
        Removal or reduction of, or forbearance from enforcing, regulatory
    burdens on carriers filing for technology testing authorization. 1998
    Biennial Regulatory Review--Testing New Technology, CC Dkt No. 98-94,
    NOI, FCC 98-118 (rel. June 11, 1998).
        Modify accounting rules to reduce burdens on carriers. 1998
    Biennial Regulatory Review--Review of Accounting and Cost Allocation
    Requirements, CC Dkt No. 98-81, NPRM, FCC 98-108 (rel. June 17, 1998).
        In NPRM portion, considering forbearance from additional
    requirements regarding telephone operator services applicable to
    commercial mobile radio service providers (CMRS) and, more generally,
    forbearance from other statutory and regulatory provisions applicable
    to CMRS providers. Personal Communications Industry Association's
    Broadband Personal Communications Services Alliances' Petition for
    Forbearance For Broadband Personal Communications Services; 1998
    Biennial Regulatory Review--Elimination or Streamlining of Unnecessary
    and Obsolete CMRS Regulations; Forbearance from Applying Provisions of
    the Communications Act to Wireless Telecommunications Carriers, WT Dkt
    No. 98-100, NPRM, FCC 98-134 (rel. July 2, 1998).
        Provide for a blanket section 214 authorization for international
    service to destinations where the carrier has no affiliate; eliminate
    prior review of pro forma transfers of control and assignments of
    international section 214 authorizations; streamline and simplify rules
    applicable to international service authorizations and submarine cable
    landing licenses. 1998 Biennial Regulatory Review--Review of
    International Common Carrier Regulations, IB Dkt No. 98-118, NPRM, FCC
    98-149 (rel. July 14, 1998).
        Eliminate duplicative or unnecessary common carrier reporting
    requirements. 1998 Biennial Regulatory Review--Review of ARMIS
    Reporting Requirements, CC Dkt No. 98-117, NPRM, FCC 98-147 (rel. July
    17, 1998).
        Privatize the administration of international accounting
    settlements in the maritime mobile and maritime satellite radio
    services. 1998 Biennial Regulatory Review--Review of Accounts
    Settlement in the Maritime Mobile and Maritime Mobile-Satellite Radio
    Services and Withdrawal of the Commission as an Accounting Authority in
    the Maritime Mobile and the Maritime Mobile-Satellite Radio Services
    Except for Distress and Safety Communications, IB Dkt No. 98-96, NPRM,
    FCC 98-123 (rel. July 17, 1998).
        Simplify Part 61 tariff and price cap rules. Biennial Regulatory
    Review--Part 61 of the Commission's Rules and Related Tariffing
    Requirements, CC Dkt No. 98-131, NPRM, FCC 98-164 (rel. July 24, 1998).
        Deregulate or streamline policies governing settlement of accounts
    for exchange of telephone traffic between U.S. and foreign carriers.
    1998 Biennial Regulatory Review--Reform of the International
    Settlements Policy and Associated Filing Requirements, IB Dkt No. 98-
    148, NPRM, FCC 98-190 (rel. Aug. 6, 1998).
        Modify Part 68 rules that limit the power levels at which any
    device attached to the network can operate to allow use of 56 Kbps
    modems. 1998 Biennial Regulatory Review--Modifications to Signal Power
    Limitations Contained in Part 68 of the Commission's Rules, CC Dkt No.
    98-163, NPRM, FCC 98-221 (rel. Sept. 16, 1998).
        Streamline and rationalize information and payment collection from
    contributors to Telecommunications Relay Service, North American
    Numbering Plan Administration, Universal Service, and Local Number
    Portability Administration funds. 1998 Biennial Regulatory Review--
    Commission Proposes to Streamline Reporting Requirements for
    Telecommunications Carriers, CC Dkt No. 98-171, NPRM, FCC 98-233 (rel.
    Sept. 25, 1998).
        Modify or eliminate Part 64 restrictions on bundling of
    telecommunications service with customer premises equipment. 1998
    Biennial Regulatory Review--Policy and Rules Concerning the Interstate,
    Interexchange Marketplace/implementation of Section 254(g) of the
    Communications Act of 1934, as Amended/Review of the Customer Premises
    Equipment and Enhanced Services Unbundling Rules in the Interexchange,
    Exchange Access and Local Exchange Markets, CC Dkt Nos. 98-183 and 96-
    61, NPRM, FCC 98-258 (rel. Oct. 9, 1998).
        Eliminate or streamline various rules prescribing depreciation
    rates for common carriers. 1998 Biennial Regulatory Review--Review of
    Depreciation Requirements for Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers, CC Dkt
    No. 98-137, NPRM, FCC 98-170 (rel. Oct. 14, 1998).
        Repeal Part 62 rules regarding interlocking directorates among
    carriers. 1998 Biennial Regulatory Review--Repeal of Part 62 of the
    Commission's Rules, CC Dkt No. 98-195, NPRM, FCC 98-294 (rel. Nov. 17,
    1998).
        Seek comment on various deregulatory proposals of SBC
    Communications, Inc. not already subject to other biennial review
    proceedings. 1998 Biennial Regulatory Review--Petition for Section 11
    Biennial Review filed by SBC Communications, Inc., Southwestern Bell
    Telephone Company, Pacific Bell, and Nevada Bell, CC Dkt No. 98-177,
    NPRM, FCC 98-238 (rel. Nov. 24, 1998).
        Consider modifications or alternatives to the 45 MHz CMRS spectrum
    cap and other CMRS aggregation limits and cross-ownership rules. 1998
    Biennial Regulatory Review--Review of CMRS Spectrum Cap and Other CMRS
    Aggregation Limits and Cross-Ownership Rules, WT Dkt No. 98-205, NPRM,
    FCC 98-308 (rel. Dec. 18, 1998).
    Broadcast Ownership
        Conduct broad inquiry into broadcast ownership rules not the
    subject of other pending proceedings. 1998 Biennial Regulatory Review--
    Review of the Commission's Broadcast Ownership Rules and Other Rules
    Adopted Pursuant to Section 202 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996,
    MM Dkt No. 98-35, NOI, FCC 98-37 (rel. Mar. 13, 1998).
    Other
        Review current Part 15 and Part 18 power line conducted emissions
    limits and consider whether the limits may be relaxed to reduce the
    cost of compliance for a wide variety of electronic equipment. 1998
    Biennial Regulatory Review--Conducted Emissions Limits Below 30 MHz for
    Equipment Regulated Under Parts 15 and 18 of the Commission's Rules, ET
    Dkt No. 98-80, NOI, FCC 98-102 (rel. June 8, 1998).
        Streamline AM/FM radio technical rules and policies. 1998 Biennial
    Regulatory Review--Streamlining of Radio Technical Rules in Parts 73
    and 74 of the Commission's Rules, MM Dkt No. 98-93, NPRM, FCC 98-117
    (rel. June 15, 1998).
        Streamline application of Part 97 amateur service rules. 1998
    Biennial Regulatory Review--Amendment of Part 97 of the Commission's
    Amateur Service Rules, WT Dkt No. 98-143, NPRM, FCC 98-1831 (rel. Aug.
    10, 1998).
        Streamline the Gettysburg reference facilities so that electronic
    filing and electronic access can substitute for the current method of
    written filings/access. 1998 Biennial Regulatory Review--Amendment of
    Part 0 of the Commission's Rules to Close the Wireless
    Telecommunications Bureau's Gettysburg Reference Facility, WT Dkt No.
    98-160, NPRM, FCC 98-217 (rel. Sept.18, 1998).
        Streamline Part 90 private land mobile services rules. 1998
    Biennial Regulatory Review--47 C.F.R. Part 90--Private Land Mobile
    Radio Services, WT Dkt No. 98-182, NPRM, FCC 98-251 (rel. Oct. 20,
    1998).

                                Rate integration

        Senator Gregg. Mr. Chairman, do you have any questions?
        Senator Stevens. I do, and I thank you.
        I am pleased to hear you, Mr. Chairman. I think sometimes
    these hearings get a little bit edgy, but we have noticed with
    great interest, Senator Inouye and I, who have really fought
    for rate integration, that you and the commissioners are giving
    a defense to rate integration in the court challenge. I would
    hope that you would pursue that as vigorously as it was pursued
    getting it into law, and I would like to know if there is
    anything we could do to help you in that defense. I do thank
    you very much.
        Mr. Kennard. Thank you.

                               Universal service

        Senator Stevens. Those of us who were involved in the
    universal service concepts in the 1996 act are getting a little
    concerned about the pressures on universal service from all
    sides. The new line items on bills really came out of the
    schools and libraries hook-up, rather than the universal
    service itself. Geographic rate deaveraging, concerns over the
    accuracy of the proxy cost model and the drive to make explicit
    all implicit costs.
        I told a group this morning, it is like requiring
    McDonald's to list on the price of a hamburger the cost of the
    mayonnaise, the pickles, the lettuce, and tomatoes, and
    everything else that goes along with the bun and the hamburger.
    It does not make sense to us. We sought really to have the cost
    of universal service understood by the carriers, but we did not
    seek to get to the point where all implicit costs of the system
    would be explicit on every bill. But now we are concerned that
    our farm team really is discussing that. It looks like
    universal service, because of all of these pressures, is really
    sort of being set up for a fall; that there are people who are
    really designing these attacks to make certain that the
    political battle and the next go-around of legislation is not
    to fine-tune universal service but to save it.
        Are you aware of this total attack on universal service
    from the industry coming out of some of the concepts that the
    FCC has decided that it must pursue?
        Mr. Kennard. I think that, as I am sure you are aware, Mr.
    Chairman, it is a multi-faceted industry and there are many
    elements of the industry that are very supportive of universal
    service, I want to assure you that this Commission is very
    committed to universal service.
        The last time I was here I remember you raised some
    concerns about the so-called 75-25 jurisdictional split and
    this Commission has voted unanimously twice not to impose a 75-
    25 split. I think that action and several others by this
    Commission evinces its determination to make sure that
    universal service remains viable in a more competitive
    environment.
        I agree with you. I think that we have a lot of challenges
    ahead with universal service. We are in the middle of a very
    important proceeding to design cost models for universal
    service. But you have my commitment to make sure that universal
    service survives as a fundamental safety net for people in
    high-cost and rural areas and I know that my colleagues share
    that commitment.
        Senator Stevens. When we faced similar problems with the
    Postal Service years ago, we created the Postal Rate
    Commission. It is concerned solely with rates and not with
    delivery of service or with type of service or management or
    anything, just with the concepts of the cost of service, and it
    is the one that approves increasing the postage stamp rate, for
    instance.
        I really see that with so many new concepts coming into
    telecommunications that it is hard for us to maintain the
    universal service concept unless there is some real defense of
    it across the board, as with the postage stamp itself. The
    postage stamp was under attack years ago. The concept that you
    have to pay the same amount to send a letter to California as
    you would have to pay to just send it across town in an eastern
    city was really subject to great attack. I see the same thing
    coming now, and if we lose this battle, I think we will lose
    universality of the system itself. We will have a creaming of
    the system and there will be people who will be haves and
    people who are have-nots. I hope you will vigorously defend
    universal service.

                                   Microradio

        Let me also, though, commend you for your efforts to bring
    about diversity in broadcasting. We think that is the way the
    country should go. But I have one reservation, and that is in
    terms of microradio: how can that be established without
    interference with the signals of the established stations?
    Won't it bring about an overcrowding of the spectrum in those
    areas where there is already just a division of even a single
    point on the spectrum?
        Mr. Kennard. Not necessarily. We are going to move ahead
    very carefully with microradio. In fact, I would not have been
    comfortable proposing microradio service if I thought that it
    would create interference over the airwaves.
        The public airwaves are, as you know, a very precious
    national resource, and we have to do everything we can to
    maximize its use. That is really what microradio is about, it
    is finding ways to allow more people to use the airwaves
    without causing harmful interference to those incumbents.
        We are the guardian of the spectrum. Our job that you gave
    us in the Congress is to make sure that this spectrum is used
    efficiently and effectively, and we are not going to do
    anything that is going to degrade service from the existing
    broadcasters. But we do have to find ways to use it more
    effectively. Part of microradio is ensuring that we can have as
    many people using the airwaves as possible and bringing new
    voices to the airwaves.
        Senator Stevens. I hope you succeed. I think the spectrum--
    as you know, it was my suggestion to auction spectrum--has
    become a very valuable commodity. And if it is divided into
    microsections, I am not sure what the commodity value may be in
    the long run, but it could be harmed if we are not very careful
    because of the potential of interference. In rural areas, such
    as Alaska's, I gather there can be microradio without any
    interference at all, but, of course, I am not sure that it
    might not just destroy the value of what we have to sell to
    support the system.
        Mr. Kennard. Well, you make a good point. Clearly there
    would be more spectrum available for microradio in the less
    congested areas of the country.

                                   Data LATA

        Senator Stevens. One last question if I may, Mr. Chairman.
    Tell me about this data LATA concept, how it would affect
    Section 271 of the act. My people tell me that while they do
    believe that the Bells need some incentives to provide advanced
    services, that they are not certain that the authority for data
    LATA exists to free them from Section 271. Have you made that
    determination?
        Mr. Kennard. We have. Last year some of the regional Bell
    operating companies came to the FCC and petitioned the FCC to
    create a national data LATA. We took a hard look at that
    proposal but in December the FCC voted unanimously to reject it
    because we felt that we just did not have statutory authority
    to create a data LATA under the Communications Act.
        Now I do think that we have authority under Section 3 of
    the act to make more minor modifications of LATA boundaries. In
    fact, I think that it would be appropriate particularly in
    rural areas, where you might have a narrow, targeted exception
    from the LATA boundaries, to get service to a rural area that
    may not otherwise get it.
        But the Commission voted in December in the Section 706
    proceeding that they would not create a national data LATA.
        Senator Stevens. I am glad to hear that. Thank you very
    much. Again, I wish you well in the defense of universal
    service.
        Mr. Kennard. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Stevens. Thank you very much.

                              Internet regulation

        Senator Gregg. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Let us start with a small issue. What do you see as the
    FCC's role with the Internet?
        Mr. Kennard. Well, it is interesting because from time to
    time rumors get started on the Internet that the FCC is poised
    to start regulating the Internet. When this happens I typically
    get 500 or 600 e-mail messages a day from people saying, ``Keep
    your hands off the Internet.'' These messages are not delicate.
    I will not repeat the exact language that I get in some of
    these e-mails, but they are not delicate.
        So I have said repeatedly and very publicly that the FCC
    has no intention of regulating the Internet. One of the great
    things about the Internet is that it has grown in an
    unregulated environment, as you know. It has grown fast and for
    most Americans, using the Internet is like making a local call.
    It is a flat rate and they can use it for an unlimited period
    of time. That has been great for the growth of the Internet and
    will be great for e-commerce.
        So I spend a fair amount of my time sort of tamping down
    these rumors that the FCC is going to start imposing long
    distance charges on Internet use. We are going to be vigilant
    and do everything we can to prevent that from happening.
        Senator Gregg. Do you see your role as being passive?
        Mr. Kennard. I really don't see it as being passive. I see
    it as actively protecting the Internet from efforts to impose
    regulation on it at either the state or federal level.

                               Portals relocation

        Senator Gregg. Where do we stand with the Portals and
    especially with the computer system that you were supposed to
    have when you moved in?
        Mr. Kennard. I will ask Andrew Fishel, who is our Managing
    Director and here with me today to give you an update on where
    we are on that.
        Mr. Fishel. The agency has about three-quarters of its
    staff currently located in the Portals. The remaining staff
    will be located there between now and the middle of May. We
    have been moving the computer systems from Northwest Washington
    over to Southwest Washington. There have been from time to time
    internal obstructions to that. They have been minor and of
    short duration and we are confident that once all the staff is
    located in one place we will be able to stabilize and have----

                               GSA reimbursement

        Senator Gregg. And what is the status of GSA's debits to
    you and your financial relationship with GSA?
        Mr. Kennard. I can answer that one. As you know, Mr.
    Chairman, GSA ordered us to make the move to the Portals and we
    did make that move. We do not have any binding assurances that
    GSA will cover our moving costs. In fact, the understanding was
    we would request in our appropriations that GSA be reimbursed
    for the cost of moving the FCC to the Portals, so that request
    is included in our budget request.
        Senator Gregg. Of course, if we do not fund your move, you
    are not obligated to pay GSA.
        Mr. Kennard. That is right. If the Congress does not
    appropriate money for paying for the Portals move, then we will
    not be able to make those payments. But our understanding with
    GSA is that we will request appropriated funding to make those
    payments.

                              Analog spectrum fee

        Senator Gregg. On the fee issue, who came up with this idea
    of analog spectrum fee? Is that an OMB fee? They have put a lot
    of fees into this bill. Is that one of theirs?
        Mr. Kennard. Yes, that was in the OMB budget request.
        Senator Gregg. That was not in your request to OMB?
        Mr. Kennard. No, it is not an FCC proposal.

                                    DTV fees

        Senator Gregg. On the DTV fees, which I guess you started
    collecting recently, what do you expect from them?
        Mr. Kennard. Well, we issued an order setting forth the
    formula for collecting them but it is based on 5 percent of
    subscription revenues for the use of DTV. Thus far the
    broadcast industry is just in the process of converting to
    digital, so they have not started rolling out any subscription
    businesses.
        Once they do, then our rules will kick in and we will
    collect 5 percent of their subscription revenues.
        Senator Gregg. Do you have any projections on what you
    think you will be collecting?
        Mr. Kennard. It is hard to say. The broadcast industry
    began converting to digital last year. Fifty-one broadcast
    stations turned on digital broadcasts in 26 markets, but they
    have not yet rolled out business plans for using the spectrum
    for subscription uses. It is hard for me to tell when that is
    going to happen.
        I was at a meeting of broadcast executives just yesterday,
    and I got a distinct sense that most of them are still
    grappling with exactly what the business plan for digital is
    going to be, and they have not made a whole lot of progress on
    looking at subscription businesses yet.

                       Wireless versus wired data traffic

        Senator Gregg. How much of the communications do you think
    is going to be wireless versus wired as you go forward?
        Mr. Kennard. I think over the near term most of it will be
    wired, but the real fundamental shift that we are seeing is a
    huge increase in data traffic on the wireless network. I
    recently saw an analyst's report that said the increase in
    voice traffic in our nation, wired voice traffic, is about 5
    percent a year; data traffic is increasing at 300 percent a
    year, fueled in large part by the growth of the Internet.
        We are working hard at the FCC to put more spectrum out in
    the marketplace so that the wireless industry can roll out
    high-speed wireless data services, and there are some companies
    doing some interesting things, but I think that that time
    horizon is a little bit farther out from the wired world.
        We are seeing real encouraging developments on the cable
    side. The cable industry is starting to roll out their high-
    speed Internet access product with the cable modems. That will
    probably be accelerated with the recent acquisition of TCI by
    AT&T.
        So the data world is just exploding out there, but it is
    primarily a wired world right now.
        Senator Gregg. I heard an interesting presentation--this is
    probably off the subject--by one of the folks who runs one of
    the major companies for networking and his view was that voice
    would end up being a free commodity within 10 years. Do you
    think that is reasonable?
        Mr. Kennard. I think that is a very realistic projection.
    If you look at the rise of data traffic on these networks, it
    would not be unreasonable to predict that that could happen.
        We are already seeing that on the long distance side. Long
    distance rates have dropped dramatically in the last few years.
    Even if you do not study this area closely, if you just watch
    what is happening in the advertising world, the various
    packages that consumers are able to get, long distance prices
    are now at the point--they are the lowest they have ever been
    in history and we are seeing some of these packages really
    becoming very, very inexpensive for consumers.
        Senator Gregg. It is a fascinating thing to think about.

                  GAO report on schools and libraries program

        On a more mundane issue, GAO recently did a report on your
    library and school program in which they said that the goals
    were not well defined and performance target measurement
    standards were not very well defined, either. Have you got a
    proposal for addressing the GAO report?
        Mr. Kennard. We do. Actually, overall I was encouraged by
    the GAO report because it did find that the FCC had satisfied
    all of their recommendations except the one that you mentioned,
    which is to come up with some concrete performance measures.
    And we are working with the administrator of that program and
    the Department of Education to address those recommendations as
    well.
        Senator Gregg. Can we get a copy of whatever you are going
    to put together as your performance standards as you design
    them?
        Mr. Kennard. Absolutely.

                                     CALEA

        Senator Gregg. I know you are working trying to settle the
    CALEA issue. Of course I want to thank you. Progress appears to
    be happening and that is great.
        Mr. Kennard. Yes.
        Senator Gregg. It has been a real headache but something
    that has to be resolved, so the more progress you make on that,
    the better.
        Mr. Kennard. We hope to complete our report and order in
    that proceeding by spring.

                               FCC reorganization

        Senator Gregg. You have your reorganization plan together?
        Mr. Kennard. Yes. I outlined what will become a five-year
    plan for reorganizing the FCC, and I would be happy to make
    that available to you.

                                FCC-NTIA merger

        Senator Gregg. As part of that plan, wouldn't it make sense
    to move the National Telecommunications and Information
    Administration (NTIA) over to FCC, since you are basically in
    charge of communications and this is a technology involved in
    communications?
        Mr. Kennard. That is an interesting proposal. There is sort
    of a fundamental tension between our job of managing the
    commercial spectrum and trying to get as much spectrum out
    there working in the economy as possible and the NTIA goals for
    spectrum management, which is to manage the government
    spectrum, a huge chunk of which is Defense Department-related.
        And I think it might be somewhat awkward to merge those two
    spectrum management functions together. I think probably the
    net result would be that there would be less commercial
    spectrum available. But I would give it some additional
    thought.
        Senator Gregg. It might be interesting, your thoughts on
    that. We do have jurisdiction over both so this committee is in
    a position to merge if it makes sense. We do not want to do it
    if it does not make sense, but if it would make sense from an
    administrative standpoint, we would want to take a look at it.

                         Alarm monitoring system issue

        About a year ago, I think, there was a petition to you
    folks relative to the alarm monitoring system issue and it
    arose out of a lawsuit that the alarm monitoring industry won
    against the petitioner. It is my understanding that if you do
    not act on that petition by May 13, then basically that will
    reverse the lawsuit.
        Do you expect to act on that petition? Are you familiar
    with that?
        Mr. Kennard. Oh, yes, I am familiar with the issue.
    Actually, what happened is initially the Commission voted to
    allow one regional Bell operation company to retain its alarm
    monitoring assets. That decision was reversed in the D.C.
    Circuit. It came back to the Commission and the company
    petitioned to have the Commission forbear from requiring them
    to divest their alarm monitoring assets.
        That is a forbearance petition under Section 10 of the
    Communications Act, so there is a mandatory statutory deadline.
    I am sure you have the date right, May 13, I believe. So we
    will act by that period of time. We will have a timely action.

                       OMB changes to the budget request

        Senator Gregg. When you sent your request to OMB, was there
    anything significant in your request that either OMB dropped or
    that you did not ask for that OMB put in, such as the fee
    proposal on analog?
        Mr. Kennard. There is nothing large that sticks out in my
    mind but I will ask Andy Fishel. He was closer to the process.
        Do you recall anything?
        Mr. Fishel. The only major difference between what we have
    before you and our OMB request is we asked for additional
    increments of funds for automation and reorganization for
    fiscal year 2000.
        Senator Gregg. Do you know how much that is?
        Mr. Fishel. About another $7 million.
        Senator Gregg. For automation?
        Mr. Fishel. $5.4 million for automation and $1.5 million to
    assist the Commission in the Chairman's proposed
    reorganization.
        Senator Gregg. Can you get that information to my staff?
        Mr. Fishel. Sure.
        [The information follows:]

        In the FCC's fiscal year 2000 Budget Request to OMB there
    were two areas totaling approximately $7 million that were
    denied or decreased that are of particular importance in
    supporting the Commission's efforts to consolidate enforcement
    and public information service activities and continue
    deployment of the agency's automation technology
    infrastructure.
        In connection with the FCC's proposed reorganization, the
    Commission requested $1.5 million to employ the services of a
    business process reengineering contractor to examine and make
    recommendations on reconfiguring personnel needs in response to
    changing workload demands. If the contractor recommends that
    jobs be changed or eliminated, the request included funds for
    outside contractor support to re-train some employees and
    provide outside placement services to others.
        A variety of items totaling $5.5 million in information
    technology initiatives were deleted from the fiscal year 2000
    Congressional budget request that were originally included in
    our OMB request. These items involved either development of new
    productivity enhancing systems, or extensions to existing
    systems that would also result in staff productivity gains and
    improved public service. The latter class of enhancements would
    allow us to gain additional benefits from the funding that we
    have already invested in our information technology systems.
    For example, modules would be added to the new Cable Operators
    and Licensing System that would permit the same type of
    electronic filing currently available in many of our other
    licensing systems. Some of the proposed new systems would allow
    agency managers to track fees, other outstanding debts and
    agency equipment in a more effective manner. This would allow
    the agency to conform with acceptable accounting practices and
    would reduce time consuming, manual based reviews and
    assessments. In summary, the requested funds would allow the
    agency to operate in a more cost effective manner while
    providing a better level of service to the public.
        OMB notified the FCC that the President's fiscal year 2000
    Budget would include legislative proposals for analog fees,
    spectrum auction bankruptcy protection and an accelerated
    schedule in fiscal year 2000 instead of fiscal year 2001 for
    the auction of spectrum between 746-806 megahertz. These were
    not initiated by the FCC in the original budget request to OMB.

        Senator Gregg. I think you are doing an excellent job, Mr.
    Chairman.
        Mr. Kennard. Thank you.

                                 Free air time

        Senator Gregg. I especially appreciate the fact that you
    have been sensitive to this committee's concerns when we have
    expressed them, for example, relative to free time for
    campaigns last year. And you have a big tiger by the tail.
        So this committee, like with the SEC, wants to make sure
    you are very successful because that is critical to the
    commerce of this nation.
        Mr. Kennard. Thank you.
        Senator Gregg. So tell us what you need and we will try to
    take care of it.
        On the Portals issue, as I said last year, we will protect
    you on that.
        Mr. Kennard. Thank you very much.
        Senator Gregg. But we do feel that GSA has messed this up
    and they should take some of the pain.
        Mr. Kennard. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

                         Additional committee questions

        Senator Gregg. Any other things you want to bring to the
    attention of the committee?
        Mr. Kennard. No, just again I appreciate the support that
    you have given the FCC, and we look forward to continuing to
    work with you in tackling this agenda together.
        Senator Gregg. Great. Thank you.
        [The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
    were submitted to the Commission for response subsequent to the
    hearing:]
                Questions Submitted by Senator Pete V. Domenici
                            rural telecommunications
        Question. Chairman Kennard, the FCC has many proceedings underway
    to implement the Telecommunications Act of 1996, and to reform
    telecommunications policies across the board to fit with the new
    competitive environment.
        One of the most important challenges is to ensure that the rural
    telephone companies serving customers in states with sparsely-populated
    areas like New Mexico are not prevented from providing basic services
    or access to new information and technologies or paying higher rates
    than those charged by companies serving urban areas.
        I think how the FCC deals with rural markets is one of the most
    complex and difficult issues you face in the coming years. With that in
    mind:
        How can the FCC ensure that when all of the reforms take place
    under the 1996 Act, there will be enough high-cost support, interstate
    access revenues, and a source of revenues to pay for the multitude of
    new regulatory requirements like number portability, without driving up
    prices for rural customers?
        Answer. Ensuring universal service for rural areas has been a part
    of Commission policy for decades. The codification of this policy in
    the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (1996 Act) has merely strengthened
    the Commission's resolve and ability to accomplish these objectives.
    Section 254 states that consumers in ``rural, insular, and high cost
    areas, should have access to telecommunications and information
    services * * * that are reasonably comparable to those services
    provided in urban areas and that are available at rates that are
    reasonably comparable to rates charged for similar services in urban
    areas.'' The Commission is committed to ensuring that this goal is
    reached.
        The Commission has consistently considered the needs of rural
    customers in crafting the regulatory reforms undertaken since the 1996
    Act. In the universal service proceeding, the Commission is taking
    extensive steps to ensure that rural telephone companies' high-cost
    support remains sufficient. To this end, the Commission has established
    separate plans and implementation schedules for reforming high cost
    support for rural carriers, which ensures that support for service to
    rural customers will not be affected, at least until 2001. Also, the
    Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service has appointed a Rural
    Task Force to study the details of how reform of high-cost support
    should be structured and implemented for rural carriers. The Rural Task
    Force will report to the Joint Board, which will then provide
    recommendations to the Commission. Only after receiving the Joint
    Board's recommendation, informed by the Rural Task Force's findings,
    will the Commission implement broad reform of rural carriers' high cost
    support mechanisms. With respect to non-rural carriers, many of which
    serve customers in rural areas, the Commission is moving forward with
    reform to make universal service support mechanisms sustainable as
    competition develops in the local exchange market. Based on
    recommendations from the Joint Board, we will provide support for non-
    rural carriers that serve high cost areas based on forward-looking
    costs, to ensure that support levels are appropriate for a competitive
    environment.
        Our proceedings to reform access charges have focused on price cap-
    regulated carriers. Rural telephone companies, which tend to be under
    rate-of-return regulation, thus have not been affected by these
    changes. The Commission recently initiated a proceeding to consider
    reform of the interstate access charge system for rural carriers. I
    intend to consider carefully the competitive effects that such reform
    may have on rural customers.
        In the 1996 Act, Congress mandated that all local telephone
    companies provide local number portability in accordance with
    requirements to be established by the Commission. Congress recognized
    two fundamental points. First, Congress recognized that consumers are
    less likely to take service from competing local phone companies if
    they are required to change their phone numbers each time they switch
    providers. Second, Congress recognized that implementation of number
    portability would lower barriers to entry and promote competition in
    the local exchange marketplace.
        Although telecommunications carriers must incur costs to implement
    number portability, and some portion of those costs may be passed on to
    consumers, there are numerous long-term benefits of number portability.
    For example, number portability gives consumers more competitive
    options, which should have the effect of lowering local telephone
    prices. Lower local telephone rates, in turn, should stimulate demand
    for telecommunications service and increase economic growth.
        When we implemented local number portability, we provided for a
    cost-recovery mechanism that affects equally all carriers required to
    provide number portability, as directed in the 1996 Act. Thus, cost
    recovery for local number portability is just as unlikely to cause
    significant increases in costs or surcharges for rural customers as for
    urban customers. Moreover, carriers outside the country's 100 largest
    Metropolitan Statistical Areas are not required to implement number
    portability until six months after a request for portability by another
    telecommunications carrier, so many rural carriers may not experience
    any number portability costs for some time. But if, and when, rural
    carriers incur number portability costs, we will explore all
    opportunities to minimize any adverse impacts on rural customers.
        I assure you that the Commission is committed to ensuring that the
    regulatory reforms mandated by the 1996 Act, including universal
    service and number portability, are implemented in a way that furthers
    the Act's goal of affordable, reasonably comparable rates for rural
    customers.
        Question. What is the FCC doing to ensure that the Commission
    coordinates the timing and order of the changes it is considering to
    minimize the uncertainty and risk for small telephone companies?
        Answer. The Commission established a plan to move high-cost support
    mechanisms for non-rural carriers toward forward-looking costs to
    prepare for a competitive environment and placed small telephone
    companies on a different schedule for implementation of universal
    service reform than the schedule for non-rural carriers. The Commission
    determined, however, that reform of the high-cost support mechanism for
    small telephone companies should be undertaken in consultation with the
    Federal-State Joint Board in a separate, later proceeding. The Joint
    Board and its Rural Task Force will focus specifically on the needs of
    rural carriers. The Commission guaranteed that no potential reductions
    in high-cost support would occur in study areas served by small
    telephone companies, until after the Joint Board-appointed Rural Task
    Force delivers its report to the Joint Board, and after the Joint Board
    has made recommendations to the Commission, but no sooner than 2001.
    Although some small rural carriers have voiced concern about the
    regulatory uncertainty created by the pro-competitive changes of the
    1996 Act, I assure you that the Commission does not intend to make any
    significant changes for rural carriers absent careful consideration of
    all the issues and the recommendations of the Joint Board and its Rural
    Task Force.
        Question. Will the FCC work to ensure that small telephone
    companies have access to the capital they need and sufficient
    confidence to recover their investment costs after all of the
    regulatory changes are in place? How can the FCC provide incentives to
    rural companies to encourage them to continue to upgrade their networks
    and provide first class service in remote areas?
        Answer. The 1996 Act provides that universal service should be
    sufficient, and the Commission is committed to implementing the letter
    and spirit of the law. By consistently ensuring that high-cost
    universal service flows remain adequate and that access revenue streams
    do not change suddenly or unexpectedly, the Commission has maintained a
    degree of stability in the regulatory environment for small, rural
    telephone companies. Also, a significant source of capital for small,
    rural telephone companies remains in the Department of Agriculture's
    small telephone company loan program, which has not been affected by
    the Commission's implementation of the 1996 Act. These factors should
    ensure a regulatory environment that should give companies and
    investors ample confidence to ensure that small, rural carriers remain
    able to serve their customers in remote areas with state-of-the-art
    networks.
        Question. What is the FCC doing to ensure that small rural
    companies do not suffocate under the weight of costly new requirements
    (such as mandated separate subsidiaries for their advanced services or
    interexchange activities or heavy new interconnection requirements)
    that Congress intended to restrict to the largest incumbent carriers
    until real competition exists in these thinner rural markets?
        Answer. The Federal Communications Commission is committed to
    fostering local competition in rural America in accordance with the
    provisions for small and rural companies that Congress made into law in
    the 1996 Act. In its proceedings implementing the 1996 Act, the
    Commission has focused on regulatory relief for rural telephone
    companies, not on imposing new burdens.
        In its Local Competition proceeding, for instance, the Commission
    implemented the exemption for rural telephone companies from certain
    interconnection requirements in accordance with section 251(f) of the
    1996 Act.
      --Section 251(f)(1) grants rural telephone companies an exemption
            from the requirements of section 251(c) until the rural
            telephone company has received a bona fide request for
            interconnection, resale services, or network elements, and the
            state determines that the exemption should be terminated.
      --Section 251(f)(2) provides that small local exchange carriers
            (LECs) may petition a state commission for a suspension or
            modification of any requirements of section 251(b) and 251(c).
        Similarly, the Commission implemented special rules for the
    provision of commercial mobile radio services (CMRS) by small and rural
    incumbent LECs in the LEC CMRS Order. Rural telephone companies are
    exempt from the separate affiliate requirements imposed on larger
    companies, and mid-sized LECs (fewer than two percent of the nation's
    subscriber lines) can petition the Commission for suspension or
    modification of the separate affiliate requirement.
        The Commission has never required, or proposed to require, small or
    rural telephone companies to comply with separation requirements for
    provision of advanced services. In the Advanced Services Notice of
    Proposed Rulemaking adopted in August 1998, the Commission proposed
    offering incumbent LECs the option of providing advanced services
    through a separate affiliate, as a way of relieving the affiliate of
    regulations that otherwise would apply under the Act. If the Commission
    adopts this proposal, incumbent LECs may still elect to offer advanced
    services on an integrated basis. The Commission is committed to
    ensuring that incumbent LECs, including small and rural LECs, make
    their decisions to invest in and deploy advanced telecommunications
    services based on the market and their business plans, rather than
    regulation. The proposals in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking were
    intended to create more competition, more services, more choices, and
    to allow for more expeditious deployment of advanced services offered
    by a variety of carriers.
        Nor has the Commission imposed new separation requirements on small
    or rural telephone companies for the provision of interexchange
    services. Pursuant to the LEC Classification Order issued by the
    Commission in April 1997, incumbent LECs, including small and rural
    LECs, may provide interexchange services in accordance with the same
    set of separation requirements under which most of these companies
    elected to provide such services prior to the Act. A number of parties
    have petitioned the Commission to relax these separation requirements
    for small and rural LECs. Please be assured that the Commission intends
    to act soon to resolve this issue.
                      rural access to public broadcasting
        Question. Chairman Kennard, I have long been a supporter of pubic
    broadcasting because it brings enhanced educational, cultural and
    public affairs programming to underserved populations, particularly
    rural communities. In rural states like New Mexico, this service is
    most often provided via a translator, for both public radio and
    television.
        Last year, Congress directed the Corporation for Public
    Broadcasting to increase funding for rural service, and CPB has done so
    in New Mexico by over sixty percent.
        But constituents tell me that the problem is not necessarily
    enhancing rural service, as much as maintaining present access to
    existing services in rural areas. Absent a re-examination of FCC
    policies and rules related to translators, I am afraid isolated rural
    communities will lose access to services they now enjoy.
        I am told that public radio stations are losing rural translators
    to station applications by distant national, non-commercial, non-public
    radio entities--some with dozens of licenses and dozens more
    applications pending. In New Mexico, two stations have lost their
    translator to the same national entity.
        Am I correct in understanding that translators are vulnerable to
    any station application proposing overlapping coverage and must cease
    operation when the station is approved and on the air?
        Answer. Yes. Since the FM translator service was established in
    1970, these stations have been authorized on a secondary basis; that
    is, translators may not cause interference to and must accept
    interference from the signals of existing and future FM radio stations.
    FM stations are subject to FCC rules that are not applicable to
    translator stations; for example, minimum hours of operation, signal
    coverage requirements, operation of a main studio and maintenance of a
    public inspection file. These stations are also accountable for
    providing responsive programming to significant community issues.
    Accordingly, FM radio stations are full-service stations, which are
    afforded ``primary'' protected status.
        The FCC will not accept an application for an FM translator station
    if an ``interfering'' signal contour of the proposed translator would
    overlap the protected contour of an authorized primary FM station. FM
    translators must protect FM stations that operate on the same frequency
    and three pairs of adjacent frequencies. While the contour overlap
    standards are processing criteria, operating translators are governed
    by the provision that they must not cause actual interference to the
    reception of primary FM radio stations. Depending on geographical
    proximity and the frequency relationship, an existing translator may be
    vulnerable to an application proposing a new FM radio station. If the
    proposed station were authorized, the translator would not be permitted
    to interfere with the reception of its signal. If the interference
    could not be promptly eliminated, the translator would be required to
    cease operating.
        It is important to note that FM radio stations are granted
    construction permits allowing 3 years to complete station construction.
    At a minimum, most new stations require a year or more to acquire the
    necessary equipment and commence operations. Thus, potentially
    displaced FM Translators are usually afforded sufficient time to locate
    a new frequency, where possible, and to acquire a modified construction
    permit from the FCC for use of that frequency.
        Question. What is the FCC doing to stem the current flood of non-
    commercial entity-FM applications?
        Answer. During the past few years, the number of noncommercial
    educational FM new station construction permit applications has
    increased significantly, from less than 200 to more than 500
    applications filed each year. Promoting viewpoint and ownership
    diversity remain core statutory goals of the Commission. Thus, the
    agency generally supports the addition of new noncommercial educational
    (NCE) FM service. Arguments seeking the denial of new NCE FM station
    proposals on the grounds that there already is ``too much'' NCE FM
    service in a particular area are not persuasive. The Commission has
    taken no steps either to slow the new NCE FM station application review
    process or to limit the opportunity for filing new NCE FM station
    applications. Disposition of those applications that are mutually
    exclusive with other applications must await the outcome of an FCC
    rulemaking proceeding in which the Commission has proposed new
    procedures for selecting among competing applicants. (MM Docket No. 95-
    31, Reexamination of Comparative Standards for Noncommercial
    Educational Applicants, October, 1998). The current freeze on mutually
    exclusive applications substantially limits the number of new station
    applications actually granted. We estimate that the Commission is
    currently granting fewer than 100 new station licenses per year, and
    thus increasing the number of NCE FM stations nationally by less than 5
    percent each year.
        Question. What can the FCC do to ensure continued in-state service
    to communities enjoying public radio service by translators?
        Answer. The Commission recognizes the important role played by FM
    translators in this regard. Translators may continue to operate
    indefinitely provided they do not cause interference. Should a
    translator station desire to eliminate the potential of being displaced
    because of its secondary status, it may apply to become a primary FM
    non-commercial station in the reserved band, provided it can satisfy
    the eligibility and technical requirements. Alternatively, in some
    situations, it can also request a waiver of the Commission's main
    studio rules to allow it to operate as a satellite of the public radio
    station it desires to rebroadcast. In so doing, the satellite station
    must demonstrate that it is attuned to and will reflect the needs and
    interests of that local community in its programming.
        Question. With respect to public television, what has the FCC done
    to prepare for digital television translators? If there are no plans
    for digital television translators, how does the FCC propose that
    isolated rural communities be served?
        Answer. First, in its digital television (DTV) proceeding, the FCC
    adopted numerous measures to mitigate the impact of the DTV roll out on
    existing TV translator and low power television service. For example,
    the FCC provided opportunities for displaced or potentially displaced
    stations to seek replacement channels at any time on a noncompetitive
    ``first-come'' basis; so far, nearly 500 TV translator stations have
    done so. The FCC also relaxed interference protections where it could,
    permitted station operators to negotiate interference agreements among
    themselves, expanded the role of terrain shielding in the application
    process, and increased the power limits in the low power television
    service. All of these measures are intended to preserve as many
    stations as possible, recognizing, in part, that translator stations
    will play an important role in delivering digital TV signals. The FCC
    also stated in the DTV proceeding that it would initiate a separate
    rulemaking proceeding to address issues related to the authorization of
    digital transmissions for TV translator and low power TV stations. The
    FCC intends to commence this proceeding this summer.
                      c-block spectrum auction bankruptcy
        Question. For the past few years, I have been interested in the
    developments in the cases involving the spectrum licenses taken into
    bankruptcy by bidders who refused to pay their bids in the C-block
    auction. Could you please give me an update of where the FCC stands
    currently in the key court cases and comment on the advisability of
    enacting legislation clarifying that spectrum licenses are not eligible
    to be drawn into bankruptcy court.
        Answer.
    The Status of Key C-block Bankruptcy Cases
        Five C-block licensees are currently in bankruptcy: DCR PCS, Inc.
    (Bankr. D.Md.); GWI PCS 1 et al. (Bankr. N.D. Tex.); NextWave Personal
    Communications, Inc. (Bankr. S.D.N.Y.); Magnacom Wireless, LLC (Bankr.
    W.D. Wash.); and UrbanComm-North Carolina, Inc. (Bankr. S.D.N.Y.).
        Together these licensees owe approximately $7 billion in debt to
    the United States for licenses bid at the C-block PCS auction in May
    1996.
        The bankruptcy problem is not limited only to the ``C-block'' PCS
    licensees. Bankruptcy proceedings also have been initiated by license
    winners in the Commission's auctions for Interactive Video and Data
    Services (IVDS), Multipoint Distribution Services (MDS), and 900 MHZ
    Specialized Mobile Radio (SMR) services. In the C-block bankruptcies,
    several licensees have sought to retain their licenses without paying
    the full bid amount, notwithstanding the Commission's stated policy
    that licenses are granted on condition of payment in full and will be
    automatically canceled upon a payment default. The status of the C-
    block cases is as follows:
        GWI.--In the GWI case, the licensee filed an adversary complaint
    alleging that the grant of the licenses was a ``fraudulent conveyance''
    under Section 548 of the Bankruptcy Code because the licenses granted
    by the Commission were not worth the amount that GWI bid for the
    licenses at the C-block auction. After a week-long trial, the
    bankruptcy court agreed with GWI and reduced the amount of debt owed to
    the United States from $954 million to $60 million (a loss of nearly
    $900 million to the American taxpayer in this one case).\1\ The
    bankruptcy court rejected the FCC's arguments that FCC regulations, and
    the face of the license itself, conditioned the grant and retention of
    the license on payment in full of the bid price. Indeed, the bankruptcy
    judge refused to give any deference to the FCC's administrative rulings
    in the C-block restructuring proceedings, nor any deference to the
    FCC's authority to determine the fair and efficient allocation of
    spectrum under the Communications Act. The United States has appealed
    the GWI ruling, but the case is still pending. As a result, the GWI
    licenses have been tied up in bankruptcy since October 1997 and the FCC
    was not able to include them in the C-block re-auction that began on
    March 23, 1999 for licenses that were returned to the FCC under the
    FCC's C-block restructuring orders.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ To put that amount lost to the taxpayer in perspective, the
    Washington Post recently reported that a $908 million judgment against
    the United States was the ``second-largest judgment ever leveled
    against the government.'' See ``Thrift Wins $908 Million From U.S. in
    Dispute From S&L Crisis,'' The Washington Post, A-6, April 1, 1999,
    1999 WL 2210235.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        NextWave.--The enormous debt reduction granted by the bankruptcy
    court in GWI, encouraged other C-block companies to seek similar
    relief, rather than comply with the FCC's C-block restructuring orders.
    On June 8, 1998, the day that C-block licensees were required to elect
    restructuring options under the FCC's regulations, NextWave Personal
    Communications, Inc. (``NPCI'') instead filed a bankruptcy case based
    on the same ``fraudulent conveyance'' theories as GWI. The trial of the
    NPCI case was heard in mid-April of this year, but at the writing of
    this answer we do not yet have an opinion from the bankruptcy court.
    Although the FCC moved to have the case dismissed as an improper
    collateral attack on the FCC's administrative orders, the bankruptcy
    court refused to dismiss the case, and declared that the FCC should be
    treated as merely a commercial lender, not having any special expertise
    or discretion in dealing with federal spectrum licenses. At the trial,
    NPCI is seeking a debt reduction from $4.2 billion to approximately
    $330 million--nearly a $4 billion reduction of its debt to the federal
    Treasury. Alternatively, NPCI is seeking return of its down payment of
    $474 million from the Treasury in exchange for relinquishing the
    licenses.
        UrbanComm.--The licensee in UrbanComm filed for bankruptcy rather
    than make an installment payment due on its licenses on October 29,
    1998. Following the route of GWI and NPCI, the licensee in the
    UrbanComm case has also filed a ``fraudulent conveyance'' complaint
    against the FCC seeking massive reduction of its debt amount. The FCC
    recently moved to have the case dismissed, but we do not yet have a
    ruling on that motion. Because of the pending bankruptcy case, the
    UrbanComm licenses were not included in the recent C-block re-auction.
        Magnacom.--The licensee in Magnacom also filed the day before its
    October 29, 1998 installment payment was due. Magnacom has not filed a
    ``fraudulent conveyance'' complaint against the FCC. Nevertheless,
    because of the bankruptcy filing, the FCC was not able to include
    Magnacom's licenses in the recent C-block re-auction. The FCC has moved
    to recover the licenses in the bankruptcy court but the court has not
    yet ruled on that motion.
        DCR PCS.--In the DCR PCS case, the licensee made an election under
    the C-block restructuring order and returned many of its licenses
    (including the large markets of Chicago, Dallas, Detroit, St. Louis,
    and New Orleans) to the FCC for inclusion in the current C-block re-
    auction. However, other investors in DCR PCS have filed a ``fraudulent
    conveyance'' complaint against the FCC seeking recovery of the $150
    million in down payments DCR PCS had made to the FCC for the original
    licenses. The bankruptcy court has said that the secured lenders could
    prosecute a case for such ``rescissionary'' type relief, and has set a
    trial date in November, 1999 to determine what amount, if any, must be
    returned from the Treasury to the secured lenders.
    The Need for Bankruptcy Legislation
        The result obtained in the GWI case, and sought in other cases, is
    entirely inconsistent with the federal auction licensing scheme
    established in Section 309(j) of the Communications Act. Allowing a
    high bidder to win a license but then reduce the amount it will pay for
    the licenses by a court decision:
      --prevents the FCC from establishing a fair and efficient allocation
            of scarce public spectrum based on competitive bidding at an
            auction;
      --encourages speculative bidding at future auctions if the bidders
            believe that they can avoid the consequences of over bidding by
            bankruptcy litigation;
      --unfairly deprives other bidders the opportunity to receive the
            license in a new auction if the original high bidder is unable
            to meet its payment obligations;
      --ties up the licenses in bankruptcy court for years, while the
            public is deprived of service, in direct contravention of the
            statutory goal of allocating spectrum through auctions in order
            to achieve rapid service to the public ``without administrative
            and judicial delays.''
        The FCC has been seeking legislation since 1997 that would clarify
    that the Bankruptcy Code cannot be used to reduce the amount of debt
    owed by FCC licensees for the licenses they obtain through FCC
    auctions. The Administration's fiscal year 2000 Budget proposes
    legislation that amends Section 309(j) of the Communications Act to
    clarify that the Bankruptcy Code (1) is not applicable to relieve a
    licensee of any debt obligation or payment made to the Treasury arising
    from the grant of a spectrum license issued by the Commission under
    Section 309(j) of the Communications Act, and (2) does not affect the
    Commission's authority to revoke, cancel, transfer or assign those
    licenses. The proposed legislation would be retroactive, so as to
    affect all cases pending in the judiciary at the time of passage,
    consistent with the principles for retroactive legislation established
    by the Supreme Court.
        The effect of the proposed legislation is to allow the FCC to
    enforce the payment obligations incurred by winning bidders and allows
    the FCC to quickly recover and re-auction licenses in case of a payment
    default. The proposed legislation does not give new regulatory powers
    to the Commission, but only assures that existing regulations will be
    applied fairly to all licensees. Moreover, the proposed legislation
    addresses only payments or debts to the Commission arising from
    auctions under Section 309(j), and does not involve any other types of
    FCC licenses such as broadcast licenses.
        Congress has provided exemptions from the Bankruptcy Code for other
    important governmental lending and licensing programs. For example,
    there are specific exceptions to the automatic stay to allow the
    government to foreclose HUD mortgages,\2\ to allow the government to
    foreclose ship mortgages held by the Secretary of Commerce or Secretary
    of Transportation under the Merchant Marine Act,\3\ and to allow a
    state licensing body to take action with respect to the licensure of
    the debtor as an educational institution.\4\ In addition, the
    Bankruptcy Code generally exempts from the automatic stay governmental
    exercise of police and regulatory powers.\5\ Special exceptions to the
    automatic stay have also been inserted into the Bankruptcy Code to
    protect the financial concerns of various private industries, such as
    lessors non-residential real estate,\6\ various financial
    transactions,\7\ and interests relating to hydrocarbons.\8\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ 11 U.S.C Sec. 362(b)(8).
        \3\ 11 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 362(b)(12) & (13). The Ship Mortgage
    provisions were added to the Bankruptcy Code in the Omnibus Budget
    Reconciliation Act of 1986. See Pub. L. No. 99-509 (1986). See also
    Hearing Before Subcomm. on Merchant Marine and the Comm. of Commerce,
    Science and Transportation on S. 1992 and S. 1993, 99th Cong., 2d Sess.
    (March 21, 1986).
        \4\ 11 U.S.C. Sec. 362(b)(15).
        \5\ 11 U.S.C. Sec. 362(b)(4).
        \6\ 11 U.S.C. Sec. 362(b)(10).
        \7\ 11 U.S.C. Sec. 362(b)(6),(17).
        \8\ 11 U.S.C. Sec. 541(b)(4).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The FCC believes that the fair and efficient operation of the
    federal spectrum licensing program is equally important and should be
    give a similar exemption from the Bankruptcy Code.

                             conclusion of hearings

        Senator Gregg. The hearing is recessed.
        [Whereupon, at 10:46 a.m., Thursday, March 25, the hearings
    were concluded, and the subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene
    subject to the call of the Chair.]

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

                                  ----------

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

                           NONDEPARTMENTAL WITNESSES

        The following testimonies were received by the Subcommittee
    on Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and Related
    Agencies for inclusion in the record. The submitted materials
    relate to the fiscal year 2000 budget request for programs
    within the subcommittee's jurisdiction.
                             DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
      Prepared Statement of Capt. Fred R. Becker, Jr., JAGC, USN (Ret.),
      Director, Naval Affairs, Reserve Officers Association of the United
                                  States (ROA)
        Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee: It is my pleasure to
    address this committee concerning the fiscal year 2000 budget request
    for the United States Coast Guard. First and foremost, the Reserve
    Officers Association would like to express its profound gratitude to
    this subcommittee, and to the Congress, for their strong and vigorous
    support of the Coast Guard and Coast Guard Reserve during the fiscal
    year 1998 and 1999 authorization and appropriations process. ROA's
    testimony during the 105th Congress addressed a number of concerns
    regarding the Coast Guard Reserve, particularly with regard to funding
    and recruiting. In recognition of the vital support provided to the
    nation by today's Coast Guard Reserve, this subcommittee and the
    Congress responded. On behalf of Coast Guard Reservists serving around
    the globe we thank you.
                           coast guard budget request
        The Coast Guard has streamlined and reduced resource requirements
    to the breaking point. At the same time, responsibilities and work of
    the Coast Guard have continued to increase. As the Coast Guard has
    streamlined, funding less than that required--to absorb increases from
    pay raises and other required cost of living adjustments, as well as to
    recapitalize, replacing vessels and aircraft that are nearly worn-out--
    will result in the reduction of vital public services. Accordingly, to
    avoid any adverse impact on future service, any further cost reductions
    must be achieved through investment in new, more efficient capital
    equipment and technology and increased use of the Reserves.
        The Coast Guard's fiscal year 2000 budget request would allow the
    Coast Guard to sustain basic services. As the subcommittee is aware the
    Acquisitions, Construction and Improvements (AC&I) account provides for
    the vital acquisition, construction and improvement of vessels,
    aircraft, information management resources, shore facilities and aids
    to navigation required to execute the Coast Guard's mission and achieve
    its performance goal. In particular, we believe that this account must
    be fully funded in fiscal year 2000 at a level of least $34 million.
    Funding of at least $34 million for the Deepwater Program is required
    because, at present the Coast Guard operates ships with high personnel
    and maintenance costs. The average age of the Coast Guard's deepwater
    cutters is 25 years. The Coast Guard's fleet of high and medium
    endurance cutters is older than 37 of the 41 naval fleets worldwide.
    Some of the Coast Guard's vessels have been in service for more than 50
    years. In short, the continued protection of the public, at a lower
    cost, requires appropriate investment in the AC&I account--to enable
    the Coast Guard to design more capable and less labor-intensive ships
    and aircraft.
                           selected reserve strength
        The fiscal year 2000 administration request is to maintain the
    Coast Guard Selected Reserve's authorized end-strength at the 8,000-
    level, whereas the appropriation's request is for 7,600. As the Coast
    Guard Reserve's appropriated end-strength for fiscal year 1999 is 8,000
    and the Coast Guard Reserve end-strength continues to increase to meet
    the Congress' mandate of 8,000 Coast Guard Reservists, we have very
    serious concerns regarding the administration's proposal for an
    appropriated end-strength of only 7,600. We also have concerns
    regarding an authorized end-strength of only 8,000, in view of the fact
    that the Commandant has conducted an in-depth study that clearly
    indicates and justifies a requirement nearly 12,300 Coast Guard
    Reservists.
        In recent years, the Coast Guard Reserve has clearly become a
    value-added resource for peacetime day-to-day operations, as well as a
    highly cost-effective source of needed, trained personnel to meet
    military contingency and other surge requirements. For example, as
    noted by the House Transportation Appropriations Subcommittee, Coast
    Guard Reservists provided 25 percent of the total surge needed for the
    very successful anti-drug initiative Frontier Shield.
        In view of the foregoing, a request to fund only 7,600 Reservists
    simply makes no sense at a time when the Coast Guard is making
    significant strides in correcting the end-strength shortfall that has
    existed over the past several years. The Coast Guard has increased its
    recruiting capabilities and put into place a multi-year plan to get the
    Coast Guard Reserve back to strength. As of January 25, 1999 Coast
    Guard Reserve end-strength was at 7,579, having increased from a 2-year
    low of 7,243 in April 1998. Of further note, as of January 25, 1999,
    there were 176 Reservists, on extended active duty and long-term active
    duty for special work, filling active duty shortfalls. The number of
    Reservists on active duty is the direct result of the Coast Guard's
    solicitation of volunteers from the Selected Reserve to serve on
    extended active duty to fill full-time active duty billets for periods
    of 2 to 4 years.
        It should also be noted that the value of the Reserve has been
    highlighted by Rear Admiral Fred L. Ames, Assistant Commandant for
    Human Resources, in Flag Voice 5, dated September 4, 1998, which
    states, ``Reservists aren't just a part time resource. More than 130
    Reservists are answering the call to extended active duty during our
    current shortage of `regulars.' More than 187 reservists are currently
    on * * * (active duty) assisting units in various special projects.
    Still more Reservists perform their annual two-week duty during peak
    operational periods. We benefit daily from these members'
    availability.''
        In addition, the impact of the shortage of Reservists has been
    highlighted by Rear Admiral Thomas J. Barrett, Director, Reserve and
    Training, in letters to the Atlantic and Pacific Maintenance Logistic
    Commanders dated August 5, 1998, which state: ``Reserve personnel
    shortages coupled with active-duty shortfalls have deeply impacted
    Coast Guard missions * * *. The absence of these personnel (Reservists)
    hampers the Coast Guard's ability to execute our missions and leaves a
    greater burden on those already in service. Despite our best efforts,
    personnel shortages in both the Reserve and active components are
    deeply impacting Coast Guard missions. * * * we were unable to fully
    staff the Ninth District's Operation Summerstock (Great Lakes) from the
    Coast Guard Reserve alone. * * * more calls for Reserve support are
    coming up short * * *.''
        In summary, the Congress and the Coast Guard have made the
    substantial financial and manpower commitment to rectify the Reserve
    end-strength problem that has deeply impacted the Coast Guard. As a
    result, significant progress has been, and will continue to me made.
    It, therefore, makes little sense at this juncture to reverse course
    and force the Coast Guard Reserve end-strength downward.
                                reserve funding
        The administration has requested $72 million for the Reserve
    Training (RT) appropriation for fiscal year 2000, with $24.427 million
    in reimbursement to operating expenses. Given the present procedures
    for reimbursement for operating expenses and direct payments by the
    Coast Guard Reserve, this is the minimum needed to fund a full training
    program for 7,600 personnel. The funding required to support the full
    8,000-level authorized is approximately $78 million. It should,
    however, be noted that the fiscal year 1999 appropriations bill, in
    appropriating $69 million for the Coast Guard Reserve, limited the
    amount of Reserve training funds that may be transferred to operating
    expenses to $20 million. The House committee report notes that this
    limitation is included because, ``Given the small size of the reserve
    training appropriation, and the declining size of the selected reserve,
    the Committee wants to ensure that reserves are not assessed excessive
    charge-backs to the Coast Guard operating budget. The Committee
    continues to believe that, absent this provision, the proposed level of
    reimbursement would be too high, especially given the substantial
    amount of reserve augmentation workhours provided by the reserves in
    direct support of Coast Guard missions.''
        ROA thanks the Congress for its recognition of the support provided
    by the Coast Guard Reserve and the provision of this additional funding
    through the limitation in reimbursement for operating expenses.
        The Coast Guard is reviewing its procedures for reimbursement with
    a view toward modification in fiscal year 2000 and we have only just
    been briefed on their proposal. Accordingly, we are unable at this time
    to give an opinion on this change in procedures. We would, however,
    note, that the bottom line is that the Coast Guard Reserve must have
    sufficient funding for 8,000 Reservists and that the reimbursement cap
    has over the past 2 years provided approximately $2.5 million of this
    much needed funding. Accordingly, we would ask that any proposed change
    in procedures be closely examined and meticulously monitored--to ensure
    that the Coast Guard Reserve is fully funded at a level of 8,000 ($78
    million).
                                team coast guard
        We continue to support the goals and objectives of Team Coast
    Guard. The Coast Guard Reserve has become the ``bench-strength'' of the
    active duty force. In this regard, a strength of 8,000 Coast Guard
    Reservists equates to only 506 full-time equivalent positions. Of
    further note, the Coast Guard Reserve provides the ability to surge the
    Coast Guard by an additional 23 percent, at a cost of just 2 percent of
    the Coast Guard's total budget. In this respect, the Coast Guard
    Reserve is extremely cost-effective. Furthermore, the Reserve component
    provides double benefit because Reservists are only paid when on duty
    and because Reservists obtain their training for emergency response by
    assisting the Coast Guard in its peacetime functions.
        Simply stated, and as noted in the quotations of Admirals Ames and
    Barrett cited above, the Reserve leverages the entire organization and
    stands ready to go in response to both domestic and national
    emergencies. As a result, the Coast Guard is readily able to surge its
    forces to meet domestic emergencies in an extremely cost-effective
    manner, as well as to respond to national emergencies, including vital
    harbor security for the Department of Defense with the Coast Guard
    Reserve Port Security Units. At the same time, as also noted by Rear
    Admirals Ames and Barrett, the failure to meet Reserve end-strength
    requirements adversely affects the Coast Guard and therefore adversely
    affects the safety of those operating on the nation's rivers and
    waterways and off the shoreline of the United States.
        In an effort to assess the progress of Team Coast Guard and its
    impact on Reservists, we canvassed our membership in December 1999,
    asking for their views. Of the many responses we received, several
    issues emerged. These issues are as follows:
      --Travel reimbursement.--Many Reservists, including enlisted
            Reservists, must travel long distances to drill. The following
            quotation from a drilling Reservist's provide additional
            insight into this issue. ``I have an E-3 who pays more for his
            transportation to monthly drill than he gets paid. In other
            words, he is paying cash in order to be able to drill.''
      --Meaningful billets and lack of flexibility upon advancement.--This
            issue was addressed in the 1997 Coast Guard Reserve Policy
            Board report that was approved by the Secretary of
            Transportation on December 1999. The report states, ``When most
            Reserve command cadre billets were eliminated by integration,
            senior Reserve officers and senior enlisted lost their
            traditional management roles * * *. The force structure and
            roles for senior Reserve personnel need to be reviewed * * *.
            [This issue] * * * is about appropriately using personnel in
            whom taxpayers have invested heavily. Furthermore, it is about
            ensuring that Reserve personnel perceive they can engage in
            fully satisfying and challenging work throughout a full career
            in the Reserve Component.''
        The following quotation from a drilling Reservist provides
    additional insight into this issue. ``With very few senior billets and
    minimum flexibility (allowing senior people to fill lower ranking
    billets), many see no real career path. We have seen at least two first
    class petty officers that have refused to take the examination for
    chief petty officer because there is not a chief's billet available. In
    their cases, they had well in excess of 10 years of service and were
    concerned that they would not be able to maintain a billet long enough
    to finish 20 years if they were selected as chief petty officers.''
        The 1997 Coast Guard Reserve Policy Board report, approved by the
    Secretary of Transportation on December 9, 1999, also provides further
    insight into this issue. It states as follows: ``Reserve force
    employment is not consistent throughout the Coast Guard. It has evolved
    over the years based upon the personalities and interests of commands,
    and the personalities and capabilities of individual Reservists. The
    current Reserve Personnel Allowance List (RPAL) was developed in 1996-
    97 largely upon then-existing Reserve assignments. As a result, one
    unit may have a dozen RPAL billets while a similar unit may have no
    billets. Even when Reserve billet structures are consistent between or
    among similar commands, units often have different philosophies on
    employing Reservists. Some commands use Reservists interchangeably with
    Active duty personnel. Other commands use Reservists primarily to
    replace Active duty personnel when billets are vacant during the
    transfer season or leave periods. Some assign Reservists to work
    independently on special projects. We recognize that field units need
    flexibility in employing Reserve forces. Yet headquarters, areas, and
    districts need to identify program requirements for Reserve employment,
    and to provide guidance to field units on employing Reserves. Based on
    these program requirements and guidance, the RPAL then can be revised
    to better reflect service needs. When the workforce structure has been
    redefined by a revised RPAL, Reserve personnel can be recruited,
    trained, and assigned to meet established requirements. * * * Reserve
    personnel will have more meaningful assignments; they will not have to
    create their own niches at each command.''
      --Difficulty in meeting Reserve-unique administrative and training
            needs.--The following quotation from a drilling Reservist
            provides additional insight into this issue. ``* * * for
            enlisted reservists * * * many of their Reserve-unique
            administrative and training needs are not being as adequately
            addressed as * * * in the past. * * * Ultimately, junior
            enlisted personnel do not seem to be receiving the same level
            of attention and direction needed for retention and
            advancement.''
                               legislative issues
        Prior to concluding, there is one legislative issue that we would
    appreciate the Congress examining. This issue relates to the Director
    of the Coast Guard Reserve. Presently, the flag, or general rank, of
    the Reserve Chiefs of all the armed services, except for the Coast
    Guard is codified into law. In this regard, Title 10, section 10203,
    subsection (d) states that, ``The Secretary of Transportation may
    designate a flag officer of the Coast Guard to be directly responsible
    for reserve affairs to the Commandant of the Coast Guard.'' There is,
    however, no parallel provision establishing an office, and Director of
    Coast Guard Reserve, as exists for the other services (see Title 10,
    section 3038 in the case of the Army Reserve, Title 10, section 5143 in
    the case of the Naval Reserve, Title 10, section 5144 in the case of
    the Marine Corps Reserve, Title 10, section 8038 in the case of the Air
    force Reserve, and Title 10, section 10506 in the case of the Army
    National Guard). We believe that a provision establishing a Director of
    the Coast Guard Reserve, headed by an officer in the grade above
    captain, should be placed into Title 10. At the same time, we also
    believe that the Office of the Coast Guard Reserve and the Director of
    Coast Guard Reserve may have such other functions as may be determined
    by the Commandant of the Coast Guard. The primary responsibility of the
    Director of Coast Guard Reserve should, however, be to oversee the
    functions and activities of the Coast Guards' Reserve component.
    Accordingly, to clarify the intent of Congress, establish consistency
    with the provisions of the other armed services, and to conform to
    current Coast Guard practice, it is recommended that a new section be
    added to Chapter 1007 of Title 10, to establish an Office of Director,
    Coast Guard Reserve, with an officer of flag rank serving as the
    director.
                                   conclusion
        In conclusion, this committee's support of the Coast Guard has been
    vital to maintaining its military capability. Your continued support is
    essential. Thank you for this opportunity to present the position of
    the Reserve Officers Association to this committee.
                                     ______

     Prepared Statement of Dr. Lynne Brown, Vice President for Government
                  and Community Relations, New York University
        New York University respectfully seeks the Subcommittee's support
    for a project of scientific research which is not only an important
    priority for the University, but which we believe will advance national
    interests through enhanced scientific understanding of normal brain
    development as well as the many disabilities, disorders and diseases
    that erode our ability to think and learn.
        The University proposes to establish a Center for Cognition,
    Learning, Emotion and Memory. This Center will draw on the University's
    strengths in the fields of neural science, biology, chemistry,
    psychology, computer science, and linguistics to push the frontiers of
    our understanding of how the brain develops, function malfunctions,
    matures, and ages. In addition, as a major training institute, the
    Center will help prepare the next generation of interdisciplinary brain
    scientists.
        Our project addresses the research and programmatic priorities of
    this subcommittee and the Congress. We thank the Congress for taking
    the time to consider and give its support to the important research
    being conducted in this area. We at New York University firmly believe
    that in the coming decades, a federal investment in mind and brain
    studies will repay itself many times over.
        To establish this Center, New York University is seeking $10.5
    million over five years to support and expand the research programs of
    existing faculty, attract additional faculty and graduate and
    postgraduate trainees, and provide the technical resources and
    personnel support that will allow us to create a premier, world class
    scientific enterprise. Individual researchers in the science programs
    at NYU compete for investigational support through traditional routes,
    quite effectively. However, these traditional funding sources do not
    address the specific need for establishment of a new cross-disciplinary
    area of scientific study, particularly one that transcends biomedicine,
    psychology, education, computer science, cognitive science, and
    linguistics. Nor do they provide the extensive funding necessary for
    faculty and student support and personnel and technical resources.
        Exploration into the fundamental neurobiological mechanisms of the
    nervous system can help educators, scientists, health care providers,
    policy makers, work force managers, and the general public by enhancing
    our understanding of normal brain development and function in both
    children and adults, thereby helping us to detect and correct
    impediments that affect our ability to learn, to think, and remember,
    and to mature as productive members of family and society. Research in
    this area will ultimately contribute to a better understanding of how
    children learn at different stages; how childhood and adult learning is
    shaped by different cognitive styles; how aging affects memory; and how
    diseases alter memory.
        New York University is well poised to make important contributions
    in this area. Founded in 1831, the University today is the largest
    private university in the United States, with over 49,000 students
    representing a broad range of backgrounds and coming from every state
    and over 120 foreign countries. NYU comprises thirteen schools,
    colleges, and divisions and is known for the excellence of its schools
    of law, medicine, film, and business; the Institute of Fine Arts; the
    Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences; and departments in the
    Faculty of Arts and Science, notably neural science, chemistry,
    biology, psychology, French, English, philosophy, anthropology and
    economics. Located in the heart of the world's most cosmopolitan and
    diverse city, New York University is a leading national--and in many
    fields, international--center of scholarship, teaching and research. It
    is one of twenty-nine private institutions constituting the
    distinguished Association of American Universities, and is consistently
    among the top U.S. universities in funds received from federal sources
    and from private foundations.
        The Center for Cognition, Learning, Emotion, and Memory will be an
    interschool, interdisciplinary unit linking faculty, students, programs
    and resources from several schools of New York University. These are
    the Faculty of Arts and Science, Courant Institute of Mathematical
    Sciences, School of Medicine, School of Education, and Center for
    Digital Multimedia. CLEM, to be housed at the University's Washington
    Square campus within the Faculty of Arts and Science, will be the locus
    for laboratory research and training in fundamental neurobiological,
    psychological and computational studies of the nervous system. In
    addition, CLEM will be a point of convergence for faculty and students
    seeking to incorporate these research perspectives into their own work
    in education, medicine, and technology, and seeking as well to enrich
    laboratory research with interdisciplinary collaboration and conceptual
    bridges. The new Center will be administratively housed within the NYU
    Department of Neural Science. This department includes affiliated
    investigators from biology, chemistry, psychology, physics, computer
    science, medicine, and mathematics. It is a national center of research
    and teaching, encompassing a pre-eminent faculty, and generating
    substantial external funding from federal and state agencies as well as
    the private sector. The department holds world-class stature in the
    study of the nervous system as a sensory communications system, as a
    controller of motor activity and as a neural network that generates the
    emotional foundation of voluntary behavior. The neural sciences at NYU
    have attracted millions of dollars in generous support from, for
    example, the NIH, NSF, and EPA, the Howard Hughes Medical Institute,
    the W.M. Keck Foundation, and the Alfred M. Sloan Foundation. Its
    faculty have won prestigious awards, being named National Institutes of
    Health (NIH) Merit Awardee, Howard Hughes Medical Institute
    Investigator, National Science Foundation (NSF) Presidential Faculty
    Fellow, McKnight Foundation Scholar in Neuroscience, and MacArthur
    ``Genius'' Fellow. The department cultivates productive linkages with
    investigators from other disciplines, educational institutions, and
    research sectors. Thus, linkages between neural scientists, and
    educators in the NYU School of Education, clinicians in the NYU School
    of Medicine, and software designers, computer scientists, and graphic
    artists in the NYU Center for Digital Multimedia facilitate the
    application of scientific discoveries in the classroom, in the clinic,
    and in new technologies.
        The new Center for Cognition, Learning, Emotion, and Memory Studies
    will bring the University's many strengths in these areas more fully to
    bear on the challenges and opportunities that multidisciplinary studies
    present. The Center will provide an organizational identity, core
    resources, and common focus for the university's efforts. For students,
    it will provide an educational forum to apply knowledge gained in one
    discipline to problems in other disciplines. For researchers, the
    Center's synergistic linkages between basic science departments,
    biomedical departments, and mathematical and computational units will
    encourage intellectual cross fertilization and will permit the
    consolidation of individual efforts in multidisciplinary but in
    conceptually coordinated efforts. For colleagues in the fields of
    education, medicine, and technology, the Center will facilitate
    connections with laboratory scientists and enhance the translation of
    research knowledge into health care, educational, and commercial
    applications. The enhanced research and training that will be possible
    at the Center will attract public and private funding above and beyond
    the substantial funds, honors and recognition already awarded to the
    University's researchers, and will support the Center's continued
    growth and development.
    The Case for the New Center at New York University
        New York University has the resources necessary for the successful
    creation and operation of a major multidisciplinary research and
    training center. There is top-level administrative leadership, a
    commitment to science, intellectual and administrative resources,
    established frameworks for interdisciplinary and interschool
    collaboration, strengths in neuro-biological, psychological and
    computational sciences, and standing in the international scientific
    community. The Faculty of Arts and Science, which encompasses the
    College and the Graduate School, has a preeminent faculty of 560, an
    annual operating budget of $197 million, a student population of
    approximately 9,200, and over 450,000 square feet of dedicated space
    apart from shared University facilities, making it a vital center of
    teaching and research. The science enterprise is especially vigorous,
    the result of a decade-long multi-million dollar development plan to
    renovate research and teaching laboratories and recruit distinguished
    junior and senior faculty, a pioneering science curriculum for
    undergraduate non-science majors, extensive research experiences for
    undergraduate science students, and an enhanced graduate student
    training program of supervised research and teaching assistantships.
    New York University has, as part of its multi-year science development
    plan, created a world-class and widely recognized neuroscience program.
    Neural science at NYU is particularly well known for research in visual
    processing and perception, theoretical neurobiology, molecular and
    developmental neurobiology, and cognitive neuroscience. It has
    outstanding researchers and well-established strengths in visual
    neuroscience, auditory neuroscience, cognitive science, neuromagnetism,
    neurochemistry, neurobiology, behavioral neuroscience, mathematical
    modeling, and computer simulation. Recently, these faculty have begun
    to unravel the biological mechanisms underlying cognition, learning and
    memory. As an example, NYU scientists have made important contributions
    to visual processing, deriving the most successful methods available
    for studying nonlinear interactions in neuronal information processing;
    emotion, giving the first real glimpse into the neuroanatomy of fear;
    neural development, with landmark work on the vision system; and the
    neural bases for auditory function, including neural sensitivity to
    auditory motion stimuli. With these strengths, New York University is
    strategically placed to create a new and distinctive center that will
    produce a new understanding of the brain, and new ways of using that
    knowledge for improving human health and welfare. The Center for
    Cognition, Learning, Emotion, and Memory will capitalize on our
    expertise in physiology, neuroanatomy, and behavioral studies, and will
    build on active studies that range from the molecular foundations of
    development and learning to the mental coding and representations of
    memory. The Center will encompass diverse research approaches,
    including mathematical and computational modeling, human subject
    psychological testing, use of experimental models, and
    electrophysiological, histological, and neuroanatomical techniques.
    Examples of the kinds of research that will be conducted are taken from
    our current research efforts, which are now dispersed in the
    departments of biology, chemistry, neural science, psychology, and
    computer science: Neural scientists are investigating the anatomical
    and physiological pathways by which memory can be enhanced; the
    conditions that facilitate long-term and short-term memory; and the
    brain sites where all these memories are processed and stored.
        Neural scientists, working with computational scientists, are using
    digital imaging to characterize normal and pathological mental
    processes in humans. Developmental biologists are studying the
    molecular basis of development and learning. Vision scientists are
    studying form, color and depth perception; visual identification; the
    varieties of visual memory; and the relationship of vision and
    perception to decision and action. Neural scientists are studying the
    neuroanatomy and physiology of emotion. Physicists are taking magnetic
    measurements of brain function that trace the decay of memories.
    Behavioral scientists are studying learning and motivation, acquisition
    of language, memory and aging. Neurobiologist and psychiatrists are
    conducting clinical studies of patients with nervous system disorders,
    especially memory disorders. These existing researchers are well
    recognized by their peers and have a solid track record of sustained
    research funding from federal agencies and private foundations.
        As we move through the last years of the ``Decade of the Brain,''
    NYU, through this new Center, is strategically positioned to lead and
    contribute to accomplishment of the goals of this important initiative.
    Establishment of this Center requires support to bring together
    investigators in the different disciplines that address cognition,
    learning, and memory. Centralized core resources are required to
    facilitate collaboration and add efficiency to the research and
    training functions. New faculty who specifically bridge the disparate
    areas of knowledge and expertise need to be hired and ``set up.''
    Support must be provided to attract students to this new area and to
    promote work in this area, especially for those from groups
    traditionally under represented in the sciences. While other academic
    institution are also conducting research into brain studies, New York
    University has special strengths in important emerging research
    directions that are central to this Subcommittee's priority areas. To
    elaborate, vision studies at NYU follow an integrated systems approach
    that has been shown to be the only successful approach to unraveling
    this complex system, and that has established NYU as an internationally
    known center for neuroscience studies in vision. The interest in
    vision, a key input to learning, is associated with focused studies on
    the learning process, particularly, the interaction with memory and
    behavior. These researchers are exploring hard and exciting questions:
    How does vision develop in infancy and childhood? How does the brain
    encode and analyze visual scenes? What are the neural mechanisms that
    lead to the visual perception of objects and patterns? How do we
    recognize letters and numbers? How do perceive spaces, depth, and
    color? How we does the brain move from vision and perception to
    planning and action? How does the brain process what we see?
        Advances in Biomedical and Behavioral Research.--Research conducted
    in our Center will by its nature address the loss of memory through
    aging or disease (including Alzheimer's), as well as disorders of
    emotional systems that commonly characterize psychiatric disorders.
    Many of the most common psychiatric disorders that afflict humans are
    emotional disorders--malfunctions in the way emotional systems learn
    and remember--and many of these are related to the brain's fear system.
    Neurobiological studies of emotion and emotional memory in the brain
    will generate important information about the brain systems that
    malfunction in, for example, anxiety, phobias, panic attacks, and post-
    traumatic stress disorders. Research into the brain mechanisms of fear
    will help us understand where our emotions come from, why these
    emotional conditions are so hard to control, and what goes wrong in
    emotional disorders. Ultimately, the research will generate clues for
    prevention and treatment of emotional disorders, focusing perhaps on
    the ways in which unconscious neural circuitry can in effect, be
    altered or inhibited.
        We are seeking $10 million for the advancement of this initiative.
    We believe that this project would be a very beneficial economic
    development initiative and we seek the support of the Subcommittee.
    Thank you for the opportunity to submit this testimony for the hearing
    record.
                                     ______

     Prepared Statement of Dr. Raymond E. Bye, Jr., Interim Vice President
                     for Research, Florida State University
        Mr. Chairman, thank you and the Members of the Subcommittee for
    this opportunity to present testimony. I would like to take a moment to
    acquaint you with Florida State University. Located in the state
    capitol of Tallahassee, we have been a university since 1950; prior to
    that, we had a long and proud history as a seminary, a college, and a
    women's college. While widely known for our athletics teams, we have a
    rapidly emerging reputation as one of the Nation's top public
    universities. Having been designated as a Carnegie Research I
    University several years ago, Florida State University currently
    exceeds $100 million per year in research expenditures. With no
    agricultural or medical school, few institutions can boast of that kind
    of success. We are strong in both the sciences and the arts. We have
    high quality students; we rank in the top 25 among U.S. colleges and
    universities in attracting National Merit Scholars. Our scientists and
    engineers do excellent research, and they work closely with industry to
    commercialize those results. Florida State ranks fourth this year among
    all U.S. universities in royalties collected from its patents and
    licenses, and first among individual public universities. In short,
    Florida State University is an exciting and rapidly changing
    institution.
        Mr. Chairman, let me describe three projects that we are pursuing
    this year--two through the Department of Commerce's National
    Telecommunications and Information Administration and one through the
    Economic Development Administration. Let me briefly describe these
    efforts.
    U.S. Department of Commerce: National Telecommunications and
            Information Administration
        Over the past several years, Florida State University has become a
    leader in distance learning options for students and adults. Many
    institutions across the nation are utilizing new distance learning
    courses and technologies. They are utilizing a variety of software and
    building infrastructure to provide materials to students who may or may
    not be physically located on that campus. FSU, however, has emerged as
    not simply an institution that utilizes these emerging technologies and
    models, but is at the forefront in developing and pioneering new
    approaches for us and others to employ.
        Because of this increasingly recognized expertise in this area, FSU
    is planning to submit a proposal to become a nationally designated
    demonstration site for distance learning and financial aid under the
    Department of Education's initiative. That initiative would call for
    the designation of 15 colleges or universities that would be challenged
    to explore ways to allow distance learning students to have access to
    financial aid. There is no funding for this project, but such
    designation would provide FSU with an additional avenue of support for
    our distance learning students.
        In addition to seeking the national designation discussed above,
    Florida State University will be involved in the upcoming
    Telecommunications and Information Infrastructure Assistance Program
    (TIIAP). This project would support the building of infrastructure to
    support distance or distributed learning. Our plan is to enhance public
    libraries throughout North Florida as sites for delivering computer
    literacy, continuing education, and academic course work as well as
    serving as a secure test site for distance courses. We would propose to
    partner with the Panhandle Library Access Network (PLAN) to take
    advantage of the computer linkages already in place between the nearly
    50 public libraries in the 14 northern Florida counties. We are seeking
    $825,000 for this effort in fiscal year 2000.
        Our second activity with the NTIA is our Digital Emergency
    Information Project. Florida State University (FSU) operates a number
    of radio and television services throughout the Florida Panhandle
    region. WFSU-FM and WFSQ-FM are both 100,000-watt public radio stations
    based in Tallahassee. WFSW-FM, also 100,000 watts, is the University's
    radio outlet in Panama City, Florida. WFSU-TV in Tallahassee and WFSG-
    TV in Panama City are the University's PBS affiliated television
    stations in those two markets. In addition, FSU also operates a cable
    channel on the Comcast Cable system in Tallahassee and Leon County.
    Broadcast Center staff also operate three satellite uplinks owned by
    the State as well as managing the State's satellite transponder.
    Through these stations, FSU serves nearly 600,000 households in North
    Florida as well as portions of southeast Alabama and southwest Georgia.
        Since 1995, FSU has attempted to deliver emergency information to
    these citizens as they have endured floods, hurricanes, tornadoes and
    wildfires. These experiences have not only enhanced our awareness of
    the need to pass on accurate information to the general public but has
    also strengthened the ties between the stations and Florida's
    Department of Emergency Management and their Emergency Operations
    Center (EOC). Because of the success of our broadcasts, the FSU
    stations have recently entered into an agreement to act as the
    television production entity for the EOC during emergencies.
        Like all television stations in the United States, the FSU
    broadcasting stations will be converting to digital broadcasting in the
    next few years. Switching from analog to digital broadcasting will be
    an exciting endeavor with great possibilities. The post-conversion
    ability of stations to broadcast High Definition Television (HDTV)
    pictures as well as six-channel CD quality sound will provide great
    advances such as the transmission of multiple Standard Definition
    Television signals at one time and the ability to broadcast data at
    very high rates of speed directly to computers. We believe this last
    aspect of DTV broadcasting holds enormous potential for enhancing
    public safety.
        FSU and their broadcasting stations recognize a genuine need for
    additional emergency services and propose a partnership with the
    Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to explore the possibility
    of broadcasting emergency information to FEMA field personnel and/or to
    the general public during emergencies in the stations' coverage area
    using this new technology. We believe that there can be great
    advantages in the ability to broadcast the latest information available
    directly to PC's using DTV at times when other telecommunications
    infrastructure may be inoperative. With FEMA's investment into this
    initiative, a partnership could be formed with the FSU stations and
    Florida's Department of Emergency Management to better serve the
    citizens of the North Florida area during a disaster, which could
    eventually be duplicated nationwide. This is a worthwhile project will
    save lives in the areas where implemented.
        We are requesting $600,000 in fiscal year 2000 for basic
    infrastructure costs for this initiative. The FSU stations are working
    with other Public Broadcasting entities in Florida to obtain funding
    from the Florida Legislature, as well as other entities, to meet the
    federally mandated DTV conversion.
    U.S. Department of Commerce: Economic Development Administration
        The third project I would like to discuss involves a joint
    initiative with Florida State University and the City of Tallahassee,
    Florida to develop a Economic Development Initiative with the Arts.
        Florida State University and the City of Tallahassee, FL propose to
    jointly seek funding to stimulate economic development in an area of
    Tallahassee that is adjacent to the FSU campus. The Frenchtown
    community, a redevelopment priority for the City of Tallahassee, is
    part of the City's urban revitalization effort.
        The vehicle for providing this boost to the economic revitalization
    of this area will be a performing arts center that will be housed on
    the edge of the FSU campus adjacent to the Frenchtown area. That area,
    once a thriving resource to the Tallahassee area has, in recent years,
    become a high crime area consisting of deteriorating buildings, empty
    lots and abandoned housing. Such a new facility would provide a
    location that would allow for over 400 performances a year with
    audiences drawn from the surrounding communities throughout the
    Panhandle region of Florida, and including portions of southern Georgia
    and western Alabama. Audiences for the Center's performances will be
    drawn to commercial establishments created as part of the Frenchtown
    Revitalization Project. Small shops and restaurants, immerging as part
    of this revitalization effort, would be the catalyst for further
    development and enhanced opportunities for residents.
        The City of Tallahassee and Florida State University will jointly
    seek funding for this economic development project with funding going
    toward site preparation, the necessary infrastructure including storm
    water facilities, and associated construction costs of such a Center.
    Private funds would be available to match the federal portion several
    times over. We will be requesting $3 million in fiscal year 2000 for
    this effort.
        Mr. Chairman, these activities discussed today are only a few of
    many at Florida State University that will make important contributions
    to solving some key problems and concerns our Nation faces today. Your
    support would be appreciated, and, again, thank you for an opportunity
    to present these views for your consideration.
                                     ______

       Prepared Statement of Hon. Sharpe James, Mayor, City of Newark, NJ
                    newark sports and entertainment project
        Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, thank you for giving
    us the opportunity to submit testimony about a project under your
    jurisdiction that is critical to the people of Newark, New Jersey.
    Newark is truly at a crossroads: we are a City with all of the problems
    of many major urban centers, but we are also a City with vast
    potential. We have begun to turn the corner--there is a renewed
    vitality and sense of optimism in Newark.
        A major economic development initiative that will create a
    professional sports and entertainment complex in downtown Newark is
    being planned by a consortium of private businesses, nonprofit
    representatives and the City administration. As this new economic
    development initiative is evolving from preliminary to concrete plans,
    there is a unique opportunity for an important downtown facility linked
    to a key transit hub. The synergy of a major occupant that is committed
    to investment in community development and opportunities for upgrading
    the center city retail and economic environment makes this an
    attractive and singular proposal.
        This project will use the attraction of a major league sports
    franchise to locate a state-of-the-art arena as a key cornerstone for
    development. The mission of this project is to harness the momentum
    initiated by the successful opening of the acclaimed New Jersey
    Performing Arts Center (NJPAC) in 1997, and create a vibrant, state of
    the art sports and entertainment district in downtown Newark. It will
    be a catalyst to the evolving creation of a vibrant downtown corridor--
    as development continues with strong anchors, integrating several
    elements. These include NJPAC, the Gateway complex of modern office
    buildings, the refurbished Newark Penn Station, a waterfront
    development along the Passaic River which is scheduled to begin
    construction by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers later this year, and a
    minor league baseball stadium where the Newark Bears will begin to play
    this summer. A new light rail system is in final design, and will
    ultimately be the spine along which these projects are arrayed.
        The Newark Sports and Entertainment Center master plan includes
    development of approximately 1.4 million square feet of office space.
    The preliminary plan consists of a covered multi-purpose sports arena
    with 19,000 seats, ancillary parking, a new television production and
    broadcast complex, up to 2 million square feet of new commercial and
    retail space, including hospitality facilities. The sports and
    entertainment center will provide superior access to a broad customer
    base, create sizable, measurable, bankable fiscal benefits for the
    taxpayers of New Jersey, and will, consistent with the commitment of
    the New Jersey State Plan, ``steer development from environmentally
    sensitive zones and back into urban areas.'' As the project creates a
    destination location--which will create new incremental spending--it
    will help to revitalize New Jersey's oldest and largest city and
    establish a new sports paradigm linking professional athletes to the
    youth of the state.
        The Newark Sports and Entertainment Center is expected to draw
    nearly two million people to the city each year. The estimate includes
    those attending sporting events, family entertainment shows like the
    circus, concerts and other attractions. In addition, the development of
    the Newark Sports and Entertainment Center will act as a catalyst to
    the increased demand for and opening of restaurants, shops, hotels and
    small service businesses that meet the needs of patrons. Local
    corporations, small businesses, city residents, and local employees are
    expected to benefit from the Newark Sports and Entertainment Center
    through improved quality of life, better entertainment and retail
    options for its current workforce, and improved job opportunities.
    Although the direct and indirect employment to be gained from this
    project is still the subject of further analysis, it can safely be
    estimated that at least 5,000 jobs in construction, ancillary services
    and direct employment will be created.
        A unique aspect and public benefit of this project is the
    establishment of a foundation to benefit inner-city youth in New
    Jersey. Community Youth Organization (CYO) has been formed by the
    largest investor in the ownership group of the NJ Nets. CYO will be a
    partner in the profits of the team, and is committed to investing its
    profits in children, people and businesses in Newark. This significant
    contribution responds to a documented need for activities that help at
    risk youth. The NJ Nets already sponsor a wide variety of community
    programs, including the Sprite Junior Nets League, Kids Stuff,
    basketball-court renovation programs, and a host of other charitable
    and holiday events. The proposed sports and entertainment center will
    likely include educational forums as well as television studios
    available for youth tours and programs.
        The total population of the region in a 25-mile radius of Newark--
    excluding New York--is 5,088,656, and includes New Jersey's five most
    populous cities. In an approximate 10 mile radius of Newark, the
    population is 2.1 million with a median family income of $54,683. This
    contrasts with Newark's population of 265,000 and median income of half
    that of residents in the 10 mile radius.
        Currently approximately 100,000 workers are located in Newark. A
    recent survey of Newark's mid-day population found 266,000 local
    residents, 52,000 non-resident workers and 24,000 non-resident
    students. The six colleges and universities in the city have over
    45,000 students and faculty. Newark is also home to major corporations,
    including Prudential Insurance, Continental Airlines, Blue Cross/Blue
    Shield of NJ and Public Service Electric and Gas. This concentration of
    people with discretionary income for entertainment and dining will be
    encouraged to use this significant purchasing power in the City of
    Newark.
        Fully one-quarter of the population of the country either lives
    within, or is easily accessible to Newark. We are only 8 miles west of
    New York City, within 100 miles of Philadelphia, and only a four hour
    drive or 1 hour flight away from Boston and Washington. Our location is
    enhanced by ready access to transportation connections, via rail, sea,
    air and nine major interstate and state highways. Newark's Penn
    Station, a stop on the Northeast Corridor for Amtrak as well as New
    Jersey Transit trains and buses from throughout the State, is only a
    short walk from the proposed sports and entertainment complex. There is
    an additional rapid and inexpensive rail connection to New York City
    via the train system known as the PATH. Newark International Airport,
    the ninth largest airport in the U.S. and one of the fastest growing in
    the country, serving 31 million passengers each year. It is now
    extremely close to downtown via automobile or bus, and will soon be
    directly accessible by a rail connection to the airport monorail
    system.
        Newark, however, also suffers from an unusually high number of tax
    exempt properties as the host community for the aforementioned large
    publicly operated facilities including six colleges, public hospitals,
    a major airport, ocean cargo handling and major water and waste
    management operations. The dearth of ratables has posed strain and
    hardship on the residents and homeowners of Newark. The city will
    immediately benefit by the presence of the Newark Sports and
    Entertainment Center, as it will pay property taxes on land that is
    currently city-owned or underutilized.
        The ownership group for a major league sports franchise has
    indicated the ability to contribute approximately $200 million of
    private funds toward the anticipated $300 million project cost. The gap
    in financing will be filled with a combination of tax-exempt revenue
    bonds (subject to debt limits), user fees and grants related to the job
    generating abilities and economic development potential of the project.
    The City plans to use proceeds from parking and hotel taxes to
    subsidize the project.
        Public funds are expected to be utilized for site acquisition and
    off-site infrastructure improvements. The project area includes a large
    tract of vacant land and underutilized buildings which has been
    declared an ``Area in need of Redevelopment'' under the Redevelopment
    statutes of the State of New Jersey. This Committee's endorsement of an
    allocation of $15 million in funding through the Economic Development
    Administration for site acquisition and project construction is
    respectfully requested.
        The consideration of this Subcommittee is deeply appreciated.
    Newark, New Jersey is looking forward to your support of this exciting
    project and its innovative partnership.
                                     ______

      Prepared Statement of Hon. Paula Delaney, Mayor, City of Gainesville
        The Depot Avenue Project includes the reconstruction of
    approximately two miles of Depot Avenue from SR 331 to US 441. The
    project includes the construction of two travel lanes, turn lanes,
    curbs, sidewalks and landscaped medians. Depot Avenue is located
    adjacent to the existing Depot Avenue Rail-Trail, which is an 8 inch
    wide asphalt trail. It alternately connects residential areas,
    commercial areas, and industrial land uses along its length. The
    redesign of the road will address these varying conditions and also the
    involvement of the neighborhood residents it serves.
        Depot Avenue traverses Gainesville from west to east, approximately
    one-half mile south of, and parallel to, SR 26 (University Avenue). Its
    western terminus is at the eastern edge of the campus of the University
    of Florida and its associated student housing development, and its
    eastern terminus is at SR 331 in Southeast Gainesville. It skirts the
    southern edge of downtown Gainesville at its mid-point, and its
    intersection with SR 329 (Main Street) is considered to be the southern
    ``gateway'' to Downtown.
        The Depot Avenue project provides linkages to the Depot Avenue
    Rail-Trail that links with the Waldo Road Rail-Trail, the proposed
    Downtown Connector Rail-Trail that links with the Gainesville Hawthorne
    Rail-Trail, and the proposed 6th Street Rail-Trail. It provides access
    to the Gainesville Regional Transit System (RTS) Transportation Center
    as well as the proposed Depot Avenue Stormwater Restoration Park, which
    is in the planning stages as the centerpiece of a U.S. EPA and Florida
    DEP-funded Brownfields pilot project.
        The City of Gainesville's RTS Transportation Center is located on
    the north side of Depot Avenue directly south of the core of Downtown
    Gainesville. The Transportation Center is a multi-modal transportation
    hub for the Regional Transit System, Greyhound, Amtrak and the Bicycle
    Commuter Facility. On the south side of Depot Avenue across from the
    RTS Center is the Old Gainesville Depot, which has been recently
    acquired by the City for restoration. The Old Gainesville Depot was
    built in 1907, and was placed on the National Register of Historic
    Places in 1996. The City of Gainesville was founded as a rail hub
    linking Fernandina Beach on the east coast of Florida to Cedar Key on
    the west coast in the mid-1800's and uses a train symbol as its
    official seal. The restoration of this building in conjunction with the
    restoration of the 22-acre Depot Park is expected to provide a major
    community destination and regional ``eco-tourism'' attraction for the
    community.
        The City's proposed 22-acre Stormwater Wetlands Restoration Park
    will serve as the stormwater management facility for the Depot Avenue
    Project as well as the Central City District portion of the watershed
    that is located upstream of the facility. The Old Gainesville Depot
    will be located within the park area and will provide for activities
    associated with redevelopment in the Depot Area, the Depot Park, the
    rail-trail system, and the RTS Transportation Center. The enhancement
    of Depot Avenue will encourage increased utilization of mass transit,
    bicycle and pedestrian modes of travel and increase accessibility to a
    major public heritage and recreation destination for the community.
        The enhancement of Depot Avenue will also provide infrastructure
    and improved access from downtown and the University of Florida area to
    the Porters Community, just west of SR 329 (South Main Street) and
    Southeast Gainesville. The Porters Community lies within Census Tract
    2, which extends north of University Avenue, and Southeast Gainesville
    lies within Census Tract 7. Census Tract 2 is approximately 37.7
    percent African American and Census Tract 7 is approximately 75.6
    percent African American (Census, 1990). Approximately 35.1 percent of
    all families in Census Tract 2 are in poverty and approximately 31.6
    percent of all families in Census Tract 7 are in poverty (Census,
    1990). The socio-economic conditions of these areas include high crime
    rates, sub-standard housing, and lack of services and investment. The
    enhancement of Depot Avenue provides the potential for increasing
    access to the higher employment areas of Gainesville, including
    downtown and the University of Florida, improving physical
    infrastructure, including drainage improvements, lighting and
    streetscaping, and providing bicycle and pedestrian facilities that
    connect both east and west Gainesville to Downtown.
        Along with the improvement of South Main Street, the Depot Avenue
    Project will provide for beautification, and encourage redevelopment
    and infill in the urban core of Gainesville and its adjacent areas.
    This enhancement will provide a region-based incentive for reducing
    sprawl development in the Gainesville Metropolitan Area by providing an
    alternative east-west corridor to SR 26 that allows for maximum use of
    alternative transportation. As a consequence, this project will
    increase mobility while minimizing pollution and congestion associated
    with the use of single occupant vehicles.
        The City's Electric Utility is in the process of designing a
    repowering plan for the historic Kelly Power Plant located adjacent to
    the Transportation Center, Depot Historic Structure and the Stormwater
    Wetlands Restoration Park. The planning firm of Dover, Kohl and
    Partners has recently completed a community-planning process held in
    conjunction with the repowering project. This community-planning
    process included the entire Depot Avenue area adjacent to Downtown. The
    City encourages citizen participation in the community-planning process
    and actively provides opportunities for participation in the planning
    of public infrastructure such as the Depot Avenue Project.
        The Depot Avenue Project will include property and right-of-way
    acquisition, design and construction activities at a cost of
    approximately $18.8 million. The Stormwater Wetlands Restoration Park
    includes property acquisition, design, remediation and construction
    activities at a cost of approximately $10 million.
        The consideration of this Subcommittee is greatly appreciated. The
    City of Gainesville looks forward to working with you further on this
    vital economic development initiative.
                                     ______

    Prepared Statement of Dr. Allen Soltow, Executive Director of Research,
      Sponsored Programs, and Governmental Relations, University of Tulsa
        Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for giving
    us the opportunity to submit testimony about a project under your
    jurisdiction that is of critical importance to the University of Tulsa.
        The University of Tulsa, in partnership with Kendall-Whittier
    neighborhood groups, the City of Tulsa, Tulsa Public Schools, and the
    Tulsa Development Authority has worked for over ten years to create a
    more safe environment and a better quality of life for residents in the
    Kendall-Whittier community. These efforts were greatly aided in the
    early stages by HUD special purpose grants and funds provided from the
    City of Tulsa. These funds allowed the City of Tulsa through the Tulsa
    Development Authority to purchase property on which a new neighborhood
    park and elementary school would eventually be placed. The property is
    located adjacent to the University of Tulsa campus. The location and
    design of the site were implemented according to a plan that was
    developed through a collaborative effort between the community
    residents and the previously mentioned organizations.
        The result of this collaborative effort has been the removal of
    blighted and deteriorated houses which has served to reduce the crime
    rate in the area, as well as stabilize and in some cases increase
    property values in the surrounding neighborhoods. The Kendall-Whittier
    Elementary School was completed and opened in the Fall of 1998 and
    children are now attending classes at the facility. However, two
    apartment complexes remain in the identified park and school site.
    These apartments continue to be a source of neighborhood safety
    concerns for children and the surrounding neighborhoods and as long as
    they remain they prevent the completion of the park and school site.
        Increased costs for acquisition and relocation have depleted the
    original funds for the Park and School site. It is critical that
    additional funding of approximately $1 million is secured so that the
    apartments located near the University of Tulsa campus and adjacent to
    Kendall-Whittier neighborhood park and elementary school can be
    immediately purchased and removed from the area. The two apartment
    complexes present immediate safety issues and crime problems for the
    park and school site as well as to the University.
        We thank you Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee for
    allowing us the opportunity to submit this testimony for the hearing
    record and we look forward to your support on this important
    neighborhood revitalization project.
                                     ______

    Prepared Statement of Tom Lewis, Director of Neighborhood and Community
                         Services, City of Tallahassee
        Mr. Chairman, thank you and the Members of the Subcommittee for
    this opportunity to present testimony to the Senate Commerce, Justice,
    State, and Judiciary Subcommittee on a very important economic
    development initiative in the City of Tallahassee, Florida.
        Mr. Chairman, let me describe the project that Tallahassee is
    pursuing this year. The City of Tallahassee, in a joint public-private
    economic development initiative with Florida State University, is
    pursuing a project to stimulate economic growth in the Frenchtown area
    of Tallahassee, which is also adjacent to the FSU campus. The
    Frenchtown community, a redevelopment priority for the City of
    Tallahassee, is part of the City's urban revitalization effort. The
    vehicle for providing this boost to the economic revitalization of this
    area will be a performing arts center that will be housed adjacent to
    the Frenchtown area. That area, once a thriving resource to the
    Tallahassee area has, in recent years, become a high crime area
    consisting of deteriorating buildings, empty lots and abandoned
    housing. Such a new facility would provide a location that would allow
    for over 400 performances a year with audiences drawn from the
    surrounding communities throughout the Panhandle region of Florida, and
    including portions of southern Georgia and western Alabama. Audiences
    for the Center's performances will be drawn to commercial
    establishments created as part of the Frenchtown Revitalization
    Project. Small shops and restaurants, emerging as part this
    revitalization effort, would be the catalyst for further development
    and enhanced opportunities for residents.
        The City of Tallahassee and Florida State University will jointly
    seek funding for this economic development project with funding going
    toward site preparation, the necessary infrastructure including storm
    water facilities, and other associated construction costs of such a
    Center. Funding for improvements to enhance transitional access across
    busy transportation routes will also be included. Private funds would
    be available to match this federal portion several times over. The City
    will be requesting $3 million for this effort.
        Mr. Chairman, the project described will make an important
    contribution to solving some key problems and concerns that we face
    today. Your support would be appreciated. Thank you again for this
    opportunity to present these views for your consideration.
                                     ______

        Prepared Statement of the Councils on Engineering and Codes and
           Standards of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers
        Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: The National
    Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Task Force of the Council
    of Engineering, and the Council on Codes and Standards, of the American
    Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME International), are pleased to
    have this opportunity to provide written testimony on the fiscal year
    2000 NIST budget request.
        Mechanical engineers have a long standing professional interest in
    the engineering, technology, and public-private partnership processes
    that influence the economic well-being of the nation. As innovators and
    designers of many of the systems and equipment used in NIST
    laboratories and facilities nationwide, the mechanical engineering
    community is well qualified to comment on the engineering and
    technology needs of NIST.
        ASME is a worldwide engineering society focused on technical,
    educational, and research issues. It conducts one of the world's
    largest technical publishing operations, holds some 30 technical
    conferences and 200 professional development courses each year, and
    sets many industrial and manufacturing standards. This testimony
    represents the considered judgment of the NIST Task Force and the
    Council on Codes and Standards, and is not necessarily a position of
    ASME as a whole.
        ASME has long supported the mission of NIST, which is to promote
    U.S. economic growth by working with industry to develop and apply
    technologies across a broad spectrum of areas appropriate for the
    civilian industrial sector, and to develop and maintain world class
    capabilities in metrology and standards. NIST's technical programs are
    unique because they foster government and industry cooperation through
    cost-sharing partnerships that create long-term investments based on
    engineering and technology. These programs are aimed at providing the
    technical support necessary to our nation's future economic health.
    Intramural Programs
        The fiscal year 2000 budget request would provide almost $285
    million for the Measurement and Standards Laboratories, a $9.3 million
    increase over the current fiscal year. The Task Force supports this
    increase. The laboratories provide U.S. industry with critical
    technical information through their work in developing new measurement
    methods, testing techniques, data evaluation, and standards. NIST
    laboratories also serve as the U.S. reference point for measurements
    with counterpart organizations throughout the world.
        The laboratories conduct important research and provide measurement
    services in many areas that are essential to mechanical engineering.
    These efforts will be enhanced by the $5.5 million proposed to fund
    three key initiatives: The first initiative aims to reduce standards
    and measurements-related market barriers that impede expansion of
    global trade. The second will focus on developing the tools and
    advanced capabilities necessary to protect critical components of the
    nation's information technology infrastructure. The third initiative
    will foster the professional development of science and mathematics
    teachers, from kindergarten through high school.
        For the laboratories to continue developing and providing the
    state-of-the-art measurements that underpin U.S. industrial
    performance, NIST requires facilities that will enable it to deliver
    the best possible measurement system. Unfortunately, many of the
    laboratory buildings on the NIST campus are obsolete and can no longer
    support advanced measurement research and services. The Task Force
    supports the request of $95 million for construction of the Advanced
    Measurement Laboratory on NIST's Gaithersburg, Maryland campus.
    Preparing for 21st century competition, our international economic
    rivals already are investing in upgrades of facilitates at their
    national measurement institutes.
    Extramural Programs
        The fiscal year 2000 budget request would provide $339 million for
    NIST's Extramural programs. These programs are true public/private
    partnerships that require cost sharing by the private sector and focus
    on investments that are expected to provide broad-based benefits to the
    economy. These programs, the Advanced Technology Program (ATP) and the
    Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP), are merit-based, and closely
    evaluated.
        The Task Force believes that the ATP and MEP are good for the
    nation's economic well being and the health of the U.S. science,
    engineering, and technology enterprise. The ATP provides cost-shared
    funding to industry for high-risk research and development projects
    with potentially broad-based economic benefits for the United States.
    The Task Force supports the President's request for an additional $41.2
    million in fiscal year 2000 for ATP to promote industry's ability to
    undertake technologically challenging initiatives that have broad
    economic promise. When combined with anticipated carryover and prior
    year recoveries, the request will permit approximately $73 million for
    new awards in fiscal year 2000.
        The Task Force also supports the $100 million request for the MEP,
    which will permit NIST to continue providing the federal share of
    funding needed to support an existing network of centers serving
    smaller manufacturers in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and
    Puerto Rico. The request includes $1 million to gather, promote, and
    effectively deploy best practices to all MEP centers. The overall MEP
    decrease of $7 million from the current fiscal year is due to the
    natural decline of the federal share of a center's operating costs as
    that center matures. Furthermore, the number of centers is not expected
    to change and the program will continue at essentially the same
    operating level.
        Cooperative technology programs such as the ATP and MEP have been
    powerful catalysts in bringing government, industry, and universities
    together to enhance the economic competitiveness of the nation. These
    programs are needed to improve the transfer of new discoveries in
    science and engineering to innovative technologies, global quality
    practice, and profitable manufacturing capabilities on the shop floor.
    Standards
        The Department of Commerce, working through NIST, continues to
    provide essential support to the private sector's efforts to assist
    federal agencies in meeting the provisions of The Technology Transfer
    and Advancement Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-113), which requires the
    federal government to use private sector voluntary consensus standards.
    In some cases this has proved to be a challenging enterprise for both
    the standards development organizations and the federal agencies.
    Although the process of converting from government standards to
    voluntary consensus standards is well underway, we continue to look to
    NIST and the congressional oversight committees to encourage this
    effort and to monitor the progress made to date.
        The ASME continues to support the Department's efforts to elevate
    U.S. participation in the international standards development process.
    To this end, we urge approval of the modest amount of funding included
    in the NIST fiscal year 2000 budget request for Export Promotion. This
    request, for $2 million, includes funding to assist the American
    National Standards Institute in meeting its obligations as the sole
    U.S. representative to the international standards bodies (ISO and
    IEC). Without adequate representation on these bodies, the nation's
    trade interests can be severely compromised.
        Thank you for your consideration of our views on the fiscal year
    2000 NIST budget request.
                                     ______

         Prepared Statement of the International Trademark Association
    Introduction
        Chairman Gregg, Ranking Member Hollings, and Members of the
    Subcommittee: The International Trademark Association (INTA) is pleased
    to submit a statement in support of the Clinton Administration's
    proposed appropriation for the United States Patent and Trademark
    Office (USPTO) in fiscal year 2000. In our opinion, all of the monies
    contained in the proposed $922 million operating budget are essential
    for the Agency to carry out its designated functions, meet the needs of
    its customers (patent and trademark owners), improve the quality of
    examinations, and plan for a future that is steeped in technology and
    global competition.
        We ask that Congress approve the President's request without
    amendment or diversion of funds to other government agencies and ensure
    that the USPTO receives all of the money it requires to satisfy the
    ambitious, worthwhile, and necessary agenda laid out by the Agency's
    leadership. In particular, we commend Acting Commissioner of Patents
    and Trademarks Q. Todd Dickinson and his staff for recognizing the
    value of America's intellectual property and the need to provide
    customers of the USPTO with prompt and efficient service of the highest
    quality.
    About INTA
        INTA is a 120-year-old not-for-profit membership organization.
    Since its founding in 1878, membership has grown from 17 New York-based
    manufacturers to approximately 3,700 members from the United States and
    119 additional countries.
        Membership in INTA is open to trademark owners and those who serve
    trademark owners. Its members are corporations, advertising agencies,
    professional and trade associations, and law firms practicing trademark
    law. INTA's membership is diverse, crossing all industry lines and
    spanning a broad range of manufacturing, retail and service operations.
    All of INTA's members, regardless of their size or level or
    international scope, share a common interest in trademarks and a
    recognition of the importance of trademarks to their owners, to the
    general public, and to the economy of the United States and the global
    marketplace.
    The USPTO--A Self-Funded Agency
        The USPTO is an agency within the Department of Commerce (DoC)
    which has two statutory functions: (1) processing patent applications
    and disseminating patent information; and (2) registering trademarks
    and disseminating trademark information.\1\ In carrying out these
    basic, yet essential, commercial functions, the USPTO promotes economic
    growth, consumer confidence, product safety, creativity, and
    innovation. On the world stage, the Agency has been instrumental in
    helping America secure a leadership role in the global marketplace
    through trade agreements and international treaties for the protection
    of intellectual property.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ United States, U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, Setting the
    Course for the Future: A Patent and Trademark Office Review--Fiscal
    Year 1995 (Washington, USPTO, 1996) 4.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        In the discussion concerning monies appropriated to the USPTO, it
    is important to remember that the Agency attends to its
    responsibilities without the assistance of a single penny of taxpayer
    money.\2\ This has been true since the passage of the Omnibus Budget
    Reconciliation Act (OBRA) of 1990.\3\ The money used to support
    operations, policy development, and long-range planning of the USPTO is
    provided solely by patent and trademark owners seeking the registration
    and maintenance of their intellectual property. The nature of this
    funding mechanism requires that the USPTO be operated in the same
    manner as a private sector business: reinvesting a significant portion
    of the money it makes in new ideas and technology in order to remain
    competitive, maintaining a ``nest egg'' in case of emergencies, and
    providing customers with quality service--essentially giving them ``the
    most bang for their buck.''
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ United States, General Accounting Office, Intellectual
    Property: Fees Are Not Always Commensurate With the Costs of Services
    (Washington: GAO, May,1997) 32.
        \3\ Public Law 101-508, 104 Stat. 1388 (November 5, 1990).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Goals for the USPTO--Fiscal Year 2000 and Beyond
        Success as a corporate-like entity cannot be achieved unless there
    are goals established and a plan by which those goals can be realized.
    Without a blueprint, there is an increased likelihood that funds raised
    through user-fees will be squandered or carelessly spent. INTA is
    pleased by the USPTO's development and planned implementation of goals
    which we believe are essential to furthering the cultivation of
    America's intellectual property infrastructure and to maintain this
    Nation's position in the global marketplace.
        In particular, we are encouraged by the Agency's renewed commitment
    to ``implement an integrated, agency-wide quality improvement program
    to satisfy customer needs.'' \4\ For trademarks, the USPTO acknowledges
    that it will expand its investment in new technology designed to
    improve searches and work with trademark owners to ``set and achieve''
    new standards of quality for examination of trademark applications.\5\
    Specific examples of new uses of technology include:
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \4\ United States, U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, Fiscal Year
    2000 Corporate Plan: Briefing for the International Trademark
    Association (Arlington, VA, February 16, 1999) 11.
        \5\ USPTO, Fiscal Year 2000 Corporate Plan: Briefing for INTA, 11.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
      --Submission of trademark applications and all follow-up papers via
            the Internet.
      --Correspondence electronically with trademark attorneys during the
            prosecution of their applications.
      --Timely and accurate reception of information related to changes in
            policies, processes, fees, etc.\6\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \6\ USPTO, Fiscal Year 2000 Corporate Plan: Briefing for INTA, 24.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        These advances in technology will result in greater speed and more
    efficient examination of trademark applications, a goal INTA has long
    advocated. The USPTO has committed to the trademark community to expend
    significant resources to achieve the following desirable results in
    fiscal year 2002 or sooner:
      --A reduction in the time to mail filing notices to 14 days.
      --First action pendency rate of 3.0 months (fiscal year 1998 = 7.2
            months, Goal for fiscal year 1999 = 3.9 months).
      --Final notice of registration rate of 13 months (fiscal year 1998 =
            17.8 months, Goal for fiscal year 1999 =15.5 months).
      --Issuance of a Notices of Abandonment within 45 days of the date the
            file is abandoned.
      --Mailing of Certificates of Registration within seven days of
            registration.
      --Centralization of the change of address functions.\7\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \7\ Department of Commerce, Fiscal Year 2000 Corporate Plan for the
    United States Patent and Trademark Office: Moving Into the 21st
    Century, Presidential Submission, February 3, 1999, 51; see also,
    USPTO, Fiscal Year 2000 Corporate Plan: Briefing for INTA, 27.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        There are other parts of the corporate plan that are worth
    mentioning. Specifically, the focus on customer/employee relations,
    another area which has been a cause for concern in the past. USPTO has
    committed to spend funds to improve trademark examiners' training (with
    an emphasis on matters of substantive trademark law) and communications
    with trademark applicants (for example, providing clear and concise
    answers to applicants and/or their counsel).\8\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \8\ DoC, Fiscal Year 2000 Corporate Plan for USPTO, 51-52.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        INTA believes the above listed goals are not only highly desirable,
    but also essential. The trademark operations within USPTO have
    requested $109,312,000 to make these goals a reality.\9\ Trademark
    owners endorse this particular aspect of the Agency's request and urge
    Congress to allocate those funds.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \9\ DoC, Fiscal Year 2000 Corporate Plan for USPTO, 53.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Carryover Funds
        Finally, INTA notes the request that the USPTO be permitted to
    carryover funds amounting to $159.8 million, in anticipation of
    unforseen matters that result in higher than expected expenditures or
    reduced revenue in upcoming budgets. On the one hand, this can be seen
    as setting aside funds for the future--something which we
    wholeheartedly support. However, we must deal with the realities of
    ``scoring,'' the congressional bookkeeping system (mandated by the
    Budget Enforcement Act) which states that legislated increases in
    direct spending or reductions in receipts in a functional category must
    be offset by other legislated reductions in direct spending or
    increases in receipts in that particular category.\10\ What ``scoring''
    means for the USPTO is that as a practical matter ``carryover'' funds
    may be inaccessible when the Agency's budget is incorporated into the
    larger functional category used by Congress.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \10\ The Budget Enforcement Act (BEA) was first enacted in 1990 and
    extended in 1993 and 1997. The 1997 extension can be found in H.R.
    2015, Report #105-217, 105th Congress.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The resolution to this situation, in our opinion, properly lies
    with the authorizing committees for the USPTO, that is, the Senate and
    House Judiciary Committees. During this Congress, we intend to propose
    legislation that would address this issue (comparable, for example, to
    the revolving fund designed for the ``passenger user fee'' used by the
    U.S. Customs Service, however, subject to this Subcommittee's oversight
    and appropriation). This would specify that the Agency could deposit
    and withdraw operating funds as needed (again within the limits set by
    Congress) without the obstacles created by the ``scoring'' process.
    Conclusion
        INTA once again wishes to thank Senators for this opportunity. We
    reiterate our support for the President's proposed appropriation for
    the USPTO in fiscal year 2000 and urge that Congress approve it without
    amendment or diversion of funds.
        Put simply, in a time when America's ideas and creativity are
    competing on a scale never before experienced, the federal agency
    charged with protecting those assets must be equipped with the
    necessary resources, financial and otherwise, in order to carry out
    that very task. INTA will continue to work with the USPTO's leadership
    to ensure that the Agency meets its stated goals. We welcome Congress'
    partnership in this important effort.
                                     ______

              Prepared Statement of the Sonoma County Water Agency
        Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to submit testimony to
    the Subcommittee on an issue of importance to the people of Northern
    California and the Nation.
        The Sonoma County Water Agency (SCWA) supports the inclusion of
    funds for the ``Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery Fund'' in the Commerce,
    Justice, State and Judiciary Appropriations bill for fiscal year 2000.
    For the reasons described below, the SCWA urges the Subcommittee to
    include funding for the initiative at a level of $200 million in fiscal
    year 2000, to be divided equally among the coastal states of
    California, Oregon, Washington and Alaska, for critical salmon recovery
    efforts in the four state region.
        As the members of the Subcommittee may know, several salmonid
    species in the region recently have been listed under the Endangered
    Species Act as endangered or threatened, thereby committing the federal
    government to the conservation and recovery of these species. SCWA is
    at the forefront of working with state and local interests throughout
    the four state region to ensure that we all work together to
    effectively utilize our resources, including state and local resources,
    to achieve this goal. We are committed to ensuring the proper
    coordination of federal, state, local, tribal and private resources
    dedicated to this important national policy of conserving endangered
    species.
        Recently, the governors of the four states wrote to the President
    in support of an annual $200 million appropriation, to be divided
    equally among the four coastal states, for each of the next six fiscal
    years, beginning in fiscal year 2000. The Administration has
    acknowledged the importance of providing federal funding to the four
    coastal states by including $100 million in its fiscal year 2000 Budget
    Request for salmonid protection efforts.
        As a water agency serving the people along the coast of California,
    we strongly support the efforts of the states of California, Oregon,
    Washington and Alaska to obtain federal funds for the protection of
    coastal salmonid species. Funding at the governors' requested level of
    $200 million is critical to create a partnership between state and
    local governments and the federal government. If appropriated, the
    federal funds will be used for local, science based salmon recovery
    projects, including: as a top priority, funding ``on the ground''
    projects that can help achieve immediate results in habitat protection;
    scientifically sound watershed assessments, and the development of
    corresponding watershed plans and projects prioritized based upon these
    assessments; implementing projects consistent with watershed plans;
    monitoring, evaluation and plan refinement; coordinating local
    government and community activities, as well as outreach and education
    in support of salmon protection; researching chronic near shore or
    estuarine impacts on salmon; and addressing regional biological factors
    that reduce salmon survival.
        We pledge to provide substantial local matching funds in order to
    make this process a true partnership. We also are committed to
    providing the innovative ideas and creative approaches to salmon
    protection which can only be generated at the state and local level by
    the people most affected by the decision.
        In our region, it is our intent to use the federal funds provided
    by the Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery Fund for such important purposes
    as: the purchase of conservation easements to protect and restore vital
    habitat and improve water quality in salmon-bearing rivers and streams;
    planting trees and other vegetation, culvert replacement, installation
    of fish ladders, stabilization of stream banks and other projects to
    restore salmon habitat and spawning grounds; mapping and assessing
    watersheds to determine the quality and quantity of existing habitat
    and to help target restoration activities; and monitoring the success
    of restoration activities to refine future local activities.
        In order to maximize the benefit of funds for fish protection,
    expending five percent or less of the funds for administrative costs
    would be optimal, particularly if costs related to in-kind services
    performed by local agencies are accounted for as part of the local
    match. Further, we believe accountability mechanisms can be put in
    place to ensure the effective expenditure of funds without the use of a
    federal oversight intermediary, such as the National Fish and Wildlife
    Foundation.
        Based on past experience, we believe that local leadership on
    salmon recovery projects is a critical element of any successful salmon
    protection program. We urge the Subcommittee to fund the governors'
    request of $200 million to fund salmon recovery efforts for fiscal year
    2000.
        Again, thank you for the opportunity to submit comments on this
    important national issue.
                                     ______

                     Immigration and Naturalization Service
    Prepared Statement of Christopher Nugent, Executive Director, Florence
                   Immigrant and Refugee Rights Project, Inc.
        The Florence Immigrant and Refugee Rights Project welcomes this
    opportunity to submit testimony to the Senate Subcommittee on Commerce,
    Justice, State Appropriations on the importance of live prehearing
    rights presentations to people detained by the Immigration and
    Naturalization Service (INS) for removal proceedings. With
    congressional financial support, the Department of Justice (DOJ), the
    INS and/or the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR-
    Immigration Court) could fund and institutionalize such prehearing
    rights presentations to all INS detained respondents. This cost-
    effective program would ensure detained respondents' due process rights
    and access to justice in their immigration cases while maximizing
    efficiency for INS and EOIR.
        Founded in 1989, the Florence Immigrant and Refugee Rights Project
    is a not-for-profit legal service organization assisting immigrants,
    asylum-seekers and even United States citizens detained by the INS for
    removal proceedings in the isolated areas of Florence and Eloy,
    Arizona. Holding an estimated 9 percent of the detained population
    nationwide at any given time, the INS detention facilities in Florence
    and Eloy process approximately 1,500 people per month through complex
    removal proceedings at on-site Immigration Courts. Last year alone, our
    project provided legal services to thousands of people detained from
    over 50 countries.
        Our project has become known nationally for its ``Justice and
    Efficiency Model,'' a unique legal service delivery system which
    ensures detained people's due process in their immigration cases while
    maximizing efficiency for the INS and EOIR. In Florence, in cooperation
    with the INS and EOIR, we perform a live, energetic, 45-minute know-
    your-rights presentation for all detainees before court where we inform
    them about their rights and remedies from removal; screen them for
    their relief and bond eligibility; provide legal advice and pro se
    assistance; and represent or refer detainees with meritorious claims
    for relief.
        It has been our experience that the assistance of counsel is
    essential for clients to access procedural and substantive justice in
    removal proceedings. Consider, for example, the case of Mr. G., a 25
    year-old Gulf War veteran who was recently in removal proceedings in
    Florence. His father is an U.S. citizen who served for many years in
    the U.S. armed forces, and his mother is a native of Mexico and legal
    permanent resident. Born in Mexico, Mr. G. acquired permanent residence
    in the United States as an infant but never applied for U.S.
    citizenship through the naturalization process. Mr. G. lost his green
    card and, after a brief trip to Mexico, told an INS official at the
    border that he was a U.S. citizen. He was prosecuted and, misadvised by
    his federal defender, he pled guilty to the offense of making a false
    claim to U.S. citizenship. INS then placed him in removal proceedings.
    Although he had always believed he was a U.S. citizen through his
    father, Mr. G. had no information as to how to present his claim.
    Indeed, the proof requires evidence that his father had lived in the
    U.S. for ten years before Mr. G's birth, a difficult feat since his
    father had been estranged from the family for many years, and they
    thought he had died.
        Through our assistance, Mr. G. successfully proved his claim to
    U.S. citizenship through his father, and removal proceedings were
    terminated. Had it not been for our prehearing rights presentation,
    screening, and representation, it is highly probable that this United
    States citizen would have been removed to Mexico. Mr. G's experience is
    typical of the thousands of detainees we serve who need orientation and
    assistance in their claims for relief from removal given the complexity
    of immigration law and removal proceedings.
        The U.S. Senate, INS, the immigration courts and other governmental
    agencies have all recognized the need and utility of basic legal
    assistance to individuals in INS custody. Evidence of this support
    includes Senator DeConcini's letter supporting the Florence Project
    (Nov. 14, 1994); Senate Resolution 284 (Oct. 8, 1994); the U.S.
    Commission on Immigration Reform Final Report and Recommendations
    (Sept. 1997); Letter from INS Associate Commissioner Joan Higgins (Mar.
    7, 1994); Letter from Officer in Charge, Florence INS Processing Center
    (May 5, 1998); Letter from Michael Creppy, Chief Immigration Judge
    (Aug. 5, 1997); Letter from Immigration Court Judges in Florence (May
    6, 1998); General Accounting Office 1992 Report (June, 1992).
        From September to December, 1998, we implemented a modest one-time
    pilot grant from the Department of Justice to demonstrate the
    efficiency and effectiveness of prehearing rights presentations and
    counseling on reducing time in detention and decreasing detainee
    anxiety and disturbances.
        During the three month period of implementation, the Florence
    Project conducted a total of 92 rights presentations and prehearing
    services for a total of 1,012 respondents the day of and before their
    first hearing. As a measure of efficiency and effectiveness, 793 of
    1,012 (78 percent of the total) who heard the rights presentation and
    were identified by our staff as having no form of relief from removal
    (besides voluntary departure) accepted removal (or voluntary departure)
    at their first master calendar hearing. This shows the rights
    presentation's real impact on respondents in understanding their lack
    of relief and quickly conceding removability, thereby freeing up
    precious court and INS time. The breakdown of the remaining 219, 22
    percent of the total, who asked for another master calendar hearing so
    that they could have a confidential individual interview with the
    Florence Project is further measurable evidence of our contribution to
    the time-efficient administration of proceedings. A total of 100 had
    actual or potential claims to relief clearly warranting the scheduling
    for another hearing and the majority of the remainder were Central
    Americans who secured another hearing given the uncertainty over
    removal to countries adversely affected by hurricane Mitch.
        The respondents we ultimately represented reveal an average of only
    33.8 days in proceedings from their first hearing to the conclusion of
    proceedings in detention. This statistic should dispel the myth that
    representation by counsel unreasonably complicates or protracts the
    proceedings with needless scheduling of additional hearings.
        As measures of effectiveness, the Project entered for and
    represented 86 individuals at bond redetermination hearings with
    underlying forms of relief to pursue. This represents 53 percent of the
    total 163 respondents scheduled for bond hearings without counsel. The
    Project also identified and counseled 100 respondents with actual or
    potential relief, the majority of whom bonded out and changed venue to
    pursue their claims before another immigration court.
        Finally, through the rights presentation, we surfaced respondents'
    eligibility for a wide variety of meritorious claims including U.S.
    citizenship; asylum and withholding of removal; cancellation of
    removal; Nicaraguan and Central American Relief Act relief; American
    Baptist Churches (ABC) relief; naturalization; termination based on
    when removability/admissibility charges could not be sustained;
    unconstitutional, illegal race-based border patrol stops; and the
    applications of time-bars against arriving aliens. During
    implementation, we represented a total of 15 individuals in their
    merits hearings in addition to 8 motions to terminate or
    administratively close proceedings, 28 percent of all respondents'
    merits hearings in Florence.
        Given the successful results from this pilot project, we believe
    that it is the larger public interest for Congress to consider
    providing funding to non-profit organizations for rights presentations
    as a streamlined legal service delivery program at all places where INS
    detains individuals. Basic prehearing rights presentations and
    counseling not only render removal proceedings more efficient for the
    INS and Immigration Court but further ensure due process and access to
    justice, as constitutionally required. Such assistance protects the
    integrity of the adjudication process and deters detainees from
    pursuing meritless claims, appeals and post-removal litigation, thereby
    saving taxpayer expenditures on INS and Court time and the cost of
    detention.
        EOIR, INS and numerous officials who have visited the Florence
    Project can attest to the benefits EOIR and INS derive through the
    Project's rights presentation model, which provides some legal
    assistance to all detained people in removal proceedings. On a local
    level, INS has recognized that our particular approach of providing
    information, counseling and representing detained respondents benefits
    the INS by decreasing respondents' anxiety and security risks while
    facilitating their valid claims for relief in the removal process.
    Additionally, in January, 1999, American Bar Association President Phil
    Anderson visited the Florence Project and Florence INS detention center
    and highlighted the Project as a model immigrant rights project setting
    a national standard for legal service. He also praised the INS
    detention center as the best in the country as it operates in strict
    compliance with the Detention Standards. He called for the replication
    of the Florence Model at other sites.
        Federal support for legal rights presentations including follow-up
    legal counseling services would be timely and consistent with
    congressional will to make INS processing in detention a cornerstone of
    U.S. immigration policy. Since 1996, INS has swelled its detained
    population by nearly 70 percent to some 16,000 detained at any one time
    nationwide. It is further anticipated that the detained population can
    grow up to 35,000. Without the right to government-appointed counsel in
    removal proceedings, an estimated 90 percent of detained respondents
    ultimately go unrepresented due to poverty and the remote locations of
    detention sites.
        With increased immigration enforcement, expanded INS-police
    collaboration, and INS' vigorous enforcement of stricter grounds of
    removal under the Immigration and Nationality Act legal service
    providers and bar associations' pro bono efforts are underfunded and
    lacking personnel to adequately serve the growing numbers of detained
    respondents without additional federal support. It is due time to forge
    a public-private-non-profit partnership to ensure effective legal
    service delivery to detained respondents. Federal funding for rights
    presentations including prehearing service delivery would enable non-
    profit organizations to use private foundation and other resources to
    fund representation of respondents in their merits cases.
        As many United States citizen family members of respondents can
    attest, federal support for a minimum level of legal assistance to
    detained respondents is in the public interest to ensure that people
    detained by INS are not deprived of their rights to relief as a result
    of their unfamiliarity with immigration law, the expedited pace of
    removal proceedings and a lack of access to legal information and
    counsel. Federal support also would further INS' stated policy to treat
    all aliens in custody with dignity and respect. Finally, federal
    support for rights presentations would contribute to the efficiency and
    effectiveness of removal proceedings, thereby decreasing costs to INS
    and EOIR in detention time and numbers of hearings of individual
    respondents.
        We encourage any member of this Subcommittee to visit EOIR and INS
    detention facility in Florence to see first-hand the benefits of the
    Florence Justice and Efficiency Model. We thank you for your thoughtful
    consideration of our comments.
                                     ______

    Prepared Statement of the American Federation of Government Employees,
                                    AFL-CIO
        Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee: Thank you for the
    opportunity to present our views. The American Federation of Government
    Employees, AFL-CIO, represents 600,000 federal workers across the
    nation, including 20,000 workers in the Immigration and Naturalization
    Service (INS), and 26,000 workers in 97 federal prison facilities
    nationwide.
                     immigration and naturalization service
        The provision directing the Attorney General to impose disciplinary
    action, including termination of employment, pursuant to policies and
    procedures applicable to employees of the Federal Bureau of
    Investigation, for any INS employee who willfully deceives the Congress
    or department leadership on any matter is highly problematic. First,
    this provisions should not be applied to bargaining unit employees, who
    are covered under the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978. Second, the
    agency's proposed implementation of this provision for fiscal year 1999
    excludes members of the Senior Executive Service (SES). By excluding
    SES employees and including bargaining unit employees the policy is
    topsy-turvy. SES employees--the very group of INS management whose
    misrepresentations about the Miami facility to members of Congress gave
    rise to the instant language--are exempt from the applicable
    procedures. Whereas bargaining unit employees--the same group of
    employees who exposed the sham to Congress--are subject to the more
    drastic procedures. Moreover, the proposed implementation also defines
    ``department leadership'' to include all the members of the SES,
    including numerous field managers, within the INS.
        The proposal to allow the Attorney General to transfer funds
    between the ``Enforcement and Border Affairs'' and ``Citizenship and
    Benefits, Immigration Support and Program Direction'' programs is ill-
    advised, and should be eliminated.
        Congress has mandated that 1,000 additional Border Patrol Agents be
    hired. We disagree with the INS's request to not implement that
    mandate; we support increasing staff for the Border Patrol. We also
    support the Congress' actions to improve the INS enforcement
    effectiveness via the establishment of small and geographically
    dispersed offices to provide greater responsiveness to local law
    enforcement agencies. We would recommend that the Congress take a
    similar approach to interior enforcement as it has with the Border
    Patrol. Specifically, the Congress should mandate the hiring of several
    hundred additional Special Agents in geographically dispersed offices
    over the next several years. We also believe the Congress should direct
    the INS to increase efforts to prevent fraud in the granting of
    immigration benefits by increasing the numbers of Agents assigned to
    work fraud cases.
        The $48.1 million allocated for construction, repair, and
    renovation of Border Patrol facilities is inadequate. INS has roughly
    doubled in size in the past ten years, and much of that growth has
    occurred in the Border Patrol. Many of the existing facilities,
    however, were only designed to accommodate a fraction of the currently
    assigned employees. With regard to effective enforcement strategies,
    AFGE strongly believes the ``prevention through deterrence'' Border
    Control Strategy has been ineffective and no funds should be
    appropriated to support this strategy (which literally has staff sit in
    one place as a means of preventing illegal immigration rather than
    actively patrolling and monitoring our border).
        We believe Congress should increase funding for our Immigration
    Inspections program at ports of entry. While this program must never
    surrender its sensitivity toward its service function, it has of
    necessity been effective in the Service's law enforcement efforts. More
    than 5,000 Immigration Inspectors now perform a full range of law
    enforcement functions. These effective employees are neither properly
    compensated in terms of their grades nor in terms of their retirement
    coverage. We urge the Congress to consider extending the provisions of
    law enforcement retirement programs (5 U.S.C. Sec. 8336(c) and 5 U.S.C.
    Sec. 8412(d)) to include Immigration Inspectors.
        Key to effective enforcement strategies has been the multi-lingual
    skills of Border Patrol and other INS enforcement officers. Congress
    recognized the importance of foreign language skill when it passed the
    Federal Law Enforcement Pay Reform Act of 1990 (Public Law 101-105),
    which authorizes agencies to pay a foreign language differential of up
    to five percent of basic pay to any law enforcement officer who
    possesses and makes substantial use of one or more foreign languages in
    the performance of official duties. Such payments should be included
    with regular salary payments on a bi-weekly basis in order to ensure
    that multi-lingual employees are fairly compensated for the skills they
    bring to the enforcement of immigration laws. The INS has failed to and
    refuses to compensate its employees who use foreign language fluency in
    the performance of their official duties. AFGE urges the Congress to
    include in the agency's budget appropriations for foreign language pay
    differentials.
        The INS continues to ignore the recommendation of the National
    Performance Review to reduce by half the percentage of its employees
    who are supervisors. The INS proposed budget would allocate significant
    amounts of money to promoting large numbers of additional supervisors.
    This approach decreases considerably the number of personnel available
    to actually enforce our nation's immigration laws and runs counter to
    the sound requirement of reducing employee to supervisor ratios. AFGE
    urges the Subcommittee to take action to ensure that INS uses its
    resources for increasing front line staff not added levels of
    management.
                 federal prison system--bureau of prisons (bop)
        The Administration requests $3.8 billion for the BOP. AFGE fully
    supports this budget request. As in previous years, however, we would
    like to address some important issues facing the employees of the
    federal Bureau of Prisons.
        The fiscal year 1996 appropriations created the first privatized
    long term federal prison. This prison is a government-owned contractor-
    operated facility under a five-year pilot project. Since its opening,
    the true cost of the prison has been underestimated by Wackenhut
    Corrections and the BOP because many costs are not being factored in.
    The transportation of inmates, regional and central office support,
    caps on medical expenses, are all costs and issues that should be
    carefully scrutinized before the BOP pursues any further privatization
    efforts of housing long term federal prisoners.
        Overcrowding is again on the rise in the federal prison system.
    Fiscal year 1998 saw an increase in inmate populations to almost 30
    percent overcrowding. Although we have continued to build prisons, the
    level of overcrowding has not subsided due to minimum-mandatory
    sentences and drug charges. By our own Director's statement, the Bureau
    of Prisons inmate population has increased at the highest rate since
    1990.
        The BOP also has the difficult task of absorbing 7,000 District of
    Columbia Department of Corrections inmates from the Lorton, VA complex.
    This is being accomplished in accordance with the DC Revitalization Act
    of 1997. This specific added mission increases BOP's costs and further
    adds to the overcrowding of federal facilities. We accept this
    challenge, but must have the resources and flexibility necessary to
    control this influx of inmates safely.
        Our bargaining unit members working in the BOP want to do their
    jobs to the best of their ability. Working in a hostile environment
    with inmates, however, requires proper staffing levels. Although
    Congress funded BOP at a higher appropriations level than the BOP
    requested, our line staff levels remain inadequate. The BOP has
    determined that institutions will be funded at 89 percent to 92.5
    percent. The Central and Regional offices are holding back funding to
    institutions that are overcrowded, which can only increase inmate
    hostility, short-hand staff, and jeopardize the safety and security of
    federal prisons.
        Last year's escapes and riots at the privately prison in
    Youngstown, Ohio and the debacles of prisoner abuse, escapes and
    assaults on officers at the privately operated facilities in Texas, New
    Jersey, Florida and Oklahoma demonstrate that the government run
    federal prisons provide the public with the best prison system in the
    world at a reasonable cost. By best, we mean our system houses the most
    dangerous inmates, does so securely, safely, and humanely and prepares
    inmates for productive release into public society.
        The Clinton Administration continues to make a calculated effort to
    increase police officers' on the street by 100,000 positions.
    Similarly, an increase in Border Patrol and other INS agents, which
    AFGE supports, is resulting in larger inmate populations. In doing so,
    correctional professionals must also keep pace to deal with the
    increasing inmate populations resulting from this initiative. It is a
    questionable practice to decrease correctional staff, while increasing
    police officers and federal agents who make more apprehensions per
    year.
        AFGE urges this subcommittee to resist riders to bills placing
    unnecessary and dangerous prison reform in this type of legislation.
    Full hearings should always be held on the effects of so called ``No
    Frill's Legislation'' which effect staff adversely who work in the most
    dangerous environment of any occupation.
        AFGE appreciates the opportunity to offer these comments. Thank you
    for your time and attention.
                                     ______

                National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
         Prepared Statement of Gary A. Glenn, President, Massachusetts
            Foundation for Excellence in Marine and Polymer Sciences
        ``Marine Electronics'' is a term which describes the instruments,
    devices, machines, and software which are widely used in various
    oceanic and marine applications: military, petroleum and minerals
    exploration, recreational, oceanographic, commercial, and
    environmental. The availability of accurate and reliable marine
    electronics is essential to the operations of each of these pursuits.
    However, in the case of environmental operations--research, management,
    protection and enhancement--major advances are needed in availability
    of appropriate instruments for tasks such as measuring water quality
    and determining the level and source of pollutants and toxins.
    Need for a Renewed Marine Electronics Agenda
        In the 1980's, with strong support from Congress, the National
    Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) sponsored research on a
    National Marine Electronics Agenda for the United States. With
    additional support provided by various states, and utilizing research
    capacities at notable and respected oceanographic institutions, this
    NOAA-sponsored effort stimulated substantial growth in the United
    States marine electronics industry. Specific recommendations for
    private sector product development, and a clear statement of goals for
    governmental agencies in terms of research priorities was established.
    Thus, the marine electronics industry has contributed in major ways to
    oceanographic research, military supremacy at sea, and more efficient
    exploration, discovery and retrieval of undersea resources. However,
    the end of the Cold War has substantially changed the setting for
    commercial survival and growth in the marine electronics sector: new
    opportunities exist for utilization of previously classified
    instruments developed for military use, and similarly, new challenges
    to U.S. competitive standing have emerged from the European community.
    Concurrently, environmental applications have become even more
    important. The need now is for a new and renewed Marine Electronics
    Agenda with specific attention to environmental issues.
    Urgent Problems in Marine Environmental Monitoring, Research and
            Enhancement
        Despite more than two decades of public consciousness of the
    dangers of marine environmental degradation, the situation in many
    respects is worse today than it was 20 years ago. We see significant
    new environmental problems such as the huge ``dead zone'' in the Gulf
    of Mexico, the outbreak of pfiesteria epidemics along the mid-Atlantic
    coast, and newly detected toxicity in Pacific marine waters. Also, the
    governmentally-mandated reduction in U.S. commercial fishing quotas
    substantially reduces an essential source of oceanographic
    environmental information, which has been available because of
    cooperation from U.S. commercial fishermen. These circumstances
    underscore the need for more effective monitoring of marine
    environments, and for instruments and devices that can accurately
    measure progress toward improvement of water quality and reduction of
    pollution. The Marine Electronics Agenda for Environmental Applications
    will help to define instrumentation needs that will exist in the long
    term, and identify the measures that need to be taken immediately to
    initiate the process. These guidelines will be appropriate for U.S.
    government agencies involved in marine activities as well as for the
    private sector.
    Local Community and Educational Needs
        Paralleling the determination of long term environmental marine
    electronics needs is an immediate need on the part of local
    communities, small towns, counties, and coastal jurisdictions,
    including school and water districts, for low cost, reliable and
    resilient marine electronics applications and local environmental
    monitoring. Traditionally, local entities have relied on centralized
    agencies for information on local conditions, but research now shows
    that these conditions are too varied for generalized and centralized
    analysis. Many local jurisdictions must take on measurement and
    mitigation tasks themselves, and they require the means to carry out
    these functions accurately. The Marine Electronics Agenda for
    Environmental Applications will focus on what kinds of low cost devices
    can be designed and produced for these uses and what standardized
    criteria/parameters should be applied in measurements.
    Research Partnership
        The design, development, and implementation of the Marine
    Electronics Agenda for Environmental Applications will be carried out
    by a team of experts and scholars drawn from research institutions and
    university centers in Massachusetts and Hawaii. The Massachusetts
    experts will focus on environmental needs in the Atlantic Ocean and
    Gulf of Mexico regions, while the Hawaii experts will concentrate on
    environmental degradation issues relevant to Pacific and island
    conditions. The Agenda program will be carried out via a collaboration
    between the Massachusetts Foundation for Excellence in Marine and
    Polymer Sciences and the Partners in Development of Hawaii.
    Costs
        Costs for design, planning, and carrying out of targeted research,
    and writing of the Agenda, including the convening of a broadscale
    Marine Instrumentation Panel consisting of experts from government and
    the private sector who will refine the draft Agenda, will be $775,000
    in fiscal year 2000.
        We request the Committee's assistance in appropriating these funds
    as part of the fiscal year 2000 NOAA appropriation.
                                     ______

      Prepared Statement of Dr. Michael M. Crow, Executive Vice Provost,
                              Columbia University
        Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for this
    opportunity to submit a statement for the hearing record for fiscal
    year 2000 funding for the Office of Global Programs (OGP) within NOAA
    of the Department of Commerce.
    International Research Institute (IRI)
        My statement concerns the International Research Institute for
    Climate Prediction (IRI), a joint initiative between Lamont-Doherty
    Earth Observatory of Columbia University and the Scripps Institution of
    Oceanography at the University of California-San Diego. The IRI will be
    in the third year of a cooperative agreement with NOAA to develop long-
    range forecast models and capabilities related to major climate
    patterns and events on a world-wide scale. The IRI focuses on the
    following activities: works with an extensive network of existing
    research centers around the world to provide a multi-national ``end-to-
    end'' climate prediction program on seasonal-to-interannual time
    scales; provides forecasting and regional assessments of changing
    physical conditions (e.g., temperature and rainfall); and provides the
    application of forecasts to support practical decision making in
    critical sectors like water resources, agriculture, fisheries,
    emergency preparedness and public health and safety.
    Recent Funding
        This Subcommittee has been at the forefront in providing increases
    for NOAA's Office of Global Programs (OGP): Columbia and Scripps extend
    sincere appreciation to this Subcommittee for the fiscal year 1999
    resources that fully funded NOAA's OGP request for the first time, plus
    the additional funding directed toward IRI-related activities. While
    the IRI will be level funded (at $6 million annually) for the next
    fiscal year, the efforts of NOAA, the IRI and other cooperating
    institutions have resulted in greatly improved lead time and capability
    in understanding Earth's complex climate system.
        Our capability could still be improved. The climate-driven events
    of the past five years have caused tremendous chaos and destruction.
    This accentuates the need for continued improvement in predictive
    ability. The back-to-back occurrence of a 100-year El Nino (1997-1998)
    followed by a 50-year La Nina (1998-1999) demonstrates the volatility
    of the world's climate, and the vulnerability of humanity to climatic
    aberrations.
        The OGP request of $69.7 million represents NOAA's recognition that
    additional data is crucial to improved forecasting. The OGP request
    also addresses the need to understand the role of climate events other
    than ENSO that affect climate. Columbia University and the IRI strongly
    support the approval of the OGP budget request.
    Support for the NOAA/OGP Budget
        Through the funding provided in fiscal year 1999, NOAA and the
    regional forecasting centers have reached a level of competency that
    permits the underlying science to be pushed to the next stage. NOAA's
    OGP budget request represents a significant component of that next
    stage. Recognizing that the IRI has a unique role as NOAA's climate
    forecasting partner, the IRI has developed and is launching a program
    component complementary to NOAA's. Advanced forecasting, coupled with
    impact assessment and analysis in specific sectors, is warranted by
    recent climate events and needed for the near-term future. The IRI
    initiative can justify and defend an increase of $3 million above the
    OGP Budget for a total of $72.7 million in fiscal year 2000.
    NOAA's Fiscal Year 2000 Budget for OGP
        The requested OGP increase of $6.7 million is comprised of two
    elements: (a) $3.1 million for three projects oriented on decadal-to-
    centennial time scales: conducting field studies on the North American
    carbon sink, studying tropospheric ozone in the Northern Hemisphere and
    its role as a climate forcing agent, and learning about the causes and
    trends of extreme weather events and their link with climate
    variability and climate change; and (b) $3.6 million would be used to
    enhance current seasonal-to-interannual climate predictive capacity in
    terms of ENSO forecasting and the monitoring of as-yet unstudied
    climate cycles affecting the U.S. in the North Pacific and North
    Atlantic oceans. These extramural competitive grants would focus on
    monsoonal circulation system, and would provide essential date and
    systemic understanding in order to forecast weather and climate
    variability at longer lead times and project their impact at regional
    levels.
    Justification for $3 Million Increase to Fiscal Year 2000 OGP Funding
        The IRI develops long range forecasts for NOAA on climate change.
    IRI modeling incorporates international and domestic data and modeling
    in conducting long range forecasts and the interpretation of impact. As
    NOAA and other scientific institutions develop greater capacity and
    understanding, the IRI can provide more accurate, longer range
    forecasts. The IRI is now developing projects that focus on three
    applications areas related to long range predictions: Water,
    Agriculture, and Health. This initiative complements and supports
    NOAA's planned fiscal year 2000 enhancements: The IRI will support the
    concurrent NOAA projects through the development of specific
    applications models that focus on climate variability and impacts in
    the three areas discussed below.
    Water
        Water and Air are the two most important compounds for the
    sustenance of human existence. The IRI's mission focuses on water as a
    climate agent and water as a resource.
        Water availability is determined by weather and climate. Dependence
    on water, for human use, commerce, and agriculture is predicated on
    usually reliable annual averages. The reliance on water and its
    expected availability do not factor extreme climate driven variations
    into annual planning. As more is learned about the interdependence of
    extreme climate events and their world-wide effects and implications,
    we can factor long range predictions on water availability as a
    function of these events into preparatory and prescriptive actions that
    will minimize the disruption an otherwise major climate anomaly could
    cause.
        Water use has tremendous applications in society today.
    Hydroelectric power depends on a stable and predictable source of water
    at all times. Human use depends on stable supplies of potable drinking
    water and water for food preparation, hygiene, and for medical
    purposes. Agriculture, as an industry, depends on the time sensitive
    supply of water for seeding and growing. Industrial requirements for
    water range from manufacturing to construction. Transportation needs,
    apart from barge or river traffic, consume large amounts of water and
    depend heavily on water availability.
        For these reasons, the IRI has developed an application project
    that concentrates on climate-caused variations in water availability,
    from the very broad to the very local, or regional, impact. The large
    database requirements and extremely complex calculations inherent in
    water modeling require extraordinary computing capability. Of the $3
    million increase sought, $1 million would be used to acquire the
    sophisticated computer capability that enables researchers to develop
    water modeling to a higher level of accuracy. The benefits of this
    development will be seen in every aspect of man's interaction with the
    environment. Long range predictive capability coupled with prescriptive
    courses of action to accommodate and counteract the destructive impacts
    of climate events on water availability will result in more efficient
    use of resources, prevent disruption in major capital markets, and
    minimize human suffering and death.
    Agriculture
        U.S. agriculture is the most vulnerable domestic industry to
    extreme climate variation. Genetically designed food and feed crops
    (corn, wheat, and soybeans) and fruits and vegetables are so refined
    that the slightest variation in water supply can destroy a season's
    product. With advance knowledge of the type and nature of a major
    climate event, appropriate steps can be taken to protect agricultural
    products and investment from suffering adverse effects due to extreme
    climate events. This applies not only to the interrelated water
    availability model for reservoir and irrigation purposes, but also in
    the decisions concerning which seed strains to use at planting and when
    the most advantageous planting time might be in a particular year.
        Foreign demand for U.S. agricultural products has a direct impact
    on commodity prices and farm income. If foreign demand for U.S.
    agricultural products changes significantly, the U.S. economy will
    reflect the variation from the commodity futures markets down to the
    level of the farm gate. Climate events such as drought can reduce
    foreign agricultural production, thereby increasing dependence on and
    demand for U.S. agricultural products and causing prices and farm
    income to rise. Conversely, if the U.S. suffered crop losses due to
    drought or flooding, major crop failures could increase domestic
    reliance on imported agricultural products, increasing the U.S.
    negative balance of trade and a concurrent increase in domestic
    agricultural prices, but loss of farm income.
        The advance knowledge of the probabilities related to foreign and
    domestic growing conditions would aid governments and planters
    immeasurably. The expected demand for products from non-domestic
    purchasing would permit farmers to make rational decisions on which
    crops to plant and in what volumes. The improved decision making
    structure for U.S. agriculture would provide more confidence, and less
    guess work, in the agricultural economy.
        The IRI focus on agriculture promises to yield returns exponential
    to the investment in the capability. The applications program is
    integrated with the water modeling discussed in the previous section.
    The two assessments are interdependent on one another.
    Health
        Climate variation can result in dramatic health-related problems.
    Studies have shown that in years of above average moisture coupled with
    above average temperature there has been a much higher incidence of
    malaria and other water related diseases.
        The change in environmental conditions conducive to mosquito
    proliferation or water borne pathogens can greatly impact animal and
    human health, particularly when naturally occurring diseases and
    bacterial agents are permitted to grow in regions where inhabitants
    have not had to develop natural immunities to new pathogens. The
    reconstruction of some past plagues and devastating diseases can be
    traced historically to preceding major climatic events. The more
    reconstruction that IRI can develop through historical modeling, the
    more IRI will be capable of minimizing the potential threat to other
    living organisms (plants and crops as well as animals and humans).
        Water sustains all life, including microbiological diseases. The
    forecast of above normal precipitation for a region could result in an
    increase in the potential habitat for harmful diseases. The increased
    medium for disease reproduction could then lead to a greater impact on
    human lives. If both greater than normal precipitation and greater than
    normal temperature are forecast for the same region, conditions for new
    organisms to thrive in that region are greatly enhanced. The new
    organisms often are harmful to human and animal survival.
        The IRI, in conjunction with the water modeling initiative, will
    integrate regional health modeling and impact assessments in fiscal
    year 2000. This additional capability will permit public health
    precautions to be conducted--such as vaccines and preventive water
    treatment activities--long before the onset of climate-driven health
    problems begin to occur.
    Summary
        This statement presents the case for providing the full budget
    request for NOAA's OGP program at $69.7 million, and further outlines a
    complementary initiative developed by the IRI that would require an
    additional $3 million. The total OGP appropriation for fiscal year 2000
    required to conduct the activities discussed in this statement is $72.7
    million. Columbia University and the IRI request that the Subcommittee
    carefully consider the request discussed in this short paper and that
    fiscal year 2000 funding for OGP be provided at $72.7 million, with
    appropriate clarifying report language.
        Thank you for this opportunity to present this plan and this
    statement for the hearing record.
                                     ______

     Prepared Statement of Dr. Raymond E. Bye, Jr., Interim Vice President
                     for Research, Florida State University
        Mr. Chairman, thank you and the Members of the Subcommittee for
    this opportunity to present testimony. I would like to take a moment to
    acquaint you with Florida State University. Located in the state
    capitol of Tallahassee, we have been a university since 1950; prior to
    that, we had a long and proud history as a seminary, a college, and a
    women's college. While widely known for our athletics teams, we have a
    rapidly emerging reputation as one of the Nation's top public
    universities. Having been designated as a Carnegie Research I
    University several years ago, Florida State University currently
    exceeds $100 million per year in research expenditures. With no
    agricultural or medical school, few institutions can boast of that kind
    of success. We are strong in both the sciences and the arts. We have
    high quality students; we rank in the top 25 among U.S. colleges and
    universities in attracting National Merit Scholars. Our scientists and
    engineers do excellent research, and they work closely with industry to
    commercialize those results. Florida State ranks fourth this year among
    all U.S. universities in royalties collected from its patents and
    licenses, and first among individual public universities. In short,
    Florida State University is an exciting and rapidly changing
    institution.
        Mr. Chairman, let me describe a joint project that we are pursuing
    this year through the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Agency
    (NOAA).
    U.S. Department of Commerce: NOAA
        Florida State University is involved in a major collaborative
    effort which draws upon the expertise of three outstanding Florida
    universities. Focusing on climate variability in the State of Florida
    and the Southeast (SE), the objectives include exploring the value of
    climate data based on the El Nino-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) and
    developing practical applications for climate forecasts, particularly
    for agriculture.
        This consortium draws upon the expertise of scientists at FSU, who
    have the technical capability to deliver detailed climate variability
    knowledge; the University of Florida, who possess technical expertise
    in agricultural engineering, modeling, agricultural decision support
    and information delivery; and the University of Miami, who have
    expertise in implementing the knowledge into the agricultural
    community.
        Abundant evidence illustrates the economic importance to farmers of
    early climate forecasts of extreme weather events. The unanticipated
    January 1997 freeze that cost the winter vegetable industry in South
    Florida more than $200 million and displaced is just one reminder.
    Storms, drought and flooding associated with the unusually strong El
    Nino event of 1982-83 that cost thousands of lives and an estimated $13
    million in crops globally is another reminder.
        ENSO-based forecasts can now provide useful weather information in
    many regions at the required lead times. Short- and long-term forecasts
    could provide the agricultural industry with a range of opportunities
    for mitigating adverse impacts of bad weather, as well as taking
    advantage of favorable weather.
        During the initial phase of this effort, the FSU team described
    qualitatively the impact of El Nino (and the other extreme, La Nina) on
    temperature and precipitation patterns across the SE. Additionally, the
    team found a geographic shift in tornadic activity associated with El
    Nino events. A new climate forecast system to provide predictions of
    seasonal temperatures and precipitation with longer lead times and
    improved skill now is in the testing phase. Improvements are due in
    part to the coupled nature (i.e., the linking of the ocean and
    atmosphere so they respond to each other dynamically) of the forecast
    system.
        Our colleagues at the University of Florida identified several
    crops in Florida that are vulnerable to shifts in weather patterns
    associated with El Nino and La Nina, and further noted that the impact
    is not uniform in nature across the state.
        Continuing this collaboration, the consortium hopes to estimate the
    economic advantages of incorporating information from climate forecasts
    into farming management systems, and to eventually work with sector
    representatives in developing guidance products for the agricultural
    community. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration provided
    the initial funding.
        We are seeking $2.5 million in fiscal year 2000 to continue this
    worthwhile effort.
        Mr. Chairman, this activity is just one of many at Florida State
    University that will make important contributions to solving some key
    problems and concerns our Nation faces today. Your support would be
    appreciated, and, again, thank you for an opportunity to present these
    views for your consideration.
                                     ______

       Prepared Statement of the American Association of Port Authorities
        The American Association of Port Authorities (AAPA); Agriculture
    Ocean Transport Coalition; American Maritime Congress; Coal Exporters
    Association of the United States; Council of European and Japanese
    National Shipowners Associations (CENSA); Crowley Maritime; Dominion
    Terminal Associates; Dredging Contractors of America; International
    Association of Independent Tanker Owners (INTERTANKO); International
    Chamber of Shipping (ICS); Lake Carriers' Association; Louis Dreyfus
    Corp.; Maersk Inc.; Maritime Exchange for the Delaware River and Bay;
    Maritime Institute for Research & Industrial Development (MIRAID);
    Matson Navigation Company; Mississippi Valley Coal Trade & Transport
    Council; National Association of Maritime Organizations; National
    Industrial Transportation League (NITL); National Mining Association;
    Passenger Vessel Association; Ruhrkohic Trading Corp.; Saltchuk
    Resources, Inc.; Sea-Land Service, Inc.; Transportation Institute; U.S.
    Great Lakes Shipping Association; and West Gulf Maritime Association
    are writing to stress the importance of adequate funding for the
    National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) nautical
    charting and navigation services programs. An adequate level of funding
    for these programs is an essential component of the environmentally
    friendly, safe and efficient flow of trade. Additionally, the
    importance of the National Ocean Service's (NOS) navigation programs is
    evidenced by recent Congressional actions, including the enactment of
    the Hydrographic Services Improvement Act (Public Law 105-384).
        We urge you to appropriate the following funding levels for NOAA's
    Navigation Services program for fiscal year 2000: $33 million for
    mapping and charting, $33 million to conduct hydrographic surveys, and
    $22.5 million for the Tides and Currents account. These budgetary
    levels reflect those recently passed by Congress in Public Law 105-384
    (H.R. 3461), and these funding levels will eliminate the backlog of
    critical survey areas only in approximately twenty years rather than
    the 35 years currently proposed in the Administration's fiscal year
    2000 budget. We should not wait for the huge expense and environmental
    damage of a major maritime disaster to call attention to this issue.
        These navigation services provided by NOAA are used by a diverse
    constituency, including fishermen, recreational and scientific
    interests, flood control and emergency preparedness groups, cruise
    vessels, ferries, and others, and are part of a national defense
    navigation system which operates efficiently to protect life and
    property.
        The commercial shipping industry is investing in new technology
    systems that are likely to significantly improve both safety and
    efficiency, but their investment will not be fully realized unless the
    U.S. government fulfills its statutory and treaty responsibilities to
    provide accurate and up-to-date charts and tide and current
    predictions.
        Investing in accurate charts and real-time water systems is
    consistent with the Administration's priorities, since it is an
    extremely cost-effective means for encouraging commerce, enhancing
    sustainable communities, maintaining safety for human lives, and
    avoiding oil spills.
                                     ______

            Prepared Statement of the Center for Marine Conservation
        The Center for Marine Conservation appreciates this opportunity to
    share our views regarding the President's fiscal year 2000 budget
    request for the marine conservation programs of the National Oceanic
    and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
        The Center for Marine Conservation is committed to protecting ocean
    environments and conserving the global abundance and diversity of
    marine life. Through science-based advocacy, research and public
    education, CMC promotes informed citizen participation to reverse the
    degradation of our oceans. CMC is a nonprofit conservation organization
    with 120,000 contributing members, headquartered in Washington DC, with
    field and regional offices in Alaska, California, Florida and Virginia.
    In addition, we will soon be opening a field office in New England.
        We greatly appreciate the funding this Committee has provided for
    marine conservation over the last several years and urge the Committee
    to provide for the substantial, but needed, increases for NOAA's ocean
    stewardship programs the administration is proposing next year. In
    total, and contained in numerous initiatives, these increases add up to
    $318 million. These additional funds represent a vital investment for
    the future of our Nation's ocean resources and we commend the
    administration for proposing them. Most of these funds would go to
    coastal states and communities for important coastal and near shore
    marine conservation efforts. We also recommend that the Committee
    provide for some additional increases highlighted below and reject some
    of the cuts the administration has proposed for important conservation
    priorities.
        While we appreciate the Committee's demonstrated commitment to
    conserving marine life and protecting coastal and ocean waters, we are
    extremely concerned with the rescission of $2 million for the states'
    coastal polluted runoff program contained in the supplemental
    appropriations bill (S. 544) for the current fiscal year. The
    Committee's report states that this rescission is due to shifting
    priorities within the agency, but senior NOAA officials deny any
    movement away from this vital program. Polluted runoff as you are aware
    is now the major cause of water quality impairment in our nation's
    coastal waters. We commend the Committee for providing substantial
    boost to this program for this year and strongly urge the Committee to
    remove this damaging rescission from the supplemental appropriations
    bill before it is enacted.
        Regarding funding for next fiscal year, the importance of this
    Committee to marine conservation cannot be understated. Just as the
    Interior Appropriations Subcommittee has jurisdiction over funding of
    stewardship of the nation's public lands, this Subcommittee has
    jurisdiction over funding for the stewardship of the Nation's public
    oceans. We refer to coastal waters and the Nation's exclusive economic
    zone (EEZ), those waters out to 200 miles off our shores. This is an
    area of approximately 3.4 million square miles, more than the area of
    the entire contiguous United States. Within this vast realm the
    National Ocean Service (NOS) and the National Marine Fisheries Service
    (NMFS) have responsibilities for natural resource management, pollution
    control and protection of threatened and endangered species and marine
    mammals.
        More than half of the U.S. population now lives and works within 50
    miles of the coast and coastal populations are increasing by 3,600
    people per day. Over 180 million people visit our nation's coasts each
    year. Beaches are the number one tourist destination in the country
    with coastal states earning 85 percent of U.S. tourist dollars. This
    economic activity depends upon productive habitats, unpolluted waters,
    abundance and diversity of marine life, and healthy coastal and marine
    ecosystems.
        The living marine resources of our pubic oceans are of extreme
    importance to our Nation. It is estimated that in 1994 the commercial
    fishing industry contributed a total $20.2 billion to the U.S. Gross
    National Product. Limited analysis by NFMS estimates that almost 15
    million people made over 66 million marine recreational fishing trips
    in 1994. It is estimated that marine recreational fishing contributes
    $7 billion to the economy. The conservation of marine mammals and
    endangered marine species provide abundant recreational opportunities
    to millions of Americans annually. In the United States, more than 3
    million people annually participate in whale-watching, generating more
    than $230 million in direct and indirect revenue. Consequently,
    providing adequate funds today for the conservation and management of
    living marine resources will have both immediate and long-term benefits
    for the American people.
                             national ocean service
    National Marine Sanctuary Program
        We urge the Committee to provide the total $29 million for this
    important program requested by the administration. The $15 million
    increase is found within the administration's Lands Legacy Initiative.
        Often referred to as our national marine parks, the 12 sanctuaries
    around the country encompass almost 18,000 square miles of the nation's
    most significant marine resources. Yet as last May's issue of National
    Geographic points out: ``The entire system has an annual budget of
    $11.7 million (referring to the fiscal year 1997 budget)--a sum in
    effect that reduces these sanctuaries to a state of poverty * * *. The
    typical sanctuary, therefore must take care of an enormous area with a
    staff that could fit in a broom closet.'' In 1990, an independent
    National Marine Sanctuary Program Review Panel recommended annual
    funding of $30 million, a recommendation that was endorsed by NOAA's
    public advisory Committee in 1992. Furthermore, NOAA has begun a
    resource intensive review of each sanctuary's management plan as
    required by law.
    South Florida Interagency Ecosystem Restoration Initiative
        CMC recommends that the Committee fully fund NOAA's portion of this
    vital initiative for the coming fiscal year. The $5.1 million requested
    by NOAA, a small portion of the overall request for the Initiative,
    involves $3.2 million in the National Ocean Service budget for
    monitoring and modeling, and will allow NOAA to fully implement its
    integrated ecosystem monitoring program in Florida Bay and the Florida
    Keys National Marine Sanctuary. These waters are the downstream end of
    the South Florida ecosystem and thus are affected by the activities of
    other agencies working to restore and protect the Everglades. The
    monitoring program will help the agency model and assess changes to the
    marine resources of Florida Bay and the Florida Keys coral reef system.
    The Administration's request also includes $1.9 million in NMFS' budget
    for critical fisheries restoration and research.
    The Control of Polluted Runoff to Coastal Waters
        We urge the Committee to provide $22 million for NOAA's Clean Water
    Initiative. This initiative includes a $4 million increase to assist
    states to develop and implement their Coastal Nonpoint Pollution
    Control Programs, as well as a $1.8 million increase to help address
    the problem of harmful algal blooms such as Pfiesteria. These funds are
    a sound investment in the future of our coastal waters. The
    Administration's request includes $9 million for NOAA to conduct
    research, monitoring and assessments of harmful algal blooms,
    Pfiesteria outbreaks, and red tides through funding the Ecology and
    Oceanography of Harmful Algal Boom program.
        Just as important, the Initiative also includes $12 million for the
    states to complete and implement coastal nonpoint source pollution
    control programs, authorized under section 6217 of the Coastal Zone Act
    Reauthorization Amendments of 1990 (CZARA).
        Nonpoint source pollution, or polluted runoff, is the nation's
    largest source of water pollution and is the leading cause of beach and
    shell fish bed closures, fish consumption warnings, massive fish kills,
    and the 7,000 square mile Dead Zone in the Gulf of Mexico.
        Section 6217 is the only national program to ensure that if
    voluntary measures taken to reduce polluted runoff are ineffective,
    states have the necessary backup authority to protect coastal waters.
    It has now reached a critical stage. NOAA and the Environmental
    Protection Agency have conditionally approved plans from twenty-nine
    coastal states and territories. Development grants of $6 million will
    be used by these states to complete their programs. In addition, four
    new coastal states will soon join the Coastal Zone Management program
    and will be developing polluted runoff control program. The remaining
    $6 million will be made available through the section 306/309 coastal
    zone management grants program to the states for implementation of
    their programs.
        This program was unfunded in 1996 and 1997 and received only $1
    million in 1998. For the current fiscal year you helped to put the
    program back on its feet by providing the states with $8 million to
    develop and implement their programs. As we mention above, however, we
    are extremely concerned about proposed $2 million rescission.
        Within the proposed budget for NOS we also urge the Committee to
    provide for the following increases:
      --$32 million in additional funds for the Coastal Zone Management Act
            to assist states and communities in meeting the rising
            challenge of increasing populations in coastal areas;
      --$14.7 million in additional funding for the National Estuarine
            Research Reserves Systems. Most of this new funding would go to
            the state managed reserves to acquire lands as buffers to help
            protect these critical areas;
      --$12 million in new funding for coral reef restoration and
            protection.
                       national marine fisheries service
    Fisheries Research Vessel
        We strongly endorse the administration request for funds to begin
    construction of the first of four new fishery research vessels. The
    agency's current fleet consists of 8 outdated vessels with an average
    age of 30 years. The $51.6 million request is for a badly needed tool
    to improvement NMFS's ability to assess our nations marine fish stocks.
    This vessel, and the three more to follow, will substantially increase
    days-at-sea for assessments of fish stocks, marine mammals and other
    threatened or endangered marine wildlife.
    Resource Information
        CMC does not support the overall cut proposed for the resource
    information line item and is very concerned about cuts in research for
    the following specific activities:
      --the $150,000 cut in the right whale research line item. With only
            300 North Atlantic right whales remaining, and the species'
            continued existence threatened by entanglement in fishing gear
            and collisions with vessels, research must be continued to
            improve our understanding of right whale biology, determine the
            frequency and location of entanglements and collisions, and
            allow for the development of technologies to modify fishing to
            reduce entanglements.
      --the $200,000 cut in the Hawaiian monk seal line item. Hawaiian monk
            seals are the most endangered pinniped in the United States. We
            must commit the necessary funds to ensure that projects such as
            health assessments, marine debris assessments and removals, and
            habitat and foraging studies go forward.
      --the cut for the Stellar sea lion recovery plan line item. Since
            1994, the number of juvenile and adult Stellers has dropped by
            18 percent in the Gulf of Alaska population alone. Pup counts
            at Alaska's largest rookeries fell by 40 percent between 1991-
            1994. Using current population models, fisheries service
            biologists predict there is nearly a 100 percent chance the
            western Steller sea lion population will be extinct in the next
            65 to 100 years. CMC believes that current management measures
            are insufficient to prevent the extinction of this species and
            must therefore be modified. We recommend an additional $1
            million, over the President's request, for additional research
            including assessing how well fishing area closures have
            functioned to benefit Steller sea lions, and developing
            adaptive management experiments to reexamine how reduce the
            impact of fishing on Steller sea lions.
        CMC does, however, support the proposed increase in resources
    information of $1.6 million for fisheries oceanography.
    Fishery Industry Information
        NMFS has requested an increase of $1 million in Fishery Industry
    Information for the collection of fisheries statistics and economic
    analysis required under the Magnuson-Stevens Act which we support. Lack
    of socio-economic analysis of fishery management measures was an issue
    of concern at a recent NOAA constituent strategic planning workshop.
    Fisheries Management Programs
        Our nation's fisheries continue to be in trouble with fully one
    third of known U.S. fish stocks being overfished or quickly approaching
    that state. Currently NMFS is unable to provide timely assessments of
    most stocks. NMFS estimates that restoring fisheries will have a
    potential $25 billion total positive impact on the national economy.
    These public resources must be managed on a sustainable basis and
    assessments must be completed (for exploited stocks in particular) and
    kept up to date. In 1996, Congress took a critical step in rebuilding
    and conserving these public resources by enacting the Sustainable
    Fisheries Act which strengthened the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
    Conservation and Management Act.
        Over the past couple of years Congress has provided increases for
    NMFS and the regional fishery management councils in carrying out the
    provisions of the Act. The agency, however, remains short of funds to
    carry out its responsibilities. For next fiscal year the agency has
    requested and increase of just $2.6 million. We recommend the Committee
    provide $8 million in additional funding for the agency to implement
    the Sustainable Fisheries Act.
        NMFS has requested $13.3 million, an increase of $300,000 for the
    Regional Fishery Management Councils next year. CMC supports this
    increase. We also support the President's proposal $22.7 million for
    Fishery Habitat Restoration.
        For New England fisheries we recommend the Committee provide for
    the $5.2 million requested for implementation of plans for groundfish
    and scallops. In addition, we appreciated the inclusion of $1.9 million
    in the supplemental request for this purpose, but regret the Committee
    was unable to provide for the administration's request of $3.1 million
    for capacity reduction. In general CMC is supportive of vessel buyouts
    conducted in accordance with the provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens
    Act, and that provide conservation benefits by permanently retiring
    vessels from fishing. We encourage the Committee to include the $3.1
    million of its fiscal year 2000 bill along with the $8.3 million sought
    for a $40 million buyout in the scallop fishery.
        While CMC supports the $2 million initiative for observers in the
    west coast ground fish fishery, we are troubled that the administration
    is trying to pay for it with an increase of $1.575 million. Unless
    Congress provides an additional $2 million for this important effort,
    observer programs in other areas will have to suffer. Therefore we
    recommend a funding this line item at a level of $4.65 million.
    Marine Mammal Protection Act
        The President's request for $7.6 million for Marine Mammal
    Protection Act (MMPA) implementation is woefully inadequate. We
    recommend an appropriation of $18 million. Twenty million dollars alone
    is needed to conduct the necessary marine mammal research and stock
    assessments, convene incidental take reduction teams, devise and
    implement take reduction plans, develop a streamlined system to report
    incidental mortality, observe fisheries at levels necessary to
    accurately determine incidental mortality, and to conduct public
    outreach to the fishing community to inform them of the various
    requirements under the MMPA. Lack of funding has been one of the
    primary reasons for NMFS's failure to effectively implement the MMPA.
    Furthermore, inadequate funding and the ineffectual implementation of
    the MMPA threatens to destroy unprecedented cooperation, started in
    1994, among conservation groups, commercial fishing industry, and the
    government when the statute was last reauthorized.
    Endangered Species Recovery Plans
        CMC supports the $27.5 million increase and the additional 132
    FTE's requested for Endangered Species Act Recovery Plans. However, the
    allocation of $5.1 million dollars and 8 FTE's to critically endangered
    species such as leatherback and loggerhead sea turtles, the Pacific and
    Atlantic right whales, and Hawaiian monk seal is still insufficient to
    recover these species. We therefore recommend an additional $4 million
    for this line item.
    Dolphin Encirclement
        We support the $3.3 million request to continue a four-year study
    on the effects of encirclement of dolphins as a method for catching
    tuna. However, the President's budget fails to include $3 million,
    authorized by Congress, for the implementation of the International
    Dolphin Conservation Program Act.
        In addition to the programs and line items mentioned above CMC
    supports the $2.6 million increase to characterize and map biodiversity
    and protected species habitat, as well as the establishment of the new
    Pacific Coast Salmon Recovery Account.
    Enforcement and Surveillance
        CMC strongly supports the proposed $1.025 million and 13 FTE
    increase requested for enforcement and surveillance. While we are aware
    of concerns identified with the management of this program by the
    Inspector General, our inquiries leave no doubt that, given the
    responsibilities for enforcement placed upon NMFS in the areas of
    fisheries and protected species, this relatively minor increase is
    vitally needed.
    National Underwater Research Program
        Within the NOAA budget request for Oceanic and Atmospheric Research
    the administration proposes a substantial cut of $5.5 million for the
    National Underwater Research Program (NURP). CMC urges the Committee to
    reject this proposed cut and maintain funding for NURP, which supports
    important research in ecosystem health, sustainable fisheries and other
    living marine resources.
    Ocean Bottom Observatories/Exploring our Last Frontier
        The Center for Marine Conservation is committed to the gathering of
    much needed knowledge about our ocean environments. We therefore urge
    the Committee to fully fund the administration's request for $4.1
    million for this new initiative. Funds will be used to expand
    activities in two shallow water observatories, establish two deep water
    observatories, and support NOAA's partnership with the privately funded
    Sustainable Seas Project to map and explore the biodiversity of our
    National Marine Sanctuaries with submersible craft.
    Marine Mammal Commission
        CMC urges the Committee to fund the Marine Mammal Commission at its
    authorized level of $1.75 million, rather the than the administration's
    request of $1.3 million. A fully funded Commission is a source of
    rational and constructive scientific advice on marine mammal protection
    issues. Many of these issues could become contentious absent the
    Commission's analysis. The President has requested an increase of
    $60,000 over current funding. For the last several years the Commission
    has only been able to function at a minimal level, unable to carry out
    an independent research program. Full funding for the Commission would
    provide for the reestablishment of a strong and meaningful research
    program.
        This concludes our statement and we appreciate having this
    opportunity to express our support for needed funding for the
    stewardship of the nation's living marine resources.
                                     ______

      Prepared Statement of Beth Claudia Clark, Director, The Antarctica
                                    Project
                                  introduction
        Thank you for including this statement in the hearing record for
    the fiscal year 2000 budget for the Department of Commerce, National
    Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. I am Beth Claudia Clark \1\,
    Director of The Antarctica Project. The following organizations join
    with me in supporting an appropriation of $2.4 million to support
    continued funding of the Antarctic Marine Living Resources Program
    (AMLR), NOAA's directed research program in Antarctica: Center for
    Marine Conservation, Greenpeace, The Humane Society of the U.S., Humane
    Society International, National Audubon Society, National Parks and
    Conservation Association, Natural Resources Defense Council, Sierra
    Club, and World Wildlife Fund.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ Public sector representative on the U.S. delegation to the
    meetings of the Convention on the Conservation of Antarctic Marine
    Living Resources, 1990-present.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The Antarctic Marine Living Resources Program is vital to
    longstanding U.S. economic, environmental and political interests in
    Antarctica, and supports our international obligations to the
    Convention on the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources
    (CCAMLR). AMLR's current level of funding ($1.2 million) must be
    increased to $2.4 million to allow it to remain effective and to
    fulfill its Congressional mandate.\2\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ The Antarctic Marine Living Resources Convention Act of 1984
    (Public Law 98-623) directed NOAA to develop and implement a research
    program to support and facilitate implementation of CCAMLR.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                            background on ccamlr \3\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \3\ For additional information on CCAMLR and Antarctic fisheries,
    please see our past statements to this Committee, for instance, from
    fiscal year 1999.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        CCAMLR was established under the Antarctic Treaty System in 1982 to
    provide a management system that would both protect the ecosystem and
    allow fishing activities in the Southern Ocean. CCAMLR's objective,
    unique among fisheries agreements, is to consider the impact of a
    fishery on the entire ecosystem, rather than on just the harvested
    species. CCAMLR is thus the first international convention to address
    ecosystem management goals. To date 22 nations and the European
    Community \4\ have agreed to subject their fishing activities to
    regulation under the Convention. The Convention requires consensus
    decision-making, which means that all nations must approve each measure
    agreed on to prevent overharvesting. Barring consensus, fisheries could
    proceed without regulation.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \4\ The following are members of CCAMLR: Argentina, Australia,
    Belgium, Brazil, Chile, European Community, France, Germany, India,
    Italy, Japan, Republic of Korea, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Russian
    Federation, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Ukraine, United Kingdom,
    United States and Uruguay.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The only way that the fishing nations will agree to and comply with
    conservation measures that limit fisheries to ecologically sustainable
    levels is if they are presented with scientific proof of a fishery's
    status. Thus, for CCAMLR to remain effective, nations need to continue
    funding research programs that generate the data to support these
    measures.
        Research results from the Antarctic Marine Living Resources Program
    have provided this information. Since its inception, this U.S. program
    has been critical to CCAMLR's success because it has provided the
    scientific foundation for the adoption of ecologically-sound
    conservation measures by CCAMLR member governments. The U.S. is
    therefore able to be proactive in promoting measures aimed at
    safeguarding the ecosystem.
              the antarctic marine living resources program (amlr)
        Proper implementation of CCAMLR is necessary to ensure the wise and
    sustainable use of Southern Ocean fisheries. The Antarctic Marine
    Living Resources Program is essential for the proper implementation of
    CCAMLR because research results have provided the foundation for the
    adoption of ecologically sound conservation measures by CCAMLR.
        Through AMLR, the U.S. has played a leading role in identifying and
    brokering internationally acceptable approaches to conservation
    problems in the Southern Ocean. Research results from AMLR have allowed
    the U.S. delegation to argue persuasively that fisheries decisions be
    based on science rather than economics. During the last several years,
    as fisheries around the world have collapsed, nations have yielded to
    domestic economic pressures at the expense of conservation, and have
    attempted to gain consensus for catch levels which were economically
    beneficial, without regard to the state of the fishery.\5\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \5\ At present, the principal fishing nations are Chile, Japan,
    Poland and Ukraine. During the last year, new fisheries have been
    proposed or initiated by Australia, Korea, New Zealand, Norway, Russia,
    South Africa, Spain, the U.S. and the UK.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Without a strong U.S. research presence, Southern Ocean fisheries
    will be regulated by nations with a strong economic interest and
    presence in the region. Under such circumstances we fear that
    implementation of conservation measures will be difficult, overfishing
    will persist, and the region's marine living resources will be
    exploited beyond sustainable levels. Additionally, decreasing the U.S.
    research effort will jeopardize the ability of U.S. fishers to
    successfully compete for Antarctic fisheries.
        The U.S. AMLR Program was the first national research program to
    investigate the state of the fish stocks in the Southern Ocean. The
    first AMLR cruise confirmed that fishing operations were having adverse
    impacts on marine life, and indicated that several fish stocks were
    being exploited at rates above those levels which allow replacement of
    the stock. Several species had been so heavily fished that their
    populations were less than 10 percent of their size in 1982.\6\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \6\ Because these early studies confirmed low standing stocks of
    fish, the traditional harvesting areas surrounding the South Shetland
    and South Orkney Islands in the Southern Atlantic Ocean were closed to
    finfishing. Attempts to reopen these areas have not been successful.
    However, unless fish stock surveys are completed in the future, we
    could lose the agreement to keep these areas closed. It will only be
    due to the consistent and vigilant application of the results of the
    research cruises that consensus will be maintained to prohibit or limit
    fishing in these and other areas.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The importance of CCAMLR and the U.S. AMLR Program is in their
    ability, over a decade's time, to monitor changes in the Southern Ocean
    ecosystem. Whether fluctuations in the marine environment, including
    changes in marine populations, can be attributed to human or natural
    events, can only be determined by research which continues over a long
    period of time. Research results from this past season illustrate this
    point.
        During the past 11 seasons, the AMLR Program has observed a multi-
    year cycle of physical and biological conditions in the pelagic zone of
    the waters surrounding the islands. The annual reproductive success of
    krill follows this cycle, as does the success of krill predators to
    raise their young. The multi-year nature of these cycles offers the
    promise of predictive capability and the possibility of managing the
    krill harvest to ensure the health of the ecosystem and commercial
    fisheries.
        This was an unusual year. The spring and summer season of 1998/1999
    appears to be a ``transition year'' between a period where the pelagic
    community was dominated by gelatinous, filter-feeding tunicates (salps)
    and one dominated by copepods and a wider diversity of zooplankton.
    This has profound implications for the reproductive success and
    potential growth of the krill population. This is based on the
    following observations:
      --Antarctic krill (Euphausia superaba) abundance was the lowest ever
            recorded during AMLR surveys. The low abundance resulted from
            three successive years of poor recruitment success.
      --High proportions of the adult population were in advanced maturity
            stages, spawning or spent. Furthermore, elevated abundance of
            3-4 week old larvae indicate that active krill spawning was
            initiated in mid-December to early January. In recent years
            peak spawning has occurred several weeks later and in one year
            only a few ripe females were observed indicating negligible
            spawning.
      --The abundance of competitive species dramatically increased along
            with several other zooplankton taxa including Thysanoessa
            macrura, another euphausiid that is shorter lived and faster
            reproducing than Euphasia superpa.
        These results confirm the predicted failure of the 1997/98 year-
    class of krill based on last year's field season observations. They
    also indicate that summer 1999 is a ``transition year'' from a ``salp
    period'' to a ``copepod period'' in the Antarctic Peninsula region. The
    larger question is whether enough young krill were produced to rebuild
    the population. This depends on their over-wintering survival and how
    many young they can produce during their second and third years.
        During the past three years, there has been significant illegal and
    unregulated fisheries occurring on the Patagonian toothfish. However,
    nations were unable to censure those flag states because of the narrow
    definition of fishing which specified that a boat had to be observed
    actually fishing on a closed fishery for an inspector to report a
    violation. The U.S. was successful in getting nations to agree to
    broaden this definition to give inspectors greater latitude in
    determining whether an infringement of a conservation measure had
    occurred when inspecting a research or fishing vessel. The U.S. was
    also successful in getting nations to agree to require the placement of
    satellite-linked vessel monitoring systems (VMS) on their boats. These
    systems have proved successful in ensuring compliance with conservation
    measures in domestic fisheries, because a boat's location is
    automatically conveyed to a central computer. Nations agreed to
    voluntary placement of VMS on board their vessels, and have agreed to
    discuss mandatory placement at this year's meeting.
        AMLR has an added political benefit: the AMLR Program has
    encouraged collaboration with scientists of many nations. Politically,
    this cooperation enhances U.S. interactions in other international
    fora, in addition to CCAMLR and the Antarctic Treaty System. A list of
    these collaborators is available.
                     fiscal year 2000 appropriation request
        Although the AMLR Program is vital to U.S. interests in Antarctica,
    and to the sustainable management and geopolitical stability of
    Southern Ocean fisheries, it had been constrained by funding
    limitations since its inception. In 1987, the Program Development Plan
    recommended funding the Program at $4 million annually; this included
    $1.8 million to charter a research vessel. AMLR has never been funded
    near this level.
    AMLR Funding Levels
                                                                 In millions

    Fiscal year:
        1987......................................................\1\ $1.8
        1988.......................................................\1\ 1.5
        1989-91....................................................\2\ 1.3
        1992.......................................................\2\ 1.275
        1993-95....................................................\2\ 1.2
        1996-99....................................................\3\ 1.2
        2000.......................................................\4\ 2.4

    \1\ Included contracting the Polish vessel, Professor Svedlecki.
    \2\ Use of NOAA's ship Surveyor.
    \3\ Charter of Russian vessel.
    \4\ Requested; assumes availability of charter funds.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Fiscal Year 2000 Appropriation Request
        For fiscal year 2000, funding of $2.4 million is requested to
    continue and augment the principle research components of the U.S. AMLR
    Program. This represents an increase of $1.2 million over the previous
    six fiscal years. Cost increases require an increased appropriation of
    $940,000, while research to further advance understanding of the
    fishery/predator/prey/environment interactions requires an additional
    $260,000. Funding will allow the continuation of both the land-based
    and ship-based research programs. The land-based ecosystem monitoring
    program monitors the reproduction and foraging behavior of the primary
    mammalian and avian krill predators, while the ship-based studies
    monitor the physical oceanography and spatial distribution and
    abundance of krill in the Southern Ocean contiguous with, and extending
    beyond, the land-based site.
        Until it was taken off line in 1995, the AMLR Program was supported
    by the NOAA ship, R.V. Surveyor. Four years ago, NOAA contracted a
    Russian ship to support AMLR. NOAA will again need to charter a ship to
    support AMLR for the coming season, and will require up to $2 million
    for this charter. Therefore, a $2.4 million appropriation is sufficient
    if there is funding within the National Marine Fisheries Service budget
    to charter a ship to support AMLR. However, if there are insufficient
    funds, then additional funds would be needed to charter a vessel.
    Obviously, without a vessel, AMLR cannot continue its research program.
    We urge you to ensure that money is available for this charter.
    Details of Fiscal Year 2000 Appropriation Request
                Maintenance of Program ($940,000)
        From fiscal year 1987 until fiscal year 1993, funding decreased
    from $1.8 million to $1.2 million; funding has remained at $1.2 million
    through fiscal year 1999. The AMLR Program has tried to keep the
    research program intact by cutting where it could. Unfortunately,
    annual costs (salaries, contracts and travel) now exceed allocated
    funds. $940,000 is needed to augment the annual $1.2 million
    appropriation to maintain both key aspects of the Program.
        During the last several years the AMLR Program has been funded at
    $1.2 million minus 5 percent NOAA taxes. During that time it has had to
    absorb labor costs due to living increases, increased labor costs due
    to students becoming full fledged researchers, and increased travel
    costs. Although NOAA no longer extracts the 5 percent tax, the NMFS now
    extracts a tax equal to 24 percent of the program's labor cost
    (approximately $150.0K). To offset these costs, the Program delayed
    hiring staff to support the predator (seal and penguin) part of the
    program until fiscal year 1999 when it hired a senior seal and a senior
    penguin biologist. The estimated annual increased cost for salary
    (including NMFS tax and pay raises) and travel is $400K/year.
        The AMLR Program contracts university specialists for the
    collection and analysis of phytoplankton, physical oceanography,
    zooplankton and krill demographic data. Because of budget limitations
    these contracts have been underfunded for several years. They are now
    in a position where they can no longer continue to participate in the
    Program without a substantial increase in support. There are also
    important research questions that they need to address which are
    impossible with the present level of support. They need to hire
    additional personnel, students, and to be able to pay increased travel
    and other costs. An increase in the value of the contracts would allow
    for enhanced observation schemes, new instrumentation and computational
    facilities, and more aggressive analyses. Estimated cost for expanded
    contracts is $400k/year.
        The AMLR Program has amassed a large amount of data over the last
    11 years of field studies. A formal data base has never been
    established due to other pressing needs and the lack of available
    personnel. Organization and access to these data sets is becoming
    increasingly cumbersome and it is now necessary to address this issue.
    Estimated cost for hardware, software and specialist is $80k/year.
        The AMLR Program has used a variety of students, technicians and
    volunteers to staff its field activities. This has resulted in
    inequities in payment for labor and some resentment. An increase in
    funding would allow the establishment of a uniform policy for
    compensation to seagoing technicians for work performed. Estimated cost
    is $60k/year.
                Augmentation of Program ($260,000)
        During the last few years, research results from AMLR have
    contributed greatly to understanding how the Antarctic ecosystem
    functions. This has been recognized both within CCAMLR and by the
    general scientific community. There are now several important questions
    which cannot be answered due to insufficient funds to buy equipment,
    contract or hire labor, or pay for travel. These questions are critical
    to advance our understanding of the fishery/predator/prey/environment
    interactions. $260,000 is needed to augment the Program.
        There are several long-standing questions regarding the role of
    ocean transport in the abundance, distribution and availability of
    krill in the study area (i.e., how quickly does a krill move through
    the area and then become unavailable to the predators). There is now
    technology available that would allow the collection of this
    information. Estimated cost for instrumentation and a technician is
    $150k/year.
        Observations of marine mammals and sea birds during the surveys
    have been opportunistic as there have never been funds available to
    hire an observer. A fuller ecosystem picture would allow an
    understanding of competing prey needs within the survey area, and could
    be overlaid with the collected acoustic data. Increased funding would
    allow contracts to be let to acquire useful data in a much more
    rigorous fashion. Estimated cost for labor and travel is $10k/year.
        The AMLR Program has not been able to take advantage of real-time
    satellite data which describes sea surface temperature, chlorophyll and
    ice cover. Use of these extensive data sets would allow the survey work
    to be finely tuned in the field, and would greatly augment and expand
    the shipboard observations. Estimated cost for specialist and data
    access is $100k/year.
                Ship charter
        During the last four years approximately $2 million has been
    provided for ship charter. These funds come directly from NMFS
    Headquarters budget and are subject to their priorities. As funds get
    tighter and more scarce, there is a concern that NMFS will no longer
    support the AMLR Program. It would be extremely helpful if these funds
    were provided in the same way that the Program funds are provided.
                                   conclusion
        CCAMLR was launched to sustainably manage Antarctic fisheries. It
    remains an exemplary fisheries management convention because it is
    required to consider the impact of fisheries on the animals that depend
    on those fish stocks when setting fishing limits. However, as fish
    stocks have decreased globally, economic pressures have compelled
    nations to increase fishing in the Southern Ocean. Without continued
    scientific effort to judge proposals for fishing, unsustainable fishing
    will cause the depletion of fish stocks, mimicking the problems that
    are occurring in the rest of the world.
        The results of the research consistently provided by NOAA's
    Antarctic Marine Living Resources Program have been crucial for
    CCAMLR's effective implementation and have enabled the U.S. to argue
    persuasively for the adoption of conservation measures aimed at setting
    appropriate catch limits and limiting the harvesting of exploited
    species.
        Continued funding of the Antarctic Marine Living Resources Program
    will protect the leadership role that the U.S. has played over the past
    40 years in the Antarctic Treaty System, and especially in CCAMLR, in
    developing ecologically sound and internationally acceptable approaches
    to Antarctic issues.
        While we recognize that Congress must make difficult budget
    decisions, it is important not to underestimate the value of the U.S.
    AMLR Program. The modest allocation of funds that is being requested
    for investment in Antarctic marine research will go a long way toward
    addressing critical environmental and political issues that the United
    States faces in Antarctica. For future generations, investing in this
    cost-effective program will be more important than the modest savings
    gained through its elimination.
        For these reasons, we respectfully request this Subcommittee to
    approve an appropriation of $2.4 million to support NOAA's Antarctic
    Marine Living Resources Program.
                                     ______

         Prepared Statement of Cyrus M. Jollivette, Vice President for
                   Government Relations, University of Miami
        Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, I appreciate the
    opportunity to present testimony on behalf of the University of Miami.
    The University is seeking your support for three vital initiatives
    within your purview to be funded through the National Oceanographic and
    Atmospheric Administration: the Florida Center for Climate Prediction,
    the National Center for Advanced Tropical Remote Sensing Applications
    and Resources, and a new Class II research vessel for the Southeast/
    Gulf of Mexico region.
        Just a few days ago, on March 16, 1999, Federal Reserve Chairman
    Alan Greenspan reported that the nation's farm downturn can be traced
    to an important degree to the recessions that began in East Asia in
    1997 and have since spread to Latin America and elsewhere. However, Mr.
    Greenspan cited technological improvements as vitally important for
    insulating U.S. agriculture from the worse effects of world-wide
    economic turmoil.
        The Florida Consortium for Climate Prediction, a joint project of
    the University of Miami, the University of Florida, Florida State
    University brings to bear the latest climate prediction technology,
    which can provide the nation's farmers with predictive information to
    help maintain stable agricultural production.
        This major collaborative program focuses on climate variability in
    Florida, the southeast region and beyond. Objectives include developing
    scientific applications for climate data. The Florida Consortium draws
    upon the expertise of scientists at Florida State University (climate
    analyses and coupled ocean-atmosphere prediction models), Miami
    (climate analyses and economic value forecasts) and the University of
    Florida (agriculture) to quantify climate variability (e.g. El Nino)
    for the southeast and to explore the potential value and practical
    application (with strong emphasis on agricultural issues) of climate
    forecasts.
        The importance of El Nino South Oscillation (ENSO) events as a
    major source of climate fluctuations, together with advances in ENSO
    predictability, suggest that forecasts have significant potential for
    benefiting agricultural productivity and economic decision-making.
        The geographic focus of this project will include the southeastern
    United States, a large food producer whose productivity is
    significantly impacted by weather conditions generated by the ENSO
    phenomenon. Decisions made by well-informed participants from farm to
    policy level, made several months or seasons in advance, can
    significantly benefit productivity.
        This project presents an end-on-end approach that will provide the
    bridge between climate and forecast producers, such as the
    International Research Institute for Climate Prediction (IRICP) and
    agricultural decision-makers. Specific objectives of the project are
    to: (1) adapt, develop, and evaluate a generic, flexible set of tools
    and methodologies for assessing regional agricultural consequences of
    El Nino events and for applying forecasts to improve agricultural
    decision-making; (2) demonstrate by successful applications of
    forecasts to agriculture and other sectors that would benefit best in
    the southeastern United States that began in 1996; and assess the value
    of climate predictions to different agricultural sectors in those
    southeastern regions.
        As an example, during the initial phases of this effort, the team
    focused on temperature and precipitation patterns across the southeast.
    At Florida State, for example, researchers found a geographic shift in
    tornadic activity associated with El Nino events. A new climate
    forecast system to provide predictions of seasonal temperatures and
    precipitation with longer lead times and improved skill is in the
    testing phase. Improvements are due party to the coupled nature (i.e.,
    linking the ocean and atmosphere so they respond to one another
    dynamically) of the forecast system. Our colleagues at the University
    of Florida identified several crops in Florida that are vulnerable to
    shifts in weather patterns associated with El Nino and La Nina, but
    noted further that the impact is not uniform across the state.
        In continuing this collaboration, we plan to estimate the economic
    advantages that could be achieved by incorporating climate forecast
    information into farming management systems and eventually work with
    sector representatives in developing guidance products for the
    agricultural community.
        Both NOAA and NASA have provided initial funding and we
    respectively seek your continued support Mr. Chairman, for fiscal year
    2000, we seek $4 million from the Commerce, Justice, State
    Appropriations Subcommittee through the National Oceanographic and
    Atmospheric Administration to continue and expand this critical work
    for the agricultural community.
        Second, we seek your support for the establishment of the National
    Center for Advanced Tropical Remote Sensing Applications and Resources
    which will use Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR) in its operations.
        SAR is a powerful remote sensing system operating at microwave
    frequencies where the atmospheric transmission is high. Thus SAR is
    able to operate in all weather, day or night. Because SAR artificially
    synthesizes an aperture or antenna which is hundreds of meters long in
    space, it will provide multi-parameter high-resolution observations in
    the microwave spectrum. Thus space-based satellite SAR systems are able
    to monitor the movement of targets on land and ocean in near real time,
    map topography with unprecedented accuracy, assess storm and flood
    damage to urban and rural infrastructure. In particular, real-time SAR
    imagery can make a major contribution to various missions of state and
    federal agencies, especially in the area of drug interdiction and human
    smuggling, storm damage assessment and natural hazard mitigation
    related to volcano, flood and severe storm.
        The unique capability of the SAR Facility in South Florida would
    significantly expand the present satellite coverage extending as far
    south as the equator and including large portions of the Atlantic and
    Pacific Oceans. An operational center with quick turn-around processing
    capabilities would significantly enhance military and law-enforcement
    missions in the Caribbean Basin. The tracking and surveillance of ship
    activities is an enormous task. Illegal trafficking of drugs and human
    cargo has been on a sharp rise. Thus the monitoring of ocean features
    and detection of ships over large expanses of coastal and offshore
    waters would be impractical and prohibitively expensive if we could not
    rely on remotely sensed data and automated image analysis techniques.
    Extensive cloud cover of tropical and subtropical regions almost year-
    round, further complicates the effective use of high-altitude aircraft
    or satellites with high-resolution cameras for detecting ships and
    targets on land.
        As a matter of fact, small, fast moving boats are one of the major
    vectors for drug delivery to the USA. These boats have small radar
    cross-sections, and travel exclusively at night without running lights,
    and thus are very difficult to detect by standard techniques. Their low
    radar signatures mean that surveillance aircraft equipped with standard
    ocean surface radar only rarely detect them (the targets have to be
    fairly close to the aircraft). Given the large area of ocean used by
    traffickers, and the relatively small numbers of surveillance flights,
    detection success rate is low. Furthermore, the extensive cloud
    coverage over the Caribbean Basin precludes the effective and
    continuous use of so-called ``eye in the sky'' surveillance of moving
    targets with high-resolution cameras.
        The recent sharp rise of illegal trafficking of human cargo is
    affecting primarily the southern states and putting additional
    pressures and constraints on law-enforcing and military missions. Early
    detection of small ships (i.e., by means of their wakes) would help to
    establish patterns of movement, origination and destination and provide
    improved guidance for Coast Guard, Customs and Immigration officials
    for interception. Illegal smuggling of human cargo occurs both in the
    Pacific and Atlantic Oceans and often transit through third countries
    along the Caribbean or West Coast basins.
        The sensitivity of SAR imagery to subtle changes of the targets on
    land and in ocean makes this type of remote sensing suitable to support
    operationally littoral warfare in foreign, subtropical and tropical
    environments. The SAR's ability to penetrate foliage and brush would
    reveal targets not visible by cameras and provide needed intelligence
    to LOTS (logistics-over-the-shore) during amphibious landings at
    inaccessible territories. Repeated gathering of images over the same
    regions will provide the basis for improved threat analysis for
    military countermeasures and monitoring of environmental impacts such
    as flooding, bathymetric and shoreline changes due to extreme events
    (e.g., tropical cyclones, volcanic eruptions, seismic activities).
        As more people and societal infrastructure concentrate along
    coastal areas, the United States is becoming more vulnerable to the
    impact of tropical cyclones. Furthermore, it is not surprising that
    hurricanes are the costliest natural disasters because of the changes
    in the population and the national wealth density or revenue. The
    States most affected by the cost of hurricanes (e.g. Florida, Texas,
    North Carolina and Maryland) have also a high total common tax revenue,
    which is an indicator of wealth for the state. The impact of hurricanes
    along the east coast is further amplified because the people moving
    into these coastal areas represent the higher wealth segment of our
    society. Early and accurate warnings can save millions in dollars and
    reduce the detrimental impact of storms upon making landfall.
        Respectfully, we seek $3 million to establish a SAR Receiving
    Facility in fiscal year 2000. A consortium of academic scientists from
    several Florida and out-of-state universities would provide the
    scientific expertise for the development efforts of this operational
    facility. We are convinced that this funded effort with a long-term
    partnership provides the best benefit to the operational requirements
    for drug interdiction and military/civilian monitoring of environmental
    impacts. The collaboration of oceanographic, atmospheric and earth
    scientists on the operational needs of critical DOD missions will
    provide military and law-enforcement as well as civilian government
    agencies with continued new science and technology development to fight
    the war on drug trafficking and mitigate the impact of natural
    disasters on society and the environment.
        Finally, Mr. Chairman, we seek your support for the construction of
    a new oceanographic and fisheries research vessel that the Southeast
    Consortium for Ocean Research (SECOR) wishes to build for the Gulf of
    Mexico and surrounding areas. The SECOR members involved in this
    project are: the University of Southern Mississippi (lead for this
    project), the University of Texas at Austin, Texas A&M University, and
    the University of Miami.
        It is planned for the vessel to be part of University-National
    Oceanographic Laboratory System (UNOLS) and operated by SECOR. The
    proposed vessel will have accommodations for 42 scientists and crew,
    with a 10,000-mile range at 12 knots and 45-day endurance. The vessel,
    designed with twin-screw diesel electric propulsion will be able to
    maintain station and follow track lines in up to sea state 4. It will
    have a full-load draft of 14 feet with the ability to operate
    continuously at speeds from to 12 knots. Research mission spaces
    include 2,500 square feet for laboratories, 30 by 40 foot aft work deck
    with 100 feet of clear length side deck, sites for 3 vans, and 1,000
    square feet of stores. The vessel also will have ample main deck area
    aft for reconfiguration between oceanographic and fisheries research
    missions. The aft deck includes a stern ramp with removable cover that
    when installed provides a level main deck aft to the transom.
    Construction cost, to include basic equipment, is estimated at $35
    million.
        SECOR will home port the vessel on the Gulf of Mexico, using the
    facilities of one or more of its members. The annual operating cost is
    estimated to be $2,388,000, and the daily rate, based on 240 days of
    use each year, is therefore $9,950. Principal users will include
    federal and state agencies, university investigators and educators, and
    private companies. This research vessel will provide additional
    intermediate-size ship days needed to conduct oceanographic and
    fisheries research in the Gulf of Mexico and adjacent seas. It is small
    enough to serve as a versatile coastal vessel, and it will be outfitted
    with state-of-the-art equipment and instruments.
        UNOLS is apprised of and supports the existing SECOR arrangement,
    which provides dockside facilities in Galveston, Texas, and Miami,
    Florida, and coordinates instrumentation use and marine technician
    support among SECOR members. In these times of increased competition
    for funding and increased need for affordable ship-time from non-ship-
    operating institutions, we strongly believe that only through resource
    sharing can we effectively manage costly ship operations. SECOR has the
    resources and is prepared to manage a new Class II ship on behalf of
    the research community. Support of this project benefits all academic
    institutions in the southeastern U.S. and the Gulf of Mexico.
        Mr. Chairman, we understand how difficult year this will be for you
    and the Subcommittee. However, we respectfully request that you give
    serious consideration to these vital initiatives. All of them have
    great implications and will provide exceptional benefits to the well-
    being of the nation.
                                     ______

     Prepared Statement of Dr. Elisabeth Zinser, Chancellor, University of
     Kentucky, Lexington Campus, on behalf of the National Association of
                   State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges
        Mr. Chairman, I very much appreciate the opportunity to present
    testimony on fiscal year 2000 appropriations for the National Oceanic
    and Atmospheric Administration. I want to commend you for all your
    efforts and outstanding leadership in ensuring that NOAA has the tools
    to carry out its mandate.
        My name is Elisabeth Zinser. I am the Chancellor of the University
    of Kentucky, Lexington Campus. I am providing this statement for the
    National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges
    (NASULGC). I currently serve as the chair of the Association's Board on
    Oceans and Atmosphere.
                                nasulgc mission
        Founded in 1887, NASULGC is the nation's oldest higher education
    association. Currently the association has over 200 member
    institutions--including 17 historically black institutions--located in
    all fifty states, with a total of 3 million students. The Association's
    overriding mission is to support high quality public education through
    efforts that enhance the capacity of member institutions to perform
    their traditional teaching, research, and public service roles--roles
    which reflect a strong social commitment to investing in the
    development of America's greatest resource, its people.
                              white paper on noaa
        The Board on Oceans and Atmosphere brings together leading
    educators and research scholars in the Association's universities to
    ensure that the nation maintains and benefits from a strong and diverse
    academic capability in the marine (including Great Lakes) and
    atmospheric sciences. Last year the Board completed a white paper,
    ``Recommendations for the Future of the National Oceanic and
    Atmospheric Administration.'' We have sent a copy to your staff, but
    have not yet been able to schedule a meeting to discuss it. The report
    makes several recommendations. Among the most important: NOAA should
    streamline its operation and focus on its unique strengths; NOAA should
    revise and improve its strategic plan explicitly recognizing research
    and development as a core element; NOAA should downsize to three line
    offices with one office responsible for the R&D to support the other
    two; NOAA needs to continue to improve the management of its R&D
    programs. We discuss these and other recommendations in detail and I
    would strongly urge you to review the report.
                       importance of extramural research
        The Government Performance and Results Act presents extraordinary
    opportunities for creative partnerships between the Federal government
    and universities. These partnerships can contribute significantly to
    the national goal of a more efficient and productive Federal government
    by providing policy makers higher quality research at lower costs to
    address society's most compelling issues. Competitive, peer-reviewed
    extramural research is fundamental to developing the technologies which
    ensure safe food and water supplies, a healthy environment, sufficient
    energy sources, better medical care, improved communications and
    transportation systems, a stronger national defense and strategies and
    tools to mitigate natural hazards. Information from such research leads
    to improved management of natural resources and maintenance of
    conditions that contribute to a desired quality of life.
                           noaa and the universities
        To carry out its mission most effectively and efficiently, NOAA
    must employ the best scientific talents of the nation. NOAA and the
    nation's universities have benefitted for many years from a diverse
    array of working relationships. These vary substantially in scope and
    structure, including formal joint institute agreements and co-location
    of facilities; personnel exchanges and student internships; and major
    joint programs. NOAA has involved universities in its Strategic
    Planning Process and universities and NOAA worked together to establish
    a Science Advisory Board for the Agency. The importance of the SAB to
    NOAA's scientific mandate cannot be overstated. Yet NOAA could benefit
    much more from academic capabilities and we are disappointed that the
    preponderance of NOAA's R&D budget is spent on internal activities, in
    contrast to many other agencies whose central mission is science-based.
                national oceanic and atmospheric administration
        NOAA is responsible for programs that are critical to our society,
    including understanding the nation's ocean, Great Lakes, and coastal
    resources, protecting life and property from severe weather and
    describing and predicting changes in the Earth's environment. Many of
    NOAA's missions require a continuing investment in scientific research.
    As a science agency, NOAA demonstrates that policy is predicated on
    sound science.
                   office of oceanic and atmospheric research
        Mr. Chairman, NASULGC believes that the fiscal year 2000 budget
    request for NOAA insufficiently funds the Office of Oceanic and
    Atmospheric Research and many of the Agency's most important extramural
    research programs. We urge the Committee to provide no less than $316.3
    million for OAR for fiscal year 2000. OAR is the main research arm of
    NOAA and contributes to all other Line Offices and Strategic Plan goals
    and provides the scientific basis for national policy decisions in key
    areas. It supports a world-class network of scientists and
    environmental research laboratories and partnerships with academia and
    the private sector. An overarching issue for research is to ensure that
    cost increases due to inflation don't erode the long term research
    capabilities. While the proposed budget increases funding for the Ocean
    Service by about 30 percent, and the Fisheries Service by 15 percent
    from the fiscal year 1999 appropriated level, OAR's budget suffers a
    cut. In fact, fiscal year 2000 continues a disturbing pattern where
    research is underfunded to make way for new trendy initiatives, and
    Congress is left to restore the balance among research and other
    activities.
        I would now like to highlight those programs where universities
    have worked closely with NOAA and which have been highly successful.
    They are in no particular order. We encourage you to make these
    activities priorities for your Committee because they have been sound
    investments for the taxpayers and are in the best interests of the
    nation.
    Climate and Global Change Program
        NASULGC recommends the President's request of $69.7 million for
    Climate and Global Change. This competitive grants program is essential
    to improve NOAA's predictive and assessment capabilities. It provides
    critical information on patterns of climate variability and on the
    trends and probabilities of occurrence of extreme events such as
    floods, hurricanes, storms, and tornadoes.
    U.S. Weather Research Program (USWRP)
        NASULGC recommends that the NOAA contribution to the multiagency
    USWRP be $10 million for fiscal year 2000. We are encouraged that NOAA
    finally specified an amount in its budget to contribute to USWRP.
    However, the $1.5 million it proposed is not sufficient to realize the
    tremendous potential of this program. The figure we urge the Committee
    to adopt will allow USWRP to focus new meteorological knowledge on
    saving lives, protecting property, and providing weather-sensitive
    industries and businesses a competitive edge.
    Health of the Atmosphere Program (HOA)
        We urge the Committee to provide the proposed $0.4 million increase
    for HOA. This program is important to understanding ozone episodes in
    rural areas where crop and forest damage is of great concern.
    National Sea Grant College Program
        NASULGC recommends $65.8 million total appropriation for Sea Grant
    for fiscal year 2000, which is the authorized amount for fiscal year
    2000. This level is justified because, when adjusted for inflation, the
    1998 appropriations were 23 percent below 1980 buying power. Sea Grant
    as the marine counterpart to the Land-Grant College system, combines
    research, education and public service. It is a fully peer-reviewed,
    highly leveraged program in which the universities, government, and the
    private sector share costs. It is a program which annually generates
    benefits many times the level of the Federal contribution, and involves
    over 200 universities. Sea Grant is virtually the only source of
    funding in the U.S. for activities in marine biotechnology. In
    addition, it has played a major role in promoting advances in fisheries
    management, hazards mitigation, coastal engineering, seafood safety,
    coastal environmental management, coastal economic development, and
    marine technology. Sea Grant has supported students at all educational
    levels. It has been responsible for educating many of the nation's
    leading marine scientists. Sea Grant is making some remarkable
    discoveries related to the anti-carcinogenic properties of marine
    organisms which could have a profound effect on human health.
    National Undersea Research Program (NURP)
        NASULGC recommends $28 million for NURP. The increase is necessary
    to sustain baseline operating funds for 6 national undersea research
    centers, direct science support to investigators, and maintenance of
    priority undersea investments such as the Aquarius habitat, LEO-15,
    ROV's, and submersibles. Funds also will support the NOAA contribution
    to operation of ALVIN, an information transfer program administered
    through the JASON foundation, and establishment of sea floor
    observatories. Support also is sought to continue the Delta
    competition, a grant program based on competition between the 6
    national undersea research centers.
    Autonomous Floats
        NASULGC strongly supports the $4 million request for 1,000
    autonomous floats in the Pacific and Atlantic Ocean. The floats will
    provide real-time measurements essential to produce ``weather maps'' of
    the upper ocean and seasonal cycles, and are key to understanding and
    predicting the climate phenomena affecting our nation. These floats are
    a critical component of a global ocean observing system.
    Aquaculture
        NASULGC supports the request for an increase of $3.6 million for
    the sustainable production of native commercial ocean species and $10
    million to Sea Grant to address this critical need. The U.S. lags way
    behind many other coastal nations in realizing the vast potential of
    aquaculture. The funding increase will allow for the research to ensure
    responsible development of this industry.
    Coastal Ocean Program (COP)
        NASULGC endorses the fiscal year 2000 budget request of $19.4
    million for COP. COP directs NOAA science capabilities and extramural
    research to address coastal ocean and Great Lake issues. It enhances
    NOAA's stewardship of coastal waters by strengthening existing coastal
    programs, developing new and innovative strategies on priority issues,
    and coordinates its efforts with other agencies and the academic
    community. COP's mission is to provide the highest quality science for
    coastal policy decisions.
    National Estuarine Research Reserves (NERRS)
        NASULGC supports the request for $24 million, to support a network
    of critical estuaries representing all the biological regions and for
    operations to support research, education, and stewardship programs.
    Estuaries play a vital role in the health of our coastal ecosystems.
    The Natural Disaster Reduction Initiative (NDRI)
        NASULGC supports the requested increase of $42.1 million for NDRI,
    an interagency effort to reduce and mitigate the effects of natural
    disasters. We do believe, however, that NOAA needs to establish a
    strong research base in the program along with the technology
    applications, tech transfer, and education and outreach.
    Minority Outreach
        NASULGC strongly supports NOAA's plans to establish educational
    training relationship and partnerships with HBCU's, and we commend the
    Agency for the prominence it gives this effort in the budget document.
    However, the $1 million allotment is insufficient. Over the years, NOAA
    has given much rhetorical commitment to enhancing partnerships with
    Minority institutions, but the results have been minimal. NOAA needs to
    develop a clear strategy to bring minorities and minority institutions
    into the marine and atmospheric sciences.
                        important directions and trends
        NOAA is involved in several other research activities, some of
    which are part of Administration initiatives, and we would like to
    briefly discuss these at this time. NASULGC strongly supports NOAA's
    proposed increases for research, monitoring and detection of pfiesteria
    and other Harmful Algal Blooms, the ECOHAB program, and related hypoxia
    in the Gulf of Mexico program. Problems associated with nutrient
    loading remain poorly understood and command continued research.
    Aquatic nuisance species are becoming an ever more dangerous problem
    for our nation and NASULGC supports NOAA's request for additional
    resources for research, new technologies, outreach, and control
    programs to combat them.
        In its OCEAN 2000 cross-cutting initiative, NOAA committed
    additional resources to addressing important national needs. We endorse
    the Agency's direction to strengthen marine sanctuaries, restore
    fragile coral reefs, repair fisheries habitats, ensure sound coastal
    dredging, for increased shallow-water and deep-sea ocean observations,
    and beef up the Coastal Zone Management Act as an effective Federal-
    State coastal partnership. El Nino has driven home the importance of
    ocean-atmosphere coupling. We support NOAA's initiatives which attempt
    to build our understanding of this linkage. NASULGC supports NOAA's
    request for a systemic long-term carbon observation program, a scalable
    super computer system for NOAA's Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory,
    and for the GEOSTORMS satellite. Finally, NASULGC would recommend $13.5
    million for the NOAA Coastal Service Center to develop coastal
    information and technical products and services, and for the necessary
    capacity building and training for state and local coastal managers.
        Thank you for the opportunity to present this statement.
                                     ______

                             DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
      Prepared Statement of Kenneth E. Bischoff, Director, Administrative
    Services, Alaska Department of Public Safety and Chairman of SEARCH of
         the National Consortium for Justice Information and Statistics
        SEARCH is a nonprofit criminal justice organization dedicated to
    assisting state and local criminal justice agencies combat crime and
    administer justice through the effective and responsible use of
    information and identification technologies. SEARCH is governed by a
    Membership Group comprised of one gubernatorial appointee from each of
    the 50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico and the Virgin
    Islands.
        We submit this testimony seeking appropriation support for SEARCH's
    National Technical Assistance and Training Program in the fiscal year
    2000 Byrne discretionary program appropriation for the Bureau of
    Justice Assistance (BJA). The National Technical Assistance and
    Training Program received an appropriations earmark in fiscal year 1999
    in the amount of $1.5 million. We respectfully submit this testimony to
    request funding at the $2 million level for fiscal year 2000.
        SEARCH's National Technical Assistance and Training Program is
    unique--it provides no-cost assistance to all components of the state
    and local criminal justice system with respect to the development,
    operation, improvement and/or integration of all types of criminal
    justice information systems. The National Technical Assistance and
    Training Program not only helps state and local agencies work more
    efficiently and effectively through the use of advanced information
    technology, but it creates the foundation for a national information
    infrastructure for justice systems.
        SEARCH is experiencing rapidly increasing demand for the program
    for a number of reasons. Most notably, the nation's criminal justice
    agencies' have a critical need to quickly share complete and accurate
    information, and, therefore, their efforts to integrate and connect
    justice information systems have impacted the demand for SEARCH
    technical assistance and training services. In addition, grant programs
    such as COPS More, the Edward Byrne Memorial State and Local Law
    Enforcement Assistance Grant Program and the Local Law Enforcement
    Block Grant have provided seed money for justice information systems
    automation and integration. For these reasons, we anticipate this
    demand to not only continue, but to accelerate.
        On a slightly different topic, we also urge the Subcommittee to
    fund as fully as possible S. 2022, the Crime Identification Technology
    Act which was enacted into law last year (Pub. L. No. 105-251). The
    Crime Identification Technology Act authorizes $1.25 billion during
    fiscal year 1999-fiscal year 2003 in grants administered by the Office
    of Justice Programs, in reliance upon the expertise of the Bureau of
    Justice Statistics. The grants would help every state to establish or
    upgrade its use of information and identification and forensic
    technologies. In addition, Title II of the Act, the National Criminal
    History Access and Child Protection Act, establishes the National Crime
    Prevention and Privacy Compact. The Compact binds the Federal Bureau of
    Investigation and, upon approval by the state legislatures, the states
    to participate in the cooperative program to use the Interstate
    Identification Index for noncriminal justice purposes.
        We want to commend BJA and its fine, professional staff. Working in
    partnership with SEARCH, BJA has provided strong, national leadership
    to create opportunities for information systems training and technical
    assistance for state and local criminal justice officials.
        Because SEARCH's Technical Assistance and Training Program is
    national, SEARCH is able to replicate successful computer
    implementation strategies in one state or locality and disseminate and
    transfer those strategies to other states and localities. SEARCH is
    also able to provide its assistance in a manner that promotes the
    interstate compatibility of criminal justice information systems. The
    beneficiaries are state and local criminal justice agencies throughout
    the nation; the federal government, which is the largest single
    consumer of arrest and conviction and other criminal justice
    information; and the public.
        This year the National Technical Assistance and Training Program
    will accomplish the following:
      --Provide in-depth technical assistance at SEARCH's National Criminal
            Justice Computer Laboratory and Training Center to
            representatives from state and local criminal justice agencies;
      --Provide on-site, technical assistance to state and local criminal
            justice agencies;
      --Provide technical assistance by telephone and via the Internet to
            officials from literally hundreds of criminal justice agencies
            in virtually every state in the union;
      --Provide training to nearly two thousand criminal justice officials
            nationally; and
      --Develop and publish practical criminal justice information system
            technical bulletins and reference guides.
        SEARCH's information support program for state and local criminal
    justice agencies makes a unique and vital contribution. Through a
    comprehensive program of technical assistance and training, SEARCH
    facilitates the operation of the criminal justice system in a cost-
    effective, efficient and fair manner.
                        benefits of the national program
        SEARCH's National Technical Assistance and Training Program:
      --Facilitates the development and implementation of state-of-the-art
            computer and networking capabilities among state and local
            criminal justice agencies with an emphasis on compatibility
            throughout the nation;
      --Improves the accuracy, completeness and reliability of arrest,
            conviction and other criminal justice information;
      --Increases the information capabilities of criminal justice
            agencies, particularly small- and medium-sized criminal justice
            agencies which often lack financial resources and specialized
            computer personnel to operate computer systems in a cost-
            efficient and effective manner;
      --Improves the information system proficiency of criminal justice
            officials, resulting in a nationwide cadre of law enforcement
            officials trained in computer technology and its application to
            law enforcement;
      --Provides assistance and training based upon a national perspective
            and national strategy that promotes a consistent nationwide
            approach to managing criminal justice information and
            integrating information systems. A nationwide approach is
            essential because the processing of individuals and cases
            through the justice system depends on the sharing of
            information between state, local and federal agencies
            nationwide;
      --Facilitates the effective and targeted expenditures of other
            federal justice assistance monies;
      --Services provided by the National Program act as ``seed'' monies,
            leveraging state and local monies that then build upon the
            foundation established by the National Program;
      --Identifies state and local criminal justice information management
            problems nationwide, and develops solutions that not only
            benefit individual agencies, but that promote compatibility and
            consistency with other state, local and federal systems; and,
      --Replicates and disseminates successful information management
            strategies on a national basis, emphasizing the efficient and
            timely sharing of high-quality information, and, thus,
            improving the effectiveness of the administration of justice.
        SEARCH's National Technical Assistance and Training Program assists
    agencies in developing the information resources which are critical in
    the reliable and timely identification of suspects and offenders; the
    effective prosecution and adjudication of offenders, including drug-
    related offenders; the efficient use of criminal justice resources; and
    the production of comprehensive and compatible criminal justice
    statistics and research information.
        Furthermore, the National Technical Assistance and Training Program
    provides essential infrastructure support to targeted block and
    discretionary grant anti-crime and anti-drug initiatives. Without
    information technology support, these initiatives are handicapped.
        As an example of such technology support, SEARCH convened nearly
    1,000 justice practitioners from across the country for a national
    training event that focused on the integration of justice information
    systems. The event trained justice practitioners on technology and its
    application to the justice system, and has generated scores of requests
    for SEARCH technical assistance to develop and implement integrated
    justice information systems from the attending agencies.
                          technical assistance program
        SEARCH provides technical assistance via written correspondence,
    telephone consultations, electronic mail, and/or through an Internet
    web site, and when the needs of agencies require, SEARCH provides on-
    site technical assistance.
    In-house Technical Assistance
        SEARCH's program of in-house technical assistance provides access
    to a unique, centralized source of data about information management
    systems and related technologies that would otherwise be beyond the
    reach of most criminal justice agencies and, particularly, small- and
    medium-sized agencies. Simply by placing a telephone call or sending
    electronic mail, state and local criminal justice agencies have
    immediate access to the specialized knowledge of SEARCH's professional
    staff. Under fiscal year 1999 funding, SEARCH will respond to several
    hundred telephone calls requesting technical assistance, which, on
    average, require two hours of staff time to effectively respond.
        The nature and scope of in-house technical assistance varies
    considerably, but can involve the following: providing technical
    consultations on the planning, implementation or operation of automated
    systems, such as network configurations, software installations and
    technical innovations; conducting in-depth research; making referrals
    to other appropriate resource providers; and providing answers to
    questions on a wide range of topics related to justice automation.
        SEARCH has also taken advantage of the Internet to expand the reach
    of its technical assistance program to justice agencies. SEARCH web
    sites are specifically designed so that justice agencies of any size,
    in rural or urban locations, can immediately access information on a
    variety of technical issues related to justice information management
    via the World Wide Web. The web sites offer virtual libraries of
    information to justice practitioners, including published articles,
    documents and white papers; references to other justice agencies using
    particular technologies; interactive discussion forums where
    practitioners can share information with peers and experts on
    particular technologies; requests for proposals and requests for
    information databases; and links to other justice technology resources
    and information.
    On-site Technical Assistance
        The Technical Assistance Program also provides on-site assistance
    to agencies throughout the nation that are predominantly nonautomated
    or lagging in automation, and which have special needs in automating
    their information systems. Priority for technical assistance is given
    to block grant recipients, and among them, to grantees planning for
    and/or implementing multijurisdictional or statewide information
    systems. Since 1986, SEARCH has provided technical assistance to scores
    of agencies in every state, representing all components of the criminal
    justice system.
        The majority of technical assistance is completed within one month,
    consists of a single site visit by two staff for approximately 2-3
    days, and includes staff preparation, follow-up and production of a
    formal report. The following illustrates just a few examples of SEARCH
    on-site technical assistance in the past year and the broad range of
    agencies receiving assistance.
        At the request of state-level court and law enforcement officials,
    SEARCH is working with New Hampshire on an ambitious project to
    integrate the information systems of all state criminal justice system
    participants. The project is designed to facilitate the exchange of
    justice data and information among local, state and federal criminal
    justice agencies by maximizing the use of a new criminal justice
    information network. SEARCH is working with the Interbranch Criminal
    and Juvenile Justice Council, which includes the Governor, the Speaker
    of the House, the President of the Senate, the Chief Justice of the
    Supreme Court and a variety of other officials from the executive,
    legislative and judicial branches of New Hampshire state, county and
    local government.
        In Alaska, SEARCH helped the Anchorage Police Department after it
    encountered encrypted graphics while investigating a child pornography
    suspect.
        SEARCH is working with state agencies in Kentucky on planning for a
    statewide justice information system. At the request of Kentucky's
    Chief Information Officer and state justice officials, SEARCH will work
    with the Uniform Criminal Justice Information System Committee to
    develop the concept for a statewide integrated justice system and is
    establishing project ``next steps.'' A site visit is planned for June
    1999. At the local level, SEARCH is also working with the Jefferson
    County and Louisville police departments to develop plans for a new
    records management information system that is integrated between the
    departments and between other city and county agencies.
        In Texas, SEARCH is helping Dallas and Tarrant counties develop and
    integrate their justice information systems. Also, SEARCH addressed the
    Texas Court Appointed Special Advocate Conference on ``Child
    Pornography and the Internet.''
        At the request of the Colorado Division of Criminal Justice, SEARCH
    helped the sheriffs' departments in Alamosa and Conejos and the police
    departments in Center and Monte Vista plan for automated, integrated
    information systems. SEARCH also worked with the Lakewood Police
    Department to upgrade old information systems, and trained the Colorado
    Bureau of Investigation on implementing an automated interstate model
    rap sheet.
        In South Carolina, SEARCH instructed the South Carolina Law
    Enforcement Division on how to build a forensic computer system.
        SEARCH helped the Hawaii Criminal Justice Data Center to prepare
    and disseminate a Request for Proposal for a statewide digital mugshot
    system, and to develop a strategic plan for Interstate Identification
    Index participation.
        In New Jersey, SEARCH worked with the Camden Sheriff's Department
    to design a relational criminal information database with photo imaging
    and warrant filing, and trained representatives from the New Jersey
    State Police on implementing an automated interstate model rap sheet.
        In Maryland, SEARCH aided efforts by the Department of Public
    Safety to improve its ability to process National Crime Information
    Center information. SEARCH also aided efforts by the Hagerstown Police
    Department to acquire a records management, computer-aided dispatch and
    mobile computing system, and helped the Montgomery County Police
    Department compare models of mobile computers for patrol cars.
        Beyond these efforts to provide short-term assistance, there exists
    a pressing need to provide more extensive, long-term technical
    assistance to states and/or agencies within states to address the
    technically complex and sophisticated planning, design and
    implementation issues associated with developing integrated or
    consolidated information systems within and between justice agencies;
    and to assist these jurisdictions in developing state-, county- or
    city-wide plans for justice information systems and technology and
    improvements in criminal records.
        In response, SEARCH provides a limited number of agencies with
    technical support for extended periods of time, including multiple on-
    site visits, research and, often times, complementary training
    sessions. During such a project, SEARCH will often work with a variety
    of justice agencies, including police departments, courts, and
    prosecutorial, probation, parole, corrections and case management
    offices. In our experience, this type of project often produces
    knowledge and products suitable for transfer to other jurisdictions.
    Indeed, the vast majority of SEARCH's technical assistance is
    multijurisdictional.
        This type of on-site assistance typically involves helping a state
    or agency establish an automated justice information system, evaluate
    and plan for statewide integration of existing automated justice
    information systems, or assistance in enhancing, expanding or
    implementing a computerized criminal history repository program.
        SEARCH is providing long-term technical assistance to agencies in
    Washington, New Hampshire (noted previously) and Montana, specifically
    focusing on the integration of justice information systems at the
    state, local and county levels.
        In fiscal year 2000, SEARCH would expect to provide on-site
    technical assistance to several dozen criminal justice agencies.
                           national training program
        Since its inception in 1986, SEARCH's National Technical Assistance
    and Training Program has trained over 20,500 criminal justice officials
    from every state in the use of computers and other information
    technologies. In fiscal year 1999 alone, SEARCH will provide training
    to approximately 2,000 state and local criminal justice officials
    across the nation by presenting 25-30 in-house and outreach training
    courses, as well as making presentations at training conferences
    nationwide.
        SEARCH's National Criminal Justice Computer Laboratory and Training
    Center in Sacramento serves as a hands-on resource for criminal justice
    practitioners to learn about and evaluate computer technology. The
    National Computer Laboratory and Training Center is presently
    configured to accommodate students representing 20 different agencies.
    Each student is equipped with a computer configured with various
    operating systems and state-of-the-art training technology. It is
    critical that this technology be maintained and updated on a regular
    basis.
        Training sessions are customarily three to five days in length and
    are normally limited to 20 students, thus affording a high instructor
    to student ratio. Courses focus on such issues as the investigation of
    computer crime, and on the investigation of crime perpetuated over the
    Internet.
        SEARCH training in a particular state attracts participants from
    various state, federal and local agencies and, often, from agencies in
    neighboring states. During fiscal year 1999, SEARCH provided numerous
    training seminars at the National Criminal Justice Computer Laboratory
    and Training Center located at SEARCH headquarters in California.
    Criminal justice practitioners from throughout the nation are eligible
    to attend. For example, investigators from New Hampshire and Texas were
    among those who attended ``Investigation of Computer Crime'' training
    courses conducted by SEARCH. SEARCH conducted its ``Investigation of
    Computer Crime'' training course in a number of states, including
    Alaska, Colorado, Hawaii, New Jersey and South Carolina.
                   national cyber crime training partnership
        During the past three years, the Computer Crime Unit of the U.S.
    Department of Justice, in conjunction with the National White Collar
    Crime Center, has conducted a federal level project to define how to
    best train and equip the nation's criminal justice investigators and
    prosecutors to deal with computer crime in the information age. The
    organizing agencies asked SEARCH to participate in a series of meetings
    to discuss the mission and functional objectives of computer crime
    training for state and local justice practitioners.
        The Partnership continues to identify needs; develop new, advanced
    training courses; and sets standards for national justice training
    courses in the area of curbing computer crime. Other organizations
    participating in the group include: the Defense Department, Drug
    Enforcement Administration, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Federal
    Law Enforcement Training Center, National Security Agency, U.S. Postal
    Service, U.S. Secret Service, Canadian Police College, Forensic
    Association of Computer Technologists, National Aeronautics and Space
    Administration, National Association of Attorneys General, National
    College of District Attorneys, International Association of Chiefs of
    Police, and the International Association of Computer Investigative
    Specialists.
              technical assistance and training program materials
        SEARCH's National Technical Assistance and Training Program also
    includes the preparation, publication and national dissemination of
    materials and reports that assist criminal justice agencies in
    acquiring and using computers and other information technology. SEARCH
    publishes quarterly Technical Bulletins that identify and evaluate
    information systems and technologies that have existing or potential
    application in criminal justice management. The Bulletins are a vital
    resource for criminal justice practitioners who receive them and help
    to identify and encourage potential markets for private sector
    development. Examples of past issues include new technologies for
    courts, data security and encryption, law enforcement mobile computing,
    the FBI's Integrated Automated Fingerprint Identification System, and
    digital imaging. The Bulletins are mailed to over 2,000 criminal
    justice practitioners, and are also made available electronically via
    the Internet.
        Other types of SEARCH technical publications have included reports
    on issues such as countywide justice integration strategies and
    understanding biometric technologies. SEARCH also provides a variety of
    on-line resources, including the technical assistance exchange form,
    which shares information on technologies employed by all justice
    agencies, and the law enforcement mobile computing web site.
                                   conclusion
        Federal support for SEARCH's National Technical Assistance and
    Training Program does not promise a quick victory or big headlines in
    the war against crime and drugs. But, without question, federal support
    for the National Technical Assistance and Training Program makes a
    vital contribution to the war on crime and drugs. For a modest federal
    investment, leveraged many times over by state and local funds, a
    critical contribution is made to the ability of state and local
    criminal justice agencies to provide timely, accurate and compatible
    information for use in apprehending, prosecuting and sentencing
    offenders.
        Accordingly, we respectfully request that the Subcommittee act to
    ensure fiscal year 2000 funding of SEARCH's National Technical
    Assistance and Training Program.
        We thank you, Mr. Chairman, the members of your Subcommittee and
    the Subcommittee staff for your continued support.
                                     ______

      Prepared Statement of Lee Arbetman, National Coordinator, National,
                   Coordinated Law-Related Education Program
        I am Lee Arbetman, the National Coordinator of the National,
    Coordinated Law-Related Education Program. I am submitting this
    testimony on behalf of Youth for Justice, the National, Coordinated
    Law-Related Education Program (LRE). We respectfully request the
    Subcommittee's appropriations support for fiscal year 2000.
        LRE/Youth for Justice is committed to involving young people in
    each state directly in identifying and implementing solutions to this
    nation's epidemic of violence. The program's approach is to teach young
    people about the law so that they can lead their lives within the law.
    In the last decade, the National Program has reached millions of at-
    risk children and trained hundreds of thousands of teachers, juvenile
    justice counselors and law enforcement officials.
        Law-Related Education, despite its name, has nothing whatsoever to
    do with legal or pre-legal training. The National, Coordinated Law-
    Related Education Program has a proven record of success in juvenile
    delinquency and violence prevention. Law-related lessons reach at-risk
    children and juvenile offenders in school and juvenile justice settings
    in both urban and rural environments. Youth for Justice meets its goals
    by developing and maintaining strong, viable LRE centers in each state.
    The National Program leverages a tiny federal investment, $1.5 million
    in fiscal year 1999, many times over in private sector and state and
    local money and in in-kind support from the criminal justice and
    juvenile justice communities.
        The program has two components. The first component of the program
    is intervention. This part of the program operates primarily in various
    kinds of juvenile justice facilities. In settings ranging from
    detention centers to training schools and after-care, Law-Related
    Education Programs help youth develop problem-solving, conflict
    resolution, and communication skills in the context of engaging lessons
    that focus on personal responsibility.
        The second component, prevention, operates primarily in elementary
    and secondary schools. When you visit a school involved in this
    program, you are very likely to see a teacher, a judge, a lawyer, the
    town's police chief, a law student or a probation officer working with
    a class of students. In some of the best Youth for Justice classrooms,
    police officers co-teach with classroom teachers on a daily basis.
        Your home state of New Hampshire is a national leader in adopting
    Law-Related Education for use as both a prevention and intervention
    program. In 1996, 365 lawyers visited 31,000 students in 205 schools
    throughout the state as part of the Lawyer in Every School program.
    Students from 41 schools just completed their participation in the
    expanded 1999 New Hampshire Mock Trial Competition. A Peer Meditation
    video for high school students has been added to strengthen what is
    already a model program.
        The State of Kentucky is another national leader in the adoption of
    LRE programs. Approximately 56,000 juveniles entered the Kentucky
    juvenile justice system last year. Half of those juveniles participated
    in Law-Related Education programs. In addition, every judicial district
    in Kentucky has a fully operational court diversion program. Evaluation
    research conducted by faculty at the Eastern Kentucky University
    Department of Corrections has found that the recidivism rate for youth
    in the Law-Related Education intervention program is only about 7
    percent, compared to about 20 percent for other youth who receive more
    traditional probation services.
        The State of Hawaii, a long-time leader in LRE programming, has
    just conducted a major training activity with the national coordinated
    LRE program. Through that activity, and in conjunction with the
    Judiciary Center of Hawaii, 29 teachers and other professionals who
    work with teen parents throughout the state were trained to implement
    LRE's Parents and the Law program.
        In the spring of 1999, Vermont conducted its largest Youth Summit
    to date. More than 100 young people participated with their teachers,
    representatives of the juvenile justice system, and officials from the
    state's department of corrections (as well as several inmates) at an
    all day program held at Vermont Law School in South Royalton.
        Mr. Chairman, thanks to the continued commitment of this
    Subcommittee, Youth for Justice, the National, Coordinated Law-Related
    Education Program has built a vital, cost effective program serving the
    needs of youth throughout our nation. This program:
      --Involves young people in every state in identifying and
            implementing solutions to the nation's epidemic of violence;
      --Promotes research-based educational programs that strive for safe,
            disciplined and drug-free schools and communities;
      --Teaches young people acceptable ways to resolve conflicts;
      --Fosters constructive attitudes towards authority figures, such as
            parents, teachers and police officers;
      --Provides young people with meaningful opportunities to serve their
            communities;
      --Promotes understanding of and reasoned commitment to the rule of
            law along with tolerance for varied points of view in a free
            and diverse society; and
      --Helps young people understand the democratic process and develop
            the critical thinking, decision-making, and problem solving
            skills to enable their full participation in that process.
        Youth for Justice is committed to providing leadership in the
    national effort to stop the outrage of violence committed by and
    perpetrated against this nation's youth. We have the capacity to
    involve young people directly in helping to identify and implement
    solutions. With the support of Congress, Youth for Justice is
    refocusing all programs to reflect the nation's growing concern about
    violence committed by and against young people in our schools and
    communities.
      --Law-Related Education is one of the few juvenile delinquency
            prevention programs with a proven record of reducing delinquent
            and antisocial behavior, increasing belief in the rule of law
            and developing responsible citizens.
      --Law-Related Education focuses on violence prevention. Last Spring,
            thousands of young people from both the school and juvenile
            justice settings again gathered with public officials in more
            than 20 States, participating in Youth Summits designed to help
            develop public policy to help prevent violence by and against
            youth. During this fifth season of summits, thousands of young
            people are taking a close look at the problem of violence by
            and against youth. Recently, youngsters in Wyoming's Youth
            Summit actually wrote a violence prevention bill, lobbied the
            governor and the state legislature and were successful in
            having the bill passed last session and signed by the governor.
            As a result of this bill, teen courts are being established
            throughout the state.
      --Law-Related Education is an extraordinarily effective prevention
            program, but it is also an extraordinarily effective
            intervention program--Law-Related Education reaches juvenile
            offenders in school settings as well as halfway houses,
            detention centers, and other non-school settings.
      --While Law-Related Education targets at-risk children, it does so
            not just in urban settings but also in suburban and rural
            environments.
      --Law-Related Education is one of the most effective programs in
            mobilizing volunteer support from the criminal justice
            community, including law enforcement officers, prosecutors and
            judges.
                   the national law-related education program
        The National, Coordinated Law-Related Education Program is
    comprised of five not-for-profit corporations, each of which is
    recognized nationally and internationally as a leader in the field of
    law and civic education: The American Bar Association's Special
    Committee on Youth Education for Citizenship; the Center for Civic
    Education; the Constitutional Rights Foundation; Street Law, Inc.; and
    the Phi Alpha Delta Public Service Center. By combining their expertise
    and experience as teachers, school administrators, juvenile justice
    professionals, attorneys and professors, these five organizations have
    successfully administered a nationwide program in which they have:
      --Established and maintained an effective network of delinquency
            prevention law and citizenship projects in all fifty states,
            the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico, so that accurate
            information and effective materials can be efficiently
            distributed and widely used without costly replication of
            research and development efforts;
      --Provided training and technical assistance to the state projects in
            this network so that federal funding effectively leverages
            public and private funding appropriate to each state;
      --Established innovative law and citizenship programs for at-risk
            youth in urban, rural and suburban communities;
      --Provided several hundred thousand hours of training for teachers,
            law enforcement personnel and other professionals who work with
            young people;
      --Developed and field-tested quality, research based curricular
            materials for children--kindergarten through grade twelve--in
            public and private schools, juvenile detention centers, after-
            school programs and court-related diversion programs;
      --Organized special initiatives on violence prevention, drug
            prevention, juvenile justice and urban education, publishing
            materials and sponsoring training events nationwide;
      --Mobilized thousands of volunteers with expertise in law, public
            policy, drug and alcohol abuse prevention, juvenile justice and
            other areas; and
      --Provided leadership and organization for another season of Youth
            Summits in the Spring of 1998, involving youth and public
            policy makers in more than 20 States in developing plans to
            solve the widespread problem of conflict and violence among our
            nation's youth.
        We at the National, Coordinated Law-Related Education Program
    acknowledge with pride the participation of dozens of organizations and
    thousands of individuals from the education, legal, law enforcement,
    judicial and juvenile justice organizations. The Program has had
    assistance from the executive branch and strong bipartisan support in
    Congress for the outstanding delinquency prevention programs and
    materials it has developed and implemented.
        In addition, it is a particular source of satisfaction to note that
    similar partnerships have been developed in most of the states
    participating in this network. A small amount of federal support has
    provided the impetus to attract funding from local organizations,
    agencies and foundations as well as large numbers of volunteer hours.
    One important goal of this Program is to continue to provide the
    support and technical assistance necessary to enable all of the states
    to build their own public/private partnership networks, effectively
    leveraging a small amount of federal assistance to build strong, well-
    funded local and state programs.
                      evaluations of law-related education
        For the past two decades, researchers have consistently reported
    that law-related curricula and instruction make a positive impact on
    youth, when compared with traditional approaches to teaching and
    learning law, civics and government. A review of the research in Law-
    Related Education and related fields (including scholarly papers,
    dissertations, journal articles and book chapters) conducted by Dr.
    Jeffery W. Cornett and published on April 1, 1997 in monograph form
    concludes that LRE programs have a positive effect on student knowledge
    about law and legal processes, and about individual rights and
    responsibilities. In addition, the report concludes that there is
    evidence that LRE programs have a positive influence on student
    attitudes and behavior. Research studies indicate that effective LRE
    programs have improved juveniles' attitudes toward the justice system
    and toward authorities. Research findings also indicate a link between
    particular LRE programs and youth who, as a result of Law-Related
    Education, exhibit more law-abiding behavior and commit fewer
    delinquent acts.
        In 1998, the National, Coordinated Law-Related Education Program
    released impact data from demonstration programs in Los Angeles,
    Chicago and Washington, D.C. showing the positive effect that Law-
    Related Education can have on the highest at-risk youth. This data is
    the culmination of a three-year effort to test the impact of Law-
    Related Education on at-risk youth in the most challenging
    environments.
        A four-year national quantitative evaluation of Law-Related
    Education was carried out in 32 schools in six different states from
    1980-1984. Conducted by the Center for Action Research and the Social
    Science Education Consortium of Boulder, Colorado, the evaluation found
    that:
      --Law-Related Education, when implemented properly, reduces those
            factors associated with delinquent behavior;
      --Law-Related Education, more than any other subject, fostered a
            belief in students that laws are legitimate and should be
            obeyed; and
      --Some of the positive effects of Law-Related Education included
            reduction of school infractions, decrease in the use of alcohol
            and other drugs, and a decrease in other delinquent behaviors.
        The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP)
    has noted that evaluations of Law-Related Education Program have been
    ``encourag-
    ing * * * confirming the previous findings that such education serves
    as a significant deterrent to delinquent behavior''. Eighth Analysis
    and Evaluation of Federal Juvenile Delinquency Programs, U.S.
    Department of Justice, OJJDP, p. 60 (1985).
        The Twelfth Analysis and Evaluation of Federal Juvenile Delinquency
    Programs published in 1988 similarly states, ``[A] national study
    suggests that Law-Related Education, when properly implemented, can
    reduce the tendency to engage in delinquent behavior.''
        Dr. Timothy Buzzell of Drake University in Des Moines, Iowa, in
    1992 published a study of one of the first Law-Related Education
    Programs in a juvenile justice setting. He found over the six-year
    period of the study that a Law-Related Education Program implemented at
    the state training school for boys positively influenced risk factors
    commonly correlated with delinquent behavior.
        A 1993 study of a Law-Related Education diversion alternative in
    Kentucky's Designated Court Worker Program showed both improved
    perceptions of the police and a low recidivism rate (10.5 percent after
    one year).
        The National Program has a unique and remarkable record of
    achievement. Continued support for the National, Coordinated Law-
    Related Education Program is crucial for the following reasons:
      --First, without congressional support it is clear that Law-Related
            Education will die.
      --Second, it is also clear that LRE works and that it is one of the
            few programs proven to do so.
      --Third, the federal government and, in particular, the Congress, has
            made a substantial investment over more than a decade in the
            creation of a National, Coordinated Law-Related Education
            network and infrastructure including coordinating organizations
            in every state.
      --Fourth, only a national program will undertake national initiatives
            that benefit the entire country, such as national training;
            national technical assistance; state financial assistance; new
            program and curriculum development such as Law-Related
            Education's highly successful and acclaimed Youth Summits; and
            the replication of successful state programs and the avoidance
            of unsuccessful pilot programs.
      --Fifth, federal money is seed money used to sustain a national
            program which raises approximately seven times the federal
            support through state legislative support, private donations
            and in-kind support.
        For all of these reasons, the National, Coordinated Law-Related
    Education Program is seeking earmark support at the $1.9 million level.
    This Subcommittee approved funding at $1.9 million for fiscal year
    1999. (The House called for ``a grant to continue funding at the
    current [$1 million] level.'' The conference Report adopted language
    requiring funding ``at more than the current year level.'' OJJDP
    awarded LRE a grant of $1.5 million.).
        We thank you, Mr. Chairman and the members of this Subcommittee,
    for your support over all these many years and we ask for your
    continued support.
                                     ______

     Prepared Statement of the University of Medicine and Dentistry of New
                                     Jersey
        Mr. Chairman, the following is the testimony of the University of
    Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey (UMDNJ), the largest public health
    sciences university in the nation. The UMDNJ statewide system is
    located on five academic campuses and consists of 3 medical school, and
    schools of dentistry, nursing, health related professions, graduate
    biomedical sciences and our latest school--the School of Public Health.
    UMDNJ also comprises a University-owned acute care hospital, three core
    teaching hospitals, an integrated behavioral health care delivery
    system, a statewide system for managed care and affiliations with more
    than 100 health care and educational institutions statewide. No other
    institution in the nation possesses resources which match our scope in
    higher education, health care delivery, research and community service
    initiatives with state, federal and local entities.
        We appreciate this opportunity to bring to your attention some
    priority projects of UMDNJ that are consistent with the mission of this
    committee, including research and education initiatives that will
    counter the threat of chemical and biological terrorism.
        In our complex world of instant communication and ease of global
    transportation, disaffected individuals or political groups have access
    to highly destructive weapons of terror. With our open society the
    United States is particularly at risk to an individual with a grudge, a
    band of ideologically motivated fanatics, or to nations seeking
    revenge. The possibility of the employment of weapons of mass
    destruction on an innocent population has already become a reality with
    the Sarin nerve gas attack in the subways of Tokyo.
        State and local governments and health organizations need reliable
    information upon which to develop and coordinate response plans for
    contingencies due to weapons of mass destruction. They need programs to
    educate planners and response teams on the public health aspects of
    these threats and how to recognize and respond to them. In addition,
    they need to understand both the short and long term implications for
    human and ecologic health. To develop such a plan requires a broad base
    of scientific and educational expertise. Scientific expertise is also
    needed to devise approaches for the early detection and treatment of
    biological and chemical weapons of terror.
        As the nation's most densely populated state, we in New Jersey have
    a particular concern about being targets of bio- and chemo-terrorist
    activities. Our communities abut each other and our traffic patterns
    are statewide making us especially vulnerable to infectious disease.
    There are no obvious geographical boundaries to readily institute a
    quarantine. Our central location as a transportation hub for the
    populous Northeast also makes us a prime target.
        Terrorists have three types of weapons available to them. For one,
    explosive devices, although increasingly deadly, our society has
    developed emergency response approaches to deal with, including
    explosions caused by sources as varied as factory processes and gas
    mains. The other two types of terrorist weapons are relatively new and
    present particular challenges to our normal response processes. These
    are chemical weapons of terror, such as nerve gas, and biological
    weapons of terror, such as anthrax bacillis. Chemical and biological
    weapons differ dramatically from explosions in that for these newer
    threats early recognition and diagnosis is crucial for both those
    initially affected and for others who might yet be affected through
    spread of infection or contact with the chemical. Education of
    emergency responders to correctly identify these threats is crucial to
    minimize the impact of biological and chemical weapons, as well as to
    protecting the emergency responders themselves. Compounding our
    problems is the need for a better understanding of the effects of
    likely chemical and biological agents of terrorism, and of the means to
    prevent their spread and treat their victims.
        We respectfully make four recommendations for the committee's
    consideration: (1) Provide funding for a major program aimed at
    improving the recognition of the effects of chemical and biological
    terrorism weapons by community emergency response elements; (2) Unify
    the approaches to educating emergency responders about chemical and
    biological terrorism. These two types of weapons present similar
    challenge and it would be inefficient to develop separate initiatives
    for these threats; (3) Take advantage of existing expertise in training
    emergency responders in medically-related issues that has been
    developed for hazardous chemicals and wastes through the NIOSH Training
    Centers. There have already been used for pass through funding from
    DOE, EPA and NIH to train emergency responders; and, (4) Provide
    funding for research derived specifically at understanding the heath
    effects of chemical and biological agents of terror so that early
    diagnosis and treatment becomes more likely.
        The nation's foremost program in education and training concerning
    chemical and physical threats is headed by a UMDNJ faculty member, Dr.
    Audrey Gotsch, who is currently President of the American Public Health
    Association. Among her programs is the Center for Education and
    Training which provides training concerning chemical and physical
    agents to more than 160,000 police, firefighters, municipal and state
    employees, as well as to physicians, nurses and industrial hygienists.
        Also, researchers at the Child Health Institute at the UMDNJ-Robert
    Wood Johnson Medical School in New Brunswick, New Jersey are looking
    into the effects of radiation on children in utero and on their growth
    and long-term development. Children who survive bioterrosist attacks
    live and carry forward the results of that attack in a different manner
    than exposed adults. The basic mechanisms of biology that operate to
    cause serious neurological injury can be counteracted or reversed if
    properly understood at the molecular and chemical level.
        Understanding the nature of these ``targets'' will help in the
    development of antidotes for developmental neurotoxins; detoxification
    of surface, ingested or penetrated agents; novel vaccination mechanisms
    and vaccine delivery systems; novel therapies for neurotoxins and
    diagnostic tests for neurotoxin exposures.
        Because of its scientific expertise, UMDNJ is uniquely qualified to
    develop a program to educate state and municipal governments, emergency
    responders and health and hospital professionals on planning for the
    response to terrorism; to train personnel to deal with threats of
    terrorism and how they affect public health; and to conduct research
    into the effects of chemical agents on the general population, with an
    emphasis on the long-term effect on children.
        We respectfully seek $1.5 million through the Department of
    Commerce, Justice, State to expand our research, education and training
    programs in response to threats of chemical and biological terrorism.
        Thank you.
                                     ______

          Prepared Statement of the American Public Power Association
        The American Public Power Association (APPA) is the national
    service organization representing the interests of over 2,000 municipal
    and other state and locally owned utilities throughout the United
    States. Collectively, public power utilities deliver electric energy to
    one of every seven U.S. electric consumers (about 35 million people),
    serving some of the nation's largest cities. The majority of APPA's
    member systems are located in small and medium-sized communities in
    every state except Hawaii.
        We appreciate the opportunity to submit this testimony in support
    of fiscal year 2000 appropriations for the Federal Trade Commission and
    the Antitrust Division of Justice.
        The electric power industry is in the midst of sweeping and
    dramatic change, with a record number of proposed mergers, increasing
    exponentially in the last two to three years. The industry experienced
    little competition in the past, except for franchise competition
    between investor-owned utilities (IOUs) on the one hand and publicly
    and cooperatively owned utilities on the other. During this
    transitional period--as this important, closely regulated industry
    moves towards increased competition--sufficient resources are necessary
    so that the two federal antitrust agencies can adequately perform
    merger assessments.
        Justice Antitrust Division and the Federal Trade Commission play a
    critical advisory role along with the Federal Energy Regulatory
    Commission (FERC) with respect to antitrust monitoring and enforcement
    in the electric utility industry.
        Current industry predictions are for more consolidation, not less,
    with ever larger consolidated companies. Such predictions were
    discussed in detail at the recent Eleventh Annual Exnet Utility Mergers
    and Acquisitions Conference (Feb. 2-3, 1998, New York City). These
    predictions spur more consolidation, as CEOs engage in perceived
    ``defensive posturing.'' But ``keeping up with the Joneses'' in this
    industry is already reducing structural market options, and the trend
    only promises to get worse.
        Yet there is little history of antitrust enforcement in the
    electric power industry to draw upon in analyzing this new wave of
    merger activity. Regulation controlled what were natural monopoly
    characteristics of the industry. With little room for competition,
    antitrust considerations had only a limited role. Accordingly, as
    historical monopolists, IOUs in the United States have grown
    comfortable with having and using market power. If the agencies
    responsible for reviewing proposed electric power mergers do not have
    the resources, the time or the data with which to properly assess these
    mergers in this fast paced consolidation phase, ultimate consumer
    service options--including the possibility of achieving competition and
    its benefits for all customers--may structurally be precluded by merger
    or otherwise.
        Electric power is certainly not the first industry to undergo the
    transition from regulation to competition. Industries such as airlines,
    cable, and telecommunications all have experienced deregulation and all
    share a number of important characteristics with the electric power
    industry. First among these is basic industry structure. Prior to
    deregulation, each of these industries was populated with one or more
    incumbent firms possessing significant market power as the result of
    past regulation. A second important shared characteristic is the route-
    based nature of the goods and services they supply. Whether those
    routes are airways, land lines or airwaves, access to those routes is a
    prerequisite for all participants in these industries, and control over
    that access is a source of market power and/or economies of scale.
    Third, from a demand perspective, each of these industries involves
    goods and services that the public generally has come to expect and
    depend upon, and would not readily forego.
        Important lessons have been learned through the deregulatory
    experiences of the airlines, cable, and telecommunications industries.
    As the electric power industry begins the transition from regulation to
    competition, those lessons must inform the policies and process that
    will guide, and ultimately determine, the structure of a deregulated
    electric power industry. There is no need to start at the bottom of the
    deregulation learning curve, or to repeat the mistakes made in other
    industries.
        The electric power industry is comprised primarily of vertically
    integrated local monopolies that generate, transmit and locally
    distribute electric power to a captive group of industrial, commercial
    and residential customers. Historically, this structure was thought to
    be most efficient because of scale economies, and the need for reliable
    universal electric service by the public. In terms of basic industrial
    structure, at least, the electric power industry is similar to the
    structures found in the airline industry, cable and telecommunications
    prior to their deregulation.
        In recent years, technological advances in electric power
    generation have reduced the historical economies of scale enjoyed by
    the incumbent utilities. The ability to generate power efficiently may
    be, as a technological matter, no longer dependent on the economies
    associated with vertical integration. Regulatory measures such as
    FERC's Open Access Rule requiring open access to the transmission
    facilities typically owned by the incumbent utilities and allied state
    level initiatives, have allowed competition in the market for power
    generation to begin to take root. Meanwhile, the local monopolies in
    transmission and distribution largely have remained intact, due to the
    essential nature of their facilities and the prohibitive cost of
    duplicating them. Again, these developments are reminiscent of the
    telecommunications industry in the 1970's, when technology and
    deregulation combined to permit competition in the long distance
    market, while the local monopolies possessed by the Bell operating
    companies remained in place.
        Mergers among electric utilities are likely to have a profound
    effect on the development of ``competition'' in the electric industry.
    In fact, because utility mergers will determine the basic structure of
    the electric power industry, they actually have the potential to define
    (or preclude the development of) the competitive landscape. The recent
    wave of electric utility mergers certainly will increase concentration
    in the industry, as the number of firms that are legally and
    practically capable of providing electric service declines through
    consolidation. Largely for the same reasons, the structural impacts of
    such mergers will likely be permanent. What is not known is whether
    mergers of incumbent electric utilities and/or other wholesale power
    suppliers, collectively or individually, are on balance procompetitive
    or anticompetitive. Specifically, there are a number of unknowns about
    electric utility mergers: Whether an increase in concentration will
    produce associated efficiencies; Whether any efficiencies that do
    result will be passed on to consumers in the form of lower electric
    rates, or instead be passed on to shareholders (the Baby Bells), or
    used to build diversified empires (cable) and Whether an increase in
    concentration will simply serve to fortify existing market power to
    exclude new entrants (Baby Bells, cable), drive out new entrants
    through price competition and merger (airlines), purchase existing
    competitors, or gouge consumers (airlines, cable, telecommunications).
        As the deregulatory experiences of other industries demonstrate,
    these are not questions that can be accurately answered in the absence
    of actual market data. The pressure placed on Antitrust Division and
    FTC will be enormous as we search for the answers to these and many
    more questions.
        We are at a critical juncture in the history of our antitrust laws.
    After a full generation of decline, antitrust enforcement is making a
    comeback. In response to the unprecedented wave of mergers that has
    overtaken the U.S. economy in the last few years, the Administration
    recently proposed substantial increases in the budget of the Justice
    Department's Antitrust Division and the Federal Trade Commission. The
    restructuring of many industries, the concurrent revolution in
    international trade and international competition policy, and the
    emergence of serious competitive problems in the evolving high tech
    industries have also made the task of antitrust enforcement more
    challenging and requiring a larger commitment of resources.
        Moreover, the wave of mergers has made antitrust enforcement a
    great bargain for the public. Since funding for the Antitrust Division
    and FTC comes out of a special fund consisting of fees paid by
    companies applying for merger approval, antitrust enforcement pays for
    itself. Under the Administration's budget proposal, no money comes from
    the General Fund of the Treasury. In addition, criminal and civil
    penalties attained by the agencies bring millions of dollars into the
    Treasury, and consumers are saved untold millions by the agencies'
    successes in promoting and maintaining competition.
        APPA supports the Administration's fiscal year 2000 budget request
    of $114 million for the Antitrust Division, an increase of $16 million
    over the fiscal year 1999 funding level, and $134 million for the
    Federal Trade Commission, an increase of $15 million or nearly 13
    percent over fiscal year 1999 requested levels.
        We urge you to approve the Administration request.
                                     ______

                              DEPARTMENT OF STATE
     Prepared Statement of Daniel F. Geisler, President, American Foreign
                              Service Association
        Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: On behalf of the
    23,000 active duty and retired members of the Foreign Service that the
    American Foreign Service Association (AFSA) represents, I thank you for
    the opportunity to present testimony before this Subcommittee. AFSA was
    founded in 1924, the same year that Congress passed the Rogers Act
    creating the modern, merit-based Foreign Service. Throughout our 75
    year history, we have been the voice of Americans who serve their
    country at home and abroad as Officers and Specialists of the Foreign
    Service.
        Mr. Chairman, last year at this time I submitted testimony to this
    Subcommittee that focussed on three concerns: the rising cost of
    service abroad, the alarming state of the State Department's
    information technology, and lack of workforce planning among the
    foreign affairs agencies, especially the State Department. I am
    disappointed to report that we have seen little progress on any of
    these three issues.
        In addition to these three ongoing concerns, this year we have an
    additional matter we would like the Subcommittee to consider: adequate,
    sustained funding to ensure the safety of the people serving at U.S.
    missions abroad. For us, Mr. Chairman, this is literally a matter of
    life and death.
                      security of our diplomatic missions
        Last August we saw our people die tragically and needlessly in the
    cowardly bombings of our embassies in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam. On
    January 8, 1999 the statutorily-required Accountability Review Boards,
    under the direction of Admiral William J. Crowe, reported the results
    of their inquiry into the responsibility for these terrible losses.
    They said that no single person had acted irresponsibly or
    inappropriately. People were killed and wounded due to ``* * * a
    collective failure by several Administrations and Congresses over the
    past decade to invest adequate efforts and resources to reduce the
    vulnerability of U.S. diplomatic missions around the world to terrorist
    attacks.'' The Boards recommended spending about $14 billion over the
    next decade to make our missions safer.
        Mr. Chairman, the Administration and the Congress must begin to
    remedy that collective failure this year. We know that terrorists
    continue to probe our overseas missions for targets. In recent months,
    counterintelligence forces thwarted plots to murder Americans serving
    abroad in countries as diverse as Uganda, India, and Albania. Last
    month CIA Director Tenet said, ``There is not the slightest doubt that
    Osama bin Laden, his world wide allies and his sympathizers are
    planning attacks against us.'' The threat is real. It is current. Our
    enemies will not curtail their attacks.
        The President called the nation's attention to this problem in his
    State of the Union address, saying that the federal government must
    provide Americans serving their country abroad with secure workplaces,
    and adequate funds to pursue our vital interests. We are deeply
    concerned that he has failed to ask the Congress for the money to do
    so. The Clinton Administration's fiscal year 2000 budget request does
    not contain a single penny for the construction of new, safe U.S.
    missions abroad. It contains only $36 million for design and site
    acquisition work on a small number of new projects next year. It does
    not even contain a request to fund the construction of projects for
    which the Congress appropriated design funding for the current fiscal
    year.
        In addition, Mr. Chairman, the Administration has asked you for an
    advance appropriations of $3 billion, to be spent in fiscal year 2001-
    2005. Under this request, more than half of the money is slated for
    disbursement in the final two years. That is six years from now.
    Terrorists will not wait for six years to attack us. We must not wait
    for six years to defend ourselves.
        We understand that the Administration is considering withdrawing
    its request and resubmitting. State Department managers testified
    publicly that they had asked the Office of Management and Budget to
    include $1.4 billion for embassy construction in the fiscal year 2000
    budget, a figure they arrived at independently of Admiral Crowe's
    panels. Their request was denied. Moreover, it appears that budget
    officials expect the State Department to find any money the
    Administration ultimately requests from current-services level budgets.
    This makes no sense. It would require shifting hundreds of million of
    dollars out of core programs and into security, forcing the State
    Department to spend over half its budget on overhead. This is not the
    responsible governance that our people deserve and that Americans
    expect.
        Mr. Chairman, years ago AFSA erected a memorial plaque in the
    diplomatic lobby of the State Department. It now lists 171 of Americans
    who ``died in heroic or other inspirational circumstances'' while
    serving abroad at a U.S. diplomatic mission. Since 1968, eight U.S.
    ambassadors died in such circumstances. This year we are forced to add
    more names to the list. In public criticism of the Administration
    budget request, Admiral Crowe predicted that, ``There are going to be
    more attacks, and we are going to lose more lives.'' And we will add
    more names to our list of the dead.
        We seek from the Administration and the Congress a commitment to
    adequate, sustained funding to protect the lives of our people abroad.
    We seek an immediate beginning, not a six-year delay. We seek a
    security program that does not rob us of the funds we need to carry out
    our core mission.
        There is one thing which we do not seek. We do not seek to cower in
    hardened fortresses. Diplomacy has always been a risky business. In the
    Foreign Service, we accept that. We recognize the need to balance
    security and accessibility.
        Mr. Chairman, Admiral Crowe's recommendation for funding amounts to
    less than one-tenth of one percent of federal spending, about one penny
    out of every ten dollars. We ask that you appropriate that penny.
                 increasing financial burden of service abroad
        Last year, I began a discussion with the Subcommittee on the
    increasing financial burden of service abroad. Agency management has
    responded to tight budgets over the past years by shifting part of the
    burden onto individual employees. They have done this in many ways.
    Individual employees posted abroad now pay substantially more for
    medical treatment than they would if they remained in the United
    States. Many standard allowances have not been adjusted for inflation
    for decades, and are based on costs calculated in the late 1970's.
    Incentives provided by the Congress in 1966 for post differentials have
    been drastically reduced. As the percentage increments allotted to
    locality pay increase, Foreign Service personnel experience an ever
    larger wage reduction when they are assigned overseas. This is
    particularly damaging to people near retirement, since loss of locality
    pay produces a lifelong decrease in retirement annuity. The increased
    financial burden takes a particularly heavy toll on Foreign Service
    Specialists, who have a lower average salary than the Officer corps.
        The Foreign Service is now experiencing difficulty in recruiting
    new officers and specialists, especially specialists in information
    technology. We are also seeing a marked increase in the number of mid-
    grade officers resigning to take jobs in the private sector. AFSA is
    proposing measures to restore some of the lost ground, and we hope that
    the Subcommittee will look favorably on Administration requests for
    funding to accommodate this restoration.
                             information technology
        Two respected Washington think-tanks, the Stimson Center and the
    Center for Strategic and International Studies, assembled distinguished
    experts from government and industry to analyze the needs of American
    diplomacy in the 21st century. In the reports they issued last Fall,
    both identified a key current deficiency: our foreign affairs
    institutions are dangerously out of touch with advances in information
    technology. To achieve our diplomatic goals, we use information to
    influence other nations into taking actions which advance our own vital
    interests. We are rapidly losing our ability to collect, analyze and
    use information for this purpose. We are further losing our ability to
    disseminate this information in a timely fashion.
        Last year, AFSA submitted testimony before this Subcommittee on the
    growing crisis. It is particularly acute in the State Department.
    Although responsible for coordinating foreign policy, the State
    Department has limited means for communicating with the rest of the
    U.S. Government, and even has severe problems communicating internally.
        We have hopes that the State Department's impending consolidation
    with USIA presents an opportunity. USIA is markedly more advanced in
    this area, largely due to its corporate culture. It views its mission
    as providing information. The State Department focuses on policing
    information. In its effort to control sensitive information, it
    restricts all information.
        Failure to invest in information technology today will have drastic
    consequences for America tomorrow. It will steadily erode our ability
    to shape, rather than merely respond to, world events.
                         needs-based workforce planning
        Mr. Chairman, AFSA has long advocated that the foreign affairs
    agencies establish a forward-looking, needs-based workforce planning
    system.
        When AFSA worked with Congress to draft the 1980 Foreign Service
    Act, we attempted to address this concern by asking Congress to insert
    Sections 601(c)(2) and (4) into the Act. These provisions require the
    State Department, acting on behalf of the foreign affairs agencies, to
    report annually to Congress on the ``upper and lower limits planned by
    each agency recruitment, advancement, and retention'' of Foreign
    Service personnel with a view to establishing ``a regular, predictable
    flow of talent upward * * *''.
        To the best of our knowledge, the State Department has not complied
    with this requirement since 1995.
        State Department management acknowledges the need for workforce
    planning, but has failed to take action. A decade ago, the Thomas
    Commission's Report on the Foreign Service Personnel System stressed
    ``the need for long-range planning [which] would allow personnel
    managers to assess the effects of demographic and societal change and *
    * * changes in the mission of the Foreign Service and the overseas
    environments in which it operates * * *.''
        Similar calls for workforce planning can be found in the 1992 State
    2000 Report, and more recently in the both the Stimson Center and the
    Center for Strategic and International Studies reports mentioned above.
        The State Department has tools for workforce allocation, but not
    for workforce planning. The difference is crucial. Allocation involves
    matching the list of current jobs with the list of current employees.
    Personnel managers do this using five-year average values. Their base
    their calculations on the present and the recent past, not on the
    future. Planning involves the future. It requires answering questions
    such as: What skills will American diplomacy require in the future? How
    will we recruit, train and retain people with those skills? How many
    people do we need to recruit and train today in order to ensure that we
    have them when we need them in the future? The State Department is
    particularly weak in incorporating training needs into personnel
    policy.
        Forward-looking, needs-based workforce planning must take training
    requirements specifically into account, and must make training an
    integral part of managing the workforce.
        The foreign affairs agencies need to plan systematically today if
    we are to maintain the world's top-ranking diplomatic corps tomorrow.
    We seek Congress's assistance in bringing this about. We believe that,
    absent a strong indication of Congressional interest, the foreign
    affairs agencies will continue to ignore this issue, and continue to
    implement ad hoc, short-term personnel policies.
                     public diplomacy and non-proliferation
        Finally, Mr. Chairman, AFSA is concerned about the Administration's
    support for public diplomacy. The Administration failed to request any
    fiscal year 2000 funds to accommodate the administrative costs of
    merging United States Information Agency and the Arms Control and
    Disarmament Agency with the Department of State. That means that
    program funds must be used for the move. This is poor budgeting.
        Virtually all of the thought and effort devoted to consolidation
    has focused on the administrative process of merging three agencies
    into one. The goal of consolidation is to integrate public diplomacy
    and non-proliferation into foreign policy formulation and execution. We
    have seen little evidence of policy consolidation. We believe these
    functions should be integrated and strengthened as part of our total
    foreign policy process.
                                   conclusion
        Mr. Chairman, for 75 years, the modern, merit-based Foreign Service
    has fought to advance America's vital interests in the world. Our
    client is the American people. Our goal is to enhance their security
    and their prosperity. Our hope is that the Subcommittee will support
    our efforts by supplying us with the tools we need to achieve our
    mission.
        Thank you for the opportunity to speak on behalf of the Officers
    and Specialists of America's Foreign Service.
                                     ______

     Prepared Statement of the Alliance for International Educational and
                               Cultural Exchange
                                  introduction
        The Alliance for International Educational and Cultural Exchange,
    Inc. appreciates the opportunity to submit testimony in support of the
    educational and cultural exchange programs now at USIA and to be
    administered by the Department of State beginning Oct. 1, 1999. We urge
    an appropriation of $225 million for educational and cultural exchange
    programs--approximately $15 million above the Administration's
    request--but no more than is needed to maintain the current level of
    exchange program activity and to provide minimal increases to key
    programs.
        The Alliance for International Educational and Cultural Exchange is
    a coalition of over 60 non-profit organizations with chapters and
    grassroots networks in all 50 states. Through these federally-sponsored
    programs, Alliance members help advance the U.S. national interest by
    putting a human face on American foreign policy, transmitting American
    values, fostering economic ties with rapidly developing overseas
    markets, engaging millions of Americans across the country in our
    foreign affairs, and assisting individuals with the development of
    critical foreign language, cross-cultural, and area studies expertise.
        Alliance members administer the range of exchange programs--
    including academic, professional, cultural, citizen, and youth exchange
    programs. Some member organizations administer programs on behalf of
    the U.S. government. Others manage non-governmental programs. All are
    united, however, in the conviction that federally-sponsored
    international exchange programs are an extemely cost-effective means of
    serving our national interests both at home and abroad.
        The following statement provides a private sector perspective on
    how the fiscal year 2000 exchange budget should support exchange
    programs--a vital diplomatic tool in our foreign policy arsenal. The
    support is particularly essential as exchange programs prepare to move
    to a new bureaucratic environment in the Department of State.
    $225 Million Needed to Support Modest Increase
        The Administration's proposed budget of $210 million for the
    exchange account would provide minimal increases for valuable programs
    such as Fulbright, International Visitors (IV), the Humphrey program,
    and the Congress-Bundestag youth exchange program. However, these
    increases barely begin to restore lower participant levels due to five
    years of funding cuts. In fact, the increases requested by the
    Department of State for these programs barely keep pace with the
    current low rate of inflation.
        An independent study of the Fulbright Educational Exchange Program
    released in 1997 concluded that Fulbright exchanges for students,
    teachers, and scholars are critical to American interests, especially
    given the rate of global change and the dynamics of a global economy.
    The study report ``Fulbright at Fifty'' calls for restoration of
    Fulbright Program funding to the fiscal year 1995 level of $125
    million. The report states that ``the Fulbright Program remains a vital
    and successful means to address the current issues facing established
    and emerging nations * * *. Its hallmark qualities--merit-based
    competition, open inquiry, shared responsibilities, and the engagement
    of other nations--stand the program in good stead for the future.'' A
    $225 appropriation for the overall international exchange account would
    allow the Department of State to take a meaningful step toward the
    Fulbright goal.
        A larger step is also needed for the International Visitor program.
    The modest increase requested is insufficient to fully support the
    national network of community-based volunteer organizations which
    administer the program. Steep funding reductions over the past five
    years have strained this invaluable network, and insufficient visitor
    flows have forced some local chapters to close. The Administration's IV
    request represents only a minimal first step in restoring the vigor and
    dynamism of this critical exchange program, and of the national
    grassroots network which supports it.
    1Deep Cuts Slated for Citizen and some Academic Programs
        The Administration's budget contains a short-sighted 20 percent cut
    to citizen exchanges and other programs renowned for their ability to
    leverage involvement and engagement from citizens, communities, and
    educational institutions throughout the United States. The
    Administration's request would force a 20 percent cut in programs such
    as Sister Cities, Partners of the Americas, and American Council of
    Young Political Leaders.
        While leveraging significant private contributions, citizen and
    academic exchange programs engage tens of thousands of volunteers--
    ``citizen diplomats''--in communities and universities throughout the
    U.S. Citizen diplomats volunteer their time because they recognize the
    tremendous value which globalization has both for themselves and their
    communities. These activities create new trading partners, build
    understanding and cooperation between Americans and future foreign
    leaders, advance democracy and economic growth, and create
    opportunities for Americans to learn, to prosper, and to work with
    others to solve shared problems and make our future more secure. USIA
    has carefully developed diverse tools to reach each of the above goals.
        The budget also proposes slicing significant funds from other
    valuable programs. The College and University Affiliation Program and
    English language programs would be cut by 20 percent or more; and USIA
    funding for the Muskie Fellowship program would be eliminated.
        The Muskie Graduate Fellowship Program--a grassroots democracy
    building program--brings students from the NIS and the Baltic states to
    the United States for graduate study in fields that are critical to
    economic reform and political development. U.S. host institutions form
    a critical public-private partnership in support of the Muskie program
    by providing significant cost reductions that include waiving or
    reducing tuition and fees, and participating in recruitment, screening
    and interviewing of candidates on a volunteer basis--saving the
    government a substantial portion of the real cost of recruiting and
    educating these graduate students.
        Failing to fully support these grassroots programs--which
    democratize our foreign affairs by involving thousands of Americans--
    will erode our ability to meet the continuing public diplomacy
    challenges our country faces as the world's only superpower. A modest
    increase in the exchange account will allow us to maintain the full
    diversity of USIA's time-tested program tools to support U.S. foreign
    policy.
        Another issue of fundamental importance to higher education
    institutions throughout the United States is maintaining adequate
    support for overseas educational advising and student services. The
    Administration's budget request of $3.1 million for this program would
    cut funding by $100,000 from fiscal year 1999 estimates, and merely
    maintain flat funding compared to fiscal year 1999 appropriations.
    Overseas educational advising consists of a network of 450 government-
    supported offices where prospective foreign students interested in
    American higher education can receive unbiased, professional
    information about educational opportunities throughout the United
    States.
        Overseas advising plays a critical role in maintaining the flow of
    foreign students and scholars to our nation. Last year, nearly 480,000
    foreign students brought almost $8.3 billion into the U.S. economy and
    created more than 100,000 U.S. jobs, a significant return on a $3
    million government investment. Government funds spent on overseas
    educational advising services are one of the most cost-effective
    investments in the international affairs budget.
        Foreign students who choose the U.S. for their educations become
    leaders in their societies, a circumstance from which the U.S. derives
    many benefits. They take American values and perspectives home with
    them; promote democratic institutions and market-based economies; make
    major purchasing decisions involving American products; create
    partnerships with American enterprises; and have a profound, positive
    impact on our own security and prosperity. The past decade's explosion
    of democracy and prosperity in Latin America, for example, precisely
    corresponds to the rise to power of a generation of leaders educated in
    the United States.
        Although the United States has for decades attracted far more
    foreign students than other nations, the international student
    marketplace is increasingly competitive. Australia, Canada, Japan, New
    Zealand, the United Kingdom, as well as several other European
    countries, have geared up major recruitment efforts. Many of these
    governments offer full government support to maintain their overseas
    advising networks. Moreover, as the European Union continues to
    integrate, many European students are likely to study in one of their
    fellow EU nations, at a much lower cost than an American education. A
    modest increase in the overseas advising budget would clearly signal
    Congressional recognition of the political, economic, and educational
    benefits we derive from a vigorous flow of foreign students and
    scholars to the U.S.
    Strong Base Funding Needed for USIA's Transfer to State
        The pending foreign affairs reorganization means that for the first
    time since 1978, exchange programs--with their long-term, non-political
    focus--will be administered by the State Department.
        The Administration's plan for reorganization indicates an intention
    to combine the exchanges bureau with USIA's overseas information
    activities, a structure which appears to violate two provisions of the
    Fulbright-Hays Act and another of the Foreign Affairs Reform and
    Restructuring Act. In addition to the statutory problems, the melding
    of these disparate functions would likely diminish the credibility of
    the exchange programs by associating them closely expressly political
    information activities. The exchange community has been gratified by
    the strong expressions of support for a separate exchanges bureau from
    Senators Helms and Biden, and from Representatives Gilman and Smith,
    and we remain hopeful that the final organization chart for State will
    include a separate exchanges bureau headed by an Assistant Secretary.
        The proposal to combine exchange and information suggests that
    stakeholders and supporters of exchange must remain actively engaged
    during the reorganization to insure that exchanges are accorded
    appropriate priority with the State Department. A $225 million funding
    level will unmistakably signal Congressional support for a vibrant
    exchanges program, and will help to build support for reorganization
    from a national, community-based constituency.
    Conclusion
        Ten years after the fall of the Berlin Wall, we find ourselves in a
    world with challenges far more complex than ``containment''. In this
    new global dynamic, the need for public diplomacy, particularly people-
    to-people exchange, is greater than ever. As Secretary of State
    Madeleine Albright stated earlier this year with regard to public
    diplomacy, ``My firm goal is to bolster and empower this vital
    diplomatic tool.'' We couldn't agree more.
        We recognize and appreciate your support for these programs in the
    past, while recognizing the difficult task before this subcommittee in
    attempting to meet the needs of a diverse array of national interests
    with limited funds. We count on your continued support for
    international educational and cultural exchange, and urge you to
    appropriate $225 million--a modest $15 million increase for educational
    and cultural exchanges. This figure more accurately reflects the
    growing needs and proven benefits of international exchange programs.
                                     ______

    Prepared Statement of William P. Fuller, President, The Asia Foundation
        Thank you for the opportunity to submit testimony on behalf of The
    Asia Foundation's fiscal year 2000 budget request. The Foundation has
    been grateful for the support that the Congress and this Committee have
    provided over the years.
        Mr. Chairman, I want to discuss with you and the Committee the work
    The Asia Foundation is doing today, and our hopes and plans for future
    projects. We believe that we have many examples of how a small,
    independent organization can advance American interests in the Asia-
    Pacific region, particularly in light of the challenges facing Asia
    today.
        We are pleased that for fiscal year 2000 the Administration has
    endorsed the work of the Foundation by requesting an appropriations
    level of $15 million for the Foundation, $10 million for broad based
    programs in the Asia-Pacific region and $5 million for expanded legal
    reform programs in Asia. Budget cuts since fiscal year 1995 have forced
    the Foundation to significantly reduce programs in support of
    democratic development, law and economic liberalization. Regrettably,
    this has occurred precisely when Asia's economic woes have mounted and
    threats to the continued progress of democratic reforms and economic
    liberalization have increased. The level of funding requested by the
    Administration will allow the Foundation to resume some of these
    program activities and expand its level of grantmaking in support of
    broader American interests at this critical juncture in the region.
        Let me put the work of the Foundation into context. After decades
    of extraordinary growth and development, Asia faces its most
    significant economic crisis in the past thirty years. We have seen in
    the past year how fragile economic systems are when they are not
    supported by adequate legal, regulatory and political systems. While
    democratic advances have been made, the crisis has raised new threats
    to democratic governance and human rights, and underlined the need for
    continued support for reform in countries where democracy remains
    fragile. These challenges reinforce the need for the United States to
    remain engaged and continue to support the new democracies of Asia.
        We believe that The Asia Foundation, building on its 45 years of
    experience on the ground throughout the region in service of U.S.
    interests, has the capability to further advance these interests.
        The United States seeks an Asia-Pacific region which is
    increasingly democratic, with governments that are governed by the rule
    of law and are accountable to their people not only through free and
    fair elections, but through administrative processes that are open and
    transparent.
        The United States also seeks an Asia-Pacific region that harnesses
    its enormous indigenous economic potential to improve the well-being of
    its own people. An important element in this process is the pursuit of
    open trade and investment policies which allow U.S. businesses to trade
    and invest in the region to the mutual benefit of Americans and Asians.
        Finally, the United States seeks an Asia-Pacific region that is
    stable and free from military conflict and territorial aggression,
    where nations work together harmoniously within the region and in
    friendship with the United States.
        Mr. Chairman, these are precisely three programming priorities of
    The Asia Foundation: democracy, the rule of law and human rights; open
    trade and investment; and peaceful U.S.-Asian and intra-regional
    relations.
        I want to emphasize that the Foundation remains a field
    organization that supports local Asian groups and projects. Our job is
    to strengthen the capacity of our local partners. We are not Washington
    based. We operate through a network of thirteen offices in the Asia-
    Pacific region, including a presence in both China and Taiwan. Through
    those offices, we can identify and form relationships with creative
    individuals and groups who seek to advance the same goals and interests
    that we support.
        We are not a research organization. We remain a grant making
    organization, conscious at all times of the necessity of being
    efficient, committed to keeping our administrative overhead low and
    delivering financial and technical support to Asian projects. We are
    pleased to report to you that in 1999, for the second year in a row,
    The Asia Foundation has been nationally recognized as one of the top
    most efficient and effective non-profit organizations in the United
    States.
        The Committee in the past has praised and encouraged the
    Foundation's grant making role and we remain faithful to it. We make
    strategic, sequential grants to steadily build the capacity of
    institutions, develop leaders and move policies forward. Foundation
    support is used for training, consultancies, technical assistance and
    seed funding for new organizations, all aimed at promoting reform and
    enhancing Asian capacity. We can say with confidence that there is no
    other U.S. non-profit engaged on the ground for over forty years, that
    has the breadth of contacts and relationships or the trust and
    credibility that the Foundation has established in Asia and the
    Pacific. The democratic development we are seeing now in several
    countries, specifically Thailand, the Philippines and Korea, are in
    part the fruit of the investments that the Foundation has made over
    time in support of reform minded individuals. This sustained
    involvement is the hallmark of the Foundation and its field presence in
    Asia.
        We are seeking an appropriation of $15 million because we have
    identified worthwhile and urgent programs in the region that require
    that level of funding, particularly given the economic and political
    crisis facing many countries in the region of key interest to the
    United States.
        Public funding is essential to us for many reasons. While the
    Foundation remains committed to expanding private fundraising, the
    credibility, flexibility and reliability that public funding lends to
    the Foundation's efforts is critical. As an organization committed to
    American foreign policy interests in Asia, we can only be successful if
    potential private donors understand that the U.S. government continues
    to support our efforts in the region.
        Private funding does not replace public funding, either in scale or
    flexibility. Private funding is almost always tied to specific projects
    (as are USAID contract funds for which the Foundation competes) and the
    Foundation does not solicit or accept private funds that might
    compromise our fundamental commitment to support overall U.S. interests
    in Asia. Further, U.S. government appropriated funding maintains the
    Foundation's flexibility to respond quickly to fast-breaking
    developments and program opportunities and enables the Foundation to
    work in key countries that are of high priority to the U.S. but where
    USAID and other assistance does not exist. This has proven true in
    Pakistan, where the Foundation implements the Pakistan NGO initiative
    in the absence of USAID, and in Thailand, where the Foundation has been
    engaged for decades, but where USAID no longer operates. This is also
    true in Korea, another country affected seriously by the region's
    economic crisis, and where the U.S. faces serious security concerns
    related to North Korea. In this respect, Foundation programs are also
    able to undertake initiatives that government programs cannot, such as
    sensitive issues related to economic and political reform. The Asia
    Foundation continues to be a model of public-private partnership and a
    resource which complements official foreign policy efforts.
        In this discussion of what we are doing, I hope to demonstrate the
    value to the United States of what we do and provide examples of what
    we would be able to do in programmatic terms with a $15 million
    appropriations level.
    Democracy, the Rule of Law and Human Rights
        Strengthening formal governmental institutions--the constitution,
    the legislative branch, and the judiciary--and encouraging the
    development of civil society have been the hallmarks of the
    Foundation's programs in Asia. The Foundation's commitment to support
    developments in these areas is based on the conviction that, over the
    long term, sustainable advances in the countries of the region will
    require movement toward more open and participatory societies,
    democratic elections, the rule of law, the guarantee of basic human
    rights and more open markets. Foundation support goes beyond the formal
    structures of institutions by focusing on the performance of those
    institutions and their ability to enhance the lives of the public they
    serve. Democracy, law and support for civil society are, historically
    and presently, the largest component of the Foundation's grant making
    activity in support of Asian institutions.
                                   democracy
        Foundation programs have provided substantial assistance to
    parliaments in 16 countries in Asia, from technical assistance on
    specific legislation to training for members and staff, including
    facilitating interaction with the nongovernmental sector.
        In the last year, the Foundation supported election programs in
    Bangladesh, China, Mongolia, Cambodia and Thailand. In Cambodia, during
    the July 1998 National Assembly elections, the Foundation supported the
    largest voter education and domestic election monitoring effort through
    two coalitions composed of Cambodia human rights NGO organizations.
    Twelve thousand Cambodians were trained and deployed throughout the
    country to monitor election day procedures and the ballot count. The
    Foundation also recruited long-term election monitors as the American
    contribution to the international election monitoring effort. The
    Foundation's efforts have been widely praised by the Embassy, State
    Department, USAID and the international donor community as critical
    contributions to the election process.
        The Foundation continued its support for local governance reform in
    China, which reaches over 100,000 villages nationwide, including
    training of election managers, production of videotapes on the election
    process which have been broadcast on national television, and research
    on the role and structure of Villager Committees and county-level
    People's Congresses, along with surveys of villagers' views of local
    governance.
        The Foundation has been the single largest supporter of the
    nongovernmental sector in all of the Asian countries in which we
    operate, supporting over 900 local organizations over the last five
    years alone. These organizations are essential contributors for a
    vibrant civil society, encouraging public participation, transparency
    and accountability in the policy making process.
                                      law
        The Asia Foundation recognizes the importance of effective legal
    systems founded on the rule of law as a critical underpinning of stable
    and just democratic societies. The Foundation is the leading American
    supporter of legal systems development in the Asia-Pacific region.
    Foundation grants and technical assistance support improved judicial
    administration, law reform, legal education and professional
    development, and alternative dispute resolution. The Foundation has
    assisted in the reform of legal and judicial systems through the
    training of judges and lawyers in 13 countries aimed at improving the
    performance of the formal legal system and court administration
    programs to reduce case backlog. The Foundation has also assisted in
    providing technical assistance for substantive law reform.
        In the Philippines, the Foundation continued support of alternative
    law groups that assist disadvantaged citizens to advance their
    interests through advocacy efforts and improved access to formal and
    informal decisionmaking processes. For example, these groups have
    played a key role in ensuring that administrative procedures at the
    national and local levels take full account of citizen rights and
    interests. In Sri Lanka, the Foundation supports over 200 mediation
    boards which handle an annual caseload of 350,000 and legal education
    programs reaching over 600,000 people. The Foundation has a major
    effort underway with the National Institute of Administration in China
    in the preparation of new administrative laws that protect the rights
    of citizens, enabling them to sue government agencies in order to curb
    government agency abuses. Other efforts will be directed toward both
    the grassroots and policy levels, to ensure more responsive
    administrative regulations, and support legal reform efforts related to
    legal aid and popular legal education.
        Expanded legal reform programs in Asia in fiscal year 2000 will
    support efforts in Indonesia, China, Thailand, the Philippines,
    Vietnam, Sri Lanka and elsewhere to advance legal training, education,
    alternative dispute resolution, judicial training and administration
    reform, legal aid, human rights protection, legislative drafting, and
    to contribute to substantive law reform in specific country
    circumstances. International donors and business communities all
    maintain that legal reform is a critical element for Asia's economic
    recovery and the Foundation is well positioned to support practical
    programs on a national and regional level.
                                  human rights
        The Foundation has expanded and will continue to expand its human
    rights activities across the region. Our programs support a full range
    of strategic human rights activities, including training, education and
    capacity building, monitoring, investigation, and technical support for
    specialized skills such as forensics. For instance, in Cambodia,
    Foundation support has assisted courageous human rights NGOs to
    overcome extraordinary difficulties in leading the establishment of a
    dynamic civil society movement over the past five years and protecting
    rights. The Asia Foundation is the single most active American
    supporter of key human rights organizations in Cambodia. Grants have
    supported human rights education, advocacy, and monitoring and
    investigation of human rights abuses. In politically sensitive
    circumstances, building democratic systems takes time, sustained
    commitments, resources and experience. Programs like the one in
    Cambodia are carefully calibrated and based on regular analysis of the
    working environment by Foundation staff on the ground.
                                   indonesia
        Of great concern to the Foundation is the changing situation in
    Indonesia. Caught in the Asian economic crisis and a dramatic political
    transition, Indonesia is at a historical crossroad. Amidst serious
    economic crisis that has sharply reduced the country's middle class,
    eruptions of violence, and political uncertainty, Indonesia faces a
    significant challenge--most notably, its commitment to democracy by
    holding free and fair elections in June. Given the country's size and
    importance in the region, stability and economic recovery in Indonesia
    are high on the agenda for U.S. policymakers.
        With a $15 million appropriation, the Foundation will deepen its
    involvement in Indonesia, a country where it has maintained a program
    since 1955. Because of its long history and experience in Indonesia,
    the Foundation has been able to advance U.S. interests in important,
    yet sensitive public policy areas related to civil society development
        The impact of Foundation program investments over the past several
    decades to support nongovernmental organizations and government
    institutions is now evident, as nongovernmental actors begin to play a
    more active role in politics and public debate. Institutions previously
    disregarded, such as the National Parliament, are gaining strength and
    importance. The Foundation will address substantive law reform, along
    with additional support to the newly elected Parliament where for the
    first time in 40 years legislators will be drafting their own
    legislation and law reform proposals.
        While the Foundation is currently supporting a national voter
    education effort in partnership with Indonesian NGOs, it is the broader
    aim of expanding civic education that will prepare Indonesians for the
    democratic transition they face in the coming years. The Foundation
    will expand its program with Indonesia's moderate Islamic community to
    support peaceful community development and a secular society, inter-
    faith and inter-ethnic efforts to increase cooperation and political
    tolerance, assistance to women who are the hardest hit by the economic
    crisis and most politically disenfranchised, and support for media
    training, to strengthen their ``watchdog'' functions.
        The challenge to groups working in the field of human rights in
    Indonesia has increased due to heightened social tensions arising from
    the economic crisis-such as increased unemployment, rising prices and
    great social inequity. The Foundation will expand its activities with
    Indonesian NGOs and support for the National Human Rights Commission,
    which has taken on the role of an ombudsman whose assistance is
    actively sought by citizens who have limited access to or confidence in
    the legal system. Programs will include the establishment of a human
    rights education system for the country through a network of
    educational institutions, and NGOs, and will reach the police and
    military. The Foundation continues to work with the Commission to
    provide training for its staff, and to develop a database for both its
    monitoring and investigative work, and to facilitate information
    dissemination. The Foundation will also continue its support to the
    Commission's branch in East Timor.
                           open trade and investment
        The Asia Foundation supports programs that lead to open trade,
    investment and economic policy reform at the regional and national
    levels, and projects that work to spread the benefits of economic
    growth throughout Asian societies. The current economic crisis has
    increased the impetus for reform as it has placed enormous pressure on
    domestic political and governance systems and regional and
    international arrangements. The Foundation's programs complement
    official U.S. initiatives to support economic recovery in Asia, and
    reinforce the need to address the critical linkages between the
    immediate economic causes of the crisis and the deeper causes related
    to political processes and governance.
        The Asia Foundation supports regional organizations such as APEC
    and the private sector Pacific Economic Cooperation Council (PECC) that
    are committed to open trade and investment. In the past year, the
    Foundation has been engaged in contributing to country efforts under
    APEC, such as in the Philippines, to support efforts to reduce tariffs
    and help open trade in specific sectors, such as information technology
    and civil aviation. At the same time, the Foundation supports specific
    training programs, such as the seminar on bank surveillance techniques
    and prudential regulations the Foundation sponsored recently for
    central bank officials from the region at the San Francisco Federal
    Reserve Bank.
        The Foundation has provided technical expertise to the Ministries
    of Finance and Trade on issues related to Vietnam's accession into the
    World Trade Organization and the U.S. Vietnam Trade Agreement
    negotiations. In this process, through training programs and seminars,
    the Foundation will assist Vietnamese officials to identify needed
    economic reforms and obtain the skills needed for Vietnam to meet the
    basic requirements on the international trading system and to negotiate
    bilateral and multilateral trade agreements.
        The Foundation is helping to introduce a greater degree of
    predictability among major Asian economies by improving intellectual
    property rights protection, strengthening counter corruption laws and
    public scrutiny of the social and economic costs of corruption, and
    establishing private commercial dispute resolution organizations. For
    example, in China, together with the National Bureau of Asian Research
    in Seattle, the Foundation funded constituency building workshops in
    China with government officials and the private sector which focused on
    the long-term domestic economic and business benefits of intellectual
    property rights protection. In Thailand, the Foundation focused on the
    development of constituencies to promote sustained counter-corruption
    efforts by the government and civic sector through support for research
    on the political economy of corruption. This received widespread
    attention the press and mass media. The Foundation was a partner in a
    recent OECD conference on corruption in Washington, discussing lessons
    learned in counter corruption programming and has been consulted by
    Transparency International and other groups active in the field because
    of its experience in Asia.
        The Foundation supports small and medium enterprise (SME)
    development in Indonesia, Bangladesh and the Philippines, and plans to
    expand its successful and innovative policy reform program in other
    countries. Efforts will focus on identifying key regulatory
    constraints, strengthening the capacity of small and medium scale
    business constituencies to advocate for reform, and facilitating
    cooperative links with international donors, NGOs and business
    associations. SMEs are receiving increased attention during this time
    of economic crisis and the Foundation is seen as a leading resource in
    this field.
        In addition, the Foundation will focus on economic growth through
    programs that would selectively support innovative microcredit
    mechanisms for the poorest populations, including rural women in China.
                            international relations
        The Asia Foundation organizes U.S.-Asian dialogues on issues such
    as democratization, human rights, civil society, regional economic
    policy, and the environment, and supports diplomatic efforts to address
    security issues.
        The Foundation has supported and participated in several U.S.-China
    bilateral dialogues, including the ``Symposium on China-U.S. Relations
    Toward the 21st Century: A Constructive Strategic Partnership'', the
    first meeting of its kind in China, with equal numbers of senior
    American and Chinese policymakers, business representatives and NGO
    leaders participating. Major bilateral, regional and global issues were
    discussed aimed at forging as much consensus as possible for a joint
    report to the two governments. The Foundation is also supporting a
    series of Track II trilateral meetings involving representatives of
    Japan, China, and the United States. Convened by the Asia Center of
    Harvard University, the trilateral series aims to promote candid
    dialogue and improved understanding among the participating nations.
    The first meeting was held at Harvard in January 1999, and the next
    session is scheduled to be held in Tokyo in September 1999.
        The Foundation also continued to pursue human rights programs on a
    regional basis. Activities include an unofficial human rights dialogue
    in which 18 countries in the region are represented, including China
    and Vietnam, as well as support for the ASEAN Human Rights Working
    Group Toward the Establishment of a Regional Mechanism. The ASEAN
    initiative has an ambitious agenda for training and confidence building
    within the original five ASEAN countries.
        The Foundation will continue it support for the Council for
    Security Cooperation in the Asia Pacific (CSCAP) as a crucial vehicle
    for Track Two dialogue on the evolving regional security structure.
                                   conclusion
        In closing, Mr. Chairman, I have attempted to outline some of the
    program activities which the Foundation hopes to undertake throughout
    the region. We believe that these programs are at the core of U.S.
    interests in the region and that they merit an appropriation at the
    level of $15 million for fiscal year 2000, consistent with the
    President's request.
        As you and your colleagues know, the budget constraints of recent
    years have compelled significant reductions in the Foundation's annual
    appropriation. We have worked hard to reduce our budget, cut staff and
    expenditures, and increase our efficiency as well as diversify our
    funding sources. During this difficult period, we have worked to
    maintain our regional presence through our 13 offices in Asia, and to
    put the maximum possible amount of appropriated dollars toward on the
    ground program activities. I pledge to you that if the Congress
    appropriates the full $15 million request, The Asia Foundation will use
    those funds efficiently and effectively for program activity in the
    region as I have just described.
        Thank you for your attention and consideration.
                                     ______

                                 THE JUDICIARY
     Prepared Statement of Leonidas Ralph Mecham, Director, Administrative
                           Office of the U.S. Courts
        Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for giving
    me the opportunity to testify before you on the fiscal year 2000 budget
    request for the Administrative Office of the United States Courts (AO).
    It has been a pleasure to work with you and your very able staff over
    the years and I look forward to our working together in the future.
        I would first like to express my appreciation to Chairman Gregg and
    the subcommittee members for your support of the AO in the past and
    your recognition that it is an indispensable part of the justice
    system. In these times of fiscal constraint you have provided funds for
    modest staff increases so that we could address some of the most
    critical needs of the courts.
                       role of the administrative office
        The work of the AO has grown tremendously, both in volume and
    complexity over the years. Chief Justice Rehnquist, in his 1998 Year-
    End Report highlighted the range of activities performed by the AO. He
    noted the traditional core function of serving ``as the central support
    agency for the administration of the federal court system.'' The
    addendum highlights some of those activities. His report also
    enumerates some of the emerging areas the AO has developed to spearhead
    support for the judiciary's growth and in a more complex environment.
    These include developing a long-range planning and budgeting process,
    ensuring that all judiciary automated systems are Year 2000-compliant,
    and analyzing ways for the judiciary to work most efficiently.
        Supporting a court system whose proportional growth far outpaces
    that of the AO is a daunting task in and of itself since the AO's
    workload increase is directly tied to the courts' growth. Yet, in
    addition to continuing this ongoing support at a much greater level of
    effort, the AO has had to branch out into additional, and often
    unexpected arenas. These range from instituting a long-range facilities
    planning process that recently won a government-wide award to managing
    a project on electronic courtrooms. The AO has done all of this with
    marginal increases in staffing resources.
                      administrative office budget request
        The AO's budget request for fiscal year 2000 is a request to
    maintain current services levels. The only increases requested are for
    standard pay and benefit cost adjustments and general inflationary
    increases. We are requesting total funding of $100,594,000, a 6.5
    percent increase over anticipated fiscal year 1999 obligations. The
    total funding needed is comprised of appropriations, reimbursements
    from the courts primarily for automation support, fiscal year 2000 fee
    collections, prior year carryover, and independent counsel
    reimbursements.
        Although our workload is continuing to grow substantially, we felt
    compelled to request a current services budget and not to request
    needed additional staff for two reasons. First, we recognize the very
    difficult fiscal position you are in. Second, the Judicial Conference
    decided not to request additional staff to meet the increased workload
    in the courts. While Congress has approved staffing increases for the
    courts in the past, the AO has actually declined in size relative to
    the courts. Nonetheless, we felt it would be imprudent to request
    additional staff in fiscal year 2000 for the AO when none are requested
    for the courts, regardless of our need. Consequently, it is imperative
    that the AO receive its full request; otherwise critical staff and
    support functions for the courts will be in jeopardy. In particular, in
    order to maintain core support functions, we would have to slow down or
    stop entirely many of the projects underway that will eventually
    produce efficiencies and improvements in judiciary operations.
             the administrative office's increased responsibilities
        In recent years the AO has greatly increased its efforts in three
    areas: (1) supporting enhanced program assessment, economy efforts, and
    planning by Judicial Conference committees; (2) leading the effort in
    major analytical studies of various judiciary activities and (3)
    developing and implementing automated systems and fostering other
    innovations to help the courts absorb more work and continue to serve
    the public well. I am very proud of the results that we are achieving
    and the lead role of the Administrative Office as assigned by the
    Judicial Conference. The coordination and support of all of these
    efforts will require substantial AO staff resources, but they have and
    will continue to assist the judiciary in handling its increasing
    workload without a commensurate increase in staff.
        The AO undertook these initiatives in support of the Judicial
    Conference Committees and with the encouragement of Congress, with very
    modest increases in resources, while still maintaining the high level
    of support to the judiciary in its traditional core functions. Compared
    to other administrative support organizations, the Administrative
    Office continues to be a bargain for the taxpayers. AO staffing as a
    percentage of the judiciary's total staff is 3 percent, while the staff
    in the Department of Justice's Management and Administration accounts
    represent 5 percent of DOJ's total staff.
        I would like to summarize some of the efforts we have underway. In
    many instances, the results of these initiatives will have a
    significant impact on court operations and resource requirements.
    Assessment and Planning
        Judicial Conference Support.--One of the agency's primary
    responsibilities is providing professional support to the Judicial
    Conference and its twenty-four committees. AO staff plan meetings,
    prepare agendas, and produce reports. They also provide substantive
    analyses of issues, seek advice and opinions from advisory groups of
    court officials, and make recommendations for consideration by
    committees, and ultimately, the Judicial Conference.
        Long Range Planning and Budgeting Efforts.--To ensure the Judiciary
    continues to be able to accomplish its mission in the face of ever-
    tightening resources, the AO is coordinating and supporting an enhanced
    program and budget planning effort in the short, medium, and longer
    term. Committees of the Judicial Conference, through AO staff support,
    are placing greater emphasis on examining current and future program
    requirements, setting priorities, and determining resource needs so the
    judiciary will be better able to decide how best to use available funds
    and successfully meet its responsibilities. This will involve a more
    direct focus on conducting tactical and strategic planning at the
    program level, examining issues that cross program lines and the
    resulting impact on the involved programs, and estimating resource
    needs several years beyond the budget year.
    Major Analytical Studies
        Improved Work Measurement Formulas.--In June 1998 a major two-year
    study was initiated to update formulas for determining staffing
    requirements in the courts. Defining and measuring the work of the
    courts requires a tremendous effort by AO staff throughout the agency,
    including on-site assessments to ensure the results are valid. These
    staffing formulas serve as the basis for determining personnel needs in
    appellate, district, and bankruptcy clerks offices and probation and
    pretrial services offices, which in fiscal year 1999 include about
    20,000 people. The new formulas will account for changes in recent
    years that may have impacted the need for staffing, such as new
    automated systems, more efficient work processes, or additional
    workload demands imposed by new legislation. The judiciary will use the
    new formulas to allocate court staff resources beginning in fiscal year
    2001.
        Space and Facilities Review.--The AO is in the process of engaging
    an outside consultant to conduct an independent comprehensive study of
    the judiciary's space and facilities program. The review is broad in
    scope and will address: program missions and objectives; long range
    planning assumptions, including the effects of staffing and operational
    policies, technology and all major cost-drivers; facilities management
    policies and business processes; courtroom utilization; courthouse
    design standards and practices; internal and external organizations
    involved in the program, and their roles, authorities, and
    relationships; funding and budget mechanisms and GSA rental policies,
    which currently cost the judiciary about $650 million per year.
        To ensure all views are expressed and issues are addressed, the AO
    will bring in focus groups of court officials, congressional staff,
    GSA, OMB, attorneys, and others who use courthouse facilities.
        Probation and Pretrial Services Study.--Another comprehensive
    review that the AO will oversee is a study of the probation and
    pretrial services system which currently requires $655 million
    annually. An independent consultant will analyze current programs,
    identify strategic issues, and make recommendations for the future
    direction of the system. This study is necessary because the system is
    increasing in complexity, growing in size, and facing changing needs.
    We expect the study to produce recommendations for improving both the
    efficiency and quality of the system.
        Defender Services Analyses and Cost Containment.--Several studies
    are underway in the defender services area, some of which we initiated
    and others which were requested by Congress. The AO has taken a lead
    role in supporting the Defender Services Committee, contracting with
    independent consultants, and working with advisory task forces to carry
    out analyses on various aspects of the defender services program and
    its cost. Efforts focus on assessing the various components of the
    program including federal death penalty representations, noncapital
    case cost drivers, and comparative costs of federal capital habeas
    corpus cases. In addition, AO staff are supporting the development of
    performance measures for the defender services program. The measures
    should help the Judiciary improve management of the program budget,
    direct resources to areas where they are needed most, and better
    demonstrate the effectiveness of the program to Congress and the
    public. These studies provide insights into what is driving the costs,
    with resulting recommendations on how to contain costs while meeting
    the constitutional and Criminal Justice Act mandates to provide defense
    services to all eligible defendants.
        Judicial Officers Resource Study.--AO staff is supporting a
    judiciary working group to explore ways and means of managing available
    judicial officer resources in a manner that might reduce the need for
    some additional judgeships. A primary area of focus will be ways to
    better use existing resources such as visiting judges, to address the
    imbalance of workload among courts.
    Automated Systems and Technology Advances
        We continue to study and invest in technological innovation to
    enhance the quality and efficiency of court proceedings, to provide
    better services to the bar and public, and to reduce the costs of
    judicial operations. The AO has an ambitious automation program
    underway, with a dozen major automation projects in various stages of
    development. All of these systems will improve information processing,
    timelessness and availability, but they will require a sustained
    investment of substantial AO staff members over the next several years
    to complete the design, perform testing, install in over 400 hundred
    court units, and provide training and support to over 39,000 users on
    an ongoing basis.
        Videoconferencing.--The use of videoconferencing continues to
    expand. In addition to being used in certain judicial proceedings, the
    judiciary is increasingly using videoconferencing for administrative
    meetings, conferences, and training seminars. In the area of distance
    learning, plans for the future include interactive video teletraining
    and desk top videoconferencing. Downlink facilities have been installed
    in about 200 court locations around the country. Fifty additional
    sights are on order for installation in the coming months. The Federal
    Judicial Television Network is now the second-largest broadcasting
    network in federal civilian government. It currently airs 30 hours of
    programming per week on a variety of subjects ranging from training
    judges on recently passed legislation to general training on computer
    security.
        Courtroom Technology.--A multi-year plan is underway to equip
    courtrooms with a variety of technologies to facilitate judicial
    proceedings. The technologies include video evidence presentation
    systems, videoconferencing capabilities, and electronic court-reporting
    systems that provide immediate access to the record. Results of a pilot
    study show the technologies can reduce trial time, lower litigation
    costs, improve fact-finding, enhance understanding of information, and
    improve access to court proceedings.
        Case Management/Electronic Case Files.--A major effort is underway
    that is consuming substantial AO resources to provide a new case
    management system to the appellate, district and bankruptcy courts.
    This new system will provide electronic case filing capabilities to the
    bar while allowing judges, court staff, attorneys and others to store
    and retrieve case documents without leaving their desks. The
    Administrative Office is working closely with the courts, the
    Department of Justice and various bar associations on this effort,
    particularly since the cultural and operational changes in the way the
    judiciary conducts its business will be dramatic. In addition, the new
    systems will replace the antiquated case management systems now being
    used in the federal court system. The new systems will provide the
    judiciary with modern database capabilities, improved user interface,
    better reports for case management and will reduce the life cycle for
    making necessary changes and enhancements.
        Panel Attorney Payment System.--A new payment and management
    information system for panel attorneys is being readied for
    implementation in the courts beginning later this year. The system will
    provide a more efficient means of making payments to panel attorneys.
    Further, it will allow the judiciary to collect additional, more
    timely, and better quality data to improve management of the program.
        Probation/Pretrial Services Case Management.--A new case management
    system for probation and pretrial services offices is underway. Called
    PACTS, the system will automate many of the tasks that a probation or
    pretrial services officer currently handles manually, thereby enabling
    officers to focus more fully on supervising offenders, serving the
    court, and protecting the community. Access will be available in
    offices and from mobile computers that officers will have when
    conducting supervision and investigation activities.
        Electronic Public Access Program.--Over the past nine years, AO
    staff has supported the development of a broad and comprehensive
    electronic public access program that has dramatically enhanced the
    public's ability to access and obtain court information quickly. The
    public access systems are available at 184 federal court sites and
    received over nine million calls in fiscal year 1998. The use of these
    systems by the public reduces the amount of counter and telephone
    traffic that would otherwise be handled by clerks' office staff. Users
    of the electronic public access services save transportation and
    personnel costs associated with traveling to and from the clerk's
    office to retrieve the information, as well as copying costs, while
    paying only a nominal fee for electronic access. A new initiative for
    the Electronic Public Access program is the Public Access Network,
    which will allow courts to offer their information on the Internet
    while providing a secure environment for the judiciary.
        Communications Network.--Through extensive AO staff efforts the
    Data Communications Network (DCN) has been fully implemented. Completed
    September 1998, one year ahead of schedule and below estimated cost,
    the network provides an internal electronic communications link for all
    Judiciary employees. The DCN offers a number of benefits and
    opportunities for efficiencies. Completion of the DCN makes possible
    widespread use of the judiciary's intranet. Called the J-Net, the site
    allows electronic dissemination of a substantial and growing number of
    judiciary documents. The site is visited more than 2,000 times daily by
    judiciary employees looking for reports, statistics, newsletters,
    directories, manuals, and other documents.
        Jury Management System.--A new automated jury management system has
    been developed and tested in eight courts and will be deployed in all
    district courts over the next year and a half through extensive AO
    staff efforts. The Jury Management System (JMS) will assist courts with
    selecting, managing, tracking and paying jurors. The JMS will reduce
    juror processing time and the cost of jury selection, management, and
    tracking, and enhance juror satisfaction through better service.
        Human Resources Management Information System.--The AO is
    supporting modernization of the judiciary's outdated and non-integrated
    personnel and payroll systems. The new system will produce more
    accurate records and will reduce the amount of printing, copying,
    postage, long distance calls and faxes, and staff time at both the AO
    and courts associated with the processing of personnel actions.
        Financial Accounting System for Tomorrow.--We are continuing
    development and looking ahead to nationwide implementation of a
    financial system to replace the myriad of existing incompatible
    systems. This is a major undertaking that will provide a uniform
    financial accounting system linked to the judiciary's central
    accounting system. When fully implemented, the system will produce
    timelier, more reliable reports to enhance financial management and
    decision-making and will improve internal control processes to reduce
    the risk of potential fraud or abuse.
                                   conclusion
        Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, I hope I have given
    you a sense of the very ambitious agenda to which I have committed the
    AO and the critical role the AO plays in our justice system. We have
    been assigned many of these initiatives, but we have been provided with
    few if any additional resources and that will again be the case in
    fiscal year 2000. We hope we can maintain our record of accomplishments
    and succeed in the many undertakings that we have embarked on without a
    serious diminution in the quality of the service we must provide the
    Judicial Branch. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to be here
    today and I am available to answer any questions you may have.
                                     ______

     Prepared Statement of John G. Heyburn, II, Chairman, Committee on the
             Budget of the Judicial Conference of the United States
        Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, I appreciate the
    opportunity to testify before you on the Judiciary's fiscal year 2000
    budget request. It is indeed a pleasure to return for my third
    appearance before the Subcommittee.
        I would first like to take this opportunity to thank you, Mr.
    Chairman, the Members of the Subcommittee and your hardworking staff
    for the thoughtful consideration you give to the Judiciary's budget
    requests. Year after year you face the daunting challenge of balancing
    the funding needs of all the agencies under your jurisdiction within a
    constrained federal budget.
        Mr. Chairman, it appears that your task will be even more difficult
    in fiscal year 2000 because of the discretionary budget caps. Knowing
    this, the Judicial Conference has made some very difficult and
    potentially risky choices. The Conference has to balance the courts'
    growing workload with the reality that Congress has limited funds this
    year.
        To balance these conflicting needs, the Judicial Conference made a
    conscious decision to limit the judiciary's obligations increase to
    $310 million. However, the appearance of an increase is very deceptive.
    Our request for the courts is actually a current services budget. This
    budget request freezes overall court staffing levels--for the second
    year in a row. The specific increases are easily summarized generally
    as follows:

    Salaries and Expenses:
        Judicial officer salaries...........................      $9,900,000
        New Judges confirmed & senior judges................      13,200,000
        Inflationary, pay and cost increases................     116,200,000
        New space and rental increases......................      92,200,000
        New magistrate judges...............................       4,900,000
                        --------------------------------------------------------
                        ____________________________________________________
          Total.............................................     236,400,000
                        ========================================================
                        ____________________________________________________
    Defenders:
        Panel attorney rate increase........................      15,700,000
        Staff salary and inflation increases................      14,100,000
        Costs due to projected increased representations....      19,300,000
                        --------------------------------------------------------
                        ____________________________________________________
          Total.............................................      49,500,000
                        ========================================================
                        ____________________________________________________
    Fees of Jurors: Projected increase in juror days........       2,500,000
                        ========================================================
                        ____________________________________________________
    Court Security:
        Inflationary pay and cost increases.................      11,600,000
        New CSO's...........................................       3,100,000
        Net increase in security equipment for new or
          renovated buildings and upgrades (Total is $22.6
          million)..........................................       5,200,000
        Perimeter security enhancements.....................       1,600,000
                        --------------------------------------------------------
                        ____________________________________________________
          Total.............................................      21,500,000

        The judiciary is unlike other agencies. We do not have the luxury
    of closing down old programs or choosing not to provide a basic
    service. The $310 million increase is, to a large measure,
    uncontrollable. It is rent, pay increases, and other mandatory costs
    associated with law enforcement and increased security needs. It is an
    eight percent increase over our fiscal year 1999 obligations. In
    reality, we will try to do more work with the same resources.
                             historical perspective
        The workload of the courts is largely uncontrollable. It is driven
    by a growing number of increasingly more complex cases. The growth in
    criminal cases has two causes (1) the continuing federalization of
    crimes and (2) the increased resources provided to the Department of
    Justice. Civil and bankruptcy workload is driven largely by individuals
    and businesses seeking resolution of disputes or the protection of the
    courts.
        In fiscal year 1998, the judiciary had sufficient funds available
    to provide additional staff required to handle workload increases. That
    is not the case in fiscal year 1999. The courts do not have enough
    funding for any additional staff to handle workload increases.
        Over the past several years the judiciary has relied on non-
    appropriated sources of funds (fees, carryover balances, etc.) to
    augment the annual appropriations provided by Congress. Up through
    fiscal year 1998, this combination of appropriations and other sources
    of financing allowed the Judicial Conference, for the most part, to
    provide the funds needed by the courts to maintain a high level of
    service in the face of an ever-growing workload. We are beginning to
    experience a decline in our non-appropriated sources of funds,
    primarily resulting from reduced carryover amounts. The fiscal year
    1999 financial plan utilizes carryover of $217 million from fiscal year
    1998 to 1999 in the Salaries and Expenses account. The carryover
    available in fiscal year 1999 is 10 percent less than carryover
    available in fiscal year 1998.
        In fiscal year 1999, this lower carryover, when combined with
    enacted appropriations, resulted in total available obligations that
    allowed for noadditional court staff. However, the Judicial Conference
    determined that some relief was necessary for those courts that were
    experiencing a significant growth in workload. Accordingly, the
    Conference reduced the fiscal year 1999 operating budgets of the court
    units by one percent in order to establish a pool of funds that would
    be available to provide some additional staff to courts with
    significant workload. In essence, we ``robbed Peter to pay Paul.''
    Recently, this pool of funds was allotted to hire an estimated 300
    additional court staff in fiscal year 1999, primarily probation and
    pretrial services officers.
        For a number of reasons, including the constrained staffing and
    operating funds provided the courts in fiscal year 1999, we anticipate
    that carryover amounts from fiscal year 1999 to 2000 will be lower than
    last year. In the Salaries and Expenses account, we project now that
    only $51 million in carryover will be available in fiscal year 2000,
    compared to the $217 million carryover for this fiscal year. When
    carryover amounts decline, appropriated funds must increase accordingly
    to maintain overall funding levels. The lower projected carryover in
    fiscal year 2000 is the major reason why our requested appropriation
    increase is higher than in the past several years. Our requested
    increase in total obligations is actually about the same as prior
    years.
        The following chart displays the financing problem created by the
    projected decline in carryover amounts.

                                              COURTS' SALARIES AND EXPENSES
                                                [In millions of dollars]
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                  Change
                                                        Fiscal Year     Fiscal Year  -------------------------------
                                                           1991            2000           Amount          Percent
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Appropriated Funds..............................           2,835           3,252            +417           +14.7
    Carryover.......................................             217              51            -166           -76.5
    Other Non-Appropriated funds....................             162             147             -15            -9.3
                                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------
          Total S&E Obligations.....................           3,214           3,450            +236            +7.4
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                   fiscal year 2000 judiciary budget request
        Our fiscal year 2000 request is a bare bones budget. We ask for no
    new initiatives, no new programs and, for the Salaries and Expenses
    account, no new court clerk's staff or probation and pretrial services
    officers. To make it so entails some risk to the courts. To develop
    this budget, we made a number of assumptions concerning workload,
    certain uncontrollable expenses such as the number of filled
    judgeships, and levels of carryover from fiscal years 1999 to 2000. As
    always, we will work with the Subcommittee over the upcoming months
    and, if these assumptions change, we will provide you with our best re-
    estimates. However, based upon what we know today, we do not anticipate
    that our estimates will change appreciably.
        The following are the highlights of our request. In addition,
    attached is a detailed analysis of each appropriation account.
    Salaries and Expenses
        In fiscal year 2000, we are requesting a 7.4 percent increase in
    total obligations for the Salaries and Expenses account. Using
    conventional budget terminology, this is essentially a ``current
    services'' request, meaning that, other than staff associated with
    judicial officers, we are requesting no additional support staff for
    the courts of appeals, district courts, bankruptcy courts, and
    probation/pretrial services offices. This freeze in overall staffing
    levels in fiscal year 2000 comes in spite of the fact that workload
    continues to climb. Additionally, it comes on top of a similar current
    services budget in fiscal year 1999. Over the two year period between
    fiscal years 1998 and 2000, overall court staffing levels are being
    frozen at essentially fiscal year 1998 levels, while during that same
    period, the courts will experience a 23 percent increase in criminal
    filings, a four percent increase in criminals under supervision, a 21
    percent increase in pretrial services reports, a net four percent
    increase in bankruptcy filings, and a two percent increase in appeals
    filed.
        The courts' workload is unlikely to decline any time soon. In
    fiscal year 1999, the Congress provided sufficient funds for the
    Department of Justice (DOJ) to hire almost 400 new attorneys. In
    addition, DOJ plans to increase the number of Border Patrol Agents by
    15 percent and FBI/DEA Special Agents by three percent in fiscal year
    1999. We expect, no doubt as does DOJ, that these additional
    investigators and prosecutors will bring even more cases to the federal
    courts in the coming years.
        With what amounts to a two-year freeze in overall staffing, the
    courts can only accommodate the tremendous growth in workload with
    either (1) productivity enhancements from various automation and
    technology improvements or (2) by actually reducing services in some
    areas. Either of these two options exposes the judiciary to some risk.
        First, because we have submitted a current services budget, if the
    Salaries and Expenses account receives less than the requested 7.4
    percent increase in total obligations, then the courts will likely have
    to reduce current staffing levels in some areas, which could entail
    reductions-in-force (RIFs). Overall court staffing is already frozen at
    fiscal year 1998 levels, so further cutbacks would undoubtedly lead to
    reductions in the services provided by the courts.
        Second, if our automation/technology improvements and other economy
    and efficiency efforts do not produce the cost savings and productivity
    enhancements we anticipate, then the current, frozen court staffing
    levels will be unable to handle the spiraling workload. It will force
    us to make some very unsatisfactory and even dangerous choices.
        Based upon previous experience, if either of the above scenarios
    materializes, the following are possible:
      --probation officers will have to focus their supervision efforts on
            offenders who are the most obvious risk to the community. Those
            who remain will receive minimal supervision;
      --a reduced level of drug and mental health treatment;
      --an increase in the average time of disposition for civil and
            bankruptcy cases and appeals;
      --delays in the implementation of important new automated systems;
      --reduction in both public hours in clerks' offices and timeliness in
            responding to public inquiries;
      --shutdown of non-resident, visiting court facilities, which would
            mean added travel and related costs to litigants and could
            impose significant hardship on citizens in states whose
            residents are geographically dispersed.
    Defender Services
        I have some good news to report to the Committee concerning the
    Defender Services account. For fiscal year 2000, while our overall
    costs continue to grow, the average annual cost per case is leveling
    off and in some instances declining.
        Our request for a five percent appropriation increase will provide
    total obligations of $430.2 million in fiscal year 2000. One-third of
    the cost growth in fiscal year 2000 results from standard pay and
    inflationary increases. Another third of the growth results from an
    anticipated six percent increase in the number of Criminal Justice Act
    (CJA) representations, which in turn are driven by a seven percent
    increase in criminal filings by the Department of Justice. The final
    third is required to avert an impending crisis in the criminal justice
    system, which as described below, is threatened by the low hourly rates
    paid to private panel attorneys.
        There is good news. Fiscal year 1999 is the third year in a row in
    which the average annual cost per representation by private panel
    attorneys in non-capital cases is expected to decline. The anticipated
    fiscal year 1999 average annual cost of $2,804 for a non-capital case
    is seven percent less than the average annual cost in fiscal year 1996.
    The reduction in the average annual cost of capital representations is
    even more dramatic, projecting to decline by 44 percent, from $61,600
    in fiscal year 1996 to $34,400 in fiscal year 1999. While the judiciary
    can take some credit for this decline because of our ongoing cost
    containment efforts, another factor is the mix of cases panel attorneys
    are asked to represent, which is totally outside of our control. In
    hindsight, we believe that the mix of cases drove the large increases
    in average annual costs back in 1996 and 1997, which raised your
    concern. In those years, a number of high cost capital cases, which
    were new to our system, drove up the overall average annual costs.
        Currently, the decline in average annual costs is probably driven,
    in part, by the mix of cases being prosecuted by DOJ. Over the past
    several years, DOJ has emphasized the criminal prosecution of illegal
    aliens. These immigration cases are much less expensive than the
    average criminal case. The result is a reduction in the overall average
    annual cost. Since we do not control the criminal caseload, a word of
    caution is in order. Should DOJ decide to deemphasize immigration in
    favor of other more complex, higher cost criminal cases, such as drugs
    and violent crime, the average annual cost per case will likely grow
    again.
        An impending crisis threatens the entire criminal justice system.
    The crisis is caused by the inordinately low hourly rate currently paid
    private panel attorneys in non-capital cases. Generally, the current
    hourly rates of $45 (out-of-court) and $65 (in-court) do not even cover
    overhead expenses, and judges from all over the country are reporting
    that the low rates seriously compromise their ability to find qualified
    attorneys to accept Criminal Justice Act (CJA) appointments.
        Panel attorneys in 78 of the 94 judicial districts have had only
    one increase in the hourly rate since 1984, a $5.00 rate increase
    approved by your Committee in fiscal year 1996. If the panel attorney
    rates had kept pace with COLAs provided federal employees since 1984,
    the hourly rate would now be $104 per hour. It is important to note
    that panel attorney rates are by far the lowest paid to any private
    counsel by the U.S. Government. Of the 59 federal agencies surveyed by
    the General Accounting Office in 1992, the vast majority paid
    significantly more than the current $45/$65 rate paid panel attorneys.
        To solve this inequity of only one small rate increase in fifteen
    years and to avert the impending crisis, the Judicial Conference
    requests an increase of $15.7 million in fiscal year 2000 to allow all
    judicial districts to increase the hourly rates up to the statutorily
    authorized level of $75 per hour. We believe that the time has come to
    raise rates to at least a minimally acceptable level.
    Court Security
        Providing an adequate level of security to all citizens entering
    our federal courthouses remains an ongoing concern of the Judicial
    Conference. Federal courts are among the most vulnerable security risks
    of any facilities in the nation. Over the past several years, the
    Congress has provided the judiciary with the resources to purchase the
    equipment and contract personnel needed to provide the courts with what
    we consider to be a minimum level of security. Our fiscal year 2000
    request of $206 million in total obligations will allow the courts to
    maintain that level of security. Over half of the requested increase is
    required merely to maintain current services. The remaining increase is
    needed to fund 120 additional Court Security Officers (CSOs) at new,
    renovated and existing facilities based on current staffing guidelines,
    and to purchase security equipment for new/renovated facilities or to
    upgrade outdated equipment.
                                cost containment
        Knowing the problem Congress faces in balancing the budget, the
    judiciary is doing everything possible to contain costs. In February
    your Committee received the latest update to the judiciary's annual
    report entitled Optimal Utilization of Judicial Resources. At the back
    of that report is an extensive list of past and ongoing efforts to
    reduce spending and improve resource use. As I stated earlier, the
    ability of the courts to handle an ever-growing workload with no
    additional staff in either fiscal year 1999 or 2000, is dependent upon
    the potential savings and productivity improvements associated with
    these initiatives.
        We are embarking on a number of comprehensive program reviews and
    studies that will go a long way towards determining the appropriate
    level of resources required by the judiciary to handle its workload in
    the future. A brief description of the major projects follows:
      --In June 1998 the judiciary initiated a two-year study to update the
            formulas we utilize for determining staffing requirements in
            the courts. The formulas, which were developed several years
            ago through a detailed work measurement process, will be
            updated to take into consideration new and more efficient work
            processes, as well as additional workload demands imposed by
            new legislation. It is anticipated that the updated formulas
            will be available to develop the fiscal year 2002 budget
            request.
      --In October 1998 the judiciary established a working group to
            explore ways and means of managing available judicial officer
            resources in a manner that might reduce the need for some
            additional judgeships. The group will examine ways to better
            use existing resources, such as visiting judges, magistrate
            judges, and senior judges, to address possible imbalances of
            workload among the courts. The group plans to complete its work
            in fiscal year 2000.
      --In the Spring of 1999 an outside consultant will be engaged to
            conduct a comprehensive study of the judiciary's space and
            facilities program with a goal of issuing a report within a
            year. This top-to-bottom review will examine all major cost
            drivers, including planning practices and policies, courtroom
            utilization, building design, furniture acquisition, and
            facilities management practices. The study should produce
            recommendations to improve program effectiveness and efficiency
            and reduce future costs, adding to the $13 million in space
            cost avoidances realized in fiscal years 1996 and 1997.
      --In fiscal year 1999 an outside consultant will be engaged to
            conduct a comprehensive study of the judiciary's probation and
            pretrial services system. As a result of legislation and an
            increasing number of individuals being supervised after release
            from prison or pending trial, this critical law enforcement
            system has grown in complexity and size, and faces many
            changing needs. The consultant will analyze current programs,
            identify strategic issues and make recommendations for the
            future, all with the goal of assuring the continued efficiency
            and quality of the system, while minimizing any risk to the
            communities.
        As our annual Optimal Utilization report points out, there are many
    other efforts underway. These include studies to reduce the cost and
    increase the quality of the Defender Services program; numerous
    automation and technology initiatives such as videoconferencing of both
    judicial proceedings and training; installing new courtroom
    technologies; expanded use of telephone interpreting; electronic case
    files; improvements to the judiciary's electronic public access
    program; and expansion of electronic bankruptcy noticing.
        Lastly, in fiscal year 2000 we will continue to develop and
    implement a number of new or updated automated systems, namely the
    Financial Accounting System for Tomorrow, the Criminal Justice Act
    Payment Replacement System, a new Integrated Library System, a new case
    management system for probation and pretrial services offices, a new
    jury management system, and the Personnel Systems Modernization
    Project.
        Of course, our ability to implement the above improvements is
    contingent upon receiving sufficient funds in fiscal year 2000.
                   contributions of the administrative office
        I would like to call to your attention the budget request of the
    Administrative Office of the United States Courts and to tell you how
    critical it is to the operations of the courts. The Administrative
    Office (AO) requests a 6.5 percent increase in total obligations which,
    like the funding request for the courts, will merely allow it to
    maintain the staffing levels funded in fiscal year 1999. It includes an
    increase in reimbursable funding to provide independent contractual
    support for our efforts to update the judiciary's staffing formulas.
        The Administrative Office is the oil that keeps the judiciary
    operating smoothly and efficiently. As you know, the AO provides core
    administrative services to the courts, such as accounting, personnel,
    payroll, budget and facilities planning. In addition, the
    Administrative Office provides the resources needed to staff the
    Judicial Conference and its Committees.
        What is probably of utmost importance to your Committee, however,
    is the key role the AO plays in spearheading efforts to reduce costs
    and enhance productivity throughout the judiciary. The staff of the
    Administrative Office is playing a major role in managing and in some
    instances performing the comprehensive studies I discussed earlier on
    work measurement formulas, space and facilities, and probation and
    pretrial services. Also, it is the AO staff that is providing the
    technical advice and training needed by the courts to allow them to
    implement new automated systems.
        I urge the Committee to provide the Administrative Office with its
    full budget request. Without sufficient funding, the AO will be unable
    to provide adequate administrative support to the courts and still lead
    efforts to enhance operations and reduce costs in the courts.
                        federal judicial center support
        I strongly recommend that the Subcommittee approve full funding for
    the Federal Judicial Center's request which is only 7 percent over its
    1999 level. The requested increase is limited to funds for the normal
    adjustments to the base budget, and for eight additional positions to
    enhance the Center's ability to provide distance education, through the
    judicial branch's internet (J-Net) and of course by satellite from its
    studios.
        The Center provides judges and their staffs orientation seminars to
    ease the transition to their new jobs, and helps them throughout their
    careers as new needs arise. For example, the Center offers sessions on
    how probation officers should deal with gangs among offender
    populations and how judges, magistrates and clerks can implement the
    Alternative Dispute Resolution Act of 1988. The committees of the
    Judicial Conference turn to the Center for top-quality policy research
    and analysis on the efficacy of proposed changes in rules and
    procedures.
        It is important for me to note that this year Judge Zobel is
    concluding her service as Center director to return to the federal
    bench. Of her many accomplishments during the past four years as
    director, I know she is most proud to have led the Center to greater
    reliance on new technologies with which to provide its education and
    training services to the Third Branch. This has enabled her to make
    major reductions in Center travel expenditures while achieving major
    increases in the number of judges and staff that receive education and
    training.
        I can assure you from my perspective as a federal judge, that the
    modest funds appropriated to the Center (less than one-half of one
    percent of the judiciary's budget) produce a significant return on
    investment. I urge you to approve full funding for the Federal Judicial
    Center in fiscal year 2000.
                                  judges' cola
        There is one last issue I would like to discuss with you today, and
    that is providing fair, adequate compensation to judges. Although it
    obviously affects me personally, I am here speaking for judges
    throughout the country.
        An Employment Cost Index adjustment of 3.4 percent is due Members
    of Congress, federal judges and senior Executive Branch officials in
    January 2000, as provided for under the Ethics Reform Act of 1989. The
    Judicial Conference strongly endorses such a COLA for top government
    officials in all three branches of government.
        Since 1993, these top officials have received only one single
    COLA--a modest 2.3 percent ECI adjustment in January 1998. This one-
    time COLA has not protected their salaries from changes in the cost-of-
    living. As a result, the value of their salaries has declined over 16
    percent when measured against the Consumer Price Index. What that means
    is that each judge's salary is worth about $22,000 less today than it
    was in 1992. Another way of looking at it is that since 1993 each judge
    has lost over $77,000 in purchasing power. Compounding the problem for
    the judges is that, while their salaries are declining in real terms,
    they are being given more work to do--since 1993 the caseload of
    district judges has increased by more than 15 percent.
        The lack of annual COLAs for top government officials is also
    hurting career federal employees in all three branches, who are
    impacted by pay compression. Depending upon the area of the country,
    pay has been frozen for the top three or four levels of the Senior
    Executive Service (SES). In fact, because of increased costs of
    retirement and health benefits, some members of the SES actually
    received a salary reduction in 1999. If salaries of top government
    officials are not increased, the pay compression will be reaching down
    to General Schedule employees before too long.
        Judges do not expect to receive real salary increases annually;
    however, they also do not accept judicial appointments anticipating
    that their purchasing power will shrink annually. I sometimes wonder
    how quickly those judges appointed in 1993 would have accepted their
    commissions if they had been told then that their real annual pay would
    be worth $22,000 less by 1999. While the judiciary is not yet
    experiencing an exodus of judges because of the declining value of the
    judicial salary, there is real concern about our ability to continue to
    retain and attract the best and the brightest to a career on the bench.
        We live in a society where cost-of-living adjustments to maintain
    purchasing power are a fact of economic life. As an employer, the
    judiciary must compete with private law firms and corporations which
    can afford to pay considerably more than can the U.S. Government. While
    the judiciary does not expect to pay judges the salaries being paid to
    law partners, we would hope to at least pay judges considerably more
    than first-year associates at big law firms. In some big law firms,
    first year associates are earning well over $100,000 a year. Able
    lawyers are more than willing to make some sacrifices in pay for the
    prestige and sense of public service that the judiciary offers, but
    that will not buy them a house or send children to college.
        I want to emphasize that we, in the judiciary, understand that this
    pattern of salary neglect has had an adverse impact upon Members of
    Congress too. I believe that a majority of the American public supports
    fair compensation for its government's top officials. With that in
    mind, we are hopeful that Congress will allow the mechanisms of the
    1989 Ethics Reform Act to work, and that all top government officials
    be provided a COLA in fiscal year 2000.

        Appendix--Courts of Appeals, District Courts and Other Judicial
                    Services Fiscal Year 2000 Budget Request

                                    summary
        The fiscal year 2000 appropriation request for the Courts of
    Appeals, District Courts and Other Judicial Services totals
    $3,936,287,000, an increase of $471,041,000 over our fiscal year 1999
    appropriation level. In addition to appropriated funds, the judiciary
    utilizes other funding sources to supplement our appropriations.
    Included in these sources of funding are fee collections, carry forward
    of fee balances from a prior year, and the use of no-year funds. When
    all sources of funds are considered, the increase in obligations for
    fiscal year 2000 is only $310,121,000 or 8.1 percent.
        Of the $310,121,000 increase in obligations, 89 percent
    ($274,773,000) is adjustments to the fiscal year 1999 base primarily
    associated with inflation, pay increases and GSA rental payment
    increases. The remaining 11 percent ($35,348,000) is needed to respond
    to increased requirements for security, magistrate judges, juror days
    and federal defender offices. The request for the principal programs
    are summarized below.
    Salaries and Expenses
        The salaries and expenses of circuit, district, and bankruptcy
    courts and probation and pretrial services offices account for most of
    our request. A total of $3,449,921,000 is required for this activity,
    $236,345,000 over fiscal year 1999 estimated obligations. Funding of
    $229,995,000 is expected to be available from other sources to offset
    the S&E appropriation requirement, leaving a direct appropriation need
    of $3,219,926,000. Included in these other sources of funding are
    requested appropriations from federal trust funds including $29,395,000
    from the Violent Crime Reduction Trust Fund and $2,581,000 from the
    Vaccine Injury Trust Fund; $55,709,000 in funds expected to carry
    forward from fiscal year 1999; and $142,310,000 in fee collections.
        Over 98 percent of the $236,345,000 increase ($231,444,000) is
    needed to fund adjustments to the fiscal year 1999 base for pay
    increases for courts support staff ($119,460,000), pay increases for
    judicial officers ($9,925,000), the filling of vacant judgeships and
    increases in senior judges ($13,153,000), additional space rental costs
    ($92,479,000) and reductions in other operational costs (-$3,573,000).
        The remaining increase ($4,901,000) will fund 11 additional
    magistrate judges and their staff. This increase is needed to provide
    an effective, yet less costly, way of providing help to Article III
    judges to handle the growing volume of civil and criminal cases facing
    the courts.
    Defender Services
        A total of $430,175,000 is required for the Defender Services
    program to provide representation for indigent criminal defendants in
    fiscal year 2000. Of this amount, $374,839,000 is requested in direct
    appropriations, $36,605,000 is requested to be derived from the Violent
    Crime Reduction Trust Fund, and $18,731,000 is expected to carry
    forward from fiscal year 1999. The total requirements for fiscal year
    2000 are $49,706,000 over the fiscal year 1999 projected obligations of
    $380,469,000.
        Most of the increase ($49,106,000) is needed for adjustments to the
    fiscal year 1999 base for inflationary and workload increases. Included
    in these adjustments is an increase of the non-capital hourly private
    panel attorney rate to $75 for all districts beginning April 1, 2000.
    Also included is a $19,279,000 net increase associated with 6,200
    additional representations in fiscal year 2000.
        The remaining increase ($600,000) will fund the start up costs of
    two new federal defender organizations. The Congress and the Judicial
    Conference have urged us to establish more federal defender
    organizations as an alternative to using panel attorneys in districts
    where this would be appropriate.
    Fees of Jurors and Commissioners
        For the Fees of Jurors program, a total of $71,992,000 is required,
    of which $69,510,000 is requested in direct appropriations and
    $2,482,000 is expected to be available in carry forward balances from
    fiscal year 1999. The total requirements for fiscal year 2000 are
    $2,613,000 higher than estimated fiscal year 1999 obligations. This
    increase funds inflationary adjustments and a four percent increase in
    juror days.
    Court Security
        For the Court Security program, a total of $206,012,000 is
    required. This is a $21,457,000 increase over estimated fiscal year
    1999 obligations. Adjustments to base include increases of $11,574,000
    including: inflationary and contractual cost increases; funding to
    annualize the costs for 121 new court security officers (CSOs) brought
    on in fiscal year 1999; and a reduction of $17,423,000 for non-
    recurring equipment and CSO start-up costs acquired in fiscal year 1999
    for an overall net reduction in funding for base adjustments of
    -$5,849,000.
        The remaining increase of $27,306,000 is for program increases.
    These include: $3,109,000 to fund 120 additional CSOs to provide a
    security presence in existing, new and renovated facilities housing a
    full-time judicial officer; $22,647,000 for security equipment for new
    and renovated facilities, probation and pretrial offices and equipment
    upgrades; and $1,550,000 to upgrade perimeter security.
                                     ______

     Prepared Statement of Rya W. Zobel, Director, Federal Judicial Center
        Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee: My name is Rya Zobel.
    I am a United States district judge and have been the director of the
    Federal Judicial Center since 1995. I return in July to the District of
    Massachusetts on a full-time basis.
        It has been a privilege to work with the subcommittee. I appreciate
    your recommendation last year that the Center receive a 1.3 percent
    increase over its 1998 level and although I am disappointed that the
    House mark of 3 percent did not prevail, I am grateful for the
    enhancement and your support all the same.
        Our fiscal 2000 request, unanimously endorsed by the Chief Justice
    and the Board of the Center, is for a 7.2 percent increase, which will
    provide the standard adjustments to base and eight new positions to
    allow us to continue to expand distance education by increased use of
    satellite broadcasting, web-based technologies, and other methods.
             cutting travel costs and increasing distance education
        Mr. Chairman, since 1995, when I became Center director, we have
    dramatically reduced our spending on travel, cutting it almost in half.
    We have also expanded use of leading-edge technology to provide
    education, including the creation of the Federal Judicial Television
    Network. Congress made clear it wanted both these actions, and we
    responded.
    We have reduced spending for travel by more than $2 million since 1995
        Our travel spending has decreased more than 40 percent; during the
    same period, the Center's overall appropriation declined 6 percent. In
    1995, we allocated almost 30 percent of our appropriation to travel;
    our fiscal 2000 request allots only 16 percent. It is also important to
    note that about 17 percent of our travel expenditures are in fact for
    distance education--for example, bringing a judge to Washington to
    teach on the network. We are directing our remaining education travel
    funds to meet those training needs that require judges or staff to
    learn in the company of others. To cut back further on these programs
    will compromise our ability to perform the job Congress has assigned us
    and that is essential to the judicial branch.
    The Federal Judicial Television Network is now a reality
        The network broadcasts almost daily to satellite downlinks that the
    Administrative Office has installed in more than 200 federal
    courthouses.
        Many people helped make the network a reality. Special praise is
    due the judges and the staff of the federal courts who are embracing
    this new way of receiving education. Such a transition is not easy in a
    profession that, as you said, Mr. Chairman, is sometimes reluctant to
    change or innovate.
        To ensure the network's acceptance, we are committed to producing
    programs for broadcast that provide quality third branch education--
    timely and carefully designed in every instance to help judges and
    their staffs do their jobs better and more effectively. Time spent in
    training is time spent away from the courtroom, the office, the intake
    counter, or offender supervision. Only if the network provides well-
    designed education that enables people to do their jobs more
    effectively will judges and court staff turn to the network.
        As well as developing our own educational programs for satellite
    broadcasting, the Center is managing the network for the Judicial
    Branch. In that capacity:
      --We have assigned four staff to manage the transmission of network
            programs of the Center and the Administrative Office and to
            operate the special teletraining studio we constructed in 1996.
            These staff are separate from and in addition to the Center
            educational staff who design and produce our programs.
      --We work with site coordinators and others who help ensure that
            arrangements are in place in the courts to allow those who wish
            to use broadcasts to do so.
      --We prepare and distribute the FJTN Bulletin, a full schedule of
            broadcasts, to court managers and training specialists so they
            can integrate the network's offerings into their local
            training, and we maintain this broadcast schedule on the
            Center's site on the judiciary's intranet so the courts can
            consult it for scheduling changes.
      --We are developing a monitoring system to provide us information on
            who uses the network--both direct and delayed viewing, and both
            preregistered and open courses. We need this information so we
            can program accordingly. The estimates in this statement are
            conservative and under count total viewership.
        Four of the eight additional positions we are (see pp. 4-5) are to
    improve our network and other video-related education.
        In addition to developing our satellite broadcasting capability, we
    have also constructed and operate two teleconferencing facilities for
    educational planning meetings and administration. These are in full use
    by Center, Sentencing Commission, and Administrative Office staff and
    are also used on occasion by federal judicial personnel in the area.
                                center functions
        The Center is the federal courts' agency for continuing education
    and training and for research and analysis. With less than one half of
    one percent of the total appropriation for the Third Branch, it
    provides services vital to an efficient and effective judicial system.
    Education
        In 1999, the Center expects to provide training to almost 39,000
    judges and staff. More than 35,000 of these--91 percent--will receive
    training by distance education methods as follows:
      --16,500 through Federal Judicial Television Network programs such as
            implementing the Alternative Dispute Resolution Act of 1998;
            Recent bankruptcy decisions of the U.S. Court of Appeals for
            the Fourth Circuit (for Fourth Circuit bankruptcy judges and
            clerks); 1998-1999 U.S. Supreme Court decisions of special
            relevance to federal trial and appellate judges; Programs on
            pharmacology and drugs, sex offenders, courtroom Spanish, and
            other topics to help probation and pretrial services officers
            with the full range of their duties (we also work with the U.S.
            Sentencing Commission to include its satellite training in our
            programs) and Programs on effective management and supervision,
            for court executives.
      --17,750 through in-court nontravel-based training using some fifty
            Center-prepared study guides and courses with lesson plans,
            overheads, and video segments on such subjects as effective
            courtroom testimony for probation officers; office safety for
            probation officers; current management theories of process
            improvement and total quality service (for court managers); and
            customer service (for intake clerks).
      --1,000 through on-line, multi-week computer conferences on such
            subjects as project management (for mid-level managers and
            technical specialists) and technology and the role of the
            courtroom deputy in ensuring case-flow management.
        We will also train 3,450 judges and staff by more traditional
    methods, such as the following (some combine travel and distance
    education methods):
      --judicial orientation seminars (tailored in-court training using a
            Center-developed checklist followed by regional seminars using
            Center video lectures and then a one-week Washington, D.C.,
            seminar);
      --probation and pretrial orientation seminars (in-court satellite
            training followed by one-week Washington, D.C., seminars);
      --continuing judicial education seminars that combine plenary
            presentations with intensive, small group interactive sessions.
        These numbers do not include individual users of our manuals and
    monographs, computer-assisted instructional programs, and
    videocassettes.
                            research and evaluation
        In 1998, the Center had in place more than 70 research and
    evaluation projects, large and small, mainly at the request of
    committees of the Judicial Conference. In addition, it responded to
    more than 145 informal requests for research assistance from the
    courts, Conference committees, and other federal agencies. Major areas
    of investigation include the use of expert testimony in civil
    litigation, sentencing and pretrial supervision policies, management of
    habeas corpus and federal death penalty litigation, effective case-
    management techniques in mass tort litigation, appellate restructuring
    (for committees of the Conference and for the Commission on Structural
    Alternatives for the Federal Courts of Appeals), and use of
    alternatives to conventional civil litigation.
             need for eight additional distance education positions
        The Center employs 135 FTEs. We seek eight additional FTEs. Even
    with these eight, we would still be well below our employment-level
    high of 158 (in 1994).
        Our request targets two specific needs, both related to enhancing
    our distance education capacity:
      --four computer specialists, primarily to establish adequate
            technical capability to develop and provide Web-based training
            on the J-Net (the judicial branch internet).
      --four video technical support staff to maintain our ability to
            provide quality education by satellite and through other forms
            of in-court, distance education.
    Web and J-Net training
        We have permanently shifted $400,000 in travel funds to add five
    computer professionals to our staff of six, but that is not a
    sufficient complement to allow us to provide technology-based education
    as well as meet our internal office automation needs. Thus we request
    funds for four more positions.
        Even with our small staff, we
      --developed, in cooperation with the Space & Facilities Division of
            the Administrative Office, the first judicial branch Website
            with an on-line, browser-accessible training component. The
            site helps ensure accuracy and efficiency in seeking and
            processing requests for reimbursable services and tenant
            alterations.
      --have sponsored almost fifty on-line, Web-based computer seminars,
            including five now in progress; judges and staff from all over
            the country participate in these conferences from their
            desktops.
      --host a Website at the request of U.S. District Judge Sam Pointer
            (N.D. Ala.) to disseminate information to attorneys in the
            multi-district breast implant litigation.
      --maintain search engines, and attendant firewall and other security
            protections, for our Websites.
        The technology office also provides our internal technical support
    for database management, e-mail, and the like. Center automation is Y2K
    compliant.
        We seek the four additional FTEs so we may expand the services
    described above and develop additional uses, including on-line catalogs
    for inventory, ordering, and distribution of Center publications and
    media productions; Web-based course registration and related functions;
    conversion of CD-ROM and computer disc training tools to Web-based
    applications; real-time educational presentation applications; and
    preparation for Web-based audio and video broadcasts. All of these
    steps will make our education and training more flexible and available
    to judges and staff, not simply in the courthouse but at their
    desktops.
                                video production
        As explained above, we have permanently reallocated four of our
    nine video specialists to manage the transmission of the Federal
    Judicial Television Network and operate its teletraining studio. So
    that we may continue to produce effective educational videos for
    broadcast on the network and for other purposes, we seek to rebuild our
    complement of nine video specialists by replacing the four we have
    reassigned to network operations.
        Our video production specialists produce programs for network
    broadcasts and other purposes. For example:
      --Center-produced videos have long been a major part of our initial
            orientation for judges and for in-court orientation of new
            clerks' offices staff.
      --Center video vignettes are an important element in some of our
            curriculum packages for in-court, locally presented training.
            For just two examples, the video segment in our in-court safety
            program for probation and pretrial services officers
            demonstrates dangers presented by violent probationers, and a
            segment in one of our in-court programs for clerk's office
            staff helps illuminate the difference between providing
            information and legal advice to litigants.
        The satellite network has increased the demand on our video
    production staff to provide program elements for broadcast. For a few
    examples, our orientation for federal court law clerks included an
    extensive component on ethics, featuring interviews with current law
    clerks describing unanticipated ethical dilemmas and how they resolved
    them. Our distance learning series for probation and pretrial services
    officers on offenders with special supervisory needs, such as sex
    offenders and gang members, included four satellite broadcasts last
    year, with another four projected this year. We also produced a video
    on judicial branch travel regulations for the Administrative Office to
    broadcast on the network.
        I will be pleased to respond to any questions that you might have.
                                     ______

    Prepared Statement of Haldane Robert Mayer, Chief Judge, United States
                    Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
        Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to submit my statement to the Committee
    for this court's fiscal year 2000 budget request.
        Our 2000 budget request totals $17,636,000. This is an increase of
    $1,535,000 over the 1999 approved appropriation of $16,101,000. Thirty
    nine percent of the requested increase ($594,000) is for mandatory,
    uncontrollable increases in costs. The remaining increase of $941,000
    is for funding of additional positions.
    Request for Program Increases
        $941,000 of our fiscal year 2000 request would cover the salary and
    benefits costs of nine (9) statutorily authorized positions for
    technical assistants for the court's legal staff, and four (4)
    additional positions for the Office of the Clerk of Court. The court
    requests funding for compensation and benefits only. All furniture,
    furnishing and equipment needs for the new employees will be absorbed
    by the court. Further justification for these positions follows.
    Funding for Nine (9) Technical Assistants ($792,000). The court is
    requesting nine (9) technical assistants in addition to the three now
    working in the Office of the Senior Technical Assistant. Under the
    provisions of 28 U.S.C. Sec. 715(d) the court may appoint technical
    assistants equal to the number of judges in regular active service. The
    nine technical assistants requested here, plus those currently on
    board, will give the court one technical assistant for each active
    judge position.
        The technical assistants do research and assist the court and all
    of its judges in addressing technical aspects of appeals, maintaining
    consistency in precedential opinions, and otherwise fulfilling the
    court's mission. That requires not only a law degree but a background
    in science or engineering because of the significant number of highly
    technical intellectual property appeals handled by the court. This
    court has exclusive jurisdiction over patent appeals from district
    courts and the Patent and Trademark Office. Those appeals often are
    most difficult and time consuming, involving complex issues at the
    forefront of biotechnology, computer engineering, pharmacology, and
    other areas of science and engineering.
        Funding for additional positions in the Office of the Clerk of
    Court ($149,000).--The court is also requesting funds to hire four
    full-time positions in the Clerk's Office. These positions are needed
    to keep pace with the court's growing jurisdiction. There is now only
    one secretary in the Clerk's Office. Another secretary position is
    needed to assist the chief deputy clerks and to insure that secretarial
    functions for the entire office, now exclusively provided by the
    secretary to the Clerk, are available whenever required. A systems
    manager position is needed because the complexity of the Clerk's
    database management system has grown beyond the competence of the non-
    technical staff to maintain as extra duties. Two deputy clerk positions
    are needed, one position for a calendar/deputy clerk to alleviate the
    calendar functions now performed by the chief deputy clerk as an extra
    duty, and one position for a records manager to develop a records
    management system now required to keep pace with the large increase in
    the permanent records which the court has accumulated since its
    creation, and which must be maintained and preserved.
        I would be pleased, Mr. Chairman, to answer any questions the
    Committee may have or to meet with Committee members or staff about our
    budget requests.
                                     ______

      Prepared Statement of Gregory W. Carman, Chief Judge, United States
                          Court of International trade
        The Court's budget request for fiscal year 2000 is $12,146,000,
    which is $342,000 or approximately 2.9 percent more than the
    $11,804,000 provided for in fiscal year 1999.
        The overall increase of $342,000 consists of ``Mandatory
    Adjustments to Base and Built-in Changes'' as follows: $251,000 is
    requested for pay and benefit cost adjustments for judicial officers
    and court personnel; $25,000 is requested for other mandatory changes,
    including increases in travel costs, postage, contract rates and
    charges for supplies, equipment, services and telephone usage; $18,000
    is requested for anticipated increases in printing costs; $10,000 is
    requested for inflationary adjustments for lawbooks and $38,000 is
    requested for GSA space rental increases.
        The Court's fiscal year 2000 request includes funds for
    maintaining, supporting and continuing the enhancements made in fiscal
    year 1999 to the court's integrated network computer system, the
    security access control card system implemented in fiscal year 1999 and
    the video conferencing system which will be operational in fiscal year
    1999. The fiscal year 2000 request also includes funds for security
    system upgrade projects which will help enhance overall security within
    the Court.
        In fiscal year 1996 the Court made the decision to deposit funds
    into the Judiciary Information Technology Fund (JITF) in order to
    address the long term automation needs of the Court to establish a
    viable network infrastructure. To this end, funds were deposited into
    the JITF in fiscal years 1996, 1997 and 1998. In fiscal years 1997 and
    1998 funds were obligated for upgrading personal computers, printers
    and laptops in accordance with the annual 20 percent cyclical
    replacement recommendation by the Judicial Conference, for the purchase
    of fax machines and modem lines which enabled chambers to take greater
    advantage of technology and obtain internet access, for routers which
    linked the Court's LAN to the internet and for the purchase of a video
    conferencing system. The Court's five year plan to enhance service to
    the public through technology includes such projects as: an Integrated
    Case Management System which integrates case management with electronic
    filing and document imaging; the development of a web-site which will
    provide the general public and the bar with information; the
    installation of a satellite downlink antenna which will augment the
    Court's training program, expand the use of video telecommunications
    technologies and enable the Court to access the Judiciary informational
    and educational programming systems; the design and implementation of a
    new digital phone system which will enhance data communications; the
    purchase of new software packages, including fixes and patches; the
    purchase of a server for implementing FAS4T; and the purchase of new
    LAN hardware which will upgrade the Court's LAN infrastructure. The
    Court anticipates these systems to be completed by the end of fiscal
    year 2004. The implementation and continuation of these projects will
    enable the Court to continue to build its needed infrastructure and
    operate effectively in the 21st century.
        I would like to emphasize that the Court will continue, as it has
    in the past, to conserve its financial resources through sound and
    prudent personnel and fiscal management practices.
        The Court's ``General Statement and Information'' and
    ``Justification of Changes'', which provide more detailed descriptions
    of each line item adjustment, have been submitted previously. If the
    Committee requires any additional information, we will be pleased to
    submit it.
                                     ______

     Prepared Statement of Timothy McGrath, Interim Staff Director, United
                          States Sentencing Commission
        Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee, I appreciate the
    opportunity to submit a statement on behalf of the United States
    Sentencing Commission's fiscal year 2000 appropriation request. As you
    know, the Commission has been without any commissioners since the end
    of October 1998. Notwithstanding these vacancies, the Commission
    continues to perform many of its functions as set forth by Congress in
    the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984 and, when Commissioners are
    appointed, stands ready to fully execute its important mission: to
    establish, review, and revise sentencing guidelines, policies, and
    practices for the federal criminal justice system and to advise
    Congress and the Executive Branch on the development of fair and
    effective crime and sentencing policies.
                              resources requested
        The Commission's budget request is for $10,600,000, up by
    $1,113,000 from its fiscal year 1999 appropriation. Although this
    represents a twelve-percent increase, the Commission asks for no
    additional staff and holds many operating costs at fiscal year 1999
    levels.
        The overall increase of $1,113,000 is made up of ``Adjustments to
    Base.'' $479,000 is requested for pay and benefit costs adjustments;
    $54,000 is requested for inflationary increases for non-personnel
    operating expenses and $580,000 is requested for technology
    improvements.
        Nearly half of the requested increase ($479,000) would fund
    adjustments needed to pay employees to continue current operations;
    these are mandatory adjustments in salaries and benefits and slight
    inflationary increases ($54,000) in some non-personnel expense
    categories. The remainder of the requested increase ($580,000) is for
    necessary technology improvements to our comprehensive sentencing data
    collection.
        Looking at the budget in terms of total funds available, when the
    fiscal year 1999 appropriation is combined with the remaining carryover
    money the Commission intends to obligate in fiscal year 1999, the
    Commission has a funding level of $10,122,000 for fiscal year 1999.
    Compared to this base figure, the fiscal year 2000 request represents
    an increase of $478,000 or five percent over resources available in
    fiscal year 1999. Please be assured that the Commission will continue,
    as it has in the past, to use its financial resources in a prudent and
    sound manner.
                                 justification
        The Commission was created under the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984
    as a permanent, independent agency within the judicial branch. Congress
    gave the Commission a dual mission. First, the Act assigned the
    Commission broad authority to establish federal sentencing policies and
    practices that (i) serve the four purposes of sentencing set forth in
    section 3553(a)(2) of title 18, United States Code (just punishment,
    adequate deterrence, protection of the public from further criminal
    conduct, and rehabilitation of offenders), (ii) provide certainty and
    fairness in sentencing, and (iii) avoid unwarranted sentencing
    disparities among similarly situated offenders. The Commission was
    organized in October 1985, and in just a few years, established the
    first comprehensive set of determinate sentencing guidelines ever
    created for the federal judicial system. The federal sentencing
    guidelines became effective on November 1, 1987, for offenses occurring
    on or after that date, and since their implementation have been used to
    sentence approximately 384,534 defendants. The Commission believes that
    the federal sentencing guidelines have strengthened the ability of the
    criminal justice system to combat crime by providing certain, fair, and
    markedly more uniform punishment for similar offenders.
        With the initial developmental portion of its mission complete, the
    Commission in recent years has focused on the second prong of its dual
    mission: monitoring the application of the guidelines and evaluating
    the extent to which the guidelines have achieved the goals set out by
    Congress; amending the sentencing guidelines and policy statements to
    implement new legislation and refining the guidelines in light of court
    decisions and criminal justice research; recommending to Congress
    modifications of statutes relating to sentencing, penal, and
    correctional matters; and conducing sentencing research, education, and
    information dissemination.
    Monitoring Application of the Guidelines
        The Commission maintains a comprehensive, computerized data
    collection system which forms the basis for its clearinghouse of
    federal sentencing information. This database is the basis for the
    Commission's monitoring and evaluation of guidelines application, for
    many of the research projects we undertake, and for responding to the
    hundreds of data requests from Congress and other criminal justice
    entities each year. In 1998, the Commission received court documents on
    more than 50,000 individual cases sentenced between October 1, 1997,
    and September 30, 1998. The Commission also received court documents on
    more than 200 organizations that were sentenced under Chapter Eight of
    the sentencing guidelines in 1998. For each case, the Commission
    extracts and enters into our comprehensive database more than 260
    pieces of information such as case identifiers, sentence imposed,
    demographic information, statutory information, the complete range of
    court guideline application decisions, and departure information.
        The Commission also tracks final opinions and orders, both
    published and unpublished, in federal criminal appeals. The Commission
    gathered information on more than 6,000 appellate court cases in fiscal
    year 1998 and now has an appeals dataset containing information on more
    than 38,000 appeals. The appeals database informs Congress and the
    criminal justice community about court action related to the guidelines
    and enables the Commission to identify and, where appropriate, resolve
    circuit conflicts pertaining to application of the guidelines. In 1998,
    the Commission resolved several circuit conflicts, including conflicts
    related to the failure to appear guideline, the abuse of position of
    trust guideline, the obstruction of justice guideline, and the
    diminished capacity departure.
    Recent Accomplishment and Ongoing Work in Amending the Guidelines
        The Commission continues its ongoing responsibility to respond to
    recent legislative initiatives and enactments by reviewing the
    guidelines and, when appropriate, making changes to the guidelines and
    policy statements. Among others, recent accomplishments include the
    following:
        Telemarketing Fraud.--The Commission conducted a detailed study of
    the characteristics and sentencing of telemarketing fraud offenses. As
    a result of its findings and in response to the Telemarketing Fraud
    Prevention Act of 1998, the Commission promulgated amendments to the
    guidelines that provide for three separate sentencing enhancements for
    fraud offenses that involve mass-marketing, a large number of
    vulnerable victims, and the use of sophisticated means to carry out the
    offense. The Commission must review and repromulgate the emergency
    amendments promulgated pursuant to the Telemarketing Fraud Prevention
    Act as permanent amendments or they likely will expire by November
    1999.
        Firearms.--The firearms guideline was amended to provide an
    increased penalty for anyone convicted of transferring a large number
    of firearms to a felon or any other person prohibited from having a
    firearm. The Commission also is in the process of reviewing and, if
    appropriate, developing amendment options to respond to recent
    legislation concerning the use of firearms, Public Law 105-386, which
    amended 18 U.S.C. Sec. 924(c), and section 121 of the Omnibus
    Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act, Fiscal Year
    1999, Public Law 105-299, which amended 18 U.S.C. Sec. 922.
        Desecration of Veterans' Cemeteries.--In response to the Veterans'
    Cemetery Protection Act of 1997, the theft, property destruction, and
    arson guidelines were amended to provide a sentencing enhancement for
    theft from or destruction of the property of a national cemetery.
        Intellectual Property Offenses.--In response to the No Electronic
    Theft Act of 1997, the Commission has requested and received public
    comment on three alternative proposals that would amend the copyright
    and trademark infringement guideline to ensure that the guideline is
    sufficiently stringent to deter such offenses.
        Protection of Children.--In response to the Protection of Children
    from Sexual Predators Act of 1998 and certain provisions of the Omnibus
    Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Act of 1998, the Commission is
    in the process of reviewing and developing amendment options to the
    guidelines pertaining to certain sexual abuse offenses and distribution
    of child pornography.
        Identity Theft.--In response to the Identity Theft and Assumption
    Deterrence Act of 1998, the Commission is in the process of reviewing
    and, if appropriate, developing amendment options to provide an
    appropriate penalty for each offense under 18 U.S.C. Sec.  1028
    (relating to fraud in connection with identification documents).
        Telephone Cloning.--In response to the Wireless Telephone
    Protection Act of 1998, the Commission is in the process of reviewing
    and, if appropriate, developing amendment options to provide an
    appropriate penalty for offenses involving wireless telephone cloning.
        Methamphetamine Trafficking.--In response to the Methamphetamine
    Trafficking Penalty Enhancement Act of 1998, the Commission is in the
    process of developing an amendment to the drug quantity table to
    account for the increased penalties for manufacturing, importing, or
    trafficking in methamphetamine imposed by the Act.
        Tax Offenses.--Congress recently has enacted several offenses that
    appear to implicate the privacy interests of individual taxpayers
    (e.g., 26 U.S.C. Sec. Sec.  7213, 7213A, 7216, and 7217). The
    Commission is in the process of reviewing how the guidelines should
    account for these new offenses.
        Nuclear, Biological, and Chemical Offenses.--In response to the
    Chemical Weapons Implementation Act of 1998 and the sense of Congress
    expressed in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
    1997, the Commission is planning to conduct a comprehensive review of
    the guidelines pertaining to importing and exporting nuclear,
    biological, and chemical weapons to determine whether any amendments to
    the guidelines are warranted.
        In addition, the Commission has undertaken a systematic study and
    analysis of the guidelines for fraud, theft, and tax offenses, which
    account for more than a quarter of all the cases sentenced in the
    United States federal district courts. After approximately one year of
    data collection, analyses, public comment, and public hearings, the
    Commission developed a comprehensive ``economic crime package''
    designed to: create new loss tables for fraud, theft, and tax offenses
    that would result in higher sentences for offenses involving moderate
    and large monetary losses; consolidate the theft, fraud, and property
    destruction guidelines; and clarify the definition of loss for selected
    economic crimes.
        Although the package narrowly failed to pass during the amendment
    cycle ending May 1, 1998, the Commission committed itself to continue
    its development. Working in conjunction with the Criminal Law Committee
    of the Judicial Conference, the Commission conducted a field-test of
    the proposed loss definition by surveying federal judges and probation
    officers and applying it to actual cases. In October 1998, the
    Commission issued a report of its findings, including the fact that
    more than 80 percent of the judges stated that the proposed loss
    definition produced results that were more appropriate than the current
    definition. Encouraged by these findings, in November 1998, the
    Commission voted to formally seek public comment on possible changes to
    the economic crime guidelines.
    Making Recommendations to Congress
        In 1998, the Commission conducted a comprehensive review of the
    guidelines pertaining to homicide to determine whether they adequately
    account for the variety, severity, and ranges of offense behavior. As a
    result of its research and analysis, in 1998 the Commission recommended
    to Congress that the statutory maximum penalty be raised for voluntary
    manslaughter from ten to 20 years so that the guideline penalties for
    the most serious cases could be fully executed.
        In 1998, the Commission conducted a detailed study of telemarketing
    fraud offenses in conjunction with its multi-year comprehensive
    assessment of the fraud and related guidelines. As a result of its
    research and analysis, in February 1998 the Commission sent a report to
    Congress recommending that Congress amend 18 U.S.C. Sec.  2326
    (Enhanced Penalties for Telemarketing Fraud) to (i) provide a simpler
    statutory enhancement, (ii) cover conspiracy offenses, and (iii)
    clarify the mandatory restitution provisions for these offenses. In
    part as a response to the Commission's recommendation, Congress passed
    the Telemarketing Fraud Prevention Act of 1998, which addressed the
    mandatory restitution and conspiracy recommendations. Pursuant to that
    Act, in October 1998 the Commission submitted another report to
    Congress in conjunction with emergency amendments it promulgated the
    previous month that provide sentencing enhancements for fraud offenses
    involving sophisticated means or a large number of vulnerable victims.
        Each year the Commission also informs Congress's legislative
    deliberations by responding to hundreds of congressional requests for
    assistance. These inquiries, both written and oral, include requests
    for federal sentencing and criminal justice data, analyses of proposed
    legislation, explanations of guideline operation, technical assistance
    in drafting legislation, and Commission publications and resource
    materials.
    Conducting Research, Training, and Information Dissemination
        The Commission recently has undertaken major research projects on
    important topics of current interest such as substantial assistance
    departures, departures after Koon v. United States, 116 S. Ct. 2035
    (1996), money laundering sentencing policy, an examination of
    sentencing disparity before and after the guidelines, district
    differences in sentencing immigration offenses, and race and the
    federal appellate process. The Commission disseminated its research
    findings at a number of presentations at various criminal justice
    conferences during the past year. At the Annual Meeting of the American
    Society of Criminology in the fall of 1998, for instance, Commission
    staff presented papers on topics such as computer offense conduct,
    immigration offenses, trends in federal methamphetamine offenses,
    application of the ``Safety Valve'' provision to low-level, nonviolent
    drug offenders, profiling pedophiles in the federal system, and the
    unique issues in the federal sentencing of juvenile offenders.
        In the area of sentencing guidelines training, the Commission
    continues its commitment to providing high quality training and
    assistance to judges, prosecutors, probation officers, and defense
    attorneys. In 1998, the Commission staff provided training on the
    sentencing guidelines to more than 2,500 individuals including newly
    appointed district and appellate judges, probation officers, and
    assistant U.S. attorneys, at 47 training programs across the country,
    including ongoing programs sponsored by the Commission, the Federal
    Judicial Center (FJC), the Department of Justice (DoJ), the American
    Bar Association, and other criminal justice agencies or practitioners.
        To further expand the availability of training and information
    sharing, in 1998 the Commission joined with the FJC and the
    Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts to launch a satellite
    television network to provide training on sentencing-related issues to
    an even broader audience. The Commission also maintains a telephone
    HelpLine service to answer case-specific guideline application
    inquiries from federal judges, probation officers, prosecuting and
    defense attorneys, and law clerks. The Commission responds to
    approximately 250 inquiries each month. As part of its efforts to reach
    out to organizations that are not yet familiar with the organizational
    sentencing guidelines' emphasis on compliance, self-policing, and crime
    reporting, the Commission and the Ethics Officer Association (EOA), a
    non-profit peer organization comprising ethics and compliance officer
    representatives of for-profit and non-profit organizations, are jointly
    sponsoring a series of day-long regional forums about implementing
    these guidelines.
        In recent years, the Commission has committed itself to making its
    information more widely available to the public. Each year since the
    inception of the guidelines, the Commission has published an updated
    Guidelines Manual and an Annual Report and accompanying sourcebook of
    federal sentencing statistics which serve to inform and advance
    knowledge of sentencing in the criminal justice community. In recent
    years, the Commission launched two new publications, Guide to
    Publications and Resources and The Year in Review, and continued to add
    a variety of publications and sentencing data to its popular Internet
    web site.
                                   summation
        In sum, we ask for sufficient funding to perform these important
    statutory obligations and fulfill our important role in combating crime
    by maintaining an effective, certain and fair sentencing system.
                                     ______

          Prepared Statement of Neisen Kasdin, Mayor, Miami Beach, FL
        On behalf of the City of Miami Beach, we are hereby submitting
    testimony to the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce,
    Justice, State, and the Judiciary to respectfully request the support
    of this Subcommittee. At a time when the City of Miami Beach is
    experiencing so many dramatic changes and developments, we believe
    strongly that we must make an extraordinary effort to address the needs
    of our at risk juvenile population, to ensure their safety and positive
    development and to prevent violence. We believe you will find these
    initiatives are well focused and justified.
        The City of Miami Beach is deeply engaged in and financing a series
    of coordinated activities to link the resources of the City and its
    Police Department, the Police Athletic League, the schools and
    community resources, to prevent and reduce juvenile crime and
    delinquency, and to advance education and training opportunities for
    at-risk youth. The City faces some very special challenges in
    addressing these issues. The City also faces a critical shortage of
    funds for continuance and expansion of its mentoring and Police
    Athletic League program.
        The City of Miami Beach is, in reality, two very different cities.
    The most well known of these two cities is the glamorous world renown
    South Beach. Celebrities come here to play, heads of state come here to
    meet, Pavarotti comes here to sing and the National Football League
    comes here for its Super Bowl. Millions upon millions of tourists and
    locals come here every night of the year to enjoy the glittering
    entertainment of South Beach. The residential population of 90,000
    swells to 110,000 or even to 150,000 on some evenings as cars stream
    across the causeways that connect Miami Beach to mainland Miami. Miami
    Beach has undergone a rebirth every city dreams about. Business is not
    just good; it's beyond anyone's wildest dreams. Tourism is flourishing,
    $150 million hotels are being constructed, millions of dollars are
    being spent to renovate older hotels, and the movie and entertainment
    industries are calling South Beach the new Hollywood. Yet, the other
    never talked about city is one where there is an affordable housing
    shortage, a large elderly population, poverty and hopelessness of
    people who have moved to Miami Beach and increasing numbers of poor and
    working class families who live in public housing next to million
    dollar condominiums. Miami Beach likely has the most ethnically,
    culturally, and financially diverse community in the country. All
    packed into an island of seven square miles.
        Miami Beach is not a large city. It is a medium sized city with big
    city problems. Amidst the glamor, the movie stars and the rich and
    famous are real kids with real problems. The Miami Beach Police
    Department has identified four major juvenile gangs that call Miami
    Beach home. In addition, there are more than 60 identified youth gangs
    in the metropolitan Miami-Dade county area. South Beach serves as a
    mecca for these gangs. The attraction is simple. They come here for the
    same reasons everyone else does. It is ``The'' place to see and be
    seen. This causes serious public safety problems as these various gangs
    encounter one another in a very confined fifteen block area of South
    Beach. The Miami Beach Police Department's Gang Unit in conjunction
    with the Miami-Dade County Multi-Agency Gang Task Force devote
    significant police resources to anti-gang activities in the City of
    Miami Beach. As evidence of this dedication of resources, in 1998, more
    than 700 arrests of gang members were made in Miami Beach. The Miami
    Beach Police Department apprehends more than 1,500 juvenile curfew
    violators a year. This is the largest number of curfew violators of any
    police department in Miami-Dade County. Yet, the City of Miami Beach
    represents less than 5 percent of the population of Miami-Dade County.
    These figures are completely out of proportion to the population of the
    city and serve to show the seriousness of the problem.
        The City has partnered with the Police Department, the Police
    Athletic League and the local public schools and has created two very
    innovative mentoring programs. The first is targeted at high school
    students who are at-risk and the second, is targeted at 5th and 6th
    grade at-risk elementary school students. The second program is called
    the Police Youth Community Assistance Program (PYCAP). Miami Beach
    Senior High School and the four public elementary schools have very
    unique student populations. Forty-four percent of the children were
    born in 70 different foreign countries. This ethnic and cultural
    diversity presents a myriad of issues. These programs are a unique
    response to the unique issues caused by this vast diversity. The
    average child in the high school mentoring program presents a sad
    picture. The child is at risk by every definition of the word. They
    were born in another country; their home is a shattered one; they have
    no extended family; their one parent may not read or write English well
    if at all and is as much a stranger to our culture as they are; they
    are in a gang or seriously considering joining one; they are failing in
    school and therefore skipping class or when in class, being disruptive;
    they have been arrested or committed crimes, they use or try drugs,
    they have had sex, often with older persons; and have no positive role
    model in their life to guide them through the cultural battlefield they
    face every day. The Police Department's mentoring program places a
    police officer, one on one, with these at-risk youth. The officer meets
    with the parent, the teachers and any other important adults in the
    child's life. The police officer takes an active interest in every
    aspect of the child's education and after school life. The police
    officer meets with the teachers, helps arrange tutoring, and more
    importantly, provides positive role model and adult attention that is
    so sorely missing.
        The PYCAP program targets at risk students at the 5th and 6th grade
    level. PYCAP is targeted to capture the student, before he or she
    reaches the national average age of gang membership, 13 years old. The
    Police Department has two School Resource Officers, who are specially
    trained in communicating and dealing with students this age and the
    problems they face. The police officers focus on the students during
    school hours, teaching skills and life lessons such as teamwork, pride
    in the community, the importance of education as well as anti-gang and
    anti-drug messages through the DARE (Drug Abuse Resistance Education)
    and GREAT (Gang Resistance Education And Training) programs.
        Miami Beach is home to the oldest Police Athletic League in
    Florida. For over 40 years, the Police Athletic League has been an
    alternative to a life of crime for thousands of disadvantaged children.
    The Police Athletic League is located in an area of Miami Beach where
    more than 73 percent of the households are poverty level or below. The
    mentoring and PYCAP programs go hand in hand with the Police Athletic
    League. The Police Athletic League provides additional mentoring and
    other positive sports and educational programs in the important time
    after school is out. In addition to the mentoring, PYCAP and Police
    Athletic League programs, the City combats juvenile crime with anti-
    gang and curfew initiatives, among others. There remains a need to
    develop a cadre of specially trained police officers to identify and
    work with these at-risk children. This unique multi-disciplinary
    approach recognizes that funds spent on prevention are much more
    efficiently spent in comparison to the larger price incurred when
    society must deal with juvenile and adult crime. Tragically, the
    mentoring, PYCAP and Police Athletic League programs are funded solely
    from donations. Police officers, teachers, administrators and others
    donate hundreds of hours of their own time to these children. But to
    really give these children the serious help they need to succeed, we
    must provide them with the basic skills that most of us take for
    granted. We must provide more hours with the mentors and tutoring by
    teachers in a coordinated and comprehensive approach for each child.
    These programs work; they have withstood the test of time (in the case
    of the Miami beach Police Athletic League, over 40 years) and they can
    be duplicated in any city in the country. They only lack the funds to
    help these children succeed. With the funds requested, the City will be
    able to dedicate police officers to mentoring and juvenile crime
    prevention, including important after school programs with the Police
    Athletic League, on a full time basis. The PYCAP and mentoring programs
    will be able to be expanded. They will work exclusively with the
    children, with the high school and elementary schools, and the
    children's families to develop a specialized cadre of police officers
    with resources that effectively coordinate the most successful
    intervention strategies.
                     law enforcement technology development
        The Miami Beach Police Department has a strong need to develop and
    acquire the technological resources and equipment to deal with the
    unique law enforcement issues it faces on an ongoing basis. Many larger
    public safety agencies have acquired such capabilities as the sheer
    size of their jurisdictional responsibilities alone presents them with
    the law enforcement problems demanding such solutions. However, these
    large agencies also have the proportionally large budget to accomplish
    it. The Miami Beach Police Department, however, has a budget
    proportional to a municipality of 90,000, not the expanded number of
    tourists and visitors that flock here. As a result, the Department does
    not have the funding to acquire and develop the technological resources
    necessary to deal with the unique law enforcement problems that it must
    face.
        The Miami Beach Police Department desires to acquire and develop
    the technological resources and automated systems necessary to provide
    the strategic and tactical level support its officers require in order
    to effectively deal with: Large scale public events of international
    interest; Public events involving high level government and foreign
    officials; Public events involving large numbers of nonresidents and
    Other situations within the City involving the coordination of numerous
    local, state and national public safety agencies.
        Such capabilities would involve an automated command and control
    system, strategic and tactical real-time computerized mapping
    capabilities, computer-assisted emergency planning and manpower
    deployment resources and interfaces to the voice, data communication
    and information systems of other local, state and national public
    safety and emergency management agencies. The Police Department's need
    to interface with these other governmental entities is essential to
    public safety, effective crime prevention, tracking, solving and
    overall crime reduction. These needs are greater in Miami Beach than in
    most other cities because of the worldwide interest in Miami Beach.
        Additionally, in order to provide an extension of these vital
    resources to field level operational personnel, a mobile data system
    and upgraded voice communications would be implemented providing
    sufficient data access and communication equipment to mobile command
    posts, patrol vehicles and other field personnel.
        Once again, the City of Miami Beach respectfully requests your
    support on these highly important objectives.
                                     ______

         Prepared Statement of Sharpe James, Mayor, City of Newark, NJ
        Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, thank you for giving
    me the opportunity to submit testimony about a project under your
    jurisdiction which is critical to the people of Newark, New Jersey.
    Newark is truly at a crossroads: we are a City with all of the problems
    of many major urban centers, but we are also a City with vast
    potential. We have begun to turn the corner--there is a renewed
    vitality and sense of optimism in Newark. But we are also still ravaged
    by the problems associated with the illegal drug trade.
        The Newark Police Department has developed an innovative program,
    called Operation NITRO--Narcotics Interdiction To Reduce Open-air Drug
    Markets--to address the complex issues associated with the sale of
    drugs and their effect on the City of Newark. It is a narcotics
    enforcement augmentation program designed to improve the quality of
    life by reducing the incidence of illegal drug trafficking through
    aggressive anti-crime operations. A supplemental federal allocation of
    $2 million is respectfully requested to meet the specialized facility
    and equipment needs for the ambitious and important project summarized
    herein.
        In scores of cities across the country, the battle against crime
    has strained police resources to the breaking point, much of which the
    drug epidemic has fueled. According to the U.S. Department of Justice,
    three in four people arrested test positive for illegal drugs,
    regardless of the crime for which they are charged.
        The nation's chiefs of police and the American public agree: the
    use of drugs is a huge problem and growing worse, fifty eight percent
    of police chiefs say that drug use is a very serious or quite serious
    problem in their community, and a nationwide household survey echoed
    these sentiments--fifty two percent of Americans responded the same
    way. They also recognize that drug use stimulates other crime in their
    communities. One in two police chiefs regards theft and burglary by
    drug users as an extremely or quite serious problem; more than one in
    three says the same thing about violent crime associated with drug
    trafficking; and more than one in four concurs when it comes to
    domestic violence involving drug use.
        It is well settled that DRUGS DRIVES CRIME! The COMSTAT process
    Newark's computerized statistical tool-has revealed that an estimated
    80 percent of the crime in Newark is drug related. The communities'
    primary issues are the open street sales, violence associated with the
    drug trade, the proliferation of weapons and their use by drug
    enforcers during street robberies. Inherent in the drug trade is the
    violent nature of the criminal element associated with trafficking; a
    significant portion of the drug traffickers have been identified as
    having violent criminal histories, and most have previously failed to
    appear in court to answer for their crimes. The single most significant
    impact law enforcement can have toward reducing the illegal drug trade
    is a sustained presence; dismantling criminal enterprises by targeting
    the infrastructure and profit associated with drugs as means of
    eradication.
        Operation NITRO is a concentrated effort designed to address long-
    term operations through collaborative strategies with identified
    outcomes and interim measures: proactive street-level narcotics
    enforcement; search warrants for mid and upper-level drug trafficking
    networks; asset seizure through civil enforcement; neighborhood problem
    solving through community interaction; special drug courts to provide
    preferential treatment for offenders; enhanced involvement from the
    corrections community to enforce probation and parole violations, and
    high visibility fear reduction. These efforts will produce a
    synergistic effect in dealing with persistent offenders by effecting
    arrests, empowering residents, seizing assets, and controlling the
    environment conducive to crime. This measure will reassure the citizens
    of Newark that crime control and quality of life are paramount issues
    for the Newark Police Department.
        Guns and drugs are inseparable--where you find one you will find
    the other. Violent drug-related street crime can be a source of great
    tension and uneasiness in a community. Fear of using public spaces and
    even conducting routine business (e.g., patronizing the local corner
    store) can become an anxiety-filled experience enough for some to
    withdraw completely. The need for concerted methods to combat drugs and
    street crime is a principal concern for the Newark Police Department.
    Believing that the Department could ever employ enough uniformed
    officers to completely deter crime is inconceivable. Indeed, if the
    city allocated the entire municipal budget for this purpose, the police
    would still fall short of their intended mark. The presence of a police
    officer is a reassuring sight to the law-abiding citizen and the
    criminal alike. The potential felon knowing where a police officer is
    can safely deduce where the officer is not, and thus, be guided
    accordingly.
        With these facts in mind, the Police Department will implement
    Operation NITRO. A Department element composed of carefully selected
    and specially trained police officers and supervisors using covert,
    non-traditional means to suppress drug-related street crime. The
    synergy of enforcement and apprehension operations will result in a
    valuable, encouraging and worthwhile contribution to public safety.
        The enforcement segment consists of non-uniformed officers being
    placed into areas where the incidence of narcotics trafficking is
    greatest. Teams of officers will conduct stakeouts, surveillance, buy/
    bust operations, search warrants, and street-level enforcement tactics.
    The apprehension segment consists of teams of uniformed officers
    stabilizing neighborhoods by conducting follow-up operations in
    response to intelligence and leads garnered from outside sources,
    arresting persons wanted on outstanding warrants, and community
    empowerment via focus groups and neighborhood interaction.
        Each of these tactics will be used in response to particular crime/
    victim/location patterns. The primary source of information will come
    from the community, bolstered by crime and quality of life data
    supplied the Performance/Crime Analysis Unit to the COMSTAT process.
    Secondary sources will be outside agencies (e.g., Essex County
    Prosecutor's Office, FBI Fugitive Task Force, other law enforcement
    agencies) and informants. Each will provide specific, detailed data on
    the types of crimes and perpetrators sought. The primary goal will be
    to reduce the incidence of drug-related street crime through the
    effectuation of quality arrests.
        The elements of Operation NITRO combine to formulate a cohesive
    plan, which takes into account the range of Police staffing,
    facilities, equipment, and outreach needs. Detailed plans have been
    devised for:
      --Organization and Administration.--The administrative structure and
            organizational placement, including staffing levels;
      --Deployment and Tactics.--Deployment strategies and street tactics,
            also, the integral nature of Crime Analysis and the data
            supplied via COMSTAT.
      --Confrontation and Arrest.--Guidelines for confrontations between
            NITRO personnel and uniformed members of the Department.
            Emphasis will be placed on plainclothes recognition, quick
            identification and the actions to be taken by both the
            challenging officer and the challenged officer.
      --Facilities and Equipment.--The physical location and equipment
            needs of the program.
      --Special Considerations.--The methods for maintaining integrity of
            team members, and legal issues will be explored, including the
            issue of entrapment. Also, program advertising and public
            support.
      --Implementation.--A project time line depicting implementation and
            milestones.
        NITRO will perform two primary functions: plainclothes street
    surveillance of identified hot spots, and uniformed operations.
    Officers can assume disguises to adapt to the landscape in order to
    provide themselves with the anonymity and freedom of movement to pursue
    identified or suspected drug dealers undetected, and maintain watch
    unnoticed at probable crime locations. These tactics are designed to
    result not only in quality arrests but also in the interruption of drug
    transactions and the prevention of injury to citizens. Care must be
    taken, however, to avoid the hazards inherent in this type of work.
        Two or three modules will generally be assigned to high-incidence
    neighborhoods within the four commands. Target Zones (TZ) will be
    established based upon the crime analysis data. All operations will
    take place within the TZ under the direction of the module supervisor.
    Operations should not conducted by rote. They should be flexible and
    susceptible to change as the need or situation arises. As the tours
    overlap module supervisors should collaborate to devise cooperative
    initiatives, thus freeing personnel to work in other parts of the city
    (this is provided no operational plan already exists). The level of
    work is also dictated by the amount of time each officer will spend in
    court due to arrests. Module supervisors will be responsible for
    monitoring manpower and conducting only those operations that can be
    handled safely.
        Specific deployment tactics will further be determined by the scope
    of the problem in an identified neighborhood. The success of each
    operation depends, to a great deal, on the imagination and
    resourcefulness of the module personnel. When a narcotics operation is
    put in effect, each module will have a minimum of eight members. All
    members will be encouraged to use their skills in their apprehension
    efforts, but are reminded to use only those tactics which would be
    considered constitutionally legal. Considerable classroom instruction
    and role playing should be conducted on entrapment and other
    constitutional issues. Careful planning, adequate communication, proper
    role playing and an efficient back up team are also required. Though
    potentially hazardous, these operations are a most rewarding means of
    apprehending street criminals and reducing the incidence of crime.
        An emerging concept, that should be employed, that will produce
    lasting solutions is a crime control feature known as crime prevention
    through environmental design (CPTED). CPTED principles employ engineers
    and urban planners to permanently alter the landscape in an effort to
    redesign a neighborhood. Such measures include rerouting traffic,
    establishing flow control (one-way streets), permanently curbing
    streets and vacations. Preliminary discussions have taken place with
    the Department of Engineering who appear very cooperative in assisting
    the Police Department with this endeavor. CPTED principles will
    eventually reduce neighborhood dependency on the police by removing the
    antecedents to the condition. The corollary that flows from this is
    more available police resources for patrol and other functions.
        The element of plainclothes surveillance requires officers who are
    highly skilled in the art of observing suspicious or out-of-the-
    ordinary circumstances. Surveillance tactics are instituted once
    observations of this sort are made, and, depending upon the episode,
    may last anywhere from a few minutes to several hours. Similarly, buy/
    bust operations, reverse operations and long-term undercover operations
    necessitate patience and the investment of time if the results are to
    be productive. A thorough knowledge of surveillance techniques, coupled
    with a vivid imagination, resourcefulness and patience will increase
    the chance of success. Training in surveillance should be conducted to
    provide officers with the proper skills for conducting these delicate
    matters. This approach will increase the likelihood of arrest, the
    probability of prosecution for a felony, the chance of a felony
    conviction, and the length of the term for those sentenced.
        It must be remembered that surveillance techniques will vary.
    Effectiveness is proportionate to the effort applied by individual
    officers. If one member of the team fails to carry out their assignment
    properly, the time and effort of their colleagues may be for naught.
    Moreover, if a surveillance operation fails due to poor tactics, not
    only has the investment of time by NITRO personnel been wasted, but the
    subject (or location) of the surveillance will have been alerted and
    will become more devious and elusive in future attempts to break the
    law.
        In an effort to fulfill their objective of effecting high quality
    arrests while maintaining a low injury rate, NITRO will promulgate
    guidelines for confrontation and arrest. The primary focus is to
    prevent injuries arising from narcotics operations, and mistaken
    identity issues. Because of the size, diversity, and youthful nature of
    the Department, many experienced officers are entirely unfamiliar with
    the inexperienced officers, and vice versa. Safety is paramount! The
    need to quickly identify plainclothes personnel cannot be overstated.
    Utilizing the ``color of the day'' method, while not foolproof from the
    possibility for compromise by the criminal element, the system does
    have a number of distinct advantages: the bright colors make them
    highly visible, they are easy to carry, and they are inexpensive. As
    part of the required training, a series of safety precautions will be
    discussed to alleviate most of the problems associated with
    confrontations.
        There are two special considerations of the utmost importance to
    NITRO administrators: legal defensibility of operations and integrity.
    The primary legal concern for the Police Department is the legal
    defense of entrapment. If procedures excessively lure or seduce
    suspects in their conduct as decoys, an apprehended criminal may have
    the defense of entrapment. Entrapment laws are essentially designed to
    protect innocent persons from being lured into criminal activity by
    over-zealous law enforcement officials. Two key components of the
    entrapment defense are the innocence of the victim and the conduct of
    the police. One critical distinction is between passive police
    conduct--simply providing an opportunity for the crime to occur, and
    active police conduct--soliciting or encouraging the crime. Essentially
    where the officers merely afford an opportunity to one intending to
    violate the law, they do not procure the offense to be committed. The
    offender acts of their own volition and is simply caught in their own
    devices. It must also be remembered that the defense of entrapment is
    not available to a person who denies having committed the offense,
    since the defense is predicated upon the assumption that the act
    charged was committed. Translated another way this means: It is not a
    defense that decoys, informers, or undercover operatives are used to
    present an opportunity for the commission of a crime.
        In brief, entrapment will be a valid defense where criminal intent
    in the mind of the accused was implanted there by the officer, and
    where active police conduct encouraged the crime. The NITRO Task Force
    will provide extensive training, literature, and role playing to avoid
    these mishaps. Detailed tactical guidelines will be promulgated as part
    of the operating procedures governing the unit.
        As with any plainclothes police operation, the susceptibility of
    corruptive practices by officers and supervisors is possible. Operation
    NITRO will pride itself on being corruption-free with a reputation for
    bribery arrests. NITRO administrative personnel will set the
    perspective for the team by personal example. A great deal of energy
    will be channeled into integrity control. During the development of
    training curricula several notable studies should be researched for
    their valuable insight; ethics will be the major thrust for the
    integrity campaign. NITRO will constantly be on guard to prevent its
    members from participating in shakedowns, abusing their authority,
    engaging in brutality, using racial/ethnic slurs while effecting
    arrests, and other illegal or improper practices. Complaints will be
    monitored and RAMS reports will be generated quarterly to audit the
    team. Some of the measures that will be incorporated into the integrity
    campaign include: Individual conferences between module supervisors and
    police officers; Reinforcing the integrity theme at daily roll call
    training; Periodically reviewing bribery, and official misconduct
    statutes (particular emphasis will be placed upon this when a bribery
    arrest is effected); Periodic issuance of integrity bulletins; Inviting
    guest lecturers such as District Integrity Officers to offer a
    different perspective on the issue and Ensuring the Chief Commanding
    Operation Bureau arranges for periodic conferences with the Team
    supervisors for pep talks.
        While the plans for a corruption-free environment are ambitious
    they are not meant to unduly restrict the effectiveness of the team by
    creating paranoia in personnel. Nor are they meant to curtail the
    activities or initiative of creative officers. The element of
    undercover integrity testing is an option that should be discussed at
    length with the Police Director and the Division Commander of Internal
    Affairs.
        Advertising and public support for any Police Department initiative
    are critical to the program's success. The Newark Police Department
    will advertise Operation NITRO through the Public Information Office
    and should consist of the following elements: Public Service
    Announcements on the radio and on cable television; Handouts
    distributed throughout the city explaining the initiative and its
    purpose; Locations will include community meetings, tenants'
    associations and public facilities; Posters will be placed throughout
    the city in all police Districts, public and private schools, public
    libraries and at community meetings; and The Citizen's Police Academy
    will be utilized to promote this initiative by focusing upon direct
    contact with the community.
        The advertising campaign will augment the establishment of
    Community Advisory Councils (CAC). CAC's are intended to foster a
    cooperative and positive police/community partnership. Working
    together, the police and the community will design strategies specific
    to local neighborhoods and create a no-tolerance attitude towards
    illegal drug activity.
        Module supervisors will interact with residents and the community
    groups to encourage a deeper community involvement in reducing
    narcotics offenses, enhancing crime prevention and improving quality of
    life. Community Advisory groups will be an integral program component,
    for narcotics intelligence data, offender identification and
    identification of community crime problems and concerns.
        The establishment of Community Advisory Councils will be initiated
    through the Office of Community Affairs. Community Affairs personnel
    will coordinate with the NITRO Task Force Leader to identify
    neighborhood block groups presently meeting in each District Command
    under the auspices of the Community Service Officers (CSO).
    Representatives of contiguous neighborhood block watch groups will form
    a single CAC consisting of approximately five CAC's in each District.
    With guidance from the NITRO Task Force Leader, District CSOs will
    identify community groups and individuals for the formation of the
    Advisory Council.
                                     ______

     Prepared Statement of Paula M. DeLaney, Mayor, City of Gainesville, FL
        On behalf of the City of Gainesville, Florida, I appreciate the
    opportunity to present this written testimony to you today. The City of
    Gainesville is seeking federal funds in the fiscal year 2000 Commerce,
    Justice, State and Judiciary Appropriations bill for an advanced body-
    worn computer system for the field paramedic to use in decision-
    support, communications and record keeping. The impact for the entire
    region is considerable, since this county serves as the regional center
    for much of rural north Florida's medical care, disaster management,
    and criminal justice services. The estimated cost of the system is
    $100,000.
        This system has broad application to enhance the quality of
    treatment for critical trauma patients, mass casualties from all
    causes, including exposures to biological or chemical weapons, and
    complex medical illnesses. The potential for development of future uses
    is immense, following a successful demonstration of integration of the
    off-shelf components into a useable system for testing. The expected
    benefits are national, in that the developed system will be replicable
    at reasonable cost, and will generate widespread support for innovation
    and development among other users upon demonstration of an effective
    ``standard'' system.
        Throughout the nation there is widespread concern about events
    involving weapons of mass destruction (WMD). The Federal government has
    made available significant funding for the education of first response
    system personnel on the correct procedures, plans and awareness for
    effectively operating in such an event. The missing ingredient in all
    this preparation is making available an easily accessible information
    and decision-support system for field personnel to effectively manage
    low frequency but high complexity/lethality events. A major principle
    in emergency response is that field personnel follow the procedures
    they have practiced and that effective plans have to be simple enough
    to implement with minimal changes to normal operations. Technology
    improvement is the only effective means to create wider development of
    the sophisticated response needed in these situations.
        This is a request for $100,000 in project development money to
    demonstrate a wearable computer system for field medical personnel. The
    project integrates some current technologies to provide effective
    information management, field diagnosis--especially for rare and
    complex disorders such as chemical toxin exposures or biohazard
    exposures--and finally records the events in real time to be
    communicated to expert assistance and recorded for later analysis. This
    prototype will provide the means for expert systems to be placed in
    every field medical environment in the nation with a common knowledge
    base and decision support system. In the rural environments it will
    provide assistance to medical personnel far from the sophisticated
    support of trauma centers and specialty physicians. In the urban
    environment it will assist in properly handling massive emergencies,
    which are rare, but which require high readiness and complex handling.
    Such events include mass casualty events from biological terrorism,
    chemical weapons, or even significant accidental exposures to these
    agents. They also include medically challenging cases such as thermal
    burns, poison exposures, and quick-acting illnesses, which threaten
    vital organ systems.
        The Gainesville Fire Rescue Department is the primary applicant.
    The department is a licensed advanced life-support (ALS) provider for
    the municipality of Gainesville and a wide urban area surrounding the
    city. The total population served is approximately 145,000 with an
    annual emergency call load of 20,000 emergency incidents, 15,000 of
    which are for emergency medical services (EMS). The department has a
    Regional Hazardous Materials Response Team providing training and
    emergency response to an eleven county area of North Florida. Except
    for its home county of Alachua, these counties are primarily rural with
    limited critical incident response capability. In addition, the
    department provides direct medical response services for the
    Gainesville Police Department's Special Response Team and the Alachua
    County Sheriff's Special Weapons and Tactics Team (SWAT). Paramedics
    who have completed the Department of Defense CONTOMS course are
    utilized in this role for support of high risk warrants and arrests,
    along with hostage or explosive device crises.
        The Gainesville Fire Rescue Department (GFRD) proposes, with the
    University of Florida's Shands Teaching Hospital Department of
    Anesthesiology, to purchase off-shelf technology. The hardware
    (wearable computer, micro-video camera, digital radio interface) and
    software (speech-to-text, text-to speech, heuristic decision support)
    will be integrated into a body ensemble to be worn by field paramedics.
    Current medical and operational plans will be programmed into the
    computer to begin experiments with field use. This is a demonstration
    project to produce one limited use version of the device for continued
    experimental development. Results of the work will be shared as
    published research papers in medical journals, federal technology
    sharing publications, and journals common to emergency service
    providers. The total cost of $100,000 includes $55,000 in estimated
    hardware/software costs and $45,000 to fund one FTE computer systems
    analyst/programmer on the staff of the UF Shands Teaching Hospital
    Department of Anesthesiology.
        The need for this project is driven by the fact that the Federal
    government has already funded the research that created the
    technologies to be used. There are military educational applications of
    this technology already being used. There are civil applications in
    aviation and other complex maintenance operations for machinery. Yet,
    with the developments thus far, there have not been applications to the
    field practice of emergency medical care--a discipline that can produce
    an impressive return on development funding.
        This system has broad application to enhance the quality of
    treatment for critical trauma patients, mass casualties from all
    causes, including exposures to biological or chemical weapons, and
    complex medical illnesses. The potential for development of future uses
    is immense, following a successful demonstration of integration of the
    off-shelf components into a useable system for testing. The expected
    benefits are national, in that the developed system will be replicable
    at reasonable cost, and will generate widespread support for innovation
    and development among other users upon demonstration of an effective
    ``standard'' system.
        Although there are various components of this project in
    development for other purposes, there is no known research that would
    provide a similar system with national application to emergency field
    services. Given that the applications of this system are for a number
    of national priorities, including anti-terrorist operations, trauma
    treatment, and enhanced rural medical care, it is appropriate that the
    Federal government fund the initial stages of this research.
    Demonstration of the feasibility and long-term applications of this
    technology will bring enhanced commitments of funding from additional
    partners to continue the research into future years.
        Paramedics in the field normally operate under direction of
    physicians at the emergency department. Caring for critical patients
    requires attempting to communicate a true picture of events to the
    physician. The paramedic must currently rely on a remote physician who
    is receiving limited information, to make an appropriate diagnosis and
    provide the correct treatment protocol. Yet, within the literature of
    emergency medicine there are hundreds of algorithms, akin to artificial
    intelligence, designed to correctly diagnose when complete information
    is provided in a specific sequence. These heuristic decision-support
    algorithms are complex and interact with each other. Computers are the
    only effective means to integrate the many complexities these
    interactions produce.
        Computers could be used with great success in the field except for
    two primary shortcomings:
        First of these is that the paramedic literally has his or her hands
    full with providing emergency care. (S)he cannot stop administering
    lifesaving care to enter data into a computer with a conventional
    keyboard, nor is the physician who is contacted by radio likely to
    either ask the questions in proper sequence or use the computer systems
    to furnish proper instructions. Handling hardware demands of a computer
    in this environment; outside, in all weather conditions, with poor
    lighting and dynamic events occurring, simply adds too much complexity
    to using this vital tool. Fortunately there have been recent
    developments in wearable computers. These are lightweight modules
    designed to fit in a belt-worn pack, which are then connected to a
    headset which has an eyepiece video display (which can also be equipped
    with a forward-looking video camera to record the wearer's eye view).
    The other components of the headpiece are a throat voice-activated
    microphone and earphone that allow two-way voice communication either
    with the computer or a radio system.
        The second shortcoming is similar. Until recently there have not
    been speech recognition systems that could reliably accept voice input
    for decision-support or recording of vital information. Today, however,
    there are several inexpensive speech-to-text and text-to-speech engines
    for computers, which enabling direct communication with databases and
    artificial intelligence (AI) systems.
        For the paramedic there is no transcriptionist. All records have to
    be reconstructed after the fact, from memory or from incomplete remote
    records from dispatcher reports and third parties. Sometimes a patient
    may be under the care of more than one service provider. This can
    happen when a rural facility initiates care and the patient must be
    treated by first responders, followed by advanced providers and finally
    moved to a higher care level by a third caregiver, such as a helicopter
    flight crew. In this environment, the continuity of care may be
    maintained, but the records often become scattered, never reaching the
    final link in the chain. Incomplete or fragmented records mar most
    research into what works effectively in the field with paramedics. The
    use of a wearable computer, which is voice-activated, provides the
    ideal mechanism to review individual patient care to improve treatment
    proficiency, quality and training. The addition of a video cameral to
    that recording provides, literally, the complete picture.
        There is the another problem for emergency care systems, probably
    the most difficult to solve and most in need of solution. When
    confronted with ambiguous data, indicative of a number of patient
    conditions, the paramedic must rapidly gather and sort volumes of
    information, develop a treatment plan and, with guidance from a
    physician, attempt to restore stability. There are certain situations
    that are high criticality and low frequency. This means that the
    paramedic is unlikely to see the condition often, so it is unfamiliar.
    Simultaneously, the patient condition requires immediate and effective
    treatment for a survivable outcome. A few of these events include the
    aforementioned toxic exposures, multiple system trauma, complex rescue
    situations, and any other accidental or intentional event which leads
    to rare but lethal injuries.
        The City of Gainesville Fire Rescue Department is requesting
    $100,000 in Federal funding assistance to develop an advanced, body-
    worn, computer system for the field paramedic to use in decision-
    support, communication, and record keeping. This system has broad
    application to enhance the quality of treatment for critical trauma
    patients, mass casualties from all causes, including exposures to
    biological or chemical weapons, and complex medical illnesses. The
    potential for development of future uses is immense, following a
    successful demonstration of integration of the off-shelf components
    into a useable system for testing. The expected benefits are national,
    in that the developed system will be replicable at reasonable cost, and
    will generate widespread support for innovation and development among
    other users upon demonstration of an effective ``standard'' system.
                                     ______

                                RELATED AGENCIES
                          DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
                            Maritime Administration
      Prepared Statement of the Upper Mississippi River Basin Association
        The Upper Mississippi River Basin Association (UMRBA) is the
    organization created 18 years ago by the Governors of Illinois, Iowa,
    Minnesota, Missouri, and Wisconsin to serve as a forum for coordinating
    the five states' river-related programs and policies and for
    collaborating with federal agencies on regional issues. As such, the
    UMRBA has an interest in the budget of the Maritime Administration.
        Of particular concern to the UMRBA is funding for MARAD Operations.
    The President's fiscal year 2000 budget proposal includes $30,930,000
    for this account, a reduction of 5.6 percent from the fiscal year 1999
    funding level. Among other things, the MARAD Operations budget supports
    research and development efforts such as design of prototype mooring
    buoys. Such buoys on the inland waterway system allow tows to tie up
    safely while awaiting lockage, thus avoiding environmental damage that
    might be caused by mooring to the shoreline. Last year, a prototype
    buoy was used by the commercial navigation industry and the Corps of
    Engineers for tows awaiting lockage at Lock and Dam 24 on the
    Mississippi River. Based upon experience with that test buoy, MARAD,
    the Corps, and the shipping industry have identified changes that need
    to be made in the next prototype. Funding for research and development
    efforts such as these is critical to the safety and efficiency of
    commercial navigation on this nation's inland waterway system.
        In addition, the MARAD Operations account supports MARAD field
    offices on the inland waterway system, such as the office located in
    St. Louis, Missouri. The St. Louis office is situated at the confluence
    of the Mississippi, Missouri, and Illinois Rivers, on which move much
    of the Midwestern grain destined for international markets. Such field
    offices are essential for MARAD to maintain its involvement in an
    increasingly wide variety of interagency and interstate river
    management issues.
        The UMRBA supports adequate funding for the Maritime
    Administration's Operations account.
                                     ______

                               NORTH-SOUTH CENTER
         Prepared Statement of Cyrus M. Jollivette, Vice President for
                   Government Relations, University of Miami
        Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, I appreciate the
    opportunity to submit this statement for the record on behalf of the
    Dante B. Fascell North-South Center at the University of Miami. The
    University is seeking your continued support for this nationally
    recognized center in fiscal year 2000.
    Dante B. Fascell North-South Center
        The Dante B. Fascell North-South Center, permanently authorized in
    Public Law 102-138 is the only research, public policy studies, and
    information center of its type exclusively dedicated to finding
    practical solutions to problems and policy issues facing the Americas.
    In carrying out its congressional mandate to promote better relations
    among the United States and the nations of Canada, Latin America, and
    the Caribbean, the Center combines programs of public policy,
    cooperative study, research, and training. The Center's publications
    constitute a body of scholarly work that is at once timely, non-
    partisan, and policy-relevant. Publications are clear, accessible, and
    relevant for diverse audiences, including legislators, government
    officials, nongovernmental organizations, and the private sector. The
    Center's Western Hemisphere agenda benefits U.S. citizens by seeking to
    effect positive change and to address issues of major significance in
    the Americas.
    Research Agenda
        The Center responds to a hemispheric agenda that directly impacts
    the American people in the form of jobs and prosperity, drugs,
    migration, export opportunities, environmental quality, and the
    promotion of shared democratic values. Programs foster national and
    international linkages and partnerships through fellowships and
    collaborative efforts in research and training. The Center's priority
    research agenda focuses on vital inter-American issues such as trade
    and investment, migration, security, democratic governance, civil-
    military relations, corruption, institutional reform, civil society
    participation, and sustainable development. Findings of the Center's
    research reach scholars, policy makers, and opinion leaders in the
    United States and throughout the Hemisphere through a variety of
    publications including scholarly books and monographs, the Update and
    Issues report series, and North-South Agenda papers. This wide range of
    expertise has distinguished the Center as an invaluable national
    resource for identifying, analyzing, and understanding the myriad
    issues that have the potential to impact the United States' future
    prospects in a region of growing importance to our economic
    competitiveness and security.
    Capacity Building and the New Inter-American Environment
        During the decade of the 1990's, the very nature of inter-American
    relations has changed. The difficult but steady movement of the
    Hemisphere's nations toward democratization and open markets has
    transformed the landscape, simultaneously offering tremendous
    opportunities and challenges for the citizens of the United States. In
    recognition of the change in inter-American relations, the Center has
    launched a new set of activities emphasizing the theme of Capacity-
    Building in the Americas. Under this initiative, the Center will use
    its own capacity and a series of partnerships to conduct in-country
    education and training projects with institutions and organizations to
    plan, design, implement, and evaluate programs that improve the
    transparency and accountability of markets and governance throughout
    the region. Capacity building projects address: (1) ethics and
    government; (2) judicial and legal reform; (3) telecommunications
    regulations; (4) financial reform; (5) environmental law; (6) health
    services; (7) public management; (8) microenterprise development; and
    (9) civil society participation.
        In combination with the Center's research, these ``hands-on''
    projects provide a learning experience with crucial implications for
    U.S. interests. While the nations of Latin America and the Caribbean
    now share our vision of political and economic freedom, they in many
    ways lack the institutions, infrastructure, and human capacity to
    benefit fully from the promise of democracy and the dynamism of free
    markets. If U.S. citizens are to realize the enormous potential of
    expanding markets, new jobs, rule of law, orderly immigration, and
    reduced drug trafficking, it is precisely these issues that must be
    addressed. By balancing research and outreach activities with a new and
    exciting focus on capacity building, the North-South Center will work
    in the clearest possible way for the tangible benefit of both U.S.
    citizens and our hemispheric neighbors.
    New Public Diplomacy
        The policy activities of the Dante B. Fascell North-South Center
    are conducted with the knowledge that at no other time in the history
    of inter-American relations have the hemisphere's citizens enjoyed
    better opportunities to work together to realize the cherished ideals
    of democratic values, open markets, environmentally sustainable
    development and social justice. From its inception, the Center has
    consistently provided opportunities for dialogue among policy makers,
    nongovernmental organizations, and business interests. Since the 1994
    Summit of the Americas in Miami, which formally committed the region's
    nations (with the exception of Cuba) to democratic governance and the
    achievement of a Free Trade Area of the Americas by 2005, the Center
    has been instrumental in bringing non-governmental organizations into
    the Hemispheric decision-making process.
        Congressional outreach is a key ingredient of the Center's mission.
    Elements of this outreach include providing congressional testimony,
    inviting senior congressional staffers to participate in various
    capacities in Center events, sharing strategic assessments and analyses
    of inter-American issues and events with legislators, and creating a
    forum in which congressional representatives--particularly those from
    South Florida--can engage in substantive policy discussions with their
    constituencies.
        The Dante B. Fascell North-South Center has been the foremost
    institution in bringing together the private sector, NGO's, and
    government representatives to monitor and evaluate the implementation
    of the Miami Plan of Action. The Monitoring Implementation of the
    Summit of the Americas initiative, the only independent monitoring
    project of its kind, provided an unprecedented opportunity for policy
    dialogues between the public and private sectors in a non-partisan and
    academic forum. As the direct result of a series of highly influential
    white papers resulting from this project, many of the Center's policy
    recommendations were incorporated into the Plan of Action of the 1998
    Summit of the Americas II in Santiago, Chile.
        The Center's Diplomatic-Private Sector Roundtable in Washington,
    D.C. provides an organized policy forum, previously unavailable, for
    dialogue between hemispheric diplomats and civil society--business,
    academic, labor, and environmental representatives. The Roundtable
    meets periodically to share perspectives on issues of subregional
    trade, education, poverty, and human rights, among others.
        With its strategic location in Miami, Florida the crossroads of the
    Americas; its visible presence in Washington, D.C.; and its hemispheric
    recognition, the Dante B. Fascell North-South Center is well positioned
    to further inter-American dialogue and advance the new public diplomacy
    in a manner that is beneficial to Americans in the North and South.
    Policy and Academic Impacts
        Programs of research are complemented by rigorous outreach efforts
    that share the findings of the Center's work with a wide policy,
    business, and academic audience in the United States, Canada, the
    Caribbean, and Latin America. Outreach efforts include policy
    briefings, training programs, media outreach, workshops, public
    lectures, and publications.
        The Center works directly with U.S. policy makers by providing
    testimony to Congress, briefing Administration and State Department
    officials on inter-American issues, and contributing to the policy
    debate by sharing perspectives on a broad spectrum of issues on a
    biweekly basis in the North-South Center Update. U.S. ambassadors to
    Latin America and the Caribbean routinely request Center briefings
    prior to assuming their posts.
        The Center's policy report, From Talk To Action: How Summits Can
    Help Forge a Western Hemisphere Community of Prosperous Democracies,
    published prior to the 1998 Summit of the Americas in Santiago, Chile,
    was widely read by government delegations to the Summit and several of
    its recommendations were reflected in the resulting Plan of Action.
        Findings of the Caribbean Program's research on subregional
    integration, trade liberalization and corruption received critical
    acceptance in the Caribbean policy making community and are reflected
    in the framework agenda of the Association of Caribbean States.
        Trade Programs have played a central role in shaping the public
    policy debate on competitiveness, hemispheric free trade, and
    subregional economic integration issues of vital, long-term importance
    to the United States. The program helps shape workable, free, and fair
    regional trade agreements.
        Center efforts in the area of Civil Society Participation have led
    to unprecedented opportunities for the private sector and
    nongovernmental organizations to have meaningful input in inter-
    American discussions of trade and development issues.
        The Environmental Law Program has provided training, capacity
    building and technical services, comparative legal research and
    analysis in the area of legal and policy reform. The program has
    developed an Environmental Law Americas Network to establish a
    hemispheric network of officials and experts in environmental law, its
    execution, and compliance.
        Research on Democratic Governance has provided important analysis
    and policy guidance on the effects of economic liberalization on the
    fragile democracies of the Americas. Timely research on the
    socioeconomic and political consequences of reforms in the region such
    as a major study contained in the book Fault Lines of Democratic
    Governance in Post-Transition Latin America provides a comprehensive
    and nuanced understanding of the fault lines of democracy in the
    Americas and supports effective decision making in the United States
    and throughout the Americas.
        The Inter-American Business And Labor Program launched major policy
    studies and activities centering on the management of privatization in
    the hemisphere, business-labor cooperation, and U.S. corporate
    competitive strategy. A recent book, Making NAFTA Work: U.S. Firms and
    the New North American Business Environment, analyzes the effect of
    NAFTA on corporate strategies and patterns of U.S. investment in North
    America.
        The Inter-American Management Training Project has trained over 600
    executives from small and medium-sized firms over 60 percent from
    minority business on exporting to Latin American and Caribbean markets.
        The Adjunct Senior Research Associates Program provides a mechanism
    through which the Center functions as an intellectual multiplier. By
    establishing productive networks among scholars from different
    countries and from diverse disciplines, the Center successfully
    promotes technical and scholarly interchange between the United States
    and hemispheric neighbors.
        Results of Center research, published primarily by the North-South
    Center Press, contribute significantly to inter-American scholarship,
    offering strategic assessments of a variety of critical inter-American
    issues. In the last three years, the Center has sold over 15,000 books,
    many of which have been adopted as textbooks by some of the most
    prestigious universities in the United States. This body of work is
    also cited widely in interdisciplinary research on Latin America.
    The Dante B. Fascell North-South Center: A Vital National Resource
        As the new spirit of cooperation in inter-American relations takes
    root and flourishes, it presents a unique opportunity for the United
    States to promote critical democratic ideals such as public
    accountability, transparency in government, and popular participation
    in the democratic process through active engagement of civil society.
    Miami, as host of technical trade negotiations during the first three
    years of the seven-year process for the Free Trade Area of the
    Americas, will play a major role in the newly emerging North-South
    order of close cooperation and partnership. Efforts at democratic
    consolidation combined with the negotiations for an FTAA will create
    the framework for inter-American relations for decades to come.
        The Dante B. Fascell North-South Center is uniquely positioned,
    geographically and academically, to create constructive input and play
    an important role in these processes. With a firm research base, an
    ever widening network of public and private partnerships in the United
    States and the rest of the Hemisphere, the Center is uniquely placed to
    facilitate the constructive development and evolution of cross-border
    relationships among the nations and peoples of the Americas as they
    work together to establish a new inter-American architecture. The
    Center's proven track record in facilitating dialogue among hemispheric
    governments, non-governmental organizations, and business interests
    will be a vital asset for the United States and its citizens in a new
    era of inter-American relations.
        We are pleased to report that we are effectively implementing our
    fiscal year 1998 and fiscal year 1999 spending and program plan, and
    making sound progress in expanding both our relevance and assistance to
    federal foreign policy and trade agencies, and our efforts to diversify
    our base of public, private, and foundation support. The fiscal year
    1999 appropriation was $1.75 million. For fiscal year 2000, given the
    increasing critical importance of the region, and the Center's ongoing
    important role, the Administration supports a $2.5 million investment
    for fiscal year 2000. We respectfully request your consideration of our
    full $4 million spending plan for fiscal year 2000, especially given
    the next phase of Latin American relations Latin American trade and
    ongoing summit activity.
        Mr. Chairman, my colleagues and I understand what a difficult year
    this will be as you determine funding priorities for the myriad
    programs under your jurisdiction. We hope that you will continue to
    find the Dante B. Fascell North-South Center a worthy recipient of your
    support.
                                     ______

                         SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION
       Prepared Statement of Max Summers, State Director, Missouri Small
                          Business Development Centers
        Chairman Gregg and Members of the Committee, I am Max Summers,
    State Director of the Missouri Small Business Development Center
    Program. I am here today on behalf of the Association of Small Business
    Development Centers (ASBDC) which represents the SBDC programs in all
    fifty states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands
    and Guam.
        I would like to thank you Mr. Chairman and the members of this
    committee for inviting the ASBDC to testify at this hearing on the
    Small Business Administration's (SBA) fiscal year 2000 Budget request.
    With me, to assist in responding to any questions the committee may
    have, are Ms. Jan Fredericks, State Director of the Alaska SBDC and
    Chair of the Board of Directors of the ASBDC, Mr. Woodrow McCutchen, a
    former SBDC State Director in Maryland and the District of Columbia who
    now serves as the Executive Director of the ASBDC, and Donald Wilson,
    Director of Government Affairs for the Association.
        Let me at the outset of my remarks express the appreciation of the
    Association, the SBDC nationwide network and its 4,500 employees for
    the nearly two decades of bipartisan support which this program has
    received from Congress. Congress initiated the SBDC program in 1980.
    Since then those of us in the program have worked diligently to fulfill
    the mission Congress envisioned when the SBDC program was created. We
    are proud of our proven record of cost effective delivery of management
    and technical assistance to the nation's small business community.
        I would like to state for the record that the ASBDC and the SBDC
    network are solidly committed to helping ``open doors'' of economic
    opportunity for individuals and communities in ``New Markets''. In fact
    our doors have been opened wide to these constituencies since the
    program's inception and those constituencies utilize our services every
    day. As the accompanying charts will show, last year 42 percent of our
    counseling and training clients were women and 22 percent were
    minorities. Moreover, approximately one-fourth of our service centers
    are located in targeted economic revitalization areas such as HUBzones,
    Empowerment Zones and Enterprise Communities. Nationally, more than 90
    percent of our clients, including those from these service areas,
    report that they are financially unable to pay for counseling received
    from SBDC's. We urge Congress to remain firmly committed to its
    historical opposition to such fees.
        The SBDC program stands ready to help the administration achieve
    its goal of 300,000 additional small business clients in fiscal year
    2000 if provided with adequate resources. However, to reduce federal
    funding for this program by nearly 25 percent, as the Administrator has
    recommended, would result in a real decrease of more than 60 percent of
    total funds available to serve our small business clients. Congress in
    1997 approved an authorization level of $121 million for the SBDC
    program for fiscal year 2000. If Congress decides that additional small
    business outreach efforts are necessary, and we believe they are, then
    the SBDC's established infrastructure of over 1,400 service locations
    is the most logical vehicle to effectively accomplish that mission.
        During the last six years, our nation has been blessed with steady
    economic growth. We have also faced major economic change. Economic
    downsizing by corporations, especially in the manufacturing sector,
    declining agricultural exports, the Y2K crisis, and unprecedented
    technological change have all contributed to a sharply increased demand
    on our nationwide SBDC network for counseling and training. Mr.
    Chairman, this increase in demand has been sharply pronounced in our
    state of Missouri. I am proud to say that our SBDC has risen to that
    challenge. This nationwide growth in demand creates a genuine need not
    only to sustain but also to grow the SBDC program.
        Although the SBDC's resources are presently stretched, the program
    has shown a remarkable capacity not only to meet the congressionally
    mandated matching requirement, but also to exceed it. The SBDC network
    nationwide uses its congressional appropriation to leverage tens of
    millions of dollars from local and state governments, and educational
    institutions, as well as individuals and corporations in the private
    sector.
        The charts attached to this testimony reflect the SBDC program's
    documented track record of service delivery to its small business
    clients. The nation's roughly 23 million small businesses employ over
    50 percent of the national workforce and continue to be the driving
    force behind this country's economic growth and job creation. If we are
    to continue to enjoy economic growth and prosperity, then America's
    burgeoning entrepreneurial population must be given the management
    tools to succeed.
        Access to financing is critical to the success of new small
    businesses. Start up businesses and pre-startup businesses comprise a
    significant share of our client base. The management training and
    technical assistance we provide has proven to make a difference. Our
    clients have a rate of sales growth and employee additions that exceeds
    the national small business average. And as a result they contribute to
    the federal treasury at a faster rate of increase than non-SBDC client
    firms. This is a win/win situation for all concerned. And the economic
    stability that our clients achieve as a result of our management and
    training assistance contributes significantly to lower default rates on
    small business loans.
        The SBDC program for two decades now has utilized the dollars that
    Congress has invested in the program to create a strong and viable
    infrastructure. The program has developed over 3,400 strategic resource
    partners including educational institutions, lending institutions,
    economic development agencies at the state and local level, Chambers of
    Commerce, etc. Examples of these strategic resource partners include
    Mayer, Hoffman, McCann Certified Public Accountants in Missouri, ATT
    Capital Corporation of Georgia, Alabama Minority Supplier Development
    Council, the Lewiston-Auburn Economic Growth Council of Maine, the
    Women's Initiative Networking Group in Kentucky, the Idaho Department
    of Commerce, Hispanic Chamber of Commerce of San Antonio, the Greater
    Roxbury, Massachusetts Chamber of Commerce, Detroit Edison Works in
    Michigan, and Wachovia Bank in North Carolina.
        This infrastructure and its partnerships are unmatched and would
    take decades and enormous financial resources for any other program to
    replicate. Furthermore the SBDC program is the only federal small
    business management and technical assistance program that is subject to
    a congressionally mandated certification program. The ASBDC also
    contracts with an independent consultant for a biennial economic impact
    assessment of long term SBDC counseling.
        Mr. Chairman in summary the SBDC program is the federal
    government's largest and most successful small business management and
    technical outreach assistance program. We have an established, proven
    infrastructure without peer. We have a documented track record of
    responding to the needs of the communities we serve. Our clients
    represent the face of those communities, including rural and urban
    populations, minorities, women and native Americans. We currently
    assist over half a million small business clients annually. The SBDC
    network is well positioned to deliver these services to a significantly
    expanded client base if provided the resources to do so by Congress.
    This is a commitment we can and do make to this committee today.
                                     ______

                       SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
             Prepared Statement of the Investment Company Institute
        The Investment Company Institute \1\ appreciates this opportunity
    to submit testimony to the Subcommittee in support of the fiscal year
    2000 appropriations request for the U.S. Securities and Exchange
    Commission (SEC). The Institute would like to commend the Subcommittee
    for its prior efforts to assure adequate resources for the SEC.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ The Investment Company Institute is the national association of
    the American investment company industry. Its membership includes 7,446
    open-end investment companies (``mutual funds''), 456 closed-end
    investment companies and 8 sponsors of unit investment trusts. Its
    mutual fund members have assets of about $5.662 trillion, accounting
    for approximately 95 percent of total industry assets, and have over 73
    individual shareholders.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Mutual funds are very important to middle class Americans seeking
    to save and invest. Today, more than 77 million investors, in over 44
    million U.S. households, own mutual fund shares. These millions of
    average Americans receive and deserve vigilant regulatory oversight of
    mutual funds. Given the importance of mutual funds to millions of
    investors, sufficient funding of the SEC is a priority. The Institute
    urges Congress to provide appropriations at a level sufficient to
    ensure that the SEC may fulfill its regulatory mandate.
        The Administration's fiscal year 2000 budget proposes SEC funding
    at a level of $363 million. The Institute supports this level of
    funding to sustain the SEC's operations, especially those of the
    Division of Investment Management, which regulates the mutual fund
    industry.
        Adequate financial resources are essential for the SEC to continue
    its effective regulatory oversight of the securities markets and to
    carry out important investor protection and awareness initiatives. The
    workload of the Division of Investment Management has increased
    significantly due to the implementation of the SEC initiatives to
    improve mutual fund disclosure enacted last year: the mandatory use of
    plain English in mutual fund prospectuses; revised, simplified
    disclosure in mutual fund prospectuses; and fund ``profiles,'' which
    provide essential information about a particular fund in a concise,
    less technical manner. These important initiatives will benefit
    millions of American investors. Sufficient financial resources are also
    needed for special projects involving investor protection, such as the
    Director's Roundtable and the Year 2000 conversion project. The
    Director's Roundtable, held in February, explored the critical watchdog
    role that independent fund directors play in protecting the interests
    of fund shareholders. The SEC is presently working toward
    recommendations to strengthen the current system of fund governance
    based on information and insight gained from the Roundtable, and
    expects to promulgate rules to otherwise strengthen the role of
    independent directors.
        The SEC has been actively engaged in the very important work of
    monitoring the securities industry's progress with Year 2000 compliance
    and has intensified its efforts in this area during the past year. The
    Division of Investment Management has formed an independent task force
    to assess the current status of Year 2000 disclosure and propose steps
    that the SEC should take to remedy the deficiencies. The SEC is
    gathering quantitative information from a large number of registrants
    and conducting examinations of firms that are showing unsatisfactory
    progress in addressing the problem. The SEC plans to continue its
    unprecedented efforts to increase the frequency and quality of Year
    2000 disclosure made by public and investment companies to maintain
    investor confidence at the end of 1999.
        Finally, adequate funding is essential for routine inspections of
    investment advisers and fund companies, and for the SEC's ongoing
    efforts to educate the nation's investors. The SEC has instituted
    several outreach programs, such as the nationwide ``Facts on Savings
    and Investing Campaign'' aimed at increasing the financial literacy of
    American investors. These types of programs help investors and small
    businesses to understand capital markets and establish realistic
    expectations about market performance. This is an integral part of the
    agency's mission to protect investors.
        In order to accomplish these worthy objectives and to continue to
    function as an effective regulatory agency, we support SEC funding for
    fiscal year 2000 at the level requested by Chairman Levitt.
        We appreciate your consideration of our views.

           LIST OF WITNESSES, COMMUNICATIONS, AND PREPARED STATEMENTS

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page
    Alliance for International Educational and Cultural Exchange,
      prepared statement.............................................   423
    Alvarez, Aida, Administrator, Small Business Administration......   245
        Prepared statement...........................................   247
    American Association of Port Authorities, prepared statement.....   394
    American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO, prepared
      statement......................................................   387
    American Public Power Association, prepared statement............   418
    Arbetman, Lee, National Coordinator, National, Coordinated Law-
      Related Education Program, prepared statement..................   414

    Baker, Dr. D. James, Under Secretary for Oceans and Atmosphere,
      National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Department of
      Commerce.......................................................   227
        Letter from..................................................   235
        Prepared statement...........................................   227
    Becker, Capt. Fred R., Jr., JAGC, USN (Ret.), Director, Naval
      Affairs, Reserve Officers Association of the United States
      (ROA), prepared statement......................................   367
    Bischoff, Kenneth E., Director, Administrative Services, Alaska
      Department of Public Safety and Chairman of SEARCH of the
      National Consortium for Justice Information and Statistics,
      prepared statement.............................................   409
    Brown, Dr. Lynne, Vice President for Government and Community
      Relations, New York University, prepared statement.............   371
    Bye, Dr. Raymond E., Jr., Interim Vice President for Research,
      Florida State University, prepared statements

    446____________________________________________________________________

    Mecham, Leonidas Ralph, Director, Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts,
    prepared statement

    431____________________________________________________________________

    Meissner, Doris, Commissioner, Immigration and Naturalization Service,
    Department of Justice

    169____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    172____________________________________________________________________

    Nugent, Christopher, Executive Director, Florence Immigrant and Refugee
    Rights Project, Inc., prepared statement

    384____________________________________________________________________

    Pearson, Michael A., Executive Associate Commissioner, Field Operations,
    Immigration and Naturalization Service, Department of Justice

    169____________________________________________________________________

    Reno, Hon. Janet, Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General,
    Department of Justice

    1______________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    4______________________________________________________________________

    Roberts, Paul, Chief Financial Officer, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
    Administration, Department of Commerce

    227____________________________________________________________________

    Soltow, Dr. Allen, Executive Director of Research, Sponsored Programs, and
    Governmenta

    Mecham, Leonidas Ralph, Director, Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts,
    prepared statement

    431____________________________________________________________________

    Meissner, Doris, Commissioner, Immigration and Naturalization Service,
    Department of Justice

    169____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    172____________________________________________________________________

    Nugent, Christopher, Executive Director, Florence Immigrant and Refugee
    Rights Project, Inc., prepared statement

    384____________________________________________________________________

    Pearson, Michael A., Executive Associate Commissioner, Field Operations,
    Immigration and Naturalization Service, Department of Justice

    169____________________________________________________________________

    Reno, Hon. Janet, Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General,
    Department of Justice

    1______________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    4______________________________________________________________________

    Roberts, Paul, Chief Financial Officer, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
    Administration, Department of Commerce

    227____________________________________________________________________

    Soltow, Dr. Allen, Executive Director of Research, Sponsored Programs, and
    Governmentaommission, prepared statement

    446____________________________________________________________________

    Mecham, Leonidas Ralph, Director, Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts,
    prepared statement

    431____________________________________________________________________

    Meissner, Doris, Commissioner, Immigration and Naturalization Service,
    Department of Justice

    169____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    172____________________________________________________________________

    Nugent, Christopher, Executive Director, Florence Immigrant and Refugee
    Rights Project, Inc., prepared statement

    384____________________________________________________________________

    Pearson, Michael A., Executive Associate Commissioner, Field Operations,
    Immigration and Naturalization Service, Department of Justice

    169____________________________________________________________________

    Reno, Hon. Janet, Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General,
    Department of Justice

    1______________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    4______________________________________________________________________

    Roberts, Paul, Chief Financial Officer, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
    Administration, Department of Commerce

    227____________________________________________________________________

    Soltow, Dr. Allen, Executive Director of Research, Sponsored Programs, and
    Governmentaxchange Commis-
    sion

    313____________________________________________________________________

    McGrath, Timothy, Interim Staff Director, United States Sentencing
    Commission, prepared statement

    446____________________________________________________________________

    Mecham, Leonidas Ralph, Director, Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts,
    prepared statement

    431____________________________________________________________________

    Meissner, Doris, Commissioner, Immigration and Naturalization Service,
    Department of Justice

    169____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    172____________________________________________________________________

    Nugent, Christopher, Executive Director, Florence Immigrant and Refugee
    Rights Project, Inc., prepared statement

    384____________________________________________________________________

    Pearson, Michael A., Executive Associate Commissioner, Field Operations,
    Immigration and Naturalization Service, Department of Justice

    169____________________________________________________________________

    Reno, Hon. Janet, Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General,
    Department of Justice

    1______________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    4______________________________________________________________________

    Roberts, Paul, Chief Financial Officer, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
    Administration, Department of Commerce

    227____________________________________________________________________

    Soltow, Dr. Allen, Executive Director of Research, Sponsored Programs, and
    GovernmentaDNM/445

    McConnell, Hon. Mitch, U.S. Senator from Kentucky, questions submitted by

    82_____________________________________________________________________

    McConnell, James, Executive Director, Securities and Exchange Commis-
    sion

    313____________________________________________________________________

    McGrath, Timothy, Interim Staff Director, United States Sentencing
    Commission, prepared statement

    446____________________________________________________________________

    Mecham, Leonidas Ralph, Director, Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts,
    prepared statement

    431____________________________________________________________________

    Meissner, Doris, Commissioner, Immigration and Naturalization Service,
    Department of Justice

    169____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    172____________________________________________________________________

    Nugent, Christopher, Executive Director, Florence Immigrant and Refugee
    Rights Project, Inc., prepared statement

    384____________________________________________________________________

    Pearson, Michael A., Executive Associate Commissioner, Field Operations,
    Immigration and Naturalization Service, Department of Justice

    169____________________________________________________________________

    Reno, Hon. Janet, Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General,
    Department of Justice

    1______________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    4______________________________________________________________________

    Roberts, Paul, Chief Financial Officer, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
    Administration, Department of Commerce

    227____________________________________________________________________

    Soltow, Dr. Allen, Executive Director of Research, Sponsored Programs, and
    Governmentates Sentencing Commission, prepared statement

    446____________________________________________________________________

    Mecham, Leonidas Ralph, Director, Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts,
    prepared statement

    431____________________________________________________________________

    Meissner, Doris, Commissioner, Immigration and Naturalization Service,
    Department of Justice

    169____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    172____________________________________________________________________

    Nugent, Christopher, Executive Director, Florence Immigrant and Refugee
    Rights Project, Inc., prepared statement

    384____________________________________________________________________

    Pearson, Michael A., Executive Associate Commissioner, Field Operations,
    Immigration and Naturalization Service, Department of Justice

    169____________________________________________________________________

    Reno, Hon. Janet, Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General,
    Department of Justice

    1______________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    4______________________________________________________________________

    Roberts, Paul, Chief Financial Officer, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
    Administration, Department of Commerce

    227____________________________________________________________________

    Soltow, Dr. Allen, Executive Director of Research, Sponsored Programs, and
    Governmentaidas Ralph, Director, Administrative Office of
    the U.S. Courts, prepared statement

    431____________________________________________________________________

    Meissner, Doris, Commissioner, Immigration and Naturalization Service,
    Department of Justice

    169____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    172____________________________________________________________________

    Nugent, Christopher, Executive Director, Florence Immigrant and Refugee
    Rights Project, Inc., prepared statement

    384____________________________________________________________________

    Pearson, Michael A., Executive Associate Commissioner, Field Operations,
    Immigration and Naturalization Service, Department of Justice

    169____________________________________________________________________

    Reno, Hon. Janet, Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General,
    Department of Justice

    1______________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    4______________________________________________________________________

    Roberts, Paul, Chief Financial Officer, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
    Administration, Department of Commerce

    227____________________________________________________________________

    Soltow, Dr. Allen, Executive Director of Research, Sponsored Programs, and
    Governmentates Sentencing Commission, prepared statement

    446____________________________________________________________________

    Mecham, Leonidas Ralph, Director, Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts,
    prepared statement

    431____________________________________________________________________

    Meissner, Doris, Commissioner, Immigration and Naturalization Service,
    Department of Justice

    169____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    172____________________________________________________________________

    Nugent, Christopher, Executive Director, Florence Immigrant and Refugee
    Rights Project, Inc., prepared statement

    384____________________________________________________________________

    Pearson, Michael A., Executive Associate Commissioner, Field Operations,
    Immigration and Naturalization Service, Department of Justice

    169____________________________________________________________________

    Reno, Hon. Janet, Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General,
    Department of Justice

    1______________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    4______________________________________________________________________

    Roberts, Paul, Chief Financial Officer, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
    Administration, Department of Commerce

    227____________________________________________________________________

    Soltow, Dr. Allen, Executive Director of Research, Sponsored Programs, and
    GovernmentaCampbell, Hon. Ben Nighthorse, U.S. Senator from
    Colorado, questions submitted by.........................................
    88Carman, Gregory W., Chief Judge, United States Court of International
    Trade, prepared statement........................ 446Center for Marine
    Conservation, prepared statement............... 394Clark, Beth Claudia,
    Director, The Antarctica Project, prepared
    statement......................................................
    399Constantine, Thomas A., Administrator, Drug Enforcement Administration,
    Department of Justice.......................... 261 Prepared
    statement........................................... 265Councils on
    Engineering and Codes and Standards of the American Society of Mechanical
    Engineers, prepared statement............ 380Crow, Dr. Michael M.,
    Executive Vice Provost, Columbia University, prepared
    statement................................. 390Daley, William M., Secretary,
    Secretary of Commerce, Department of
    Commerce.................................................... 131 Prepared
    statement........................................... 133Delaney, Hon.
    Paula, Mayor, City of Gainesville, prepared statements tes
    Sentencing Commission, prepared statement

    446____________________________________________________________________

    Mecham, Leonidas Ralph, Director, Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts,
    prepared statement

    431____________________________________________________________________

    Meissner, Doris, Commissioner, Immigration and Naturalization Service,
    Department of Justice

    169____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    172____________________________________________________________________

    Nugent, Christopher, Executive Director, Florence Immigrant and Refugee
    Rights Project, Inc., prepared statement

    384____________________________________________________________________

    Pearson, Michael A., Executive Associate Commissioner, Field Operations,
    Immigration and Naturalization Service, Department of Justice

    169____________________________________________________________________

    Reno, Hon. Janet, Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General,
    Department of Justice

    1______________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    4______________________________________________________________________

    Roberts, Paul, Chief Financial Officer, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
    Administration, Department of Commerce

    227____________________________________________________________________

    Soltow, Dr. Allen, Executive Director of Research, Sponsored Programs, and
    Governmenta

    Mecham, Leonidas Ralph, Director, Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts,
    prepared statement

    431____________________________________________________________________

    Meissner, Doris, Commissioner, Immigration and Naturalization Service,
    Department of Justice

    169____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    172____________________________________________________________________

    Nugent, Christopher, Executive Director, Florence Immigrant and Refugee
    Rights Project, Inc., prepared statement

    384____________________________________________________________________

    Pearson, Michael A., Executive Associate Commissioner, Field Operations,
    Immigration and Naturalization Service, Department of Justice

    169____________________________________________________________________

    Reno, Hon. Janet, Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General,
    Department of Justice

    1______________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    4______________________________________________________________________

    Roberts, Paul, Chief Financial Officer, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
    Administration, Department of Commerce

    227____________________________________________________________________

    Soltow, Dr. Allen, Executive Director of Research, Sponsored Programs, and
    Governmenta

    Mecham, Leonidas Ralph, Director, Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts,
    prepared statement

    431____________________________________________________________________

    Meissner, Doris, Commissioner, Immigration and Naturalization Service,
    Department of Justice

    169____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    172____________________________________________________________________

    Nugent, Christopher, Executive Director, Florence Immigrant and Refugee
    Rights Project, Inc., prepared statement

    384____________________________________________________________________

    Pearson, Michael A., Executive Associate Commissioner, Field Operations,
    Immigration and Naturalization Service, Department of Justice

    169____________________________________________________________________

    Reno, Hon. Janet, Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General,
    Department of Justice

    1______________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    4______________________________________________________________________

    Roberts, Paul, Chief Financial Officer, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
    Administration, Department of Commerce

    227____________________________________________________________________

    Soltow, Dr. Allen, Executive Director of Research, Sponsored Programs, and
    Governmentaxchange Commis-
    sion

    313____________________________________________________________________

    McGrath, Timothy, Interim Staff Director, United States Sentencing
    Commission, prepared statement

    446____________________________________________________________________

    Mecham, Leonidas Ralph, Director, Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts,
    prepared statement

    431____________________________________________________________________

    Meissner, Doris, Commissioner, Immigration and Naturalization Service,
    Department of Justice

    169____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    172____________________________________________________________________

    Nugent, Christopher, Executive Director, Florence Immigrant and Refugee
    Rights Project, Inc., prepared statement

    384____________________________________________________________________

    Pearson, Michael A., Executive Associate Commissioner, Field Operations,
    Immigration and Naturalization Service, Department of Justice

    169____________________________________________________________________

    Reno, Hon. Janet, Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General,
    Department of Justice

    1______________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    4______________________________________________________________________

    Roberts, Paul, Chief Financial Officer, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
    Administration, Department of Commerce

    227____________________________________________________________________

    Soltow, Dr. Allen, Executive Director of Research, Sponsored Programs, and
    GovernmentaDNM/445

    McConnell, Hon. Mitch, U.S. Senator from Kentucky, questions submitted by

    82_____________________________________________________________________

    McConnell, James, Executive Director, Securities and Exchange Commis-
    sion

    313____________________________________________________________________

    McGrath, Timothy, Interim Staff Director, United States Sentencing
    Commission, prepared statement

    446____________________________________________________________________

    Mecham, Leonidas Ralph, Director, Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts,
    prepared statement

    431____________________________________________________________________

    Meissner, Doris, Commissioner, Immigration and Naturalization Service,
    Department of Justice

    169____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    172____________________________________________________________________

    Nugent, Christopher, Executive Director, Florence Immigrant and Refugee
    Rights Project, Inc., prepared statement

    384____________________________________________________________________

    Pearson, Michael A., Executive Associate Commissioner, Field Operations,
    Immigration and Naturalization Service, Department of Justice

    169____________________________________________________________________

    Reno, Hon. Janet, Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General,
    Department of Justice

    1______________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    4______________________________________________________________________

    Roberts, Paul, Chief Financial Officer, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
    Administration, Department of Commerce

    227____________________________________________________________________

    Soltow, Dr. Allen, Executive Director of Research, Sponsored Programs, and
    Governmentaommission, prepared statement

    446____________________________________________________________________

    Mecham, Leonidas Ralph, Director, Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts,
    prepared statement

    431____________________________________________________________________

    Meissner, Doris, Commissioner, Immigration and Naturalization Service,
    Department of Justice

    169____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    172____________________________________________________________________

    Nugent, Christopher, Executive Director, Florence Immigrant and Refugee
    Rights Project, Inc., prepared statement

    384____________________________________________________________________

    Pearson, Michael A., Executive Associate Commissioner, Field Operations,
    Immigration and Naturalization Service, Department of Justice

    169____________________________________________________________________

    Reno, Hon. Janet, Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General,
    Department of Justice

    1______________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    4______________________________________________________________________

    Roberts, Paul, Chief Financial Officer, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
    Administration, Department of Commerce

    227____________________________________________________________________

    Soltow, Dr. Allen, Executive Director of Research, Sponsored Programs, and
    Governmentared statement

    446____________________________________________________________________

    Mecham, Leonidas Ralph, Director, Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts,
    prepared statement

    431____________________________________________________________________

    Meissner, Doris, Commissioner, Immigration and Naturalization Service,
    Department of Justice

    169____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    172____________________________________________________________________

    Nugent, Christopher, Executive Director, Florence Immigrant and Refugee
    Rights Project, Inc., prepared statement

    384____________________________________________________________________

    Pearson, Michael A., Executive Associate Commissioner, Field Operations,
    Immigration and Naturalization Service, Department of Justice

    169____________________________________________________________________

    Reno, Hon. Janet, Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General,
    Department of Justice

    1______________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    4______________________________________________________________________

    Roberts, Paul, Chief Financial Officer, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
    Administration, Department of Commerce

    227____________________________________________________________________

    Soltow, Dr. Allen, Executive Director of Research, Sponsored Programs, and
    GovernmentaUL/

    446____________________________________________________________________

    Mecham, Leonidas Ralph, Director, Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts,
    prepared statement

    431____________________________________________________________________

    Meissner, Doris, Commissioner, Immigration and Naturalization Service,
    Department of Justice

    169____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    172____________________________________________________________________

    Nugent, Christopher, Executive Director, Florence Immigrant and Refugee
    Rights Project, Inc., prepared statement

    384____________________________________________________________________

    Pearson, Michael A., Executive Associate Commissioner, Field Operations,
    Immigration and Naturalization Service, Department of Justice

    169____________________________________________________________________

    Reno, Hon. Janet, Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General,
    Department of Justice

    1______________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    4______________________________________________________________________

    Roberts, Paul, Chief Financial Officer, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
    Administration, Department of Commerce

    227____________________________________________________________________

    Soltow, Dr. Allen, Executive Director of Research, Sponsored Programs, and
    GovernmentaDomenici, Hon. Pete V., U.S. Senator from New Mexico,
    questions submitted by ommission, prepared statement

    446____________________________________________________________________

    Mecham, Leonidas Ralph, Director, Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts,
    prepared statement

    431____________________________________________________________________

    Meissner, Doris, Commissioner, Immigration and Naturalization Service,
    Department of Justice

    169____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    172____________________________________________________________________

    Nugent, Christopher, Executive Director, Florence Immigrant and Refugee
    Rights Project, Inc., prepared statement

    384____________________________________________________________________

    Pearson, Michael A., Executive Associate Commissioner, Field Operations,
    Immigration and Naturalization Service, Department of Justice

    169____________________________________________________________________

    Reno, Hon. Janet, Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General,
    Department of Justice

    1______________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    4______________________________________________________________________

    Roberts, Paul, Chief Financial Officer, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
    Administration, Department of Commerce

    227____________________________________________________________________

    Soltow, Dr. Allen, Executive Director of Research, Sponsored Programs, and
    GovernmentaDNM/Mecham, Leonidas Ralph, Director,
    Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, prepared statement

    431____________________________________________________________________

    Meissner, Doris, Commissioner, Immigration and Naturalization Service,
    Department of Justice

    169____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    172____________________________________________________________________

    Nugent, Christopher, Executive Director, Florence Immigrant and Refugee
    Rights Project, Inc., prepared statement

    384____________________________________________________________________

    Pearson, Michael A., Executive Associate Commissioner, Field Operations,
    Immigration and Naturalization Service, Department of Justice

    169____________________________________________________________________

    Reno, Hon. Janet, Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General,
    Department of Justice

    1______________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    4______________________________________________________________________

    Roberts, Paul, Chief Financial Officer, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
    Administration, Department of Commerce

    227____________________________________________________________________

    Soltow, Dr. Allen, Executive Director of Research, Sponsored Programs, and
    Governmentaxchange Commis-
    sion

    313____________________________________________________________________

    McGrath, Timothy, Interim Staff Director, United States Sentencing
    Commission, prepared statement

    446____________________________________________________________________

    Mecham, Leonidas Ralph, Director, Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts,
    prepared statement

    431____________________________________________________________________

    Meissner, Doris, Commissioner, Immigration and Naturalization Service,
    Department of Justice

    169____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    172____________________________________________________________________

    Nugent, Christopher, Executive Director, Florence Immigrant and Refugee
    Rights Project, Inc., prepared statement

    384____________________________________________________________________

    Pearson, Michael A., Executive Associate Commissioner, Field Operations,
    Immigration and Naturalization Service, Department of Justice

    169____________________________________________________________________

    Reno, Hon. Janet, Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General,
    Department of Justice

    1______________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    4______________________________________________________________________

    Roberts, Paul, Chief Financial Officer, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
    Administration, Department of Commerce

    227____________________________________________________________________

    Soltow, Dr. Allen, Executive Director of Research, Sponsored Programs, and
    GovernmentaDNM/445

    McConnell, Hon. Mitch, U.S. Senator from Kentucky, questions submitted by

    82_____________________________________________________________________

    McConnell, James, Executive Director, Securities and Exchange Commis-
    sion

    313____________________________________________________________________

    McGrath, Timothy, Interim Staff Director, United States Sentencing
    Commission, prepared statement

    446____________________________________________________________________

    Mecham, Leonidas Ralph, Director, Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts,
    prepared statement

    431____________________________________________________________________

    Meissner, Doris, Commissioner, Immigration and Naturalization Service,
    Department of Justice

    169____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    172____________________________________________________________________

    Nugent, Christopher, Executive Director, Florence Immigrant and Refugee
    Rights Project, Inc., prepared statement

    384____________________________________________________________________

    Pearson, Michael A., Executive Associate Commissioner, Field Operations,
    Immigration and Naturalization Service, Department of Justice

    169____________________________________________________________________

    Reno, Hon. Janet, Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General,
    Department of Justice

    1______________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    4______________________________________________________________________

    Roberts, Paul, Chief Financial Officer, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
    Administration, Department of Commerce

    227____________________________________________________________________

    Soltow, Dr. Allen, Executive Director of Research, Sponsored Programs, and
    Governmentaterim Staff Director, United States Sentencing
    Commission, prepared statement

    446____________________________________________________________________

    Mecham, Leonidas Ralph, Director, Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts,
    prepared statement

    431____________________________________________________________________

    Meissner, Doris, Commissioner, Immigration and Naturalization Service,
    Department of Justice

    169____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    172____________________________________________________________________

    Nugent, Christopher, Executive Director, Florence Immigrant and Refugee
    Rights Project, Inc., prepared statement

    384____________________________________________________________________

    Pearson, Michael A., Executive Associate Commissioner, Field Operations,
    Immigration and Naturalization Service, Department of Justice

    169____________________________________________________________________

    Reno, Hon. Janet, Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General,
    Department of Justice

    1______________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    4______________________________________________________________________

    Roberts, Paul, Chief Financial Officer, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
    Administration, Department of Commerce

    227____________________________________________________________________

    Soltow, Dr. Allen, Executive Director of Research, Sponsored Programs, and
    GovernmentaUL/

    446____________________________________________________________________

    Mecham, Leonidas Ralph, Director, Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts,
    prepared statement

    431____________________________________________________________________

    Meissner, Doris, Commissioner, Immigration and Naturalization Service,
    Department of Justice

    169____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    172____________________________________________________________________

    Nugent, Christopher, Executive Director, Florence Immigrant and Refugee
    Rights Project, Inc., prepared statement

    384____________________________________________________________________

    Pearson, Michael A., Executive Associate Commissioner, Field Operations,
    Immigration and Naturalization Service, Department of Justice

    169____________________________________________________________________

    Reno, Hon. Janet, Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General,
    Department of Justice

    1______________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    4______________________________________________________________________

    Roberts, Paul, Chief Financial Officer, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
    Administration, Department of Commerce

    227____________________________________________________________________

    Soltow, Dr. Allen, Executive Director of Research, Sponsored Programs, and
    Governmentaath, Timothy, Interim Staff Director, United States
    Sentencing Commission, prepared statement

    446____________________________________________________________________

    Mecham, Leonidas Ralph, Director, Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts,
    prepared statement

    431____________________________________________________________________

    Meissner, Doris, Commissioner, Immigration and Naturalization Service,
    Department of Justice

    169____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    172____________________________________________________________________

    Nugent, Christopher, Executive Director, Florence Immigrant and Refugee
    Rights Project, Inc., prepared statement

    384____________________________________________________________________

    Pearson, Michael A., Executive Associate Commissioner, Field Operations,
    Immigration and Naturalization Service, Department of Justice

    169____________________________________________________________________

    Reno, Hon. Janet, Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General,
    Department of Justice

    1______________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    4______________________________________________________________________

    Roberts, Paul, Chief Financial Officer, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
    Administration, Department of Commerce

    227____________________________________________________________________

    Soltow, Dr. Allen, Executive Director of Research, Sponsored Programs, and
    Governmentaxchange Commis-
    sion

    313____________________________________________________________________

    McGrath, Timothy, Interim Staff Director, United States Sentencing
    Commission, prepared statement

    446____________________________________________________________________

    Mecham, Leonidas Ralph, Director, Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts,
    prepared statement

    431____________________________________________________________________

    Meissner, Doris, Commissioner, Immigration and Naturalization Service,
    Department of Justice

    169____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    172____________________________________________________________________

    Nugent, Christopher, Executive Director, Florence Immigrant and Refugee
    Rights Project, Inc., prepared statement

    384____________________________________________________________________

    Pearson, Michael A., Executive Associate Commissioner, Field Operations,
    Immigration and Naturalization Service, Department of Justice

    169____________________________________________________________________

    Reno, Hon. Janet, Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General,
    Department of Justice

    1______________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    4______________________________________________________________________

    Roberts, Paul, Chief Financial Officer, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
    Administration, Department of Commerce

    227____________________________________________________________________

    Soltow, Dr. Allen, Executive Director of Research, Sponsored Programs, and
    GovernmentaDNM/445

    McConnell, Hon. Mitch, U.S. Senator from Kentucky, questions submitted by

    82_____________________________________________________________________

    McConnell, James, Executive Director, Securities and Exchange Commis-
    sion

    313____________________________________________________________________

    McGrath, Timothy, Interim Staff Director, United States Sentencing
    Commission, prepared statement

    446____________________________________________________________________

    Mecham, Leonidas Ralph, Director, Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts,
    prepared statement

    431____________________________________________________________________

    Meissner, Doris, Commissioner, Immigration and Naturalization Service,
    Department of Justice

    169____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    172____________________________________________________________________

    Nugent, Christopher, Executive Director, Florence Immigrant and Refugee
    Rights Project, Inc., prepared statement

    384____________________________________________________________________

    Pearson, Michael A., Executive Associate Commissioner, Field Operations,
    Immigration and Naturalization Service, Department of Justice

    169____________________________________________________________________

    Reno, Hon. Janet, Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General,
    Department of Justice

    1______________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    4______________________________________________________________________

    Roberts, Paul, Chief Financial Officer, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
    Administration, Department of Commerce

    227____________________________________________________________________

    Soltow, Dr. Allen, Executive Director of Research, Sponsored Programs, and
    Governmentates Sentencing Commission, prepared statement

    446____________________________________________________________________

    Mecham, Leonidas Ralph, Director, Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts,
    prepared statement

    431____________________________________________________________________

    Meissner, Doris, Commissioner, Immigration and Naturalization Service,
    Department of Justice

    169____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    172____________________________________________________________________

    Nugent, Christopher, Executive Director, Florence Immigrant and Refugee
    Rights Project, Inc., prepared statement

    384____________________________________________________________________

    Pearson, Michael A., Executive Associate Commissioner, Field Operations,
    Immigration and Naturalization Service, Department of Justice

    169____________________________________________________________________

    Reno, Hon. Janet, Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General,
    Department of Justice

    1______________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    4______________________________________________________________________

    Roberts, Paul, Chief Financial Officer, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
    Administration, Department of Commerce

    227____________________________________________________________________

    Soltow, Dr. Allen, Executive Director of Research, Sponsored Programs, and
    Governmentaath, Timothy, Interim Staff Director, United States
    Sentencing Commission, prepared statement

    446____________________________________________________________________

    Mecham, Leonidas Ralph, Director, Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts,
    prepared statement

    431____________________________________________________________________

    Meissner, Doris, Commissioner, Immigration and Naturalization Service,
    Department of Justice

    169____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    172____________________________________________________________________

    Nugent, Christopher, Executive Director, Florence Immigrant and Refugee
    Rights Project, Inc., prepared statement

    384____________________________________________________________________

    Pearson, Michael A., Executive Associate Commissioner, Field Operations,
    Immigration and Naturalization Service, Department of Justice

    169____________________________________________________________________

    Reno, Hon. Janet, Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General,
    Department of Justice

    1______________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    4______________________________________________________________________

    Roberts, Paul, Chief Financial Officer, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
    Administration, Department of Commerce

    227____________________________________________________________________

    Soltow, Dr. Allen, Executive Director of Research, Sponsored Programs, and
    Governmenta

    Mecham, Leonidas Ralph, Director, Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts,
    prepared statement

    431____________________________________________________________________

    Meissner, Doris, Commissioner, Immigration and Naturalization Service,
    Department of Justice

    169____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    172____________________________________________________________________

    Nugent, Christopher, Executive Director, Florence Immigrant and Refugee
    Rights Project, Inc., prepared statement

    384____________________________________________________________________

    Pearson, Michael A., Executive Associate Commissioner, Field Operations,
    Immigration and Naturalization Service, Department of Justice

    169____________________________________________________________________

    Reno, Hon. Janet, Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General,
    Department of Justice

    1______________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    4______________________________________________________________________

    Roberts, Paul, Chief Financial Officer, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
    Administration, Department of Commerce

    227____________________________________________________________________

    Soltow, Dr. Allen, Executive Director of Research, Sponsored Programs, and
    Governmentaxchange Commis-
    sion

    313____________________________________________________________________

    McGrath, Timothy, Interim Staff Director, United States Sentencing
    Commission, prepared statement

    446____________________________________________________________________

    Mecham, Leonidas Ralph, Director, Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts,
    prepared statement

    431____________________________________________________________________

    Meissner, Doris, Commissioner, Immigration and Naturalization Service,
    Department of Justice

    169____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    172____________________________________________________________________

    Nugent, Christopher, Executive Director, Florence Immigrant and Refugee
    Rights Project, Inc., prepared statement

    384____________________________________________________________________

    Pearson, Michael A., Executive Associate Commissioner, Field Operations,
    Immigration and Naturalization Service, Department of Justice

    169____________________________________________________________________

    Reno, Hon. Janet, Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General,
    Department of Justice

    1______________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    4______________________________________________________________________

    Roberts, Paul, Chief Financial Officer, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
    Administration, Department of Commerce

    227____________________________________________________________________

    Soltow, Dr. Allen, Executive Director of Research, Sponsored Programs, and
    GovernmentaDNM/445

    McConnell, Hon. Mitch, U.S. Senator from Kentucky, questions submitted by

    82_____________________________________________________________________

    McConnell, James, Executive Director, Securities and Exchange Commis-
    sion

    313____________________________________________________________________

    McGrath, Timothy, Interim Staff Director, United States Sentencing
    Commission, prepared statement

    446____________________________________________________________________

    Mecham, Leonidas Ralph, Director, Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts,
    prepared statement

    431____________________________________________________________________

    Meissner, Doris, Commissioner, Immigration and Naturalization Service,
    Department of Justice

    169____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    172____________________________________________________________________

    Nugent, Christopher, Executive Director, Florence Immigrant and Refugee
    Rights Project, Inc., prepared statement

    384____________________________________________________________________

    Pearson, Michael A., Executive Associate Commissioner, Field Operations,
    Immigration and Naturalization Service, Department of Justice

    169____________________________________________________________________

    Reno, Hon. Janet, Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General,
    Department of Justice

    1______________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    4______________________________________________________________________

    Roberts, Paul, Chief Financial Officer, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
    Administration, Department of Commerce

    227____________________________________________________________________

    Soltow, Dr. Allen, Executive Director of Research, Sponsored Programs, and
    Governmentates Sentencing Commission, prepared statement

    446____________________________________________________________________

    Mecham, Leonidas Ralph, Director, Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts,
    prepared statement

    431____________________________________________________________________

    Meissner, Doris, Commissioner, Immigration and Naturalization Service,
    Department of Justice

    169____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    172____________________________________________________________________

    Nugent, Christopher, Executive Director, Florence Immigrant and Refugee
    Rights Project, Inc., prepared statement

    384____________________________________________________________________

    Pearson, Michael A., Executive Associate Commissioner, Field Operations,
    Immigration and Naturalization Service, Department of Justice

    169____________________________________________________________________

    Reno, Hon. Janet, Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General,
    Department of Justice

    1______________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    4______________________________________________________________________

    Roberts, Paul, Chief Financial Officer, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
    Administration, Department of Commerce

    227____________________________________________________________________

    Soltow, Dr. Allen, Executive Director of Research, Sponsored Programs, and
    GovernmentaUL/

    446____________________________________________________________________

    Mecham, Leonidas Ralph, Director, Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts,
    prepared statement

    431____________________________________________________________________

    Meissner, Doris, Commissioner, Immigration and Naturalization Service,
    Department of Justice

    169____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    172____________________________________________________________________

    Nugent, Christopher, Executive Director, Florence Immigrant and Refugee
    Rights Project, Inc., prepared statement

    384____________________________________________________________________

    Pearson, Michael A., Executive Associate Commissioner, Field Operations,
    Immigration and Naturalization Service, Department of Justice

    169____________________________________________________________________

    Reno, Hon. Janet, Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General,
    Department of Justice

    1______________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    4______________________________________________________________________

    Roberts, Paul, Chief Financial Officer, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
    Administration, Department of Commerce

    227____________________________________________________________________

    Soltow, Dr. Allen, Executive Director of Research, Sponsored Programs, and
    Governmentaath, Timothy, Interim Staff Director, United States
    Sentencing Commission, prepared statement

    446____________________________________________________________________

    Mecham, Leonidas Ralph, Director, Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts,
    prepared statement

    431____________________________________________________________________

    Meissner, Doris, Commissioner, Immigration and Naturalization Service,
    Department of Justice

    169____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    172____________________________________________________________________

    Nugent, Christopher, Executive Director, Florence Immigrant and Refugee
    Rights Project, Inc., prepared statement

    384____________________________________________________________________

    Pearson, Michael A., Executive Associate Commissioner, Field Operations,
    Immigration and Naturalization Service, Department of Justice

    169____________________________________________________________________

    Reno, Hon. Janet, Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General,
    Department of Justice

    1______________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    4______________________________________________________________________

    Roberts, Paul, Chief Financial Officer, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
    Administration, Department of Commerce

    227____________________________________________________________________

    Soltow, Dr. Allen, Executive Director of Research, Sponsored Programs, and
    GovernmentaErenbaum, Allen, Director, Office of Congressional
    Relations, Immigration and Naturalization Service, Department of Justice..
    169Fishel, Andrew, Managing Director, Federal Communications
    Commission..................................................... 325Foster,
    Nancy, Assistant Administrator for Ocean Services, National Oceanic and
    Atmospheric Administration, Department of
    Commerce....................................................... 227Freeh,
    Louis J., Director, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Department of Justice
    ctor, United States Sentencing Commission, prepared statement

    446____________________________________________________________________

    Mecham, Leonidas Ralph, Director, Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts,
    prepared statement

    431____________________________________________________________________

    Meissner, Doris, Commissioner, Immigration and Naturalization Service,
    Department of Justice

    169____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    172____________________________________________________________________

    Nugent, Christopher, Executive Director, Florence Immigrant and Refugee
    Rights Project, Inc., prepared statement

    384____________________________________________________________________

    Pearson, Michael A., Executive Associate Commissioner, Field Operations,
    Immigration and Naturalization Service, Department of Justice

    169____________________________________________________________________

    Reno, Hon. Janet, Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General,
    Department of Justice

    1______________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    4______________________________________________________________________

    Roberts, Paul, Chief Financial Officer, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
    Administration, Department of Commerce

    227____________________________________________________________________

    Soltow, Dr. Allen, Executive Director of Research, Sponsored Programs, and
    GovernmentaUL/

    446____________________________________________________________________

    Mecham, Leonidas Ralph, Director, Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts,
    prepared statement

    431____________________________________________________________________

    Meissner, Doris, Commissioner, Immigration and Naturalization Service,
    Department of Justice

    169____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    172____________________________________________________________________

    Nugent, Christopher, Executive Director, Florence Immigrant and Refugee
    Rights Project, Inc., prepared statement

    384____________________________________________________________________

    Pearson, Michael A., Executive Associate Commissioner, Field Operations,
    Immigration and Naturalization Service, Department of Justice

    169____________________________________________________________________

    Reno, Hon. Janet, Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General,
    Department of Justice

    1______________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    4______________________________________________________________________

    Roberts, Paul, Chief Financial Officer, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
    Administration, Department of Commerce

    227____________________________________________________________________

    Soltow, Dr. Allen, Executive Director of Research, Sponsored Programs, and
    Governmentaterim Staff Director, United States Sentencing
    Commission, prepared statement

    446____________________________________________________________________

    Mecham, Leonidas Ralph, Director, Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts,
    prepared statement

    431____________________________________________________________________

    Meissner, Doris, Commissioner, Immigration and Naturalization Service,
    Department of Justice

    169____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    172____________________________________________________________________

    Nugent, Christopher, Executive Director, Florence Immigrant and Refugee
    Rights Project, Inc., prepared statement

    384____________________________________________________________________

    Pearson, Michael A., Executive Associate Commissioner, Field Operations,
    Immigration and Naturalization Service, Department of Justice

    169____________________________________________________________________

    Reno, Hon. Janet, Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General,
    Department of Justice

    1______________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    4______________________________________________________________________

    Roberts, Paul, Chief Financial Officer, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
    Administration, Department of Commerce

    227____________________________________________________________________

    Soltow, Dr. Allen, Executive Director of Research, Sponsored Programs, and
    Governmentaxchange Commis-
    sion

    313____________________________________________________________________

    McGrath, Timothy, Interim Staff Director, United States Sentencing
    Commission, prepared statement

    446____________________________________________________________________

    Mecham, Leonidas Ralph, Director, Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts,
    prepared statement

    431____________________________________________________________________

    Meissner, Doris, Commissioner, Immigration and Naturalization Service,
    Department of Justice

    169____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    172____________________________________________________________________

    Nugent, Christopher, Executive Director, Florence Immigrant and Refugee
    Rights Project, Inc., prepared statement

    384____________________________________________________________________

    Pearson, Michael A., Executive Associate Commissioner, Field Operations,
    Immigration and Naturalization Service, Department of Justice

    169____________________________________________________________________

    Reno, Hon. Janet, Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General,
    Department of Justice

    1______________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    4______________________________________________________________________

    Roberts, Paul, Chief Financial Officer, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
    Administration, Department of Commerce

    227____________________________________________________________________

    Soltow, Dr. Allen, Executive Director of Research, Sponsored Programs, and
    GovernmentaDNM/445

    McConnell, Hon. Mitch, U.S. Senator from Kentucky, questions submitted by

    82_____________________________________________________________________

    McConnell, James, Executive Director, Securities and Exchange Commis-
    sion

    313____________________________________________________________________

    McGrath, Timothy, Interim Staff Director, United States Sentencing
    Commission, prepared statement

    446____________________________________________________________________

    Mecham, Leonidas Ralph, Director, Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts,
    prepared statement

    431____________________________________________________________________

    Meissner, Doris, Commissioner, Immigration and Naturalization Service,
    Department of Justice

    169____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    172____________________________________________________________________

    Nugent, Christopher, Executive Director, Florence Immigrant and Refugee
    Rights Project, Inc., prepared statement

    384____________________________________________________________________

    Pearson, Michael A., Executive Associate Commissioner, Field Operations,
    Immigration and Naturalization Service, Department of Justice

    169____________________________________________________________________

    Reno, Hon. Janet, Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General,
    Department of Justice

    1______________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    4______________________________________________________________________

    Roberts, Paul, Chief Financial Officer, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
    Administration, Department of Commerce

    227____________________________________________________________________

    Soltow, Dr. Allen, Executive Director of Research, Sponsored Programs, and
    Governmentactor, United States Sentencing Commission,
    prepared statement

    446____________________________________________________________________

    Mecham, Leonidas Ralph, Director, Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts,
    prepared statement

    431____________________________________________________________________

    Meissner, Doris, Commissioner, Immigration and Naturalization Service,
    Department of Justice

    169____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    172____________________________________________________________________

    Nugent, Christopher, Executive Director, Florence Immigrant and Refugee
    Rights Project, Inc., prepared statement

    384____________________________________________________________________

    Pearson, Michael A., Executive Associate Commissioner, Field Operations,
    Immigration and Naturalization Service, Department of Justice

    169____________________________________________________________________

    Reno, Hon. Janet, Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General,
    Department of Justice

    1______________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    4______________________________________________________________________

    Roberts, Paul, Chief Financial Officer, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
    Administration, Department of Commerce

    227____________________________________________________________________

    Soltow, Dr. Allen, Executive Director of Research, Sponsored Programs, and
    Governmenta

    Mecham, Leonidas Ralph, Director, Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts,
    prepared statement

    431____________________________________________________________________

    Meissner, Doris, Commissioner, Immigration and Naturalization Service,
    Department of Justice

    169____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    172____________________________________________________________________

    Nugent, Christopher, Executive Director, Florence Immigrant and Refugee
    Rights Project, Inc., prepared statement

    384____________________________________________________________________

    Pearson, Michael A., Executive Associate Commissioner, Field Operations,
    Immigration and Naturalization Service, Department of Justice

    169____________________________________________________________________

    Reno, Hon. Janet, Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General,
    Department of Justice

    1______________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    4______________________________________________________________________

    Roberts, Paul, Chief Financial Officer, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
    Administration, Department of Commerce

    227____________________________________________________________________

    Soltow, Dr. Allen, Executive Director of Research, Sponsored Programs, and
    Governmentates Sentencing Commission, prepared statement

    446____________________________________________________________________

    Mecham, Leonidas Ralph, Director, Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts,
    prepared statement

    431____________________________________________________________________

    Meissner, Doris, Commissioner, Immigration and Naturalization Service,
    Department of Justice

    169____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    172____________________________________________________________________

    Nugent, Christopher, Executive Director, Florence Immigrant and Refugee
    Rights Project, Inc., prepared statement

    384____________________________________________________________________

    Pearson, Michael A., Executive Associate Commissioner, Field Operations,
    Immigration and Naturalization Service, Department of Justice

    169____________________________________________________________________

    Reno, Hon. Janet, Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General,
    Department of Justice

    1______________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    4______________________________________________________________________

    Roberts, Paul, Chief Financial Officer, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
    Administration, Department of Commerce

    227____________________________________________________________________

    Soltow, Dr. Allen, Executive Director of Research, Sponsored Programs, and
    Governmenta Prepared
    statement........................................... 276Fuller, William P.,
    President, The Asia Foundation, prepared
    statement...................................................... 426Garcia,
    Terry D., Assistant Secretary for Oceans and Atmosphere, National Oceanic
    and Atmospheric Administration, Department of
    Commerce....................................................... 227Geisler,
    Daniel F., President, American Foreign Service Association, prepared
    statement................................ 420Glenn, Gary A., President,
    Massachusetts Foundation for Excellence in Marine and Polymer Sciences,
    prepared statement.. 389Gorton, Hon. Slade, U.S. Senator from Washington,
    questions submitted by...................................................
    115Gudes, Scott, Deputy Under Secretary, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
    Administration, Department of Commerce............. 227Hayes, Richard,
    Associate Deputy Administrator for Government Contracting and Minority
    Enterprise Development, Small Business
    Administration................................................. 245Heyburn,
    John G., II, Chairman, Committee on the Budget of the Judicial Conference
    of the United States, prepared statement... 435Inouye, Hon. Daniel K., U.S.
    Senator from Hawaii, questions submitted by ctor, United States
    Sentencing Commission, prepared statement

    446____________________________________________________________________

    Mecham, Leonidas Ralph, Director, Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts,
    prepared statement

    431____________________________________________________________________

    Meissner, Doris, Commissioner, Immigration and Naturalization Service,
    Department of Justice

    169____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    172____________________________________________________________________

    Nugent, Christopher, Executive Director, Florence Immigrant and Refugee
    Rights Project, Inc., prepared statement

    384____________________________________________________________________

    Pearson, Michael A., Executive Associate Commissioner, Field Operations,
    Immigration and Naturalization Service, Department of Justice

    169____________________________________________________________________

    Reno, Hon. Janet, Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General,
    Department of Justice

    1______________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    4______________________________________________________________________

    Roberts, Paul, Chief Financial Officer, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
    Administration, Department of Commerce

    227____________________________________________________________________

    Soltow, Dr. Allen, Executive Director of Research, Sponsored Programs, and
    Governmentaterim Staff Director, United States Sentencing
    Commission, prepared statement

    446____________________________________________________________________

    Mecham, Leonidas Ralph, Director, Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts,
    prepared statement

    431____________________________________________________________________

    Meissner, Doris, Commissioner, Immigration and Naturalization Service,
    Department of Justice

    169____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    172____________________________________________________________________

    Nugent, Christopher, Executive Director, Florence Immigrant and Refugee
    Rights Project, Inc., prepared statement

    384____________________________________________________________________

    Pearson, Michael A., Executive Associate Commissioner, Field Operations,
    Immigration and Naturalization Service, Department of Justice

    169____________________________________________________________________

    Reno, Hon. Janet, Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General,
    Department of Justice

    1______________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    4______________________________________________________________________

    Roberts, Paul, Chief Financial Officer, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
    Administration, Department of Commerce

    227____________________________________________________________________

    Soltow, Dr. Allen, Executive Director of Research, Sponsored Programs, and
    Governmentaath, Timothy, Interim Staff Director, United States
    Sentencing Commission, prepared statement

    446____________________________________________________________________

    Mecham, Leonidas Ralph, Director, Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts,
    prepared statement

    431____________________________________________________________________

    Meissner, Doris, Commissioner, Immigration and Naturalization Service,
    Department of Justice

    169____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    172____________________________________________________________________

    Nugent, Christopher, Executive Director, Florence Immigrant and Refugee
    Rights Project, Inc., prepared statement

    384____________________________________________________________________

    Pearson, Michael A., Executive Associate Commissioner, Field Operations,
    Immigration and Naturalization Service, Department of Justice

    169____________________________________________________________________

    Reno, Hon. Janet, Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General,
    Department of Justice

    1______________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    4______________________________________________________________________

    Roberts, Paul, Chief Financial Officer, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
    Administration, Department of Commerce

    227____________________________________________________________________

    Soltow, Dr. Allen, Executive Director of Research, Sponsored Programs, and
    Governmentaxchange Commis-
    sion

    313____________________________________________________________________

    McGrath, Timothy, Interim Staff Director, United States Sentencing
    Commission, prepared statement

    446____________________________________________________________________

    Mecham, Leonidas Ralph, Director, Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts,
    prepared statement

    431____________________________________________________________________

    Meissner, Doris, Commissioner, Immigration and Naturalization Service,
    Department of Justice

    169____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    172____________________________________________________________________

    Nugent, Christopher, Executive Director, Florence Immigrant and Refugee
    Rights Project, Inc., prepared statement

    384____________________________________________________________________

    Pearson, Michael A., Executive Associate Commissioner, Field Operations,
    Immigration and Naturalization Service, Department of Justice

    169____________________________________________________________________

    Reno, Hon. Janet, Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General,
    Department of Justice

    1______________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    4______________________________________________________________________

    Roberts, Paul, Chief Financial Officer, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
    Administration, Department of Commerce

    227____________________________________________________________________

    Soltow, Dr. Allen, Executive Director of Research, Sponsored Programs, and
    GovernmentaDNM/445

    McConnell, Hon. Mitch, U.S. Senator from Kentucky, questions submitted by

    82_____________________________________________________________________

    McConnell, James, Executive Director, Securities and Exchange Commis-
    sion

    313____________________________________________________________________

    McGrath, Timothy, Interim Staff Director, United States Sentencing
    Commission, prepared statement

    446____________________________________________________________________

    Mecham, Leonidas Ralph, Director, Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts,
    prepared statement

    431____________________________________________________________________

    Meissner, Doris, Commissioner, Immigration and Naturalization Service,
    Department of Justice

    169____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    172____________________________________________________________________

    Nugent, Christopher, Executive Director, Florence Immigrant and Refugee
    Rights Project, Inc., prepared statement

    384____________________________________________________________________

    Pearson, Michael A., Executive Associate Commissioner, Field Operations,
    Immigration and Naturalization Service, Department of Justice

    169____________________________________________________________________

    Reno, Hon. Janet, Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General,
    Department of Justice

    1______________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    4______________________________________________________________________

    Roberts, Paul, Chief Financial Officer, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
    Administration, Department of Commerce

    227____________________________________________________________________

    Soltow, Dr. Allen, Executive Director of Research, Sponsored Programs, and
    Governmentactor, United States Sentencing Commission,
    prepared statement

    446____________________________________________________________________

    Mecham, Leonidas Ralph, Director, Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts,
    prepared statement

    431____________________________________________________________________

    Meissner, Doris, Commissioner, Immigration and Naturalization Service,
    Department of Justice

    169____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    172____________________________________________________________________

    Nugent, Christopher, Executive Director, Florence Immigrant and Refugee
    Rights Project, Inc., prepared statement

    384____________________________________________________________________

    Pearson, Michael A., Executive Associate Commissioner, Field Operations,
    Immigration and Naturalization Service, Department of Justice

    169____________________________________________________________________

    Reno, Hon. Janet, Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General,
    Department of Justice

    1______________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    4______________________________________________________________________

    Roberts, Paul, Chief Financial Officer, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
    Administration, Department of Commerce

    227____________________________________________________________________

    Soltow, Dr. Allen, Executive Director of Research, Sponsored Programs, and
    Governmentates Sentencing Commission, prepared statement

    446____________________________________________________________________

    Mecham, Leonidas Ralph, Director, Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts,
    prepared statement

    431____________________________________________________________________

    Meissner, Doris, Commissioner, Immigration and Naturalization Service,
    Department of Justice

    169____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    172____________________________________________________________________

    Nugent, Christopher, Executive Director, Florence Immigrant and Refugee
    Rights Project, Inc., prepared statement

    384____________________________________________________________________

    Pearson, Michael A., Executive Associate Commissioner, Field Operations,
    Immigration and Naturalization Service, Department of Justice

    169____________________________________________________________________

    Reno, Hon. Janet, Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General,
    Department of Justice

    1______________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    4______________________________________________________________________

    Roberts, Paul, Chief Financial Officer, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
    Administration, Department of Commerce

    227____________________________________________________________________

    Soltow, Dr. Allen, Executive Director of Research, Sponsored Programs, and
    GovernmentaDNM/Mecham, Leonidas Ralph, Director,
    Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, prepared statement

    431____________________________________________________________________

    Meissner, Doris, Commissioner, Immigration and Naturalization Service,
    Department of Justice

    169____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    172____________________________________________________________________

    Nugent, Christopher, Executive Director, Florence Immigrant and Refugee
    Rights Project, Inc., prepared statement

    384____________________________________________________________________

    Pearson, Michael A., Executive Associate Commissioner, Field Operations,
    Immigration and Naturalization Service, Department of Justice

    169____________________________________________________________________

    Reno, Hon. Janet, Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General,
    Department of Justice

    1______________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    4______________________________________________________________________

    Roberts, Paul, Chief Financial Officer, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
    Administration, Department of Commerce

    227____________________________________________________________________

    Soltow, Dr. Allen, Executive Director of Research, Sponsored Programs, and
    GovernmentaInternational Trademark Association, prepared
    statement.......... 381Investment Company Institute, prepared
    statement................. 464James, Hon. Sharpe, Mayor, City of Newark,
    NJ, prepared statements tes Sentencing Commission, prepared
    statement

    446____________________________________________________________________

    Mecham, Leonidas Ralph, Director, Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts,
    prepared statement

    431____________________________________________________________________

    Meissner, Doris, Commissioner, Immigration and Naturalization Service,
    Department of Justice

    169____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    172____________________________________________________________________

    Nugent, Christopher, Executive Director, Florence Immigrant and Refugee
    Rights Project, Inc., prepared statement

    384____________________________________________________________________

    Pearson, Michael A., Executive Associate Commissioner, Field Operations,
    Immigration and Naturalization Service, Department of Justice

    169____________________________________________________________________

    Reno, Hon. Janet, Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General,
    Department of Justice

    1______________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    4______________________________________________________________________

    Roberts, Paul, Chief Financial Officer, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
    Administration, Department of Commerce

    227____________________________________________________________________

    Soltow, Dr. Allen, Executive Director of Research, Sponsored Programs, and
    Governmenta

    Mecham, Leonidas Ralph, Director, Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts,
    prepared statement

    431____________________________________________________________________

    Meissner, Doris, Commissioner, Immigration and Naturalization Service,
    Department of Justice

    169____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    172____________________________________________________________________

    Nugent, Christopher, Executive Director, Florence Immigrant and Refugee
    Rights Project, Inc., prepared statement

    384____________________________________________________________________

    Pearson, Michael A., Executive Associate Commissioner, Field Operations,
    Immigration and Naturalization Service, Department of Justice

    169____________________________________________________________________

    Reno, Hon. Janet, Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General,
    Department of Justice

    1______________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    4______________________________________________________________________

    Roberts, Paul, Chief Financial Officer, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
    Administration, Department of Commerce

    227____________________________________________________________________

    Soltow, Dr. Allen, Executive Director of Research, Sponsored Programs, and
    Governmentared statement

    446____________________________________________________________________

    Mecham, Leonidas Ralph, Director, Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts,
    prepared statement

    431____________________________________________________________________

    Meissner, Doris, Commissioner, Immigration and Naturalization Service,
    Department of Justice

    169____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    172____________________________________________________________________

    Nugent, Christopher, Executive Director, Florence Immigrant and Refugee
    Rights Project, Inc., prepared statement

    384____________________________________________________________________

    Pearson, Michael A., Executive Associate Commissioner, Field Operations,
    Immigration and Naturalization Service, Department of Justice

    169____________________________________________________________________

    Reno, Hon. Janet, Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General,
    Department of Justice

    1______________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    4______________________________________________________________________

    Roberts, Paul, Chief Financial Officer, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
    Administration, Department of Commerce

    227____________________________________________________________________

    Soltow, Dr. Allen, Executive Director of Research, Sponsored Programs, and
    Governmentaxchange Commis-
    sion

    313____________________________________________________________________

    McGrath, Timothy, Interim Staff Director, United States Sentencing
    Commission, prepared statement

    446____________________________________________________________________

    Mecham, Leonidas Ralph, Director, Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts,
    prepared statement

    431____________________________________________________________________

    Meissner, Doris, Commissioner, Immigration and Naturalization Service,
    Department of Justice

    169____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    172____________________________________________________________________

    Nugent, Christopher, Executive Director, Florence Immigrant and Refugee
    Rights Project, Inc., prepared statement

    384____________________________________________________________________

    Pearson, Michael A., Executive Associate Commissioner, Field Operations,
    Immigration and Naturalization Service, Department of Justice

    169____________________________________________________________________

    Reno, Hon. Janet, Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General,
    Department of Justice

    1______________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    4______________________________________________________________________

    Roberts, Paul, Chief Financial Officer, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
    Administration, Department of Commerce

    227____________________________________________________________________

    Soltow, Dr. Allen, Executive Director of Research, Sponsored Programs, and
    GovernmentaDNM/445

    McConnell, Hon. Mitch, U.S. Senator from Kentucky, questions submitted by

    82_____________________________________________________________________

    McConnell, James, Executive Director, Securities and Exchange Commis-
    sion

    313____________________________________________________________________

    McGrath, Timothy, Interim Staff Director, United States Sentencing
    Commission, prepared statement

    446____________________________________________________________________

    Mecham, Leonidas Ralph, Director, Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts,
    prepared statement

    431____________________________________________________________________

    Meissner, Doris, Commissioner, Immigration and Naturalization Service,
    Department of Justice

    169____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    172____________________________________________________________________

    Nugent, Christopher, Executive Director, Florence Immigrant and Refugee
    Rights Project, Inc., prepared statement

    384____________________________________________________________________

    Pearson, Michael A., Executive Associate Commissioner, Field Operations,
    Immigration and Naturalization Service, Department of Justice

    169____________________________________________________________________

    Reno, Hon. Janet, Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General,
    Department of Justice

    1______________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    4______________________________________________________________________

    Roberts, Paul, Chief Financial Officer, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
    Administration, Department of Commerce

    227____________________________________________________________________

    Soltow, Dr. Allen, Executive Director of Research, Sponsored Programs, and
    Governmentaommission, prepared statement

    446____________________________________________________________________

    Mecham, Leonidas Ralph, Director, Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts,
    prepared statement

    431____________________________________________________________________

    Meissner, Doris, Commissioner, Immigration and Naturalization Service,
    Department of Justice

    169____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    172____________________________________________________________________

    Nugent, Christopher, Executive Director, Florence Immigrant and Refugee
    Rights Project, Inc., prepared statement

    384____________________________________________________________________

    Pearson, Michael A., Executive Associate Commissioner, Field Operations,
    Immigration and Naturalization Service, Department of Justice

    169____________________________________________________________________

    Reno, Hon. Janet, Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General,
    Department of Justice

    1______________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    4______________________________________________________________________

    Roberts, Paul, Chief Financial Officer, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
    Administration, Department of Commerce

    227____________________________________________________________________

    Soltow, Dr. Allen, Executive Director of Research, Sponsored Programs, and
    Governmentared statement

    446____________________________________________________________________

    Mecham, Leonidas Ralph, Director, Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts,
    prepared statement

    431____________________________________________________________________

    Meissner, Doris, Commissioner, Immigration and Naturalization Service,
    Department of Justice

    169____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    172____________________________________________________________________

    Nugent, Christopher, Executive Director, Florence Immigrant and Refugee
    Rights Project, Inc., prepared statement

    384____________________________________________________________________

    Pearson, Michael A., Executive Associate Commissioner, Field Operations,
    Immigration and Naturalization Service, Department of Justice

    169____________________________________________________________________

    Reno, Hon. Janet, Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General,
    Department of Justice

    1______________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    4______________________________________________________________________

    Roberts, Paul, Chief Financial Officer, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
    Administration, Department of Commerce

    227____________________________________________________________________

    Soltow, Dr. Allen, Executive Director of Research, Sponsored Programs, and
    Governmentactor, United States Sentencing Commission,
    prepared statement

    446____________________________________________________________________

    Mecham, Leonidas Ralph, Director, Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts,
    prepared statement

    431____________________________________________________________________

    Meissner, Doris, Commissioner, Immigration and Naturalization Service,
    Department of Justice

    169____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    172____________________________________________________________________

    Nugent, Christopher, Executive Director, Florence Immigrant and Refugee
    Rights Project, Inc., prepared statement

    384____________________________________________________________________

    Pearson, Michael A., Executive Associate Commissioner, Field Operations,
    Immigration and Naturalization Service, Department of Justice

    169____________________________________________________________________

    Reno, Hon. Janet, Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General,
    Department of Justice

    1______________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    4______________________________________________________________________

    Roberts, Paul, Chief Financial Officer, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
    Administration, Department of Commerce

    227____________________________________________________________________

    Soltow, Dr. Allen, Executive Director of Research, Sponsored Programs, and
    GovernmentaJollivette, Cyrus M., Vice President for Government
    Relations, University of Miami, prepared statements ommission,
    prepared statement

    446____________________________________________________________________

    Mecham, Leonidas Ralph, Director, Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts,
    prepared statement

    431____________________________________________________________________

    Meissner, Doris, Commissioner, Immigration and Naturalization Service,
    Department of Justice

    169____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    172____________________________________________________________________

    Nugent, Christopher, Executive Director, Florence Immigrant and Refugee
    Rights Project, Inc., prepared statement

    384____________________________________________________________________

    Pearson, Michael A., Executive Associate Commissioner, Field Operations,
    Immigration and Naturalization Service, Department of Justice

    169____________________________________________________________________

    Reno, Hon. Janet, Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General,
    Department of Justice

    1______________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    4______________________________________________________________________

    Roberts, Paul, Chief Financial Officer, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
    Administration, Department of Commerce

    227____________________________________________________________________

    Soltow, Dr. Allen, Executive Director of Research, Sponsored Programs, and
    Governmentaath, Timothy, Interim Staff Director, United States
    Sentencing Commission, prepared statement

    446____________________________________________________________________

    Mecham, Leonidas Ralph, Director, Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts,
    prepared statement

    431____________________________________________________________________

    Meissner, Doris, Commissioner, Immigration and Naturalization Service,
    Department of Justice

    169____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    172____________________________________________________________________

    Nugent, Christopher, Executive Director, Florence Immigrant and Refugee
    Rights Project, Inc., prepared statement

    384____________________________________________________________________

    Pearson, Michael A., Executive Associate Commissioner, Field Operations,
    Immigration and Naturalization Service, Department of Justice

    169____________________________________________________________________

    Reno, Hon. Janet, Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General,
    Department of Justice

    1______________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    4______________________________________________________________________

    Roberts, Paul, Chief Financial Officer, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
    Administration, Department of Commerce

    227____________________________________________________________________

    Soltow, Dr. Allen, Executive Director of Research, Sponsored Programs, and
    Governmentates Sentencing Commission, prepared statement

    446____________________________________________________________________

    Mecham, Leonidas Ralph, Director, Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts,
    prepared statement

    431____________________________________________________________________

    Meissner, Doris, Commissioner, Immigration and Naturalization Service,
    Department of Justice

    169____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    172____________________________________________________________________

    Nugent, Christopher, Executive Director, Florence Immigrant and Refugee
    Rights Project, Inc., prepared statement

    384____________________________________________________________________

    Pearson, Michael A., Executive Associate Commissioner, Field Operations,
    Immigration and Naturalization Service, Department of Justice

    169____________________________________________________________________

    Reno, Hon. Janet, Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General,
    Department of Justice

    1______________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    4______________________________________________________________________

    Roberts, Paul, Chief Financial Officer, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
    Administration, Department of Commerce

    227____________________________________________________________________

    Soltow, Dr. Allen, Executive Director of Research, Sponsored Programs, and
    Governmentaxchange Commis-
    sion

    313____________________________________________________________________

    McGrath, Timothy, Interim Staff Director, United States Sentencing
    Commission, prepared statement

    446____________________________________________________________________

    Mecham, Leonidas Ralph, Director, Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts,
    prepared statement

    431____________________________________________________________________

    Meissner, Doris, Commissioner, Immigration and Naturalization Service,
    Department of Justice

    169____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    172____________________________________________________________________

    Nugent, Christopher, Executive Director, Florence Immigrant and Refugee
    Rights Project, Inc., prepared statement

    384____________________________________________________________________

    Pearson, Michael A., Executive Associate Commissioner, Field Operations,
    Immigration and Naturalization Service, Department of Justice

    169____________________________________________________________________

    Reno, Hon. Janet, Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General,
    Department of Justice

    1______________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    4______________________________________________________________________

    Roberts, Paul, Chief Financial Officer, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
    Administration, Department of Commerce

    227____________________________________________________________________

    Soltow, Dr. Allen, Executive Director of Research, Sponsored Programs, and
    GovernmentaDNM/445

    McConnell, Hon. Mitch, U.S. Senator from Kentucky, questions submitted by

    82_____________________________________________________________________

    McConnell, James, Executive Director, Securities and Exchange Commis-
    sion

    313____________________________________________________________________

    McGrath, Timothy, Interim Staff Director, United States Sentencing
    Commission, prepared statement

    446____________________________________________________________________

    Mecham, Leonidas Ralph, Director, Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts,
    prepared statement

    431____________________________________________________________________

    Meissner, Doris, Commissioner, Immigration and Naturalization Service,
    Department of Justice

    169____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    172____________________________________________________________________

    Nugent, Christopher, Executive Director, Florence Immigrant and Refugee
    Rights Project, Inc., prepared statement

    384____________________________________________________________________

    Pearson, Michael A., Executive Associate Commissioner, Field Operations,
    Immigration and Naturalization Service, Department of Justice

    169____________________________________________________________________

    Reno, Hon. Janet, Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General,
    Department of Justice

    1______________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    4______________________________________________________________________

    Roberts, Paul, Chief Financial Officer, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
    Administration, Department of Commerce

    227____________________________________________________________________

    Soltow, Dr. Allen, Executive Director of Research, Sponsored Programs, and
    Governmentaommission, prepared statement

    446____________________________________________________________________

    Mecham, Leonidas Ralph, Director, Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts,
    prepared statement

    431____________________________________________________________________

    Meissner, Doris, Commissioner, Immigration and Naturalization Service,
    Department of Justice

    169____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    172____________________________________________________________________

    Nugent, Christopher, Executive Director, Florence Immigrant and Refugee
    Rights Project, Inc., prepared statement

    384____________________________________________________________________

    Pearson, Michael A., Executive Associate Commissioner, Field Operations,
    Immigration and Naturalization Service, Department of Justice

    169____________________________________________________________________

    Reno, Hon. Janet, Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General,
    Department of Justice

    1______________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    4______________________________________________________________________

    Roberts, Paul, Chief Financial Officer, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
    Administration, Department of Commerce

    227____________________________________________________________________

    Soltow, Dr. Allen, Executive Director of Research, Sponsored Programs, and
    Governmentared statement

    446____________________________________________________________________

    Mecham, Leonidas Ralph, Director, Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts,
    prepared statement

    431____________________________________________________________________

    Meissner, Doris, Commissioner, Immigration and Naturalization Service,
    Department of Justice

    169____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    172____________________________________________________________________

    Nugent, Christopher, Executive Director, Florence Immigrant and Refugee
    Rights Project, Inc., prepared statement

    384____________________________________________________________________

    Pearson, Michael A., Executive Associate Commissioner, Field Operations,
    Immigration and Naturalization Service, Department of Justice

    169____________________________________________________________________

    Reno, Hon. Janet, Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General,
    Department of Justice

    1______________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    4______________________________________________________________________

    Roberts, Paul, Chief Financial Officer, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
    Administration, Department of Commerce

    227____________________________________________________________________

    Soltow, Dr. Allen, Executive Director of Research, Sponsored Programs, and
    Governmentaidas Ralph, Director, Administrative Office of
    the U.S. Courts, prepared statement

    431____________________________________________________________________

    Meissner, Doris, Commissioner, Immigration and Naturalization Service,
    Department of Justice

    169____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    172____________________________________________________________________

    Nugent, Christopher, Executive Director, Florence Immigrant and Refugee
    Rights Project, Inc., prepared statement

    384____________________________________________________________________

    Pearson, Michael A., Executive Associate Commissioner, Field Operations,
    Immigration and Naturalization Service, Department of Justice

    169____________________________________________________________________

    Reno, Hon. Janet, Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General,
    Department of Justice

    1______________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    4______________________________________________________________________

    Roberts, Paul, Chief Financial Officer, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
    Administration, Department of Commerce

    227____________________________________________________________________

    Soltow, Dr. Allen, Executive Director of Research, Sponsored Programs, and
    GovernmentaKasdin, Neisen, Mayor, Miami Beach, FL, prepared
    statement....... 450Kelly, John, Jr., Assistant Administrator for Weather
    Services, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Department of
    Commerce....................................................... 227Kennard,
    William E., Chairman, Federal Communications Commission. 325 Prepared
    statement........................................... 326Kyl, Hon. Jon, U.S.
    Senator from Arizona, questions submitted by. 217Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R.,
    U.S. Senator from New Jersey: Prepared
    statement........................................... 27 Questions submitted
    by terim Staff Director, United States Sentencing Commission, prepared
    statement

    446____________________________________________________________________

    Mecham, Leonidas Ralph, Director, Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts,
    prepared statement

    431____________________________________________________________________

    Meissner, Doris, Commissioner, Immigration and Naturalization Service,
    Department of Justice

    169____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    172____________________________________________________________________

    Nugent, Christopher, Executive Director, Florence Immigrant and Refugee
    Rights Project, Inc., prepared statement

    384____________________________________________________________________

    Pearson, Michael A., Executive Associate Commissioner, Field Operations,
    Immigration and Naturalization Service, Department of Justice

    169____________________________________________________________________

    Reno, Hon. Janet, Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General,
    Department of Justice

    1______________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    4______________________________________________________________________

    Roberts, Paul, Chief Financial Officer, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
    Administration, Department of Commerce

    227____________________________________________________________________

    Soltow, Dr. Allen, Executive Director of Research, Sponsored Programs, and
    Governmentaterim Staff Director, United States Sentencing
    Commission, prepared statement

    446____________________________________________________________________

    Mecham, Leonidas Ralph, Director, Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts,
    prepared statement

    431____________________________________________________________________

    Meissner, Doris, Commissioner, Immigration and Naturalization Service,
    Department of Justice

    169____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    172____________________________________________________________________

    Nugent, Christopher, Executive Director, Florence Immigrant and Refugee
    Rights Project, Inc., prepared statement

    384____________________________________________________________________

    Pearson, Michael A., Executive Associate Commissioner, Field Operations,
    Immigration and Naturalization Service, Department of Justice

    169____________________________________________________________________

    Reno, Hon. Janet, Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General,
    Department of Justice

    1______________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    4______________________________________________________________________

    Roberts, Paul, Chief Financial Officer, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
    Administration, Department of Commerce

    227____________________________________________________________________

    Soltow, Dr. Allen, Executive Director of Research, Sponsored Programs, and
    GovernmentaDNM/Mecham, Leonidas Ralph, Director,
    Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, prepared statement

    431____________________________________________________________________

    Meissner, Doris, Commissioner, Immigration and Naturalization Service,
    Department of Justice

    169____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    172____________________________________________________________________

    Nugent, Christopher, Executive Director, Florence Immigrant and Refugee
    Rights Project, Inc., prepared statement

    384____________________________________________________________________

    Pearson, Michael A., Executive Associate Commissioner, Field Operations,
    Immigration and Naturalization Service, Department of Justice

    169____________________________________________________________________

    Reno, Hon. Janet, Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General,
    Department of Justice

    1______________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    4______________________________________________________________________

    Roberts, Paul, Chief Financial Officer, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
    Administration, Department of Commerce

    227____________________________________________________________________

    Soltow, Dr. Allen, Executive Director of Research, Sponsored Programs, and
    Governmentaxchange Commis-
    sion

    313____________________________________________________________________

    McGrath, Timothy, Interim Staff Director, United States Sentencing
    Commission, prepared statement

    446____________________________________________________________________

    Mecham, Leonidas Ralph, Director, Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts,
    prepared statement

    431____________________________________________________________________

    Meissner, Doris, Commissioner, Immigration and Naturalization Service,
    Department of Justice

    169____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    172____________________________________________________________________

    Nugent, Christopher, Executive Director, Florence Immigrant and Refugee
    Rights Project, Inc., prepared statement

    384____________________________________________________________________

    Pearson, Michael A., Executive Associate Commissioner, Field Operations,
    Immigration and Naturalization Service, Department of Justice

    169____________________________________________________________________

    Reno, Hon. Janet, Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General,
    Department of Justice

    1______________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    4______________________________________________________________________

    Roberts, Paul, Chief Financial Officer, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
    Administration, Department of Commerce

    227____________________________________________________________________

    Soltow, Dr. Allen, Executive Director of Research, Sponsored Programs, and
    GovernmentaDNM/445

    McConnell, Hon. Mitch, U.S. Senator from Kentucky, questions submitted by

    82_____________________________________________________________________

    McConnell, James, Executive Director, Securities and Exchange Commis-
    sion

    313____________________________________________________________________

    McGrath, Timothy, Interim Staff Director, United States Sentencing
    Commission, prepared statement

    446____________________________________________________________________

    Mecham, Leonidas Ralph, Director, Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts,
    prepared statement

    431____________________________________________________________________

    Meissner, Doris, Commissioner, Immigration and Naturalization Service,
    Department of Justice

    169____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    172____________________________________________________________________

    Nugent, Christopher, Executive Director, Florence Immigrant and Refugee
    Rights Project, Inc., prepared statement

    384____________________________________________________________________

    Pearson, Michael A., Executive Associate Commissioner, Field Operations,
    Immigration and Naturalization Service, Department of Justice

    169____________________________________________________________________

    Reno, Hon. Janet, Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General,
    Department of Justice

    1______________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    4______________________________________________________________________

    Roberts, Paul, Chief Financial Officer, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
    Administration, Department of Commerce

    227____________________________________________________________________

    Soltow, Dr. Allen, Executive Director of Research, Sponsored Programs, and
    Governmentaterim Staff Director, United States Sentencing
    Commission, prepared statement

    446____________________________________________________________________

    Mecham, Leonidas Ralph, Director, Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts,
    prepared statement

    431____________________________________________________________________

    Meissner, Doris, Commissioner, Immigration and Naturalization Service,
    Department of Justice

    169____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    172____________________________________________________________________

    Nugent, Christopher, Executive Director, Florence Immigrant and Refugee
    Rights Project, Inc., prepared statement

    384____________________________________________________________________

    Pearson, Michael A., Executive Associate Commissioner, Field Operations,
    Immigration and Naturalization Service, Department of Justice

    169____________________________________________________________________

    Reno, Hon. Janet, Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General,
    Department of Justice

    1______________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    4______________________________________________________________________

    Roberts, Paul, Chief Financial Officer, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
    Administration, Department of Commerce

    227____________________________________________________________________

    Soltow, Dr. Allen, Executive Director of Research, Sponsored Programs, and
    GovernmentaUL/

    446____________________________________________________________________

    Mecham, Leonidas Ralph, Director, Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts,
    prepared statement

    431____________________________________________________________________

    Meissner, Doris, Commissioner, Immigration and Naturalization Service,
    Department of Justice

    169____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    172____________________________________________________________________

    Nugent, Christopher, Executive Director, Florence Immigrant and Refugee
    Rights Project, Inc., prepared statement

    384____________________________________________________________________

    Pearson, Michael A., Executive Associate Commissioner, Field Operations,
    Immigration and Naturalization Service, Department of Justice

    169____________________________________________________________________

    Reno, Hon. Janet, Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General,
    Department of Justice

    1______________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    4______________________________________________________________________

    Roberts, Paul, Chief Financial Officer, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
    Administration, Department of Commerce

    227____________________________________________________________________

    Soltow, Dr. Allen, Executive Director of Research, Sponsored Programs, and
    GovernmentaUL/

    446____________________________________________________________________

    Mecham, Leonidas Ralph, Director, Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts,
    prepared statement

    431____________________________________________________________________

    Meissner, Doris, Commissioner, Immigration and Naturalization Service,
    Department of Justice

    169____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    172____________________________________________________________________

    Nugent, Christopher, Executive Director, Florence Immigrant and Refugee
    Rights Project, Inc., prepared statement

    384____________________________________________________________________

    Pearson, Michael A., Executive Associate Commissioner, Field Operations,
    Immigration and Naturalization Service, Department of Justice

    169____________________________________________________________________

    Reno, Hon. Janet, Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General,
    Department of Justice

    1______________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    4______________________________________________________________________

    Roberts, Paul, Chief Financial Officer, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
    Administration, Department of Commerce

    227____________________________________________________________________

    Soltow, Dr. Allen, Executive Director of Research, Sponsored Programs, and
    Governmentaxchange Commis-
    sion

    313____________________________________________________________________

    McGrath, Timothy, Interim Staff Director, United States Sentencing
    Commission, prepared statement

    446____________________________________________________________________

    Mecham, Leonidas Ralph, Director, Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts,
    prepared statement

    431____________________________________________________________________

    Meissner, Doris, Commissioner, Immigration and Naturalization Service,
    Department of Justice

    169____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    172____________________________________________________________________

    Nugent, Christopher, Executive Director, Florence Immigrant and Refugee
    Rights Project, Inc., prepared statement

    384____________________________________________________________________

    Pearson, Michael A., Executive Associate Commissioner, Field Operations,
    Immigration and Naturalization Service, Department of Justice

    169____________________________________________________________________

    Reno, Hon. Janet, Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General,
    Department of Justice

    1______________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    4______________________________________________________________________

    Roberts, Paul, Chief Financial Officer, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
    Administration, Department of Commerce

    227____________________________________________________________________

    Soltow, Dr. Allen, Executive Director of Research, Sponsored Programs, and
    GovernmentaDNM/445

    McConnell, Hon. Mitch, U.S. Senator from Kentucky, questions submitted by

    82_____________________________________________________________________

    McConnell, James, Executive Director, Securities and Exchange Commis-
    sion

    313____________________________________________________________________

    McGrath, Timothy, Interim Staff Director, United States Sentencing
    Commission, prepared statement

    446____________________________________________________________________

    Mecham, Leonidas Ralph, Director, Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts,
    prepared statement

    431____________________________________________________________________

    Meissner, Doris, Commissioner, Immigration and Naturalization Service,
    Department of Justice

    169____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    172____________________________________________________________________

    Nugent, Christopher, Executive Director, Florence Immigrant and Refugee
    Rights Project, Inc., prepared statement

    384____________________________________________________________________

    Pearson, Michael A., Executive Associate Commissioner, Field Operations,
    Immigration and Naturalization Service, Department of Justice

    169____________________________________________________________________

    Reno, Hon. Janet, Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General,
    Department of Justice

    1______________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    4______________________________________________________________________

    Roberts, Paul, Chief Financial Officer, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
    Administration, Department of Commerce

    227____________________________________________________________________

    Soltow, Dr. Allen, Executive Director of Research, Sponsored Programs, and
    Governmentactor, United States Sentencing Commission,
    prepared statement

    446____________________________________________________________________

    Mecham, Leonidas Ralph, Director, Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts,
    prepared statement

    431____________________________________________________________________

    Meissner, Doris, Commissioner, Immigration and Naturalization Service,
    Department of Justice

    169____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    172____________________________________________________________________

    Nugent, Christopher, Executive Director, Florence Immigrant and Refugee
    Rights Project, Inc., prepared statement

    384____________________________________________________________________

    Pearson, Michael A., Executive Associate Commissioner, Field Operations,
    Immigration and Naturalization Service, Department of Justice

    169____________________________________________________________________

    Reno, Hon. Janet, Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General,
    Department of Justice

    1______________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    4______________________________________________________________________

    Roberts, Paul, Chief Financial Officer, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
    Administration, Department of Commerce

    227____________________________________________________________________

    Soltow, Dr. Allen, Executive Director of Research, Sponsored Programs, and
    Governmentaterim Staff Director, United States Sentencing
    Commission, prepared statement

    446____________________________________________________________________

    Mecham, Leonidas Ralph, Director, Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts,
    prepared statement

    431____________________________________________________________________

    Meissner, Doris, Commissioner, Immigration and Naturalization Service,
    Department of Justice

    169____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    172____________________________________________________________________

    Nugent, Christopher, Executive Director, Florence Immigrant and Refugee
    Rights Project, Inc., prepared statement

    384____________________________________________________________________

    Pearson, Michael A., Executive Associate Commissioner, Field Operations,
    Immigration and Naturalization Service, Department of Justice

    169____________________________________________________________________

    Reno, Hon. Janet, Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General,
    Department of Justice

    1______________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    4______________________________________________________________________

    Roberts, Paul, Chief Financial Officer, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
    Administration, Department of Commerce

    227____________________________________________________________________

    Soltow, Dr. Allen, Executive Director of Research, Sponsored Programs, and
    Governmentates Sentencing Commission, prepared statement

    446____________________________________________________________________

    Mecham, Leonidas Ralph, Director, Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts,
    prepared statement

    431____________________________________________________________________

    Meissner, Doris, Commissioner, Immigration and Naturalization Service,
    Department of Justice

    169____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    172____________________________________________________________________

    Nugent, Christopher, Executive Director, Florence Immigrant and Refugee
    Rights Project, Inc., prepared statement

    384____________________________________________________________________

    Pearson, Michael A., Executive Associate Commissioner, Field Operations,
    Immigration and Naturalization Service, Department of Justice

    169____________________________________________________________________

    Reno, Hon. Janet, Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General,
    Department of Justice

    1______________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    4______________________________________________________________________

    Roberts, Paul, Chief Financial Officer, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
    Administration, Department of Commerce

    227____________________________________________________________________

    Soltow, Dr. Allen, Executive Director of Research, Sponsored Programs, and
    GovernmentaLeahy, Hon. Patrick J., U.S. Senator from Vermont:
    Letter from.................................................. 19 Questions
    submitted by terim Staff Director, United States Sentencing
    Commission, prepared statement

    446____________________________________________________________________

    Mecham, Leonidas Ralph, Director, Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts,
    prepared statement

    431____________________________________________________________________

    Meissner, Doris, Commissioner, Immigration and Naturalization Service,
    Department of Justice

    169____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    172____________________________________________________________________

    Nugent, Christopher, Executive Director, Florence Immigrant and Refugee
    Rights Project, Inc., prepared statement

    384____________________________________________________________________

    Pearson, Michael A., Executive Associate Commissioner, Field Operations,
    Immigration and Naturalization Service, Department of Justice

    169____________________________________________________________________

    Reno, Hon. Janet, Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General,
    Department of Justice

    1______________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    4______________________________________________________________________

    Roberts, Paul, Chief Financial Officer, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
    Administration, Department of Commerce

    227____________________________________________________________________

    Soltow, Dr. Allen, Executive Director of Research, Sponsored Programs, and
    Governmentactor, United States Sentencing Commission,
    prepared statement

    446____________________________________________________________________

    Mecham, Leonidas Ralph, Director, Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts,
    prepared statement

    431____________________________________________________________________

    Meissner, Doris, Commissioner, Immigration and Naturalization Service,
    Department of Justice

    169____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    172____________________________________________________________________

    Nugent, Christopher, Executive Director, Florence Immigrant and Refugee
    Rights Project, Inc., prepared statement

    384____________________________________________________________________

    Pearson, Michael A., Executive Associate Commissioner, Field Operations,
    Immigration and Naturalization Service, Department of Justice

    169____________________________________________________________________

    Reno, Hon. Janet, Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General,
    Department of Justice

    1______________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    4______________________________________________________________________

    Roberts, Paul, Chief Financial Officer, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
    Administration, Department of Commerce

    227____________________________________________________________________

    Soltow, Dr. Allen, Executive Director of Research, Sponsored Programs, and
    Governmentactor, United States Sentencing Commission, prepared
    statement

    446____________________________________________________________________

    Mecham, Leonidas Ralph, Director, Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts,
    prepared statement

    431____________________________________________________________________

    Meissner, Doris, Commissioner, Immigration and Naturalization Service,
    Department of Justice

    169____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    172____________________________________________________________________

    Nugent, Christopher, Executive Director, Florence Immigrant and Refugee
    Rights Project, Inc., prepared statement

    384____________________________________________________________________

    Pearson, Michael A., Executive Associate Commissioner, Field Operations,
    Immigration and Naturalization Service, Department of Justice

    169____________________________________________________________________

    Reno, Hon. Janet, Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General,
    Department of Justice

    1______________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    4______________________________________________________________________

    Roberts, Paul, Chief Financial Officer, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
    Administration, Department of Commerce

    227____________________________________________________________________

    Soltow, Dr. Allen, Executive Director of Research, Sponsored Programs, and
    Governmentaxchange Commis-
    sion

    313____________________________________________________________________

    McGrath, Timothy, Interim Staff Director, United States Sentencing
    Commission, prepared statement

    446____________________________________________________________________

    Mecham, Leonidas Ralph, Director, Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts,
    prepared statement

    431____________________________________________________________________

    Meissner, Doris, Commissioner, Immigration and Naturalization Service,
    Department of Justice

    169____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    172____________________________________________________________________

    Nugent, Christopher, Executive Director, Florence Immigrant and Refugee
    Rights Project, Inc., prepared statement

    384____________________________________________________________________

    Pearson, Michael A., Executive Associate Commissioner, Field Operations,
    Immigration and Naturalization Service, Department of Justice

    169____________________________________________________________________

    Reno, Hon. Janet, Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General,
    Department of Justice

    1______________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    4______________________________________________________________________

    Roberts, Paul, Chief Financial Officer, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
    Administration, Department of Commerce

    227____________________________________________________________________

    Soltow, Dr. Allen, Executive Director of Research, Sponsored Programs, and
    GovernmentaDNM/445

    McConnell, Hon. Mitch, U.S. Senator from Kentucky, questions submitted by

    82_____________________________________________________________________

    McConnell, James, Executive Director, Securities and Exchange Commis-
    sion

    313____________________________________________________________________

    McGrath, Timothy, Interim Staff Director, United States Sentencing
    Commission, prepared statement

    446____________________________________________________________________

    Mecham, Leonidas Ralph, Director, Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts,
    prepared statement

    431____________________________________________________________________

    Meissner, Doris, Commissioner, Immigration and Naturalization Service,
    Department of Justice

    169____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    172____________________________________________________________________

    Nugent, Christopher, Executive Director, Florence Immigrant and Refugee
    Rights Project, Inc., prepared statement

    384____________________________________________________________________

    Pearson, Michael A., Executive Associate Commissioner, Field Operations,
    Immigration and Naturalization Service, Department of Justice

    169____________________________________________________________________

    Reno, Hon. Janet, Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General,
    Department of Justice

    1______________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    4______________________________________________________________________

    Roberts, Paul, Chief Financial Officer, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
    Administration, Department of Commerce

    227____________________________________________________________________

    Soltow, Dr. Allen, Executive Director of Research, Sponsored Programs, and
    Governmentactor, United States Sentencing Commission,
    prepared statement

    446____________________________________________________________________

    Mecham, Leonidas Ralph, Director, Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts,
    prepared statement

    431____________________________________________________________________

    Meissner, Doris, Commissioner, Immigration and Naturalization Service,
    Department of Justice

    169____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    172____________________________________________________________________

    Nugent, Christopher, Executive Director, Florence Immigrant and Refugee
    Rights Project, Inc., prepared statement

    384____________________________________________________________________

    Pearson, Michael A., Executive Associate Commissioner, Field Operations,
    Immigration and Naturalization Service, Department of Justice

    169____________________________________________________________________

    Reno, Hon. Janet, Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General,
    Department of Justice

    1______________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    4______________________________________________________________________

    Roberts, Paul, Chief Financial Officer, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
    Administration, Department of Commerce

    227____________________________________________________________________

    Soltow, Dr. Allen, Executive Director of Research, Sponsored Programs, and
    Governmentaterim Staff Director, United States Sentencing
    Commission, prepared statement

    446____________________________________________________________________

    Mecham, Leonidas Ralph, Director, Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts,
    prepared statement

    431____________________________________________________________________

    Meissner, Doris, Commissioner, Immigration and Naturalization Service,
    Department of Justice

    169____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    172____________________________________________________________________

    Nugent, Christopher, Executive Director, Florence Immigrant and Refugee
    Rights Project, Inc., prepared statement

    384____________________________________________________________________

    Pearson, Michael A., Executive Associate Commissioner, Field Operations,
    Immigration and Naturalization Service, Department of Justice

    169____________________________________________________________________

    Reno, Hon. Janet, Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General,
    Department of Justice

    1______________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    4______________________________________________________________________

    Roberts, Paul, Chief Financial Officer, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
    Administration, Department of Commerce

    227____________________________________________________________________

    Soltow, Dr. Allen, Executive Director of Research, Sponsored Programs, and
    Governmentaommission, prepared statement

    446____________________________________________________________________

    Mecham, Leonidas Ralph, Director, Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts,
    prepared statement

    431____________________________________________________________________

    Meissner, Doris, Commissioner, Immigration and Naturalization Service,
    Department of Justice

    169____________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    172____________________________________________________________________

    Nugent, Christopher, Executive Director, Florence Immigrant and Refugee
    Rights Project, Inc., prepared statement

    384____________________________________________________________________

    Pearson, Michael A., Executive Associate Commissioner, Field Operations,
    Immigration and Naturalization Service, Department of Justice

    169____________________________________________________________________

    Reno, Hon. Janet, Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General,
    Department of Justice

    1______________________________________________________________________

    Prepared statement

    4______________________________________________________________________

    Roberts, Paul, Chief Financial Officer, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
    Administration, Department of Commerce

    227____________________________________________________________________

    Soltow, Dr. Allen, Executive Director of Research, Sponsored Programs, and
    GovernmentaLevitt, Arthur, Chairman, Securities and Exchange
    Commission..... 313 Prepared
    statement........................................... 314Lewis, Tom,
    Director of Neighborhood and Community Services, City of Tallahassee,
    prepared statement............................. 379Mayer, Haldane Robert,
    Chief Judge, United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit,
    prepared statement............ 445McConnell, Hon. Mitch, U.S. Senator from
    Kentucky, questions submitted
    by................................................... 82McConnell, James,
    Executive Director, Securities and Exchange Commis-
    sion........................................................... 313McGrath,
    Timothy, Interim Staff Director, United States Sentencing Commission,
    prepared statement...................... 446Mecham, Leonidas Ralph,
    Director, Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, prepared
    statement................................ 431Meissner, Doris, Commissioner,
    Immigration and Naturalization Service, Department of
    Justice................................. 169 Prepared
    statement........................................... 172Nugent,
    Christopher, Executive Director, Florence Immigrant and Refugee Rights
    Project, Inc., prepared statement............... 384Pearson, Michael A.,
    Executive Associate Commissioner, Field Operations, Immigration and
    Naturalization Service, Department of
    Justice..................................................... 169Reno, Hon.
    Janet, Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General, Department of
    Justice................................. 1 Prepared
    statement........................................... 4Roberts, Paul, Chief
    Financial Officer, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,
    Department of Commerce............. 227Soltow, Dr. Allen, Executive
    Director of Research, Sponsored Programs, and Governmental Relations,
    University of Tulsa, prepared
    statement............................................. 378Sonoma County
    Water Agency, prepared statement................... 383St. Denis, Kathy,
    Counselor to the Commissioner, Immigration and Naturalization Service,
    Department of Justice.................. 169Stevens, Hon. Ted, U.S. Senator
    from Alaska, questions submitted by 1Additional committee questions

    208____________________________________________________________________

    Alcan Port-of-Entry, report on housing requirements for the

    209____________________________________________________________________

    Aliens:

    Removal of illegal

    176____________________________________________________________________

    Strategy to target criminal

    185____________________________________________________________________

    Anchorage, AK, additional position in

    210____________________________________________________________________

    Asylum processing

    182____________________________________________________________________

    Automation and technology improvements

    178____________________________________________________________________

    Border:

    Control, three tier system for

    196____________________________________________________________________

    Enforcement

    174____________________________________________________________________

    Management

    184____________________________________________________________________

    Border Patrol agents

    190____________________________________________________________________

    In budget request

    194____________________________________________________________________

    Number of

    196____________________________________________________________________

    Problems recruiting

    197____________________________________________________________________

    Request

    192____________________________________________________________________

    Budget request:

    Fiscal year 2000

          bcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}

    Problem with

    199____________________________________________________________________

    Citizenship USA costs

    203____________________________________________________________________

    Construction bacuralization Service

    Additional committee questions

    208____________________________________________________________________

    Alcan Port-of-Entry, report on housing requirements for the

    209____________________________________________________________________

    Aliens:

    Removal of illegal

    176____________________________________________________________________

    Strategy to target criminal

    185____________________________________________________________________

    Anchorage, AK, additional position in

    210____________________________________________________________________

    Asylum processing

    182____________________________________________________________________

    Automation and technology improvements

    178____________________________________________________________________

    Border:

    Control, three tier system for

    196____________________________________________________________________

    Enforcement

    174____________________________________________________________________

    Management

    184____________________________________________________________________

    Border Patrol agents

    190____________________________________________________________________

    In budget request

    194____________________________________________________________________

    Number of

    196____________________________________________________________________

    Problems recruiting

    197____________________________________________________________________

    Request

    192____________________________________________________________________

    Budget request:

    Fiscal year 2000

          bcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}

    Problem with

    199____________________________________________________________________

    Citizenship USA costs

    203____________________________________________________________________

    Construction baceport on housing requirements for the

    209____________________________________________________________________

    Aliens:

    Removal of illegal

    176____________________________________________________________________

    Strategy to target criminal

    185____________________________________________________________________

    Anchorage, AK, additional position in

    210____________________________________________________________________

    Asylum processing

    182____________________________________________________________________

    Automation and technology improvements

    178____________________________________________________________________

    Border:

    Control, three tier system for

    196____________________________________________________________________

    Enforcement

    174____________________________________________________________________

    Management

    184____________________________________________________________________

    Border Patrol agents

    190____________________________________________________________________

    In budget request

    194____________________________________________________________________

    Number of

    196____________________________________________________________________

    Problems recruiting

    197____________________________________________________________________

    Request

    192____________________________________________________________________

    Budget request:

    Fiscal year 2000

          bcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}

    Problem with

    199____________________________________________________________________

    Citizenship USA costs

    203____________________________________________________________________

    Construction bac

    291____________________________________________________________________

    Immigration and Naturalization Service

    Additional committee questions

    208____________________________________________________________________

    Alcan Port-of-Entry, report on housing requirements for the

    209____________________________________________________________________

    Aliens:

    Removal of illegal

    176____________________________________________________________________

    Strategy to target criminal

    185____________________________________________________________________

    Anchorage, AK, additional position in

    210____________________________________________________________________

    Asylum processing

    182____________________________________________________________________

    Automation and technology improvements

    178____________________________________________________________________

    Border:

    Control, three tier system for

    196____________________________________________________________________

    Enforcement

    174____________________________________________________________________

    Management

    184____________________________________________________________________

    Border Patrol agents

    190____________________________________________________________________

    In budget request

    194____________________________________________________________________

    Number of

    196____________________________________________________________________

    Problems recruiting

    197____________________________________________________________________

    Request

    192____________________________________________________________________

    Budget request:

    Fiscal year 2000

          bcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}

    Problem with

    199____________________________________________________________________

    Citizenship USA costs

    203____________________________________________________________________

    Construction bacTechnology and cyber-crime

    281____________________________________________________________________

    Technology/cyber-crimes initiative, clarification on

    303____________________________________________________________________

    U.S. Customs Service investigation

    291____________________________________________________________________

    Immigration and Naturalization Service

    Additional committee questions

    208____________________________________________________________________

    Alcan Port-of-Entry, report on housing requirements for the

    209____________________________________________________________________

    Aliens:

    Removal of illegal

    176____________________________________________________________________

    Strategy to target criminal

    185____________________________________________________________________

    Anchorage, AK, additional position in

    210____________________________________________________________________

    Asylum processing

    182____________________________________________________________________

    Automation and technology improvements

    178____________________________________________________________________

    Border:

    Control, three tier system for

    196____________________________________________________________________

    Enforcement

    174____________________________________________________________________

    Management

    184____________________________________________________________________

    Border Patrol agents

    190____________________________________________________________________

    In budget request

    194____________________________________________________________________

    Number of

    196____________________________________________________________________

    Problems recruiting

    197____________________________________________________________________

    Request

    192____________________________________________________________________

    Budget request:

    Fiscal year 2000

          bcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}

    Problem with

    199____________________________________________________________________

    Citizenship USA costs

    203____________________________________________________________________

    Construction bac1Additional committee questions

    208____________________________________________________________________

    Alcan Port-of-Entry, report on housing requirements for the

    209____________________________________________________________________

    Aliens:

    Removal of illegal

    176____________________________________________________________________

    Strategy to target criminal

    185____________________________________________________________________

    Anchorage, AK, additional position in

    210____________________________________________________________________

    Asylum processing

    182____________________________________________________________________

    Automation and technology improvements

    178____________________________________________________________________

    Border:

    Control, three tier system for

    196____________________________________________________________________

    Enforcement

    174____________________________________________________________________

    Management

    184____________________________________________________________________

    Border Patrol agents

    190____________________________________________________________________

    In budget request

    194____________________________________________________________________

    Number of

    196____________________________________________________________________

    Problems recruiting

    197____________________________________________________________________

    Request

    192____________________________________________________________________

    Budget request:

    Fiscal year 2000

          bcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}

    Problem with

    199____________________________________________________________________

    Citizenship USA costs

    203____________________________________________________________________

    Construction bacMDNM/208

    Alcan Port-of-Entry, report on housing requirements for the

    209____________________________________________________________________

    Aliens:

    Removal of illegal

    176____________________________________________________________________

    Strategy to target criminal

    185____________________________________________________________________

    Anchorage, AK, additional position in

    210____________________________________________________________________

    Asylum processing

    182____________________________________________________________________

    Automation and technology improvements

    178____________________________________________________________________

    Border:

    Control, three tier system for

    196____________________________________________________________________

    Enforcement

    174____________________________________________________________________

    Management

    184____________________________________________________________________

    Border Patrol agents

    190____________________________________________________________________

    In budget request

    194____________________________________________________________________

    Number of

    196____________________________________________________________________

    Problems recruiting

    197____________________________________________________________________

    Request

    192____________________________________________________________________

    Budget request:

    Fiscal year 2000

          bcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}

    Problem with

    199____________________________________________________________________

    Citizenship USA costs

    203____________________________________________________________________

    Construction bac requirements for the

    209____________________________________________________________________

    Aliens:

    Removal of illegal

    176____________________________________________________________________

    Strategy to target criminal

    185____________________________________________________________________

    Anchorage, AK, additional position in

    210____________________________________________________________________

    Asylum processing

    182____________________________________________________________________

    Automation and technology improvements

    178____________________________________________________________________

    Border:

    Control, three tier system for

    196____________________________________________________________________

    Enforcement

    174____________________________________________________________________

    Management

    184____________________________________________________________________

    Border Patrol agents

    190____________________________________________________________________

    In budget request

    194____________________________________________________________________

    Number of

    196____________________________________________________________________

    Problems recruiting

    197____________________________________________________________________

    Request

    192____________________________________________________________________

    Budget request:

    Fiscal year 2000

          bcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}

    Problem with

    199____________________________________________________________________

    Citizenship USA costs

    203____________________________________________________________________

    Construction bacSummers, Max, State Director, Missouri Small
    Business Development Centers, prepared
    statement.................................... 462University of Medicine and
    Dentistry of New Jersey, prepared
    statement...................................................... 417Upper
    Mississippi River Basin Association, prepared statement.... 458Walter,
    Greg, Deputy Chief Financial Officer, Small Business Administra-
    tion........................................................... 245Weber,
    Jeffrey M., Assistant Commissioner, Budget, Immigration and Naturalization
    Service, Department of Justice.............. 169Wyrsch, Mary Ann, Deputy
    Commissioner, Immigration and Naturalization Service, Department of
    Justice.................. 169Zinser, Dr. Elisabeth, Chancellor, University
    of Kentucky, Lexington Campus, on behalf of the National Association of
    State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges, prepared statement. 406Zobel,
    Rya W., Director, Federal Judicial Center, prepared
    statement...................................................... 442 SUBJECT
    INDEX ---------- DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric
    Administration PageClean water initiative
    (CWI)..................................... 231Climate in the 21st
    century...................................... 233Fishery management
    councils, cooperation with.................... 240Highly migratory
    species......................................... 239International Pacific
    Research Center............................ 242Lands
    Legacy..................................................... 229
    Initiative................................................... 238Natural
    disaster reduction initiative (NDRI)..................... 232Ocean
    2000....................................................... 228Ocean floor
    observatories........................................ 242Pacific Islands
    area office...................................... 240Recreational
    fisheries........................................... 241Resource
    protection.............................................. 230South
    Florida.................................................... 231Tuna, carbon
    monoxide injected................................... 243Year of the
    Ocean................................................ 230 Secretary of
    CommerceAdditional committee questions...................................
    160Canadian cattle dumping..........................................
    143Census: Advertising to increase response rate........................
    157 Hearing...................................................... 160
    Second questionnaire mailing................................. 157Commerce
    employment.............................................. 140Critical
    infrastructure protection............................... 138Decennial
    census ice

    Additional committee questions

    208____________________________________________________________________

    Alcan Port-of-Entry, report on housing requirements for the

    209____________________________________________________________________

    Aliens:

    Removal of illegal

    176____________________________________________________________________

    Strategy to target criminal

    185____________________________________________________________________

    Anchorage, AK, additional position in

    210____________________________________________________________________

    Asylum processing

    182____________________________________________________________________

    Automation and technology improvements

    178____________________________________________________________________

    Border:

    Control, three tier system for

    196____________________________________________________________________

    Enforcement

    174____________________________________________________________________

    Management

    184____________________________________________________________________

    Border Patrol agents

    190____________________________________________________________________

    In budget request

    194____________________________________________________________________

    Number of

    196____________________________________________________________________

    Problems recruiting

    197____________________________________________________________________

    Request

    192____________________________________________________________________

    Budget request:

    Fiscal year 2000

          bcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}

    Problem with

    199____________________________________________________________________

    Citizenship USA costs

    203____________________________________________________________________

    Construction bactions

    208____________________________________________________________________

    Alcan Port-of-Entry, report on housing requirements for the

    209____________________________________________________________________

    Aliens:

    Removal of illegal

    176____________________________________________________________________

    Strategy to target criminal

    185____________________________________________________________________

    Anchorage, AK, additional position in

    210____________________________________________________________________

    Asylum processing

    182____________________________________________________________________

    Automation and technology improvements

    178____________________________________________________________________

    Border:

    Control, three tier system for

    196____________________________________________________________________

    Enforcement

    174____________________________________________________________________

    Management

    184____________________________________________________________________

    Border Patrol agents

    190____________________________________________________________________

    In budget request

    194____________________________________________________________________

    Number of

    196____________________________________________________________________

    Problems recruiting

    197____________________________________________________________________

    Request

    192____________________________________________________________________

    Budget request:

    Fiscal year 2000

          bcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}

    Problem with

    199____________________________________________________________________

    Citizenship USA costs

    203____________________________________________________________________

    Construction bacuralization Service

    Additional committee questions

    208____________________________________________________________________

    Alcan Port-of-Entry, report on housing requirements for the

    209____________________________________________________________________

    Aliens:

    Removal of illegal

    176____________________________________________________________________

    Strategy to target criminal

    185____________________________________________________________________

    Anchorage, AK, additional position in

    210____________________________________________________________________

    Asylum processing

    182____________________________________________________________________

    Automation and technology improvements

    178____________________________________________________________________

    Border:

    Control, three tier system for

    196____________________________________________________________________

    Enforcement

    174____________________________________________________________________

    Management

    184____________________________________________________________________

    Border Patrol agents

    190____________________________________________________________________

    In budget request

    194____________________________________________________________________

    Number of

    196____________________________________________________________________

    Problems recruiting

    197____________________________________________________________________

    Request

    192____________________________________________________________________

    Budget request:

    Fiscal year 2000

          bcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}

    Problem with

    199____________________________________________________________________

    Citizenship USA costs

    203____________________________________________________________________

    Construction bac

    291____________________________________________________________________

    Immigration and Naturalization Service

    Additional committee questions

    208____________________________________________________________________

    Alcan Port-of-Entry, report on housing requirements for the

    209____________________________________________________________________

    Aliens:

    Removal of illegal

    176____________________________________________________________________

    Strategy to target criminal

    185____________________________________________________________________

    Anchorage, AK, additional position in

    210____________________________________________________________________

    Asylum processing

    182____________________________________________________________________

    Automation and technology improvements

    178____________________________________________________________________

    Border:

    Control, three tier system for

    196____________________________________________________________________

    Enforcement

    174____________________________________________________________________

    Management

    184____________________________________________________________________

    Border Patrol agents

    190____________________________________________________________________

    In budget request

    194____________________________________________________________________

    Number of

    196____________________________________________________________________

    Problems recruiting

    197____________________________________________________________________

    Request

    192____________________________________________________________________

    Budget request:

    Fiscal year 2000

          bcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}

    Problem with

    199____________________________________________________________________

    Citizenship USA costs

    203____________________________________________________________________

    Construction bacTechnology and cyber-crime

    281____________________________________________________________________

    Technology/cyber-crimes initiative, clarification on

    303____________________________________________________________________

    U.S. Customs Service investigation

    291____________________________________________________________________

    Immigration and Naturalization Service

    Additional committee questions

    208____________________________________________________________________

    Alcan Port-of-Entry, report on housing requirements for the

    209____________________________________________________________________

    Aliens:

    Removal of illegal

    176____________________________________________________________________

    Strategy to target criminal

    185____________________________________________________________________

    Anchorage, AK, additional position in

    210____________________________________________________________________

    Asylum processing

    182____________________________________________________________________

    Automation and technology improvements

    178____________________________________________________________________

    Border:

    Control, three tier system for

    196____________________________________________________________________

    Enforcement

    174____________________________________________________________________

    Management

    184____________________________________________________________________

    Border Patrol agents

    190____________________________________________________________________

    In budget request

    194____________________________________________________________________

    Number of

    196____________________________________________________________________

    Problems recruiting

    197____________________________________________________________________

    Request

    192____________________________________________________________________

    Budget request:

    Fiscal year 2000

          bcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}

    Problem with

    199____________________________________________________________________

    Citizenship USA costs

    203____________________________________________________________________

    Construction bacice

    Additional committee questions

    208____________________________________________________________________

    Alcan Port-of-Entry, report on housing requirements for the

    209____________________________________________________________________

    Aliens:

    Removal of illegal

    176____________________________________________________________________

    Strategy to target criminal

    185____________________________________________________________________

    Anchorage, AK, additional position in

    210____________________________________________________________________

    Asylum processing

    182____________________________________________________________________

    Automation and technology improvements

    178____________________________________________________________________

    Border:

    Control, three tier system for

    196____________________________________________________________________

    Enforcement

    174____________________________________________________________________

    Management

    184____________________________________________________________________

    Border Patrol agents

    190____________________________________________________________________

    In budget request

    194____________________________________________________________________

    Number of

    196____________________________________________________________________

    Problems recruiting

    197____________________________________________________________________

    Request

    192____________________________________________________________________

    Budget request:

    Fiscal year 2000

          bcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}

    Problem with

    199____________________________________________________________________

    Citizenship USA costs

    203____________________________________________________________________

    Construction bacMDNM/208

    Alcan Port-of-Entry, report on housing requirements for the

    209____________________________________________________________________

    Aliens:

    Removal of illegal

    176____________________________________________________________________

    Strategy to target criminal

    185____________________________________________________________________

    Anchorage, AK, additional position in

    210____________________________________________________________________

    Asylum processing

    182____________________________________________________________________

    Automation and technology improvements

    178____________________________________________________________________

    Border:

    Control, three tier system for

    196____________________________________________________________________

    Enforcement

    174____________________________________________________________________

    Management

    184____________________________________________________________________

    Border Patrol agents

    190____________________________________________________________________

    In budget request

    194____________________________________________________________________

    Number of

    196____________________________________________________________________

    Problems recruiting

    197____________________________________________________________________

    Request

    192____________________________________________________________________

    Budget request:

    Fiscal year 2000

          bcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}

    Problem with

    199____________________________________________________________________

    Citizenship USA costs

    203____________________________________________________________________

    Construction bac1Additional committee questions

    208____________________________________________________________________

    Alcan Port-of-Entry, report on housing requirements for the

    209____________________________________________________________________

    Aliens:

    Removal of illegal

    176____________________________________________________________________

    Strategy to target criminal

    185____________________________________________________________________

    Anchorage, AK, additional position in

    210____________________________________________________________________

    Asylum processing

    182____________________________________________________________________

    Automation and technology improvements

    178____________________________________________________________________

    Border:

    Control, three tier system for

    196____________________________________________________________________

    Enforcement

    174____________________________________________________________________

    Management

    184____________________________________________________________________

    Border Patrol agents

    190____________________________________________________________________

    In budget request

    194____________________________________________________________________

    Number of

    196____________________________________________________________________

    Problems recruiting

    197____________________________________________________________________

    Request

    192____________________________________________________________________

    Budget request:

    Fiscal year 2000

          bcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}

    Problem with

    199____________________________________________________________________

    Citizenship USA costs

    203____________________________________________________________________

    Construction bac

    291____________________________________________________________________

    Immigration and Naturalization Service

    Additional committee questions

    208____________________________________________________________________

    Alcan Port-of-Entry, report on housing requirements for the

    209____________________________________________________________________

    Aliens:

    Removal of illegal

    176____________________________________________________________________

    Strategy to target criminal

    185____________________________________________________________________

    Anchorage, AK, additional position in

    210____________________________________________________________________

    Asylum processing

    182____________________________________________________________________

    Automation and technology improvements

    178____________________________________________________________________

    Border:

    Control, three tier system for

    196____________________________________________________________________

    Enforcement

    174____________________________________________________________________

    Management

    184____________________________________________________________________

    Border Patrol agents

    190____________________________________________________________________

    In budget request

    194____________________________________________________________________

    Number of

    196____________________________________________________________________

    Problems recruiting

    197____________________________________________________________________

    Request

    192____________________________________________________________________

    Budget request:

    Fiscal year 2000

          bcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}

    Problem with

    199____________________________________________________________________

    Citizenship USA costs

    203____________________________________________________________________

    Construction bacTechnology and cyber-crime

    281____________________________________________________________________

    Technology/cyber-crimes initiative, clarification on

    303____________________________________________________________________

    U.S. Customs Service investigation

    291____________________________________________________________________

    Immigration and Naturalization Service

    Additional committee questions

    208____________________________________________________________________

    Alcan Port-of-Entry, report on housing requirements for the

    209____________________________________________________________________

    Aliens:

    Removal of illegal

    176____________________________________________________________________

    Strategy to target criminal

    185____________________________________________________________________

    Anchorage, AK, additional position in

    210____________________________________________________________________

    Asylum processing

    182____________________________________________________________________

    Automation and technology improvements

    178____________________________________________________________________

    Border:

    Control, three tier system for

    196____________________________________________________________________

    Enforcement

    174____________________________________________________________________

    Management

    184____________________________________________________________________

    Border Patrol agents

    190____________________________________________________________________

    In budget request

    194____________________________________________________________________

    Number of

    196____________________________________________________________________

    Problems recruiting

    197____________________________________________________________________

    Request

    192____________________________________________________________________

    Budget request:

    Fiscal year 2000

          bcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}

    Problem with

    199____________________________________________________________________

    Citizenship USA costs

    203____________________________________________________________________

    Construction bacice

    Additional committee questions

    208____________________________________________________________________

    Alcan Port-of-Entry, report on housing requirements for the

    209____________________________________________________________________

    Aliens:

    Removal of illegal

    176____________________________________________________________________

    Strategy to target criminal

    185____________________________________________________________________

    Anchorage, AK, additional position in

    210____________________________________________________________________

    Asylum processing

    182____________________________________________________________________

    Automation and technology improvements

    178____________________________________________________________________

    Border:

    Control, three tier system for

    196____________________________________________________________________

    Enforcement

    174____________________________________________________________________

    Management

    184____________________________________________________________________

    Border Patrol agents

    190____________________________________________________________________

    In budget request

    194____________________________________________________________________

    Number of

    196____________________________________________________________________

    Problems recruiting

    197____________________________________________________________________

    Request

    192____________________________________________________________________

    Budget request:

    Fiscal year 2000

          bcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}

    Problem with

    199____________________________________________________________________

    Citizenship USA costs

    203____________________________________________________________________

    Construction bacMDNM/208

    Alcan Port-of-Entry, report on housing requirements for the

    209____________________________________________________________________

    Aliens:

    Removal of illegal

    176____________________________________________________________________

    Strategy to target criminal

    185____________________________________________________________________

    Anchorage, AK, additional position in

    210____________________________________________________________________

    Asylum processing

    182____________________________________________________________________

    Automation and technology improvements

    178____________________________________________________________________

    Border:

    Control, three tier system for

    196____________________________________________________________________

    Enforcement

    174____________________________________________________________________

    Management

    184____________________________________________________________________

    Border Patrol agents

    190____________________________________________________________________

    In budget request

    194____________________________________________________________________

    Number of

    196____________________________________________________________________

    Problems recruiting

    197____________________________________________________________________

    Request

    192____________________________________________________________________

    Budget request:

    Fiscal year 2000

          bcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}

    Problem with

    199____________________________________________________________________

    Citizenship USA costs

    203____________________________________________________________________

    Construction bac

    Alcan Port-of-Entry, report on housing requirements for the

    209____________________________________________________________________

    Aliens:

    Removal of illegal

    176____________________________________________________________________

    Strategy to target criminal

    185____________________________________________________________________

    Anchorage, AK, additional position in

    210____________________________________________________________________

    Asylum processing

    182____________________________________________________________________

    Automation and technology improvements

    178____________________________________________________________________

    Border:

    Control, three tier system for

    196____________________________________________________________________

    Enforcement

    174____________________________________________________________________

    Management

    184____________________________________________________________________

    Border Patrol agents

    190____________________________________________________________________

    In budget request

    194____________________________________________________________________

    Number of

    196____________________________________________________________________

    Problems recruiting

    197____________________________________________________________________

    Request

    192____________________________________________________________________

    Budget request:

    Fiscal year 2000

          bcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}

    Problem with

    199____________________________________________________________________

    Citizenship USA costs

    203____________________________________________________________________

    Construction bac And other statistical
    programs............................... 134Distressed
    communities........................................... 138 Assistance
    to................................................ 143Economic growth,
    technology for.................................. 136Economic statistics,
    improving the Nation's......................
    165GEOSTORM.........................................................
    164International Trade Administration...............................
    150International Trade Commission...................................
    159Internet tax policy.............................................. 140Key
    management initiatives....................................... 139Korea and
    China, trade mission to................................ 151Manufacturing
    jobs, loss of...................................... 152National Technical
    Information Service........................... 148 Termination of
    the........................................... 159National Undersea
    Research Program funding....................... 145Native American
    communities, assistance to....................... 144NOAA: And PTFP,
    advance appropriations............................. 163
    Fleet........................................................ 150Oceans and
    atmosphere............................................ 134Patent and
    Trademark Office...................................... 166Public
    Telecommunications Facilities Program..................... 160Seafood
    marketing legislation.................................... 146Steel
    imports.................................................... 150Stellar sea
    lion population...................................... 145Technology
    Administration structure.............................. 158Trade,
    broadening................................................ 135Tuna,
    treating with carbon monoxide.............................. 155United
    States-European Union trade............................... 149Victoria,
    Texas weather station.................................. 153 DEPARTMENT OF
    JUSTICE Drug Enforcement AdministrationAdditional committee
    questions................................... 307Budget request, fiscal
    2000...................................... 272Crime reduction, impact of
    apprehensions on...................... 293DEA: Budget
    request............................................... 263 1998
    accomplishments......................................... 265
    Successes.................................................... 262Drugs:
    Enforcement training curriculum, advancing the............... 271 Migration
    of to small communities............................ 263 Problem and Mexican
    influence................................ 294
    Threat....................................................... 269Future
    threat and direction......................................
    271Methamphetamine trafficking......................................
    307Mexico, number of agents investigating cases in..................
    295Special agent strike teams.......................................
    296Violent crime in American communities, reducing.................. 265
    Federal Bureau of InvestigationBudget request, overview of fiscal year
    2000.....................
    278CALEA............................................................
    305Campaign contributions investigation.............................
    288Challenges facing the FBI........................................
    276China, exchange problems with....................................
    290Chinese espionage investigation, management of...................
    286Computer intrusion workload, clarification on....................
    302Counterterrorism.................................................
    280Crime, reducing in New York City.................................
    298Crisis response aircraft.........................................
    305Cyber crime initiative...........................................
    302Departmental funding requests, related...........................
    285Diallo investigation............................................. 297DOE
    efforts to correct problems.................................. 289Drivers'
    license photographs, sale of............................ 303FBI: Critical
    skill hiring in..................................... 304 Overseas
    investigations...................................... 292 Strategic plan,
    1998-2003.................................... 277Information collection and
    analysis.............................. 279Information sharing
    initiative...................................
    299Infrastructure................................................... 284Law
    enforcement services.........................................
    283Legislative proposals............................................
    285Loral investigation.............................................. 287Los
    Alamos investigation......................................... 288National
    laboratory security..................................... 290National
    Security Council........................................ 289Rudolph
    investigation............................................ 298Technology and
    cyber-crime....................................... 281Technology/cyber-
    crimes initiative, clarification on............. 303U.S. Customs Service
    investigation............................... 291 Immigration and
    Naturalization ServiceAdditional committee
    questions................................... 208Alcan Port-of-Entry, report
    on housing requirements for the...... 209Aliens: Removal of
    illegal........................................... 176 Strategy to target
    criminal.................................. 185Anchorage, AK, additional
    position in............................ 210Asylum
    processing................................................ 182Automation
    and technology improvements........................... 178Border: Control,
    three tier system for............................... 196
    Enforcement.................................................. 174
    Management................................................... 184Border
    Patrol agents............................................. 190 In budget
    request............................................ 194 Number
    of.................................................... 196 Problems
    recruiting.......................................... 197
    Request...................................................... 192Budget
    request: Fiscal year 2000 ice

    Additional committee questions

    208____________________________________________________________________

    Alcan Port-of-Entry, report on housing requirements for the

    209____________________________________________________________________

    Aliens:

    Removal of illegal

    176____________________________________________________________________

    Strategy to target criminal

    185____________________________________________________________________

    Anchorage, AK, additional position in

    210____________________________________________________________________

    Asylum processing

    182____________________________________________________________________

    Automation and technology improvements

    178____________________________________________________________________

    Border:

    Control, three tier system for

    196____________________________________________________________________

    Enforcement

    174____________________________________________________________________

    Management

    184____________________________________________________________________

    Border Patrol agents

    190____________________________________________________________________

    In budget request

    194____________________________________________________________________

    Number of

    196____________________________________________________________________

    Problems recruiting

    197____________________________________________________________________

    Request

    192____________________________________________________________________

    Budget request:

    Fiscal year 2000

          bcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}

    Problem with

    199____________________________________________________________________

    Citizenship USA costs

    203____________________________________________________________________

    Construction bacPort-of-Entry, report on housing
    requirements for the

    209____________________________________________________________________

    Aliens:

    Removal of illegal

    176____________________________________________________________________

    Strategy to target criminal

    185____________________________________________________________________

    Anchorage, AK, additional position in

    210____________________________________________________________________

    Asylum processing

    182____________________________________________________________________

    Automation and technology improvements

    178____________________________________________________________________

    Border:

    Control, three tier system for

    196____________________________________________________________________

    Enforcement

    174____________________________________________________________________

    Management

    184____________________________________________________________________

    Border Patrol agents

    190____________________________________________________________________

    In budget request

    194____________________________________________________________________

    Number of

    196____________________________________________________________________

    Problems recruiting

    197____________________________________________________________________

    Request

    192____________________________________________________________________

    Budget request:

    Fiscal year 2000

          bcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}

    Problem with

    199____________________________________________________________________

    Citizenship USA costs

    203____________________________________________________________________

    Construction bac1Additional committee questions

    208____________________________________________________________________

    Alcan Port-of-Entry, report on housing requirements for the

    209____________________________________________________________________

    Aliens:

    Removal of illegal

    176____________________________________________________________________

    Strategy to target criminal

    185____________________________________________________________________

    Anchorage, AK, additional position in

    210____________________________________________________________________

    Asylum processing

    182____________________________________________________________________

    Automation and technology improvements

    178____________________________________________________________________

    Border:

    Control, three tier system for

    196____________________________________________________________________

    Enforcement

    174____________________________________________________________________

    Management

    184____________________________________________________________________

    Border Patrol agents

    190____________________________________________________________________

    In budget request

    194____________________________________________________________________

    Number of

    196____________________________________________________________________

    Problems recruiting

    197____________________________________________________________________

    Request

    192____________________________________________________________________

    Budget request:

    Fiscal year 2000

          bcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}

    Problem with

    199____________________________________________________________________

    Citizenship USA costs

    203____________________________________________________________________

    Construction bac

    291____________________________________________________________________

    Immigration and Naturalization Service

    Additional committee questions

    208____________________________________________________________________

    Alcan Port-of-Entry, report on housing requirements for the

    209____________________________________________________________________

    Aliens:

    Removal of illegal

    176____________________________________________________________________

    Strategy to target criminal

    185____________________________________________________________________

    Anchorage, AK, additional position in

    210____________________________________________________________________

    Asylum processing

    182____________________________________________________________________

    Automation and technology improvements

    178____________________________________________________________________

    Border:

    Control, three tier system for

    196____________________________________________________________________

    Enforcement

    174____________________________________________________________________

    Management

    184____________________________________________________________________

    Border Patrol agents

    190____________________________________________________________________

    In budget request

    194____________________________________________________________________

    Number of

    196____________________________________________________________________

    Problems recruiting

    197____________________________________________________________________

    Request

    192____________________________________________________________________

    Budget request:

    Fiscal year 2000

          bcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}

    Problem with

    199____________________________________________________________________

    Citizenship USA costs

    203____________________________________________________________________

    Construction bacTechnology and cyber-crime

    281____________________________________________________________________

    Technology/cyber-crimes initiative, clarification on

    303____________________________________________________________________

    U.S. Customs Service investigation

    291____________________________________________________________________

    Immigration and Naturalization Service

    Additional committee questions

    208____________________________________________________________________

    Alcan Port-of-Entry, report on housing requirements for the

    209____________________________________________________________________

    Aliens:

    Removal of illegal

    176____________________________________________________________________

    Strategy to target criminal

    185____________________________________________________________________

    Anchorage, AK, additional position in

    210____________________________________________________________________

    Asylum processing

    182____________________________________________________________________

    Automation and technology improvements

    178____________________________________________________________________

    Border:

    Control, three tier system for

    196____________________________________________________________________

    Enforcement

    174____________________________________________________________________

    Management

    184____________________________________________________________________

    Border Patrol agents

    190____________________________________________________________________

    In budget request

    194____________________________________________________________________

    Number of

    196____________________________________________________________________

    Problems recruiting

    197____________________________________________________________________

    Request

    192____________________________________________________________________

    Budget request:

    Fiscal year 2000

          bcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}

    Problem with

    199____________________________________________________________________

    Citizenship USA costs

    203____________________________________________________________________

    Construction bacice

    Additional committee questions

    208____________________________________________________________________

    Alcan Port-of-Entry, report on housing requirements for the

    209____________________________________________________________________

    Aliens:

    Removal of illegal

    176____________________________________________________________________

    Strategy to target criminal

    185____________________________________________________________________

    Anchorage, AK, additional position in

    210____________________________________________________________________

    Asylum processing

    182____________________________________________________________________

    Automation and technology improvements

    178____________________________________________________________________

    Border:

    Control, three tier system for

    196____________________________________________________________________

    Enforcement

    174____________________________________________________________________

    Management

    184____________________________________________________________________

    Border Patrol agents

    190____________________________________________________________________

    In budget request

    194____________________________________________________________________

    Number of

    196____________________________________________________________________

    Problems recruiting

    197____________________________________________________________________

    Request

    192____________________________________________________________________

    Budget request:

    Fiscal year 2000

          bcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}

    Problem with

    199____________________________________________________________________

    Citizenship USA costs

    203____________________________________________________________________

    Construction baceport on housing requirements for the

    209____________________________________________________________________

    Aliens:

    Removal of illegal

    176____________________________________________________________________

    Strategy to target criminal

    185____________________________________________________________________

    Anchorage, AK, additional position in

    210____________________________________________________________________

    Asylum processing

    182____________________________________________________________________

    Automation and technology improvements

    178____________________________________________________________________

    Border:

    Control, three tier system for

    196____________________________________________________________________

    Enforcement

    174____________________________________________________________________

    Management

    184____________________________________________________________________

    Border Patrol agents

    190____________________________________________________________________

    In budget request

    194____________________________________________________________________

    Number of

    196____________________________________________________________________

    Problems recruiting

    197____________________________________________________________________

    Request

    192____________________________________________________________________

    Budget request:

    Fiscal year 2000

          bcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}

    Problem with

    199____________________________________________________________________

    Citizenship USA costs

    203____________________________________________________________________

    Construction bacl committee questions

    208____________________________________________________________________

    Alcan Port-of-Entry, report on housing requirements for the

    209____________________________________________________________________

    Aliens:

    Removal of illegal

    176____________________________________________________________________

    Strategy to target criminal

    185____________________________________________________________________

    Anchorage, AK, additional position in

    210____________________________________________________________________

    Asylum processing

    182____________________________________________________________________

    Automation and technology improvements

    178____________________________________________________________________

    Border:

    Control, three tier system for

    196____________________________________________________________________

    Enforcement

    174____________________________________________________________________

    Management

    184____________________________________________________________________

    Border Patrol agents

    190____________________________________________________________________

    In budget request

    194____________________________________________________________________

    Number of

    196____________________________________________________________________

    Problems recruiting

    197____________________________________________________________________

    Request

    192____________________________________________________________________

    Budget request:

    Fiscal year 2000

          bcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}

    Problem with

    199____________________________________________________________________

    Citizenship USA costs

    203____________________________________________________________________

    Construction bac Problem
    with................................................. 199Citizenship USA
    costs............................................ 203Construction
    backlog............................................. 199Detention: Bed
    space.................................................... 201
    Underestimation in........................................... 205Douglas,
    AZ Border Patrol: Facility,
    interim............................................ 225 Station, proposed
    construction of a new...................... 224Equipment
    problems............................................... 198Gallegly Ventura
    County Local Jail Program....................... 223Honolulu staff,
    gratitude to.....................................
    193Hurricane........................................................
    208IDENT system.....................................................
    210Immigrant Investor Visa (EB-5) Program...........................
    211Immigration policy............................................... 187
    Profile of victim of.........................................
    189Immigration services.............................................
    185Inexperienced agent and recruitment issues.......................
    219INS: Budget before being amended by OMB........................... 221
    Problems in Alaska........................................... 193
    Reorganization............................................... 214
    Restructuring the............................................ 171
    Successes.................................................... 170INSpect
    and integrity............................................ 182Integrated
    interior enforcement strategy, implement.............. 184Interior
    enforcement............................................. 179Kodiak, AK, new
    office in........................................ 208Lautenberg amendment
    implementation.............................. 213Law enforcement support
    center................................... 215Mrs. Steinman's application,
    status of........................... 187Naturalization:
    Backlogs..................................................... 204
    Improvements................................................. 181Newark INS
    office................................................ 213Processing times,
    reduction of................................... 223Quality
    assurance................................................
    205Reorganization...................................................
    188Report on office space needs in Anchorage, Fairbanks, and Juneau,
    AK.............................................................
    208Restructuring....................................................
    182SCAAP funding....................................................
    203Scopes...........................................................
    198Southwest border, University of Texas at Austin study outlining need for
    additional agents on.................................. 221Special
    naturalization case, assistance in....................... 186State Criminal
    Alien Assistance Program (SCAAP).................. 222State facilities,
    utilization of................................. 202Veterans, detention
    of........................................... 214Workforce issue,
    inexperienced................................... 217 Office of the Attorney
    GeneralAdditional committee questions...................................
    47Antitrust Division budget request................................
    32Attorney General position, investigating.........................
    14Attorney General Reno opening remarks............................ 1Black
    tar heroin................................................. 34Border
    Patrol: Budget request............................................... 36
    Deployment plan.............................................. 53 INS
    agents................................................... 30
    Recruitment.................................................. 41
    Supervisory training of agents............................... 31
    Technology...................................................
    42CALEA............................................................
    44Childproof Handgun Act...........................................
    119Colorado: Drugs in.....................................................
    88 Illegal immigration in.......................................
    90Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (CALEA)........
    122Counterterrorism turf issues.....................................
    45Crime within our communities, fighting...........................
    4Cybercrime and terrorism, combating.............................. 6DEA
    funds, reprogramming......................................... 46Department
    litigation............................................ 10Department of
    Justice, introductory statement by the............. 82DNA: Technology,
    expanding........................................ 120
    Testing...................................................... 127Drug:
    Prevention................................................... 16
    Trafficking and drug abuse................................... 7Educating
    prisoners..............................................
    42Encryption.......................................................
    125Farmers' concerns................................................
    82Federal Prison Industries, expansion of..........................
    69Federal tobacco litigation.......................................
    124Felons, detaining and incarcerating.............................. 8First
    responder training......................................... 63Flatow
    case...................................................... 119Funding
    issues................................................... 87Gun
    violence..................................................... 118Guns,
    keeping out of the hands of criminals...................... 5Hawaii
    detention center..........................................
    29Immigration...................................................... 9
    Investor visa program........................................ 30Independent
    Counsel: Accountability of the n

    355____________________________________________________________________

    Microradio

    353____________________________________________________________________

    OMB changes to the budget request

    358____________________________________________________________________

    Portals relocation

    355____________________________________________________________________

    Public broadcasting, rural access to

    362____________________________________________________________________

    Rate integration

    352____________________________________________________________________

    Rural telecommunications

    360____________________________________________________________________

    Summary statement

    325____________________________________________________________________

    Universal service

    352____________________________________________________________________

    Wireless versus wired data traffic

    356____________________________________________________________________

    SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

    Budget request

    313____________________________________________________________________

    Adequacy of

    320____________________________________________________________________

    Electronic commerce

    321____________________________________________________________________

    Resources needed for

    323____________________________________________________________________

    Fee structures, alternative

    322____________________________________________________________________

    Funding structure

    319____________________________________________________________________

    Priorities and allocation of additional resources

    318____________________________________________________________________

    SEC:

    Current challenges facing the

    314____________________________________________________________________

    Fee collections

    321____________________________________________________________________

    SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRAT

    353____________________________________________________________________

    OMB changes to the budget request

    358____________________________________________________________________

    Portals relocation

    355____________________________________________________________________

    Public broadcasting, rural access to

    362____________________________________________________________________

    Rate integration

    352____________________________________________________________________

    Rural telecommunications

    360____________________________________________________________________

    Summary statement

    325____________________________________________________________________

    Universal service

    352____________________________________________________________________

    Wireless versus wired data traffic

    356____________________________________________________________________

    SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

    Budget request

    313____________________________________________________________________

    Adequacy of

    320____________________________________________________________________

    Electronic commerce

    321____________________________________________________________________

    Resources needed for

    323____________________________________________________________________

    Fee structures, alternative

    322____________________________________________________________________

    Funding structure

    319____________________________________________________________________

    Priorities and allocation of additional resources

    318____________________________________________________________________

    SEC:

    Current challenges facing the

    314____________________________________________________________________

    Fee collections

    321____________________________________________________________________

    SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATNM/357

    GSA reimbursement

    355____________________________________________________________________

    Internet regulation

    355____________________________________________________________________

    Microradio

    353____________________________________________________________________

    OMB changes to the budget request

    358____________________________________________________________________

    Portals relocation

    355____________________________________________________________________

    Public broadcasting, rural access to

    362____________________________________________________________________

    Rate integration

    352____________________________________________________________________

    Rural telecommunications

    360____________________________________________________________________

    Summary statement

    325____________________________________________________________________

    Universal service

    352____________________________________________________________________

    Wireless versus wired data traffic

    356____________________________________________________________________

    SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

    Budget request

    313____________________________________________________________________

    Adequacy of

    320____________________________________________________________________

    Electronic commerce

    321____________________________________________________________________

    Resources needed for

    323____________________________________________________________________

    Fee structures, alternative

    322____________________________________________________________________

    Funding structure

    319____________________________________________________________________

    Priorities and allocation of additional resources

    318____________________________________________________________________

    SEC:

    Current challenges facing the

    314____________________________________________________________________

    Fee collections

    321____________________________________________________________________

    SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRAT

    358____________________________________________________________________

    FCC reorganization

    358____________________________________________________________________

    Free air time

    359____________________________________________________________________

    GAO report on schools and libraries program

    357____________________________________________________________________

    GSA reimbursement

    355____________________________________________________________________

    Internet regulation

    355____________________________________________________________________

    Microradio

    353____________________________________________________________________

    OMB changes to the budget request

    358____________________________________________________________________

    Portals relocation

    355____________________________________________________________________

    Public broadcasting, rural access to

    362____________________________________________________________________

    Rate integration

    352____________________________________________________________________

    Rural telecommunications

    360____________________________________________________________________

    Summary statement

    325____________________________________________________________________

    Universal service

    352____________________________________________________________________

    Wireless versus wired data traffic

    356____________________________________________________________________

    SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

    Budget request

    313____________________________________________________________________

    Adequacy of

    320____________________________________________________________________

    Electronic commerce

    321____________________________________________________________________

    Resources needed for

    323____________________________________________________________________

    Fee structures, alternative

    322____________________________________________________________________

    Funding structure

    319____________________________________________________________________

    Priorities and allocation of additional resources

    318____________________________________________________________________

    SEC:

    Current challenges facing the

    314____________________________________________________________________

    Fee collections

    321____________________________________________________________________

    SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATternet regulation

    355____________________________________________________________________

    Microradio

    353____________________________________________________________________

    OMB changes to the budget request

    358____________________________________________________________________

    Portals relocation

    355____________________________________________________________________

    Public broadcasting, rural access to

    362____________________________________________________________________

    Rate integration

    352____________________________________________________________________

    Rural telecommunications

    360____________________________________________________________________

    Summary statement

    325____________________________________________________________________

    Universal service

    352____________________________________________________________________

    Wireless versus wired data traffic

    356____________________________________________________________________

    SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

    Budget request

    313____________________________________________________________________

    Adequacy of

    320____________________________________________________________________

    Electronic commerce

    321____________________________________________________________________

    Resources needed for

    323____________________________________________________________________

    Fee structures, alternative

    322____________________________________________________________________

    Funding structure

    319____________________________________________________________________

    Priorities and allocation of additional resources

    318____________________________________________________________________

    SEC:

    Current challenges facing the

    314____________________________________________________________________

    Fee collections

    321____________________________________________________________________

    SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATn

    355____________________________________________________________________

    Microradio

    353____________________________________________________________________

    OMB changes to the budget request

    358____________________________________________________________________

    Portals relocation

    355____________________________________________________________________

    Public broadcasting, rural access to

    362____________________________________________________________________

    Rate integration

    352____________________________________________________________________

    Rural telecommunications

    360____________________________________________________________________

    Summary statement

    325____________________________________________________________________

    Universal service

    352____________________________________________________________________

    Wireless versus wired data traffic

    356____________________________________________________________________

    SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

    Budget request

    313____________________________________________________________________

    Adequacy of

    320____________________________________________________________________

    Electronic commerce

    321____________________________________________________________________

    Resources needed for

    323____________________________________________________________________

    Fee structures, alternative

    322____________________________________________________________________

    Funding structure

    319____________________________________________________________________

    Priorities and allocation of additional resources

    318____________________________________________________________________

    SEC:

    Current challenges facing the

    314____________________________________________________________________

    Fee collections

    321____________________________________________________________________

    SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATn

    355____________________________________________________________________

    Microradio

    353____________________________________________________________________

    OMB changes to the budget request

    358____________________________________________________________________

    Portals relocation

    355____________________________________________________________________

    Public broadcasting, rural access to

    362____________________________________________________________________

    Rate integration

    352____________________________________________________________________

    Rural telecommunications

    360____________________________________________________________________

    Summary statement

    325____________________________________________________________________

    Universal service

    352____________________________________________________________________

    Wireless versus wired data traffic

    356____________________________________________________________________

    SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

    Budget request

    313____________________________________________________________________

    Adequacy of

    320____________________________________________________________________

    Electronic commerce

    321____________________________________________________________________

    Resources needed for

    323____________________________________________________________________

    Fee structures, alternative

    322____________________________________________________________________

    Funding structure

    319____________________________________________________________________

    Priorities and allocation of additional resources

    318____________________________________________________________________

    SEC:

    Current challenges facing the

    314____________________________________________________________________

    Fee collections

    321____________________________________________________________________

    SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRAT

        Budget.......................................................    43
        Investigation costs..........................................    19
        Reauthorization of act.......................................    15
        Statute......................................................    13
    Indian country:
        Law enforcement in...........................................    48
        Targeting crime in...........................................     9
    Indian crime rates...............................................    91
    Information sharing initiative...................................    47
    INS Central American detention shortfall emergency supplemental..     8
    Justice Department, legal action planned by the..................    83
    Local law enforcement............................................    36
    Mexican drug dealers, extradition of.............................    35
    Mexico:
        Certification of.............................................    37
        Drug certification...........................................    62
        Drug trafficking.............................................    16
        Solutions of drug problem with...............................    40
    Microsoft........................................................   115
    ONDCP, coordination with.........................................    88
    Other Justice Department initiatives.............................    10
    Outside counsel consultants and experts..........................    85
    Parenting education..............................................    11
    Precedent........................................................    85
    Prior unanswered questions--DOJ oversight........................   122
    Prison building funds............................................   124
    Racial profiling.................................................    26
    Radiation Exposure Compensation Act..............................    96
    Radiation Exposure Compensation Program..........................    66
    Rio Arriba County black tar heroin problem.......................    61
    Several issues...................................................    34
    State and local programs, cuts to................................    38
    Terrorism, domestic..............................................   121
    Tribal courts....................................................    18
        Capacity building in.........................................    91
        Program......................................................    19
    Tribal lands, jurisdiction issues on.............................    93
    Vail terrorism...................................................    95
    Violent crime reduction trust fund...............................    55

                       FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

    Additional committee questions...................................   360
    Alarm monitoring system issue....................................   358
    Analog spectrum fee..............................................   356
    C-block spectrum auction bankruptcy..............................   364
    CALEA............................................................   357
    Data LATA........................................................   354
    DTV fees.........................................................   356
    FCC-NTIA merger..................................................   358
    FCC reorganization...............................................   358
    Free air time....................................................   359
    GAO report on schools and libraries program......................   357
    GSA reimbursement................................................   355
    Internet regulation..............................................   355
    Microradio.......................................................   353
    OMB changes to the budget request................................   358
    Portals relocation...............................................   355
    Public broadcasting, rural access to.............................   362
    Rate integration.................................................   352
    Rural telecommunications.........................................   360
    Summary statement................................................   325
    Universal service................................................   352
    Wireless versus wired data traffic...............................   356

                       SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

    Budget request...................................................   313
        Adequacy of..................................................   320
    Electronic commerce..............................................   321
        Resources needed for.........................................   323
    Fee structures, alternative......................................   322
    Funding structure................................................   319
    Priorities and allocation of additional resources................   318
    SEC:
        Current challenges facing the................................   314
        Fee collections..............................................   321

                         SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

    Additional committee questions...................................   259
    Audit issue......................................................   249
    Business development, contracting and technical assistance.......   249
    Counseling fees..................................................   255
    Employees, additional............................................   252
    Microloan program................................................   253
    Minority business development....................................   256
    Modernization and lender oversight...............................   248
    New markets initiative...........................................   247
    Other key provisions.............................................   249
    SBA's fiscal year 2000 budget: Preparing small businesses to
      succeed into the 21st century..................................   247
    7(j) program.....................................................   254
    Targeting smaller, newer businesses..............................   247