[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 
([email protected]). 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