- DEPARTMENTS OF COMMERCE, JUSTICE, AND STATE, THE JUDICIARY, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2002

[Senate Hearing 107-325]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

S. Hrg. 107-325, Pt. 1 deg.

DEPARTMENTS OF COMMERCE, JUSTICE, AND STATE, THE JUDICIARY, AND RELATED
AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2002

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

HEARINGS

before a

SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE

COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS UNITED STATES SENATE

ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

H.R. 2500/S. 1215

AN ACT MAKING APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE DEPARTMENTS OF COMMERCE, JUSTICE,
AND STATE, THE JUDICIARY, AND RELATED AGENCIES FOR THE FISCAL YEAR
ENDING SEPTEMBER 30, 2002, 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
70-709 PDF WASHINGTON : 2002

------------------------------------------------------------------------
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpr.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402�090001

COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS \1\

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
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
MIKE DeWINE, Ohio TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota
MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana
Steven J. Cortese, Staff Director
Lisa Sutherland, Deputy Staff Director
Terry Sauvain, 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 BARBARA A. MIKULSKI, Maryland
KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont
BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL, Colorado HERB KOHL, Wisconsin
PATTY MURRAY, Washington
ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia
(ex officio)

Professional Staff
Jim Morhard
Kevin Linskey
Dana Quam
Luke Nachbar
Katherine Hennessey
Lila Helms (Minority)
Jill Shapiro Long (Minority)

Administrative Support

Nancy Olkewicz

\1\ Committee and subcommittee memberships--January 25, 2001 to
June 6, 2001.

Note.--From January 3 to January 20, 2001 the Democrats held the
majority, thanks to the deciding vote of outgoing Democratic Vice
President Al Gore. Senator Thomas A. Daschle became majority leader at
that time. Starting January 20, 2001, the incoming Republican Vice
President Richard Cheney held the deciding vote, giving the majority to
the Republicans. Senator Trent Lott resumed his position as majority
leader. On May 24, 2001, Senator James Jeffords of Vermont announced
his switch from Republican to Independent status, effective June 6,
2001. Jeffords announced that he would caucus with the Democrats,
changing control of the evenly divided Senate from the Republicans to
the Democrats. Senator Thomas A. Daschle became majority leader once
again on June 6, 2001.

COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS \2\

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

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

ERNEST F. HOLLINGS, South Carolina
DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii JUDD GREGG, New Hampshire
BARBARA A. MIKULSKI, Maryland TED STEVENS, Alaska
PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico
ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia MITCH McCONNELL, Kentucky
(ex officio) KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas
BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL, Colorado

Professional Staff
Lila Helms
Jill Shapiro Long
Luke Nachbar
Jim Morhard (Minority)
Kevin Linskey (Minority)
Katherine Hennessey (Minority)

\2\ Committee and subcommittee memberships--June 6, 2001 to July
10, 2001. Senate committee and subcommittee assignments reverted to
that which had been in existence at the conclusion of the 106th
Congress.

C O N T E N T S

----------

Thursday, April 26, 2001

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

Tuesday, May 1, 2001

Department of Commerce: Office of the Secretary.................. 81

Thursday, May 3, 2001

Department of State: Secretary of State.......................... 115

Tuesday, May 15, 2001

Department of Commerce: National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration................................................. 153
Small Business Administration.................................... 229

Thursday, May 17, 2001

Department of Justice:
Federal Bureau of Investigation.............................. 241
Immigration and Naturalization Service....................... 269
Drug Enforcement Administration.............................. 277

Thursday, June 28, 2001

Federal Communications Commission................................ 315
Securities and Exchange Commission............................... 345
Departmental witnesses:
The judiciary................................................ 353
Nondepartmental witnesses:
Department of Commerce....................................... 379
Department of Justice........................................ 422
Department of State.......................................... 454
Related agencies............................................. 460

DEPARTMENTS OF COMMERCE, JUSTICE, AND STATE, THE JUDICIARY, AND RELATED
AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2002

----------

THURSDAY, APRIL 26, 2001

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, Domenici, Hollings, and Inouye.

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Office of the Attorney General

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN ASHCROFT, ATTORNEY GENERAL

opening remarks

Senator Gregg. We will begin the hearing.
We appreciate the Attorney General's promptness in
appearing before the committee, which looks forward to hearing
from the Attorney General.
I do not know if the ranking member has a statement he
wishes to make; I would be glad to hear from the Senator from
South Carolina.
Senator Hollings. No. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We welcome
the Attorney General, and we are glad to proceed with the
hearing.
Senator Gregg. I feel the same way. We are here to hear
you, not you to hear us. So we will be happy to get your
thoughts, Mr. Attorney General, and then ask some questions.

attorney general ashcroft's opening remarks

Attorney General Ashcroft. Thank you, Chairman Gregg and
Ranking Member Hollings. It is a pleasure to be with you today.
It is an honor and a privilege to appear before you to present
the President's first budget request for the Department of
Justice.
For fiscal year 2002, the President's budget seeks $24.6
billion for the Department, including $20.9 billion in
discretionary spending authority and $3.7 billion in mandatory
resources. While the 2002 request maintains the same overall
amount of spending authority as provided by this subcommittee
in 2001--less than 1 percent variance--we have managed to
enhance a number of key efforts, including reducing gun crime,
stopping violence against women, combatting drugs, and
guaranteeing civil rights for all Americans.
This budget includes a general shift in spending from State
and local law enforcement in order to support our core Federal
law enforcement mission and to better target assistance to
areas of greatest need, such as crime in our schools, crimes
committed with firearms, and violence against women. The
Community-Oriented Policing Services, or COPS, program is
continued at a somewhat reduced level, with resources re-
targeted for school safety, law enforcement technology needs,
and reducing DNA backlogs.
The budget includes nearly $1.1 billion in program
increases to enable the Department to carry out its core
mission, particularly in the areas of detention and
incarceration, antiterrorism, cybercrime, and
counterintelligence. Another $302 million in new funding is
requested to address key technology initiatives focusing on
systems integration upgrades and network reliability. Of this
amount, $225.7 million will be used directly to assist State
and local law enforcement agencies with technology needs.
The 2002 budget also focuses on several key areas that
reflect the priorities of the Bush Administration--gun
violence, violence against women, and drug crime, all threaten
to deny the most fundamental right of our citizens, the right
to their personal safety. The 2002 budget provides $650 million
in additional funding to help secure this basic right.

gun crime

There is no question that we need a renewed commitment to
the vigorous enforcement of existing laws addressing gun crime.
The recent gun violence on school campuses highlights the need
for a collaboration among Federal, State, and local law
enforcement officers to combat juvenile gun crime. I intend to
intensify enforcement efforts against gun crime.
The first step toward this goal is our request for $153.8
million in increased resources to enforce vigorously gun laws
through increased prosecutions, collaborative approaches to
crimes committed with firearms, and by ensuring that child
safety locks are available for every handgun in America.

drug enforcement

To reinvigorate the war on illegal drugs, the 2002 budget
includes $77.2 million in additional resources. Specifically,
our budget seeks $58.2 million in enhancements for the Drug
Enforcement Administration. The request also continues to
provide $48 million for the Office of Justice Programs to
assist State and local law enforcement agencies with the costs
associated with meth cleanup and to aid in meth enforcement.

civil rights

Through the efforts of the Civil Rights Division, the
Community Relations Service, the United States Attorneys, the
Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Office of Justice
Programs, the Department seeks to protect the civil rights and
liberties of all Americans. The 2002 budget includes an
increase of $105.7 million to further these efforts.

immigration

For immigration-related activities, the 2002 budget
includes an additional $240 million. Included within this
amount is $75 million for the INS to add 570 new Border Patrol
agents in 2002.
To address chronic space shortages and facility
deficiencies, the budget also includes $42.7 million for INS
Border Patrol facility construction. To enhance the resources
of county prosecutors located on the Southwest border--these
are State county prosecutors--our 2002 request includes $50
million in assistance to those individuals to deal with the
challenges they face.
The Administration will propose splitting the mission of
the INS in two, with separate chains of command reporting to a
single policy official. I support this restructuring. I believe
its time has come and look forward to working with this
subcommittee as the proposal moves through the Congress.

state and local law enforcement

The 2002 budget proposal appropriations request provides
over $4.2 billion for State and local law enforcement grant
programs. Included within the request are newly-created
initiatives or enhancements to existing programs to address
specific crime problems. These proposals include an increase in
Violence Against Women Act funding of more than 35 percent;
expansion of the Weed and Seed Program; more drug treatment in
State prisons; increased assistance for State prosecutors, and
new gun violence programs.
Reductions are made primarily in four areas: (1) Byrne
discretionary grants; (2) the State Criminal Alien Assistance
Program; (3) the Local Law Enforcement Block Grant Program; and
(4) State Prison grants.
This reduction in funding will allow the Department to
fulfill its core law enforcement responsibilities, and to
enhance key efforts including reducing gun crime, stopping
violence against women, combating drugs, and guaranteeing civil
rights for all Americans.
Chairman Gregg, Senator Hollings, I have outlined the
principal focus of the President's 2002 budget request for the
Department of Justice.
I hasten to add that I am still learning about many of the
programs we have under the jurisdiction of the Department of
Justice. You both have monitored spending in the Department for
quite some time and are experts in that respect. I have much to
learn, and I look forward to your advice and counsel.

prepared statement

Thank you. I would be pleased to be responsive to the
extent that I can, to questions that you might have.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of John Ashcroft
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: It is both an honor
and a pleasure to appear before you this morning to present President
Bush's first budget request for the Department of Justice. For fiscal
year 2002, the President's budget seeks $24.65 billion for the
Department of Justice, including $20.94 billion in discretionary
spending authority and $3.71 billion in mandatory resources, such as
fees. This budget seeks to fulfill our basic federal law enforcement
responsibilities, address emerging technology and critical
infrastructure needs, and focus on the Administration's priorities of
reducing gun crime, combating drug use, guaranteeing the rights of all
Americans, and empowering communities in their continued fight against
crime.
While the fiscal year 2002 budget request maintains the same
overall amount of discretionary spending authority as was provided by
this Subcommittee in fiscal year 2001, we have managed to enhance a
number of key areas. The budget includes a general shift in spending
from state and local law enforcement in order to support our core
federal law enforcement mission, and better target assistance to areas
of greatest need, such as crime in our schools, crimes committed with
firearms, and violence against women. The Community Oriented Policing
Services (COPS) program is continued at a somewhat reduced level, with
resources targeted for school safety, law enforcement technology needs,
and reducing DNA backlogs. The COPS request does not disrupt or affect
the commitments made to put 100,000 more police on the streets and, in
fact, goes further by proposing to hire up to an additional 1,500
School Resource Officers.
basic law enforcement--the core federal mission
The budget I present to you today first addresses the basic law
enforcement responsibilities of the Department of Justice. The mission
of the Department is clear: to enforce the law and defend the interests
of the United States according to the law; to provide leadership in
preventing and controlling crime; to seek just punishment for those
guilty of unlawful behavior; to administer and enforce the nation's
immigration laws fairly and effectively; and to ensure fair and
impartial administration of justice for all Americans. The fiscal year
2002 budget includes $1.057 billion in program increases to enable the
Department to carry out its mission, particularly in the areas of
detention and incarceration, antiterrorism, cybercrime, and
counterintelligence.
Increased Detention and Incarceration Capacity
The number of inmates in the Federal Prison System has more than
doubled since 1990 as a result of tougher sentencing guidelines,
mandatory minimum sentences, the abolition of parole, and increased
federal law enforcement efforts. This surge in the prison population
continually tests the limits of our detention and incarceration
capacity. The fiscal year 2002 budget for the Department of Justice
includes a $949.5 million increase in funding to support the federal
responsibility of detaining individuals awaiting trial or sentencing in
federal court, and incarcerating inmates who have been sentenced to
prison for federal crimes.
The rapid growth in the federal inmate population is expected to
continue. Despite the investment of nearly $5 billion for prison
construction over the past decade, the prison system is currently
operating at 32 percent over its rated capacity--up from 22 percent at
the end of 1997. These conditions could jeopardize public safety and
cannot be ignored. The fiscal year 2002 budget seeks an additional
$809.27 million for the Bureau of Prisons to reduce overcrowding and
accommodate future growth. Specifically, $669.97 million is requested
to fund the construction of three Federal Corrections Institutions and
four United States Penitentiaries; partial site and planning funds for
two female facilities and two male facilities; and $139.3 million is
requested for the activation of the Federal Corrections Institute in
Petersburg, Virginia, and the United States Penitentiary and work camp
in Lee County, Virginia; and, the contract confinement costs to meet
the anticipated increase in the federal prison population.
To increase the detention capacity and staffing necessary to keep
pace with the growth in INS enforcement activities, the Department's
request includes an increase of $74.2 million. Within this amount is
$42.3 million in new resources to support the staffing, transportation,
medical, and removal costs associated with the utilization of an
additional 1,607 detention beds in fiscal year 2002. And, $31.9 million
in new resources will support detention planning and construction costs
associated with additional detention bedspace and other improvements at
INS Service Processing Centers. INS's detention and removal efforts
will suffer if additional reliable bedspace is not created. In many INS
districts, contracting for detention space is not a viable option,
considering the remoteness of the locations in which INS operates.
The workload of the United States Marshals Service is, in many
ways, unpredictable 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, nor the number of prisoners coming into its custody.
For fiscal year 2002, our request includes $64.4 million in increased
funding for the United States Marshals Service to cover the medical and
housing costs associated with an increase of one million jail days for
Marshals Service detainees held in non-federal facilities; to address
the anticipated workload increases as a result of the D.C.
Revitalization Act; for the staffing and equipping of courthouses that
are new or undergoing significant renovations; and to support the costs
of increased prisoner movements.
Also included within the Department's requested increase for
incarceration and detention is a critically needed $1.65 million for
the United States Parole Commission to support anticipated workload
increases associated with its takeover of the District of Columbia's
parole revocation and supervised release hearing functions, as outlined
in the D.C. Revitalization Act.
Counterterrorism, Cybercrime, and Counterintelligence Efforts
Preventing terrorism, deterring computer crime, and thwarting
foreign espionage are among the most serious challenges facing law
enforcement today. The Department of Justice, with the strong support
and leadership of your Subcommittee, has acted aggressively to prevent,
mitigate, and investigate acts of terrorism, including the use of
weapons of mass destruction, and the emerging threat of cybercrime. For
fiscal year 2002, we are requesting $107.96 million in additional
funding to support the Department's counterterrorism, cybercrime, and
counterintelligence efforts.
The nation's growing dependency on technology systems has resulted
in a heightened vulnerability of our banking system, critical
transportation networks, and vital government services, while also
significantly increasing the incidence and complexity of crime. To
address the emerging cyber threat, the fiscal year 2002 budget includes
$33 million in increased resources. Within this amount, $28.14 million
will support the FBI's counter-encryption capabilities, and the
development of cyber technologies for the interception and management
of digital evidence. For the U.S. Attorneys, $2.95 million is included
to support 24 new positions for the prosecution of crimes committed
using the Internet. And, $1.9 million is included for the Criminal
Division for 14 new positions to continue coordinating the rising
number of investigations and prosecutions of multi-jurisdictional
national and international intrusion; denial of service attacks and
virus cases; and to provide increased network security and encryption
capabilities for its automated infrastructure.
To combat the threat of terrorism, the fiscal year 2002 budget
includes $39.4 million in new funding. For the FBI, $32 million is
requested for security and investigative duties at the 2002 Winter
Olympics in Salt Lake City, Utah; for increased security requirements
at various FBI locations; and, to support its incident response
readiness responsibilities. In addition, recognizing the critical role
state and local public safety agencies have in managing the
consequences of any terrorist event involving weapons of mass
destruction, the Department's budget request includes $220.5 million to
continue the Office of Justice Programs' Counterterrorism programs in
fiscal year 2002 and ensure state and local response readiness. For the
INS, $6.59 million in new funding is included to establish intelligence
units along our northern and southern borders. These units will monitor
terrorist activities and smuggling operations, and assist in tracking
the movement of illicit narcotics, weapons, and other contraband across
our nation's borders.
The Department's fiscal year 2002 budget also requests $31.6
million in additional funding to allow the FBI to more completely and
effectively assess and defeat foreign intelligence threats to our
national security. Included within this amount is funding for the
Criminal Division to continue assisting the FBI with investigations
involving counterintelligence, particularly those involving espionage
and high technology export violations.
technology and critical infrastructure needs
Coordination between federal, state, tribal, and local law
enforcement agencies is crucial to crime solving and criminal
apprehension. The pooling of information and resources can greatly
increase efficiency and decrease the time involved in solving a case.
Because law enforcement agencies have developed a reliance on one
another for accurate and timely information, our crime fighting
agencies must maintain up-to-date information systems and develop
secure processes for sharing this information. The fiscal year 2002
budget request includes $302 million in new funding to address these
needs, focusing on systems integration, upgrades, network reliability,
efficient processes, and state-of-the-art technologies. In addition,
the Department plans to request the use of $67 million from its Working
Capital Fund for infrastructure needs.
For the FBI, our budget request includes $67.7 million to support
the second year of Trilogy, the FBI's 3-year information technology
upgrade plan. Another $6.5 million will permit the acquisition of
communication circuits that will support faster transmission of data
and greater network reliability. For activation of the new FBI
Laboratory in Quantico, Virginia, we are seeking $1.16 million in
direct spending and the use of up to $40 million from the Department's
Working Capital Fund. To continue the critically needed integration of
the INS and FBI Fingerprint Identification Systems, we are seeking $28
million $1 million in direct spending and the use of up to $27 million
from the Working Capital Fund. This funding will be used to improve INS
fingerprinting capabilities, and integrate the INS Automated Biometrics
Identification System (IDENT) with the FBI's Integrated Automated
Fingerprint Identification System (IAFIS). This investment of resources
will better equip us to prevent a recurrence of an incident similar to
the Rafael Resendiz-Ramirez serial killings that occurred in 1999.
To directly assist state and local law enforcement agencies with
their technology needs, the fiscal year 2002 budget includes an
increase of $225.7 million in grant funding. Specifically, the
Department is requesting $20.7 million for Crime Identification
Technology Act (CITA) funding; $35 million to address the backlog of
state convicted offender DNA and crime scene DNA samples that exist
nationwide; $35 million for the Crime Lab Improvement Program (CLIP) to
improve the general forensic science capabilities of laboratories; $35
million for the Criminal Records Upgrade Program to promote
compatibility among criminal history, criminal justice, and
identification record systems nationwide; and $100 million for
technology grants for state and local law enforcement under the COPS
program. The fiscal year 2002 budget significantly increases the
funding available to state and local law enforcement for technology
initiatives a natural follow-on to the COPS program that provided
additional officers on the street. Now we need to ensure state and
local law enforcement is adequately equipped with the best technology
to do its job.
bush administration priorities
The budget I present to you today also focuses on several key areas
that are reflective of the priorities of the Bush Administration.
During my confirmation hearings, I said I believe a citizen's paramount
civil right is safety. Americans have a right to be secure in their
persons, homes and communities. Gun violence, violence against women,
drug crime, and sexual predators all threaten to deny this most
fundamental right. It is a core responsibility of government, led by
the Attorney General and the Department of Justice, cooperating with
local law enforcement officials, to secure this right. Our fiscal year
2002 budget provides $650 million in additional funding to advance this
effort. Children do not learn in schools overrun by neighborhood
violence. Jobs will not be found in communities where criminals own the
streets, and no American who now feels threatened should have to move
to live in a safer neighborhood.
Reducing Gun Crime
I announced at the outset of my tenure as Attorney General that one
of my top priorities would be the formation of a new firearms
enforcement initiative, along with a task force to develop and
implement this initiative. This group includes the Bureau of Alcohol,
Tobacco, and Firearms and various components from within the Department
of Justice, including the Office of the Attorney General, FBI, Criminal
Division, Executive Office of United States Attorneys, and others. They
have been meeting regularly and I look forward to hearing their
recommendations in the next several weeks.
There is no question that we need a renewed commitment to the
vigorous enforcement of existing laws addressing gun crime. The recent
spate of gun violence on school campuses and the alarming rate at which
gang related violence occurs in schools, on playgrounds, and at parks
throughout the country highlight the need for federal prosecutors to
work with state and local law enforcement to pursue serious juvenile
offenders. I intend to renew enforcement efforts in this area by
building on successes in existing jurisdictions and by developing a
comprehensive strategy to target gun violence. The fiscal year 2002
budget request for the Department of Justice takes the first step
toward this goal and includes $153.78 million in increased resources to
vigorously enforce gun laws through increased prosecutions, strategic
approaches to crimes committed with firearms, and ensuring that child
safety locks are available for every handgun in America.
For the U.S. Attorneys, $9 million is included to support Project
Sentry, a new federal-state law enforcement partnership to identify and
prosecute juveniles who violate state and federal firearms laws and the
adults who supply them with guns. This funding will be used to hire a
prosecutor in each of the 94 U.S. Attorneys' Offices around the country
who will focus on gun crimes involving or affecting juveniles,
including school-related violence and trafficking firearms to minors.
Another $20 million will be provided to Project Sentry through the
COPS program and the Juvenile Justice Title V program. This funding
establishes safe school task forces across the country that will also
prosecute and supervise juveniles who carry or use guns illegally, as
well as the adults who illegally furnish firearms to them.
Within the Office of Justice Programs, $49.78 million is requested
for a new gun violence program that will provide grants to encourage
states to increase the prosecution of gun criminals and assist them by
providing funding to establish programs that target gun criminals
through increased arrests and prosecutions and public awareness to
deter gun crime. This funding will support Project Exile and Project
Ceasefire type programs that vigorously enforce our gun laws and send a
clear signal that our culture will not tolerate the illegal use of
firearms.
Another $75 million is included for Child Safe, a new program that
will provide funds to ensure child safety locks are available for every
handgun in America. The Office of Justice Programs will provide $65
million annually to state and local governments on a dollar-for-dollar
matching basis. Locks will be distributed by local municipalities,
counties, or private organizations. The annual federal matching funds
will also be available to match private contributions by organizations
seeking assistance in the goal of providing locks for every handgun in
America. The remaining $10 million will be spent, annually, on
administrative costs and advertising, including a national toll-free
hotline to make sure all parents are aware of the program.
Combating Drug Use
The cost of illegal drug use to this nation continues to rise and
is borne by all Americans through tax dollars for increased law
enforcement, incarceration, treatment programs, and medical needs.
Estimates of the total cost exceed $100 billion annually, yet do not
begin to capture the human costs associated with drug abuse that are
measured in wasted human capital, and the pain and suffering of many
American families. The fiscal year 2002 budget for the Department of
Justice includes $77.2 million in additional resources for law
enforcement agencies to combat illegal drug use.
Specifically, our budget requests $58.16 million in enhancements
for the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA). Included within this
amount is $30 million and 3 positions for DEA's global information
technology and intelligence network, FIREBIRD. This funding will enable
the DEA to complete its deployment, provide network security, and
support technology renewal of the system. Another $15 million and 62
positions are included to provide critical support for DEA's role in
the interagency Special Operations Division, and DEA's Investigative
Technology programs, particularly for investigations associated with
the Southwest Border, Latin America, the Caribbean, Europe, and Asia.
To meet mission critical requirements within the laboratory services
program, $13.1 million and 69 positions are also included. This request
will give DEA sufficient chemist resources to address a growing backlog
of exhibits, and establish a laboratory equipment base that will better
support program operations.
The production and use of methamphetamine (meth) has been on the
rise over the past few years, and the number of meth laboratories has
increased dramatically across the country. In 1998 and 1999 combined,
law enforcement agencies seized meth labs in every state except 3. Meth
lab enforcement and clean-up efforts are complicated by the presence of
hazardous materials produced during the manufacturing process. Cleaning
up these labs is a costly and risky business posing life-threatening
consequences to our law enforcement officials who come across these
labs, as well as severe and toxic environmental damage to the
surrounding area. State and local law enforcement agencies can be
overwhelmed by the need to confront even one large laboratory. Meth
dealers and drug organizations have targeted rural communities, places
where many of the local law enforcement agencies have neither the
expertise nor the resources to deal with this serious threat. The
fiscal year 2002 budget continues to provide $48 million for the Office
of Justice Programs to assist state and local law enforcement agencies
with the costs associated with meth cleanup and to aid meth
enforcement.
While law enforcement is an effective and essential tool in
combating the violent crime associated with illegal drug use in
communities throughout our nation, treatment for the individual abuser
is also important. Our fiscal year 2002 request includes $14 million to
expand residential substance abuse treatment in federal and state
prison systems. We have also requested $5 million for the National
Institute of Justice to expand the Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring
(ADAM) program to 15 additional sites across the country, so that more
communities will have sound data about the links between drugs and
crime on which to base their law enforcement policies and offender
treatment practices.
Guaranteeing Rights for All Americans
The Department of Justice has a unique role in guaranteeing the
rights of all Americans. This role includes promoting the enforcement
of our nation's civil rights laws and deterring violent crimes against
women. Through the efforts of the Civil Rights Division, the Community
Relations Service, the United States Attorneys Offices, the FBI, and
the Office of Justice Programs, the Department seeks to protect the
civil rights and liberties guaranteed to all Americans. The fiscal year
2002 budget includes an increase of $105.7 million to further its role
in this area.
Specifically, we have requested a $102.5 million increase in
Violence Against Women Act programs to support new and existing
programs. Authorized under the Victims of Trafficking and Violence
Protection Act of 2000, the budget includes: $15 million for the Safe
Havens for Children Pilot Grant Program; $40 million for the Legal
Assistance for Victims Program; $10 million for the Grants to Reduce
Violent Crimes Against Women on Campus Program; $5 million for a new
Elder Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation Program; and $7.5 million for
education and training to end violence against and abuse of women with
disabilities.
Our request also includes $1.2 million in funding to support three
studies by the Office of Justice Programs' Bureau of Justice
Statistics. The first study will deal with police initiated stops of
motorists for routine traffic violations. The second study will deal
with deaths while in law enforcement custody as required under the
Deaths in Custody Act. The third study will measure victimization of
the population with disabilities in the United States.
For the Civil Rights Division, the fiscal year 2002 budget includes
a $2 million enhancement to address several important initiatives,
including enforcement of the newly enacted Trafficking Victims
Protection Act of 2000, which affords expanded protections and services
for trafficking victims and creates several new federal crimes for
which the Division is the lead component with respect to enforcement.
With the fiscal year 2002 allocation, the Division will be able to hire
additional prosecutors and conduct a community outreach program.
The fiscal year 2002 funding will also help the Civil Rights
Division implement the President's New Freedom Initiative to assist
persons with disabilities, including expanded outreach to America's
small business sector, improved access to information technologies and
voting, and swift implementation of the Supreme Court's Olmstead
decision to provide services to people with disabilities in community-
based settings. The fiscal year 2002 budget includes funding for new
attorney hires that will allow the Civil Rights Division to undertake a
broad voting rights initiative aimed at ensuring voter access and the
integrity of the voting process. Our fiscal year 2002 budget request
also includes funding to increase the Division's presence in employer
and other communities to prevent immigration-related unfair employment
practices.
Empowering Communities in their Fight Against Crime
The active involvement of communities throughout America is a
critical and necessary resource in our fight against crime. By
broadening the base of resources available at the local level,
communities will be better equipped to provide their citizens with the
tools necessary to ensure a safe environment in which their children
can grow and learn. Nowhere is this more evident than in the success of
the Weed and Seed Program where communities work in partnership with
federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies to target criminals,
``weed'' them out of their neighborhoods with swift and certain
prosecution, and then go to work to take back the houses, schools, and
recreation centers, that made the communities a safe haven and home to
so many. President Bush's fiscal year 2002 budget includes a $25
million increase for the Weed and Seed program building upon an
initiative that was first started during his father's Administration
and with the active support of many on this Subcommittee.
The fiscal year 2002 budget also includes $5 million for the
development of a faith-based, pre-release pilot program at four federal
prisons. The pilot will include male and female programs at different
geographic sites and security levels. This faith-based initiative--
which will be voluntary and open to inmates of any faith, or no faith
at all--aims to combat crime and curb recidivism so that ex-offenders
can remain ex-offenders. Religion and crime are age-old enemies, and a
growing body of empirical evidence shows the potency of the ``faith
factor'' to change behavior. This model initiative, with a strong focus
on one-on-one, post-prison aftercare, will offer moral guidance and a
caring community to help ex-offenders re-enter society with hope and
responsibility.
Improving Immigration Services and Border Enforcement
The Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) has two principal
functions: enforcement and service. Right now, the INS's performance is
widely criticized. This Administration intends to turn the agency
around. Restructuring of the INS will be a top priority. The fiscal
year 2002 budget includes an additional $240.14 million for
immigration-related activities.
The Bush Administration is committed to building and maintaining an
immigration services system that ensures integrity, provides services
accurately and in a timely manner, and emphasizes a culture of respect.
The fiscal year 2002 budget includes $45 million in increased resources
to reduce the backlogs in benefits processing. This request, combined
with $35 million in base funding and $20 million in premium processing
fees, represents the first $100 million installment in a five-year,
$500 million initiative to provide quality service to all legal
immigrants, citizens, businesses, and other INS customers. It will
enable INS to establish and accomplish a universal six-month processing
standard for all immigration applications and petitions and, through
employee performance incentives, make customer satisfaction a high
priority.
The fiscal year 2002 budget also includes $75 million for the INS
to add 570 new Border Patrol agents in 2002, with plans to add another
570 in 2003. With these 1,140 additional agents, the total increase of
5,000 Border Patrol agents authorized by the Illegal Immigration Reform
and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA) will be achieved.
Approximately 11,000 agents will be deployed along the nation's
northern and southern borders by the end of 2003, 11 percent more than
the 2001 level of 9,800.
In support of the additional agents, another $20 million is
requested in fiscal year 2002 for the INS to increase the deployment of
force multiplying border enforcement technology. The Integrated
Surveillance Intelligence System (ISIS) will provide day and night
visual coverage of the border, can be deployed in rugged terrain and in
vast open areas, and serves as a deterrent to potential illegal border
crossers in areas where Border Patrol agents are not immediately
visible.
To address chronic space shortages and facility deficiencies, the
fiscal year 2002 budget includes $42.73 million for INS Border Patrol
facility construction. Many of the Border Patrol facilities were built
prior to the 1970's and cannot accommodate the tremendous growth in the
number of agents.
For the Executive Office of Immigration Review (EOIR), the fiscal
year 2002 budget includes $4.85 million in increased funding to
coordinate with INS initiatives, which are anticipated to increase
annually the Immigration Judge caseload and the Board of Immigration
Appeals caseload by 10,000 cases. The budget also includes an
additional $1.2 million for the U.S. Attorneys to meet immigration
workload generated from a rise in habeas corpus petitions filed by
detainees held in INS custody indefinitely. These detainees have been
issued an order of deportation but cannot be removed because their
country of origin will not accept them. Many detainees challenge the
legal authority of the INS to hold them by petitioning for a writ of
habeas corpus. Another $1.36 million is requested for the Office of the
Inspector General to address corruption and civil rights violations
involving Department employees along the Southwest border.
To enhance the prosecutorial resources of county prosecutors
located near the Southwest border, our fiscal year 2002 request
includes $50 million. Thousands of federal drug arrests occurring near
the Southwest border are referred to county prosecutors because the
quantity of drugs seized is too small to meet the threshold set by
local U.S. Attorneys for prosecution. The Department will devote $50
million to assist counties near the Southwest border with the costs of
prosecuting and detaining these referrals. Grants will be awarded based
on Southwest border county caseloads for processing, detaining, and
prosecuting drug and alien cases referred from federal arrestees.
The Administration will propose splitting INS into two agencies
with separate chains of command, but reporting to a single policy
official in the Department of Justice. I support this restructuring,
believe its time has come, and look forward to working with the
Subcommittee as the proposal moves through the Congress.
Redirection of State and Local Resources
The fiscal year 2002 budget provides over $4.2 billion for state
and local law enforcement grant programs. Included within the request
are newly created initiatives or enhancements to existing programs to
address specific crime problems. These proposals include: an increase
in Violence Against Women Act funding of more than 35 percent; an
expansion of the Weed and Seed program; more funding for drug treatment
in state prisons; increased assistance for state prosecutors; and new
anti-gun violence programs.
Reductions are made primarily in four areas: (1) Byrne
discretionary grants; (2) the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program;
(3) the Local Law Enforcement Block Grant Program; and (4) State Prison
grants. These funding reductions are recommended for programs that have
fulfilled their original purpose, outlived their authorizations, or are
less essential to core federal law enforcement functions. This
redirection in funding will allow the Department to meet many of the
federal law enforcement agency priorities that I have highlighted for
you here today.
conclusion
Chairman Gregg, Senator Hollings, Members of the Subcommittee, I
have outlined for you today the principal focus of President Bush's
fiscal year 2002 budget request for the Department of Justice. I am new
to the job of Attorney General of the United States and am still
learning about many of the programs we have under our jurisdiction. You
both have monitored spending by the Department for some time and I look
forward to your advice and counsel.
Thank you. I would be pleased to answer any questions you might
have.

Senator Gregg. Thank you, Mr. Attorney General. I
appreciate that statement.
You have outlined the proposals which you have come forward
with. Let me ask you for specifics in some areas that we are
interested in.

INS restructuring

You mentioned that you are going to propose the splitting
of INS into two operating units; one would be the Washington
function, and one would be the citizenship function. Maybe you
could give us a little more explanation as to how you plan to
structure those.
Would the enforcement function be set up as an independent
agency, such as FBI/DEA, or would it be still under the INS
umbrella?
Would the enforcement units be housed independently within
the border, or would they be joined with other agencies that
serve on the border? And what is the manning structure of the
enforcement side?
This committee has authorized and appropriated--I guess we
do not authorize; well, we do authorize occasionally----
Senator Hollings. We have to for the FBI; we have never had
authorization for the FBI.
Senator Gregg. We have been known to authorize on this
committee, but we try not to. But we have appropriated for a
significant number of Border Patrol individuals, enforcement
agents, and unfortunately, we have not had success in filling
the complement. So I would be interested to know where we stand
in that area, too.
Attorney General Ashcroft. Well, let me begin with the last
question. For some time, there was great difficulty in INS in
attracting and developing the personnel to fulfill the charge
of this committee. We had appropriations for new people that we
were not attracting.
I think we are solving that problem. We have made up for
the backlog of the non-hires of last year, and we have a net
new force of about 160 people so far this year, so that we are
on track, and we feel like we are making that recovery.
That is important. It takes more than mere appropriations;
it takes actual implementation. That is one of the reasons why
we are, and the President has, focused on this agency. The news
about INS has not always been as favorable as it should be and
could be, and the President has signalled his very deep concern
by indicating that he wants to divide these functions.
I do not think it is totally clear yet whether there would
be a single reporting individual in INS, or whether there would
be a single reporting individual in the Justice Department,
outside of INS.
What is very clear is that the functional separation is
essential, that people in the enforcement responsibility have
one mentality, and the people in the service area should have
another mentality and another approach. The President is
committed to, I think, achieving this kind of separation of
function.
We are working to attract the very best-qualified
individual to run the Immigration and Naturalization Service.
It must be an individual of tremendous skill, administrative
vision, and a capacity to inspire a work force of over 30,000
individuals.
In terms of the deployment of the individuals on the
border, I think there are some ideas, frankly, which come from
this committee which I think have great value. One is to seek
to find ways to elevate the amount of communication between the
enforcement arm of the INS and other enforcement agencies,
whether it be the DEA or other personnel in the area. So it may
be that the physical surroundings, locating INS agents who are
in the enforcement business in proximity to drug enforcement
officials and other individuals with law enforcement
responsibilities, would have a way of enhancing or elevating
our capacity to get our job done well.
The slate is substantially open on INS. I think the
President acknowledged when campaigning for office, and has
reaffirmed that since he has been in office, that this is a
matter of great priority. We need to and can do a better job,
and we look forward to doing a better job. And in shaping that,
I would hope that this committee would be very active in
helping us get the best structure and personnel.

Border Patrol facilities

Senator Gregg. I know you have not had a chance yet--and I
understand you are headed down to the border fairly soon--but
one thing you are going to notice immediately when you arrive
there is that the facilities situation is a disaster. Because
we have increased the number of personnel on the border, we use
old taco stands that should accommodate about 20 or 30 people
to house many more than that. We have about a $1.5 billion
backlog in facilities and construction needs at INS, most of it
border construction needs for housing Border Patrol.
It is very hard for the Border Patrol to do an effective
job if they do not have the facilities. I notice that in your
budget, you are talking about $128 million or something like
that for new facilities within INS.
This committee will probably want to find more money for
facilities. If you have suggestions for where we should take it
from, we would be happy to listen to them. But I do think that
facilities--and you are going to sense this fairly quickly--run
along with personnel. As we have added these personnel, we have
not had facility reconstruction.
Senator Hollings.
Senator Hollings. General, welcome.
Attorney General Ashcroft. Thank you.
Senator Hollings. I understand this is your first hearing,
and while I did not support your nomination, you and I have got
to work together for the good of the Government.

INS reorganization

Picking up from what the chairman was talking about a
minute ago up here with the INS, you have got to get somebody
in there who is really strong. It is not so much just a
division of INS. I would be hesitant about dividing and
reorganizing and so on. Rather, I would try to organize what is
there. It is the biggest backlog--you ask for an answer, and
you are lucky if you get it 9 to 12 months from now, and that
kind of thing--and that is not just recently. I have been--and
the distinguished chairman has been on the committee here for
years--and this was 5 years ago, 4 years ago, right on through
the 1990's. We tried our best. We have been putting all the
money there, but we have not gotten any results.
And the growth industry in law enforcement ought to be
watched carefully by you as the Attorney General. I know that
just about 10 years ago, your budget was $4 billion, and now it
is $24 billion. Health care costs and law enforcement costs are
in a race in this land to see which can consume us first.
But look at the INS very, very carefully, and you will have
our cooperation. We have been sort of nags, trying to get the
INS cleaned up as fast as possible. And I cannot see why there
is all the holdup.
We have a Border Patrol school in South Carolina, and we
have put out 3,000 Spanish-speaking agents down at the old Navy
Yard. We had the facilities, so we put them in there on a crash
basis, and it has worked extremely well, and they are very
happy. They have gone down to the border, and three or four
have already been killed in the line of duty and so on. So that
part of INS is working, but it is the actual bureaucracy,
citizenship and immigration, that is backlogged.

Tobacco litigation

I am sure you saw the morning story about tobacco. I know
you as a very strong-willed person, because I have worked with
you on the Committee on Commerce on tobacco. I understand that
a man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still.
While there were 19 of us on the committee for proceeding and
voted to proceed on the tobacco case, you were the one
dissenting vote.
Is it your opinion that we ought to proceed with the case
or not proceed with the case?
Attorney General Ashcroft. Let me clarify my position
expressed in my vote on the Commerce Committee. That was not an
opinion expressed on this case. That was expressed on a global
settlement that would have given the Federal Government and
State governments, together, a settlement of the case. This
case was a subsequent filing, I believe.
My opinion on this case--first of all, this is an ongoing
matter of litigation. Our budget request on this case is
exactly the same budget request as was fashioned and submitted
by Ms. Reno in anticipation of the year 2002. It is identical
to the budget request which she submitted as well for the year
2001. It is for $1.8 million to continue the case. It is in
anticipation, in the event that the needs arise and so on, that
additional funding would be available to the case in the way
that it has been in the past.
There are a number of issues pending in the case. There
were three aspects of the case that were submitted to the court
originally. Two of them were dismissed by the court. One of
those two dismissals is sought to be remedied by the
Department, and it is the Department's position that it can be
remedied, and it is now pending decision by the court.
A decision about the position of the Justice Department in
terms of any change that would be made in my judgment, would be
a decision best informed by what the court does with the two
pending matters before the case now. The decision and the
position of the Department have remained unchanged in this
litigation.

Tobacco litigation funding

Senator Hollings. Now, going back to Commerce, that is
exactly what intrigues me. We woke up one morning in June 3
years ago, and there was a headline with a figure that I had
never heard of--$368 billion. And the $368 billion was a
settlement amount that the tobacco companies, the White House,
the health communities, and the attorneys general--and you were
a former attorney general--had all gotten together on.
Of course, watching that case as it developed, we found
that Congress did not confirm the settlement--but the State
attorneys general went forward with the health community, and
they got $206 billion of that $368 billion in settlement. This
was separate and apart from three States that preceded them--
Florida, Texas, and Minnesota--their settlement amounted to
about $40 billion. So let us say it was $246 billion of the
$368 billion agreed to and settled and now in the course of
being distributed.
That left $122 billion on the table. And I am saying, look,
I am from the Government, I am a United States Senator, I am up
here with the Justice Department appropriation, and there is
$122 billion that the defendant, the companies, have already
agreed to pay; they just want to know when and how.
And yes, it has been a struggle to bring that case with
this particular committee and the full committee, because it
has been party vote right down the line. I made the motion that
we proceed with the case, and my Republican colleagues to a man
voted no, not to proceed.
So finally, the distinguished chairman and I got together
on a compromise. As you indicate, it is the same situation as
last year. Now, when you say it is the same, yes, the former
Attorney General was ready to bring the case, and they were in
the process of doing so, and they were using the section of the
statute whereby they charged the various departments for the
amounts of money in order to finance it.
Having said that, again, I just wonder what you think. Are
you for the case or against the case?
Attorney General Ashcroft. The Department of Justice is
proceeding with the case, and I support the Department's
position. I think that we have made the right kind of request
and have the same, identical structure which my predecessor had
asked for in the appropriation, so the capacity to proceed with
the case exists in the Department in the same way that it would
have in previous settings and would have in this setting, had
the election been different.
Senator Hollings. Well, there is a difference in the
Department's and your request in the sense that the memo says
it has been reported that the attorneys working on the case
want $57.6 million more in order to proceed with the case and
do not want to charge the various other departments of
Government. That $57 million is not in there. Do you favor a
request of more moneys to finance the case, or not?
Attorney General Ashcroft. The budget submission which we
have made, we believe is the right approach to preserving the
appropriate prerogatives of the Department in this matter.

Attorney reassignments

Senator Hollings. Then, I will have to backtrack with
respect to that $57 million in accordance with your comment
about the competence of the attorneys. Of course, the former
Assistant Attorney General said he thought they were very
competent, but I understand by the headline that you are
reassigning the attorneys for lack of competence?
Attorney General Ashcroft. First of all, sir, I have not
read the newspapers this morning. I have----
Senator Hollings. That is not your story, then?
Attorney General Ashcroft. I have not made any indication
about any reassignment of attorneys. I have not made a decision
about the case.
The Department has a position in this case, and I believe
that if we were to reevaluate that position, it should be based
upon what the courts do in response to the matters that are
pending in the court.
As I indicated earlier, the court has dismissed two counts
in this case filed by the Federal Government. One effort has
been sort of reconfigured by the Department and resubmitted. A
motion to dismiss is pending in that matter.
I believe that an appropriate time for decisionmaking in
the case would be upon receiving an understanding of what the
court's disposition of these motions is.
Senator Hollings. Well, understand, General, that I am not
trying to harass you. In fact, I agree with you that there is
something about their competence that raises question when they
ask for $57.6 million. Financially, that is a pretty good
investment--if you can spend $57 million and get back $122
billion, which is what the companies have already agreed to
pay. They just want to know when and how.
But otherwise, to spend $57 million, I cannot imagine 57
lawyers with $1 million worth of hours in a year. I would go
and investigate that memo in your own Department, because they
are incompetent if they think it would cost that much to bring
the case.
The records have been made already in the Florida case, the
Minnesota case, and others. That is the bureaucracy of law
practice today. You just punch your computer to get
Interrogatories Numbers 1 through 25, and get the motions and
depositions for all of these, put out the subpoenas, and go
over the documents. I can do that in an afternoon myself.
So to spend $57 million traveling all around the country is
just trying to bureaucratize a case that has already been made,
the amount has been agreed to, and all you have to do is fill
in the blanks.
So I hope that you proceed with the case. There was some
difficulty getting the money from the other departments. I do
not mean to belabor it, but I think that in the Government's
interest, there is $122 billion already agreed to sitting on
the table, and I cannot see for the life of me not picking that
up. And your Department, and you, the Attorney General, want to
do that, I would imagine.

Gun prosecutor program

Now, General, let me ask you about the community gun
prosecutors. I note in the budget here where you zeroed out the
Community Gun Violence Prosecutors but placed in lieu thereof a
State and Local Gun Prosecutor Program and Southwest Border
Prosecutor Initiative, with the same amount of money.
My Republican friends opposed that Clinton program of
Community Gun Violence Prosecutors, but it looks like you have
the same thing--am I right or am I wrong? Could you clarify
that for me, please?
Attorney General Ashcroft. Well, we do have an emphasis on
prosecuting gun crime. It is a substantial emphasis, and it
involves increased resources. It includes a special emphasis on
juvenile gun crime, and it includes a triggerlock program, and
it includes special assistance to prosecutors along the
Southwest border in the amount of $50 million, I believe it is,
for prosecutors along the Southwest border.
So there is an array of services and ideas in this budget
designed, one, to prosecute violent gun crime generally; two,
to focus on juvenile gun crime; and three, to focus resources
along the Southwest border where the problems have been
intense.
Senator Hollings. The problems have been more so on the
Southwest border than, say, in downtown New York or California?
Attorney General Ashcroft. Well, the entire prosecutorial
load has been great there. There is a proposal for a whole new
range of judges and so on in the Federal system, which is the
subject of another debate, with the idea that the courts are
overloaded there, dealing with these problems along the
Southwest border.
INS, for example, has processed more cases in the last 7
years than they did in the previous 40 years, and that is part
of this whole situation that we have described where the budget
of the agency has been doubled in the last 6 years, and we have
still got these very serious problems, including delays in
services that should be made to individuals who are relying on
the agency.
Senator Hollings. It is not necessary now, but you can
submit for the committee the number of prosecutors and how that
is supposed to work, this new program.
Attorney General Ashcroft. I would be happy to do so.
Senator Hollings. I would appreciate it.
[The information follows:]

Gun Prosecutor Program

Project Safe Neighborhoods is a nationwide commitment to
reduce gun crime in America by networking existing local
programs that target gun crime and providing those programs
with additional tools necessary to be successful. To strengthen
partnerships among Federal, State and local law enforcement and
prosecutors, the new $49.78 million prosecution assistance
program will provide grants to encourage States to increase
prosecution of gun criminals through increased arrests,
prosecutions and public awareness in order to deter youth gun
crime. This program will also support gun violence reduction
programs such as Richmond's Project Exile and Boston's
Operation Ceasefire, to name a few. The Department is
developing legislation that will set forth the details of this
program, as well as that of other gun violence initiatives.
The differences between this program and last year's
Community Prosecution Program, which had a $75 million
``Community and Local Gun Prosecutor'' hiring component, is
primarily one of scope. The $75 million Community and Local Gun
Prosecutor program provides hiring grants to state and local
jurisdictions to employ new prosecutors to work in partnership
with communities to prosecute gun law violation cases. The
discretionary grant program assists jurisdictions in hiring
community prosecutors for up to 3 years and will require the
grantee to design a retention plan intended to retain the
prosecutor for a minimum of 1 year past the end of the grant
period.
The $49.78 million Gun Violence Reduction Program will
encompass a broader range of gun violence reduction strategies
that could include: (1) hiring and training more judges,
prosecutors, correctional officers, and probation officers; (2)
providing training for Federal, State and local law enforcement
officers and prosecutors on current laws and trends, including
firearms identification, Federal and State search and seizure
laws, crime scene and evidence management, and firearms
trafficking and tracing; (3) implementing public awareness
campaigns to advertise tough sentences for gun crimes and to
foster community ownership of this initiative; (4) improving
criminal history record information systems; and (5) developing
information-sharing case management systems that ensure that
all segments of the criminal justice system are contributing to
and using the same case files for serious offenders.

Faith-based program

Senator Hollings. Finally, let me counsel with you with
respect to the faith-based program. That immediately raises a
sign to stop, look, and listen for this particular Senator. You
and I have been up here as Senators, and we travel, and if we
learn anything in our travels, looking at other countries,
keeping up with the news and so forth, it is that the greatness
of this land is the separation of church and state. This is in
contrast to the trouble in Ireland, which is religion-based,
the trouble in the Mideast, which is religion-based, the
trouble in India, which is religion-based, the trouble in the
Philippines is religion-based. I can go around the world and
just say thank heaven we have separation of church and state in
this country.
I do not go along with this Mickey Mouse wording of
things--in other words, you are saying church organizations.
Now, you and I both have the greatest respect for the church
and its organizations, and we have worked with them, both of
us, in public life and so on, and they work well.
Having been on the committee, I can tell you the
experiences that we have when Chairman Gregg and I go over on
the House side. The first thing the House wants to do is knock
out everything that is not authorized. That is one good way to
get rid of a lot because the Judiciary Committee upon which you
served gets backed up on issues of guns and abortion and prayer
in schools and so on--and the authorizing bills do not get
through, so Chairman Gregg and I sit there, trying to backstop
the real needs and do the right thing.
This faith-based program has not been authorized, and we do
not know exactly how it is to be done. That is why I held up a
reprogramming request by the White House. It is not that I am
hostile or anything else, but I have grave misgivings. I have
got to be convinced--I am from Missouri--you have got to show
me. So I would like you to show me how you plan to implement
this program and give us also an outline of those particular
facets of this faith-based thing.
We have had the announcement by the President and meetings
of different church groups, but there have been all kinds of
questions as to is this a legitimate church group, how much
money, how is it to be monitored. Then, on the church side,
they say, wait a minute, if you start monitoring me and telling
me from Washington how to run my church program, I am not going
along with that. So you have got to involve just what you and I
are trying to avoid.
So if you could outline that for us--I am not in favor of
these moneys until we get at least some outline of what is
intended by the President and what the program entails.
Attorney General Ashcroft. Senator, thank you very much.
The House and Senate together with the previous President
of the United States authorized, I believe, on several
occasions, both in the Temporary Assistance to Needy Families
and in the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services
Administration--SAMHSA--reauthorization last year, and I think
the Community Development Block Grants, what they would
characterize as, I think, a field-leveling situation, which
basically states that there are certain aspects when States
choose to do business outside their own governmental entity,
that they have the opportunity to make contracts with entities
including--there would not be a disqualification for faith-
based organizations.

safeguards with Faith-based programs

There is a very serious set of safeguards, and they have to
be scrupulously observed, or the problems that you have
suggested, I think, are very serious problems or could be. One
of the safeguards included in the legislation is that no
person, who has simply any discomfort in receiving a benefit in
that setting, is forced to receive it. They have a right to
say, ``I want a benefit in a different setting.''
Another safeguard is that the money cannot be used for
religious purposes. It can only be used to achieve secular
purposes. This is in accordance with the supervision--the way
the courts have written these rules.
Now, we have had faith-based organizations active for a
long time in some areas of social services, primarily in the
resettlement areas related to INS and citizenship. Those areas
have had historic involvement, and it has been successful, and
we have not had any inappropriate entanglement or inappropriate
infringement of the rights of individuals or entanglement by
the Government with the institutions. I think those are the
kinds of patterns that need to guide us as we move forward.
Senator Hollings. Give us the guidance as we move forward.
That is what I am asking for. Just outline the different things
that you seem to understand and know about, just quickly off-
the-cuff. If we have it down in black and white so that
everybody can understand it, I would appreciate it.
Attorney General Ashcroft. I would be happy to work with
you and to do that, to send you the guidance and the safeguards
that we believe are appropriate.
Senator Hollings. Thank you.
[The information follows:]
Faith-based Initiative
In a comprehensive effort to reform the nation's welfare system, in
1996 Congress overwhelmingly passed, and President Clinton signed, the
Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act. One
provision of that Act, known as ``Charitable Choice'' (42 U.S.C.
Section 604a), authorized states to provide services through religious
and charitable organizations, so long as such programs do not violate
the establishment clause of the Constitution. This provision was passed
with a bipartisan majority, voting 67-32. Since then, Charitable Choice
has been extended to the welfare-to-work program, and it also covers
the Community Services Block Grant.
In 2000, Congress voted twice to extend Charitable Choice to
substance abuse services provided under the federal Substance Abuse and
Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA). Expanded Charitable
Choice allows, but does not require, government or government officials
to contract with charitable, religious or private organizations, or to
create voucher systems, to deliver more social services within the
states. Charitable Choice has passed Congress repeatedly, and always
with strong bipartisan support.
The Charitable Choice provision prohibits proselytizing of welfare
clients, and bars any discrimination against clients on the basis of
religion. Further, welfare recipients have the right to receive
benefits in a traditional setting, if they choose.
During the week of January 28, 2001, the Bush Administration
announced a further effort to expand the role of faith-based
organizations (FBOs) and other neighborhood organizations in the
delivery of social services. This effort included the opening of the
White House Office of Faith-Based & Community Initiatives, and charging
it with, among other things, increasing the private charitable giving
in America, eliminating religious discrimination in federal funding
programs that deliver social services through private sector
organizations, and helping launch strong sacred-secular, public-private
partnerships to serve high-need populations. This effort further
includes the creation within the Departments of Justice, HHS, HUD,
Education and Labor of Centers of Faith-Based & Community Initiatives.
Each is charged with the task of reviewing statutes, regulations,
internal guidelines and policies to determine whether the Departments
have created barriers that discriminate against faith-based and
community organizations in the delivery of social services.
In drafting the legislation noted above, Congress carefully debated
assurances to its constitutionality as well as to safeguard the
interests of the beneficiaries of the service, the interests of the
faith-based providers and the interests of the government. Charitable
choice provisions protect the rights of those Americans receiving
services from faith-based providers by the following means:
--The statute generally provides that the government act ``without
diminishing the religious freedom of beneficiaries of
assistance.''
--The statute requires that beneficiaries with religious objections
to receiving services from an FBO be provided with an
equivalent alternative.
--For those beneficiaries who choose services from an FBO, the
statute provides that the FBO cannot discriminate against them
``on the basis of religion, a religious belief, or refusal to
actively participate in a religious practice.'' Therefore, a
Christian organization cannot turn away a Jew who is looking
for services, or require a Muslim to pray to Jesus before
receiving assistance.
--Welfare beneficiaries may enforce these rights against the
government in a lawsuit for injunctive relief.
Charitable Choice protects various public interests with the
following safeguards:
--FBOs must operate in accordance with the terms of their contract or
grant when delivering services to the poor and needy.
--FBOs may not discriminate in employment on the basis of race,
color, national origin, gender, age or disability.
--FBOs are subject to government audit of those accounts with federal
funds. Where total federal awards exceed $300,000 per year, an
independent audit by a CPA is also required.
--Where there is direct government funding, FBOs must ensure that no
government funds are ``expended for sectarian worship,
instruction, or proselytization.'' This provision means that
Charitable Choice will not work for FBOs with inherently
religious practices which are wholly integrated into their
program. Any religious activities, separable from government-
funded aspects of the program, must be optional to
beneficiaries.
Charitable choice provisions safeguard the integrity of
participating FBOs in the following specific respects:
--The statute specifically provides that FBOs not be discriminated
against with respect to religion, and that they must be allowed
to participate ``without impairing [their] religious
character.'' The law goes on to state that a participating FBO
``shall retain its independence over the definition,
development, practice, and expression of its religious
beliefs.''
--The statute provides that a participating FBO not be required to
``alter its form of internal governance'' or ``remove religious
art, icons, scripture, or other symbols.''
--FBOs have a private cause of action for injunctive relief if the
foregoing statutory safeguards are not met by the participating
governmental agencies.
In summary, Charitable Choice safeguards the rights of those who
receive the social services, those who pay for the services, and those
who provide the services.

Law enforcement in Mexico

Senator Hollings. Finally, Mr. Chairman, with respect to an
opportunity, we have worked with the FBI and their schools, one
in particular in Budapest that I have visited. We look upon
Mexico as an opportunity with a new President, and we are
thinking about law enforcement rather than what you have had to
put up with in regard to the Border Patrol, where the Mexican
law enforcement were paid off and were part of the drug cartel
and so on. If we could get a professional school in Mexico that
was conducted by our FBI--we do that in Europe, in Budapest,
but particularly this newly-made Russian or Soviet law
enforcement--why not try to professionalize that? That would be
a good investment. It would not be too much, and it would help
to bring confidence on both sides.
Would you look into that, because I am determined to try to
get some aid down there--not an overall big Marshall Plan--but
where we can help Vicente Fox play catch-up ball and get real
law enforcement. It would be to our benefit, and I think it
would be a good investment. I would like to get your views on
that.
Attorney General Ashcroft. Senator, let me just say to you
that I think we do have an opportunity as it relates to Mexico.
President Vicente Fox and our President have a good
relationship. I think there is a very serious commitment to
changing the climate for law enforcement.
President Bush has asked that Secretary of State Colin
Powell and I be involved in a working group with the leadership
in Mexico, with Castaneda and with Aguilar Zinser. Aguilar
Zinser is in charge of all their law enforcement including the
military, and we have already begun to confer about things.
There is a new understanding, I believe, in Mexico that
what happens at the border is--I think they are willing to call
it a shared responsibility. It had been long the position of
those in our neighboring country that it was all our
responsibility and none of their's. And we have conferred about
inventorying the kinds of things that each of us can do to
promote a better situation at the border.
I personally believe that this is a great opportunity. I
believe we would be very ill-served not to view it as one, and
I intend to insert myself substantially in it. My first trip
outside the country will be to Mexico, probably within the next
30 days. I intend to visit the border in advance so that I will
have a first-hand view of things at the border before I go to
return the visit of the Mexican officials. The Mexican Attorney
General has also come to see me in addition to the other
officials who have discussed these responsibilities--because
this is so very important to the United States, and if we can
upgrade substantially the outcomes of our relationships and
work together on the border, I think it will not only affect
that long, important Southwest border of the United States, but
I think it will have an effect into Central and South America
in terms of our relationships.
So you are, I believe, right on target in identifying this
as an important area of concern. It will be a matter of high
priority with me in terms of the law enforcement community to
cooperate with them. We would examine ways in which we could
cooperate to improve both the training and integrity of the law
enforcement community on both sides of the border. I think the
Mexican officials are conversant with that need and understand
it, and their expression of their desire to cooperate on it is
right in line with the kinds of suggestions you have made.
Senator Hollings. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Gregg. Thank you, Senator Hollings.
Senator Domenici.
Senator Domenici. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Hollings. I hope to get invited back. He just said
no, he was not going to invite me. You are a much better
chairman.
Senator Gregg. Just remember that.
Senator Domenici. The problem is they sent all the
conferees who were against it. There were 15 Democrats for it;
if they had sent some of those conferees----
Senator Hollings. We could change our minds.
Senator Gregg. Let us just conference it right here. We
have the votes. We are all on the committee. We can conference
it right here.
Senator Domenici. Well, the story in New Mexico is that I
kicked you out, Fritz.
Senator Gregg. I did not even make it, so you did better
than I did.
Senator Domenici. You were not even invited.
Well, Mr. Attorney General, I am very pleased to see you.
Attorney General Ashcroft. I am honored.
Senator Domenici. I have not seen you in this format since
you achieved this new, high status; I have just seen you in the
hall a couple of times and at a couple of events. First, I
congratulate you on the good job you are doing. You went
through a little bit of hard times to get there, but I am sure
that you are enjoying what you are doing and that you see a
great public service in what you are doing.
Attorney General Ashcroft. It is a great honor to work for
you, for the people of America, and for this committee.
Senator Domenici. I am just going to talk about two areas
and perhaps submit some others for questioning, and I will try
to be quick.

Radiation exposure compensation program

Mr. Attorney General, we have an area of funding for a
program called the Radiation Exposure Compensation Program.
That is not to be confused with a subsequent act that was
passed regarding radiation exposure. This is the old act that
covered uranium miners and the like. We passed it, and there
are a number of people out there who are claimants, and there
are a number who have claims--and I do not know if you are
aware of this; this is a simple administrative process, these
were not litigated claims and did not go to court; you all
managed them--but there are a number of people who, believe it
or not, have an I.O.U., because the Government did not put
enough money in the fund even though it created the claims.
And I guess I have to share with you and to the extent that
my fellow committee members are interested--it is pretty
disheartening for people who have waited many years for a
radiation claim to get settled, and then you create an
administrative process, and you say they are entitled to it--
and it is a fixed amount, so it is not $10 million, it is
$100,000 or whatever the claim is--and then, they get it all
finished, Mr. Attorney General, and it says the United States
Government will give you a check for, let us just say $100,000
is your claim for dying of cancer or whatever, and then, this
great United States says, ``We do not have the money to pay
your claim, so we will give you an I.O.U.''
I do not think anybody wants those I.O.U.'s. I do not think
they can use them in banks. Essentially, we ought to pay them,
and I wonder if we have your whole-hearted support to generate
the funds to pay those claimants under the Radiation Exposure
Compensation Program that you are managing?
Attorney General Ashcroft. You do. I am chagrined at the
way in which people have been dealt with. There have been
inadequate funds, so people have been given I.O.U. letters, or
there were times when people were calling and the phone was not
being answered.
We have made a request in the budget for some funds, but we
also support the idea that the Congress has indicated to people
that they are entitled to this amount of money, and I believe
the budget is predicated on the presumption that that
entitlement exists and that those funds simply ought to be
available to those people.
Senator Domenici. Well, I thank you, and actually, we are
looking for $84 million to finish that up, and there is a whole
new law which you all have supported funding under that will be
handled in a different way which will indeed be an entitlement
instead of what we have.

Ports of entry

Let me move for a moment to an issue that has to do with
our ports of entry. First, Mr. Attorney General, I know that it
is not your precise duty, but it comes under your
jurisdiction--with the new enthusiasm for Mexican-American
trade and the new President of Mexico being so enthused about
being a partner instead of a critic, we have to take a look at
the ports of entry in the Southwest--and mine is a little one
in New Mexico--but all the way from Florida, Texas, Arizona,
California. The ports of entry are not in very good shape for
two great countries to engage in the quantity and quality of
trade that we are going to be involved in. So I would hope that
you would make sure that the estimates which have been given to
your Department that are saying what we ought to do to make all
of the border States capable of handling the trade so it is not
backed up for hours, thus negating the enthusiasm for trade, or
finding other ways to do it.
I hope you will support the reports which indicate this and
that you will begin to implement it in your budgets in the
future. Would you tell the committee that you will look at this
carefully and discuss it with the President with reference to
what kind of plan we could put in to get this infrastructure
done in a reasonable time?
Attorney General Ashcroft. Yes.

Port of entry--Santa Teresa

Senator Domenici. With reference to my own State, we have a
port of entry, and I just want to mention it so that you will
take it back to the office with you. It is a rather new port of
entry called Santa Teresa. That port is gaining trade and
traffic just as predicted. It is not in the middle of a city
where it is all clogged up, and as a consequence, we are
building a piece at a time, and it is beginning to alleviate a
lot of traffic and create its own trade area. There is a
considerable personnel problem there, and I wonder if you would
have your staff look at it. I will submit some questions that
will detail for you what we think are some deficiencies in the
number of personnel at that border crossing for it to do an
efficient and forthright job.
So I will give that to you and if you would take a look or
have your people take a look, I would appreciate it.
Attorney General Ashcroft. I would be very happy to do so.
Senator Domenici. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Gregg. Thank you, Senator.

Radiation compensation transfer to Energy Department

I have often thought that this issue of reimbursement for
the harm that was caused people as a result of radiation
activity might be more appropriately in the Energy
Subcommittee.
Senator Domenici. Well, it has been in yours, and you have
more money than the Energy Subcommittee does.
Senator Gregg. I just thought we could find more in the
Energy Subcommittee. Don't you think, Senator Hollings?
Senator Hollings. Yes, it sounds that way to me.
Senator Domenici. We are trying to relieve you of it. We
are trying to create an entitlement out of it so you will not
have to bother with it, Senator; it will just be there.

reorganization of the Office of Justice Programs

Senator Gregg. I was wondering, Mr. Attorney General, if
you could speak to us a little bit about the Office of Justice
Programs, because we asked for a reorganization of that office
quite a while ago. The report was supposed to come out in
December, and then it was supposed to come out at the end of
March. We still have not received the report. Can you tell us
what is happening with the Office of Justice Programs?
Attorney General Ashcroft. First of all, I think the
expressions of the committee are well-founded. There is a need
in that office to have good management, and the fact that so
many people in the office are Presidential appointments has
from time to time, I think, led to the idea that they do not
respond to the management of the office and to the Assistant
Attorney General in the office.
We are in the process of moving forward with the new
organizational structure, streamlining and consolidating
authorities and centralized management, which was directed in
the fiscal year 1999 Appropriations Act.
In the fall of the year 2000, OJP began an interagency
outreach to prepare agency personnel for implementation of the
new organizational structure. We engaged the resources to
provide OJP with assistance in projecting the potential work
load of individual components, and we began to develop the plan
for reassigning OJP management and administration funds to
support implementation of the new structure.
The OJP Assistant Attorney General nominee, Deborah
Daniels, has been made aware of this reorganization effort. As
I have been involved in the preliminary personnel decisions for
all of those programmatic individuals to be appointed by the
President, I have said eyeball-to-eyeball to them, this is not
the structure that you can expect. There will be a new
structure, and the structure is that you will report through
the Assistant Attorney General in charge of OJP--this is not to
be thought of as scattered management; this to be focused--and
that there will be a new plan, and full implementation of the
plan has been put on hold until the new Assistant Attorney
General and her management team have an opportunity to be
involved with it. But it is part and parcel of the way that we
are staffing and developing the staffing needs for that area,
and interviewing people with an expectation that the new
organization will serve the Department and America much more
effectively.
Senator Gregg. So when will we get the report?
Attorney General Ashcroft. Senator, this sort of signals
the fact that I have been there for less than 90 days. They
tell me that the plan has been developed and submitted but that
the implementation of the plan is yet to be fully undertaken.
I think that what we need to do is make sure that, if it is
appropriate, we will resubmit what we have considered as the
submission to the committee, and if you have further advice on
the implementation, we would be pleased to have it.
Senator Gregg. We probably should sit down and talk about
that, or our staff should.

Detention trustee

Are you familiar with the detention trustee issue that we
have?
Attorney General Ashcroft. I am somewhat familiar, and if
you want me to describe my familiarity, I will give you my
sense of where we are on that.
Senator Gregg. Well, our concern is that we basically
created a position without any authority.
Attorney General Ashcroft. Our view is that the detention,
the pre-trial detention--if we can call detention things that
happen while rights are being litigated and incarceration
things that are the way we hold people after that--in this
detention responsibility, we have a lot of different agencies,
whether it is the INS Border Patrol or the USMS or the BOP or
all of these multiple agencies, and we do not have the space.
The Federal Government has not had the kind of resources to
place all these people, so we have been renting space from
communities and from private providers, and we have found
ourselves bidding against each other for this space. So that by
having an uncoordinated approach to detention and the various
aspects of the Justice Department, we find the USMS bidding up
the cost for the INS Border Patrol or other entities.
The idea of having a coordinator, someone to oversee that
and to put rationality into our process is a good one. It is my
understanding----
Senator Gregg. Well, we agree with that. Our concern is
that because they do not have the funding control, they do not
have the power to exercise coordination; that as long as the
funding control stays with BOP or with Marshals, the INS, or
with whomever, your detention trustee is basically an
individual who may strive to create continuity and keep costs
down but has no practical ability to do that because they do
not control the money.
Attorney General Ashcroft. Well, we are pursuing the hiring
of the trustee, and frankly, while the funding control perhaps
does exist in these other entities, as Attorney General, I
would expect, to the extent that I could from the perspective
of the office, to direct that the Bureau of Prisons and a
variety of other entities that might be involved--you mentioned
BOP--that they respond constructively to suggestions by the
detention trustee.
If there is a need for--and certainly, the absence of
detail of my understanding here is apparent from my remarks--
but I would hope that as Attorney General, I would be able to
instruct cooperation even if we did not have all of the
framework in place, and obviously, I would be very pleased to
work with this committee to develop, if necessary on an
incremental basis, the framework that would provide real teeth
or a real management capacity for the trustee.
Senator Gregg. Senator Hollings.
Senator Hollings. Thank you.

reorganization of DEA

General, as you look at the reorganization of INS, I have
always thought that if I had your job, the first thing I would
look at is the reorganization of the DEA, and let me tell you
why.
You have a hard time keeping the FBI in-country, because
they can find crime in downtown Moscow and look here, there,
and yonder. The DEA--I have been on this committee for 30-some
years--we burned the poppy fields in Turkey and broke up the
factories in Marseilles; we went down into Paraguay, back up to
Colombia, down into Paraguay again, up into Mexico. We have
chased around and around, and it gets worse and worse and
worse.
When Senator Domenici mentioned a port of entry, Senator
Graham of Florida and I have been working on a bill for regular
seaports of entry for a year and will probably get the bill
passed this year. I have, for example, the fourth-largest
container port in the country, and it was not until recent
years that I learned that these containers come in, and they
are owned by Hong Kong, London, mixed ownership, and there is
no responsibility for them. And when they come across the dock,
nine out of ten of them are not even looked at. In fact, I have
my office at the Custom House at the Seaport of Charleston, and
the DEA has to borrow the local sheriff's dog to do the
sniffing.
Now jump fast forward to Amsterdam. They go through a
regular screener like you and I go through at the airport;
going out to St. Louis, you have got to go through a screener.
They have that screening system. We have got to get that at the
various ports, because if I got into the drug business down in
Colombia, I would just load up ten containers knowing that nine
of them would get through--I do not care about the one that
gets caught.
That is how the drugs are getting into the country. In
contrast, we have the DEA down the rivers in Bolivia, shooting
down planes in Peru, and jumping all around the world. I have
seen them jumping around the world for 30-some years up here,
and it just gets worse and worse--and they do not have anybody
down on 14th Street here in the District; you can go down there
and get whatever you want.
So let us get that thing organized so we can get some drug
enforcement at least in the country. We can find drug abuses
the world around--we all know it--and we are financing it. The
United States is the biggest financier of drug crime in the
world. We ought to be ashamed of ourselves, but we ought to
focus on drug enforcement at home before we run around shooting
down planes in Bolivia and everywhere else. Where were the CIA,
for goodness' sake? Come on. This country has gone amok. They
are not doing a good job right at home plate.
In addition to the INS, look at the DEA and see what you
think.
Attorney General Ashcroft. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Hollings. Yes, sir.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Gregg. Thank you.
Senator Inouye.
Senator Inouye. I thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I wanted to come by to greet my former colleague. Welcome,
sir.
Attorney General Ashcroft. Thank you very much, Senator.

Tobacco litigation

Senator Inouye. I just want to have some clarification on
articles that have been occurring recently in our papers. Is
there a change in policy on our Government's suit against the
tobacco companies?
Attorney General Ashcroft. There has been no change in
policy. The appropriation requested this year is identical to
the appropriation requested last year and is in fact identical
to the appropriation submitted by my predecessor, Ms. Reno as
Attorney General, for this year's operation.
Senator Hollings. I think that would clear up a lot of
misunderstanding that is now found in the Senate, I can assure
you.

consultation on Judicial appointments

Secondly, on the matter of judicial appointments and the
word ``consultation,'' how do you interpret this word
``consultation''?
Attorney General Ashcroft. That question has a superficial
simplicity about it that belies the fact that it is complex.
But obviously, if you were to ask me what ``consultation''
means, it means to talk with, communicate with, about
something. ``To consult'' means to share information.
Senator Inouye. So it is much more than notifying you after
it appears in the press.
Attorney General Ashcroft. I would hope that consultation
would include timely communication.
Senator Inouye. I appreciate that, sir.
Thank you very much.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Gregg. Thank you.
Are there any further questions?
Senator Hollings. No, thank you.

Additional committee questions

Senator Gregg. We appreciate your time, Mr. Attorney
General. We look forward to working with you over the next few
years and expect the relationship to be constructive not only
from our committee's standpoint but from America's standpoint.
Thank you very much.
Attorney General Ashcroft. Thank you very much. I am
honored to appear before you and look forward to working with
you.
[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 Judd Gregg
interagency crime and drug enforcement (icde) account
Question. Would you please provide a justification for why the
Interagency Crime and Drug Enforcement funding levels are proportioned
to the agencies the way they are? Of particular interest is why the
Federal Bureau of Investigation receives more funding than the Drug
Enforcement Administration under this account.
Answer. The current allocation of the Organized Crime Drug
Enforcement Task Force (OCDETF) funding is a function of budget
history, rather than a deliberate choice to enhance the funding of one
agency more than another. Moreover the OCDETF program is a partnership
among all the participating agencies and each of the OCDETF agencies is
fully committed to achieving the highest impact possible with their
available OCDETF resources.
While the overall funding for the Federal Bureau of Investigation
(FBI) is slightly larger than that of the Drug Enforcement
Administration (DEA), $115 million for FBI versus $111 million for DEA,
DEA receives more funding for direct drug law enforcement in the OCDETF
budget than does the FBI, $108.8 million versus $102 million. That
means that DEA receives a larger share of the funding for the direct
investigative work of the OCDETF program than does the FBI.
The FBI, however, receives significantly more funding for drug
intelligence than does the DEA, nearly $11 million more. FBI receives
$13.3 million while DEA receives only $2.4 million. It is this funding
which accounts for FBI's greater share of the overall OCDETF budget.
This funding disparity arose when the funding for the Regional Drug
Intelligence Squads (RDIS) was moved from the individual agency budgets
into the OCDETF consolidated budget, the ICDE, in fiscal year 1993. The
Appropriations Committees believed ``that consolidation of funding for
the RDIS under this appropriation will help achieve better integration
of intelligence related to organized crime drug activities.'' (See,
Conference Committee Report (H. RPT 102-918)).
At the time of the transfer of RDIS resources into the ICDE
appropriation, the FBI had significantly greater resources in its
direct budget dedicated to the RDIS function than did DEA. Thus when
the transfer of those resources into the OCDETF budget occurred in
fiscal year 1993, FBI had $11.5 million to transfer into the OCDETF
(ICDE) Intelligence appropriation and DEA only $2.2 million. That same
year Congress provided an additional $2 million to the FBI for RDIS
resources in the ICDE budget, making a total of $13.2 million.
This same ratio of RDIS resources between the 2 agencies continues
in the ICDE appropriation. Thus, for fiscal year 2002, the President's
request includes the following funding:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Law Enforcement Intelligence Total
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pos. FTE Amount Pos. FTE Amount Pos. FTE Amount
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DEA............................ 975 975 $108,887 25 25 $2,499 1,000 1,000 $111,386
FBI............................ 775 775 102,039 137 137 13,397 912 912 115,436
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Question. Does the Department of Justice believe the current
distribution to be an optimal allocation of the resources provided?
Answer. The Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988, Public Law 100-690,
provided the Attorney General with the ability to shift the OCDETF
resources both geographically and among agencies as the shifting
patterns and circumstances of drug trafficking required. Congress
recognized this with specific language when returning OCDETF to a
single appropriation for fiscal year 1990. Congress explained that the
single appropriation and reimbursement procedure was intended to:
--Provide for the flexibility of the Task Forces which is vital to
success;
--Permit federal law enforcement resources to be shifted in response
to changing patterns of organized criminal drug activities;
--Permit the Attorney General to reallocate resources among the
organizational components of the Task Forces and between
regions without undue delay; and
--Ensure that the Task Forces function as a unit, without the
competition for resources among the participating agencies that
would undermine the overall effort.
The OCDETF Executive Office intends to work with the Justice
Management Division to develop a staffing model for the allocation of
resources in future years. The OCDETF Executive Committee will be
directed to study the current levels of resources allocated within the
OCDETF program, and make recommendations regarding the optimum capacity
for those resources.
______

Questions Submitted by Senator Pete V. Domenici
radiation exposure compensation program
Question. Mr. Ashcroft, you are aware of my longstanding interest
in the Radiation Exposure Compensation program, which I authored in
1990. We established this program more than a decade ago to compensate
the uranium miners, federal workers, and downwinders who became
afflicted with painful, debilitating, and often deadly radiation-
related diseases as a result of their work during the Cold War era.
Despite our efforts to fully fund this program, it ran out of money
last May under the prior Administration. Indeed, since last May many
approved claimants have been receiving nothing more than an IOU from
the Justice Department. It is simply unconscionable that those who
sacrificed so much to build are nation's nuclear arsenal would be left
holding only a government promise.
Unfortunately, Mr. Ashcroft, this is a problem you inherited from
your predecessor. However, we now have an excellent opportunity to
remedy this terrible injustice that has affected many citizens in our
western states.
I was very pleased that the Bush Administration included $710
million it its budget proposal for mandatory funding for the Radiation
Exposure Compensation Trust Fund. In addition, I hope that you will
support the legislation proposed by Senator Hatch and me that would
provided $84 million in emergency supplemental funding for those
claimants who have already been approved as well as the projected
number of approved claims for fiscal year 2001.
Will the Justice Department fully support our efforts to
expeditiously acquire the necessary funds to pay those IOU's that have
already been issued as well as those that will be issued for the
remainder of fiscal year 2001?
Answer. The Department of Justice shares your frustration that we
are unable to provide timely compensation payments to deserving
claimants. Following enactment of the 2000 amendments to RECA, we
alerted the Appropriations Committees of the need for additional funds
to implement the amendments, and the need to classify the RECA Trust
Fund as mandatory, permanent indefinite so that we will always be in a
position to promptly issue payments to those claimants who qualify.
Additionally, the President's 2002 budget reflects this
Administration's desire to ensure that adequate funds are available by
seeking mandatory funding for the RECA Trust Fund. In light of the
growing number of claims that have been approved, but are unfunded, we
stand ready to work with you to acquire the necessary funding
expeditiously.
Question. Under your predecessor's tenure, there were concerns
about the Department's administration of the program. These included
complaints that the Department would not return phone calls to
claimants, that information about the program was difficult to obtain,
and that claims were taking an exceedingly long time to process. Have
you already taken steps or do you plan to take corrective action so
that the program can be administered more fairly and efficiently?
Answer. The Department of Justice is committed to ensure that the
Program is responsive to claimants. Accordingly, we are troubled by the
fact that in recent weeks we have been unable to return some phone
calls promptly. We have tried to answer each inquiry promptly, but the
high volume has made it impossible to respond promptly to them all,
despite our very best efforts. In March alone we received more than a
thousand requests for information. Concurrently, we have received a
record number of claims. In 1999, we received about 34 claims per
month. Since then, receipts have increased 10-fold, averaging 340 per
month in March and April 2001. We are dedicated to providing prompt,
helpful responses to all inquiries, and are working hard to achieve
this goal.
Question. Would you please provide the Subcommittee with updated
information on the total number of claims approved for payment from the
Trust Fund since the program was established, the average amount of the
claims approved, the number of claims denied, and the general reason
for denial of these claims.
Answer. Through May 15, 2001, a total of 3,697 claims were
approved--with an average value of $74,388--and 3,584 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.
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).
Answer. Claims approved or denied through May 15, 2001, by type of
claimant:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Type of Claimant Approved Denied
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Childhood Leukemia............................ 22 19
Other Downwinder.............................. 1,720 1,256
On-site Participant........................... 228 745
Uranium Miner................................. 1,727 1,564
-------------------------
Total................................... 3,697 3,584
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Question. Would you please note how many claims have been received,
approved, and denied since the Fund went bankrupt last May, as well as
how many claims are currently pending?
Answer. Fiscal year 2000 Trust Fund availability was exhausted on
May 9, 2000. Since that time, 2,724 claims have been received, 366
claims have been approved, 67 claims have been denied and 2,747 claims
are pending. Of the total approved, we have been able to pay 122
claims, using funds appropriated for fiscal year 2001. However, fiscal
year 2001 funds have been exhausted and 244 approved claims remain
unfunded.
Question. For my use, would you please provide the same information
specifically for claims from Mew Mexico, including the total claims
received, the total claims approved, the total claims denied, and the
total claims pending?
Answer. With respect to claims for which the primary claimant
resides in New Mexico, between May 9, 2000, and May 15, 2001, 232
claims have been received, 44 claims have been approved and 27 claims
have been denied, while 260 claims are pending. Of the total approved,
31 are unfunded.
Question. How many claims are projected to be filed and processed
under current law in the upcoming year?
Answer. In fiscal year 2002, we estimate that 2,350 claims and
appeals will be filed and 1,563 will be processed under current law.
Question. The administrative expenses for this program have
essentially been held to $2 million per year. With the enactment of
legislation last summer, additional claims are being filed. What is a
realistic estimate for the anticipated administrative costs for
implementing the newly expanded program?
Answer. We have not yet formulated the anticipated administrative
expenses beyond fiscal year 2002.
Question. Does the Administration have any long-range estimates as
to the number of claims that might still be filed under the Radiation
Exposure Compensation Act under current law?
Answer. In May 2000, the Congressional Budget Office estimated that
about 15,600 claims might be filed under S. 1515, The Radiation
Exposure Compensation Act Amendments of 2000. Since then, over 2,700
claims have been filed. Thus, about 12,900 claims might still be filed
over the lifetime of the current law.
Question. In a March 15 letter I submitted to you, I requested a
Justice Department town meeting in Grants, New Mexico so that uranium
miners could have their questions and concerns addressed directly by
the Administration. Do you intend to hold such a meeting?
Answer. Yes, we would be happy to hold a town meeting in Grants,
New Mexico, and intend to do so.
staffing by immigration and naturalization service personnel at santa
teresa, new mexico port-of-entry
Question. Attorney General Ashcroft, I am encouraged by the current
Administration's interest in the Southwest border region, and look
forward to working with the President on border issues.
The government needs to invest significant resources into the
Southwest border. For example, in a recent study by the United States
Customs Service and other federal agencies, nearly $500 million is
required to improve inadequate infrastructure along the Southwest
border's port-of-entry.
Sharing the border with Mexico affords my state certain
opportunities, but it also creates special challenges as well.
Immigration issues are among the most important facing New Mexico.
The costs associated with providing illegal aliens emergency medical
and criminal justice services imposes significant hardships on the
states border counties. New Mexico's 3 border counties, Dona Ana, Luna,
and Hidalgo pay roughly $5 million per year to provide such services.
Five million dollars per year is a tremendous financial burden,
particularly considering New Mexico's relative poverty. In 1998, New
Mexico was ranked forty-eighth among the fifty states in terms of per
capita income and forty-sixth in median household income. New Mexican
counties should not be forced to pay for the Federal Government's
responsibilities.
The Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) is tasked with
processing legal immigration and enforcing immigration laws. The
agency's performance on both missions has been severely criticized the
last few years. I appreciate INS' difficult missions and have
consistently supported the agency, even given increasing scrutiny.
That said, I am concerned about the agency's attentiveness in
meeting its goals.
In an effort to act pro-actively, I sent, then, Acting Commissioner
of the INS, the Honorable Mary Ann Wyrsch, a letter urging her to add
seven additional personnel at the Santa Teresa, New Mexico port-of-
entry on March 26, 2001. A new bypass road is being built in Mexico
that will likely triple vehicular traffic at that port. I have not
received any response from the INS on this issue.
Considering that this road will be completed in May or June 2001,
when can I expect the additional personnel that I requested for the
Santa Teresa port-of-entry?
Answer. We share your concerns regarding the level of service
provided to the traveling public at the Santa Teresa port-of-entry as
described in your letter of March 26, 2001. I noted that your concern
centers on the recent construction of a road that bypasses the Juarez/
El Paso area and diverts traffic to Santa Teresa, New Mexico. The INS
monitors workload and staffing levels at all of our ports-of-entry on
an ongoing basis, and we work closely with other inspection agencies,
including the United States Customs Service, at our land border ports
to ensure that we can provide the highest levels of service.
The INS will monitor the vehicular traffic increases associated
with the new traffic patterns at Santa Teresa and will assess what
additional staffing requirement may be called for to address this
change in traffic patterns. Our experience indicates the vast majority
of traffic at this location is of a commercial nature; however, we are
very sensitive to the need to provide adequate immigration inspector
resources to allow for a full and complete federal inspection process.
Once the assessment is completed and a staffing level is determined, we
will provide additional staff as needed at Santa Teresa.
We appreciate your continued support and shared interest to ensure
a safe and efficient Southwest border.
underutilization of the federal law enforcement training center in
artesia, new mexico
Question. The Federal Law Enforcement Training Center in Artesia,
New Mexico, has been operational for more than a decade. Yet, the
facility is woefully underutilized. In fact, INS officials have
cancelled scheduled training classes. My staff has been told the reason
for the cancellations are budget shortfalls, even though Congress
consistently increases INS' budget. Please identify these alleged
budget shortfalls.
Answer. In fiscal year 2001, INS moved money from Service-wide
support funds and operating expenses to cover additional overtime to
control the hot spots along the border adequately. Four million dollars
was offset by deferral of advanced training class sessions.
In fiscal year 2001, 32 advanced training classes were scheduled.
As a result of border priorities shortfall, only 8 of the first and
second quarter class sessions were conducted and 16 were deferred to
fiscal year 2002. Eight additional classes for third and fourth
quarters are scheduled and will be conducted. In summary, of the 32
advanced training classes, 16 classes are scheduled and will be
conducted and 16 classes are deferred to fiscal year 2002.
The breakdown of the 8 advanced training sessions to be conducted
in third and fourth quarters follows:
1. One session of On-site Firearms instructor refresher training
for expired or expiring Sector Firearms Instructor Certifications.
2. Two sessions of Driver Instructor Training. These are required
for new detail instructors.
3. One Physical Training Workshop. These are required for new
detail instructors.
4. Four sessions of Journeyman (Senior) Patrol Agent advanced
training to update experienced agents in new developments in law,
arrest techniques and other subjects related to field operations.
Including the 8 classes held in the first and second quarters, the
total advanced training classes to be conducted in fiscal year 2001 is
now 16.
Question. Please explain how something as critical as training our
nation's law enforcement personnel manages to be cut due to the alleged
budget shortfalls.
Answer. The only reason INS deferred this training to fiscal year
2002 was to ensure sufficient hours of actual patrol of the border. In
the future, however, we will make advanced training a high priority and
look to other areas, first, before making any cuts in this category.
caseloads in federal courts
Question. Attorney General Ashcroft, I am pleased to see that the
Administration continues an initiative that Congress started last year
to provide additional support for prosecution assistance to the
Southwest Border states--California, Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas.
As you must be aware, our border courts are swamped--these four
districts handle 30 percent of the entire federal criminal caseload
pertaining to illegal drugs and illegal immigration.
I understand that the President's budget requests $50 million for
Southwest Border Prosecution Assistance to assist county and municipal
governments in our 4 Southwest border states with the costs associated
with the handling and processing of drug cases referred from federal
arrests.
Has the Department developed an overall plan to address these
resource needs to be sure that the federal system can handle the
increasing caseload that is generated by our investment in law
enforcement personnel and equipment?
Answer. Over the last decade, investigative efforts along the
Southwest border (SWB) have significantly increased the requirements of
all law enforcement agencies in the region. We are mindful that
increased arrests generate more court cases, and in turn, a greater
need for detention space. Our recent budget requests have emphasized
resources for the investigative agencies, litigating components, and
detention.
Beginning in 1993, the Department of Justice embarked on a
comprehensive plan to dramatically increase the number of felony
immigration prosecutions and restore the rule of law along the border.
One of the first steps taken was to deploy new Border Patrol and INS
agents to the border under Operation Hold the Line in El Paso and
Operation Gatekeeper in San Diego. The success of these two initiatives
has resulted in an unprecedented number of case referrals from various
investigating agencies both within the Department of Justice and from
other agencies such as Treasury, Postal Service and others.
In fiscal year 1997 and 1998, the United States Attorneys' Offices
located along the SWB received 58 additional attorneys to focus on
illegal drug and alien smuggling. They also received an increase of 13
attorneys in the fiscal year 2001 appropriation for the illegal
immigration activity in that region.
Since 1995, the United States Marshals Service (USMS) has received
150 positions from Congress for the SWB and has placed 157 new
employees into these five SWB districts. The additional positions were
accomplished through cost saving efforts throughout the Service, such
as freezing positions and reducing spending, as well as hiring
detention officers rather than criminal investigators.
There has been over a 350 percent increase in immigration cases
filed since the mid-1990's when we focused on securing the Southwest
border and bringing down crime in the region. We are doing everything
we can to make this region safe for our citizens.
Question. For example, our federal court in Las Cruces, New Mexico,
handles 65 percent of all the federal criminal cases in New Mexico, yet
there is no full-time sitting judge. It is also in dire need of another
Assistant U.S. Attorney, more United States Marshals, and more pre-
trial and administrative personnel. What types of factors will the
Department use in awarding these funds to the Southwest Border
jurisdictions to address this backlog?
Answer. There are many factors which go into the decision to
allocate additional resources to districts. Both the United States
Attorneys and United States Marshals Service have a formal allocation
process that is used to ensure each district is given the same
consideration for receipt of new resources.
When an appropriation is enacted and additional resources are
provided, the United States Attorneys establish a working group to
begin the allocation process. The Office of Management and Budget
Subcommittee to the Attorney General's Advisory Committee (AGAC),
serves as the Chair of the working group. The remaining members of the
working group are United States Attorneys chosen based on their desire
to be involved, their expertise in the specific program area being
increased, and to ensure geographic and district size diversity among
working group membership.
The next step in the process is to determine the relevant objective
criteria to use along with the data on each district. For example, when
the fiscal year 2001 appropriation provided additional resources for
immigration, that working group used the following objective criteria
to augment the specific district information: caseload and time data by
program from the case management system, average Assistant United
States Attorney work years per 100,000 population, local/regional
involvement, previous program related allocations, and border patrol
increases. Consideration was also given to a variety of relevant
district-specific factors, including dedicated law enforcement
resources, statistical information, and the unique circumstances of the
district, similar to the situation you raise about Las Cruces.
The working group that considered the allocation of additional
resources for immigration received in the fiscal year 2001
appropriation adhered to the report language that limited the resources
to those districts involved with immigration cases along the Southwest
Border. I am happy to say that the working group recommended the
District of New Mexico receive four additional positions for its
increased immigration workload, using this deliberative process.
Similarly, the USMS requests positions for the Southwest Border
based upon increases in workload, new courthouse construction or
renovation, and when there are position increases for federal judges,
magistrates, United States Attorneys (USA), INS, FBI or DEA. Any of
these factors will ultimately affect the USMS workload and its need for
resources.
Since 1995, the USMS has received 150 positions from Congress for
the SWB and has placed 157 new employees into these five SWB districts.
The additional positions were accomplished through cost saving efforts
throughout the Service, such as freezing positions and reducing
spending, as well as hiring detention officers rather than criminal
investigators.
While it is true that the Las Cruces caseload is growing, the
General Services Administration has no construction projects planned
for Las Cruces through fiscal year 2005. In the meantime, approximately
1.5 workyears are being expended in Las Cruces by ``visiting judges''
from outside the district. Deputy U.S. Marshals in Las Cruces are
supplemented with as many as three deputies daily from Albuquerque. In
addition, the USMS office in Las Cruces makes extensive use of guards,
typically five per day, to meet the needs of the court. In fiscal year
2002, the USMS has requested 6 positions for Albuquerque, as a result
of previous courthouse construction. If the USMS receives these
positions, the Marshal from New Mexico will need to reassess the
situation in Las Cruces and in all likelihood will use a portion of
these positions for the staffing of Las Cruces, which is the greater
priority.
While OJP funds cannot be used for these federal costs, OJP
resources will be made available to the eligible local jurisdictions to
enable them to process substantially more federal arrest cases referred
from the federal authorities. Funds from the Southwest Border
Prosecution Assistance Initiative will be awarded on a discretionary
basis to county and municipal governments in Texas, Arizona, New Mexico
and California for costs associated with the handling and processing of
drug cases referred from federal arrests. Individual awards will be
based on a number of factors, including Southwest border county
caseloads for processing, detaining, and prosecuting drug cases
referred from federal arrests.
Question. For what types of activities will county and municipal
governments be able to do to use these funds? Last year, Congress
recognized that the needs included additional prosecutors, probation
officers, court officials, and detention costs. Would these be covered
under the Department's proposed Southwest Border Prosecution Assistance
initiative?
Answer. The Justice Department's 2002 budget proposes to continue a
program created by Congress to reimburse district attorneys along the
Southwest border for the costs of processing, detaining, and
prosecuting drug cases referred from federal arrests. The program
provides financial assistance to county and municipal governments in
Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, and California for the costs associated
with the handling and processing of drug cases referred from federal
arrests. These funds may be used for hiring and training more
prosecutors, probation officers, and court officials, court costs,
detention costs, courtroom technology, administrative expenses, and
indigent defense costs.
This program was created in the Fiscal Year 2000 Emergency
Supplemental Appropriations Act, which provided $12 million to the USA
for establishment of reimbursable agreements to the counties and
municipal governments in the five districts along the Southwest border.
An additional $12 million was provided the USA to reimburse Texas and
Arizona in fiscal year 2001.
The budget proposes to expand funding of this local assistance
program to $50 million in 2002. The funding request in fiscal year 2002
is contained in the Office of Justice Programs' appropriation
consistent with its traditional role of funding grants to state and
local organizations. Funds from the Southwest Border Prosecution
Assistance Initiative may be used for hiring and training more local
prosecutors, probation officers, and court officials, court costs,
detention costs, courtroom technology, administrative expenses, and
indigent expense costs.
mental health courts
Question. Attorney General Ashcroft, as you are aware, the
America's Law Enforcement and Mental Health Project Act was enacted
into law last year. The Act authorizes the creation of Mental Health
Courts with separate dockets to handle cases involving individuals with
a mental illness.
The Act authorized $10 million for fiscal year 2001 and each of the
next 4 years to implement the ``Mental Health Courts'' program by the
Office of Justice Programs. The specific thrust of this program is
simple--to provide an individual with a mental illness and charged with
a misdemeanor or nonviolent offense the option of out-patient or in-
patient mental health treatment as an alternative to incarceration.
Finally, the Department of Justice estimates that 16 percent of all
inmates in local and state jails suffer from a mental illness and the
American Jail Association estimates that as many as 700,000 persons
suffering from a mental illness are jailed each year.
Do you believe Mental Health Courts can alleviate prison
overcrowding and create greater judicial economy within our court
systems?
Answer. Early evaluations of specialty, problem-solving courts
(e.g., drug courts and mental health courts) show that these courts may
be effective in diverting inmates with mental illnesses and co-
occurring disorders from prison and impact the use of valuable prison
bed space. However, there are a number of cautionary notes regarding
the limitation of these evaluations that should be addressed in
assessing the impact of mental health courts on prison crowding.
Generally, the mental health courts have several goals including:
reduce the use of prisons and repeated interaction with the criminal
justice system, connect or re-connect persons with mental illness with
needed mental health services, protect public safety, and improve the
likelihood of offender success with treatment and access to related
support services (e.g., housing, etc.). The aim of mental health courts
are to encourage community-based health approaches that would prevent
persons with mental illness from entering the criminal justice system
in the first place or reducing their length of involvement in the
system.
Given that the mental health court movement is only about 4 years
old, few evaluative studies have been conducted that address the impact
of the courts on prison overcrowding. The few evaluations available
show that mental health courts may be effective in diverting mentally
ill offenders from prison. For example, the University of Washington
Phase I assessment of the King County Court Mental Health Court
included an analysis of detention data for 77 participants over the
one-year period prior to the formation of the mental health court
through its first year of operation. Offenders who chose involvement
with the mental health court: increased the amount of treatment they
received and showed decreased problems with the criminal justice
system; increased number of treatment episodes and decreased time in
detention; on average spent fewer days in detention and decreased the
rate of new bookings. Some promising results also were found in the
Anchorage, Alaska Mental Health Court. In the year before offenders
participated in the mental health court, they spent an average of 18
days in the hospital and 85 days in prison. During the year they
participated in the mental health court, the same individual averaged
three days in the hospital and 16 days in prison--reductions of 83
percent and 81 percent respectively.
While a review of some limited research shows that mental health
courts may be effective in diverting mentally ill offenders from
prison, evaluations should assess the impact of mental health courts on
prison crowding, public safety, connecting the mentally ill offender to
needed community mental health services, and success of treatment.
Question. What steps are being taken by DOJ to implement
``America's Law Enforcement and Mental Health Project Act?''
Answer. The ``America's Law Enforcement and Mental Health Project''
was newly authorized in fiscal year 2001. The legislation authorizes an
appropriation of $10,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2001 through 2004
to provide grants to establish demonstration mental health courts and
provide for technical assistance, evaluation, and training. In fiscal
year 2002, the Department, in making difficult decisions about
competing priorities, did not request funds specific to mental health
courts in order to fulfill its mission of supporting core law
enforcement functions.
However, the Bureau of Justice Assistance, through its Byrne
Discretionary Grant Program, has provided funding to two demonstration
mental health courts in the past. In fiscal year 1999, King County (WA)
received $150,000 to help implement a mental health court and in fiscal
year 2001, Jefferson County (AL) received $150,000 to create a mental
health court. These courts are designed to respond to the problem of
mentally ill offenders who repeatedly cycle through the criminal
justice system without receiving needed assistance. Byrne discretionary
funds will not be available under the current budget proposal for
fiscal year 2002; however, states can use their Byrne formula funds for
further demonstration site support and technical assistance.
Additionally, states and localities involved in Offender Reentry are
permitted to use these funds for mental health courts if identified as
a need in the target community.
Question. What plans does DOJ have to provide assistance to court
systems seeking to develop and implement a Mental Health Court and does
DOJ plan to offer continued technical assistance after the
implementation of a Mental Health Court?
Answer. To increase knowledge about mental health courts, BJA
funded the Crime and Justice Research Institute to complete a report
about four of the nation's first mental health courts. The report,
Emerging Judicial Strategies for the Mentally Ill in the Criminal
Caseload, gives an overview of the issues related to mental health
courts and provides a detailed description of the featured courts.
Published by BJA in May 2000, the report is currently in its second
printing. This report will continue to serve as a resource to
communities interested in the development and implementation of a
mental health court.
In fiscal year 2000, through an Interagency Agreement with the
National Institute of Corrections, BJA provided $100,000 to provide
technical assistance to states and local communities interested in
developing or enhancing services to persons with mental health
disorders involved with the justice system. For over 5 years, BJA has
provided funding to the National Judicial College to develop judicial
training programs, including a course and instructional manual on the
role of the judge in responding to persons with mental health issues.
States will have the ability to provide further technical
assistance as well as assistance in court development and
implementation through their Byrne formula grant funds.
law enforcement in indian country
Question. I am pleased to see that 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. In fiscal year 2001, this Subcommittee
provided $106.5 million through various Department of Justice programs
to enhance law enforcement in Indian Country.
How much does the Administration propose in its fiscal year 2002
budget for the Department of Justice to continue these Indian law
enforcement initiatives?
The tribal courts have received $18 million over the past three
years. How have these funds been allocated to tribal courts?
Answer. The Department of Justice requests continued funding in
fiscal year 2002 for the grant programs in Indian Country that the
Congress funded in fiscal year 2001. These grant programs total $93.9
million. Since fiscal year 1999, the Congress has also provided funds
for additional agents and prosecutors, which will also continue to be
funded in the fiscal year 2002 request.
The Tribal Courts Program provides financial and technical
assistance for federally-recognized Indian Tribal governments to
develop, enhance and continue operation of tribal judicial systems;
provides education and training for tribal court personnel; and
promotes cooperation and coordination among tribal justice systems and
federal and state judiciary systems. The Tribal Courts Program
addresses a need to build and enhance tribal justice involving American
Indians and Alaska Native populations; to address the increased
incidences of violence and other criminal offenses occurring in Indian
Country; and to support the tribes' infrastructure as dependent
sovereign nations. Beginning in fiscal year 1999, in support of the
Department of Justice Indian Country Law Enforcement Initiative, the
Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) Tribal Court Program has awarded
competitive grants to tribes based on the extent and urgency of need of
each applicant.
The first solicitation announcement, issued in fiscal year 1999,
resulted in 77 grant awards to tribal communities. Forty-four tribal
communities received funding to develop single or inter-tribal court
systems; thirty-three tribal communities received funding to implement
enhancement initiatives. Enhancement initiatives were provided to
tribes to improve case management, train court personnel, acquire
equipment, enhance advocacy services, establish diversion programs, and
access services. Reflecting the demand for this program, BJA received
109 more applications under the first solicitation than it was able to
fund. In addition, the National Tribal Justice Resource Center, the
Northern Plains Tribal Judicial Institute, and the Alaska Inter Tribal
Council received funding to provide training and technical assistance
to the tribal grantees.
To facilitate the administration of the program and assist
recipients, BJA held a series of cluster meetings for new grant
recipients in June 2000, July 2000, September 2000, October 2000 and
March 2001. BJA plans to increase technical assistance to tribes in the
area of judicial administration, advocacy skills, and information
technology. A formal national evaluation will be initiated to assess
the impact of increased assistance to tribal communities to plan,
implement and enhance traditional tribal and western court systems.
In April 2001, BJA issued a second competitive solicitation
announcement for the development of tribal courts or the
implementation, enhancement, and continuing operation of tribal courts.
Under this competitive solicitation, BJA received 137 concept papers,
of which 15 concept papers were for planning grants and the remainder
were for either implementation or enhancement grants. Currently, all
concept papers are being reviewed by peer panels. BJA anticipates that
up to 100 tribes will receive awards ranging from $60,000 to $400,000
based on each tribe's service population. BJA anticipates that more
tribes will apply for funding in this second round, reflecting an
increased awareness of the program through conferences and marketing
efforts. Technical assistance and training will be continued,
emphasizing on-site consultation, collective training around common
issues, and mentoring between established and emerging tribal courts.
Question. Congress approved $34 million in each of 1999, 2000, and
2001 through the State Prison Grants program to help with the addition
of detention facilities in Indian Country. How is the Department
expending these funds? What is the analysis of need for these
facilities across the nation?
Answer. Since 1999, $102 million has been appropriated for the
construction of correctional facilities on tribal lands for the
incarceration of offenders under tribal jurisdiction. The following
lists the awards made using funds available in 1999 and 2000:

Fiscal Year 1999 Funding:
TIER 1: Congressional Directives:
Three Affiliated Tribes of Fort Berthold (ND)... $2,000,000
Native Village of Barrow (AK)................... 6,000,000
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Subtotal...................................... 8,000,000
========================================================
____________________________________________________
TIER 2: BIA Designated Priorities:
San Carlos Apache Tribe (AZ).................... 2,158,550
Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation
(WA).......................................... 4,579,550
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Subtotal...................................... 6,738,100
========================================================
____________________________________________________
TIER 3: CIRCLE Project (correctional components):
Pueblo of Zuni (NM)............................. 2,334,000
Northern Cheyenne Nation (MT)................... 3,482,629
Oglala Sioux Tribe (SD)......................... 1,327,659
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Subtotal...................................... 7,144,288
========================================================
____________________________________________________
TIER 4: Regional Approaches:
Rosebud Sioux Tribe (SD)........................ 6,100,770
Shoshone Paiute Tribe (NV)...................... 2,862,132
Red Lake Band of Chippewa (MN).................. 574,870
Nisqually Indians (WA).......................... 371,473
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Subtotal...................................... 9,909,245
========================================================
____________________________________________________
Fiscal Year 1999 Project Totals............... 31,791,633
========================================================
____________________________________________________
Fiscal Year 2000 Funding:
CIRCLE Project Supplements:
Pueblo of Zuni.................................. 2,339,454
Northern Cheyenne............................... 3,980,909
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Subtotal...................................... 6,320,363
========================================================
____________________________________________________
Tribal Supplemental Awards:
Fort Peck Assiniboine Sioux..................... 696,588
Rosebud Sioux Tribes............................ 3,168,000
Shoshone-Paiute Tribes.......................... 1,154,536
Confederated Tribes of Colville................. 2,500,000
San Carlos Apache............................... 8,628,722
Red Lake Band of Chippewa....................... 8,841,213
Hualapai........................................ 2,000,000
Three Affiliated Tribes of Fort Berthold........ 1,872,909
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Subtotal...................................... 28,861,968
========================================================
____________________________________________________
Fiscal Year 2000 Project Totals............... 35,182,331

Additionally, $900,000 was used in 1999 and 2000 to provide
technical assistance to each of the tribal grantees and to tribes in
the discovery and planning stages of addressing their offender
populations through incarceration.
In 2001, funds will be made available to: existing projects that
have been funded only through the design phase and are prepared to
enter the construction phase in 2001; unfunded applications that were
ranked high in the competitive review process in 1999, but were not
selected due to limited funding in prior years; the Gila River Indian
Community, which is prepared to proceed with construction of a 104-bed
facility in 2001; and per Congressional direction, the Cultural Justice
Spirit Camp and Healing Center near the Village of Hoonah, Alaska.
Tribal governments have jurisdiction over misdemeanor crimes
committed by Indians in Indian Country. Tribal authority to sentence
offenders is limited to 1 year or less imprisonment (25 U.S.C.A.
Sec. 1302(7)) for non-felony convictions. Many American Indian
communities experience significant levels of crime including: violent
crime, domestic violence, child abuse, aggravated assaults, and violent
crime strongly correlated with alcohol abuse. The United States
Attorneys Office is responsible for felony crimes occurring on
reservations. However, the authority to sentence for up to 1 year for a
non-felony crime allows tribes to intervene in the early stages of an
offender's behavior before the criminal activity reaches a level of a
felony. The sentence of up to 1 year imprisonment for a non-felony
crime is intended to act as a deterrent from more serious criminal
activity. Tribal justice systems are the most appropriate institutions
for maintaining order in tribal communities and are the preferred forum
for delinquent offenders who commit misdemeanor crimes. As the tribal
court system is the closest, both physically and culturally, to
victims, offenders, and their families, tribal courts require access to
adequate correctional facilities to impose a range of interventions and
sanctions to impact offender behavior effectively.
According to the Office of Justice Programs' Bureau of Justice
Statistics Jails in Indian Country Survey (Survey), 1998 and 1999, of
the 69 detention facilities in Indian Country, 15 facilities were
operating above 150 percent capacity on peak day in June 1999, and 11
facilities were under a court order or consent decree on June 30, 1999.
Due to consistent overcrowding, restrictions on the maximum number of
inmates that could be held in custody were placed on these facilities.
Also according to the Survey, 43 of the 69 facilities reported that
they are authorized to hold juveniles, however only two-thirds reported
that juveniles are separated from adults by both sight and sound. Nine
facilities separated young persons by sight only, and four facilities
reported that juveniles were not separated from adults.
With the exception of the most recently constructed facilities, the
majority of the existing detention facilities are over 25 years old and
of linear design which makes supervision extremely difficult; they have
little or no programming space to impact offender behavior; they are
high security which may be unwarranted and unproductive given the
characteristics of the offender population; they are in poor condition
and out of compliance with building codes and Bureau of Indian Affairs
jail standards; and they do not have the capacity for sight and sound
separation for juveniles housed in joint adult and juvenile facilities.
These structural deficiencies impact safety, security, and the
effectiveness of behavior modification.
Question. This initiative also provides funding to assist Indian
tribes and pueblos with the hiring of additional law enforcement
officers, to purchase equipment, and to train new and existing
officers. How much has the Department devoted to these activities? What
is the status of obligating these funds? How has the Department
implemented this portion of the initiative?
Answer. In fiscal year 2001, the Department of Justice, Office of
Community Oriented Policing Services is dedicating $39.9 million to the
COPS Indian Country grant program. Because these tribal departments
often have limited resources, the COPS Office sets application
deadlines later in the fiscal year so that they have ample time to
complete and submit the grant application packets. In 2001, the
application deadline for the Tribal Resources Grant Program (TRGP), the
grant program that funds personnel and equipment, was set for April 16.
COPS expects to have these applications reviewed and awarded by the end
of August (it is estimated that these grants will account for
approximately $32.3 million of the $39.9 million). An additional
$500,000 is being dedicated for the same purposes as above to the
Mental Health and Community Safety Initiative, which is a cooperative
effort among a number of federal agencies to address mental health and
substance abuse problems of Native American youth. The application
deadline for this program is June 22, and COPS hopes to be able to make
awards by August.
COPS will spend approximately $2 million on the CIRCLE project
grants and approximately $2 million in waivers in fiscal year 2001. An
additional $1 million is set aside to be used to provide training and
technical assistance to tribal law enforcement. These funds are
expected to be obligated in August or September.
A portion of the total remaining funds (approximately $2.1 million)
may be used for additional training and technical assistance efforts,
however it is anticipated that the funds will be used to fund the new
Tribal Hiring Renewal Grant Program, which will provide additional
grant dollars to law enforcement agencies that are experiencing severe
fiscal distress and will not be able to retain their current COPS
funded officers without additional federal assistance. These grants
will be awarded in August or September.
Question. A total of $35 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 Tribal Youth Program (TYP) was established in 1999 with
$10 million in fiscal year 1999, $12.5 million in fiscal year 2000, and
$12.47 million in fiscal year 2001, appropriated to OJP as part of the
Title V juvenile prevention program. The program is administered by the
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP), which
assists tribal communities and States to prevent and control
delinquency and improve their juvenile justice systems. Although OJJDP
has provided discretionary grant funds and training and technical
assistance to American Indian Tribes in the past, TYP is the first
OJJDP program dedicated exclusively to prevention, control, and
juvenile justice system improvement in American Indian communities. TYP
is part of the Indian Country Law Enforcement Initiative, a program of
the Departments of Justice and the Interior that is designed to enhance
Indian Country law enforcement standards and improve the quality of
life in Indian Country.
Of the nearly $35 million appropriated to date for TYP, OJJDP has
allocated $3.5 million to support program-related research, evaluation,
and statistics; $700,000 to provide training and technical assistance
to tribal programs; and $25.76 million to fund discretionary grants,
including a separate TYP mental health grants program. The fiscal year
2001 TYP solicitation will be available in May 2001. The performance
plan target for fiscal year 2001 is to fund an additional 35 tribes,
which will bring the total number of federally recognized tribes and
corporations representing Alaska Native villages receiving awards to
116.
Question. What types of programs does the Department plan to fund
with these dollars?
Answer. The types of programs are funded as follows:
I. Discretionary Grants
The program announcement for TYP offers a flexible grant program
designed to meet the unique needs of each American Indian community
applicant to prevent and control delinquency and improve its juvenile
justice system. All federally recognized tribes, Alaskan Native
villages, corporations representing Alaskan Native villages, or
coalitions of tribes or villages are eligible to apply for a 3-year
grant. Grants range from $75,000 to $500,000 and are awarded on a
competitive basis. To ensure a broad distribution of TYP funds, OJJDP
considers the size of the tribe, geographic location, and whether the
tribe is in an urban or rural area in making final funding decisions.
Grant Categories.--Applicants are required to focus on one or more
of the following categories of program activity. The number of tribes
with programs in these categories are listed immediately before the
description.
--Category I--Reduce, control, and prevent crime and delinquency both
by and against tribal youth. Elements relevant to this
objective include community needs assessments, risk factor
identification, family strengthening, truancy reduction,
dropout prevention, parenting, anti-gang education, conflict
resolution, child abuse prevention, gang reduction strategies,
youth gun violence reduction, and sex offender services.
--Category II--Interventions for court-involved tribal youth.
Elements relevant to this objective include graduated
sanctions, restitution, diversion, home detention, foster and
shelter care, community service, improved aftercare services,
mental health services interventions (e.g., crisis
intervention, screenings, counseling for suicidal behavior),
and mentoring.
--Category III--Improvement to tribal juvenile justice systems.
Elements relevant to this objective include indigenous justice;
training for juvenile court personnel, including judges and
prosecutors; intake assessments; model tribal juvenile codes;
advocacy programs; gender-specific programming; probation
services; and aftercare programs.
--Category IV--Prevention programs focusing on alcohol and drugs.
Elements relevant to this objective include case management,
drug and alcohol education, drug testing, substance abuse
counseling for juveniles and families, services for co-
occurring substance abuse disorders, and training for treatment
professionals.
II. Circle Project
Fiscal Year 1999 Phase I.--TYP provided $200,000 per grantee for
the Comprehensive Indian Resources for Community and Law Enforcement
(CIRCLE) project. Funding has been provided to three tribes: Oglala
Sioux, SD; Northern Cheyenne, MT; and Zuni Pueblo, NM--in coordination
with the Office of Tribal Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office
of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Office for Victims of
Crime, Violence Against Women Grants Office, Corrections Program
Office, the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, United
States Attorneys, the Bureau of Indian Affairs, and the Federal Bureau
of Investigation (FBI). These agencies have provided significant
financial and technical assistance support to the participating tribal
governments.
Fiscal Year 2000 Phase II.--TYP provided $200,000 per CIRCLE
grantee (continuation).
III. TYP Research and Evaluation Projects
OJJDP's tribal youth research activities are designed to provide
empirical evidence about juvenile justice and delinquency prevention
policies and practices and their impact on tribal youth.
OJJDP adheres to three principles that serve as the foundation for
research and evaluation activities. These principles require that
research and evaluation projects for tribal youth: 1. provide practical
results that are locally relevant; 2. include local community members
in the decision-making and implementation of the projects; and 3.
acknowledge and respect local customs, traditions, values, and history.
OJJDP's program of research for tribal youth includes the following
initiatives.
Participatory Evaluation of the Tribal Youth Program
TYP provides funds directly to tribal communities to develop
programs that help prevent and control juvenile delinquency, including
violent crime, and improve tribal juvenile justice systems. The
Michigan Public Health Institute (MPHI) in Okemos, MI, in partnership
with the Native American Institute at Michigan State University in
Lansing, is helping five tribes evaluate programs developed with their
TYP funds. Each site is assembling a program assessment team (PAT) that
will include local stakeholders in developing and carrying out data
collection, analysis activities, and evaluation reports. MPHI will
provide training and technical assistance to PATs to facilitate
evaluations of their tribal programs. MPHI also will analyze each
site's juvenile and tribal justice systems and TYP activities within
those systems, and analyze the relationships between the tribal
government and county, state, and Federal Government agencies as they
relate to juvenile justice responsibilities and operations.
Delinquency and Juvenile Justice in One American Indian
Nation
New Mexico State University in Las Cruces is conducting a study
that uses the unique historical, cultural, social, and legal aspects of
one tribal nation in the Four Corners area of the southwestern United
States to look at delinquency and the legal processing of juveniles
over the past 11 years, taking into account changes in tribal
resources, such as the opening of a casino on the reservation. The
project will work with tribal members to develop a model for ongoing
delinquency research in this and other tribes of the Southwest.
Culturally Appropriate Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention
The College of Menominee Nation in Keshena, WI, is working with
Menominee organizations to develop, demonstrate, and evaluate a
culturally appropriate, community-based, family-centered approach to
juvenile justice and delinquency prevention. Researchers are developing
a needs assessment, an evaluation design, and a delinquency prevention
and juvenile justice improvement guide for other tribal groups. The
project focuses on integrating health and social services and helping
the Menominee Nation and other tribal organizations institutionalize
this integration process. Service providers will be trained to design,
implement, and evaluate delinquency prevention programs for tribal
youth.
Assessing Gang Activity in the Navajo Nation
The Navajo Nation Judicial Branch in Window Rock, AZ, is conducting
the first comprehensive assessment of gang activity by a tribal
government. The study is using a mixed research design of quantitative
and qualitative assessments, with close community involvement at all
stages. Official court data, follow-up surveys, and gang member
interview protocols have been reviewed for an initial assessment and
community members are helping researchers understand the nature,
extent, and causes of Navajo Nation gang violence. Researchers hope to
discover approaches to dealing with gangs that can be adapted by other
tribes.
Youth Gangs in Indian Country: Profiling the Problem and
Seeking Solutions
Building on the Navajo Nation's youth gang study, researchers at
California State University in Sacramento are using ethnographic
observation and interviews with community members and gang members to
document and profile the youth gang experience in up to six rural and
urban tribal sites across the country. Researchers are interviewing
professionals who work with gang-involved youth to learn about external
influences on tribal youth gangs, such as the involvement of off-
reservation gangs. The project will produce an inventory of policies
and practices used at the sites to prevent and intervene with youth
gangs and will examine recommendations made by community members to
improve present procedures.
Tribal Youth Field-Initiated Research and Evaluation
Field-initiated research allows researchers in the field to
identify the areas and topics they believe need to be examined. The
tribal youth field-initiated research and evaluation program supports
projects that address alcohol and substance abuse, child abuse or
neglect, and indigenous approaches to juvenile justice. OJJDP will
award 2 grants in September 2001.
Indian Country Youth Gang Survey
In 2001, OJJDP's National Youth Gang Center in Tallahassee, FL,
added an Indian Country supplement to its ongoing annual National Youth
Gang Survey of law enforcement officials. This component is assessing
the prevalence, composition, and activities of youth gangs in federally
recognized tribes that are not traditionally included in the national
survey. Preliminary results are expected at the end of 2001.
Longitudinal Study of Tribal Youth Risk and Resiliency
OJJDP also has developed a research project that will include a
specific cultural focus to assess the complex relationships among
culture, community, family, individual youth, and the development of
delinquency. This study will enhance understanding of risk and
protective factors that influence delinquency and resiliency within the
cultural and historical context of tribal youth. The findings will have
direct implications for prevention activities with at-risk tribal youth
and intervention activities with juvenile offenders. In addition, the
study will contribute to the development of effective and culturally
appropriate research approaches with tribal populations. OJJDP will
competitively select a grantee in 2001.
IV. TYP Training and Technical Assistance
Beginning in fiscal year 1999, OJJDP has awarded a total of
$700,000 to the American Indian Development Associates (AIDA) to
provide training and technical assistance (TTA) to tribal grantees to
facilitate strategic planning, improved tribal juvenile justice
systems, and implementation of TYP.
AIDA has successfully completed assessments for policy, program,
and overall system change which have helped grantees to identify needs,
problems, gaps, strengths, and solutions. Many tribes have developed
comprehensive juvenile justice planning and implementation strategies.
Data collection instruments have been designed using a culturally
relevant TTA design, which is developed in collaboration with the TYP
grantees. The provision of services is accomplished through program
reviews, onsite visits, and telephone consultation and interviews with
representatives from the tribal administration and key program
managers.
Question. What indication is the Department getting as to the
nature of this problem in Indian Country and the need for resources?
Answer. Research indicates that American Indians and Alaska Natives
are at a significantly greater risk of violence than other Americans.
In addition, American Indians and Alaska Natives experience
disproportionately high levels of violent victimization, intimate
partner violence, child abuse and neglect, youth gang involvement, and
offending while using alcohol. These difficulties are compounded by a
lack of available resources for families, youth services, and law
enforcement. Youth growing up under these circumstances are exposed to
a variety of risk factors that increase their chance of becoming
involved in delinquency and violent offending.
The following are examples of some of the latest research reporting
the extent of crimes against American Indians and Alaska Natives.
--Estimates from the National Crime Victimization Survey indicate
that, from 1993 to 1998, American Indians sustained violent
victimization at the highest per capita rate, a rate higher
than that of any other race surveyed. (Rennison, Callie,
Violent Victimization and Race, 1993-1998, Bureau of Justice
Statistics Special Report, March 2001, NCJ 176354, pg. 1)
--From 1993 to 1998, the average annual rate of rape or sexual
assault was higher for American Indian women than that of any
other race surveyed. (Rennison, Callie, Violent Victimization
and Race, 1993-1998, Bureau of Justice Statistics Special
Report, March 2001, NCJ 176354, pg. 2)
--American Indian women are particularly vulnerable to violent crime,
reporting a victimization rate nearly twice that of other
racial groups. (Tjaden, Particia, and Nancy Thoennes, Extent,
Nature, and Consequences of Intimate Partner Violence, Findings
from the National Violence Against Women Survey, Washington,
D.C.: National Institute of Justice, July 2000, NCJ 181867, p.
25)
--Seventeen percent of all Native women will be stalked during their
lifetimes (Tjaden, Patricia, and Nancy Thoennes, Prevalence,
Stalking in America: Findings From the National Violence
Against Women Survey, Research in Brief, Washington, D.C.:
National Institute of Justice, April 1998, NCJ 169592, p. 5)
--Alcohol and drug use was a factor in more than half of violent
crimes against American Indians. Overall, in 55 percent of
American Indian violent victimizations, the victim reported
that the offender was under the influence of alcohol, drugs or
both. (Greenfeld, Lawrence, and Steven Smith, American Indians
and Crime, Washington, D.C., Bureau of Justice Statistics,
February 1999, NCJ 173386, p. 9)
--In the United States from 1992 to 1995, American Indians
experienced an increase in the rate of abuse or neglect of
children under age 15. (Greenfeld, Lawrence, and Steven Smith,
American Indians and Crime, Washington, D.C., Bureau of Justice
Statistics, February 1999, NCJ 173386, p. 15)
--Arrests of American Indians under age 18 for alcohol-related
violations are twice the national average. (Greenfeld,
Lawrence, and Steven Smith, American Indians and Crime,
Washington, D.C., Bureau of Justice Statistics, February 1999,
NCJ 173386, p. 25)
--From 1996 to 1998, the number of Indian inmates in the custody of
the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) has increased by 21 percent (from
1,276 to 1,549 inmates). During that same period, the number of
Indian juveniles in BOP custody has increased 47.5 percent
(from 103 to 152 juveniles). Furthermore, the number of Indian
offenders under BOP supervision has increased by 28 percent
(from 1,347 to 1,732 offenders).
These statistics reveal the urgent need for additional resources to
be provided to Indian Tribes in order to improve responses to crime and
crime-related problems in Indian Country. The Department of Justice
administers a variety of funding programs that provide such resources
to Indian Tribes. For fiscal year 2002, the President's budget request
is designed to help carry out the Federal Government's responsibilities
to Indian Tribes, including the following resources: $35,191,000 to
build correctional facilities in Indian Country; $31,315,000 for the
COPS Tribal Resources Grants Program; $7,982,000 for Tribal courts;
$4,989,000 for Tribal demonstration projects on alcohol and crime; and
$1,996,000 for Tribal criminal justice statistics collection.
Generally, these figures represent a continuation of existing funding
levels for the programs. The COPS Tribal Resources Grants Program,
however, is maintained at a higher level than COPS programs generally,
which reflects a continuing need for these resources and the special
role of the Federal Government in Indian Country law enforcement.
Question. Finally, would the Department please provide the
Subcommittee with a summary of the total funding proposed to be
allocated under the Indian Law Enforcement initiative in fiscal year
2002 with the programmatic detail also provided?
Answer.

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE FISCAL YEAR 2002 PRESIDENT'S BUDGET INDIAN COUNTRY LAW ENFORCEMENT INITIATIVE
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Component Item Request
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office of Justice Programs..... Tribal Courts Program--to assist tribal government in the $7,982,000
development, enhancement, and continuing operation of tribal
judicial systems.
Title V Incentive Grants for Local Delinquency Prevention--to 12,473,000
serve Indian youth by developing, enhancing, and supporting
tribal juvenile justice systems.
Indian Alcohol and Substance Abuse Program--for demonstration 4,989,000
grants on alcohol abuse and crime in Indian Country. This will
fund law enforcement activities.
State Correctional Grant Program--for the construction of 35,191,000
detention facilities in Indian country.
Tribal criminal justice statistics collection.................. 1,996,000
Community Oriented Policing Grants to Tribes for additional law enforcement officers, 31,315,000
Services. equipment, and training.
---------------
TOTAL.................... ............................................................... 93,946,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

first responder training
Question. Attorney General Ashcroft, I continue to believe that our
federal law enforcement agencies must push to train as many first
responders as we can. These are our local law enforcement, fire, and
emergency medical personnel who are likely to be first on the scene of
a terrorist attack.
As the lead agency for counter-terrorism efforts by the Federal
Government, you are critical to the coordination of our federal efforts
in this regard. I am most familiar with the Nunn-Lugar-Domenici program
which is training state and local responders in 120 major cities, and
the National Domestic Preparedness Consortium headquartered at Fort
McClellan, Alabama, which is working with training partners to expand
this effort to other cities and towns.
The Nunn-Lugar-Domenici program has now been transferred to the
Department of Justice to complete the training program for 120 major
cities. Have all 120 cities been put through the Nunn-Lugar-Domenici
training program?
If there are a few cities remaining to undergo this training, how
does the Department propose to complete the Nunn-Lugar-Domenici
program?
Answer. On April 6, 2000, President Clinton signed a Decision
Memorandum transferring authority for the administration of the Nunn-
Lugar-Domenici (NLD) Domestic Preparedness (DP) Program from the
Department of Defense (DOD) to the Department of Justice (DOJ),
effective October 1, 2000. Funding and authority to support this
transfer was provided in DOJ's fiscal year 2001 appropriation, enacted
on December 21, 2001. As of September 30, 2000, DOD had completed
delivery of the entire program to 68 of the 120 targeted cities, and
initiated, but not completed, delivery to 37 additional cities (cities
69-105). These cities did not receive their final two program
exercises, or funding for the procurement of training equipment. Cities
106-120 had yet to begin the program.
Following receipt of funding to implement program activities, the
Office of State and Local Domestic Preparedness Support (OSLDPS)
secured the services of the previous program management support and
exercise contractors, and on February 2, 2001, initiated contact with
those cities for which DOD had started but not completed program
activities (cities 69-105). A Program Information and Technical
Assistance Meeting for these cities was held on March 7-8, 2001 to
formally commence completion of the program. At this meeting cities
were provided with the grant application for their training equipment,
initiated the grant application process, and scheduled their exercise
planning and execution cycle. The first program exercise was held on
May 15, 2001 in Baton Rouge, Louisiana.
Additionally, on February 16, 2001, OSLDPS made initial contact
with the final 15 cities (cities 106-120), which did not begin program
activities prior to the program's transfer. OSLDPS has received Mayor-
appointed City Points of Contact from these cities, and is in the
process of scheduling formal initial meetings with these cities. The
first such meeting was held on June 6, 2001, in Warren, Michigan. All
15 initial meetings will be held, and training activities initiated,
during fiscal year 2001. Under OSLDPS administration, the NLD DP
Program will combine specialized training assets available only through
OSLDPS training partners with jurisdiction-specific assessments,
allowing each of the remaining cities to tailor the program to meet its
own individual training, exercise, and equipment needs. OJP has
requested $9.15 million in the fiscal year 2002 President's Budget to
complete delivery of the program to all 120 cities.
OSLDPS is actively coordinating the execution of the NLD DP Program
with the Department of Health and Human Service's (HHS) Metropolitan
Medical Response System (MMRS) program. OSLDPS and HHS representatives
will jointly present both program efforts at the initial meetings for
cities 106-120, and are working to integrate program activities
effectively along a logical time-line.
Question. Could you provide the Subcommittee with the Department's
current assessment of federal efforts to prepare state and local law
enforcement and emergency personnel to respond to potential terrorist
attacks?
Answer. The Office of State and Local Domestic Preparedness Support
provides federal leadership to the local first responder community in
counterterrorism training, equipment purchase, technology research and
development, and technical assistance and evaluation. OSLDPS believes
that in order to enhance most effectively the capacity of state and
local agencies to respond to incidents of domestic terrorism, its
programs should be information-driven, based on specific identified
requirements at the state and local level, and responsive to state and
local needs.
In keeping with this philosophy, OSLDPS has, working with the
Congress, implemented a program in all 50 states, the District of
Columbia, and the 5 United States territories to develop comprehensive
Three-Year Domestic Preparedness Strategies. These strategies are based
on an integrated suite of threat, risk, and public health assessments,
conducted at the local level, which identify the specific level of
response capability necessary for a jurisdiction to respond effectively
to a WMD terrorist incident. Once these plans are assembled and
analyzed, they will present a complete picture of equipment, training,
exercise and technical assistance needs across the nation.
OSLDPS anticipates receiving the majority of these Strategies by
December 31, 2001. Following their submission, OSLDPS will work
directly with each state and territory to develop and implement
tailored, individual training, exercise, equipment, and technical
assistance programs to meet the requirements laid out in the Three-Year
Domestic Preparedness Strategies. This approach represents the most
aggressive effort to date to tailor federal domestic preparedness
assistance to the specific needs of state and local jurisdictions.
In order to coordinate effectively the execution of its programs
with the preparedness efforts of other federal agencies, OSLDPS has
established regular and recurring meetings with representatives from
the United States Fire Administration's (USFA's) National Fire Academy
(NFA), the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA),
the Department of Energy (DOE), the Department of Health and Human
Services (DHHS), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC),
and the National Domestic Preparedness Office (NDPO). The purpose of
these meetings is to capitalize on the diverse expertise and
specialized assistance delivered by these agencies through a formal
process to ensure a unified and coordinated federal training
preparedness effort. OSLDPS also has on-site representation from the
National Guard Bureau to coordinate program efforts and provide
technical assistance and guidance.
Additionally, in May 2000, at the direction of the Congress, OSLDPS
conducted the TOPOFF (Top Officials) exercise, the largest federal,
state and local exercise of its kind, involving three separate
locations and a multitude of federal, state and local agencies. TOPOFF
simulated simultaneous chemical, biological and radiological attacks
around the country and provided valuable lessons for the nation's
federal, state and local emergency response communities. Currently,
OSLDPS has begun planning for the Congressionally mandated TOPOFF II
exercise, to be conducted in fiscal year 2002. TOPOFF II will build
upon the success of the May 2000 TOPOFF exercise by incorporating
lessons learned into TOPOFF II planning and design. TOPOFF II will be
preceded by a series of preparatory WMD seminars and table top
exercises crafted to explore issues relevant to the exercise.
Question. How many local law enforcement and fire and medical
personnel have been trained?
Answer. As of May 1, 2001, OSLDPS has provided direct training to
22,113 emergency response personnel in 1,126 jurisdictions throughout
the country. Of this total, 2,314 received trained via the Metropolitan
Fire and Emergency Medical Services course to enable them, in turn, to
provide training to other first responders. OSLDPS estimates that an
additional 48,970 first responders have been trained by trainers who
received instruction through the Firefighter/EMS Training Program.
Of the total of 22,113 emergency response personnel, 17,976 have
received training via the National Domestic Preparedness Consortium;
and 1,823 have received training via other OSLDPS training partners
Pine Bluff Arsenal, National Sheriffs' Association, and International
Association of Fire Fighters.
The following table summarizes this information.

Institution No. Trained

Students trained at the Center for Domestic Preparedness (CDP)
(Fort Mcclellan).......................................... 4,653
Students trained by the Consortium (excluding CDP)............ 13,323
--------------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________

Subtotal: Students trained by Consortium................ 17,976
==============================================================
____________________________________________________
Trainers trained by Firefighter/EMS Training Program
(estimate).............................................. 2,314
Students trained by other OSLDPS training partners........ 1,823
--------------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________

Total................................................... 22,113

Question. An important part of readiness is not only the training
but the equipping of these forces. What has the Federal Government
achieved with regard to equipping these teams with what they need to
respond to a variety of potential attacks?
Answer. The Office for State and Local Domestic Preparedness
Support (OSLDPS) recognizes the importance of specialized response
equipment to the state and local first responders who would bear the
lion's share of the burden in mitigating any terrorist event involving
a weapon of mass destruction (WMD). The OSLDPS Equipment Grant Program
was initiated in 1998 to provide funding directly to states and local
governments to help enable the purchase of the specialized equipment
necessary for WMD incident response.
OSLDPS is currently providing funds to all 50 states, the District
of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and the United States
territories for this purpose. With these funds, OSLDPS grantees have
been able to purchase badly needed personal protective equipment,
detection, decontamination and interoperable communications equipment
for their first responders. In addition, these funds allow states to do
critical assessments of current threats, vulnerabilities, risks,
capabilities and needs and to develop strategic plans to more
effectively guide the use of scarce domestic preparedness resources.
Evidence from the field suggests that the equipment funding OSLDPS has
provided to date has helped many state and local jurisdictions increase
their WMD response capabilities significantly. OSLDPS also believes
that the impact of the assessment and strategy development process will
be equally profound when completed.
The following table summarizes funding amounts provided by OSLDPS
to state and local first responder agencies from the inception of the
program in 1998 to the present.

OSLDPS GRANT FUNDING TO STATE AND LOCAL FIRST RESPONDERS: FISCAL YEAR 1998-FISCAL YEAR 2001
[In millions of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Year--
Program -------------------------------------------------
1998 1999 2000 2001
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Local Grants.................................................. 12 31.7 0 0
NLD Grants.................................................... 0 0 0 15
State Grants.................................................. 0 53.8 72.5 75.7
-------------------------------------------------
Total......................................................... 12 85.5 72.5 90.7
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Question. What is the Department doing to fully utilize existing
facilities and expertise in First Responder Training for Weapons of
Mass Destruction?
Answer. OSLDPS has specifically designed its first responder
training program to take full advantage of existing facilities and
expertise to deliver a robust, comprehensive program of instruction to
the nation's emergency response community. OSLDPS utilizes the
capabilities of a number of specialized institutions in the design and
delivery of its training programs. These include private contractors,
other federal and state agencies, the National Domestic Preparedness
Consortium, the National Terrorism Preparedness Institute at St.
Petersburg Junior College, the United States Army's Pine Bluff Arsenal,
and the National Sheriffs' Association.
The National Domestic Preparedness Consortium
The National Domestic Preparedness Consortium (NDPC) is the
principal vehicle through which OSLDPS identifies, develops, tests and
delivers training to state and local emergency responders. The NDPC
membership includes OSLDPS's Center for Domestic Preparedness in
Anniston, Alabama, the New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology,
Louisiana State University, Texas A&M University, and the Department of
Energy's Nevada Test Site; each member brings a unique set of assets to
the domestic preparedness program. The following is brief description
of each member and their expertise:
--Center for Domestic Preparedness (CDP) (Fort McClellan).--The CDP
provides hands-on specialized training to state and local
emergency responders in the management and remediation of WMD
incidents. Located at the former home of the United States Army
Chemical School, Fort McClellan, the CDP conducts live chemical
agent training for the nation's civilian emergency response
community. The training emergency responders receive at the CDP
provides a valid method for ensuring high levels of confidence
in equipment, procedures, and individual capabilities.
--New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology (National Energetic
Materials Research and Testing Center) (NMIMT).--NMIMT offers
live explosive training including the use of field exercises
and classroom instruction. NMIMT is the lead NDPC partner for
explosives and firearms, live explosives, and incendiary
devices training.
--Louisiana State University (LSU) (Academy of Counter-Terrorist
Education).--LSU provides training to law enforcement agencies
and focuses its efforts on the delivery of the Emergency
Response to Terrorism: Basic Concepts for Law Enforcement
Course, and the development and delivery of the Emergency
Response To Domestic Biological Incidents Course.
--Texas A&M University (National Emergency Response and Rescue
Training Center).--Texas A&M delivers a set of courses to
prepare public officials, emergency medical services, law
enforcement, fire protection, and public works for the threat
posed by WMD. Courses are developed and designed to provide
each specific segment of the emergency response community with
the tools needed to accomplish its role in the event of a WMD
incident. Additionally, Texas A&M has developed an Interactive
Internet WMD Awareness Course for emergency responders. Texas
A&M also provides technical assistance to state and local
jurisdictions in the development of WMD assessment plans.
--United States Department of Energy's Nevada Test Site (National
Exercise, Test, and Training Center) (NTS).--NTS conducts large
scale field exercises using a wide range of live agent
stimulants as well as explosives. NTS develops and delivers a
Radiological/Nuclear Agents Course. NTS, in coordination with
OSLDPS, is establishing the Center for Exercise Excellence. The
Center will allow NTS to train jurisdictions in the planning
and conduct of exercises, tailored to the unique threats faced
by participating jurisdictions. The Center will provide a
critically needed new component of the overall exercise
training program, meeting those special exercise needs as the
state and local jurisdictions define their exercise priorities.
Other Training Partners
The National Terrorism Preparedness Institute (NTPI).--NTPI, an arm
of the Southeastern Public Safety Institute at St. Petersburg Junior
College, delivers a satellite-based training program titled CoMNET
(Consequence Management News, Equipment, and Training) to the nation's
civilian and military emergency response communities. CoMNET is a news
magazine style show providing WMD-related awareness information. This
program is a joint effort between OSLDPS, the Combating Terrorism
Technology Support Office Technical Support Working Group, and the
Consequence Management Program Integration Office within DOD.
Pine Bluff Arsenal (PBA).--PBA provides mobile training teams that
deliver on-site technical assistance and training to state and local
jurisdictions on the calibration, use, and maintenance of their
radiological, chemical, and biological detection and response
equipment.
The National Sheriffs' Association (NSA).--NSA delivers an
executive level introductory training program for sheriffs on domestic
preparedness for WMD incidents. This course introduces and discusses
the issues that a sheriff will confront in responding to a WMD
incident, and provides training on pre-incident collaborations/
preparations that can be implemented to improve incident response.
In addition, OSLDPS provides training through its work with the
Metropolitan Fire Fighters and Emergency Medical Services Program, and
other public and private organizations such as the National Governors
Association, International Association of Fire Fighters, and the
National Emergency Management Association.
Question. What more should the Federal Government be doing to
prepare for potential terrorist incidents?
Answer. The Department's 5-Year Interagency Counterterrorism and
Technology Crime Plan outlines the Federal Government's comprehensive
plan to prepare for and address terrorist threats. The 5-Year Plan
contains concrete steps necessary to advance targeted research and
development efforts; prevent, deter, and reduce vulnerabilities to
terrorism and improve the capabilities of law enforcement agencies to
respond cooperatively to terrorist acts; integrate crisis and
consequence management; protect our national information
infrastructure; and improve state and local capabilities for responding
to terrorist acts, including acts involving weapons of mass destruction
(WMD). This Administration is currently reviewing the counterterrorism
program to determine what changes, if any, would be beneficial.
To prepare for potential terrorist incidents, the Federal
Government must strive to reduce our vulnerability to terrorist
threats, including the threat of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and
cyber attack on the nation's critical infrastructures. In addition to
preventive measures, we must also have in place the capability to
respond to and deal effectively with the consequences of the use of
such weapons.
One facet of our national strategy is federal assistance to state
and local agencies in the area of terrorism preparedness. The
Department of Justice, through the Office of Justice Programs, provides
significant assistance to state and local authorities by funding
training, purchase of equipment, participation in exercises, and
research and development to augment state and local capabilities.
On May 8, 2001, the Administration announced its intention to
create a new Office of National Preparedness within the Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Currently, a task force headed by
Vice President Cheney has been asked to develop a coordinated national
effort to bolster our national preparedness to address terrorist
events. The Task Force's recommendations are expected in October 2001.
Assistance to state and local agencies is but one facet of a
national strategy; another is the federal operational response, which
is structured for crisis and consequence management. Federal
interagency cooperative efforts have culminated in the ``Guidelines for
the Mobilization, Deployment, and Employment of United States
Government Agencies in Response to a Domestic Threat or Incident of
Terrorism in Accordance with Presidential Decision Directive (PDD)-39''
and the ``United States Government Interagency Domestic Terrorism
Concept of Operations Plan (CONPLAN).'' The CONPLAN, ratified in
January 2001, is designed to provide overall guidance to federal,
state, and local agencies concerning how the Federal Government would
respond to a potential or actual terrorist threat or incident that
occurs in the United States, particularly one involving WMD.
Question. Does the Administration's cybercrime initiative address
this issue?
Answer. With regard to cyberterrorism, it is important to recognize
that the Department prepares for cyberterrorism by enhancing its
abilities to investigate cybercrime. In brief, when a cyber-attack
first occurs, it is not immediately clear whether the attack is state-
sponsored cyber-warfare, cyberterrorism by a transnational
organization, or non-terrorist criminal activity, either domestic or
foreign. Calling an event ``terrorism'' connotes a political or
philosophical motive that is rarely ascertainable at the start of a
cyber event. Therefore, DOJ thinks of ``computer crime'' as a larger
set of cases that include ``cyber-terrorism.'' The personnel and legal
tools used, at least initially and most often on a continuing basis, to
investigate the crime are the same, although additional tools can be
brought into play when appropriate predicates are met. Thus, the
Department's cybercrime initiative, which involves enhancing the
government's ability to investigate and prosecute cybercrime, directly
addresses preparing for potential terrorist incidents.
When cyber-based attacks on critical infrastructures do occur, DOJ
is prepared through its efforts on both the cybercrime initiative and
the National Plan for Information Systems Protection to respond
quickly. First, DOJ's roles and responsibilities for initial response
to such attacks are primarily borne by the National Infrastructure
Protection Center (NIPC) in the FBI, which provides investigative
support for all types of criminal and terrorist attacks on computer
systems. Second, attorneys from the Computer Crime and Intellectual
Property Section of DOJ's Criminal Division and Assistant United States
Attorneys around the country work closely with the FBI and NIPC to
conduct timely investigations, as little or no domestic investigation
into such attacks can be undertaken without the use of subpoenas, or
court orders to provide information, or wiretap requests. Accordingly,
DOJ has, through the Computer and Telecommunications Coordinator (CTC)
program, ensured that at least one prosecutor with expertise in online
investigations (and who receive regular training and support by the
Criminal Division's Computer Crimes and Intellectual Property Section
(CCIPS)) are located in each of the 94 United States Attorneys Offices
throughout the United States. These CTCs work closely with CCIPS, FBI,
and NIPC specialists to respond to and investigate computer crime and
computer terrorist attacks.
With regard to response by state and local law enforcement, both
NIPC and CCIPS consider participating in the training of state and
local law to be a critical part of their missions. Both participate in
the National Cybercrime Training Partnership, for example, an effort
funded by the Bureau of Justice Assistance to develop modular
cybercrime training usable by state, local and federal entities.
The Department's counterterrorism efforts also include coordination
with other agencies, private industry, and other governments and
international organizations to protect our critical information
infrastructure. The National Security Council (NSC) has established a
Policy Coordinating Committee on Counter-Terrorism and National
Preparedness, which, besides the Counter-Terrorism and Security Group,
also has a subgroup specifically devoted to Information Infrastructure
Protection and Assurance. DOJ coordinates with these groups and their
subgroups on both prevention and incident response, as appropriate. In
addition, DOJ works in close cooperation with other centers of
expertise within the private sector and the Federal Government,
including both the NSC's National Coordinator for Security, Critical
Infrastructure and Counter-Terrorism and the Critical Infrastructure
Assurance Office. DOJ is involved in counterterrorism coordination at
the international level, under the leadership of the State Department,
including representation of United States law enforcement and
prosecutorial interests in multilateral groups such as the G-8
Counterterrorism Experts Group and in bilateral meetings with
counterterrorism officials of other nations. The FBI's Legal Attaches
assigned to United States embassies throughout the world, also play a
key role in counterterrorism issues that arise in the nation or region
they cover.
Moreover, under PDD-63, the FBI was given the role of coordinating
the provision of emergency law enforcement services, or ELES, in the
event of an attack on critical infrastructures. The FBI and NIPC have
worked closely with a group of state and local law enforcement
personnel to develop a response plan for that sector. A draft sector
plan was issued in March 2001, and was held up as a model for other
sector plans at the Partnership for Critical Infrastructure Security
conference held March 20-21, 2001. Similarly, other agencies are
working with industry in their designated sectors to develop plans for
protecting infrastructures from cyber attacks and responding to them.
These sectoral plans also provide input into the National Plan for
Information Systems Protection, version 1.0 of which was released on
January 15, 2000, and which the United States Government intends to
update periodically with additional information and programs to respond
to the changing technology and threats in this area.
black tar heroin drug trafficking in northern new mexico
Question. This Subcommittee has been very helpful over the past 2
years in tackling an issue of great concern to me. That issue is the
serious ``black tar'' heroin problem that has plagued several northern
New Mexico counties.
Both the FBI and DEA have cooperated with the state and local law
enforcement officials in New Mexico to try to break the serious cycle
of Black Tar Heroin Trafficking and use. Several major drug busts have
been implemented in this area of New Mexico.
Would you please give the Subcommittee the Department's assessment
of the progress these joint law enforcement operations in breaking the
Black Tar Heroin ring in Northern New Mexico?
Answer. In December 1999, the Special Operations Division initiated
``Operation Tar Pit'', a multi-jurisdictional investigation targeting a
Mexican heroin trafficking organization. The FBI's Albuquerque
Division, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) and the New Mexico
State Police (NMSP) with other local law enforcement agencies (LEAs) in
northern New Mexico have focused this investigation on a well
entrenched heroin distribution organization controlled by individuals
from Tepic, Nayarit, Mexico. Primarily, this organization smuggles
multi-kilogram quantities of high purity Mexican black tar heroin from
Mexico into the United States along the California and Arizona borders.
However, one of the organization's primary distribution cells was
located in northern New Mexico. The organization routinely sent
couriers and distributors from Nayarit to the United States to
transship and sell heroin. After approximately 6 months, the leaders of
the organization would order the distributors back to Mexico and other
individuals would be sent as replacements.
On June 15, 2000, a nationwide takedown of Operation Tar Pit
targets occurred in several cities throughout the United States. In New
Mexico, 34 subjects were arrested and prosecuted, with all of these
subjects convicted of drug-related offenses. To date, Operation Tar Pit
has resulted in the seizure of approximately 64 pounds of high purity
black tar heroin, $300,000, numerous vehicles, 10 weapons, one
residence, and the arrest of 249 individuals.
In fiscal year 2001, the FBI allocated 21 agents to the Albuquerque
Division and local resident agencies to address the drug problem. The
Albuquerque Division has two agents assigned to the DEA task force.
This task force relationship maximizes both the FBI's and the DEA's
investigative efforts in the Northern New Mexico area. Additionally,
the Albuquerque Division's Assistant Special Agent in Charge is the
Chairman of the New Mexico High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area (HIDTA)
Executive Board.
Together with DEA and other LEAs, the FBI has been working closely
to address the full scope of the Northern New Mexico drug problem.
Traditionally, northern New Mexico's primary illegal drug threat has
been the transshipment and distribution of cocaine and black tar
heroin. In recent years, however, the manufacture, transshipment and
distribution of methamphetamine has developed into a significant, if
not epidemic, problem in New Mexico. Mexican drug trafficking
organizations smuggle bulk quantities of methamphetamine into the state
from labs in Mexico and California. Law enforcement agencies have also
discovered an increased number of methamphetamine laboratories being
operated in the state. Two laboratories seized in 2000 were ``super
labs,'' capable of producing over ten pounds of the drug per production
run.
In February 2001, the Albuquerque Division of the FBI, in
conjunction with the DEA and local law enforcement agencies, culminated
the first phase of a 16-month drug investigation with the arrests of 25
federal subjects and 35 state subjects. The subjects were members of a
drug trafficking organization described as the primary source of
cocaine in northern New Mexico. The organization was transshipping
cocaine from Mexico and California to distribution organizations in
northern New Mexico and other areas of California. The organization was
also associated with two drug trafficking organizations on the FBI's
National Priority Target List.
The FBI, DEA, NMSP and the various state and local law enforcement
agencies continue to work closely together to target heroin
distribution organizations operating in northern New Mexico. These
investigations, in conjunction with ``Operation Tar Pit,'' have greatly
reduced the availability of black tar heroin and its associated crime
problems. Also, multi-agency efforts targeting multiple organized
criminal enterprises involved in drug trafficking show considerable
result and only through a sustained multi-agency effort will LEAs be
able to eliminate the distribution and use of heroin as a major drug
problem in northern New Mexico.
ins restructuring
Question. The Immigration and Naturalization Service's (INS)
mission involves carrying out two primary functions. One is an
enforcement function that involves preventing aliens from entering the
United States illegally and removing aliens who succeed in doing so.
The other is a service function that involves providing services or
benefits to facilitate entry, residence, employment, and naturalization
of legal immigrants.
Several critics have concluded that mission overload has impeded
INS from succeeding at either of its primary functions and that INS'
service and enforcement functions should be separated in order to
better administer immigration law. Consequently, there have been
several proposals to fundamentally restructure INS.
What is your view of how the federal immigration function should be
organized in order to effectively and efficiently administer the
Immigration laws?
Can you give this committee any idea of what kind of financial
obligation the federal government might have to undertake in order to
achieve the goal?
Answer. Recognizing that the Nation's immigration system must be
significantly strengthened and with the support of Congress, in 1998
and 1999, the INS engaged in a comprehensive review of the way it does
business with the purpose of developing proposals for the restructuring
of the agency in such a manner as to ensure a balance between its dual
critical missions of preventing illegal migration on one hand and
providing services to those who wish to enter the country legally on
the other. President Bush, in his ``Blueprint for New Beginnings''
which was issued in February recognized the challenges faced by the INS
and proposed a splitting of the agency into separate enforcement and
immigration services entities each reporting to a single policy leader
in the Department of Justice. The costs related to implementing this
restructuring have not been determined.
I am prepared to work closely with the Congress to ensure that
those structural changes that are necessary for the INS to fulfill its
vital enforcement and service responsibilities more effectively are
implemented in the most reasonable and cost effective manner possible.
Question. Although Congress has more than doubled INS' budget and
staffing levels since 1993, INS has had ongoing problems both managing
its programs and achieving results. For example, INS has clamped down
in certain locations, such as San Diego and El Paso, but instead of
deterring illegal immigration, these efforts seem to have simply
shifted the illegal traffic to areas such as El Centro, California and
Yuma, Arizona, as well as some significant trouble spots in my home
state of New Mexico.
I am pleased to see that the new Administration will continue to
support the Southwest Border Initiative in fiscal year 2002. One of the
primary goals of this initiative is to respond quickly to the
continuously changing locale of significant border problems. Whether it
be funding for a new Border Patrol station or a new service processing
center, the Southwest Border Initiative is a valued program that
effectively deals with the complex world of immigration law.
I would be curious to know your views on the Southwest Border
Initiative, both good and bad, and whether or not the Justice
Department will continue to support this vital program in the future.
Answer. The Justice Department supports the Southwest Border
Initiative as summarized in the President's blueprint for the fiscal
year 2002 budget. The President's plan provides for 570 Border Patrol
agents in each of fiscal year 2002 and fiscal year 2003, along with
needed technology. The 1,140 new agents would complete staffing of the
5,000 new agents Congress authorized INS to hire beginning in fiscal
year 1997 as part of the Southwest Border Initiative.
INS has been bringing the major corridors of illegal migrations
under control, and is currently in Phase II (Tucson, Laredo, Del Rio,
McAllen Sectors) of the Border Patrol National Strategy. The success of
border control rests greatly on the combination of appropriate levels
of Border Patrol agents, technology, and enforcement infrastructure. In
fiscal year 2001, we are seeing indications that deterrence is working.
Unfortunately we are continuing to experience attempts to cross the
most dangerous and remote areas of the border. These attempts have
resulted in significant border safety issues. We have been working with
many Mexican government officials to educate and discourage migrants
from making these dangerous entries. The Border Patrol is being
trained, and when needed, deployed to sites in order to act as rescue
teams, to save lives when migrants don't heed these warnings or are
lead into danger by smugglers that have no regard for human life.
combating terrorism
Question. The Bush Administration has indicated that it intends to
continue a plan based on a Clinton presidential directive from 1995
that outlines how the Federal Government intends to respond to
terrorism, particularly acts that involve chemical or biological
warfare. This plan also provides guidance for federal, state, and local
agencies on preparing for and dealing with potential threats and
incidents. The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and the Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) will take the lead in handling
domestic threats and acts.
Clearly, this is a very important issue and I certainly support the
idea of funding efforts to protect all Americans from deadly acts of
domestic terrorism.
Simply from a funding viewpoint, my question is this Mr. Attorney
General--how will the Justice Department calculate its request for this
initiative each fiscal year and, specifically, would the terrorist
threat levels discussed in the strategic plan play a part in any one
year's funding request? Put more simply, do you think funding for
combating terrorism should be threat-driven?
Answer. The 5-Year Interagency Counterterrorism and Technology
Crime Plan encompasses a program for national readiness to address a
broad range of terrorist threats. To be effective, this program needs
to be maintained consistently over time, rather than be a function of
the variations in annual funding. While flexibility to respond to
specific, emerging threats is necessary, consistent baseline funding
for the broad range of potential threats is imperative.
linking doj's budget to performance
Question. According to the 2002 budget, the Administration has
mandated that agencies use performance-based budgeting on selected
programs in the fiscal year 2003 budget cycle.
Under this mandate, agencies will be required to submit
performance-based budgets for selected programs in the fiscal year 2003
budget process, the first time agencies have been required to tie their
spending decisions to performance goals.
As you have discovered in your new position, the Department of
Justice was among the poorest performers under the criteria by which
performance plans were reviewed by the GAO as well as in the Mercatus
evaluation.
Please tell me what specific steps you see necessary to improve the
Department's performance plan and how this will be coupled to the new
mandate.
Answer. Each year, the Department of Justice has worked to improve
its performance plans and reports. Although last year's report was not
favorably reviewed by GAO and the Mercatus Center, we are confident
that our ratings will improve this year. In fact, on May 16 we received
our score from the Mercatus Center on its review of the fiscal year
2000 Performance Report. The Department of Justice rose from 21st place
to 5th place governmentwide; our score improved by 15 points.
Notwithstanding this positive feedback, we will continue to work
diligently to improve our performance plan for fiscal year 2003.
To improve the overall performance management process at the
Department, I have established the Strategic Management Council. This
Council will serve as the formal board within the Department to provide
direction and leadership on long-range planning and initiatives. The
Council will formulate and oversee the planning, programming and
budgeting process for the Department. The Council will reinforce the
linkages among the Department's Strategic Plan, Performance Plan, and
budget process. Development of this Council marks the renewal of an
integrated management system for the Department, and will ensure that
the Administration's policies and priorities are successfully
implemented.
Question. Do you have preliminary thoughts on which programs will
be chosen for performance-based budgeting?
Answer. We are working with the Office of Management and Budget to
determine which programs will be chosen for performance-based pilots.
Preliminarily, we are considering the INS--benefits services, Bureau of
Prisons--prison capacity, and counterterrorism as potential candidates
for performance-based budgeting pilots.
continued operating and management problems for ins
Question. The U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service has long
been the target of inquiries concerning its operation and management.
Last week, the DOJ Inspector General (IG) released the results of a
review which gathered information over the past 3 years concerning the
INS' ability to account for weapons and computers. The DOJ IG noted
that the agency could not account for 61,000 items worth about $70
million. These items included 539 weapons and 12,000 laptop, desktop,
and notebook computers. The IG criticized the agency for its failure to
require inventories of agency equipment and the failure of INS
officials to ``adequately safeguard property.'' It concluded, ``without
immediate corrective action, property will remain at substantial
risk.''
A number of these computer-related operating deficiencies were
supposed to improve following the March 2000 IG report that also found
serious deficiencies. Subsequently, extensive computer-training
programs and an updated record-keeping procedure were implemented
within the agency.
However, based on this IG finding and as you have discovered in
this new position, these operating problems continue to persist.
Please tell me what specific steps you see necessary to improve the
agency's performance in this regard.
Answer. The Office of the Inspector General (OIG) audit report
finding is based on 1998 data. The Service has already taken steps to
address the problems it identified in that report.
INS re-engineered the inventory process in 1998, reducing the
administrative burden while focusing limited resources on high-risk,
high-dollar property, including computers and firearms.
Since 1998, all personal property with an original cost of more
than $5,000 and all firearms are inventoried annually. The accuracy of
those inventories are certified by senior managers (i.e., Management
Team members, District Directors, Chief Patrol Agents, etc.). The
inventories are then independently reconciled and audited.
Of the 539 firearms the OIG identified as lost, stolen or missing,
43 weapons were found, 131 were confirmed as lost or stolen, and 87
were determined to be typographical or database entry errors. The
remaining 278 cases are under investigation.
Other selected property, including all computer and related
equipment with memory acquired for less than $5,000, is inventoried
biennially. Those inventories are also certified as accurate by the
Service's senior management. The first cycle of biennial inventories
ended on September 30, 2000. Their accuracy will be evaluated through
the INSpect program and property management reviews.
The INS has passed the Chief Financial Officers' Act audit for
capitalized personal property each of the last 3 years.
The INS is implementing all recommendations from the OIG audit
report.
Question. Do you consider these weaknesses as candidates for
performance-based budgeting?
Answer. Contained within the INS Strategic Plan, under Strategic
Objective 4.6, Immigration Infrastructure, is Program Strategy 4.6.4,
``Maximize use of available and potential financial resources through
improved controls over assets, payables and receivables''. ``Improved
controls over assets'', include all INS inventories and serve as the
performance motivator driving the changes and improvements discussed
above under question number one.
______

Questions Submitted by Senator Mitch McConnell
oxycontin
Question. As you may know, in recent months several states in the
South and Midwest, including Kentucky, have witnessed an epidemic of
illegal distribution and use of the prescription painkiller, OxyContin.
Recently, there have been hundreds of arrests of OxyContin drug dealers
in my home state of Kentucky. And the abuse of this controlled
substance has already led to hundreds of deaths around the country and
scores of fatalities in Kentucky alone. The illegal use and
distribution of OxyContin is a serious problem for our country. Do you
see the need for a federal role in the efforts to prevent the illicit
prescription, sale, and use of this drug? If so, what is that role?
More specifically, do you have any programs already established, or are
you beginning to develop initiatives, to help deal with this problem?
If so, what are they? What would you need from Congress to expand those
programs or implement those initiatives?
Answer. The purpose of the Drug Enforcement Administration's
Diversion Control Program is to prevent, detect and investigate the
diversion of controlled substances from legitimate channels, while at
the same time, ensuring an adequate and uninterrupted supply of
controlled substances required to meet legitimate needs. The Chemical
Diversion and Trafficking Act of 1988 extended this control to include
those chemicals most often used for the manufacture and synthesis of
drugs of abuse.
The Office of Diversion consists of diversion investigators,
special agents, chemists, pharmacologists, program analysts and others.
The office's activities include: program priorities and field
management oversight; coordination of major investigations; drafting
and promulgating of regulations; establishment of national drug
production quotas; design and execution of diplomatic missions; United
States obligations under drug control treaties; design and proposal of
national legislation; advice and leadership on state legislation/
regulation; legal control of drugs and chemicals not previously under
federal control; control of imports and exports of drugs and chemicals;
computerized monitoring and tracking the distribution of certain
controlled drugs; providing distribution intelligence to the states;
industry liaison and program resource planning and allocation.
Many of the narcotics, depressants and stimulants manufactured for
legitimate medical use are subject to abuse, and have therefore been
brought under legal control. Under federal law, all businesses which
manufacture or distribute controlled substances, all health
professionals entitled to dispense, administer or prescribe them and
all pharmacies entitled to fill prescriptions must register with the
DEA. Registrants must comply with a series of regulatory requirements
relating to drug security, record accountability and adherence to
standards.
The DEA is obligated under international treaties to monitor the
movement of licit controlled substances across United States borders
and for issuing import and export permits for that movement. The DEA
also devises ways to deal with problems of international drug
diversion. Diversion cases involve, but are not limited to, physicians
who sell prescriptions to drug dealers or abusers; pharmacists who
falsify records and subsequently sell the drugs; employees who steal
from inventory; executives who falsify orders to cover illicit sales;
prescription forgers and individuals who commit armed robbery of
pharmacies and drug distributors. At present, the largest problem
results from the criminal activity of physicians and pharmacy
personnel.
OxyContin is manufactured exclusively by Purdue Pharma
headquartered in Norwalk, Connecticut. It was introduced in 1996 and
had total sales of $26 million in the first eight months. Sales now
total $1 billion. OxyContin, which is manufactured in 10 milligram, 20
milligram, 40 milligram, 80 milligram, and 160 milligram tablets, is a
12-hour controlled-release form of the Schedule II drug, oxycodone. It
is legitimately prescribed for people with chronic moderate to severe
pain, such as arthritis, back conditions, cancer, etc. It is also used
post-operatively for pain relief. OxyContin has become the drug of
choice in many pain management clinics. The controlled release
formulation of OxyContin has become popular among drug abusers because
(a) it contains larger and reliable doses of active ingredient; (b) the
tablet formulation is easily compromised; and (c) prescriptions are
often covered by the abuser's health insurance. It is referred to by
abusers as ``pharmaceutical heroin.'' Street names are ``C'',
``Oxycotton'' and ``OC''. OxyContin in toxic amounts causes respiratory
depression and arrest.
The abuse of OxyContin in Kentucky has set off a wave of pharmacy
break-ins, employee pilferage, emergency room visits and arrests of
physicians and other health care workers. The Kentucky State Health
Department Records show that the amount of OxyContin dispensed in the
state almost doubled from 1999 to 2000. Kentucky now ranks 13th
nationally in per capita consumption of oxycodone. The Kentucky State
Division of Substance Abuse reports that up to 90 percent of the 1,100
people enrolled in the state's methadone program got there by using
prescription drugs, particularly OxyContin. One Kentucky Police
Department reports that OxyContin abuse has become so prevalent that 85
to 90 percent of their field work is OxyContin-related. The illegal
selling price of OxyContin in southeast Kentucky is $1 per milligram
plus $5 added to the total amount. Thus a 40 milligram tablet costs
$45; an 80 milligram tablet costs $85. OxyContin 80 milligram tablets
are being split in half and sold as two 40 milligram tablets. Law
enforcement personnel in the state are now seeing some evidence of
OxyContin coming from Mexico.
Initiatives have been taken in the state of Kentucky to deal with
the OxyContin problem.
--The Governor of Kentucky appointed a task force consisting of
several state law enforcement agencies to combat the illegal
trafficking of OxyContin. Residents in 3 counties, Bell, Knox
and Perry, have conducted meetings to discuss strategy in
fighting the abuse. Bell County had such a large turnout that
the meeting was held at a baseball field. One woman has
spearheaded a grass root committee and formalized a petition to
commit individuals to unite against this problem. Additionally,
businessmen in Perry County have raised $20,000 to help in this
fight and to educate people regarding the dangers of OxyContin
abuse.
--Federally, the DEA has a district office located in Louisville, KY,
2 resident offices, (one in Lexington and the other in London,
KY), and a Post of Duty in Madisonville, KY. These offices are
staffed with 19 special agents, 7 diversion investigators, 2
intelligence specialists, 5 clerical assistants and 1 contract
data analyst. DEA participates in a High Intensity Drug
Trafficking Area (HIDTA) Intelligence Group and a Provisional
Task Force operating out of the Appalachian HIDTA Headquarters
in London. The DEA has played a prominent role in attempting to
curb the OxyContin trafficking in Kentucky as shown in the
following 3 cases:
--A single physician responsible for the dispensing of over 79,000
dosage units of Schedule 2 drugs (primarily OxyContin) and
over 1.7 million dosage units of Schedule 3 hydrocodone
products was indicted in January, 2001. The doctor and his
wife have pled guilty to charges of conspiracy and illegal
distribution of controlled substances in federal court.
Sentencing of the pair and additional indictments are
pending.
--A long standing ``pill house'' where pharmaceutical drugs were
illegally bought and sold was investigated and the owners
successfully arrested and prosecuted. The investigation
resulted in 12 guilty pleas in federal court to conspiracy
to distribute drugs or possession with intent to
distribute. Property and cash with a value of over $1.5
million was forfeited last year.
--A forgery ring involved in passing stolen hospital prescriptions
for OxyContin has been identified and immobilized. Members
of the organization, which included a registered nurse,
were responsible for obtaining approximately 5,000
OxyContin tablets illegally. Indictments are pending.
The Assistant United States Attorney in Kentucky has established a
50 dosage unit criteria as the basis for prosecuting an OxyContin case.
HIDTA has given money to local enforcement authorities to support their
OxyContin investigations. DEA continues to work with federal, state and
local law enforcement to identify doctors who are prescribing OxyContin
excessively and has requested that the Kentucky Pharmacy Board notify
all pharmacies to scrutinize OxyContin prescriptions before filling.
They are also being reminded to report pharmacy thefts to DEA.
DEA is concerned over field reports of Purdue Pharma's aggressive
marketing practices. It is reported that Purdue recruits doctors by
giving them paid trips and speaking engagements at seminars sponsored
by the company. These seminars are designed to encourage the
prescribing of OxyContin for pain treatment. In recognition of this
nation-wide problem and in a show of support for DEA's endeavors,
Purdue Pharma has voluntarily suspended further distribution of
OxyContin 160 milligram tablets. Still, DEA has developed a four part
OxyContin action plan on a national level. The elements of this plan
are as follows:
--Enforcement and Intelligence.--Coordinated operations have been
initiated in field offices to target individuals and
organizations involved in the diversion and abuse of OxyContin.
This includes coordination with federal, state and local
agencies.
--Regulatory and Administrative.--DEA is utilizing the full range of
its regulatory and administrative authority in pursuing action
that will make it more difficult for abusers to obtain
OxyContin. DEA will work closely with the Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) to strongly urge the rapid reformulation
of OxyContin by Purdue Pharma, to the extent that it is
technically possible, in order to reduce the abuse of the
product, particularly by injection.
--Industry Cooperation.--DEA continues to stress the importance of
voluntary cooperation from industry in adhering to the spirit
and substance of existing law and regulation. The agency is
increasing its cooperative efforts with all levels of industry
in order to stem the abuse and diversion of OxyContin. As the
sole manufacturer of OxyContin, the cooperation of Purdue
Pharma is integral to the success of DEA's action plan.
--Awareness/Education/Outreach Initiatives.--An aggressive, national
outreach effort will be made to educate the general public,
schools, the healthcare industry and state and local
governments on the dangers related to the abuse of OxyContin.
The diversion and abuse of legitimate controlled substances
continues to be a threat to the health and safety of the citizens of
the United States. This type of diversion occurs mainly at the
pharmacy/physician level of the pharmaceutical distribution chain.
Numerous individuals and groups divert legitimate controlled substances
using various fraudulent prescription schemes. Additionally, certain
health care professionals become involved in this diversion and abuse
through theft, over-prescribing, prescription schemes and illegal sale.
______

Questions Submitted by Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell
department of justice response to international crime
Question. What types of international crime are of principal
concern to the Department of Justice (DOJ), and what is the basis for
this concern? In overall terms, given that there are likely to be
competing demands among the different types of international crime that
are of concern, how do you propose to set priorities in addressing
these crimes?
Answer. The Department is particularly concerned about
international organized crime and terrorist groups that engage in
criminal conduct with direct effects on the United States and its
citizens, including drug trafficking, terrorism, money laundering, and
other traditional criminal activity. Emerging criminal areas such as
cybercrime, including hacking, theft of intellectual property, child
pornography, the infiltration of brokerages to manipulate stock
markets, internet gambling, and the increasing infiltration of
legitimate businesses are also areas of great concern.
The December 2000 inter-agency International Crime Threat
Assessment is one of many resources relied upon by the Department in
order to set priorities in addressing international crime. The Federal
Bureau of Investigation, the Drug Enforcement Administration, and the
Criminal Division also conduct more specific threat assessments, survey
domestic and international field offices, review intelligence
reporting, and liaison with foreign law enforcement organizations, in
order to identify international criminal enterprises which pose the
greatest threats to the nation.
The Department's priorities also emerge out of our on-going
experience in addressing international crime, the principal dimensions
of which can be summarized as follows:
--Domestic Prosecution of International Crime.--The United States
Attorneys Offices and the litigating sections of the Criminal
Division prosecute international criminal activity that
violates our federal laws, including international organized
criminal activity, narcotics offenses, money-laundering, cross-
border fraud, transnational computer crime, alien smuggling,
terrorist financing, and transborder trafficking in humans. The
Criminal Division also provides critical technical assistance,
oversight, and coordination for prosecutors in cases involving
fugitives, money-laundering and forfeiture, and evidence
located abroad as well as in multi-district investigations
against international criminal organizations. The knowledge,
experience, and lessons learned from these cases play a major
role in helping define Departmental priorities.
--International Prosecutorial Cooperation.--DOJ's Criminal Division
leads the development of international cooperation in
prosecuting international crime. The Division negotiates all
law enforcement treaties and agreements, including bilateral
extradition and mutual legal assistance treaties, and
multilateral treaties, such as the recently completed
Transnational Organized Crime Convention and the United Nations
International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist
Financing. In negotiating these treaties, the Criminal Division
works in tandem with the Department of State and, where
appropriate, other Departments. The Criminal Division is also
responsible for the implementation of these treaties and
agreements. In this latter capacity, the Criminal Division
processes all outgoing and incoming requests for extradition
and formal mutual legal assistance, on both the federal and
state level; thus, the Criminal Division is the channel for law
enforcement assistance beyond what can be rendered through
informal police-to-police channels. In addition, in the areas
of narcotics and money laundering, the Criminal Division
conducts a rigorous bilateral case development program with
several countries--primarily those within this hemisphere. In
connection with terrorism matters, the Department conducts
ongoing, bilateral case development efforts with numerous
countries in Europe, Asia, North America and the Middle East.
The Criminal Division also participates in numerous
international fora, through which we work with our law
enforcement partners to develop coordinated strategies to
address particular problems in transnational crime enforcement
and to bring collective pressure to bear on other nations to
comply with important standards in combating international
crime. More generally, the Criminal Division reviews, and
provides advice on, sensitive international law enforcement
issues. The Department's cooperative relationships with
international counterparts provide valuable insights into the
nature and extent of international crime threats and the
effectiveness of measures to address them.
--Responsibility for International Law Enforcement Training And
Assistance.--The Criminal Division provides technical legal and
legislative drafting assistance, leadership and administrative
support for rule of law development as it relates to training
of foreign prosecutors and (together with federal law
enforcement agencies) training and institutional development of
foreign police and prosecutorial forces. This assistance
includes not only developing and strengthening police, criminal
investigative and prosecutorial institutions, and training of
police, criminal investigators and prosecutors; but also advice
in drafting modern criminal legislation that gives foreign
police and prosecutorial agencies the statutory powers
necessary for effective response to transnational organized
crime. Much of this assistance is funded through the State
Department, but also involves technical review from legal
experts in the Criminal Division, funding from such sources as
the Assets Forfeiture Fund, and participation in training
sponsored by other law enforcement agencies. Through its
prosecutorial and police institution building and training, the
Criminal Division helps create more stable and effective
foreign counterparts--counterparts that can fight crime within
their own countries before it becomes an international threat,
and that also can cooperate with the United States in fighting
crime that already has crossed national boundaries. The
exchange of information that occurs in the course of the
Department's international training programs helps identify
long-range law enforcement training and institutional
development priorities.
--International Efforts To Combat Public Corruption.--As part of the
1998 International Crime Control Strategy, the Department has
been actively involved in bilateral and multilateral efforts to
address public corruption, including anti-corruption efforts of
the Council of Europe (COE), including the COE's Criminal Law
Convention on Corruption--signed by the United States in the
Fall of 2000 and currently pending Senate ratification; the
COE's Group of States Against Corruption (GRECO)--established
in 1999 to monitor compliance with the COE's anti-corruption
commitments and joined by the United States in the Fall of
2000; the Inter-American Convention Against Corruption--
ratified by the Senate in the Summer of 2000; the South Eastern
Europe Stability Pact's Anti-corruption Initiative, and the
Global Forum on Fighting Corruption and Safeguarding Integrity.
The Department's ongoing work includes negotiating
international anti-corruption agreements and providing
assistance relating to the implementation of these agreements,
including significant participation in the development and
implementation of effective monitoring mechanisms. The
Department's participation in international anti-corruption
activities, in particular its role in anti-corruption mutual
evaluation mechanisms, provides important information about the
reliability and integrity of law enforcement counterparts,
which can be used to identify enforcement priorities, target
technical assistance and guide decisions about the appropriate
extent of coordination and cooperation in particular cases.
Question. In specific terms, how does the Department of Justice
intend to ensure that its response to international crime is fully
coordinated and integrated among the Department's various components?
Answer. The Assistant Attorney General for the Criminal Division,
directly and through his Deputy Assistant Attorneys General, will
continue to play a leading role in ensuring that international criminal
matters are fully coordinated within the Criminal Division and the
Department as a whole. On high profile or particularly sensitive
matters, the Office of the Deputy Attorney General and the Office of
the Attorney General will continue, as appropriate, to have a direct
role in coordinating the input from various internal components. In
addition, internal coordination of specific international crime cases
or issues is an integral and important responsibility of many
Department components. For example:
--The Office of International Affairs (OIA) supports the litigating
components of the Criminal Division, the United States
Attorneys Offices, and state and local prosecutors in their
investigation and prosecution of crimes with an international
dimension. The OIA negotiates, brings into force, and utilizes
extradition treaties, mutual legal assistance treaties, and
other international agreements designed to facilitate the
investigation and prosecution of international crime.
--The Special Operations Division (SOD) is a multi-agency body
designed to identify and dismantle significant international
and domestic drug trafficking and money laundering
organizations. The Narcotic and Dangerous Drug Section (NDDS)
directs and coordinates SOD investigations with Assistant
United States Attorneys across the country to ensure that each
district involved in a nationwide investigation is informed as
to the actions taking place in the other districts and the
interrelationship of each district in the overall criminal
conspiracy.
--The Asset Forfeiture and Money Laundering Section (AFMLS) provides
litigative support to the United States Attorneys Offices and
investigative agencies in cases where the predicate crime for
money laundering has concomitant money laundering offenses as
well as providing legal support and assistance in forfeiture
cases with international aspects.
--The Terrorism and Violent Crime Section (TVCS) coordinates multi-
district terrorism financing investigations; provides advice,
guidance and litigation support to United States Attorneys
Offices pursuing terrorism financing investigations and
prosecutions; and facilitates access to foreign evidence in
support of these investigations.
--The Organized Crime and Racketeering Section (OCRS) supervises and
coordinates organized crime prosecutions brought by its 23
Strike Forces in United States Attorneys Offices around the
country, provides litigation support to the Strike Forces, and
acts as a clearing house for the collection and dissemination
of information vital to the investigation and prosecution of
international organized crime groups violating federal law.
--For the last 3 years, the Computer Crime and Intellectual Property
Section (CCIPS) has held meetings about every 6 weeks with a
large interagency group (now with about 110 invitees) to inform
other Departmental components and other agencies about CCIPS'
international work. The existence of this group, and the many
other meetings and communications that take place as necessary,
ensure that there is effective coordination in the cybercrime
area. In addition, CCIPS provides very frequent training and
litigation advice to other components in order to disseminate
current policy views and to keep them consistent.
--The Public Integrity Section plays a significant role in
coordinating the views of the Department regarding
international corruption matters. For example, the Section
headed an interagency working group, which also included
representatives from the Fraud Section, AFMLS, and OIA, charged
with coordinating the Department's participation in the
development and implementation of the Council of Europe's anti-
corruption program. In addition, the Section heads an intra-
agency working group of United States experts designated to
conduct on-site mutual evaluations of GRECO member states. The
Section is also coordinating preparation of the United States
response to GRECO's evaluation of United States anti-corruption
efforts.
Question. How does the Department of Justice propose to coordinate
its response to international crime with the efforts of other federal
agencies--such as the Departments of State and Treasury--to ensure, to
the extent possible, that the response is focused, results-oriented,
and sustained, and that the potential for bureaucratic overlap reduced?
Answer. The Assistant Attorney General for the Criminal Division,
directly and through his Deputy Assistant Attorneys General, will
continue to play a leading role in ensuring that international criminal
matters are appropriately coordinated with other federal agencies. On
high-profile or particularly sensitive matters, the Office of the
Deputy Attorney General and the Office of the Attorney General, when
appropriate, will continue to play a direct role in guiding inter-
agency coordination. Most inter-agency coordination, however, will
continue to occur routinely at lower levels. In this regard, the
Department has developed a number of programs and mechanisms for the
coordination of international criminal investigations and prosecutions,
as well as working groups and other coordinating mechanisms to deal
with specific international crime policy and program issues. For
example:
Criminal Division
The Office of International Affairs (OIA) handles all international
extradition and mutual legal assistance cases made by or to the United
States. In concert with the State Department, OIA also negotiates,
brings into force, and implements new extradition and mutual legal
assistance treaties. In addition, OIA participates in the negotiation
of other law enforcement treaties, conventions and agreements related
to international criminal law. It also provides advice on international
law enforcement issues. OIA also provides technical assistance in the
form of training to federal, state, and local law enforcement
authorities in the United States. Such training is primarily on
international extradition and mutual legal assistance, but sometimes
covers additional subjects related to international criminal law.
The Office of Overseas Prosecutorial Development, Assistance and
Training (OPDAT), the International Criminal Investigative Training
Assistance Program (ICITAP), NDDS, and AFMLS work with the interagency
community to ensure appropriate United States support for Plan
Colombia, including strengthening Colombian law enforcement and
judicial institutions.
The Fraud Section is directing interagency feasibility studies to
determine whether international coordinating bodies should be
established for bank fraud and securities fraud.
The Fraud Section maintains close contact with the State and
Commerce Departments, which regularly refer allegations of Foreign
Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) violations. In addition, the Section
routinely consults with the State Department regarding potential
enforcement proceedings.
The Fraud Section participates jointly with the State and Commerce
Departments in the Working Group on Bribery in the Organization for
Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), which is responsible for
the monitoring procedure under the 1997 OECD Convention on Combating
Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in International Business
Transactions. Negotiation of the Convention was the result of close
coordination of the Justice, State and Commerce Departments, with
additional coordination with the Department of Treasury and the United
States Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) on issues relating to
taxation and securities law. The Justice, State and Commerce
Departments work closely in the preparation of the annual reports to
the House and Senate on the implementation of the OECD Convention.
The Organized Crime and Racketeering Section (OCRS) is responsible
for coordinating enforcement programs involving traditional organized
crime (La Cosa Nostra), Russian, Asian and Italian/Sicilian organized
crime in this country with international ties and works closely with
the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) in various initiatives. In
addition, OCRS coordinates with the following entities to combat
international crime: Strike Force units in the United States Attorneys
Office (USAO), FBI Organized Crime Unit, Drug Enforcement
Administration (DEA), Customs, United States Secret Service,
International Law Enforcement Academy (ILEA), ICITAP, OPDAT, State
Department, SEC, Department of Treasury's Financial Crimes Enforcement
Network (FinCen), United States National Central Bureau (InterPol),
Federal Reserve, Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), National Security
Council (NSC), Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), President's Working
Group on Trafficking in Women and Children, Italian American Working
Group, Council of Europe/Working Group, Group of States Against
Corruption (GRECO), and others.
The AFMLS coordinates with all federal law enforcement agencies
responsible for implementing the National Money Laundering (ML)
Strategy and participates in inter-agency working groups designed to
address money laundering problems and strengthen effective
international forfeiture efforts, such as the inter-agency working
group addressing the Black Market Peso Exchange and inter-agency
efforts to trace, seize, and forfeit criminal proceeds of corrupt
foreign officials. In furtherance of the ML Strategy, during recent
years AFMLS, together with the Treasury Department, has coordinated and
hosted three National Money Laundering Conferences, which provide an
important forum for United States prosecutors and agents from around
the country to exchange information and coordinate efforts for
attacking international, as well as domestic, money laundering.
AFMLS leads inter-agency efforts with the Departments of State and
Treasury to develop international sharing agreements with other nations
and coordinates with them and appropriate law enforcement agencies in
implementing our international sharing program. AFMLS also coordinates
with agencies such as DEA on curricula and location for international
training seminars on asset forfeiture for foreign law enforcement and
provides instructors to United States law enforcement agency training
sessions in order to develop sound international anti-money laundering
and forfeiture techniques.
The Public Integrity Section has been called upon to represent the
United States in international fora, including proceedings of the
European Union, the Council of Europe, the Stability Pact for South
Eastern Europe, and Global Forum II on Safeguarding the Integrity of
Justice and Security Officials; issues addressed at these proceedings
related to transnational crime, election campaign financing, codes of
conduct for public officials, and other public corruption issues. The
Section's expertise in developing and implementing international mutual
evaluation mechanisms is further reflected in its key role in assisting
State Department analysis and negotiations relating to the development
of a peer review mechanism by members of the Organization of American
States and in its coordination of the United States response to the on-
going evaluation of United States anti-corruption practices being
conducted by GRECO, the mutual evaluation mechanism associated with the
Council of Europe's Criminal Law Convention on Corruption.
The Alien Smuggling Task Force coordinates regularly with the
Department of State (most notably the Bureau of International Narcotics
and Law Enforcement), the Department of the Treasury, the Department of
Commerce, the Office of Government Ethics, and the United States
Information Agency.
The TVCS, in cooperation with OPDAT and the Department of State,
has developed a terrorism fundraising training curriculum for
presentation to foreign government officials and responds to specific
investigative requests via Mutual Legal Assistance Treaties (MLATS).
TVCS is assisting in the formulation of Treasury's new Foreign
Terrorist Assets Tracking Center (FTAT) and, once FTAT is established,
will coordinate closely with FTAT on behalf of federal prosecutors
involved in investigating and prosecuting terrorist financing cases.
OPDAT develops and administers technical and developmental
assistance designed to enhance the capabilities of foreign justice-
sector institutions. In executing its mission, OPDAT coordinates with
other federal agencies in the development of the inter-agency program
development process and in ensuring that its activities are consistent
with those of United States government entities responsible for
responding to international crime.
Federal Bureau of Investigation and Drug Enforcement Administration
FBI executive management provides leadership to international crime
working groups, and will continue its liaison with other federal
agencies in an effort to coordinate efforts. With regard to its
response to international crime, the FBI maintains effective
communication with the State Department, the CIA, DEA, United States
Customs Service (USCS), and the United States Secret Service.
The FBI details supervisors to the CIA and DEA in order to maintain
its close relationship with these federal agencies. Further, the FBI
will continue to expand its partnership with the DEA in the Special
Operations Division (SOD), looking to increase coverage beyond the
traditional drug trafficking arena into those areas of the world
currently being dominated by organized crime groups.
Question. Also, recognizing that considerable law enforcement
activity to counter international crime occurs in foreign countries,
how does the Department of Justice propose to coordinate its efforts
with its foreign counterparts?
Answer. The Department will continue to seek every appropriate
opportunity to gain cooperation from other nations in its efforts to
target international criminals, through a variety of agreements and
treaties, as well as through face-to-face relationships with its
foreign law enforcement counterparts. The Assistant Attorney General
for the Criminal Division, his Deputy Assistant Attorneys General and
Section Chiefs will continue to meet routinely with foreign law
enforcement counterparts at home and abroad, in both bilateral and
multilateral settings. These meetings not only address particular law
enforcement issues, but also establish and promote personal
relationships that facilitate future law enforcement cooperation and
coordination.
Many components within the Department routinely work closely with
foreign law enforcement officials in a variety of continuing contexts.
For example:
Criminal Division
OIA handles all international extradition and mutual legal
assistance cases made by or to the United States. OIA also negotiates,
brings into force, and implements new extradition and mutual legal
assistance treaties. In addition, OIA participates in the negotiation
of other law enforcement treaties, conventions and agreements related
to international criminal law. In addition, OIA provides technical
assistance in the form of training to foreign law enforcement
authorities. Such training is primarily on international extradition
and mutual legal assistance, but sometimes covers additional subjects
related to international criminal law. Office attorneys also
participate on a number of committees established under the auspices of
the United Nations and other international organizations that are
directed at resolving a variety of international law enforcement
problems such as narcotics trafficking and money laundering. The Office
maintains a permanent field office in Rome.
Attorneys from OIA and other Criminal Division components routinely
address visiting foreign officials in the United States in connection
with such issues as the detection and prosecution of public corruption
offenses, the investigation and prosecution of election crimes, the
detection and prosecution of money laundering offenses, and the
implementing of effective forfeiture procedures. For example, during
the last few years the Criminal Division has made presentations to
public officials from Egypt, Japan, Mongolia, the People's Republic of
China, the Republic of Haiti, the Republic of Latvia, Turkey, Ukraine,
Vietnam, El Salvador, France, Mexico, Mongolia, the Philippines,
Poland, the Republic of Fiji, the Republic of Kyrgyz, Pakistan, the
Czech Republic, Panama, Nigeria, Colombia, Italy, Germany, Australia,
Canada, Bolivia, South Africa, Northern Ireland, Burkina Faso,
Bangladesh, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Hungary, Russian
Federation, Spain, Sri Lanka, and Tanzania.
NDDS focuses its litigating resources on dismantling and disrupting
the drug trafficking organizations and their members that import and
distribute wholesale quantities of drugs in the United States. The
Bilateral Case Initiative (BCI), which began as a mechanism through
which the DOJ and Colombian law enforcement conducted an unprecedented
effort to investigate and prosecute the most significant traffickers in
Colombia, has now been expanded to other countries in the region.
With the assistance of the United States Coast Guard and Department
of State, NDDS is working with select foreign prosecutors and law
enforcement to ensure that evidence derived from United States maritime
enforcement activity is transferred in accordance with the host
country's law to ensure effective host country prosecutions of
transnational traffickers. In addition, we also provide technical
assistance to trusted law enforcement organizations in selected host
countries.
NDDS represents the Department at international organizations, such
as the Organization of American States' Inter-American Drug Abuse
Control Commission and the United Nations' Commission on Narcotic
Drugs, which address drug trafficking at the international and regional
levels. These organizations provide for multilateral consultation on
important issues related to drug trafficking.
To assist foreign governments and United States officials stationed
abroad, NDDS also prepares and distributes guidance on international
law related to drug trafficking. Most notably, NDDS has recently
updated the Manual for Compliance With The United Nations Convention
Against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances.
As if May 2001, 28 of the 34 signatories to the OECD Convention on
Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in International Business
Transactions have enacted implementing criminal laws, like the FCPA,
prohibiting such bribery. The Fraud Section, which negotiated the
Convention on behalf of the Department, has established relationships
with prosecutors from the other OECD nations which will facilitate
cooperation and mutual assistance in this area. The Fraud Section has
also focused on the area of cross-border telemarketing fraud, and,
since 1997, DOJ has co-chaired the United States-Canada Working Group
on Telemarketing Fraud. The Working Group, of which the Fraud Section's
Special Counsel for Fraud Prevention is the co-chair, meets annually.
At the time of the Cross-Border Crime Forum conducted by both
countries' law enforcement authorities, we met to review progress in
relation to the Working Group's 1997 Report, share information on
developments relating to cross-border telemarketing fraud, and explore
possible additional cooperative measures.
The Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section (CEOS) works toward
obtaining the ratification and implementation of the United Nations
Protocol to Combat Trafficking, and implementation of the October 2000
Trafficking legislation. The Section places a high priority on
coordinating symposia with foreign officials because they develop
personal commitments and necessary contacts that result in concrete
advances and pave the way for joint investigations.
CCIPS coordinates international requests for emergency assistance
in cases involving electronic evidence because of its subject matter
expertise. It also receives a steady stream of foreign visitors and
provides training for foreign officials in both the computer crime and
intellectual property areas. Finally, CCIPS is a long-time and
important participant in numerous international processes that deal
with cybercrime or electronic evidence, such as the G8 High-Tech Crime
Subgroup, the negotiations at the Council of Europe on a draft
cybercrime convention, the Organization of American States, the United
Nations, and so on.
ICITAP's efforts are focused on increasing the capacity of the
recipient country to respond to these and other crimes and coordinates
these efforts through the countries in which the training sessions are
being held.
AFMLS coordinates anti-money laundering initiatives with foreign
countries through the participation in multi-lateral anti-money
laundering organizations: G-7 Financial Action Task Force (FATF); Asia
Pacific Group (APG) on money laundering; Eastern and Southern Africa
Anti-Money Laundering Group; Western and Central African FATF; South
Africa; Organization of American States/Inter-American Drug Abuse
Control Commission (CICAD); Council of Europe, Money Laundering Experts
Group. AFMLS also participates with other foreign governments in anti-
money laundering cooperative efforts with the banking industry,
including: Off-shore Group of Banking Supervisors; Bank Secrecy Act
Advisory Group, and Law enforcement working groups, such as: CUORC--an
FBI undercover Working Group, White Collar Crime Investigative Team
(WCCIT)--a cooperative effort with New Scotland Yard; Black Market Peso
Exchange (BMPE) Working Group and BMPE Multilateral Working Group.
Each year, AFMLS also sponsors and organizes a regional
international conference on Forfeiting the Proceeds of Crime through
which it brings prosecutors and police officials together to discuss
practical techniques, legislation, and mechanisms to improve
international cooperation in forfeiture cases. AFMLS participates in
multilateral negotiations on forfeiture provisions of international
conventions and on the Forfeiture Sub-Group of the G8 Senior Experts
Group on Organized Crime (Lyon Group). In addition, AFMLS coordinates
forfeiture and money laundering initiatives to strengthen our bilateral
law enforcement relationships, through such efforts as the negotiation
of forfeiture sharing agreements and the implementation of the
Bilateral Mexican/United States Drug Control Strategy.
The Alien Smuggling Task Force works on the United Nations Protocol
regarding Migrant Smuggling, PDD-9, as it relates to alien smuggling
and on bilateral or regional agreements.
The Public Integrity Section (PI) worked closely with the State
Department to organize the First Global Forum on Fighting Corruption
and Safeguarding Integrity Among Justice and Security Officials, which
was held in Washington D.C. in February 1999. The Section organized a
plenary issue session on law enforcement issues and took the lead in
preparing a statement of ``Guiding Principles'' in the fight against
corruption, which were endorsed by the Forum and since have become an
important component of international efforts to fight corruption.
PI also participates in ongoing anti-corruption efforts of the
Council of Europe; the South East Europe Stability Pact; the
Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe; the Organization
of American States; the Foreign Official Corruption Working Group
(Kleptocracy); and the corruption subgroup of the State Department's
International Initiative Against Corruption. This subgroup assisted in
the preparation for the Second Global Forum on Fighting Corruption,
which was held in the Netherlands in May 2001. Preparations for Global
Forum III, to be held in Korea in 2003, are currently in the planning
stages.
PI provides its international assistance at a number of
international events, both to assist with the international initiatives
cited above and to provide training and expertise. The Section's
Election Crimes Branch also provides international assistance,
participating in a Department-wide effort to provide enhanced training
and law enforcement assistance to other nations. For example, during
the past 2 years Section attorneys have represented the Department at
international proceedings and training programs in the following
countries: Turkey, Bosnia, France, Thailand, Hungary, Argentina, Czech
Republic, Cyprus, Venezuela, Ukraine, Bangladesh, Russia, and Kenya.
TVCS works multilaterally with the G8, the Organization of American
States (OAS) and the United Nations in the development of coordinated
international counterterrorism enforcement strategies and drafting of
international counterterrorism conventions. TVCS also works bilaterally
with numerous governments, including the United Kingdom, Canada,
Australia, India, Israel and others, in developing and implementing
effective bilateral counterterrorism enforcement strategies.
OCRS works with its Strike Forces, the FBI and OIA to reach out to
foreign law enforcement structures to exchange information and obtain
evidence with OCRS involving international organized crime. OCRS has
been involved with international working groups seeking to combat
international organized crime and has been active in working to effect
laws and international guidelines for dealing with international
organized crime. OCRS has also provided training and expertise to law
enforcement groups in other nations.
Federal Bureau of Investigation
In an effort to improve the Federal Government's response to
international crime, the FBI will continue to implement international
crime control initiatives, such as:
--Budapest Project.--The FBI/Hungarian National Police Task Force has
been established in Budapest, Hungary to identify emerging
Eurasian criminal enterprise threats to the United States and
to disrupt those enterprises before they can become entrenched
in the United States.
--Linchpin Initiative.--In May 1999, Operation Linchpin was
established to facilitate the sharing of information and
operational leads, both domestic and foreign, between the law
enforcement and intelligence community. Linchpin focuses on
significant international criminal groups (e.g., Eurasian,
Italian, and Asian organized crime). Several law enforcement
and intelligence agencies, including the FBI, are involved in
sharing intelligence at regularly scheduled Linchpin meetings.
--Project Millennium.--The FBI, along with law enforcement agencies
from 23 other countries, have provided Interpol with the names
and profiles of thousands of Eurasian organized crime subjects
in order to establish a worldwide database that would allow
participating countries to cross-reference and coordinate leads
involving Russian and Eastern European organized crime members.
--United States-Mexico Fugitive Initiative.--An initiative with the
Department of Justice and the Mexican Government, designed to
improve procedures for obtaining provisional arrest warrants
for fugitives that have fled to the United States from Mexico.
--United States-Canada International Fugitive Initiative.--DOJ,
including FBI, USMS, and INS, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police
and the Toronto Police Service, and INS exchange intelligence
to improve efficiency in locating/apprehending fugitives who
flee between the United States and Canada.
--The International Securities and Commodities Working Group was
established to bring together individuals dealing in
international markets, primarily through FBI Legal Attaches and
their counterparts, to discuss ways to coordinate
investigations effectively relative to United States and
international financial markets.
--Plan Colombia.--DOJ is assisting Colombia in developing a
comprehensive program to investigate kidnaping. This program
will include the establishment of a Colombian law enforcement
task force consisting of specially trained investigators. Where
appropriate, the task force will work closely with the FBI,
particularly in cases involving United States nationals. DOJ
has also tasked the FBI with implementing a comprehensive
training initiative designed to train law enforcement and
military personnel from Colombia in anti-kidnaping
investigative methods and procedures.
--Canadian Eagle is a joint initiative between the Canadian law
enforcement agencies and the FBI targeting unscrupulous
Canadian telephone marketers victimizing citizens of the United
States, particularly the elderly. The FBI is working with the
Royal Canadian Mounted Police and other police agencies to
identify, investigate, and prosecute these individuals.
--The High Intensity Financial Crimes Area (HIFCA) Task Force is a
Congressionally-mandated approach to addressing complex and
egregious money laundering conspiracies in a task force
environment. HIFCAs have been established in the New York/
Newark, Los Angeles, San Juan, Phoenix, El Paso, and San
Antonio Divisions. Applications for similar designations have
been made by the San Francisco and Chicago Divisions.
--Interpol Project Rockers.--With respect to Outlaw Motorcycle Gangs,
the FBI participates in the Interpol Project Rockers annual
conference and take part in the Project Rockers Steering
Committee. Representatives from Europe, Australia, and Canada
also participate. The goal of the meetings center on efforts to
evaluate and strengthen the international cooperation between
the countries that are affected by criminal activities engaged
in by Outlaw Motorcycle Gangs and its members.
--Project Stocar is a joint FBI/Interpol initiative to share and
exchange data regarding international vehicle theft.
--Additionally, the FBI is working with seven European nations to
develop an automated system to connect existing art theft
databases.
______

Questions Submitted by Senator Barbara A. Mikulski
judicial nominees
Question. Since the 1960s, American Presidents have used the
American Bar Association (ABA) to ``vet'' judicial nominees. Some
critics have long-criticized this practice, alleging that the ABA has
become ``too liberal'' and that the ABA only ``approves'' liberal-
leaning candidates. However, the Bush administration announced that it
will no longer include the ABA in the nominee review, and has not
released the judicial nomination process, which prior Presidents have
done.
Further, during the Clinton Administration, some Republican
Senators said that there was no need to fill the vacancies, despite
overwhelming evidence of backlogged federal court dockets.
Do you think there is a need to fill all existing federal judicial
vacancies?
Answer. The work of federal judges and the federal courts is
vitally important to the efficient and fair administration of justice.
There are currently 110 vacancies in the 862-member federal judiciary
and the Administrative Office has received an additional 54 judgeships.
I think it is initially important to fill existing vacancies in order
to improve the administration of justice.
Question. Can you describe the process that the Bush Administration
is using? Particularly, what is the role of the Justice Department in
the judicial evaluation and selection process? What is the role of the
White House in the judicial evaluation and selection process? Who is
the ``point person'' at the Department of Justice and the White House
for judicial nominations?
Answer. President Bush has announced his intention to fill over a
hundred vacancies on the federal courts, vacancies which cause
backlogs, frustration and delay of justice. I have also said that I
will enthusiastically support the effort to fill quickly the current
vacancies in the Article III courts with qualified men and women of
integrity, who are committed to the rule of law, and who reflect the
diversity of our country. Consistent with historical practice, I and
other members of the Justice Department will provide assistance to the
White House in evaluating potential nominees to the federal bench, to
the extent requested to do so by the President. The Office of Legal
Policy, headed by Assistant Attorney General, Viet Dinh, coordinates
the Departments activities with respect to judicial activism.
Question. As a Senator, you were aware of the ``blue slip'' process
in the judicial nominations process. Do you favor the blue slip
process, as it is currently implemented?
Answer. As a former Senator, I have a deep respect for the Senate's
constitutional obligation to ``advise and consent'' on judicial
nominations, as well as for its prerogative to determine how to conduct
its internal operating procedures. At the President's request, I will
respect whatever procedure is agreed to by the Senators.
Question. Did you, or anyone at the Department of Justice, play a
role in the White House's decision to exclude the American Bar
Association from its traditional role in evaluating judicial nominees?
Were you asked to give an opinion on this decision by the White House?
What is your opinion of that decision? Do you think that any bar groups
should play a role in evaluating potential nominees to the federal
bench?
Answer. My understanding is that the Administration would no longer
afford the ABA a preferential place in the judicial nomination process.
The views of the American Bar Association, like those of any other
interested group or person, will be considered as part of the judicial
nomination process. I think it is entirely appropriate and valuable to
the process for the views of any interested bar association, other
legal organization or other interested group or person to be
considered.
Question. The ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct provide that
attorneys should voluntarily provide 50 hours of pro bono legal
services annually to those of limited means. Do you think that this
should be a criteria for the evaluation of judicial nominees? What
groups or categories of citizens do you consider as ``those of limited
means?''
Answer. The provision of pro bono services by attorneys is a
valuable and important responsibility. Candidates for judicial office
should be evaluated on their experience and skills as an attorney,
their demonstrated commitment to the rule of law, and their
temperament.
community-oriented policing services--``cops''
Question. COPS was begun by President Clinton in 1994 to put
100,000 new officers on America's streets, and has provided municipal
police departments with more than $9 billion in federal funds to help
put an estimated 85,000 new officers on the streets in six years, COPS
funds cover 75 percent of police salaries for three years, then the
local departments pick up the costs. According to several government
sources, it has made a significant reduction in crime, especially in
Baltimore City.
The Bush Administration has severely cut funding for hiring more
police officers, cut the $408,323,000 dedicated to hiring community
police officers to $180 million, but all of that must be used for
school ``resource'' (security) officers.
Do you have statistics showing that, on average across the nation,
the crime rate on school campuses is higher than on the streets?
Answer. The Bureau of Justice Statistics' (BJS) National Crime
Victimization Survey (NCVS) provides a uniform measure of school crime
victimization nationwide through the self-reports of a nationally
representative sample of persons aged 12 or older who indicate that
they are attending a public or private school. Periodically, BJS
together with funding support from the National Center for Education
Statistics (NCES) in the Department of Education, supplements the
standard NCVS screener and incident forms with supplementary questions
for those respondents attending school. Supplements on school crime
have been conducted in 1989, 1995, 1999, and 2001 with inter-
supplemental years utilizing the standard NCVS instruments to provide
annual estimates. The most recent BJS data on school victimization
indicate that:
--Approximately 14 percent of crime victimizations nationwide
occurred at a public or private school or on a college campus.
This is based on an estimated 24,493,550 criminal
victimizations nationwide in 1999 (excluding residential
burglaries and all homicides), of which 3,322,775 were
estimated to have occurred at school (see following table).

SCHOOL CRIME VICTIMIZATIONS--1999 ESTIMATES
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Est. No.
Type of crime Number of Percent at school
incidents school incidents
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Selected personal and property crimes, total.................... 24,493,550 0.136 3,322,775
===============================================
Violent, total.................................................. 6,723,930 0.151 1,015,313
Rape/sexual assault............................................. 381,400 0.052 19,833
Robbery......................................................... 740,890 0.072 53,344
Aggravated assault.............................................. 1,290,360 0.088 113,552
Simple assault.................................................. 4,311,270 0.192 827,764
===============================================
Property and other, total....................................... 17,769,620 0.130 2,307,461
Purse snatch/pocket-picking..................................... 206,090 0.148 30,501
Motor vehicle theft............................................. 1,068,130 0.016 17,090
Theft........................................................... 16,495,400 0.137 2,259,870
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--BJS estimates, for 1998, indicate that there were 43 violent
victimizations and 58 theft victimizations occurring at school
per 1,000 students aged 12 to 18. Of these, there were an
estimated 9 incidents per 1,000 students of serious violent
crime-rape, sexual assault, robbery, and aggravated assault.
Per capita estimates of victimization incident rates in 1998
among students for victimizations which occurred away from
school grounds were 48 violent, 46 theft and 21 serious violent
incidents per 1,000 students aged 12 to 18. These data indicate
that two-thirds of the serious violence experienced by students
in 1998 occurred away from school grounds. However, over the
period from 1992 to 1998, per capita rates of violent
victimization and serious violent victimization of students
while at school have remained largely stable while the same
rates for incidents occurring outside of school have declined.
--NCES reports, based upon data from 1993 through 1997, that teachers
were the victims of thefts and violent crimes at school at a
rate equal to 84 incidents per 1,000 teachers.
--In the 1997-98 school year, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC)
reported 35 student homicides in public and private schools
through high school--this would translate into about two-tenths
of 1 percent of homicides and would obviously not alter the
aggregate estimates on the attached spreadsheet. Data on school
homicides are recorded by CDC in partnership with the
Department of Education.
--Violent crime victimizations represent 27 percent of total crime
victimizations nationwide, while property and other crimes
comprise the remaining 73 percent. For school-related crime
incidents, about 30 percent are classified as violent. While
simple assaults comprise about 64 percent of all violent
victimizations, in schools, simple assault accounts for 82
percent of violent victimizations.
--Though simple assault is the least serious violent crime, it is not
a trivial matter. Such crimes encompass a broad range of
behaviors from verbal threats, to bullying, to physical attacks
that result in cuts, bruises, black eyes, chipped teeth, etc.
The likelihood of injury in simple assault is greater than in
aggravated assault.
This BJS analysis is based on data collected through the NCVS,
which is the nation's primary source of information on criminal
victimization. Each year since 1973, estimates of crime victimization
are obtained from nearly 200,000 interviews with a nationally
representative sample of residents aged 12 or older on the frequency,
characteristics and consequences of criminal victimization in the
United States. The survey enables BJS to estimate the likelihood of
victimization by rape, sexual assault, robbery, assault, theft,
household burglary, and motor vehicle theft for the population as a
whole, as well as for specific segments. In contrast to other crime
statistical programs, like the summary Uniform Crime Reporting Program
administered by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, which collects
data on crimes reported to law enforcement agencies, the NCVS includes
information on crime not reported to the police. This question cannot
be answered with the FBI's Summary Uniform Crime Report data because it
does not include sufficient detail on where crimes reported to police
take place.
Question. Although the Administration has characterized hiring law
enforcement personnel as a ``local issue,'' the Federal Government
provides significant funding for other critical ``local'' issues such
as domestic violence or community renewal/drug prevention programs such
as ``Weed and Seed.''
How do you explain making an exception for the hiring of local
police officers who are supposed to enforce those other programs?
Answer. With local expenditures on police and law enforcement
totaling a projected $52 billion in 2001, it is clear that COPS and
other DOJ grants play a relatively small role in the overall funding
picture. However, in light of public concerns about crime in and around
the nation's primary and secondary schools, the COPS Office will focus
its hiring efforts on increasing the number of school resource officers
(SROs) serving in our nation's schools. COPS, through the continuation
of the COPS in Schools (CIS) program, will provide state and local law
enforcement agencies an average of $116,000, and a maximum of $125,000,
per officer over 3 years, to assist in hiring officers who become
assigned to a school.
SROs are not required to enforce federal initiatives. Depending on
the needs of the local jurisdiction, the SROs, funded through the CIS
program, teach crime prevention and substance abuse classes, monitor
and assist troubled students, and build respect and understanding
between law enforcement and students. These officers also assist in the
identification of physical changes in the environment that may reduce
crime in and around the schools, as well as assist in developing school
policies, which address criminal activity.
To date, through this highly successful program, the COPS Office
has funded the addition of over 3,700 SROs who serve in their assigned
schools, and it is estimated that by the end of 2001, the number of
SROs funded will have grown to approximately 4,600. The $180 million in
hiring funds requested in 2002 will allow for the funding and training
of 1,500 SROs. If CIS applications fail to total $180 million, the COPS
Office will continue to fund up to the amount available, within the
$180 million, the hiring of general community policing officers by
providing up to $75,000 per officer over 3 years.
______

Questions Submitted by Senator Patrick J. Leahy
boys and girls club
Question. In fiscal year 2001, Congress appropriated $60 million to
the Boys and Girls Clubs of America for grants to Boys and Girls Clubs
across the nation within the Department of Justice's programs for state
and local law enforcement assistance. In Vermont and around the
country, Boys and Girls Clubs are a proven and growing success in
preventing crime and supporting our children. What was the rationale
behind the Administration's decision to not request funding for Boys
and Girls Clubs within the Department of Justice budget submission.
Answer. Since 1996, funds appropriated for the Local Law
Enforcement Block Grant (LLEBG) program have included an earmark
specifically for B&GCA. To date, the LLEBG program has provided over
$200 million in resources directly to B&GCA. The $60 million earmarked
in fiscal year 2001 was 11 percent of the total--slightly larger than
the combined estimated LLEBG allocations for New York, North Carolina,
and Georgia. Only California received a larger amount of funding.
In 2002, the Department made difficult funding decisions, which
included redirecting existing resources to address basic law
enforcement operational needs, such as increasing detention and
incarceration capacity. As a result, some programs, such as LLEBG, were
reduced. To help maximize the funding available for state and local law
enforcement agencies, the Department's budget request does not earmark
any LLEBG funds for specific grant projects or non-federal
organizations such as the Boys and Girls Clubs, no matter how worthy.
This same principle was applied to the other Office of Justice Program
(OJP) grant programs, both competitive and formula-based.
Question. In 1997, I was proud to join with Senator Hatch, Senator
Gregg and others to pass bipartisan legislation to authorize grants by
the Department of Justice (DOJ) to fund 2,500 Boys and Girls Clubs
across the nation from fiscal year 1998 to fiscal year 2001. Would you
recommend that Congress authorize grants by the Department of Justice
for fiscal year 2002 to fund additional Boys and Girls Clubs around the
country?
Answer. While the Department of Justice has taken no forward
position on this bill, it recognizes the importance of the B&GCA, which
provide millions of at-risk boys and girls with a full and fair
opportunity to lead productive and meaningful lives.
Since the enactment of Title IV of the Economic Espionage Act of
1996, intended to provide $100 million to the B&GCA for establishing
1,000 additional local Boys and Girls Clubs, Congress has earmarked
more than $200 million of LLEBG, including $11 million the year before
the law was enacted. Through 2001, 875 new clubs have been established.
In addition to the LLEBG funds, nearly $37 million has been awarded
by OJP from fiscal year 1992 through fiscal year 2001 to B&GCA and
individual Boys and Girls Clubs through various grants from the Bureau
of Justice Assistance, the Executive Office for Weed and Seed, the
Violence Against Women Office and the Office for Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency Prevention.
In fiscal year 2002, DOJ has made many difficult internal decisions
on the use of limited, valuable resources. The LLEBG was reduced so
that law enforcement operations and federal prisons could be more
strongly supported, and with that reduction, the B&GCA earmark was
eliminated. In making these decisions, also considered were DOJ's long-
standing policy not to re-request Congressional earmarks as part of the
President's annual budget and the desire to provide maximum flexibility
to state and local law enforcement agencies in their use of the
remaining funds.
bulletproof vest partnership grant program
Question. Last year, Senator Campbell and I authored and Congress
passed the Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Act of 2000 (Public Law
106-517) to authorize $50,000,000 for the Bulletproof Vest Partnership
Program for fiscal year 2002 within the Department of Justice programs
for state and local enforcement assistance. In its first 2 years of
operation, this program funded more than 325,000 new bulletproof vests
for our nation's police officers, including more than 536 vests for
Vermont law enforcement officers. The demand for bulletproof vests
under this program has far exceeded the program's resources. For
example, last year, state and local law enforcement agencies requested
more than $80 million in grants under the program's $25 million budget.
But President Bush's budget requests only level funding for this
program in fiscal year 2002. What was the rationale behind the
Administration's decision to request only half of the authorized
funding level for the Bulletproof Best Partnership Grant Program within
the Department of Justice budget submission?
Answer. The Bulletproof Vest Partnership Program is designed to
protect the lives of law enforcement officers by helping state, local,
and tribal law enforcement agencies provide officers with armor vests
that comply with the National Institute of Justice's ballistic or stab-
resistant standards. The program pays up to 50 percent of the total
cost of each vest. Participating jurisdictions have 4 years beyond the
year of the approved application to request reimbursement for
authorized purchases. At the end of fiscal year 2000 (the second year
of the Bulletproof Vest Partnership Program), approximately 94,000
vests had actually been purchased. In 1999, 3,510 jurisdictions
participated in the program, and 3,586 jurisdictions participated in
2000.
Because of the overall funding constraints, not every Justice grant
program can be funded at its fully authorized level. Most funding
increases in the 2002 DOJ budget for state and local law enforcement
assistance are for implementing the President's crime prevention and
public safety initiatives.
The 2002 request of $25.4 million is consistent with amounts
appropriated for the first 2 years of the program. In 2000, $25 million
was appropriated for the Bulletproof Vest Partnership Program, and in
2001, $25.4 million was appropriated. Regardless of the funding level,
the acquisition of body armor is primarily a state and local
responsibility. By continuing funding at the current level, the
Department of Justice can continue to assist jurisdictions in the
greatest need.
computer crime enforcement act
Question. In 2000, Senator DeWine and I authored and Congress
passed the Computer Crime Enforcement Act (Public Law 106-572) to
authorize $25,000,000 for fiscal year 2002 within the Department of
Justice programs for state and local law enforcement assistance. But
President Bush's budget fails to request any funding for this program.
What was the rationale behind the Administration's decision to not
request any funding for the Computer Crime Enforcement Act within the
Department of Justice budget submission?
Answer. The Computer Crime Enforcement Act was passed on December
28, 2000, which was too late in the 2002 budget process to be
considered in the formulation of the 2002 President's budget. However,
existing programs assist state and local law enforcement activities in
deterring, investigating, and prosecuting computer crimes. These
include:
--Funding for the National White Collar Crime Center, which provides
training and support for investigations of computer crimes, and
operates the Internet Fraud Complaint Center in conjunction
with the FBI.
--The Missing Children's Program includes the Internet Crimes Against
Children Task Force program, which helps participating state
and local law enforcement agencies prevent, interdict or
investigate online enticement and child pornography cases.
--The Bureau of Justice Statistics administers the Cybercrime
Statistics Program, intended to measure changes in the
incidence, magnitude and consequences of electronic or
cybercrime.
--Byrne Formula Grant funds may be used to support computer crime
investigation and enforcement activities.
--The Regional Information Sharing System provides information and
intelligence services to state and local criminal justice
agencies, enhancing their ability to identify, target and
remove criminal conspiracies and activities spanning
jurisdictional borders.
--The National Institute of Justice provides onsite and other
technical assistance to state and local officials on
investigation and enforcement of cybercrimes.
--The Computer Crime and Intellectual Property Section (CCIPS) works
closely with state and local law enforcement agencies to help
them develop their own abilities to investigate and prosecute
cybercrime. Moreover, CCIPS has attorneys on duty daily to
respond to questions from state and local law enforcement
agencies.
--The United States Attorneys' Offices are provided resources for
their Computer Crime and Intellectual Property Initiative to
prosecute hackers and computer criminals. Each U.S. Attorney's
Office (USAO) has at least one Computer and Telecommunications
Coordinator (CTC) investigating and prosecuting high-tech
crimes. CTCs also provide training to local law enforcement.
violent offender incarceration prison grant program
Question. In fiscal year 2001, Congress appropriated $225 million
for the Violent Offender Incarceration Prison Grant Program within the
Department of Justice's programs for state and local law enforcement
assistance. But President Bush's budget fails to request any funding
for the Violent Offender Incarceration Prison Grant Program. What was
the rationale behind the Administration's decision to not request any
funding for the Violent Offender Incarceration Prison Grant Program
within the Department of Justice budget submission?
Answer. The Violent Offender Incarceration Prison Grant Program was
established in 1996 to encourage states to enact truth-in-sentencing
laws that require violent criminals to serve at least 85 percent of the
sentence imposed by the court. Federal grant resources were provided to
build or expand correctional facilities to increase bed capacity for
the confinement of violent offenders.
Since 1996, the Violent Offender Incarceration Prison Grant Program
provided more than $2.3 billion to the 50 states, the United States
territories and the District of Columbia. In 2000, nearly 24,800 new
beds were constructed, exceeding the target of 15,000 new beds. At the
same time, the state prison population is beginning to stabilize.
To date, 30 states have enacted the required truth-in-sentencing
legislation. Five years have elapsed since the inception of the
program, giving states ample time to consider the costs and benefits of
this legislation, and no state has enacted such legislation since 1999.
Recent data from BJS also shows that the state prison population has
begun to stabilize, growing by just 1.5 percent last year.
Consequently, OJP believes the program has accomplished its mission,
and no funding is requested for this purpose in 2002.
However, funds are requested for Indian tribes to construct jails
on tribal lands ($35.191 million) and for the United States Marshals
Service Cooperative Agreement program ($35 million) as stand-alone
independent programs. These had been funded previously under the
Violent Offender Incarceration Prison Grant Program.
enforcing underage drinking laws program
Question. In fiscal year 2001, Congress appropriated $25 million
for the Enforcing Underage Drinking Laws Program (EUDL) within the
Department of Justice's programs for state and local law enforcement
assistance. But President Bush's budget fails to request any funding
for this program. What was the rationale behind the Administration's
decision to not request any funding for the Enforcing Underage Drinking
Laws Program within the Department of Justice budget submission?
Answer. Since 1998, $25 million has been earmarked out of the
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention's (OJJDP) Title V
funding for this program. In 2002, the Department was faced with
internal funding decisions in trying to address basic law enforcement
needs and other Administration priorities. As a result, entire programs
or portions of programs were redirected. Within OJJDP Title V, the
budget process proposes to allocate $37 million to help carry out the
President's Project ChildSafe pledge, which will make child safety
locks available for every handgun in America by 2006. When combined
with funding in the Juvenile Accountability Block Grant program, a
total of $75 million will be available for this effort in 2002.
States may choose to direct resources from other OJP programs to
continue efforts initiated under EUDL. Funds available under OJJDP's
Part B Formula grants, Part E State Challenge grants, Title V Incentive
grants, and the Juvenile Accountability Incentive Block Grant (JAIBG)
program may be targeted for the same or like purposes as EUDL.
dna analysis backlog elimination act
Question. In 2000, Congress passed the DNA Analysis Backlog
Elimination Act of 2000 (Public Law 106-546) to authorize $65,000,000
for fiscal year 2002 within the Department of Justice programs for
state and local law enforcement assistance. But President Bush's budget
requests only $35 million for this program. What was the rationale
behind the Administration's decision to request $30 million less than
the authorized funding level for the DNA Analysis Backlog Elimination
Act within the Department of Justice budget submission?
Answer. In 2002, the President's budget includes a total of $70
million in resources to support DNA backlog activities and crime lab
improvements:
--A total of $35 million is requested for activities authorized under
sections 2(a)(1) and 2(a)(2) of the DNA Analysis Backlog
Reduction Act of 2000. Of this amount, $10 million is for the
reduction of the DNA convicted offender backlog and $25 million
is for the reduction of the DNA backlog in cases that have no
known suspects. These are sufficient amounts to address the
population of the national DNA database as private DNA labs are
not yet able to process a higher level of sample analyses.
--An additional $35 million is requested for the Crime Lab
Improvement Program (CLIP), which is an existing program
authorized under the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act
of 1968. CLIP provides discretionary grant resources to improve
the general forensic capability and capacity of state and local
crime laboratories to conduct DNA and forensic analyses.
Although not specifically authorized under the DNA Analysis
Backlog Reduction Act of 2000, CLIP resources are available for
purposes included under Section 2(a)(3) the Act.
--The fiscal year 2002 budget reflects a decision to provide
significant funding increases for the existing Crime Lab
Improvement (CLIP) and DNA Backlog Reduction Programs. Total
funding for these 2 programs goes from $30 million in fiscal
year 2001 to $70 million ($35 million each) in the fiscal year
2002 budget. This represents a 230 percent rate of growth, far
exceeding that of most other OJP and DOJ programs.
paul coverdell national forensic science improvement act of 2000
Question. In 2000, Congress passed the Paul Coverdell National
Forensic Science Improvement Act of 2000 (Public Law 106-561) to
authorize $85,400,000 for fiscal year 2002 within the Department of
Justice programs for state and local law enforcement assistance. But
President Bush's budget fails to request any funding for this program.
What was the rationale behind the Administration's decision to not
request any funding for the Paul Coverdell National Forensic Science
Improvement Act within the Department of Justice budget submission?
Answer. The Paul Coverdell National Forensic Science Improvement
Act was enacted on December 21, 2000, late in the budget formulation
process for fiscal year 2002. Although the President's fiscal year 2002
does not request funding for the grant programs authorized by the
Coverdell Act, it does request more than $70 million to expand OJP's
initiatives in support of state and local crime laboratories,
including:
--$35 million for the Crime Lab Improvement Program (CLIP), which
provides grants to state and local forensic science agencies to
improve the quality and timeliness of forensic science services
offered by state and local laboratories. CLIP funds are
available for improving all analytical and technological
resources of public crime laboratories; increasing crime
laboratory access to specialized forensic services; and
establishing a network for the allocation of forensic
capabilities to critical investigations.
--Another $35 million to address the backlog of state convicted DNA
and crime scene DNA samples that exist nationwide. The DNA data
will then be added to the FBI Combined DNA Index System (CODIS)
database, which provides information that help to solve crimes
and convict individuals who threaten the safety of our
citizens.
data collection practices
Question. In compliance with section 646 of the fiscal year 2001
Treasury-Postal Appropriations law, the Inspectors General of all
federal agencies were required to submit reports to Congress on each
agency's data collection practices. A third of the agencies have
completed their reports and the results are quite disturbing. It seems
that there are numerous government websites using these tracking
``persistent cookies.'' In fact, the Department of Transportation
announced that it has deleted these cookies after being identified as
one of the worst offenders. The Department of Justice has not yet
submitted a report on its data collection practices. Therefore, please
provide details on the Department of Justice's use of ``persistent
cookies'' in its data collection practices?
Answer. In January, the Department of Justice, Office of Inspector
General (OIG), tested 56 Department internet sites and determined for
all 56 sites tested, that no Department or third party ``cookies'' had
been recorded. Based upon this review, OIG issued Audit Report #01-05,
Review of Department of Justice Internet Sites, dated February 2001
(attached).
Review of Department of Justice Internet Sites
report no. 01-05, march 13, 2001, office of the inspector general
Introduction
Internet sites can be powerful tools to inform the public about
federal government activities and programs. These sites raise privacy
concerns when they use ``cookies'', a primary method of compiling
information and data about Internet users, to track the activities of
users over time and across different sites.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ ``Cookies'' are small software files placed on computers
without a person's knowledge that can track their movement on an
Internet site. Essentially, cookies make use of user-specific
information transmitted by the Internet server onto the user's computer
so that the information might be available for later access by itself
or other servers. Internet servers automatically gain access to
relevant cookies whenever the user establishes a connection to them,
usually in the form of Internet requests.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As a result of recently passed legislation, we are required to
determine whether Department of Justice (DOJ) Internet sites or third
parties working for the DOJ collect personally identifiable information
from users that access DOJ Internet sites. Our review consisted of
reviewing information provided by DOJ officials and limited testing of
cookies for the DOJ Internet sites. We did not perform detailed tests
to verify the information contained in the documentation. Thus, this
report and the associated work was not performed in accordance with
Government Auditing Standards (GAS), but was performed as an ``other
activity of an audit organization'' pursuant to GAS 2.10.
Criteria
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Memorandum M-00-13 (June 22,
2000), Privacy Policies and Data Collection on Federal Web Sites,
stated that ``cookies'' should not be used at federal Internet sites,
or by contractors operating the sites on behalf of agencies, unless
there was clear and conspicuous notice; a compelling need to gather the
data; and appropriate, publicly disclosed safeguards for handling
``cookie''-derived information. In addition, the memorandum stated that
the agency head must personally approve the use of ``cookies.''
The recently enacted Treasury and General Government Appropriations
Act, 2001 (H.R. 5658, Section 646) (The Act) requires the Inspector
General of each department or agency to report to Congress:

any activity of the appropriate department or agency relating
to--
(1) the collection or review of singular data, or the
creation of aggregate lists that include personally
identifiable information, about individuals who access
any Internet site of the department or agency; and
(2) entering into agreements with third parties,
including other government agencies, to collect,
review, or obtain aggregate lists or singular data
containing personally identifiable information relating
to any individual's access or viewing habits for
governmental and non-governmental Internet sites.
Methodology
In response to the OMB memorandum and The Act, we assessed DOJ
written guidance related to web development and privacy policies, and
prohibitions pertaining to collecting, reviewing, or obtaining data
regarding individuals using DOJ Internet sites. In addition, on January
4, 2001, we tested the 56 DOJ Internet sites listed on the DOJ's
Alphabetical List of Components with Internet Sites (see attachment) to
determine whether the DOJ or third parties were collecting personally
identifiable information related to any individual's access or viewing
habits on the sites. To conduct our testing, we:
(1) Set the Internet browser to warn us if ``cookies'' were
being sent, and we cleared the ``cookie'' log to ensure that
the only entries were those from our test.
(2) Entered two sites known to set ``cookies,'' msn.com and
cnet.com, to ensure that the browser warning worked properly
and the log recorded the ``cookies.'' In both cases the browser
warned us that cookies were being sent to our computer and
asked whether we wanted to accept them. We accepted them.
(3) Examined the ``cookies'' log and, in both cases, the
``cookies'' were logged.
(4) Entered the 56 DOJ Internet sites to determine whether
they would send ``cookies'' to our computer.
Results
DOJ Internet sites tested were not collecting, reviewing, or
obtaining personally identifiable information relating to any
individual's access or viewing habits at the time we tested the sites
for ``cookies.'' For all 56 DOJ Internet sites tested, we were neither
warned nor asked to accept DOJ or third party ``cookies,'' and, upon
examining the browser's ``cookies'' log, found that no DOJ or third
party ``cookies'' had been recorded.
Currently, DOJ organizations with Internet sites certify quarterly
in writing to the Assistant Attorney General for Administration that
they comply with OMB Memorandum M-00-13. This policy, as stated
earlier, restricts but does not prohibit the use of ``cookies.''
However, we found no DOJ written guidance related to The Act's
prohibition on collecting, reviewing, or obtaining personally
identifiable information relating to any individual's access or viewing
habits on DOJ Internet sites. While The Act did not specifically cite
``cookies'' as the prohibited method, many commercial Internet sites
use ``cookies'' to do just that when a user accesses their site.
Currently, DOJ organizations with Internet sites are not certifying to
The Act's prohibitions on collecting, reviewing, or obtaining
personally identifiable information relating to any individual's access
or viewing habits on DOJ Internet sites. Rather, they are merely
certifying to OMB Memorandum M-00-13's restricted use of ``cookies.''
In our judgment, the current DOJ certification process should be
expanded to include The Act's prohibition on collecting, reviewing, or
obtaining personally identifiable information relating to any
individual's access or viewing habits on DOJ Internet sites.
appendix
alphabetical list of doj components with internet sites reviewed for
``cookies''
1. American Indian and Alaska Native Affairs Desk (OJP)
2. Antitrust Division
3. Attorney General
4. Bureau of Justice Assistance (OJP)
5. Bureau of Justice Statistics (OJP)
6. Civil Division
7. Civil Rights Division
8. Community Oriented Policing Services--COPS
9. Community Relations Service
10. Corrections Program Office (OJP)
11. Criminal Division
12. Diversion Control Program (DEA)
13. Drug Courts Program Office (OJP)
14. Drug Enforcement Administration
15. Environment and Natural Resources Division
16. Executive Office for Immigration Review
17. Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys
18. Executive Office for U.S. Trustees
19. Executive Office for Weed and Seed (OJP)
20. Federal Bureau of Investigation
21. Federal Bureau of Prisons
22. Foreign Claims Settlement Commission of the United States
23. Immigration and Naturalization Service
24. INTERPOL--U.S. National Central Bureau
25. Justice Management Division
26. National Criminal Justice Reference Service (OJP)
27. National Drug Intelligence Center
28. National Institute of Corrections (FBOP)
29. National Institute of Justice (OJP)
30. Office of the Associate Attorney General
31. Office of the Attorney General
32. Office of Attorney Personnel Management
33. Office of Community Dispute Resolution
34. Office of the Deputy Attorney General
35. Office of Dispute Resolution
36. Office of Information and Privacy
37. Office of the Inspector General
38. Office of Intelligence Policy and Review
39. Office of Justice Programs
40. Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJP)
41. Office of Legal Counsel
42. Office of Legislative Affairs
43. Office of the Pardon Attorney
44. Office of Policy Development
45. Office of Professional Responsibility
46. Office of Public Affairs
47. Office of the Solicitor General
48. Office for State and Local Domestic Preparedness Support (OJP)
49. Office of Tribal Justice
50. Office for Victims of Crime (OJP)
51. Tax Division
52. U.S. Attorneys
53. U.S. Marshals Service
54. U.S. Parole Commission
55. U.S. Trustee Program
56. Violence Against Women Office (OJP)
resources for the debt management center and law enforcement support
center
Question. The detailed Department of Justice budget does not
provide a breakdown for the Immigration and Naturalization Service
(INS) Debt Management Center nor the Law Enforcement Support Center
(LESC). The Debt Management Center, located in Vermont, processes all
of the debt collections and bond audits for the INS providing
increasing revenue for the Service.
The LESC, also known as the National Criminal Alien Tracking
Center, provides local, state, and federal enforcement agencies with
24-hour access to data on criminal aliens. By identifying these aliens,
the LESC alerts local INS offices to initiate expedited deportation
proceedings. Since its inception in 1994, the Center has received more
than 120,000 inquiries from law enforcement agencies and identified
more than 72,000 aliens of which more than 30,000 were identified as
having criminal records.
What is the Administration's budget request for the INS Debt
Management Center and the LESC for fiscal year 2002?
Answer. The charts below reflect the base level fiscal year 2002
budget request for the INS Debt Management Center and the LESC. The
data does not include inflation adjustments requested in the 2002
request.

Debt Management Center:
Payroll............................................. $3,976,203
Non-payroll......................................... 529,770
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total............................................. 4,505,973
========================================================
____________________________________________________
LESC:
Payroll............................................. 7,183,574
Non-payroll......................................... 6,816,426
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total............................................. 14,000,000
______

Questions Submitted by Senator Herb Kohl
project childsafe
Question. In the President's budget for the Department of Justice,
$75 million is allocated to Projected ChildSafe--a program designed to
give away child safety locks around the country. As you know, I've
offered a bill to make child safety locks mandatory with every new
handgun sold. At your confirmation hearing, we discussed this issue and
you reaffirmed to Administration's support for such a measure should
the Congress pass it.
I applaud the Administration's interest in child safety locks, yet
I do have two significant concerns with the program.
We've recently learned from studies conducted by the Consumer
Product Safety Commission (CPSC) that most child safety locks fail even
the most basic tests. For example, the locks are easily picked, or the
device as a whole falls off if the gun is dropped. Of 32 models tested
by the CPSC, only two could not be opened with paperclips, tweezers or
just by dropping them. In addition, in February more than 400,000
safety locks distributed nationwide by Project Homesafe were recalled
when tests revealed they were defective. While I strongly advocate the
mandatory sale of the locks, they won't do any good if they don't work.
Will Project ChildSafe include standards to ensure that locks being
given away actually work?
Answer. The Department is committed to ensuring that any firearm
safety device distributed under Project ChildSafe meets an adequate
performance standard. We expect to only provide funds for safety
devices that meet such a standard. The Department shares your belief,
and the belief of others in Congress, that the reliability and
effectiveness of firearm safety devices purchased with public resources
must be ensured. We look forward to working with you further on this
important matter.
Question. Of the $75 million being allocated to this program, half
is earmarked from Title V crime prevention funds. When Senator Hank
Brown of Colorado and I created the Title V program almost 10 years
ago, we intended it to be a crime prevention program that gives
localities significant flexibility to design ways to prevent juvenile
crime. We did not intend for the money to be substantially earmarked by
the Administration. In fairness, the Clinton Administration earmarked a
much smaller amount of the money, but they made up for it by increasing
Title V funding generally.
Please explain why Project ChildSafe should be funded by Title V
and what you intend to do to make up for the shortfall in prevention
funding that will result from this earmark.
Answer. Under the Title V Incentive Grants for Local Delinquency
Prevention Program, the Department of Justice (DOJ) supports a broad
range of prevention programs providing a variety of services to
children, youth and their families, including recreation, tutoring and
remedial education, work skills, health and mental health, alcohol and
substance abuse prevention and leadership development. One of these
prevention programs is Project ChildSafe, a key component of the
Administration's initiative to reduce gun violence. Project ChildSafe
will mitigate the risk of death and injury to children by making
available safety locks for current gun owners.
The Department believes that this is a very important prevention
program that does not create a shortfall in prevention funding, but
instead fills an important need at the state and local level to prevent
gun-related crimes and accidents among children.
prevention programs
Question. One way to ensure that Project ChildSafe is fully funded,
yet Title V is still used for prevention programs, as it was intended,
is to increase allocations to Title V. Studies show that every dollar
spent on prevention funding yields direct savings of $1.4 to the law
enforcement and juvenile justice system. Prevention funding should be
at least equal to the amount spent on enforcement through the Juvenile
Accountability Incentive Block Grant Program, in other words, $250
million.
Please tell me why prevention programs do not receive more funding.
Please detail what percentage of the Department's overall budget is
allocated for prevention programs.
Recently, my office surveyed all of the sheriffs and police chiefs
in Wisconsin on a variety of law enforcement issues. The survey yielded
some very helpful insights into what the officers on the font lines
need from the Federal Government. Local authorities were almost
unanimous in their belief that the Federal Government needs to increase
its support for crime prevention programs. On average, the police in my
state support spending at least one-third of federal money specifically
on prevention.
Can you detail your plan for crime prevention programs and pledge
to increase the resources required to be used for crime prevention
programs for local police chiefs?
Answer. The Department of Justice will continue to support the
efforts of state and local jurisdictions to prevent crime by providing
national leadership, coordination and resources. The success of crime
prevention efforts rest in large part on the efforts of state and local
officials, particularly law enforcement agencies. To this end, the
Department supports a range of programs and activities and has
requested increases in several key prevention programs.
The Department's 2002 budget includes a $25 million increase for
the Weed and Seed program (for a total of $58.925 million). This
program assists communities in the development and implementation of
comprehensive strategies 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 Weed and Seed program provides assistance to sites in designing
comprehensive strategies to prevent and control crime, coordinates
federal participation in cooperation with the United States Attorneys
Offices and federal law enforcement agencies and other federal
departments, and provides grant funding to communities to further their
strategies. The additional funding would be available to fund new sites
as well as special emphasis programs at existing sites.
The budget also includes an $11 million increase (for a total of
$73.861 million) for the Residential Substance Abuse Treatment (RSAT)
Program, which assists states and units of local government in
developing and implementing residential substance abuse treatment
programs within state and local correctional and detention facilities
in which prisoners are incarcerated for a period of time sufficient to
permit substance abuse treatment. RSAT provides formula grant funding
to states to assist them in implementing and enhancing substance abuse
programs that provide individual and group treatment activities for
offenders in residential facilities operated by state and local
correctional agencies.
The Department's 2002 budget also continues to support the Drug
Courts Program (for which $50 million is requested), which provides
financial and technical assistance for states, state courts, units of
local government, local courts, and Indian Tribal governments to
develop and implement treatment drug courts that employ the coercive
power of the courts to subject non-violent offenders to an integrated
mix of treatment, drug testing, incentives and sanctions to break the
cycle of substance abuse and crime. The drug court movement began as a
grass roots, community-level response to reduce crime and substance
abuse among criminal justice offenders.
Through Project Reentry, a collaborative effort with the
Departments of Labor and Health and Human Services, DOJ will provide
grants to assist communities in planning and implementing comprehensive
reentry programs to address the full range of challenges involved in
helping young offenders released from incarceration make a successful
transition back to the community. In order to participate in this
program, which is in its first year, prospective grantees must
demonstrate a collaborative effort involving a variety of local
government and community officials, as well as broad-based community
support. In fiscal year 2002, $14.9 million is requested to continue
Project Reentry.
The Office of Justice Programs (OJP), through its Office of
Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP), is responsible for
administering Title V funding, which is dedicated to delinquency
prevention efforts initiated by a community based planning process
focused on reducing risks and enhancing protective factors to prevent
youth from entering the juvenile justice system. The Title V Program
encourages communities to develop community-wide, collaborative plans
to prevent delinquency. Each community that participates in the program
appoints a prevention policy board (PPB) made up of local
representatives from social services; child welfare, health and mental
health agencies; law enforcement, private industry; religious
institutions; and civic organizations. The board assesses the risk
factors that are putting children at risk and the protective factors
that are helping keep them safe, then develops a comprehensive system
of strategies that meets the needs of both children and the community.
In fiscal year 2002, The Department has requested a total of $94.79
million for Title V programs, including $12.472 million for the Tribal
Youth Program, $14.967 million for the Safe Schools Initiative, $5
million for Project Sentry; $37 million for Project ChildSafe; and
$30.352 million for Title V Delinquency Prevention Program incentive
grants.
The programs discussed above total $292.476 million. The
President's budget includes $3,639.722 million in domestic
discretionary funding for state and local law enforcement, and funding
for the above-mentioned programs represents 8 percent of that amount.
In addition to these targeted programs, states and units of local
government may elect to use funding provided through Local Law
Enforcement Block Grant, the Byrne Formula Grant, and the Juvenile
Accountability Incentive Block Grant to fund a variety of prevention
programs.
video games
Question. Violence in the media returned to the spotlight this week
with the release of the Federal Trade Commission's first follow-up
report to its blockbuster findings released last fall concerning the
marketing of violence to children. This week, Senator Lieberman and I
also introduced legislation to bar deceptive advertising to children of
adult-rated movies, music and video games. Since you took office as
Attorney General, you have been vocal on a number of occasions about
the need to curb children's access to violent video games.
As you may know, Senator Lieberman and I have closely monitored the
video game industry for nearly a decade and have been pleased with the
progress that we have encouraged. For example, there was no rating
system at all in 1993. But now, in large part because of Congressional
pressure, the video game industry has developed and adopted a rating
system hailed by the Federal Trade Commission as the best in the
entertainment industry. I hope to see further, significant progress in
the near tern, and would welcome the opportunity to work with you to
promote meaningful change.
What pro-active, cooperative steps do you anticipate taking as
Attorney General to reduce children's exposure to media violence?
Answer. The Department of Justice will continue its efforts to
reduce the exposure of children to media violence by promoting programs
that help parents control their children's access to such materials,
that teach children to become more discriminating consumers, and that
increase the involvement and assistance from professional groups such
as the medical community who are concerned about the effects of media
violence.
Specifically, the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention is continuing to collaborate with the Federal Trade
Commission (FTC) to help parents understand the media rating systems
and the importance of monitoring their children's exposure to media
violence. During the next few months, OJJDP will participate in the
development, publication, and dissemination of materials based on the
Federal Trade Commission's study, Marketing Violent Entertainment to
Children. These materials are specifically geared to parents and the
general public.
Another strategy of the Department of Justice is to limit the
harmful effects of exposure to media violence by focusing on children
themselves and programs that increase their ``media literacy.'' Media
literacy refers to critical thinking skills that enable youth to
evaluate potentially harmful media messages and make better decisions
on issues of violence and substance abuse in their own lives. Important
work in this area is being supported by the Office of Juvenile Justice
and Delinquency Prevention through its ``Delinquency Prevention through
Media Literacy'' program. This research program is evaluating the
effectiveness of the ``Flashpoint'' media literacy program, currently
being offered by the District Attorney for the Eastern District of
Massachusetts. As Attorney General, I wholeheartedly support an
approach that directly enhances young peoples' capacity to reject
violent media messages.
The Department will continue to expand its partnerships with
professional associations who are dedicated to improving the safety and
well being of our children. Plans are currently under way to support
the work of the American Academy of Pediatrics to develop protocols to
help pediatricians screen children for exposure to all forms of
violence, including media violence.
Question. Last Fall's Federal Trade Commission report regarding the
marketing of violence to children included a ``Mystery Shopper
Survey,'' which was funded in part by the Department of Justice. This
survey gauges the degree to which retailers allow children to purchase
violent products at their stores. The September report revealed that
children ages 13 through 16 were able to buy violent, ``Mature''-rated
video games 85 percent of the time.
As the Commission prepares to release a follow-up report in
September, will you commit to continue to fund these important Federal
Trade Commission' s (FTC) efforts?
Answer. In the past 2 years, the Department of Justice and the FTC
have built a strong partnership. The Department's support of the FTC
study of Marketing Violent Entertainment to Children enabled the FTC to
broaden its scope of inquiry and for the Department to provide critical
information to parents and families. We anticipate that this
collaboration will continue for as long as the need exists and funds
are available.
economic espionage
Question. Almost 5 years ago, Senator Arlen Specter and I wrote the
Economic Espionage Act. It created criminal penalties for the theft of
proprietary economic information. As I am certain you are aware, there
is a growing market for illicitly obtained company trade secrets. I am
concerned based on reports that the Department of Justice is not
placing enough emphasis on the enforcement of this act.
Please tell me how many prosecutions, indictments, and
investigations have been launched under the Act and what type of
resources are being allocated to its enforcement in your budget.
Answer. The Federal Bureau of Investigation, United States
Attorneys, and Criminal Division are all actively involved in
enforcement of copyright laws. Since the enactment of the Economic
Espionage Act (EEA) of 1996, the FBI has increased the number of theft
of trade secrets cases it has opened for investigation:
--On September 30, 1997, approximately 1 year after enactment of the
EEA, the FBI had 702 pending and preliminary economic espionage
cases;
--As of September 30, 2000, the FBI had 751 pending and preliminary
economic espionage cases--an increase of 7 percent in 3 years.
--In 2001, the FBI has 626 ongoing pending and preliminary theft of
trade secrets investigations. On average, over the past 3
years, the FBI has dedicated approximately 42 field agent
workyears to address these issues.
As the number of theft of trade secrets investigations has
increased, excluding foreign government involvement, there has been a
corresponding increase in the number of indictments. The Computer Crime
and Intellectual Property Section (CCIPS) of the Justice Department's
Criminal Division is a leading proponent of the enforcement of the
criminal copyright laws against software and Internet piracy. CCIPS has
an active prosecution caseload of its own and regularly provides case
support to United States Attorneys Offices nationwide.
--From 1997 to 1999, 26 of the FBI's theft of trade secrets
investigations resulted in indictment.
--In 2000 alone, 27 theft of trade secrets investigations resulted in
indictment. In other words, more theft of trade secrets
investigations resulted in indictments in 2000 than in the
previous 3 years combined.
--As of May 16, 2001, 14 theft of trade secrets investigations have
ended with an indictment.
It should be noted that most defendants indicted as a result of a
theft of trade secrets investigation are not indicted under Title 18,
Section 1832, Theft of Trade Secrets. For a number of reasons,
prosecutors often opt to indict these cases under other federal
statutes, such as the wire fraud, mail fraud, interstate transportation
of stolen property and fraud and related activity in connection with
computer statutes and, in one instance, the federal extortion statute.
As the number of indictments have increased, so have the number of
convictions. In every theft of trade secrets investigation that has
resulted in an indictment, the defendant has either pled guilty or was
found guilty following a trial.
--In 1998, 11 of the criminal theft of trade secrets investigations
resulted in a conviction.
--In 2000, 18 theft of trade secrets investigations resulted in a
conviction.
--Through May 2001, 21 cases have resulted in guilty pleas or guilty
verdicts and eight are currently pretrial. One case was
dismissed without prejudice at the request of the government.
As envisioned, the EEA has served to protect our national security
and continued economic well-being by protecting trade secrets vital to
virtually every sector of our economy. Noteworthy EEA prosecutions
include:
--One of the first indictments filed under the EEA involved the
conspiracy and attempt to steal the proprietary information
about the anti-cancer drug Taxol developed by Bristol-Meyers. A
district court opinion obligating the government to disclose
certain trade secret information was reversed by the Third
Circuit Court of Appeals, ensuring the protection of the trade
secret. Defendant Kai-Lo Hsu pled guilty in July 1999.
--CCIPS attorneys brought the first EEA case to trial in the Eastern
District of Ohio. A Taiwanese company, Four Pillars
Enterprises, and 2 senior executives secretly hired a research
scientist employed by the Avery-Dennison Corporation to provide
Four Pillars with formulas and other proprietary information
concerning the development of adhesive products. The defendants
were found guilty of attempt and conspiracy to steal trade
secrets. Four Pillars was sentenced to a fine of $5 million,
the maximum fine permitted under the statute.
--Intel Corporation was the victim of trade secret theft when a
prototype computer processing unit (CPU) was stolen from one of
Intel's business partners. It was estimated that the chip
manufacturer would lose up to $10 million if a rival
corporation had obtained the prototype CPU before its
introduction into the retail market. Two men attempted to sell
the stolen chips, were arrested and pled guilty to conspiracy
to steal trade secrets. One was sentenced to 60 months
imprisonment and the other was sentenced to 77 months
imprisonment, the longest sentence to date in an EEA case.
--Several weeks ago, two Japanese scientists were arrested and
charged with stealing cell and genetic materials from a top
medical laboratory in Cleveland conducting research into the
cause and potential treatment of Alzheimer's Disease. The
defendants conspired to transfer these materials to the
Institute of Physical and Chemical Research, a quasi-public
corporation in Japan operating under the jurisdiction and
funding of the Japanese government. Charges alleging conspiracy
and theft of trade secrets to benefit a foreign government and
foreign instrumentality are still pending.
In these and other cases, the Department has acted aggressively to
enforce the EEA and protect against economic espionage and the theft of
proprietary information. This statute has been an important tool to
address computer crime, protect company trade secrets, enforce
intellectual property rights of businesses and private citizens, and
protect the economic vitality of the nation. For more information about
Economic Espionage cases prosecuted by the Department, see the CCIPS
website at www.cybercrime.gov.
community-oriented policing service (cops) funding
Question. To be sure, there is much to like in this budget: for
example, $35 million is set aside to reduce the DNA sample backlog--
something I supported for years. However, this same budget trims a
little too close in other areas.
Specifically, $247 million is cut from COPS Public Safety and
Community Policing Grants Program. Of that, more than $228 million will
be eliminated from the COPS Hiring Program. Your budget justification
states that: ``Overall, funding in this area will be reduced and
redirected to other priority areas, notably technology grant
programs.''
Although the broader category of Crime-Fighting Technologies
Program enjoys a $78 million increase--largely directed at programs for
eliminating the DNA backlog or upgrading crime labs--but, the actual
COPS Technology Grants program that goes to the local level is cut by
nearly $47 million.
This just doesn't add up. A cut is a cut and that's exactly what's
happening to COPS programs in your budget--both to hiring initiatives
and technology grants programs.
The core principle of the COPS program was that a cop on the beat
is the best way to catch criminals, prevent crime, improve the
community and enhance the public trust and sense of safety. This
principle was proven correct given the annual and dramatic drop in the
crime rate since the passage of the 1994 Crime Act. Academic studies
also bear this out. While I appreciate the role technology has to play
in effective crime fighting, a computer is no substitute for a police
officer.
How can you be sure that this is the right time to cut the budget
for hiring more police officers, especially given the growing need for
them, especially in small towns and rural areas?
Answer. In 2002, the Department of Justice will target limited
federal resources to the most pressing needs of state and local law
enforcement. Because the COPS hiring program has achieved one of its
primary goals by providing funding for over 100,000 officers ``on the
beat,'' the fiscal year 2002 request proposes a lower level of funding
for the direct hiring of state and local law enforcement officers.
Other COPS programs encouraging the advancement of community policing
practices, now used by departments serving 86 percent of nation's
population, will continue at their fiscal year 2001 level.
In light of public concerns about crime in and around the nation's
primary and secondary schools, the COPS office will focus its hiring
efforts on increasing the number of school resource officers. COPS,
through the continuation of the COPS in Schools (CIS) program, will
provide state and local law enforcement agencies an average of
$116,000, and a maximum of $125,000, per officer over 3 years, to
assist in hiring officers who become assigned to a school.
Depending on the needs of the local jurisdiction, the SROs funded
through the CIS program teach crime prevention and substance abuse
classes, monitor and assist troubled students, and build respect and
understanding between law enforcement and students. These officers also
assist in the identification of physical changes in the environment
that may reduce crime in and around the schools, as well as assist in
developing school policies, which address criminal activity.
To date, through this highly successful program, the COPS Office
has funded the addition of over 3,700 SROs who serve in their assigned
schools, and it is estimated that by the end of 2001, the number of
SROs funded will have grown to approximately 4,600. The $180 million in
hiring funds requested in 2002 will allow for the funding and training
of 1,500 SROs.
If CIS applications fail to total $180 million, the COPS Office
will continue to fund up to the amount available, within the $180
million, the hiring of general community policing officers by providing
up to $75,000 per officer over 3 years.
While the COPS Office has partnered with the nation's largest
cities, more than 82 percent of our grants have gone to departments
serving populations of 50,000 or less. Based on its authorizing statute
(the 1994 Crime Act), the COPS Office in 2002 will continue to be
required to spend 50 percent of its available hiring funds on law
enforcement jurisdictions serving populations less than 150,000.
Therefore, small towns and rural areas will continue to benefit from
the hiring funds made available through the CIS program.
Question. What studies and analyses were prepared to lead you to
the conclusion that cutting this program and emphasizing technology
over people is the most efficient way to spend the remaining COPS
dollars?
Answer. Through the COPS Office's interactions with over 30,000
grantees, encompassing 12,000 of the nation's 18,000 law enforcement
agencies, several pressing and urgent concerns surrounding law
enforcement communities have been identified. The Department, as well
as the COPS Office, has consistently heard that given the reality of
limited federal resources, what local law enforcement needs most is
crime fighting technology. Technology, whether new or enhancements,
will allow officers to work more efficiently, effectively, and safely
in protecting our nation's streets and neighborhoods. In addition, as
part of its ``National Evaluation of the COPS Program,'' the National
Institute of Justice found that COPS grantees expressed more interest
in reapplying for the MORE technology grants than the Universal Hiring
Program grants. The same survey also confirmed that on a dollar-for-
dollar basis, MORE grants put more officers on the street.
The Department has responded directly to this need by developing
the COPS InfoTech program. The COPS InfoTech program, a comprehensive
technology program, has been designed to provide law enforcement
agencies with the ability and the capacity to access time-sensitive
information that is vital to analysis and expeditious investigation,
apprehension of suspected offenders, sophisticated crime prevention,
and recidivism reduction. However, unlike previous COPS MORE grants,
agencies will not be required to track and show redeployment through
timesavings. This change will make InfoTech grants easier to use and
administer.
The COPS Office has a rich history of funding information
technology systems. Since 1994, the COPS Office has funded several
thousand state and local law enforcement agencies for information
technology acquisition and implementation under the COPS MORE program,
and the fiscal years 1998 through 2001 COPS Technology Programs. These
projects range from the nation's very largest departments to the
smallest, and include over 50 multi-jurisdictional or consortia
projects. The COPS Office's proven track record and success in
providing information technology funds and its knowledge of the history
of these systems will provide new opportunities for innovation at the
urban, suburban, and rural community levels.
Question. The budget seems to be emphasizing school resource
officers. What are the criteria for selecting school resource officers
as opposed to COPS on the beat?
Answer. In 2002, the COPS Office will continue to provide funds to
state and local jurisdictions for the direct hiring of law enforcement
officers. However, in light of the growing concern of crime in and
around the nation's primary and secondary schools, the COPS Office will
focus its hiring efforts on increasing the number of school resource
officers (SROs) serving in our nation's schools. COPS, through the
continuation of the COPS in Schools program, will provide state and
local law enforcement agencies an average of $116,000, and a maximum of
$125,000, per officer over 3 years, to assist in hiring officers who
become assigned to a school.
If CIS applications fail to total $180 million, the COPS Office
will continue to fund up to the amount available, within the $180
million, the hiring of general community policing officers by providing
up to $75,000 per officer over 3 years through the Universal Hiring
Program.
law enforcement resources
Question. Wisconsin is under served in terms of federal law
enforcement resources. From DEA, ATF, and FBI agents to federal
prosecutors, Wisconsin significantly trails other states with similar
populations. Yet, Wisconsin increasingly shares the same law
enforcement concerns of other states. Over the past year, we added
eight new DEA agents to Wisconsin--a 50 percent increase over the
previous allocation. But that's still far less than other states with
the same population.
In terms of FBI agents, cities with significantly smaller
populations than Milwaukee have as many or more agents. Albuquerque has
half the Milwaukee area's population, yet 28 more agents. Louisville
has half Milwaukee's urban population, but almost the exact number of
agents. Buffalo has several hundred thousand fewer residents, but 23
more agents.
Similarly, Wisconsin has less federal prosecutors than states of
similar size. Missouri and Tennessee are about the same size as
Wisconsin, but enjoy 80 to 90 percent more federal prosecutors.
Will you review the situation and work with me to address these
disparities during this budget cycle?
Answer. There are many factors that influence the decision to
allocate additional resources. An area's population may be one factor,
but there are many more factors that weigh into resource allocation
process at the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), United States
Attorneys (USA), and Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA).
Documented crime incidents is the primary factor considered by the
FBI in determining the allocation of investigative resources. Other
factors considered are regional characteristics, size of territory,
number of resident agencies, the office's use of sophisticated
investigative techniques, historical resource usage, and the presence
of other law enforcement entities, as well as the region's population.
The state of Wisconsin's overall onboard FBI agent and support
personnel complements have increased as follows from fiscal year 1996
to the current fiscal year 2001, as of May 15, 2001:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Year Agent Support Total
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1996................................... 66 58 124
1997................................... 76 66 142
1998................................... 75 70 145
1999................................... 76 70 146
2000................................... 78 68 146
2001................................... 81 69 150
------------------------------------------------------------------------
From fiscal year 1996 to the current fiscal year 2001: +15 agents, 22.7
percent increase.
From fiscal year 1996 to the current fiscal year 2001: +26 Total
Personnel, 21.0 percent increase.

In addition, the United States Attorneys have a formal allocation
process that is used to ensure each district is given the same
consideration for receipt of new resources. Population and size are two
criteria used in the allocation process.
The Executive Office for United States Attorneys establishes a
working group composed of select United States Attorneys who examine
relevant objective criteria and data prior to recommending additional
resources for their districts. For example, before allocating the
fiscal year 2001 positions for cybercrime, the working group examined
statistical information regarding case activity and district-specific
information for that program area. The district-specific information
included: caseload and time data by program from the case management
system, district size, average attorney work week, Assistant United
States Attorneys workyears per 100,000 population, local/regional
involvement, previous program related allocations, and law enforcement
resources in the district which are dedicated to the program area at
issue.
In examining the attorney caseload and time data for Eastern
District of Wisconsin, the cases handled per attorney workyear are well
within the national average for all districts. Using similar objective
criteria, the working group recommended an additional attorney for both
the Eastern and Western Districts of Wisconsin for firearms
prosecutions.
The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) continues to implement
additional steps to increase its presence in Wisconsin. The DEA will
continue to conduct operational assessments to determine areas in the
country that require the upgrade of existing DEA offices or the
creation of new offices. These assessments are based on resource
requests from senior DEA managers, input from state and local law
enforcement officials, and budget allocations. Currently, DEA maintains
offices in Milwaukee, Green Bay and Madison, Wisconsin.
In an effort to address the growing drug trafficking threat in the
state of Wisconsin, DEA has taken the following actions:
--Milwaukee Resident Office.--In March of 2000, the Milwaukee
resident office was upgraded to a district office. The office
is currently staffed with 12 special agents, and 3 supervisory
special agents. Of the 12 special agents assigned to the
Milwaukee Resident Office, three agents are assigned to a High
Intensity Drug Trafficking Area Task Force (HIDTA). These HIDTA
agents participate in three separate drug enforcement
initiatives. One agent is assigned to the Heroin Initiative
managed by the Wisconsin Department of Narcotic Enforcement. A
second agent is assigned to the South Side Gang Initiative,
which is managed by the Milwaukee Police Department. In
addition, the third special agent is assigned to the Common
Thread Initiative, which is managed by the Federal Bureau of
Investigation.
--Green Bay Post of Duty.--In June 2000, the Green Bay Post of Duty
was upgraded to a Resident Office. The office is currently
staffed with 2 special agents and 1 supervisory special agent.
These changes have resulted in the increase of special agent
positions in Wisconsin from 15 in 1998 to the current level of 20
special agent positions.
In addition to the special agent positions, 19 positions were
allocated for deputized DEA Task Force Officers in the state of
Wisconsin. DEA has 6 diversion investigators assigned to offices in
Wisconsin, who investigate methamphetamine crimes and track the
precursor chemicals necessary to produce methamphetamine. In an effort
to address more efficiently the growing drug trafficking activities
occurring in the northern part of Wisconsin, as well as the cities of
Minneapolis-St. Paul, Minnesota, the Minneapolis-St. Paul Resident
Office was upgraded to a District Office on June 21, 2000, resulting in
the posting of 16 special agents and 21 DEA Deputized Task Force
Officers. The DEA Minneapolis-St. Paul District Office has
responsibility for conducting methamphetamine investigations and
provides support to law enforcement agencies in eight counties in
northern Wisconsin: Bayfield, Burnett, Douglas, Pierce, Polk, Sawyer,
St. Croix, and Washburn.
DEA is in the process of conducting an assessment for deployment in
Milwaukee, Wisconsin. DEA anticipates the Mobile Enforcement Team (MET)
deployment for Milwaukee will commence in mid October 2001. The
Operations Division in DEA Headquarters is expediting the process of
upgrading the Madison Post of Duty to a Resident Office. A Resident
Agent in Charge and 2 additional agents will be assigned to this office
to supplement the 2 agents currently assigned in Madison. This will
result in a total of 5 agents assigned to the Madison Resident Office,
which would subsequently allocate more staffing and resources to pursue
methamphetamine investigations.
I share your concern that every office be treated equitably in
terms of the allocation of resources. It is precisely this concern that
has led to establishing objective review procedures within the
Department of Justice.
antitrust enforcement
Question. As a ranking member of the Judiciary Committee's
Antitrust Subcommittee, I was pleased to see that the Antitrust
Division is scheduled to receive an increase of funding of over $20
million, to nearly $141 million, for fiscal year 2002. I believe that
it is vitally important that the Antitrust Division receive sufficient
resources in order that it be able to carry out its mission to preserve
competition in today's era of increasing corporate consolidation.
For what purposes do you propose to use this additional funding?
Answer. Additional funding is earmarked in the President's budget
to bolster the Antitrust Division's merger enforcement program which
has seen a dramatic rise in workload in recent years. The Division has
worked hard to maintain its effectiveness in the face of a daunting
number of filings, many of which involve global competitors and
complex, competitive issues. Although the recent economic downturn has
slowed merger momentum in 2001, most private sector analysts remain
optimistic about the long-term health of the merger market.
Question. Which components and programs of the Antitrust Division
will receive these funds?
Answer. The Division will direct additional resources to its
Preservation of Competitive Market Structure program of which merger
enforcement is a component part.
Question. Are there new types of investigations or sectors of the
economy about which the Division plans to become more active?
Answer. There are several trends--globalization, deregulation,
technological advancement, among others--which, taken together, are
fundamentally altering the United States economic landscape and giving
rise to new economic sectors, industries, and business practices.
Keeping up with these changes has been and continues to be a
significant challenge for the Antitrust Division.
Increasingly, economic activity, whether initiated in the United
States or abroad, is global in scope. In fiscal year 2000, 32 percent
of the preliminary investigations opened in the Division's merger
enforcement program were international. The size and complexity of
these deals demand the application of additional resources, not only in
staff time but also in foreign travel, litigation support, and
translation expenses.
Beyond the internationalization of merger activity, many recent
mergers involve commodities, industries, or competitive issues, which
are particularly complex and difficult to analyze. In recently
deregulated industries (e.g., energy, utilities, airlines), there are
typically significant antitrust issues associated with merger
enforcement. In others (e.g., information technology, electronic
commerce, telecommunications), the economic paradigm is shifting so
rapidly that the Division must employ new analytical tools that allow
it to respond quickly and appropriately. The Division must be vigilant
against anticompetitive behavior in the new economy where the Internet
and cutting-edge information technology are reshaping the way companies
do business.
Question. Do you plan to hire additional attorneys, economists,
paralegals, or other staff, and, if so, how many?
Answer. The $20 million program increase would cover base
adjustments and fund an additional 113 positions, including 38
attorneys and 75 paralegals.
Question. More generally, how do you see this funding increase as
improving the Antitrust Division's ability to better perform its
mission?
Answer. The Division takes very seriously its mission to promote
competition in the United States economy through enforcement of,
improvements to, and education about antitrust laws and principles. The
funding requested in our fiscal year 2002 budget will enable the
Division to handle its merger workload faster and more efficiently
while also maintaining a vigilant stance against anticompetitive
behavior and practices. The ultimate beneficiaries of the Division's
efforts are the American consumer and American businesses. We estimate
that, since fiscal year 1998 when data was first available, the
Division has saved consumers roughly $13.6 billion through its efforts
in all three enforcement areas--merger, criminal, and civil non-merger.
By protecting competition across industries and geographic borders, the
Division's work serves as a catalyst for economic efficiency and
growth. Additional funding is needed to enable the Division to meet the
challenges presented by an increasingly global and technologically
advanced society and continue to safeguard competition and innovation.
ballistics funding
Question. Last year, I requested that the FBI receive $1.36 million
to integrate the best features of the FBI's DRUGFIRE system and the
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms Integrated Bullet
Identification System (IBIS) into one national ballistics imaging
system, NIBIN. The Conference Report passed last year stated that ``the
FBI may spend up to $1,364,000 for National Ballistics Integrated
Ballistics Network (NIBIN) Connectivity.'' The President's budget makes
no mention of these efforts continuing in fiscal year 2002. Is the FBI
expending resources to integrate the two different ballistics testing
systems in the one NIBIN network?
Answer. The FBI decided in 1998 that it would use Criminal Justice
Information Services-Wide Area Network (CJIS-WAN) as the national
telecommunications network for NIBIN connectivity. In December 1999,
the FBI entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) to work together to
implement the new unified NIBIN. Under that MOU, the FBI is responsible
for installing and maintaining CJIS-WAN connections in all NIBIN
locations, including approximately 59 ATF-sponsored sites which will
require CJIS-WAN connections.
The success of NIBIN depends on the continued installation,
operation, and support of the CJIS-WAN as the telecommunications
network over which law enforcement agencies across the country exchange
evidentiary information in violent crime cases.
During fiscal year 2001, the FBI is providing for the upgrade of
existing telecommunications lines, racks, and routers for 130 NIBIN
sites, fully utilizing the enhancement of $1.4 million received through
the fiscal year 2001 Justice Appropriations Act. Additionally, the FBI
is providing for the maintenance of all existing DRUGFIRE systems
through base funding of $4.1 million, as none of the systems have been
converted yet to the new unified system.
Question. Assuming that further resources will be necessary to
complete this work, will you support further funding to accomplish a
unified NIBIN network?
Answer. During fiscal year 2002, the FBI will provide for new
installations and upgrades of telecommunications lines, racks, and
routers for the remaining 77 sites and maintenance of all existing
DRUGFIRE systems. The FBI anticipates spending all of the $1.4 million
for NIBIN connectivity in fiscal year 2002.
For fiscal year 2003, it is anticipated that ATF will complete the
replacement of DRUGFIRE systems. The NIBIN Board has decided that in
order to provide remote diagnostics and maintenance on legacy DRUGFIRE
regional databases, certain current DRUGFIRE units should remain
networked via CJIS-WAN, even after the transition to NIBIN is
completed. This means that maintenance and user support costs and CJIS-
WAN communications costs must be paid by the FBI after the transition
to NIBIN for a select number of DRUGFIRE units.
______

Questions Submitted by Senator Patty Murray
border patrol agents for the northern border
Question. Mr. Attorney General, I want to thank you for coming here
to explain your proposed budget for the Justice Department.
I was happy to see you include increases for the enforcement of
Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) and the United States Attorneys in
your budget. However, I am concerned about decreases in many critical
programs, such as Juvenile Justice Programs, the COPS program and
funding for Indian Country.
I want to highlight one area of the Department of Justice (DOJ)
budget that is very important to me and many of my colleagues.
The Border Patrol protects our nation from the influx of illegal
aliens, identifies and apprehend criminals, and stops dangerous
narcotics from crossing our borders.
Your budget proposes $75 million to fund 570 new Border Patrol
agents in both 2002 and 2003, and includes further resources for
technological improvements and intelligence units. I intend on helping
you secure that funding.
Mr. Attorney General, I want to call your attention to a serious
threat--both in terms of our national security and our efforts to stop
the flow of illegal drugs into our country.
In recent years, we have neglected the real and growing needs of
the Northern border.
Many of us would be shocked to know that our Northern border with
Canada has only 280 Border Patrol agents for approximately 4,000 miles
of border. In contrast, the Southwest border has nearly 8,000 agents
for 2,000 miles. That is 4 agents for every mile in the South compared
to 1 agent for every 14 miles in the north. The Southwest border has a
need for Border Patrol agents, and we should not take resources away or
shift the focus from the difficult situation that exists on the
southwest border. Along with many law enforcement officers, I'm very
concerned that international terrorists and drug smugglers are taking
advantage of our inadequate security at the Northern border.
Most of the world's most dangerous terrorists groups have located
``cells'' of their organizations in Canada to have easy access to the
United States.
It is far too easy for terrorists to live in anonymity on the
Northern border so they can plan their attacks on the United States.
A year and a half ago, this threat of attack became a reality. In
December of 1999, a suspected terrorist named Ahmed Ressam, was
apprehended while trying to enter Washington state through Canada. He
was carrying 100 pounds of bomb-making supplies, including a
substantial amount of nitroglycerin. He had rented a room in Seattle
near where a massive January 1st celebration was planned. A similar
situation occurred in 1998, where a terrorist was apprehended in
Brooklyn, New York, who entered the United States through Canada. He
admitted he intended to conduct a suicide attack in New York.
Aside from terrorists, the Northern border has also become a major
drug trafficking area.
We have been so successful on the Southwest border, that drug
smugglers have begun to use the Northern border as the preferred method
of bringing drugs into the country.
We can no longer allow the Northern border to be neglected. Our
security and our efforts to curb the flow of drugs are at risk.
Mr. Attorney General, if we honor your request for more funding for
border activities, are you committed to providing new agents and
additional resources for the Northern border?
Answer. Thank you for your commitment to help secure funding for
570 new Border Patrol agents in both fiscal year 2002 and fiscal year
2003. We are committed to bringing needed staffing and resources,
including the Integrated Surveillance Intelligence System (ISIS), and
agent support equipment such as night vision goggles, pocket scopes and
infrared scopes to all the borders of the United States. The Border
Patrol Strategy for 1994 and beyond remains our blueprint for improving
management of the border between the ports-of-entry and guides our
deployment of resources to achieve the deterrence required for border
control. In accordance with this strategy, we are working toward border
control in 4 phases.
Phase I--Control San Diego and El Paso Corridors
Phase II--Control South Texas and Tucson Corridors
Phase III--Control Remainder of the Southwest Border
Phase IV--Control all of the U.S. Borders/Adjust to Flow
We are currently in Phase II of the strategy. As the Border Patrol
Strategic Plan has matured, the Border Patrol's strategic efforts have
been directed to areas of operational focus along the Southwest border:
Operation Rio Grande (including Operation Hold-the-Line) in Texas,
Operation Gatekeeper in California and Operation Safeguard in Arizona.
The preponderance of staffing and resources will continue to be
deployed to the southwest border through Phase III, where the highest
levels of illegal entries are occurring. However, we do plan to deploy
additional agents and technology resources along the Northern border in
both fiscal year 2002 and fiscal year 2003 to address compelling
enforcement requirements.
In addition to the new agent positions being deployed to the
Northern border in fiscal year 2001, we plan to increase our force-
multiplying capabilities in 2 additional areas, technology (ISIS as
mentioned above) and intelligence sharing. ISIS systems are being
placed in the Blaine, Washington; Buffalo, New York; and Swanton,
Vermont Sectors. The President's fiscal year 2002 budget calls for
additional resources along the Northern border for establishing
intelligence units. We support the request for these additional
resources and ask that you help us secure this funding.
Overall, the national strategy has been successful, and we plan to
follow through with the current phasing of the strategic plan. We will
continue to monitor the situation along our Northern border and are
prepared to adjust to any major shift in illegal cross border activity.
In an effort to maximize the effectiveness of enforcement resources
along our Northern border, the Border Patrol participates in joint
federal, state and local cooperative law enforcement initiatives. These
include Project North Star, the Integrated Border Enforcement Team
(IBET), and the Canadian Border Intelligence Center.
Project North Star was established to assist federal, state and
local law enforcement organizations in counter drug operations along
the contiguous border of the United States and Canada. The principal
focus is to encourage and promote liaison between law enforcement
agencies in both the United States and Canada through the exchange of
ideas and information. This interaction benefits all participants by
providing a mechanism for law enforcement agencies to coordinate their
efforts, minimize conflicts between the various enforcement operations,
and improve border-wide intelligence sharing, training and strategic
planning.
The IBET was developed by our Blaine Washington Border Patrol
Sector, and brings together law enforcement assets from the United
States Customs Service, Royal Canadian Mounted Police and the United
States Border Patrol. These enforcement resources mutually support one
another in a coordinated effort that maximizes each agency's
effectiveness in deterring and stopping cross border crime. This
concept has been very successful in Washington and is being exported to
other locations along the Canadian Border as well.
The Canadian Border Intelligence Center (CBIC) is a joint
intelligence group located in the Swanton Vermont Sector Headquarters.
The CBIC collects law enforcement sensitive intelligence from a wide
variety of sources, which is then compiled, analyzed and disseminated
to federal, state and local law enforcement agencies border-wide in
both Canada and the United States.
These joint efforts were recently very successful in controlling
the border during the Summit of the Americas Conference in Quebec,
Canada. We believe that the Border Patrol is adequately prepared to
meet its responsibilities in its overall focus on the Northern border.
We will not neglect the Northern border in implementation of any of the
phases of the National strategy.

subcommittee recess

Senator Gregg. The next hearing will be on Tuesday, with
the Secretary of Commerce, Donald Evans.
Thank you.
[Whereupon, at 11:01 a.m., Thursday, April 26, the
subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene at 10 a.m., Tuesday,
May 1.]

DEPARTMENTS OF COMMERCE, JUSTICE, AND STATE, THE JUDICIARY, AND RELATED
AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2002

----------

TUESDAY, MAY 1, 2001

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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Office of the Secretary

STATEMENT OF HON. DONALD L. EVANS, SECRETARY
ACCOMPANIED BY:
BARBARA RETZLAFF, BUDGET OFFICER
SCOTT GUDES, ACTING UNDER SECRETARY, NATIONAL OCEANIC AND
ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION

Senator Gregg. We will start the hearing.
We appreciate the Secretary's attendance and thank him for
his time. We know he has a busy schedule and appreciate his
taking time out of his schedule to participate in this
appropriations hearing.
I will reserve my opening statement. Senator Hollings, do
you have a statement?
Senator Hollings. No, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think we
can move right ahead and hear from the Secretary.
Senator Gregg. We would love to hear the Secretary's
thoughts.
Secretary Evans. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am delighted to
be here.
I do have a formal statement that I would ask be inserted
in the record. I will not bore you by reading that to you.
Senator Gregg. Absolutely; it will be.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Donald L. Evans
Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you to present the
Department of Commerce's fiscal year 2002 budget request. Our focus,
first and foremost, is funding the core missions of the Department and
its bureaus. Thus, the President's budget request proposes increases
only in those areas that are critical to promoting economic growth,
technological competitiveness, trade monitoring and compliance, and
natural resources management.
The fiscal year 2002 budget request for the Department of Commerce
is $4.75 billion, $381 million less than in fiscal year 2001. The
request includes $97.6 million for adjustments-to-base. We are also
requesting $9.7 million to restore security funding in each of the
bureaus. This request will ensure adequate funding to provide
nationwide security services including guard contracts, background
investigations, information security, and counterintelligence
activities.
Departmental Management (DM) requests $37.7 million to provide
headquarters policy and oversight for the bureaus. Although no program
increases are proposed in fiscal year 2002, $4 million in the base will
fund the following digital department projects: $2.5 million to provide
real time computer help desk support; $1.25 million to allow for
digital signature capability on electronic documents; and $0.25 million
for a voice over Internet protocol pilot that would utilize one
telephone line for voice and data transmission. These requirements are
important not only to fully utilize the new technology infrastructure
funded in fiscal year 2001, but they also allow the Department of
Commerce to capitalize on cutting edge technologies.
The DM account contains the first of four major reductions in the
fiscal year 2002 budget. The President and I strongly believe that
these reductions are necessary to focus the Department on its core
missions and to contain the overall spending of Federal discretionary
programs. In fiscal year 1999, $125 million was appropriated for the
Emergency Oil and Gas Loan Guarantee Program to assist companies in
this struggling industry. Loans totaling less than $5 million have been
made, and oil and natural gas prices have rebounded, thus we are
requesting a rescission of $115 million. The Emergency Steel Loan
Guarantee Program was appropriated $145 million, and two loans have
closed totaling $129.5 million. We are requesting a rescission of $10
million for this program.
The Office of Inspector General (OIG) requests $21.2 million. This
includes a program increase of $0.5 million to increase financial
statement audits by the OIG. This work will be contracted out, thus no
additional full-time employees are requested.
The Economic Development Administration requests a total of $365.6
million. The Salaries and Expenses (S&E) request is $30.6 million, and
this includes a program increase of $1.7 million to develop and
implement the Economic Development Communications and Operations
Management System, a grants management system that will automate the
entire grants cycle from needs assessment to performance measurement.
The Economic Development Assistance Programs request is $335 million, a
$76 million decrease from fiscal year 2001, and the second major
reduction requested for fiscal year 2002 in our budget. No funding is
requested for Defense Economic Adjustment grants, as the last BRAC
round was authorized for 1995.
Two of the most important program increases which I am proud to
endorse in the fiscal year 2002 budget are requested for the Economics
and Statistics Administration. Of the $62.5 million account request, $3
million is proposed to continue to improve core statistics including
Gross Domestic Product and related measures, and $3.5 million is
proposed to update information technology systems that support the
provision of key economic data.
The Bureau of the Census requests $543.4 million, consisting of
$168.6 million for S&E and $374.8 million for Periodic Censuses and
Programs (PCP). This appears to be a significant increase over fiscal
year 2001, however, PCP realized a carryover of $300 million from
fiscal year 2000 into fiscal year 2001, and this reduced our request in
fiscal year 2001 for new funding. The PCP request includes funding for
several critical programs: cyclical increases for the 2002 Economic and
Government Censuses; planning for the 2010 Decennial; implementing the
American Community Survey; and redesigning the demographic survey
samples to incorporate the results of Census 2000.
The International Trade Administration (ITA) requests $329.6
million. This funding level eliminates $13.5 million in grant programs,
however, our request continues full funding for program increases
provided in fiscal year 2001 for trade compliance and monitoring. Trade
compliance is my highest priority for ITA, and I intend to focus ITA's
efforts in this area.
The Bureau of Export Administration requests $68.9 million in
fiscal year 2002. This request includes a program increase of $1.6
million for the redesign and replacement of the Export Control
Automated Support System, which will enable better and faster decisions
on license applications to accelerate U.S. competitiveness in global
markets. An increase of $0.5 million is also requested to achieve
efficiencies in processing export licenses.
The Minority Business Development Agency requests $28.4 million,
and this includes a program increase of $0.8 million for expansion of
the Phoenix Database. This electronic portal will operate as an on-line
business information center, and will provide electronic links to state
and local governments, community development organizations, and
strategic partners, significantly increasing business and economic
development activity for the minority business community.
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) requests
a total of $3.1 billion. This includes an increase of $136.9 million to
provide for critical weather warning and forecast services and climate
research. Within this request is a net increase of $96 million to
continue the acquisition of NOAA satellites, mainly the joint DOD/NOAA
National Polar-Orbiting Operating and Environmental Satellite System
(NPOESS) for weather, search and rescue, and oceanographic products for
both military commanders and the civil community. An increase of $40.2
million is designated to continue and expand coastal conservation and
ocean exploration activities, which will build on the progress that
NOAA has made to preserve the Nation's coasts and oceans, as well as
promote undersea missions of science and discovery.
I want to emphasize that NOAA is requesting a total of $243.8
million for global climate change activities. Included in this funding
level is $34.7 million for NOAA's Climate Services Initiative, which
focuses on enhancing climate observations, supporting carbon dioxide
research, and climate change assessments. NOAA's contributions to long-
term atmospheric measurements and research modeling are essential to
our ability to analyze global climate change. NOAA requests $61.6
million to support the agency's long-term commitment to the management
of the nation's marine fisheries, including improvement of the
accompanying science, management, and enforcement activities. An
additional $36.3 million is required to maintain NOAA infrastructure,
including its facilities, vessels and aircraft, and to support other
program requirements.
The third major reduction in the Department's request is $149.7
million for NOAA's Coastal Impact Assistance Fund (CIAF). Created in
fiscal year 2001 to address the impacts of coastal development in the
seven states involved in off-shore oil and gas production, we feel that
this funding duplicates efforts of the Coastal Zone Management (CZM)
program, in which all 33 coastal states are eligible to seek funds. In
addition to elimination of the CIAF, NOAA also requests terminations
and reductions of unrequested projects from fiscal year 2001 of $245.9
million in order to fund proposed program increases and adjustments-to-
base.
The Office of Technology Policy requests a total of $8.2 million to
continue its activities with the Office of Space Commercialization, the
National Medal of Technology Program, the Experimental Program to
Stimulate Competitive Technology (EPSCoT), and the Commerce Science and
Technology Fellowship Program.
The fourth major reduction requested for the Department falls under
the National Institute of Standards and Technology's (NIST) request of
$487.4 million. The request for NIST focuses on the core functions and
basic mission of NIST. We propose a decrease of $132.4 million from the
fiscal year 2001 funding level for the Advanced Technology Program
(ATP) and the suspension of granting new ATP awards in fiscal year
2002. Furthermore, NIST proposes to utilize funds made available in
fiscal year 2001 to pay for prior-year commitments in fiscal year 2002.
The Department is in the process of evaluating the program to determine
whether a need still exists for Federal funding to assist U.S. industry
in conducting applied research and development. NIST is requesting a
total of $20.9 million for the maintenance and repair of its facilities
in Gaithersburg, Maryland and Boulder, Colorado.
The National Telecommunications and Information Administration
(NTIA) requests $73 million. This includes a program increase of $2.1
million for the Radio Spectrum Measurement van and suitcase necessary
for NTIA's analysis of critical new wireless technologies. We are
requesting a decrease of $30 million in the Technology Opportunities
Program (TOP), for a total request of $15.5 million. This funding will
enable NTIA to support approximately thirty new grants to under-served
communities to demonstrate innovative uses of emerging information
technologies.
The Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) requests a total program
level of $1,139 million, a $100 million increase to manage its growing
workload. In 2002, patent applications are expected to rise by 12
percent and trademark applications by 11 percent. This funding will
enable PTO to recruit and retain examiners and make IT investments to
improve productivity.
As previously stated, this budget request for the Department of
Commerce has been carefully crafted to focus on the core functions the
American people rely on from this agency. It is the Administration's
belief that government should reduce discretionary spending, and we
have done so with a budget lower than the previous year's. Although
reduced funding is requested, this does not mean our performance will
follow the same trend. Rather, we will further enhance economic growth,
technological competitiveness, trade monitoring and compliance, and
natural resources management, thus ensuring a better quality of life
for all Americans.
______

Biographical Sketch of Donald L. Evans
Donald L. Evans was nominated by President-elect George W. Bush in
December 2000, confirmed by the U.S. Senate, and sworn in as the 34th
U.S. Secretary of Commerce on January 20, 2001.
Formerly chairman and chief executive officer of Tom Brown, Inc., a
large independent energy company in Midland, Texas, Secretary Evans
oversees a diverse Department with more than 40,000 employees and a
budget of $5.1 billion. The Department of Commerce exercises broad
responsibilities for promoting U.S. business development and job
creation, trade, technology and environmental stewardship of our
coastal and ocean resources.
As Secretary of Commerce, Secretary Evans is the voice of American
business in the President's cabinet, and he represents America's
business interests around the world. President Bush has described him
as ``an advocate who carries with him knowledge of trade and proven
skill as a negotiator.'' He is a key member of the President's economic
team and his energy task force.
Secretary Evans has said that he sees the mission of the Department
of Commerce under his guidance as being ``to create an environment in
which American businesses and American capital can thrive at home and
abroad.''
To this end, Secretary Evans has set out an aggressive agenda, with
a focus on open and fair trade; e-commerce; accurate and timely
economic data; sound science; and development of cutting-edge
technology.
Born in Houston, Texas, in 1946, he is a graduate of the University
of Texas where he received a Bachelor of Science degree in mechanical
engineering and an MBA. His early career included a stint as a
roughneck on an oil rig in West Texas and work in a steel mill.
In 1975, he joined Tom Brown, Inc., becoming CEO at the age of 33
in 1985.
Active in civic and philanthropic affairs, he served as chairman of
the Board of Regents of the University of Texas and was a driving force
behind Native Vision, a program that provides services to some 10,000
Native American children in America.
Secretary Evans also has been active in state and national
politics, most recently serving as Chairman of the Bush-Cheney 2000
campaign.
Secretary Evans and his wife Susie have three children and are
members of the United Methodist Church.

overview of secretary evans' statement

Secretary Evans. I have a few thoughts that I would like to
offer, and then I would be delighted to respond to any
questions that you have for me.
This process has reminded me of my years in the private
sector. There was always a period each year in the company when
we would deal with budgeting, and it was an arduous process
that nobody liked going through, but it always reminded me how
important the process was, to get your entire organization
focused on your priorities and your needs and your goals, and
also reminding the people in the organization that it is not
your money; it is somebody else's money that you are spending.
So I think it is certainly a good discipline to go through in
the private sector and is a good discipline for me to be able
to go through in these first 100 days, because it has really
allowed me to get, I think, a greater understanding and depth
of knowledge as to Commerce and its goals and objectives. I
would like to compliment Barbara, on my right, who did a
terrific job of not only taking me through the budget, but the
entire organization.
As I looked at the budget that we were presented early in
the year, I wanted to go back and look at the budget growth of
Commerce over the last number of years, and I would compliment
this committee for really putting the Commerce Department on
very sound footing. If you look at the growth of the Commerce
Department over the last 11 years, it has been a little over 8
percent. The growth over the last 5 years has been a little
over 9 percent, and the growth in the Commerce Department's
budget over the last 3 years, including the 2002 budget that we
have offered, is a little over 11 percent. So when I think of
11 percent growth over the last 3 years or 8 percent growth
over the last 11 years, I think it has grown at a fairly
healthy rate. And as I look at the budgets and goals and
priorities that we have in Commerce, I would say that these
goals and priorities are being funded.
The one message that I tried to send throughout the
Department was the importance of our focusing on our core
mission, whatever it might be, and any agency, any bureau,
whatever your core mission is, make sure that that is your
priority and that that is what is being funded first.
So with that kind of theme of focusing on the core mission
and our priorities, I think that what we have presented is a
responsible and prudent budget, and I think it is there in
large part of action that you take and this committee has taken
over the last number of years to make some meaningful increases
in the budget.
Let me talk about just a few of the specifics, and then I
am glad to respond to any questions that you might have.
In the area of international trade, everybody that I talk
to when I talk about trade, I talk about it in terms of free
and fair trade. I try to use the phrase ``level playing field''
often.
I do not think there is anything that dispirits and can
destroy trade more quickly than for there to be an unlevel
playing field. I do not think there is anything that dispirits
the American worker more quickly than an unlevel playing field,
or the American businessman or businesswoman. So I put a lot of
emphasis on that, because it is vitally important.
Senator, good morning; nice to see you.
Senator Stevens. Good morning.
Secretary Evans. So when I talked about priorities in the
International Trade Administration, I wanted to make sure the
resources were there to enforce the agreements and make people
compliant and enforce our laws. So I was pleased to find out
that this committee authorized a year ago an increase and had
the Trade Compliance Initiative, which I think is a very
important initiative, that is allowing us to add some 60
employees to focus on compliance and focus on a level playing
field.
So I think that is already in the budget, and we are trying
to fill those positions, but it is a priority that to me is at
the top of the list, because if you are going to expand trade
in the world, you had better make sure that everybody is on the
same playing field, period, end of statement. I just want to
make sure that we continue to send the signal around the world
that we are going to be tough when it comes to compliance.
Export licensing is another very important area, and it is
an important area because technology continues to move quickly
and move fast, and one of the problems that our industries have
had in this country is the delays in issuing a license to
export their equipment and their software around the world. So
we have asked for another $2 million to implement an
information system that would speed up the licensing process
for export licenses.
The area of critical infrastructure protection is obviously
an area that is on everybody's mind inside Government and
outside the Government. It is an initiative that started a
number of years ago in Government. Commerce has been charged
with a big responsibility and is part of the organization that
is involved in critical infrastructure protection. We have
three agencies that are within Commerce that are active in it.
One is the Bureau of Export Administration, which is where we
have what we call CIAO, which is the management piece within
Commerce. It relates to the private sector and connects the
public sector with the private sector to develop policies and
programs, et cetera. NIST is very involved in it, the National
Institute of Standards and Technology; they have a team of
experts that goes around, looking at systems within Government
to see if they are compliant and have the right systems in
place to protect their infrastructure. NIST has a research
program that is connected with this. They have a grants program
that is connected to this. And then, NOAA also has important
programs that are part of the critical infrastructure
protection overall effort.
But while we have asked for an $8 million increase in this
whole area, I know it is a subject that is very much on your
minds, it is very much on our minds, and principally, how it is
going to be organized going forward. I am sure that we are
taking a hard look at it within Commerce. We are looking at it
carefully with the White House in terms of how we think it
should be structured. It is a very important area, and I think
Commerce should always play a big role in it just because of
our connection to the private sector.
When I come to the area of the Bureau of Economic Analysis,
which is all part of the Economics and Statistics
Administration, one of the critical areas that has received
focus from you, rightfully so, is that the statistics that have
come out of the Bureau of Economic Analysis have not been on
the mark or on the money. Specifically, I think the simplest
example, of course, is GDP. It is my understanding that the
gross domestic product has been consistently underestimated,
the growth of it has been, about 50 basis points for the last 8
or 9 years. And this is something that you recognized before I
showed up. This is something that has been talked about.
You started a program a year ago to upgrade our efforts. We
are asking to continue that; we are asking for another $9
million to hopefully provide us with the tools, with the
systems, so that we will more accurately predict what the gross
domestic product growth is in this country.
Just to show you the impact of this--and I know that you
are aware of it, but I will mention it anyway--if you
underestimate it some 50 basis points, and that gets into your
budgeting process, it means that you underestimate the budget
surplus $1 trillion over a 10-year period. The reverse is of
course true also--if you overestimate it 50 basis points, it
means that you have overestimated the surplus $1 trillion.
So it just shows the importance of making sure that you are
providing as accurate a number as you possibly can for the
entire budgeting process.
In the area of technology and NIST in particular, which is
one of the crown jewels of the Federal Government as far as I
am concerned--it is just an incredible treasure that we have,
with an incredible cadre of talented scientists that we have
there--one of the areas that is important to me, as I have
already mentioned, is focusing on the core mission. There are a
couple of really big, important labs that are coming out of the
ground. One is out of the ground, and another is coming out of
the ground--the Advanced Measurement Lab that is under
construction and will be completed sometime, in the next year
to 18 months. I look at these very vital labs that are being
built, and I really do not worry about it, but I am mindful
that we need to have the most modern, state-of-the-art,
cutting-edge technology inside those labs, because the whole
purpose of NIST is to be out in front of the industry and out
on the very cutting edge, have the finest equipment, the finest
people.
So I feel confident that I am going to be up here a year
from now asking for a substantial increase in our budget to
fund equipment that will need to go in these labs.
So that is an area of great interest to me and certainly an
area of my focus. I look at a number of the programs in there--
I know the MEPs program has been a terrific program working
with small businesses across America. I looked at a study the
other day that showed those that had participated in an MEPs
program and an MEPs initiative had four times the productivity
of those who had not participated in it. So this is a key way
to get technology into these small businesses across America.
Global Climate Change is obviously another area that we are
certainly very much involved in, and we are asking for the
funding to spend $265 million on Global Climate Change. That is
approximately what we have spent this last year. So that is an
effort which, obviously, we want to continue.
Inside NOAA, as you have said--this is not my quote--we are
trying to put the ``O'' back in NOAA. I am one who is very
excited about the Ocean Policy Commission and what we might see
from them in the fall of 2002. The oceans simply are
underexplored, and it is time to take a hard look at that and
see what we should do to really understand this treasure that
we have on this planet.
So I am one who is going to be very much an advocate. I
would say that within our Department, we are doing it, and we
have some initiative within our Department, but I think the
Ocean Policy Commission will give us some good directives as to
where we need to go with ocean policy and ocean commitment. So
I am anxious to see that.
Things that we are asking for in our budget that relate to
putting the ``O'' back in NOAA include a $60 million increase
to modernize the fisheries with science and management and
enforcement. It is one of the areas where it is critical, and I
hope those are enough funds. We have 110 lawsuits that we are
trying to deal with out there right now. They continue to come
in. I am hopeful that if we put some more resources into
funding the sciences and collecting data and more effective
management, maybe we can reduce these lawsuits by some degree.
We are also requesting a $17 million increase in the
National Marine Sanctuaries. I just mentioned exploration of
the oceans. We have spent about $4 million this last year on
ocean exploration. We are asking that we increase that by $10
million, which would increase it two and a half times, so we
are talking about, as a percentage, a pretty healthy increase.
It is time to start understanding that 95 percent of the oceans
remains unexplored--not underexplored, but unexplored--and it
is time to begin to explore them.
Then, we also continue with our commitment to our satellite
program with the Department of Defense. We have asked for
another $83 million increase for our NPOESS satellite, which is
the National Polar-Orbiting and Environmental Satellite System.
Obviously, this is a very important system for this country, so
we are asking for that.
Finally, the only other point I would like to make is a $2
million request to upgrade our spectrum measurement equipment.
I was in Boulder about 3 weeks ago and went out to those
terrific labs--I am sure you have had the chance to go out and
see them; it was my first chance to see NOAA's lab and NTIA's
lab and, going through the NIST lab, a chance to see the Atomic
Clock, but also to see the dinosaur kind of equipment that we
have to measure spectrum in NTIA. We have a little, old truck
moving around out there that is 10 or 12 years old, trying to
measure spectrum interference, which is obviously a critical
part of what we are doing right now in the management of
spectrum. We all know how important spectrum is to the future
of the country. When you look at the role it will play in
getting information to the people of this country, it is
important that we get it right as we allocate spectrum in the
years ahead. So part of that is just bringing in the data to
understand what spectrum is available to auction and what
spectrum there is too much interference or there is no
interference.
Anyway, getting NTIA the tools to measure this is vitally
important as we move toward decisions, critical decisions for
the country, as to spectrum allocation in the years ahead. You
are like me--before you make decisions, you like to have the
facts, so that is the role that NTIA can play, is helping
develop the facts as we try to make these critical decisions.
Again, thank you for getting the budget and the Department,
quite frankly, into the kind of condition it is in. It has had
some nice increases over the last number of years. I think the
budget is sound. I think there are a number of areas that
certainly can continue to be focused on. I have committed to
Senator Hollings that I am going to take a hard look at ATP. It
is a program that has had some tremendous successes over the
years, saving industry hundreds of millions of dollars. In our
budget what we have asked for is to use the funds that have not
been committed yet on grants this year to roll over to next
year to fund the mortgages on grants that have already been
granted, while during that period, I am going to take a real
hard, honest look at ATP and see what kind of role it can play
going forward.
Senator, good morning.
Senator Murray. Good morning.
Secretary Evans. Let me stop there. Thank you all again. I
thank all of you; I had a chance to get by to see you and talk
to you, and I thank you for your help and your support and
would be glad to answer any questions that you might have or
listen to whatever you want to tell me.
Senator Gregg. We appreciate that very comprehensive
statement, Mr. Secretary. You touched on a lot of areas in
which the committee has a very significant interest and has
pursued rather aggressively.
It is the tradition of this subcommittee to acknowledge the
chairman of the full committee whenever he decides to come by,
which we appreciate he does often, and yield to the chairman
for a statement or questions.
Senator Stevens. I will just wait my turn, Senator.
Senator Gregg. Do you have any questions?
Senator Stevens. Not now, thank you.
Senator Gregg. Okay. Senator Hollings.

noaa discussion by senator hollings

Senator Hollings. Well, my immediate reaction is
``Whoopee,'' Mr. Secretary. That is, as the chairman said, a
very comprehensive grasp of the role and responsibilities of
the Secretary of Commerce. You are off and running, and I am
just enthused to hear you, because other secretaries usually
come up and everything is sort of foreign to them, and they are
flipping pages and everything else, and do not know what the
devil they are saying. Obviously, you do, particularly with
respect to putting the ``O'' back in NOAA, the ocean
exploration.
So you will understand, NOAA was created as a result of a
very, very thorough study, and President Bush is going to
revisit that study here with a new commission. Thirty-five
years ago, Julius Stratton of MIT brought your Texas crowd
together, the oil people, the Coastal Zone people, the energy
folks, Coast Guard and everybody else, and they recommended,
actually, an independent agency of oceans and atmosphere headed
by the Coast Guard. President Nixon was disappointed and
tickled, said they would never give him anything like that over
in Interior and they were not going for an independent agency--
so he gave it to Commerce and Maurice Stans. NOAA has been at
Commerce, and different Secretaries have come along and in the
main disregarded NOAA--although it is 40 percent of my budget--
let somebody else handle it; get rid of the NOAA fleet, get rid
of the NOAA corps, the environmental side, services
administration, and so on.
So we have had a very difficult time, and to see an
increase in ocean exploration is heartwarming. But mind you,
Senator Stevens and I are on the authorizing Committee on
Commerce, Science, and Transportation, and in space science
there is $14 billion for exploration, and research is $7
billion, or one-half of that $14 billion.
So you are putting up $14 million and talking about a 200
percent increase--that is tommyrot. The truth of the matter is
we have got to play catch-up ball, and you have the grasp of
it. We see that the ocean temperature has increased some
eleven-hundredths of a percent over the 50-year period, which
means there is a tipping margin there to be studied and
determined, because that degree of ocean warming is the
equivalent of 15,000 years of electricity, and if it tips over,
global warming will go way beyond any control whatsoever.

level playing field for international trade

Good. Otherwise, on trade, first, let me commend you,
because it is tough on compliance, and I would not have to say
anything else on trade--that is all we need, but do not look
for a level playing field. I have always said I would take the
Japanese trade book or the Korean trade book and administer our
trade policy that way, and we would fill up the country with
production. I cannot sell textiles in downtown Seoul, Korea
unless the local textile industry votes and approves for me to
come in--and they just do not. And you cannot sell in Japan.
They get outsourced to Japanese companies that they have
organized down in Malaysia and Thailand.
So it is not level. It is a proposition, frankly, of the
security of the country. It is like a three-legged stool. One
leg of our security, value, is unquestioned. The second leg of
our security is the military, which is unquestioned. The third
leg, the economic leg has been intentionally fractured in the
sense that in order to spread capitalism--and it has worked--we
have given up the textile industry. I remember a hearing I had
40 years ago, and Tom Dewey was the lawyer for the Japanese,
and he was racing me around the hearing room saying,
``Governor, what do you expect them to make? Let us make the
airplanes and the computers, but let them make the shoes and
the clothing.''
My problem is that they now make the shoes, the clothing,
the airplanes, the computers, and everything else.
President Kennedy put out a seven-point program--he had to
comply with the national security provision that the President
had to first determine that the item was important to our
national security. They had the Secretaries of Defense and
Commerce come in, and they brought in the witnesses--I can see
Doug Dillon, Secretary of Treasury, there now at the hearing--
and they determined that next to steel, textiles was the second
most important item, because we could not send them to war, as
they said at that time in a Japanese uniform, but now we can
say we cannot send them to war in a Chinese uniform.
So there it is. To go immediately to your Bureau of
Economic Analysis, the Advanced Measurement Lab and so forth,
will you see if you can find out statistically the amount of
U.S. consumption represented in imports, generally. I received
from the Secretary of Commerce in 1975, 1976, 1977, 41 percent
of our imports were U.S.-generated overseas and brought back
in. Now, everybody is moving their manufacturing, because it is
10 percent of the cost of labor here in this country, so they
are all running down to Mexico. I have lost 42,500 jobs in
South Carolina alone--I do not know how many jobs have been
lost in New Hampshire--and it is 500,000 over the country--and
they are all Republicans, so let them go. But they are good
jobs, and before long, I will not have any of them left. And
they just shrug their shoulders like it means nothing, but it
is very, very important to our economy. We are going to have to
be able to produce a certain amount of basic electronics,
clothing, and different things of that kind.
In fact, Senator Stevens and I are going to get together on
a national defense measure along this line to reinstitute that
security provision for the President and aim our trade policy
along that line. Otherwise, before long, we will go the way of
England, with a bunch of Parliamentarians and scandal sheets.

contract for noaa research vessel

With respect to the fleet itself, we need that money for
the research vessel. I tried to check on it earlier this
morning. We tried to contract with the Navy for the small
boats, and they refused. Maybe you can get the Navy now, with
this administration and talk to them over there and see if they
cannot get the contract for us. But when they get that small
boat contract, and the contractor knows there are going to be
two or three research vessels, you can get it at a cheaper
price. For only one small boat, you disturb the flow of the
contract and the cost itself on the number one vessel. The
company tells me they are going into bankruptcy down in
Mississippi. So we have got to check on that.

textile research

With respect, Mr. Secretary, to the research, we have a
little bit of research with the National Textile Consortium, $3
million and $9 million for the Textile Clothing Technology
Corporation. We actually put in way more for California prunes.
You ought to see the nonsense we go through with these farm
boys. Having lost 500,000 textile jobs, to try to hold on to a
sort of quality basis--and improvement; they get better cloth
and so on. You have got to be able to manufacture webbing and
parachutes and everything else. It is a defense measure as
well. We ought to continue that. That is a tiny bit, $9 million
and $3 million.
Senator Gregg. Can't you manufacture clothing out of
prunes?
Senator Hollings. Oh, they have put in I do not know how
much, to sell wine and prunes and so on, in California. That
California crowd, they have votes.
Senator Gregg. Not on this committee.
Senator Hollings. No. That is right--but we are doing
better--we have Herb with us now.

advanced technology program

On ATP, any time you suspend this thing, they say they are
going to study it. So after meeting with you yesterday, I have
found that there are 21 General Accounting Office studies; we
have had 18 Office of Inspector General studies; we have had
two National Academy of Sciences studies; one Secretarial 60-
day review and a report to the Congress--they are really trying
to kill the program with studies. I hope Rumsfeld is not doing
that with defense. I do not think he is. Can't you use all of
these studies as a precedent and build ATP up with these
studies? That is what we really need to do, because it has
gotten a little off-course with respect to risk--we are not
paying for high risk. What we are paying for, and the
fundamental of this particular Advanced Technology Program, is
to commercialize technology, discovered and researched here in
the United States, and where we ought to bring it to market.
But when you get these quarterly reports that these big moguls
put in, that includes long-range financing, which is the global
competition with Japan, for example, and we have nothing but
short-range financing here in the United States. So ATP would
move into that gap and make sure that, in part, it is not pork.
We had the project on a competitive basis in your Department,
but it was first reviewed by the National Academy of
Engineering. So all of these ATP reports are good. I have not
been able to find a bad report yet--but they keep on studying
it. Do you see what I am saying?
Secretary Evans. Yes.
Senator Hollings. So if you would look at that very closely
for us, please.
Secretary Evans. Yes.
Senator Hollings. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Gregg. Senator Stevens has a couple of questions.
Senator Stevens. Thank you very much.

research on steller sea lions

Mr. Secretary, as I told you when we met, I was very
pleased with the briefing that we got from Dr. Andrew Treitz of
the North Pacific University's Marine Mammal Consortium. This
Consortium includes all of the universities of the North
Pacific. They made some very preliminary conclusions concerning
the decline of the Steller sea lion.
We provided moneys last year--and you have a $40 million
request in this budget--for continuation of the Steller sea
lion research. We are hopeful that that will proceed and that
we will use the data that is being collected now as a basis for
a new biological opinion regarding the Steller sea lion.
I would encourage you to get the preliminary conclusions
from the Marine Mammal Consortium from the universities and try
to see what we can do to head off another collision as far as
the Steller sea lions are concerned.
As you know, probably more than 50 percent of our people
make their living off the sea. We have half the coastline of
the United States, as these people have heard me say that too
often. But there is no question of the importance of fisheries
in our State. We had a very difficult time last year trying to
prevent the closure of a substantial portion of our fisheries.
So I would hope that we could get your assistance and that
of your Department to pursue this science with real enthusiasm
to make sure we have the science to support the theories rather
than the theories before the science, in terms of what is
causing some of these problems. There is no question that the
Steller sea lions are declining. The question is what can we do
to reverse it and to what extent will it impact the fisheries
of our State.
I hope that you and others can spend some time on that this
year.
Secretary Evans. Indeed, we will, Senator. As you said, we
had a good discussion about this yesterday and several other
times I have been to see you and visit with you about it. As
you know, Bill Hogarth, our Acting Assistant Administrator of
Marine Fisheries was up in your State for 4 or 5 days, and we
have obviously given it high priority. You mentioned the
dollars that we have committed to it. I was interested to learn
what the universities are learning about this very issue.
We will look at those studies, and we will incorporate them
into our study of the issue as well. But yes, it is high
priority for us.

comparison of wild and farm-raised salmon

Senator Stevens. Salmon is probably our greatest resource,
yet we seem to constantly be at odds with people from the
Pacific Northwest on the salmon issue. There is a new wrinkle,
though, coming now. I understand the President is going to
recommend a new Free Trade Zone for South America. Chile is now
providing, I think, up to 90 percent of all salmon sold in our
supermarkets in this country. That was not the case 10 years
ago.
We do not think too much of that product, frankly. It is
farm-raised salmon, and it does not contain the high levels of
beneficial substances, like Omega-3, and it does not have the
naturally high levels of other materials found in wild salmon.
I do not know what we can do to assist our people compete
with products from South America in competing if a Free Trade
Zone concept becomes a reality.
I would just mention that. I do not know the answer, but I
do think there has to be something done to distinguish between
the farm-raised salmon and the wild salmon that comes from the
Pacific Northwest and off Alaska.
We have the studies on the beneficial effects of
consumption of salmon for heart disease and other human needs.
There are not similar benefits as far as this farm-raised
salmon from South America is concerned.
I would hope that in this process, we can find some way to
at least require labeling of origin. When you go to the
supermarket now, and you see salmon, it does not say where it
is from. It does not really say what it is. It is not wild
salmon. Most people who buy it probably think they are buying
salmon from the oceans, when in fact they are buying farm-
raised salmon, and it is a different product.
I hope that you will help us keep an eye out for what we
might do to protect a basic resource of the North Pacific,
which is the salmon.
Lastly, Mr. Secretary, I want to say that you have had some
real competent help in Bill Hogarth and Scott Gudes and others
who have kept the fires burning down there, and I want you to
know that we appreciate what is going on. The budget is a good
budget as presented to us now. We do not have some of the
wrinkles that we have had in other departments that we are
dealing with in this committee. I think you have really got a
budget that we can all work with and be proud of. I know there
are several items in there for Alaska, but I am not going to
discuss those now.
I just want to urge you to realize the quality work that
has gone into this before you came on deck. They are good
people down there who have been working with us over the
years--they are career people. We appreciate what they have
done.
Secretary Evans. Thank you, Senator. So do I; I appreciate
every one of them, and I could not agree with you more. There
are some real quality people throughout Government and in the
Department I have the pleasure to serve in.
You told me something I did not know, and I am going to
look into it. I am one of those who has been buying salmon,
eating salmon, and thinking there is Omega-3 in it, because I
have high cholesterol, and I want to make sure that I am taking
care of my cholesterol issue. I did not realize that farm-
raised salmon does not have Omega-3.
Senator Stevens. Actually, Dr. Castelli from Dr. Treitz'
institute up in New England is the one who worked with us for
so many years and developed all the information about wild
salmon. We have relied on him quite heavily in terms of advice
about Omega-3 and the beneficial effects of salmon for people
who have heart problems.
Senator Gregg. You hang around this committee, Mr.
Secretary, and you will learn more about salmon than you ever
wanted to know.
Secretary Evans. I learned something new this morning, I
will tell you.
Senator Hollings. You can count on it. Get together with
the Senator on Chile, because that is one big headache with
respect to free trade. I think you can pass free trade with
Chile by itself, but one caveat is salmon, and the other is the
wine, with the California vote.
Senator Gregg. Did you want to comment on any of the points
made by the first two Senators?
Senator Hollings. I agree with Senator Stevens. It is an
outstanding presentation.
Senator Stevens. I do not have any questions.
Senator Gregg. If you do not get questions, it is better
just not to answer.
Secretary Evans. Okay.
Senator Gregg. Senator Kohl.
Senator Kohl. I welcome you here today, Secretary Evans.
Secretary Evans. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Kohl. I would like to first comment briefly on your
budget officer, Barbara Retzlaff. She has done a tremendous
job, and I have been very impressed with her knowledge on a
broad range of issues.
Barbara worked with me for a couple of years, and try as
hard as she did, she could never get me up to your speed. I
think that if you asked her, she would say that she had better
material to work with in you.
Ms. Retzlaff. Senator Kohl, it is nice to see you.
Senator Kohl. Now, I would just like to comment on NOAA. As
important as it is to the Atlantic and Pacific Coast States, it
is equally important to the Great Lakes States, because the
Great Lakes have the largest number of miles of any of the
States, including the Atlantic and the Pacific. So the issues
of fisheries, and pollution hydrology, and invasive species are
programs that NOAA gets involved in, and they are just as
important to the Great Lakes States as they are to the Atlantic
and Pacific Coast States. So it is good to hear that you are so
interested and that you intend to pursue NOAA as vigorously as
you are going to.

northeast dairy compact

I would just like to raise two issues with you. Number one
is the Northeast Dairy Compact, Mr. Secretary. It is an
interstate trade issue, and I would like to get your thoughts
on it, whether you have any familiarity or some familiarity
with these dairy agreement. They are agreements among States to
artificially set and support milk prices. In other words, they
eliminate the opportunity for any of the other States to
compete in those compact States by setting an artificial price
above the market that coops pay farmers in those States for
their milk; and if you want to send your product into that
State to compete, you have to do it at that price that they
set, which effectively eliminates any opportunity for
competition.
Now, as you might imagine, listening to this description,
which is brief but fairly accurate, it is like nothing we have
ever done in this country before. The greatness of our economy,
the greatness of our capitalist system is that, without any
exception since this country was incepted, goods and services
compete freely from one State to another. We have never before
erected barriers.
But the Northeast Dairy Compact, which I think includes
seven New England States, is subject to termination this year
unless it is renewed. Now, I know how strongly you and your
administration feel about free trade and how important it is,
not only globally, but here in this country. If this Northeast
Dairy Compact is basically as I have described it--and I
believe you will find that it is--I would like, if I could, to
get some opinion from you about what you and your
administration's position will be on that Northeast Dairy
Compact this year, as it is subject to renewal.
Secretary Evans. Senator, let me say that it is not
something that I have looked at in great detail. I am certainly
not in a position to tell you at this moment what our
administration's position will be, but I will tell you that I
will get that to you.
[The information follows:]

Administration Policy on Northeast Dairy Compact

While the Administration is continuing to operate under the
existing agreement, they are also reviewing the policy.

Secretary Evans. This issue was first brought to my
attention by Governor Ventura. I was talking to Governor
Ventura about free trade and fair trade, and he brought up the
issue of this dairy compact, and I responded by saying to him
that, yes, it is awfully tough for us to talk about free trade
and a level playing field around the world if we do not have
one in our own back yard.
I am one who spent his career in the oil and gas industry,
and I saw some similar kinds of practices inside the oil and
gas industry. I am not sure the analogy is a great one between
the dairy compact and the oil and gas industry, but my point
would be that I saw the oil and gas industry could get special
treatment from time to time that would benefit one group of oil
and gas investors or companies to the detriment of another
group of oil and gas investors in the same country. So I do not
understand that principle, and if the principle is similar--one
group of individuals milking cows and another group, and there
are different rules--then, I would say it is something that we
have got to take a hard look at.
And I am one who believes that we have a free enterprise
system here in America, it is free and open competition, we are
all going to play on the same playing field, and if you are the
low-cost producer, you survive. If you are not, then you need
to find something else to do in this great economy. And there
is much to do. We have a wonderful economy here in this
country. Unemployment is 4.2 or 4.3 percent, and it is growing
and growing.
Anyway, the principle I understand. The specifics of what
the administration policy is going to be on this expiring
compact, I will get you a response.
Senator Kohl. That is good to hear. The greatness of our
economy is attributable in large to the principle you have just
enumerated, which is that competition is what makes the economy
as good as it is, competition is what enables us to bring the
best products at the best prices to consumers here and around
the world. The minute we set up barriers to competition, we do
great damage to the American economy. And that is what the
Northeast Dairy Compact is.
In fact, I understand that there is an effort under way to
expand it to 10 or 20 other States, and I would like to hope
that this administration would take a very strong position
against that kind of mechanism.

export-import bank

The other thing I would like to raise with you, Mr.
Secretary, is the Export-Import Bank. As you are well aware,
the importance of exports continues to grow in our economy. It
is now estimated that exports account for nearly 30 percent of
our economy, up from 10 percent in 1950. The Export-Import Bank
has played a vital role in supporting the continued growth of
U.S. exports and the workers and businesses that prosper when
new markets are found for their goods and services.
The Bank's use of loan guarantees, insurance to commercial
banks, and direct lending, have allowed for the export of
billions of U.S. exports that would not have gone forward for
lack of financing.
Over the past 5 years alone, the Bank has supported 116
companies in 52 different communities in my own home State of
Wisconsin. The benefits of these sales are widespread as nearly
50 percent of these transactions were with small businesses
just in my own State of Wisconsin.
As you know, the President's budget request includes only
$649 million for the Export-Import Bank, which is 25 percent
below fiscal year 2000. Can you provide us some insight into
the administration's reasoning for decreasing funding for the
Bank's mission?
Secretary Evans. Senator, I am going to give you a written
response on this, and I will get that to you, because I think
the reduction requires some specificity that I am not prepared
to really offer to you right now because I do not recall all
the numbers. But the cut itself is not as large as it appears
on its surface.
[The information follows:]

Export-Import Bank Funding in Fiscal Year 2002

The President's budget for fiscal year 2002 proposes to
reduce Export-Import Bank funding by approximately 25 percent.
As OMB has indicated, at least half of this reduction is
accounted for by OMB's lower estimates of international risk
for 2002. It is also unclear at this point whether Ex-Im Bank
will face the same level of demand in certain sectors, such as
aircraft, as it has in the past. The Administration does not
expect these budgetary cuts to have an adverse effect on Ex-Im
Bank's responsiveness to U.S. exporters or its ability to meet
foreign competition.
As Secretary of Commerce and Chairman of the Trade
Promotion Coordinating Committee, I will work to ensure that
U.S. firms, including those that produce environmental goods
and services, can effectively compete in international markets.

Secretary Evans. Having said that, let me say to you the
Ex-Im Bank is important in the overall international trade
policy of this country. It relates in some way to the
activities of the World Bank, the Inter-American Development
Bank and the IMF. So there are a lot of financial institutions
out there, banks, that are related on the world stage.
I talked to John Robson who is incoming--yet to be
confirmed--director or chairman of the Ex-Im Bank. I look
forward to working with him on it.
I have to admit to you that I have a concern when I hear
about Ex-Im Bank granting an $18 million loan to a company in
China to manufacture steel, when I know we have a glut of steel
in the world. So I am kind of wondering what would cause a loan
of that size to go to a company in China that would compete
with companies here in America when we are filing antidumping
suits and countervailing duty suits as fast as we can
manufacture them.
I had a good visit not long ago with Bill Draper, who was
chairman of the Ex-Im Bank during the Reagan Administration,
and he was telling me what a great program it was and what
great things it did and what a key role it played in helping
companies be competitive around the world. So I know it has an
important role to play, and I want to make sure the role it is
playing is a constructive one.
I am just an outside director. I cannot vote. I serve on
there as an advisory director since, obviously, Commerce is
related to trade and the private sector and businesses.
But what I would say to you is that it has an important
role to play. I do not think that the cut, when fully
explained, is as severe as it appears on the surface, and I
will get an explanation of that to you. I hope you will find
that, and I think you will. But anyway, I will be glad to
respond to you more specifically.
Senator Kohl. Thank you.
Secretary Evans. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Kohl. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Gregg. Senator Murray.
Senator Murray. Mr. Secretary, it is nice to have you here,
and I appreciate the funding in your budget request of $110
million for Pacific Northwest salmon. I share some of the
concerns of Senator Stevens and look forward to working with
you on that very critical initiative.
Let me follow up on what Senator Kohl was just talking
about--and I know this is not funded in your budget, but export
promotion is a very critical role of your Department and your
agency. I have worked with one-stop shopping centers in Seattle
that have been of tremendous help to many of our exports.

boeing versus airbus

But the Ex-Im Bank is very critical. One out of three jobs
in Washington State depend on trade, and it is no surprise that
80,000 of those jobs are at Boeing. They are highly-skilled,
family wage jobs, very important to our economy. Plus there are
1,000 other businesses just in my home State that depend on
those exports and contract services to Boeing as well. I know
you know this, but Boeing is the only U.S. manufacturer of
commercial aircraft. The competitor is Airbus. Airbus is highly
subsidized, has sweetheart deals. They watch for what Boeing
puts out in its contracts, and they undercut them. That is the
environment in which we have to live today. Boeing used to have
75 percent of the market; they are now down to 50 percent.
The one critical tool they have is Ex-Im funding, and the
proposed funding for Ex-Im actually threatens about $4 billion
in sales for Boeing. That is going to have a dramatic impact on
the U.S. economy and on Boeing's ability to survive in a very,
very competitive market with Airbus.
I am looking forward to your written response, but I think
the administration needs to understand that this is critical
not just to my home State but to the entire economy and to our
ability to keep our one U.S. manufacturer of commercial
aircraft able to compete in a very tough market out there right
now. I think the only people who are happy about the 25 percent
cut are people who live in France.
I know you talked about numbers, and it does not look as
bad, but I believe the request was $1.3 billion for Ex-Im
funding and a $650 billion actual number is just going to
really hurt us. I would love to have more time to discuss this
with you, but I want the administration to understand that this
is a very frightening number to many of us out there.
Senator Gregg. I should note, Mr. Secretary, that although
Ex-Im is obviously a big issue, is not under this committee's
jurisdiction; it is under the Foreign Operations Subcommittee.
Senator Murray. I am sorry--could you repeat that? I could
not hear you.
Senator Gregg. The Export-Import Bank does not fall under
this subcommittee's jurisdiction; it falls under the Foreign
Operations subcommittee. You are perfectly welcome to raise
it----
Senator Murray. I am well aware that the budget line falls
under another subcommittee, but I think that your input to the
administration is critical. So that is a battle that I will be
fighting, and I hope that you will have some discussions about
the critical nature because of your mission.

northwest straits commission

On another local topic question, one of my priorities since
I have arrived here is that the Northwest Straits Commission
was a response to a very tough battle, one that all of us have
in our States at the local level between environmental concerns
and local concerns that resulted in a huge impasse. And we, on
a bipartisan basis, with members of our House delegation, put
together a Northwest Straits Commission, which is a locally-
driven, grassroots initiative to protect marine resources in
Puget Sound and the Strait of Juan de Fuca. It has been highly
successful and is very popular. It is the one thing that both
Republican and Democrats say that we are really doing right. I
do not know if you are familiar with the project, but it has
been zeroed out in the budget, and I am hopeful that we can get
you familiar and get you on board as a supporter before we get
too far--I do not know if you have heard of it or not.
Secretary Evans. I have heard of it. I think it was funded
at $500,000 this last year, or the year that we are in right
now. I guess we were thinking that it really was not in the
budget a year ago, until it was placed in the budget by the
committee. It is a local and State effort. I know how helpful
it has been and how constructive it has been, but I think we
have taken the basic position that we were not really funding
earmarks in the budget.
Senator Murray. Well, as you know, salmon has been listed
as an endangered species, and these are small projects that
really have some tremendous impacts in restoring the salmon and
salmon habitats; they are local projects that are funded with
small amounts of money, and this is how we are going to fix the
salmon problem, so I hope we can get you back on board with us.
Secretary Evans. Thank you, Senator.

commerce-wide hiring freeze

Senator Murray. Another question on NMFS. I am concerned
that even with the infusion of funds into our Steller Sea Lion
Program, we cannot get the work done because there is a hiring
freeze in place, and everywhere I go in my region, people are
saying that there are not enough people in the Department to
get through the necessary paperwork and to process the forms. I
do not know if you can shed some light on that----
Secretary Evans. I do not know how much light I can shed on
it. I know that even though there is a hiring freeze, we are
hiring people daily. All they have to do is bring it up through
the system, and we are hiring. We have 40,000 people in the
Department; I know we have a lot of people--but what is it on
NMFS--we have 110 positions that have not been filled, but this
is out of 2,800 positions, so we have 2,800 positions there,
but 110 of them have not been filled.
Senator Murray. Well, does the hiring freeze apply to the
positions that are open but not filled?
Mr. Gudes. Senator, we had 20 positions in the Fisheries
Service for salmon habitat in the prior supplemental that the
Congress passed. We are looking at each position, and we really
want to focus on life safety-positions----
Senator Murray. You should just know that many of these
people are trying to get through difficult processes. What they
constantly run into is not enough people to work through a lot
of the paperwork. If you could take a look at this and help us
with it, I think it will ease a lot of the concerns,
particularly in our rural communities.
Secretary Evans. Sure, we will, yes.

technology opportunities program

Senator Murray. Great. I have one last, quick question, Mr.
Chairman, and it is on the Technology Opportunities Program,
which has had tremendous impacts, particularly in our rural
communities that do not have access to technology and are
desperately trying to catch up. Their economies are not able to
compete with our corridor, where most of the technology is in
place and growing rapidly, and their economies are hurting.
This program helps expand their infrastructure, which is
critical to being able to get their businesses competitive and
to bring some economic development to rural communities.
I know it has been cut by 67 percent, and if you could just
give me a justification for that, I would appreciate it.
Secretary Evans. I think it is just simply taking it back
down to the level where it was. We have been running it at
about $15 million a year, and this last year we are in, it was
increased to $45 million, and we took it back to where it was
before.
I think it is a matter of evaluating the program, being
comfortable with it. You have to make tough choices and set
priorities, and it was just one of those tough cuts that we
made, but I guess I have a hard time seeing a program triple in
a year, going from $15 million to $45 million; so we just took
it back down to the level where it was.
Senator Murray. I appreciate that, but I can tell you that
the reason it tripled was because the demand in our rural
communities is extremely high right now as their economies are
falling dramatically far behind our urban areas, because they
cannot compete, because they cannot get the infrastructure, and
those are the areas where it is hardest and most expensive to
bring it in. So these kinds of programs are really critical in
our rural communities.
Secretary Evans. Thank you, Senator. We will take that into
consideration and check that.
Senator Murray. Thank you.

export-import bank

Secretary Evans. I want to just respond on the Ex-Im Bank.
I know one thing that you will see is that when you change the
risk profile alone, you do not need as much to support a loan,
and I know that that is part of the cut. Just looking at the
risk-weighted portfolio of the Ex-Im Bank, when you lower the
risk of these loans, you do not need as much to support the
loan. So what looks like a 25 percent cut does not mean that
you are going to cut back the lending levels by that amount,
which is what the countries are interested in.
Anyway, that is just one of the points. I will get a more
specific explanation to you, and I think you will see again
that it does not mean reducing the number of actual loans by
that amount at all. The amount of loans that will be granted is
not that far below what is being granted in the year we are in.
But I will get you specifics.
Senator Murray. I would like to have your response, and
maybe we can have a conversation after that.
Secretary Evans. You bet.
Senator Gregg. A vote has started on the cloture motion.

spectrum

Mr. Secretary, maybe you could bring us up-to-speed--you
mentioned spectrum. What do you see happening vis-a-vis the
efforts to address the spectrum issue generally, and
specifically in relationship to defense needs and law
enforcement needs and commercialization needs?
Secretary Evans. Sure, sure. A good question. I met with
Secretary Powell yesterday--I am sorry--Chairman Powell at the
FCC and talked about getting with him, and I talked to
Secretary Rumsfeld about the issue as well. I think the three
of us need to sit down and map out our thoughts and a plan for
spectrum use.
Obviously, Defense has important needs. They have spectrum
that they currently use. Some of it relates to defense; some of
it relates to safety of life issues. Those are also critical
issues that we need to think about when we talk about
auctioning additional spectrum and making decisions as to
whether there is interference or not, or whether there is
interference that you can tolerate.
NTIA just completed a couple of studies that are out in the
public domain right now; we are receiving comments from
industry right now on those studies, which speak to the issues
of interference and what spectrum might be available.
The studies also laid out some potential options as to
maybe some Government spectrum that could be moved to another
location on the spectrum. But Defense has not agreed to move
any spectrum. The way to determine whether they can move or
will move or if it is practical to move is to sit down and talk
through the issues. That is why I have taken it upon myself,
anyway, to make sure that Chairman Powell and Secretary
Rumsfeld and myself are all very focused on this very important
issue, because it goes back in part to what Senator Murray said
about people who are falling behind. A good part of it is just
getting the equipment out there where we can get information
and technology into the rural communities.
Senator Gregg. Where do you see the demarcation occurring
that would allow 3G spectrum to be available for commercial
use? Do you think that the Department of Defense is going to be
receptive to the additional commercialization of spectrum along
the lines of what Europe has today?
Secretary Evans. I obviously cannot speak--am not going to
speak, will not speak--for the Defense Department, obviously,
but I would say to you that I have talked to Secretary Rumsfeld
about the issue, I have talked to Dr. Schlesinger about the
issue, so I think people know that this is something that needs
to be considered. The Commerce Department has a study out there
that says here is some spectrum that is currently used by
Government agencies, including DOD, and maybe there is another
spot over here where we can move that. It would cost ``x''
number of dollars--and they are estimating how much money it
would cost to move it; I believe one of the studies I saw said
it would cost $4 billion to move it.
So I am not in a position yet to tell you how receptive I
think DOD will be. I do not think they have all the facts yet,
and I do not think we really have all the facts yet. I just
know that what needs to happen is that we need to get the
principals at the table and talk through it so we can all
understand the importance of freeing up the spectrum to similar
levels that we are seeing in Europe, or what we are seeing in
Asia.
I take seriously that we are falling behind in the area of
3G wireless technology and allocation, so we are very focused
on it, but in terms of when we can get this done and how
receptive DOD will be, when I have a chance to sit down and
spend a little more time with Secretary Rumsfeld and Chairman
Powell, I will be able to get you a good answer, or a much
better answer than I am giving you right now, but I will get
back to you as soon as I do that.
Senator Gregg. It is good that you have focused on this,
first off; I think that is very positive news. I am a little
concerned that only the Defense Department was focused on it.
It is good to hear you publicly pointing out that you are
focused on it, and I hope the administration will develop a
systematic way of doing this rather than just going about it
casually. I think the community at large needs to know where we
are going to end up on spectrum in an orchestrated way so we
can make the investment decisions as a country.
Secretary Evans. I share that, I share that.

critical infrastructure assurance office

Senator Gregg. What about the critical infrastructure--you
mentioned the CIAO office. Where do you see this going? Is it
going to improve the other agencies that are involved? Are they
going to come under its umbrella, or are they going to function
separately?
Secretary Evans. Senator, my speculation would be that they
would come under the umbrella. My speculation is that we all
need to work closely together in an interagency kind of effort.
Having said that, I should be quick to say that it is
something that is under active review and discussion right now.
I looked at the organizational chart that is in place today,
and I cannot tell you that it made a lot of sense to me in
terms of how it is structured. But what did make sense to me is
the critical role that Commerce must play in this because of
where the private sector is in critical infrastructure
protection. I think they are out in front of us by a large
percentage. So we need them, and they are a part of it. I mean,
that is part of the infrastructure that we are concerned about,
protecting what they have.
So there is the issue of making sure that their
infrastructure is protected, which I think they are doing a
good job of, and then our own, the Government infrastructure
and agencies and what-have-you.
It is a large undertaking, and first and foremost, I think
it needs a clear organization and a clear plan as to how it is
going to function and how it is going to operate and who is
going to be responsible for it. Making sure that we have the
responsibility clearly understood for this very important task
is critical, and that is what is under way right now, and
exactly what role Commerce would wind up playing, I am not
sure, but it should be an important role. I think NIST has
already done a great job in this effort so far, but I think we
are a few weeks or a couple of months away before we are ready
to really propose something in terms of here is how we see it.
Senator Gregg. We will be interested in that.
As has been mentioned by a number of people on this
subcommittee, NOAA is something that we take a lot of pride in.
We have spent a lot of energy and time bringing it up to where
we think it is an extraordinary agency with very talented
people. The Administrator has done a superb job filling in
during this time--he used to work around here, didn't he?
Senator Hollings. Yes. We tried to get him to work, but I
think the Secretary is doing a better job.
Senator Gregg. So I just want to reinforce our interest in
this agency and the fact that we consider this to be a priority
for us.
Secretary Evans. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Gregg. Senator Hollings, do you have any further
questions?
Senator Hollings. Just two quick things for the Secretary.
On the compact, let your lawyer look at those marketing orders.
Forty years ago, I came down the gangway with a basket of fresh
peaches for Governor Pat Brown, and they ran me right back up
onto the plane because South Carolina peaches did not comply
with the marketing orders of California. Those things have been
upheld by the court, and they extend them into the compact, so
there is a legal question. At the beginning of the season one
year, I know our farmers rushed out and put some green peaches
as Carolina Number 1's on the New York market, and it just
ruined the market, and that is the genesis of the marketing
orders in California. Otherwise, do not rush to inspect them.
We have been using that as a ``honeypot'' to balance the
budget. We get to the end of the thing, and we say, oh, yes, we
can sell some spectrum and get ``x'' billions of dollars, and
there is no funding shortage--it is just a misallocation--and
everybody is trying to make money on it.
I can tell you right now that we have been giving it away.
Thank you, Mr. Secretary, for an outstanding presentation.
Secretary Evans. Thank you, Senator, very much.
I want to say one other thing if I can about Scott Gudes,
because you all have pointed out, and you have right to have
great pride in NOAA. It received the best rating of any
agency----
Mr. Gudes. All A's.
Secretary Evans [continuing]. All A's--above NASA, above
everybody.
Senator Gregg. This is the Weather Service?
Secretary Evans. Yes, the Weather Service--it is hard to
believe, I know.
Senator Hollings. Who wrote that--Gudes?

additional committee questions

Secretary Evans. Thank you all very much. We appreciate it.
Senator Gregg. Thank you.
[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 Judd Gregg
reports and spending plan
Question. Mr. Secretary, as you know, the Department's role in
reporting on its activities in a timely manner is critical to the work
of the Appropriations Subcommittees. The current rate of return on
reporting requirements is not acceptable. In addition, answers to
questions posed by subcommittee staff frequently take months before
they are cleared by the OMB and are so vague that they lack utility.
Can you provide a plan that will allow for improvement on the
timeliness of departmental reporting and a list of reports that you
feel are no longer necessary?
Answer. I too am troubled by the amount of time it takes for some
information to get through the process. I too am a stickler for
timeliness and the adherence to deadlines. It is my hope that weekly
budget meetings will be commenced once the Deputy Secretary is in
place. Reports and other information requested by the Congress will be
a regular agenda item at these meetings. I take this issue very
seriously and want the Commerce Department to provide timely responses.
At this time, there are no reporting requirements included in
recent Congressional Appropriations action that are no longer
necessary.
commerce administrative management system (cams)
Question. Mr. Secretary, have you reviewed the status of the
Commerce Administrative Management System (CAMS)? Are you satisfied
with the progress that has been made on this project? Do you have an
out-year budget for CAMS? What are you doing to assure that CAMS will
be delivered on time, within budget and to specifications? Your budget
request includes $48.1 million for CAMS in fiscal year 2002. Your
budget request also includes funding separate information technology
systems at the EDA, the MBDA, the BXA, and the ESA. Why are these
systems not tied into CAMS? Which other information technology systems
within the Department of Commerce are not tied to CAMS and what are
their functions?
Answer. Since the restructuring of the program in fiscal year 1998
and the successful pilot implementation of CAMS at the Census Bureau,
where they used the system to control and account for the $5 billion
plus 2000 Decennial Census and received an unqualified audit opinion on
their fiscal year 2000 books, the progress of the program has been
satisfactory and on schedule. The out-year budget projections, which
are part of the CAMS Capital Asset Plan, are as follows: fiscal year
2003: $40 million; fiscal year 2004: $31.3 million (full
implementation); fiscal year 2005: $30.2 million; fiscal year 2006:
$26.4 million; fiscal year 2007: $24.3 million.
My Deputy CFO chairs a CAMS Executive Board consisting of the CFOs
of the implementing bureaus (Census, NOAA, NIST and EDA) which meets
monthly and reviews progress, budget and requirements, and identifies
management and technical issues for resolution. In addition, the CAMS
Program Manager, who reports to the Deputy CFO, meets weekly with NIST,
and along with the Deputy CFO, biweekly with NOAA and biweekly with
Census to review the details of implementation planning and execution.
The Department has an Information Technology Investment Review
Board whose purpose is to: review the business case for any enterprise
system development initiative in the Department; determine if an
adequate capital asset plan is in place; evaluate the soundness of the
technical design and implementation strategy; review the acquisition
plan; and ensure that the appropriate ties to the financial system
(CAMS) have been considered and planned. In the case of Commerce
Standard Acquisition and Reporting System (STARS), the Department's new
acquisition management system, the Board reviewed and approved the
business case for CSTARS after they were presented with a plan for
integrating CSTARS with CAMS. In fact, the Office of Financial
Management and the Office of Acquisition Management have successfully
collaborated on the design of an interface between the two systems
which we will begin building about one year from now. Any other
enterprise system in the Department that generates data with a
financial impact is required to go through this same process with the
Investment Review Board.
The majority of the information technology systems in Commerce are
not directly linked to the financial system. These include
infrastructure and mission or program-specific systems that do not have
a financial component and therefore do not have to tie to CAMS. In
their fiscal year 2002 request, the EDA, the MBDA, and the BXA, as well
as several other bureaus, have submitted infrastructure improvement
projects, which have no tie to the financial systems. In support of its
program, the BXA has submitted a request for funding its export control
system. Other information technology system investments requested for
fiscal year 2002 provide support to the following programs:
--Census and Surveys
--Advanced Short Term Warning and Forecast Services
--Implement Seasonal to Interannual Climate Forecast
--Predict and Access to Decadal to Centennial Change
--Promote Safe Navigation
--Build Sustainable Fisheries and Recover Protected Species
--Sustain Healthy Coasts
--Enforce U.S. Trade Laws
--BEA Statistical Estimation
--Export Control
--Measurement and Standards Laboratories
--Advanced Technology Program
--Manufacturing Extension Partnership
--Radio Spectrum Assignments
--Digital Department
--Grant Processing and Management
--IT Infrastructure and Office Automation Support to all program
areas
critical infrastructure assurance office
Question. What criteria will be used in evaluating CIAO?
Answer. The Administration has continued the Critical
Infrastructure Assurance Office operations based on its evaluation that
the functions remain relevant and essential to overall national
critical infrastructure policy. CIAO's continued operations will be
assessed against the three functional requirements listed below and the
progress it makes in fulfilling these requirements.
The Critical Infrastructure Assurance Office (CIAO) was established
as an interagency organization at the Department of Commerce to perform
three basic functions:
--First, to promote national outreach and awareness initiatives.
These initiatives are designed to inform business leaders
across industry sectors of the need to manage the risks
associated with relying on information systems.
--Second, to coordinate analyses of the U.S. Government's own
dependencies on critical infrastructures. Last year, CIAO
launched an initiative--labeled ``Project Matrix''--to fulfill
this requirement. Under this program, CIAO assists Federal
agencies in identifying the assets, networks, and associated
infrastructure dependencies that are required to deliver
services vital to our national and economic security.
--Third, to coordinate the preparation of a national critical
infrastructure assurance plan. The Bush Administration intends
to publish its own national plan later this year.
The Administration has decided to go forward with funding for CIAO
in its fiscal year 2002 Budget, extending the Office's term of
operation through the next fiscal year.
Question. Who will be involved in CIAO's evaluation?
Answer. The future role for CIAO beyond fiscal year 2002 will be
decided as part of the Administration's overall policy review of
Federal critical infrastructure protection efforts. The Department of
Commerce is responsible for evaluating CIAO's activities.
Question. When will a report on the evaluation be available to the
Appropriations Committees?
Answer. The Administration's policy review is expected to conclude
within the next few months.
Question. How are the NIST, NOAA and Bureau of the Census critical
infrastructure programs tied into CIAO?
Answer. None of the critical infrastructure protection programs of
NIST, NOAA, or the Bureau of the Census is ``tied'' into CIAO in any
operational sense. CIAO is responsible for coordinating certain
critical infrastructure policy initiatives and integrating them into a
national critical infrastructure protection plan. NIST's work in
research and development, and in establishing best practices and
standards for unclassified computer systems, is clearly an important
part of any national plan and, to that extent, NIST and CIAO work
closely together. In addition, CIAO continues to work with Department
of Commerce organizations in identifying critical assets and
infrastructure dependencies under Project Matrix.
Question. Can these programs continue to exist without CIAO?
Answer. Yes. The programs of other Department of Commerce
organizations are discrete in nature and their existence does not
depend on the operations of CIAO.
Question. If CIAO were to be eliminated, how would this effect
critical infrastructure programs in other Departments?
Answer. If CIAO were eliminated, the Federal government's ability
to coordinate its critical infrastructure planning--especially with
regard to the private sector--would be diminished as a result of a loss
of coordinated efforts to promote outreach and awareness. In addition,
CIAO's periodic support of Federal departments and agencies would be
diminished as well. This would also be detrimental to the Federal
government's overall ability to maintain effective partnerships at the
national level. For now, the functions CIAO performs remain relevant
and important to critical infrastructure protection policy. No other
Federal government organization has been assigned responsibility to
perform these functions, except CIAO.
advanced technology program (atp)
Question. Mr. Secretary, your budget request assumes congressional
approval of a reprogramming request. If this reprogramming were to be
denied, what would be your plan for funding new ATP awards? If the
reprogramming were to be denied, will you continue to re-evaluate the
ATP?
Answer. The Department is currently evaluating ATP to determine
whether a need still exists for Federal funding to assist U.S. industry
in conducting long term applied research and development. Therefore, I
would like an opportunity to give the program thorough consideration
and review to determine if any restructuring of the program is
warranted prior to funding any new ATP awards. I believe that the
Federal government has a role in long term basic research, but I have
concerns that ATP, while well-managed, goes beyond this and has funded
projects more appropriate for investment by the private sector.
patent and trademark office (pto)
Question. Mr. Secretary, assuming there were no budget restraints,
what would be your top five priorities to improve efficiency of
operations at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office? Please rank these
needs.
Answer. The core mission of the USPTO is to deliver high quality
intellectual property products and services in a timely manner. The top
priorities in achieving that mission are:
--Recruiting and retaining highly skilled Patent Examiners. It is
critical for the USPTO to recruit a highly qualified workforce
and to retain experienced patent professionals who are the most
productive Patent Examiners if the agency is to achieve its
quality and timeliness goals.
--Developing paperless patent and trademark application processes.
This will reduce the inefficiencies and costs in handling large
volumes of paper that are processed at the USPTO.
--Producing quality products and services. By producing quality
products the first time and reducing errors, the USPTO will
achieve the highest level of efficiency and citizen
satisfaction. This will be accomplished by enhancing formal and
on-the-job training, improving examiner search tools, and sound
management principles.
--Outsourcing certain activities. This will allow Patent Examiners to
concentrate their time on the critical technical and legal
aspect of their job and thereby increase efficiency and
effectiveness.
--Improving and expanding the e-government services provided by the
USPTO to become more citizen-centered and accessible.
Question. With the understanding that one of your priorities is to
move rapidly toward a paperless patent application process, please
submit a written plan on deliverables that would allow for this to
become a reality.
Answer. USPTO plans for paperless patent application processing are
contingent upon receiving applications in the proper electronic format
from our customers. The deliverable components that make up a paperless
patent application process include:
--Electronic Filing System.--This system was made available to the
public in the fall of 2000, which formats patent application
data for further automated processing and utilizes public-key
infrastructure to provide for secure communications from
applicant over the Internet.
--Management Information System.--This will provide the monitoring
and workflow of electronics documents, including the original
application file and both incoming and outgoing correspondence
that make up the patent application and will provide for the
creation of management information reports.
--Document Management System.--This will provide the necessary
storage and handling of all components of an application, and
ensure that the electronic records are properly managed to meet
the legal admissibility standards.
--Electronic Publication System.--This will provide the ability to
deliver the appropriate version of the electronic application
for publication.
The USPTO has been and will continue to be aggressive in its
deployment of information technology and e-government as resources
permit. USPTO plans to work closely with its customers in the roll-out
of paperless patent application processing.
Question. The fiscal year 2002 Corporate Plan for the PTO contains
a number of performance measures for the PTO for fiscal year 2002
through fiscal year 2006. That document states, ``It is important to
note that the performance measures identified for fiscal year 2003 to
fiscal year 2006 assume that the USPTO will receive full access to its
fees.'' Even with that assumption, the PTO projects that patent
pendency will rise from an average of 26.2 months this fiscal year to
38.6 months by fiscal year 2006. That analysis clearly indicates that
the Secretary of Commerce and the Committee need to take a serious look
at PTO operations and evaluate from the ground up what they need to do
their job better. How can PTO make that assumption? What would happen
if the Administration and Congress continued to withhold approximately
15 percent of PTO fee collections consistent with the President's
fiscal year 2002 Budget request? What can be done to address that issue
without sacrificing quality?
Answer. The USPTO has experienced an annual growth in patent
application filings of more than 12 percent in recent years. We need to
address this issue by first identifying the core goals of the USPTO;
implementing management strategies to reach our goals; and determining
the level of funding needed to meet these goals. We will be evaluating
the operations of the USPTO to ensure that proper priorities are being
set and efficient systems are in place and submitting budgets that will
reflect these priorities.
us&fcs staffing
Question. Mr. Secretary, how does the Department determine when and
where U.S. and Foreign Commercial Service Centers are opened and
closed? How much is being requested for the U.S. Foreign Commercial
Service Export Assistance Centers? Please provide, in writing, a U.S.
and Foreign Commercial Service Assistance Center expansion or
consolidation plan that outlines both when and where openings and
closures will occur both in this country and abroad.
Answer. The fiscal year 2001 budget for Domestic Operations is
$35.1 million. Of that amount, $32.3 million is budgeted for USEAC
operations in the field. The fiscal year 2002 budget request for
Domestic Operations is $34.3 million.
Based on the President's budget request for fiscal year 2002, the
US&FCS has no plans for expansion. With the recent confirmation of the
Under Secretary for International Trade and the pending confirmation of
the Assistant Secretary/Director General for the US&FCS, we are
undertaking a full audit of all our domestic and overseas staffing and
locations over the next 60 days. We anticipate that the new Assistant
Secretary, when confirmed, will consider all options--including gapping
positions, as well as consolidating, closing, and relocating offices
domestically and posts overseas. We would be pleased to provide you
with the results of that audit as soon as it is completed.
In undertaking the audit, we will utilize performance measures,
look at mission effectiveness, and redistribute resources accordingly--
all in order to position our resources where they will produce the
biggest impact for U.S. exports. We are outlining briefly below the
factors that will guide the audit in both the overseas and domestic
fields. Again, we would be glad to provide further detail on the
methodology.
We audit overseas staffing and locations in six major ways:
--We identify the most promising markets overseas using five-year
historic data and five-year projections relating to market size
and market structure which we received from economic
forecasting firm DRI (now DRI-WEFA).
--We then identify where Foreign Service Officers are likely to have
the greatest impact overseas based on management, operational
and mission factors that cannot be as effectively discharged by
local staff.
--Next, we apply a cost-benefit analysis to identify where we have
been getting the most bang-for-our buck.
--Always, we consider several other important and often overriding
factors that we did not attempt to quantify, such as
Administration and legislative priorities, strength of trade
promotion infrastructure, quality of local work force or
geographic dispersion.
--Once these quantitative tools have placed all countries on the same
starting point, the regional offices apply in-house country and
area expertise to make the hard calls on where to open or close
offices and determine budget allocations.
--Within country, we rely on the post to determine an optimal
staffing level and mix for each country given its resources.
We audit domestic operations in four major ways:
--We look for large concentrations of small and medium sized
businesses that are looking to export to new markets.
--We consider what other resources these businesses have available to
them.
--We work with other Federal agencies, state and local export
promotion groups, and other organizations such as Chambers of
Commerce and universities, to plan where our counseling
services could create the greatest benefit.
--We consider the cost-effectiveness of all staffing options,
utilizing a cost-benefit model that lets us compare
productivity across offices in various locales.
With the process currently underway, we expect to have a full plan
for you within 60 days.
technology program
Question. Mr. Secretary, your budget request for the Office of
Technology Policy is $8.2 million. How is this amount broken out
between the various Office of Technology Policy responsibilities?
Answer. The budget requests $8.2 million for the Under Secretary/
Office of Technology Policy. This includes $1.832 million for the
executive management function of the Under Secretary's office; $1.5
million for GSA rent and Hoover Building related costs; $608,000 for
the Office of Space Commercialization; $598,000 for EPSCoT; $400,000
for the Partnership for a New Generation Vehicle Secretariat and $3.3
million for the Office of Technology Policy program and policy
functions.
Question. Do you have plans to evaluate the relative value of the
Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles?
Answer. Yes. Every year the National Academies of Science and
Engineering conduct such an evaluation. Their report for the year 2000
is currently being developed, and we expect its release in July 2001.
This annual evaluation, conducted by the Transportation Research
Board's Standing Committee to Review the Research Program of the
Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles, is performed by a group
of industry and academic automotive experts. Approximately half of
these experts are members of the National Academy of Engineering.
Question. Could economies of scale be realized if the Office of
Technology Policy was eliminated and its programs were moved to
separate Bureaus such as the National Institute of Standards and
Technology?
Answer. The missions of the Office of Technology Policy (OTP) and
the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) are very
different. NIST is, fundamentally, a scientific and research laboratory
staffed with scientists, engineers, and other technical personnel who
specialize in various scientific and engineering disciplines. In
contrast, OTP is a policy analysis and development organization. It
analyzes the range of factors that affect technological innovation, and
advocates policies that could increase the contribution of technology
to U.S. economic growth and competitiveness. This policy work is
required in the Stevenson-Wydler Technology and Innovation Act of 1980.
It is unclear what gains, if any, would materialize by eliminating OTP
as other Federal agencies tend to only address a narrow set of
technology policies related to their specific missions.
noaa--nmfs cooperative research
Question. Mr. Secretary, I've noticed that your budget request for
the National Marine Fisheries Service includes an increase for
cooperative research. This idea shows great promise for the future of
fisheries management, but only if your fisheries scientists and
managers are equipped and willing to use the data that is being
collected. Can you demonstrate that they are willing and equipped to do
so?
Answer. Our fiscal year 2002 request includes $3.5 million for NMFS
Cooperative Research Implementation. These funds cover the NMFS costs
associated with cooperative research in the Northeast, including
specific research design, field scientific staff, data assimilation and
analysis, program administration, and application of the research
results to Council management issues. The NMFS Cooperative Research
Implementation funds complement our $16 million Cooperative research
request to utilize the expertise and insights of fishers in research
including resource survey design and interpretation. This two-part
request provides both the resources for NMFS and the industry to ensure
future cooperative research programs are successful and provide needed
data.
noaa--nmfs lawsuits
Question. Mr. Secretary, there are 110 lawsuits pending that name
the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) as the defendant. Twenty-
five of these lawsuits are related to the National Environmental Policy
Act. As you know, NMFS' untimely action in the Ninth Circuit Court last
year resulted in a temporary shutdown of one of our nation's biggest
fisheries. A NEPA-related lawsuit could threaten the lobster fishery in
New England. How do you intend to approach the backlog of litigation?
What is your plan to avoid this kind of backlog in the future? How are
you planning to reduce the agency's risk to litigation? What steps are
you taking to ensure that the entire staff of the agency is not pulled
into litigation, and away from the science and regulations that they
are required to implement? Many of the lawsuits involve a debate about
the science. How is NMFS evolving to ensure that it makes decisions
based upon the most up-to-date and sound science?
Answer. NMFS is involved in approximately 106 lawsuits, but it is
not the defendant in all of them. NMFS may be a plaintiff; it may not
be a named party at all, but are following the lawsuit because our
interests are implicated.
We are certainly concerned about our litigation load, as it has
approximately doubled in the last five or six years. Some of this
increase is inevitable. The more species or populations an agency lists
under the Endangered Species Act, the more litigation will ensue.
Another example is the Sustainable Fisheries Act, which in 1996
increased NMFS' responsibilities to rebuild overfished fisheries,
minimize bycatch, and protect essential fish habitat. Those who believe
we have gone too far in conserving fish stocks and habitat have sued
us, and so have those who think we have not done enough. Other lawsuits
may be avoided in the future if NMFS can improve its compliance with
procedural statutes such as the National Environmental Policy Act and
the Regulatory Flexibility Act. We have new guidelines for complying
with the Regulatory Flexibility Act, and recently received an honorable
mention from the Small Business Administration for our improved
performance under that statute.
Most, if not all, of the funding increases requested for NMFS in
the fiscal year 2002 President's Budget will help meet the agency's
legal requirements and thereby reduce the number of new lawsuits. The
increased resources will fund additional stock assessment information,
improved economic and social data, and research. This will aid NMFS in
meeting its mandates and withstand court challenges.
We have a task force working now, with assistance from a
contractor, to identify ways to better manage our decision making
process by incorporating all these procedural requirements more
efficiently. We expect to make improvements that will result in better
decision making and the elimination of our lawsuit backlog and other
litigation problems.
Question. You have requested $8 million for NEPA in fiscal year
2002. How do you intend to spend these funds?
Answer. Our fiscal year 2002 budget request continues the $8
million appropriated in fiscal year 2001 to address NEPA related needs.
This critically needed funding will be utilized in the short-term to
fund immediately NEPA projects of highest national significance and
litigable risk. In the long-term, the funding will be used to build on
the task force recommendations and institute a management process that
improves the decision making and integration of the agency's growing
statutory, regulatory, and legal requirements. Additionally, the fiscal
year 2002 budget request includes proposed funding of $13.3 million for
additional stock assessments, and $1.4 million for more socio-economic
analysis. Support for these requests would provide better data for the
management arena as well.
noaa--fisheries research vessels
Question. Mr. Secretary, I am concerned that as NOAA's fisheries
research vessels are pushed into proposed future budget requests that
the cost per vessel will increase. As you know, the NOAA fleet is aging
and many of the NOAA vessels must be replaced. Why wasn't the second
fisheries vessel included in the budget request?
Answer. Mr. Chairman, the Administration has decided to defer
funding for the second vessel to fiscal year 2003 to capture
efficiencies and economies obtained through the design of the first
vessel. However, this program remains a high priority for NOAA and
NMFS.
Question. Will you support its funding if we find resources for it?
Answer. The Fisheries Research Vessel construction contract
includes options to support NOAA's requirement to build three
additional vessels. NOAA is committed to meeting this requirement.
Question. Can you assure me that next year we see the third vessel
in the budget request?
Answer. NOAA is currently working with the Administration to secure
funding in future years for these additional vessels.
stimulating u.s. markets to ensure growth
Question. Secretary Evans, as you know the United States is the
largest, most dynamic, and, most influential market in the world. We
have experienced significant growth and innovation, resulting in
increased wealth for much of the country. The U.S.'s influence on
global markets is undeniable and dramatic. Yet, along with the
designation of ``worlds' largest economy'' comes certain
responsibilities. Some have even called the United States ``the market
of last resort,'' meaning that we must import goods and services in
order to maintain some measure of economic order. Currently, our growth
is slowing. People are not buying like they did a few years ago. Stock
market analysts talk about ``a market rebound'' rather than ``historic
trading levels.'' Mr. Secretary, recognizing the U.S.'s role in the
world, and our slowing economy, what is your plan to stimulate our
markets to ensure continued growth?
Answer. The Administration is pursuing monetary, fiscal and trade
policies that foster and improve a favorable climate for growth. In
this regard, the tax legislation is critical. The near term stimulus of
the tax bill is important. Since businesses look to the future, so too
are those features of the Administration's strategy that encourage
education, saving, risk taking and adopting a longer term perspective
in investment in people and by people.
Just as U.S. markets represent important opportunities for foreign
producers, U.S. economic strength depends in part on expanding access
to foreign markets for U.S. producers. In recent years, the U.S.
economy has enjoyed major productivity gains, high employment and low
inflation stemming largely from the spread of IT investments. But these
improvements only create the potential for commercial successes abroad
if we have more open access to foreign markets. To realize our
potential, we must continue to work for a more liberal international
trading system.
Open markets at home and abroad are good for Americans and good for
the global economy. Open U.S. markets provide lower prices and more
choice to our consumers, which makes incomes of all consumers go
further. In essence, open trade, much like a tax cut, increases
people's discretionary income. This is particularly so in a competitive
economy such as ours where the benefits of open trade quickly find
their way to consumers in the form of greater choice and lower prices.
Internationally, open trade has contributed far more to post World
War II economic expansion where countries have pursued liberal trade
policies than where countries that have chosen more closed trade
regimes, often marked by quotas, high duties and administrative
restraints to the flow of goods and services.
______

Question Submitted by Senator Pete V. Domenici
promoting commerce in southwest region
Question. Earlier, I referenced that our recently booming economy
generated significant wealth for much of America. However, rural areas
have not realized many of these gains from trade. New Mexico is a rural
state. Even more to the point, my state's border region with Mexico is
disproportionately poor. The median household income in the border area
is $14,000 compared to $16,346 for the rest of the state. We should not
point to the wealth of the majority while ignoring the relative poverty
of the minority. Please explain your strategy to promote commerce in
traditionally forgotten regions, like the southwest border region.
Answer. The Economic Development Administration's (EDA) mission is
to generate jobs, help retain existing jobs and stimulate industrial,
technological and commercial growth in economically distressed areas of
the United States. EDA targets its assistance to distressed
communities, such as those found in the Southwest Border Region,
helping them in developing and implementing their own economic
development and revitalization strategies. EDA provides planning
assistance on an ongoing basis to seven Economic Development Districts
(EDDs) in New Mexico that encompasses the entire state. The state's
border region is covered by three EDA funded EDDs: Southwest NM Council
of Governments, in Silver City; South Central NM Council of
Governments, in Truth or Consequences; and Southeastern NM Economic
Development District, in Roswell. EDA also funds two University Centers
which are located in the border area. One is at the New Mexico State
University in Las Cruces and the other is at Eastern NM University in
Roswell.
EDA also plays an active role in support of the Interagency Task
Force on the Economic Development of the Southwest Border initiative.
EDA's Austin Regional Office volunteered to assume the lead for the
selected pilot community of Demming, New Mexico. EDA's function, in
addition to providing technical assistance and direct program support,
is to assist in coordinating other available Federal resources to
implement the community's comprehensive economic development strategy.
Also under study is a preliminary proposal for Wiring of the Border
being developed and co-sponsored by the U.S. Mexico Chamber of
Commerce.
______

Questions Submitted by Senator Barbara A. Mikulski
accessing eda funds to low-income communities
Question. Last year, we appropriated $286 million to just the
public works program, which supports local government efforts to
attract new industry, encourage business expansion, diversify local
economies, generate long-term private jobs. Despite its success in
these efforts, EDA has been targeted in your budget for drastic
reductions. What activities is the Commerce Department prepared to
undertake to otherwise assist low-income communities who will no longer
have access to economic development funds from EDA?
Answer. Economically distressed communities will still have access
to all of EDA's various program tools, which include grants for
Planning, Technical Assistance, Economic Adjustment, and Public Works
and Economic Development Facilities.
While the $250 million requested in fiscal year 2002 for EDA's
Public Works and Economic Development Facilities Program is
approximately $36 million below the amount appropriated for fiscal year
2001, we believe the amount requested will be sufficient to enable EDA
to respond to the needs of the highly distressed communities of the
Nation.
EDA, which has a good track record of targeting its Public Works
Program resources to areas of high distress, will continue to reach out
to economically distressed places, both rural and urban, that have
demonstrated a pressing need to upgrade their basic infrastructure or
construct new cutting-edge technological facilities that are required
to support the economic development of local economies and to enhance
the global competitiveness of distressed communities.
digital divide
Question. The Commerce Department did an excellent job over the
past three years demonstrating that a digital divide exists in America.
The Department put out a series of reports entitled ``Falling Through
the Net'' that indicated the digital divide is still widening. For
example, the report showed that 46 percent of white households own
computers versus only 25 percent of Hispanic households. What do you
see as the Department's role in ensuring that no American is left out
or left behind in the new techno-economy? What funding priorities in
your budget achieve this goal?
Answer. A long-standing priority of the U.S. government has been
universal access to basic and advanced telecommunications services at
affordable prices. Access to the tools of the new digital economy by
all Americans is the key to the economic growth and competitiveness of
this country. Yet many Americans still do not have affordable access to
telephones, computers, or the Internet.
The Department of Commerce will continue to play a role in
promoting affordable access by promoting pro-competition policies.
These policies encourage competition and growth in telecommunications
services, which lead to new services being offered to more people at
lower prices. Moreover, the Department's grant programs help provide
access to new technologies. The President's budget requests $15.5
million for the Technologies Opportunities Program (TOP), administered
by the National Telecommunications and Information Administration. This
program provides matching federal grants to finance demonstration
projects that focus on connections to rural and inner-city areas. The
program emphasizes the application of new technologies, including
broadband. In addition, the grant and loan programs administered by the
Economic Development Administration are helping to support broadband
infrastructure deployment to distressed communities.
The Department is currently reviewing the ``Falling Through the
Net'' report to determine how to proceed in order to best assess the
relative growth of the Internet and computer access across the country.
suitland facilities
Question. The current condition of the Census and NOAA facilities
at the Suitland Federal Center in Maryland pose serious health and
safety risks for thousands of federal employees: they are riddled with
asbestos, there are high levels of lead in the water such that
employees have to use bottled water for drinking and don't know if it's
safe for them to wash their hands. In addition, these buildings are
over 60 years old and have received little maintenance over the past
several years--roof leaks and floods from broken pipes are not an
uncommon occurrence, and ceiling tiles, possibly contaminated with
asbestos, fall down on employees desks. As you know, the Census Bureau
employees more than 4,000 employees at the Suitland facilities and is
the sixth largest employer in Prince Georges County. The Bureau is
extremely disadvantaged by having to carry out its work in substandard,
unhealthy conditions.
Similarly, NOAA's National Environment Satellite, Data, and
Information Service (NESDIS) and its Satellite Operations Control
Center, cannot complete their mission within these buildings. In fiscal
year 2000, there was $3 million for NOAA to plan and design a new
facility and report language to direct Census to come up with a long-
range plan for its facilities. Last year, NOAA received $15 million in
advanced appropriations for the initial rehabilitation. The General
Services Administration budget for fiscal year 2002 includes $34
million to rehabilitate Census facilities, and the NOAA budget contains
$15 million to finish the renovations. Do you agree that the current
condition of the Census and NOAA facilities at the Suitland Center
endanger the health and safety of the federal employees who work there?
Answer. While the current condition of the Census and NOAA
facilities at the Suitland Federal Center does not endanger the health
and safety of the federal employees who work there due to the special
measures and monitoring put in place, we agree that the current
facilities are not sustainable. The aging, 60 year old buildings are in
substantial need of repair. Our concerns are based upon continual
problems that threaten the day-to-day operations, as well as the health
and safety of the employees and other individuals who must visit or
work in these aging, deteriorating facilities. The following is a list
of the major issues that must be addressed:
--aging, unreliable, uncontrolled heating and air conditioning (HVAC)
systems, which rely upon a central plant supplying chilled
water for air conditioning and several boilers in multiple
buildings supplying hot water for heat, make the systems
unresponsive to swing-season conditions
--frequent leaks from the HVAC units which result in carpet damage
that contributes to mold and mildew growth and poor indoor air
quality
--frequent roof and wall leaks that have resulted in damage to
ceiling tiles, furniture, and equipment
--aging, corroded plumbing that is prone to leaks, blockages, serious
pipe breaks, and office flooding
--aging power equipment and the lack of a managed electrical system
that require extensive wiring searches and major rerouting of
wiring to make electrical repairs
--aging, unreliable elevators that are frequently inoperable
--elevated levels of lead, iron, and copper in the water supply that
is designated as unfit for human consumption, making bottled
water a necessity at the facility
--no outside fresh air circulatory systems, which encourages the
growth of molds and other microbes that cause poor indoor air
quality
--existence of asbestos contamination in the air-handling units, pipe
wraps, floor tiles, and above the drop-ceiling tiles
--pigeon, rodent, and other pest infestation.
Question. Will you keep the replacement or rehabilitation of these
buildings as a top priority for the Department of Commerce?
Answer. Yes. Safe working conditions and modern facilities to house
employees are top priorities of the Department of Commerce. The
Department is working with GSA to formulate long-term housing solutions
for both Census and NOAA at the Suitland Federal Center (SFC).
GSA has proposed a two-phase solution for the Census Bureau. Phase
I involves the construction of a new building equal in size to Federal
Building 3 (FB-3). The new building would be occupied in fiscal year
2006 by employees now located in FB-3.
Once the existing building is vacated, Phase II would involve the
renovation of FB-3 with occupancy scheduled for remaining Census
employees in fiscal year 2010. As Phase I nears completion, GSA and the
Department will revisit the plan for Phase II to ensure that the most
appropriate and cost effective solution will be undertaken.
For NOAA, the replacement of FB-4 has been identified as a national
priority by both GSA and the Department of Commerce. The design
contract for the new NOAA Satellite Operations Facility at the Suitland
Federal Center was awarded in January 2001 and is underway. The
President's fiscal year 2002 budget request includes $34 million for
GSA for the construction of the ``base building'' scheduled to begin in
October 2001.
In fiscal year 2001, NOAA was appropriated $15 million for its
above standard construction costs necessary to meet its high technology
operational requirements. Included in the President's fiscal year 2002
budget request is $5.7 million for costs related to the occupancy of
the building and to sustain the 24-hour, 7 day a week critical
satellite operations during the relocation into the new facility.
This project is scheduled for completion in early fiscal year 2004
and will continue to be a top priority of NOAA and the Department.

subcommittee recess

Senator Gregg. If there is nothing further, the
subcommittee will stand in recess.
[Whereupon, at 11:10 a.m., Tuesday, May 1, 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 2002

----------

THURSDAY, MAY 3, 2001

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

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

Secretary of State

STATEMENT OF HON. COLIN L. POWELL, SECRETARY
Senator Gregg. I call the Subcommittee on Commerce,
Justice, State, and Judiciary of the Appropriations Committee
to order.
We are certainly privileged today and appreciate the
Secretary of State coming by to give us his thoughts on the
budget and any other issues that he wishes to address or that
members wish to raise.
I will forego an opening statement so we can hear from the
Secretary. I do not know if my colleague----
Senator Hollings. Good. I will follow your leadership.
Senator Gregg. Then, we will pass on opening statements,
and we would like to hear your thoughts, Mr. Secretary--excuse
me, Senator Leahy. Did you wish to say something? I understand
Senator Leahy has to leave.
Senator Leahy. Mr. Chairman, I have to go to the Judiciary
Committee; we have a little matter up there this morning. If I
could have permission to submit questions for the record and my
statement.
Senator Gregg. Yes, absolutely.
Senator Leahy. And I am, like all of us, delighted to see
the Secretary here.
Secretary Powell. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Gregg. Thank you for coming by.
[The statements follow:]

Prepared Statement of Senator Patrick J. Leahy

Mr. Secretary, it is good to see you. I think your
appointment was one of the President's best and most important
decisions so far, both for our country and for the State
Department.
This has already been shown by the effective way the
Administration handled the crisis with China over our
reconnaissance aircraft, the public statements you have made
for a more aggressive response to HIV/AIDS, and your work on
other issues.
You are scheduled to testify before the Foreign Operations
Subcommittee the week after next, so I do not want to take a
lot of time today. There are a couple of issues I want to
mention.
First, thank you for continuing the position of Special
Representative for Global Humanitarian Demining. Ambassador Don
Steinberg has done an outstanding job, and it is important that
we continue to make progress on the landmine problem.
I hope you and I can find a time soon to discuss this
further.
Second, I want you to know that I believe the budget for
the Bureau for Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor is
inadequate.
This office has some of the most hard working, committed,
and under-appreciated professionals in the State Department.
They are responsible for ensuring that the most fundamental
principles on which our country was founded are reflected in
our foreign policy.
Yet they have few funds to independently investigate
reports of serious human rights violations.
Too often, their views have been ignored or ridiculed as
naive. They are told that human rights are important, but there
are higher priorities.
Last year, thanks to this Subcommittee, the Congress
increased the budget for the DRL Bureau to $12 million. The
Administration requested the same amount for 2002.
I believe they need more, and I hope we can do better.
Finally, I want to mention U.N. arrears. We were all
pleased that Ambassador Holbrooke was able to achieve an
agreement on a reduction in the U.S. share of U.N. dues last
December, and that the Senate passed legislation to implement
the deal. I hope the House acts on this soon.
But if we do not repeal the 25 percent funding cap, we will
continue to accumulate arrears and be right back where we
started. I urge you to work with Congress to move on this as
soon as possible.
Mr. Secretary, there are other priorities like funding for
AIDS, the immense needs in Africa, and other foreign assistance
programs that we will discuss at the hearing on May 15.
I think we all feel that the State Department is in very
good hands, and I look forward to working with you this year
and in the future, particularly on the international affairs
budget.
If I can be so presumptuous as to give you one piece of
advice:
You can have the best foreign policies in the world but if
you don't have the funds to implement them, they are not worth
much.
Too many of your predecessors seemed to forget that after
their first year in office, and they learned the hard way how
big a mistake that was.
Mr. Chairman, I have a couple of questions I will submit
for the record.
------

Prepared Statement of Senator Barbara A. Mikulski

Mr. Secretary, let me join in welcoming you to this
subcommittee for the first time. Your talents and experience
are well known to us all. I am proud to carry on a tradition of
bipartisanship in foreign affairs in this subcommittee and in
the Senate, though there have been tragic exceptions like the
Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty vote last year.
I look forward to working closely with you to ensure
American leadership is headed in the right direction and to
ensure we devote the necessary resources to protect America's
interests and reflect America's values.
I commend you for working to reinvigorate the State
Department. Our Foreign Service Officers and civil servants
serve our nation and endure hardships and risk their lives.
They deserve secure, modern embassies not collapsing relics or
trailers; 21st Century information technology not 19th Century
cables; benefits they have earned not home leave they routinely
forgo to reduce staffing gaps; and a career path that rewards
performance not an uncertain future due to poor planning.
America's foreign policy professionals deserve our respect
and support. I stand ready to support increased funding for the
State Department. We're counting on you to make sure our
resources are used well.
We must ensure that our foreign policy is one which
deserves broad support from the American people not the agenda
of a small minority who insist on the global ``gag rule'' which
makes international family planning efforts less effective; not
the interests of a few corporations who want to resume trade
ties with terrorist states like Libya and Iran; and not an
isolationist approach, leaving Europe to the Europeans or
looking away from the AIDS crisis in Africa.
We should seize the opportunity to build a new relationship
with the United Nations. The United Nations continues
management and other reforms. Ambassador Holbrooke achieved
reductions in our assessment rates last December. Now we must
pay our dues and arrears responsibly. We must remain fully
engaged in diplomacy to prevent or address conflicts in the
Middle East, standing by our ally Israel at a difficult time;
in the Balkans, ensuring our interventions achieved lasting
peace with justice and with respect for the rights of all; in
Cyprus, which has been divided for decades; in Africa, where
ethnic conflicts, health crises, and slavery continue; and in
Latin America, where we have the opportunity to work with
democratically-elected governments in almost every country.
Mr. Secretary, we are looking to you to provide leadership
for America's diplomats and for American diplomacy. Thank you
for testifying today and I look forward to raising a few
questions.

Senator Gregg. Mr. Secretary, please proceed.
Secretary Powell. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and
good morning. It is a great pleasure to appear before the
subcommittee, and I am tempted to take the same opportunity
that you did to pass on an opening statement, but I do not
think I can get away with that.
Senator Gregg. Whatever you desire.
Secretary Powell. So what I would like to do is submit a
formal statement for the record with your permission, Mr.
Chairman, and then make some opening remarks and go right to
the questions that might be on your mind.
Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee, I am pleased to
appear before you for the first time as Secretary of State and
to testify in support of the President's State Department
budget for fiscal year 2002.
The budget, I am pleased to say, represents a significant
increase in the Department's resources for the upcoming fiscal
year, and we are very happy with that. It is a very good start
in helping to get the Department ready for the 21st century.
But it really is just the first fiscal step in our efforts to
align both the organization for and the conduct of America's
foreign relations with the dictates and demands of the modern
world.
As Secretary of State, Mr. Chairman, I really wear two
hats. By law, I am the principal foreign policy advisor to the
President of the United States, but I am also the leader, the
manager, the CEO of the Department of State, and I take that
role and that charge very, very seriously.
To be successful in both roles, I think I have to make sure
that the Department is properly organized, equipped, and manned
to conduct America's foreign policy as well as formulate good
foreign policy in the name of the President and the American
people.
This morning, wearing my CEO hat, I want to highlight what
this budget contains with respect to the President's three
highest priorities for the operation of the State Department--
first, hiring new people, the lifeblood of any organization;
second, Embassy construction and security, an issue which I
know is very much on the minds of members of this committee;
and third, information technology.
I put people first because they should always be first; it
is what makes the organization run. People get work done--not
buildings, not staffs in a generic sense, and not plans--but
people, and people will always be my first priority.
There is no disputing that America needs to have the right
people on the front lines of diplomacy. But we also need to
have enough people. So the budget has $134.5 million for a
major investment to recruit, hire, and train sufficient new
people to create a training float. As well as staff for needed
openings, so that we can begin to do something about the
serious shortages we are experiencing in Foreign Service
Officers in the field.
In addition, we are seeking $488 million to continue and
enhance our worldwide security readiness program. This
enhancement includes hiring more security personnel, and we
have $17 million within the $488 million to do just that.
Our important multiyear program for Embassy construction,
refurbishment, security, and maintenance will continue apace if
this budget is approved--$1.3 billion supports this effort for
2002, including $665 million for construction of new secure
facilities.
In addition to continuing this ambitious program set in
place by my predecessors and the Congress last year, we are
using new and more efficient ways to execute this program. For
example, as we have notified the Congress, I intend to move the
Foreign Buildings Office out from under the Bureau of
Administration and put it directly beneath the Under Secretary
of State for Management, Mr. Grant Green, a distinguished
leader and management expert, and by the way, a close friend of
mine for 20 years, who knows how to run things.
Moreover, to run the Foreign Buildings Office, I have hired
another experienced executive, retired Major General Charles
Williams, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Chuck Williams is well-
known throughout the congressional community, the military
community, and especially the construction community, both
military and civilian. He is well-known for his ability to get
construction projects completed on time, under cost, and in the
most efficient way possible. He built the Dulles Greenway, not
too far from here. He helped to refurbish the D.C. school
system and did the same thing in New York City. He has worked
with Congress, and he is already making a difference in the
running of the Foreign Buildings Office. His adaptation of
industry best practices to our overall program, plus his
skilled management techniques, will make this construction
program hum. And we are committed, Mr. Chairman, to getting the
average cost of Embassy construction below the current figure
of $100 million per Embassy, and if anyone can do it, I know
that Chuck Williams can.
It will be no mean feat because, as you are well aware,
there are special provisions and requirements for every
Embassy, and those unique provisions and requirements tend to
drive costs up enormously. But we are going to give all we have
got to get the price down and under control.
Along with well-built, secure, and modern embassies, we
want broad-based internet access for all of our people. I want
every employee in the Department of State, no matter where they
are located throughout the world, to have access to the
powerful new internet technology that is out there, access to
the power of the information revolution, so they can do their
jobs in the most efficient way that we can make possible for
them to do those jobs.
We also want to modernize our classified information
networks, and we have $210 million in the budget for these two
initiatives--universal access to the internet, and modernized
classified networks.
On the CEO side of my ledger, then, these are my
priorities--people, embassies, and information technology. Wrap
all three up in the fourth priority, which is security, and you
have the high points of the President's 2002 budget for State
operations.
I want to talk about one other change we are making in the
Department. We are reorganizing the way that we manage our
finances. When I first arrived at State and looked around
during the transition period, I did not find any single
authority in charge of all of the Department's financial
activity. There was a chief financial officer, but he had no
control over the foreign operations part of the money, two-
thirds of the overall budget. I knew that we needed to change
that overall situation.
Under our plan to change, we will bring together all of our
dollars, both those for State operations and foreign
operations, and we will put them all under one bureau headed by
an Assistant Secretary of State for Resource Management, and
the Assistant Secretary will report directly to the Deputy
Secretary.
This new bureau will also be responsible for strategic
planning so that we can link our budgeting priorities and our
budget requests to specific strategic planning objectives that
we have for the Department.
These are just the highlights of what we are doing, Mr.
Chairman. I want to close with an observation about the
management style that we are going to be using at the State
Department.
I have hired some very, very experienced people to help me.
Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage and I worked
together for many years at the Pentagon. I have delegated to
him all of the authority that I have with the exception of a
few legally-constrained authorities that I cannot delegate. The
reason I did that was because I want the Department to see
myself and my deputy as one and the same, totally integrated,
both of us trying to be leaders and managers and foreign policy
experts.
Leadership and management is not something I do every
Friday afternoon for an hour or so. It is embedded in
everything we do, every, single day in the State Department.
And I want them to see that the top team, myself and Deputy
Secretary Armitage, are working together as a team on
leadership, management, and foreign policy for the President
and for the American people.
Similarly with Grant Green and with our new Undersecretary
for Political Affairs, Mark Grossman--a tight team that is
working together to provide a new sense of enthusiasm
throughout the State Department, to empower all of our
Assistant Secretaries, to empower our Office Directors, to
empower our Ambassadors, to let them know that they are in the
front line of offense out there, getting the work done and
making sure that we are a well-knitted-together team. From the
lowliest--and that is not the right term--but the best and the
lowest-position consular officer out there in an Embassy
somewhere, all the way up to the Secretary of State--one team,
all working together, all empowered, all knitted together with
the finest information technology, with programs that take care
of them, take care of their families, take care of their kids'
schooling, so they know that we care about them as they do
about the work that is needed to be done for the American
people and to advance American interests on the world stage.

prepared statement

Mr. Chairman, I will stop at this point, because I think it
is much more interesting to get to your questions and find out
what you would like to hear from me.
[The statements follows:]
Prepared Statement of Colin L. Powell
Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee, I am pleased to appear
before you for the first time as Secretary of State, and to testify in
support of the President's State Department Budget for fiscal year
2002.
This Budget represents a significant increase in the Department's
resources for the upcoming fiscal year, and we are pleased with that.
This is a good start.
It is the first fiscal step in our efforts to align both the
organization for and the conduct of America's foreign relations with
the dictates of the 21st Century.
As Secretary of State I wear two hats--one as CEO of the
Department, the other as the President's principal foreign policy
advisor.
Being successful in both roles is important because we must be
properly organized, equipped, and manned to conduct America's foreign
policy as well as formulate good policy.
So wearing my CEO hat, I want to highlight what this budget
contains with respect to my three highest priorities: embassy
construction and security, information technology, and hiring new
people.
Our important multi-year program for embassy construction,
refurbishment, security, and maintenance will continue to move forward
if this Budget is approved. $1.3 billion supports this effort for
fiscal year 2002, including $665 million for construction of new secure
facilities.
In addition to continuing this ambitious program set in place by my
predecessors and the Congress last year, we are using new and more
efficient ways to execute this program.
For example, as we have notified the Congress I intend to move the
Foreign Buildings Office (FBO) out from under the Bureau of
Administration and put it directly beneath Under Secretary for
Management Grant Green.
Moreover, I've hired an experienced executive to manage overseas
construction, retired Major General Charles Williams, U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers. His adaptation of industry best practices to our overall
program, plus skilled management techniques, will make this program
hum.
We are committed to getting the average cost of embassy
construction below the current figure of $100 million. If anyone can do
it, Chuck Williams can. It will be no mean feat because, as you are
well aware, there are special provisions and requirements for every
embassy and those provisions and requirements drive up costs
enormously. But we're going to give it all we've got.
Along with well-built, secure and modern embassies, we want broad-
based Internet access for all our people. I want every State employee
to have access to the Internet and to be able to talk to each other.
Likewise, we want to modernize our classified information networks.
We've got $210 million in the budget for these initiatives.
There is no disputing that America needs to have the right people
on the front lines of diplomacy. But we also need to have enough
people. The budget has $134.5 million for a major investment to
recruit, hire, and train sufficient new people to create a training
float so that we can begin to do something about the serious shortages
we're experiencing in Foreign Service Officers (FSOs) in the field. In
addition, we are seeking $488 million to continue and enhance our
worldwide security readiness program. This enhancement includes hiring
more security personnel and we have $17.1 million within the $488
million to do just that.
On the CEO side of my ledger, these are the priorities--embassies,
people, and information technology. Wrap all three up in a fourth
priority called ``security'', and you have the high points of the
President's fiscal year 2002 Budget for State operations.
But let me talk about one more change we are making before I go
into levels of detail about the Budget. We are reorganizing the way the
Department manages its finances.
When I first arrived at State and looked around, frankly, I could
not find any single authority in charge of all of the Department's
finances. There was a Chief Financial Officer but he had no control
over the Foreign Operations portion of the money--two-thirds of the
overall budget. I knew we needed to change that situation.
Under our planned change, we will bring together all our dollars--
both those for State operations and foreign operations.
We'll then put them all under one bureau headed by an assistant
secretary of state for resource management. The assistant secretary
will report to the Deputy Secretary.
This new bureau will also be responsible for our strategic
planning. Previously, such planning was accomplished in a number of
different offices and as a consequence it was quite often separated
from actual resource decisions. With the new bureau, we are going to
streamline and consolidate so as to synchronize our actual resource
allocation with our strategic goals.
Consolidating under one bureau will also establish accountability.
All dollars under the purview of the Secretary of State will be
coordinated within this bureau.
Linking more directly our strategy and our dollars, and making the
expenditure of those dollars more accountable, will make us more
effective, more efficient, and infinitely better able to justify our
resources.
Mr. Chairman, there is of course much more to the President's
Budget for fiscal year 2002 for State operations. Let me provide some
of the details under three general headings: Administration of Foreign
Affairs, International Organizations, and Related Appropriations.
administration of foreign affairs
Diplomatic and Consular Programs (D&CP):
The fiscal year 2002 request for D&CP, the State Department's chief
operating account, totals $3.705 billion.
This account funds the diplomatic activities and programs that
constitute the first line of defense against threats to the security
and prosperity of the American people. Together with Machine Readable
Visa and other fees, it supports the salaries, operating expenses, and
infrastructure required to carry out U.S. foreign policy.
The fiscal year 2002 request provides $3.217 billion in D&CP for
ongoing operations--a net increase of $459.3 million over the fiscal
year 2001 level. Increased funding will enable the State Department to
make critical improvements in diplomatic readiness, particularly in
human resources and overseas infrastructure.
The United States must have the right people in the right place at
the right time with the right skills to advance national interests
effectively. To meet this requirement, the State Department will
implement a strategy to recruit, hire, train, and deploy the additional
professionals needed around the world. We will put in place processes
to test the effectiveness of our strategy and to ensure accountability.
With new D&CP funding in fiscal year 2002 of $134.5 million, the State
Department will add 360 professionals and create a work environment
that will help attract and retain talent in a highly competitive
economy.
The United States requires a strong and secure diplomatic platform
to support the work of more than 30 Federal agencies at more than 250
posts overseas. With new D&CP funding of $78 million, the State
Department will restore infrastructure and address deferred
maintenance. In fiscal year 2002 the Department will replace a third of
its obsolete equipment and unreliable vehicles; increase training,
essential service contracts, and Foreign National employee wages; and
continue consolidating overseas financial functions in the Charleston
Financial Services Center.
The D&CP ongoing budget also includes new base funding of $102.7
million for the operating and maintenance costs of information
technology investments. These costs have been carried by the
Information Resources Management (IRM) Central Fund, using two-thirds
of its resources for maintenance rather than modernization.
An increase of $17 million will support priority foreign policy
initiatives. These include projects in the areas of intelligence and
research, Freedom of Information and Privacy Act compliance, arms
control and international security (meeting nonproliferation,
disarmament, and verification obligations), and international trade.
The fiscal year 2002 request also provides $487.7 million in D&CP
for Worldwide Security Upgrades--an increase of $78.6 million over last
year.
This funding includes $349.3 million to sustain security programs
begun with the fiscal year 1999 emergency supplemental, such as
worldwide guard protection, physical security equipment and technical
support, information/systems security, and personnel and training.
Worldwide Security Upgrades also includes $74 million to help
continue the perimeter security enhancement program for 232 posts;
$47.3 million to improve technical, counterintelligence, and domestic
programs; and $17.1 million to add 186 security professionals.
Capital Investment Fund
The fiscal year 2002 request provides $210 million for the Capital
Investment Fund, the State Department's principal funding for
information technology (IT) enhancements. The request represents an
increase of $113.2 million over the fiscal year 2001 level.
Together with an estimated $63 million in Expedited Passport fees,
this request finances the IRM Central Fund to permit vital IT
investments and enable more effective interaction and information
sharing among agencies in the foreign affairs community.
Funding for the IRM Central Fund will provide $236.9 million for IT
infrastructure. A key initiative will extend classified connectivity to
every post that requires it, adding new posts and replacing obsolete
equipment that posts are still using for classified operations. Another
priority initiative will expand desktop access to the Internet for
State Department employees around the world through full deployment of
OpenNet Plus, an intranet for sensitive but unclassified e-mail plus
Internet access.
Funding will also provide $26.2 million for IT applications and
software that directly support foreign affairs activities and $9.9
million for IT training of systems managers and users.
This request makes the IRM Central Fund a true investment fund,
shifting IT operating and maintenance funding to D&CP.
Embassy Security, Construction, and Maintenance (ESCM):
The fiscal year 2002 request for ESCM is $1.291 billion. This
total--an increase of $213.4 million over the fiscal year 2001 level--
reflects the Administration's continuing commitment to protect U.S.
Government personnel serving abroad, improve the security posture of
facilities overseas, and correct serious deficiencies in the State
Department's overseas infrastructure.
For the ongoing ESCM budget, the Administration is requesting $475
million. This budget includes maintenance and repairs at overseas
posts, facility rehabilitation projects, construction security,
renovation of the Harry S Truman Building, all activities associated
with leasing overseas properties, administration of the overseas
buildings program, and construction of a classified annex in Bogota,
Colombia.
In Worldwide Security Upgrades, the Administration is requesting
$665 million for capital projects. This request will continue the
program of relocating posts at highest risk begun with the fiscal year
1999 emergency security supplemental.
Funding will be used for the design and/or construction of about
seven new embassies or consulates. Possible sites include Beijing,
China; Cape Town, South Africa; Conakry, Guinea; Damascus, Syria;
Harare, Zimbabwe; Phnom Penh, Cambodia; Sao Paulo, Brazil; Tashkent,
Uzbekistan; Tbilisi, Georgia; and funding may also be used for a post
opening in Medan, Indonesia.
Capital projects funding will also be used to acquire sites at five
to ten other posts for which design/construction funding will be sought
in the outyears and to construct Marine Security Guard quarters at
posts with new diplomatic compounds. Funding includes $50 million for
construction of new on-compound facilities for USAID.
In Worldwide Security Upgrades, the Administration is also
requesting $150.9 million to strengthen perimeter security at 28
additional vulnerable posts and meet recurring security support costs
associated with the embassy construction and perimeter security
program.
Educational and Cultural Exchange Programs (ECE):
The fiscal year 2002 request of $242 million for ECE will fund some
of the U.S. Government's most effective international exchanges.
Authorized by the Mutual Educational and Cultural Exchange Act of
1961 (Fulbright-Hays Act), as amended, these strategic activities build
mutual understanding and develop friendly relations between the United
States and other countries. They establish the trust, confidence, and
international cooperation necessary to sustain and advance the full
range of U.S. national interests.
The request provides $140.3 million for Academic Programs. These
include the J. William Fulbright Educational Exchange Program for
exchange of students, scholars, and teachers and the Hubert H. Humphrey
Fellowship Program for academic study and internships in the United
States for mid-career professionals from developing countries.
The request also provides $72.6 million for Professional and
Cultural Exchanges. These include the International Visitor Program,
which supports travel to the United States by current and emerging
leaders to obtain firsthand knowledge of American politics and values,
and the Citizen Exchange Program, which partners with U.S. non-profit
organizations to support professional, cultural, and grassroots
community exchanges.
The total request for ECE represents an increase of $10.4 million
over the fiscal year 2001 level. While most of this increase is needed
to cover built-in requirements (particularly federal pay raises), $2.2
million will provide program enhancements for Fulbright, International
Visitors, Citizen Exchanges, and global academic programs (including
university partnerships, English teaching, and overseas educational
advising).
Other State Programs:
Representation Allowances:
The fiscal year 2002 request of $9 million will reimburse
diplomatic and consular personnel in part for officially representing
the United States abroad and before international organizations. The
increase of $2.5 million over the fiscal year 2001 level begins to
restore the buying power that has been lost in this account over the
past twelve years.
Emergencies in the Diplomatic and Consular Service (EDCS):
The fiscal year 2002 request of $15.5 million increases support for
the EDCS account by $10 million over the fiscal year 2001 level to help
meet emergency requirements in the conduct of foreign affairs.
Funding for this no-year account will cover the evacuation of
American officials and their families from areas of political unrest or
natural disaster. It will also pay rewards for information concerning
international terrorism, narco-terrorism, and war crimes.
international organizations
Contributions for International Peacekeeping Activities (CIPA):
The fiscal year 2002 request for CIPA totals $844.1 million. It
represents the U.S. share of the expenses of United Nations (U.N.)
peacekeeping operations and provides for full funding of projected
fiscal year 2002 operations.
The request funds U.S. assessed contributions to continuing U.N.
operations in Kosovo, Bosnia and Herzegovina, East Timor, the Golan
Heights, Lebanon, Cyprus, Georgia, Western Sahara, Iraq/Kuwait, Sierra
Leone, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and Ethiopia/Eritrea. It
also includes funding for the War Crimes Tribunals for the former
Yugoslavia and Rwanda.
U.N. peacekeeping operations serve the national interests of the
United States by helping to support new democracies, lower the global
tide of refugees, reduce the likelihood of unsanctioned interventions,
and prevent small conflicts from growing into larger wars.
Acting through the United Nations allows the United States to share
the risks and costs of responding to international crises. Funding the
U.S. share of assessed U.N. peacekeeping budgets ensures continued
American leadership in shaping the international community's response
to developments that threaten international peace and security.
The Administration requests that 15 percent of these funds be
appropriated as ``two-year funds'' because of the unpredictability of
the requirements in this account and the nature of multi-year
operations with mandates overlapping the U.S. Fiscal year.
Contributions to International Organizations (CIO):
The fiscal year 2002 request for CIO totals $878.8 million. It
provides full funding of U.S. assessments, consistent with U.S.
statutory restrictions, to 44 international organizations.
The request recognizes U.S. international obligations and reflects
the President's commitment to maintain the financial stability of the
United Nations and other international organizations.
The international organizations funded by the CIO appropriation
further U.S. economic, political, social, and cultural interests. In
addition to the United Nations, they include the World Health
Organization, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, the International
Atomic Energy Agency, and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and
Development.
Membership in international organizations benefits the United
States by building coalitions and pursuing multilateral programs which
advance U.S. interests. These include promoting economic growth through
market economies; settling disputes peacefully; encouraging non-
proliferation, nuclear safeguards, arms control, and disarmament;
adopting international standards to facilitate international trade,
telecommunications, transportation, environmental protection, and
scientific exchange; and strengthening international cooperation in
agriculture and health.
related appropriations
The Asia Foundation:
The Asia Foundation is a non-governmental grant-making organization
with a sustained presence in Asia and the Pacific. Its programs
complement official efforts to advance U.S. interests in the region.
Through its network of 14 small field offices, the foundation
supports local groups and hands-on programs that build democratic
institutions and leadership, develop non-governmental and regional
organizations, and advance the rule of law and human rights.
The fiscal year 2002 budget request of $9.25 million will enable
The Asia Foundation to help develop stronger and more effective open
market economies and support the adoption of sound governance practices
on which the region's long-term economic recovery depends.
East-West Center:
The Center for Cultural and Technical Interchange Between East and
West was established by Congress in Hawaii in 1960. It promotes better
relations and understanding between the United States and nearly 60
nations of Asia and the Pacific through research, study, and training.
The fiscal year 2002 budget request of $13.5 million will assist
the East-West Center's continuing programs to maximize regional
cooperation and minimize conflict. The center is part of the overall
U.S. public diplomacy effort directed toward a region with more than 50
percent of the world's population.
North-South Center:
The Dante B. Fascell North-South Center, a private non-profit
institution affiliated with the University of Miami, promotes better
relations among the United States, Canada, and the nations of Latin
America and the Caribbean. It is a national and regional source of
information and analysis, serving as a catalyst for change.
In fiscal year 2002, the Administration is requesting $1.4 million
for the North-South Center in the Educational and Cultural Exchange
Programs account (ECE). Funding will support programs that advance
long-term U.S. interests and address multilateral needs, including
strengthening democracy and encouraging open markets in the hemisphere.
National Endowment for Democracy (NED):
The National Endowment for Democracy is a private non-profit
organization created in 1983 to strengthen democratic institutions and
processes around the world. NED makes grants to numerous U.S.
organizations for programs in such areas as labor, open markets,
political party development, human rights, rule of law, and independent
media.
The fiscal year 2002 budget request of $31 million will help expand
important democracy-building programs in Africa, the Middle East, the
NIS, and Latin America. Funding will also support countries in
transition, strengthen civil society, assist democratic activists in
authoritarian countries, encourage free market reforms, and develop
regional networks.
Eisenhower/Israeli Arab Exchange Programs:
The Eisenhower Exchange Fellowship Program promotes international
understanding by bringing rising leaders to the United States, and
sending their American counterparts abroad, on custom-designed
professional programs.
The Israeli Arab Scholarship Program fosters mutual understanding
by enabling Arab citizens of Israel to study and conduct research in
the United States.
The two programs are supported by interest and earnings from their
respective trust funds.
There are of course many more details on our budget available, and
I invite all of the Subcommittee members' attention to a most
comprehensive pamphlet entitled ``United States Department of State:
The Budget in Brief--Fiscal Year 2002.''
And now, Mr. Chairman, I'm prepared to answer your and the members'
questions.
______

Biographical Sketch of Colin L. Powell
Colin L. Powell was nominated by President Bush on December 16,
2000 as Secretary of State. After being unanimously confirmed by the
U.S. Senate, he was sworn in as the 65th Secretary of State on January
20, 2001.
Prior to his appointment, Secretary Powell was the chairman of
America's Promise--The Alliance for Youth, a national nonprofit
organization dedicated to mobilizing people from every sector of
American life to build the character and competence of young people.
Secretary Powell was a professional soldier for 35 years, during
which time he held myriad command and staff positions and rose to the
rank of 4-star General. His last assignment, from October 1, 1989 to
September 30, 1993, was as the 12th Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of
Staff, the highest military position in the Department of Defense.
During this time, he oversaw 28 crises, including Operation Desert
Storm in the victorious 1991 Persian Gulf war.
Following his retirement, Secretary Powell wrote his best-selling
autobiography, My American Journey, which was published in 1995.
Additionally, he pursued a career as a public speaker, addressing
audiences across the country and abroad.
Secretary Powell was born in New York City on April 5, 1937 and was
raised in the South Bronx. His parents, Luther and Maud Powell,
immigrated to the United States from Jamaica. Secretary Powell was
educated in the New York City public schools, graduating from the City
College of New York (CCNY), where he earned a bachelor's degree in
geology. He also participated in ROTC at CCNY and received a commission
as an Army second lieutenant upon graduation in June 1958. His further
academic achievements include a Master of Business Administration
degree from George Washington University.
Secretary Powell is the recipient of numerous U.S. and foreign
military awards and decorations.
Secretary Powell's civilian awards include two Presidential Medals
of Freedom, the President's Citizens Medal, the Congressional Gold
Medal, the Secretary of State Distinguished Service Medal, and the
Secretary of Energy Distinguished Service Medal. Several schools and
other institutions have been named in his honor and he holds honorary
degrees from universities and colleges across the country.
Secretary Powell is married to the former Alma Vivian Johnson of
Birmingham, Alabama. The Powell family includes son Michael; daughters
Linda and Anne; daughter-in-law Jane; and grandsons Jeffrey and Bryan.

Senator Gregg. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. I appreciate that
background and especially your closing thoughts on the
philosophy of how you plan to manage the Department of State,
which is a critical Department.
Let me begin by congratulating you for what you have done
so far. I think you have brought an energy and vitality and
renewed enthusiasm to the agency, which is extremely important.
The way the Department handled the situation in China deserves
the highest praise. It was a reflection of maturity and
expertise that led to the defusing of what could have been a
terribly difficult situation. So I certainly congratulate you
for your leadership in that area and your team, especially the
Ambassador to China.
Secretary Powell. Thank you.
Senator Gregg. We have a lot of issues on this committee,
of course, surrounding your agency that we are concerned about.
I have a number of questions. I will ask a couple and then move
to Senator Hollings and Senator Murray, and we can go around a
few times to get to all of them.

cost of peacekeeping missions

I want to start out with the issue of peacekeeping. This
appears to us to be a huge blank check that the American
taxpayers are being asked to write. We have been supportive of
the peacekeeping efforts, but we are concerned that
peacekeeping is being driven by policies that are either not
consistent with American policy or that are pulling American
policy in a direction that is not necessarily where we want to
go. This is especially true, it appears, in Africa.
So I would like to get, first, your summary of where we are
with respect to peacekeeping in Africa. I am also curious about
the costs you project overall for peacekeeping for this coming
year and where you expect the American taxpayer will have to
pick up a significant bill for peacekeeping missions.
Secretary Powell. It is an excellent question, Mr.
Chairman, and I am glad to have the opportunity to speak to it.
I wish there were a single statement that I could give
about peacekeeping that would cover all of the different
situations that we find ourselves in. But as a member of the
United Nations--as a key and most important, frankly, member of
the United Nations and the wealthiest member of the United
Nations--we have an obligation to participate in the activities
of that organization when it comes to peacekeeping operations.
In almost every instance, it is a peacekeeping operation
that we supported in the Security Council, and we voted for it,
or else it would not take place in the first place. So there
should always be some American policy interest in the
particular peacekeeping operation that we are voting for in the
Security Council.
I think it is incumbent upon us when new operations come
along to make a clear judgment as to whether our interest is
being served as well as the interests of the United Nations and
the interests of the country that is in question that is having
the difficulty.
When we have decided that a peacekeeping operation makes
sense, that the circumstances are there so that the operation
makes sense, and we go along with it and vote for it, then we
have an obligation to support it, financially or in other ways.
I prefer and the President prefers that we not provide
troops to these operations if there are other troops that are
available. A good example of a peacekeeping operation that I
think meets this model and has gone very well is what we have
been doing in East Timor, where we have provided political
support, diplomatic support, and we have provided funding.
There is a clear endpoint to this particular operation, and our
colleagues in the region have provided the military and other
on-the-ground leadership, the Australians in particular. That
is an example of the kind of peacekeeping operation, and I
think it is clear, and it is very, very deserving of our
support.
They do not all come out as neatly as that. The ones in
Africa are particularly difficult because of the circumstances
that we are going into. If you take a look at Sierra Leone, it
is perhaps one of the most challenging. You have the RUF, the
insurgents, a very rowdy band of criminals, insurgents,
terrorists and all kinds of other things. The United Nations
felt an obligation, and we supported the United Nations in
going into Sierra Leone with peacekeepers--not U.S.
peacekeepers, but peacekeepers--to try to bring the RUF under
control, to try to train the Sierra Leone armed forces so they
can handle this with their own resources. It is a tough one. It
is a tough one that does not have a clear endpoint, in my
judgment, but it is one that we supported at the beginning, and
I think we have a continuing obligation, and we acted on that
obligation recently when we supported the increase in the
number of peacekeepers going in.
Will it end as neatly and as quickly, and is there an exit
strategy that is as clear as we might see in East Timor? No.
But is that a reason to totally walk away from a nation and a
group of people who are in desperate straights, who have been
subjected to the worst kind of atrocity and cruelty?
Similarly in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, this is
another case where you have a much more complex situation, and
it is a little harder to see what the outcome is liable to be.
But, in many of these instances, you are going to have to go in
and try to do the best you can, and the United States has an
obligation to participate in such missions.
The President has made it clear--he made it clear in the
campaign, and he has made it clear since he became President--
that we will be looking at all of these in a far more critical
way to make sure that we have a foreign policy interest
associated with the particular peacekeeping operation and that
we believe it is going to be run in a way that makes sense and
will solve the problem we started out to solve. And, as he has
also indicated in many instances, he will try to minimize U.S.
troops actually committed to such operations--not that we are
afraid of such operations, but the United States armed forces
are stressed with deployments all around the world, and as you
know, Secretary Rumsfeld is reviewing all of those now with the
intent of getting some back.
Sometimes it is not the United Nations; it is more of a
NATO mission, such as we have in Bosnia and Kosovo. I was
recently there and saw what those troops are doing. We are
working hard to reduce the number of U.S. troops in these
areas, Bosnia and Kosovo, but it is also clear that we are the
glue that is holding this fragile situation together, so we are
not going to be able to just say, well, we have had enough, and
come out and leave, and leave our NATO colleagues who are in
there, counting on us, and we are counting on them, and they
are providing the bulk of the force and doing a heck of a job.
So there are these fragile situations where the answer is not
as clear.
The amount of money going to all of these operations is
rather significant. It is in the billions, as you know; and I
will be delighted to provide the actual breakdown for each and
every one of them. As you know, once one of these things is
approved by the Security Council, we immediately have a 25
percent capped obligation to support them, an obligation that
we are trying to move up to 28 percent so that we do not accrue
new arrears as to what we are capped to provide and the actual
cost of such operations and the allocation assigned to us by
the United Nations.
Senator Gregg. Do you have an estimate of how much it is
going to cost us to continue the operations in Sierra Leone and
initiate operations in the Congo?
Secretary Powell. I will have my staff look that up while
we are continuing the dialogue, if I may, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Gregg. We are working under a time frame here, and
I think my time for the first round has probably expired.
Senator Hollings.
Senator Hollings. First, to the point, you are to be
congratulated on restoring the morale at your Department and
providing us with a realistic budget. We have been downsizing
and neglecting--other than peacekeeping and security--diplomacy
and foreign policy.
To the point, though, you say you have looked critically--
because you know we listened to President Bush in the
campaign--at getting out of Bosnia and Kosovo and cutting back
our peacekeeping missions overseas. You indicated in your
comments, that you are going to have a critical review of some
14 of them. Then, Senator Gregg and I go to the Defense
Appropriations Subcommittee, and Defense says the trouble is we
are stretched too far, morale is low, that we do not have an
adequate defense, and that we are no longer a two-army system
because of peacekeeping.
You were Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, and now you are
coming around the corner, meeting yourself, saying whoopee for
the 14 peacekeeping operations, and requesting $318 million for
Sierra Leone----
Secretary Powell. Yes.
Senator Hollings. How do we get that? We have only $122
million for Kosovo, and we had a war there. I have been to Camp
Bondsteel in Bosnia. That is quite a commitment. We built up a
billion-dollar facility there. Now, we have almost three times
as much for Sierra Leone?
Secretary Powell. That is the case at the moment. To answer
the chairman's question, it is $83.5 million for the Congo and
$318 million for Sierra Leone.
Senator Hollings. And you looked at that, and that is how
much is necessary for Sierra Leone?
Secretary Powell. That is our obligation at the moment.
Senator Hollings. And you endorse all 14 operations--East
Timor is even more than Kosovo, too. That is $130 million.
Secretary Powell. And that one I think is going rather
well.

cost of Embassy construction

Senator Hollings. I want to get into detail, if the
chairman will permit, in just one other subject with respect to
the cost of embassies--and I commend you for getting General
Williams on board. It strikes me that these facilities are
awfully expensive. Who ever heard of spending $97 million in
Tashkent? Have you ever been there?
Secretary Powell. No, sir.
Senator Hollings. Well, you ought to go. I mean, you ought
to be able to buy the place for $97 million.
And then, Tbilisi, Georgia, $95 million; Phnom Penh, $65
million; Zimbabwe, $86 million. I have got to sit down with the
General and find out where he got all these expenses. I do not
want to take the subcommittee's time.
But we look and we know--for example, when I went down to
Brazil earlier this year, I had the dog-and-pony show from the
Ambassador about the important facility at Rio. I have been
there several times, and when I got there, I found that we have
a 10-story building and 27 personnel. The AID people wanted
out; the Navy commander who escorted me around said he could
move into those fine facilities with the Brazilian navy. In
their replacement, they wanted to by a facility for $100
million that has the same dangerous kind of condition that was
the basis for your Department wanting to move out of the
facility in Istanbul. They said we had to get a new facility
because you could look down into the facility and, with a
rifle, maybe shoot into the window or something. That is what
they wanted to buy in Rio, and that is what they wanted to sell
and get rid of and establish a new one in Istanbul.
We have got to get around and look at these costs.
Secretary Powell. I could not agree more, Senator Hollings,
and that is what General Williams has been charged to do. In
some instances, we are bound by requirements given to us by
Congress. When you look at the Inman report and the Crowe
report, they create standards for the construction of embassies
to provide for security against the threats that are out there.
The two East Africa bombings a couple of years back--who would
have predicted that that is where somebody would have bombed
us--but they found vulnerabilities, and they found weaknesses.
So you cannot say that an Embassy in a place that seems to
be rather quiet is safe. You have to look at each and every
one.
There are also requirements associated with who can
actually build a secure facility for us. In many instances, we
have to bring it all over from the United States--the
communications requirements, the power requirements, all the
other security issues associated with the construction of an
Embassy run the costs up rather significantly. And General
Williams has it as his charge to take a look and may well be
coming back to the Congress to ask for some relief from some of
the requirements that exist, because it is not clear that you
really need this in all instances around the world.
So I am very anxious to work with the committee and other
committees of Congress to help drive these costs down, and that
is General Williams' charge, to find ways to drive the costs
down.
What may be fine for the Brazilian navy may not be fine for
the American navy coexisting in a similar facility because of
security requirements or other requirements.
Senator Hollings. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will come
back.
Senator Gregg. I completely agree with Senator Hollings'
concern here, and I appreciate the focus that you are putting
on it. I am almost of the opinion that we should probably have
a special hearing just on these building costs. These Embassy
costs have just gotten outrageous.
Secretary Powell. Yes, they have; I am not disputing that.
Senator Gregg. What is the number now for Beijing?
Secretary Powell. It was in the hundreds of millions the
last I checked.
Senator Gregg. I thought it was closing in on $1 billion,
actually.
Secretary Powell. It is well over $600 million.
Senator Gregg. We have got to figure out some way to
address this, and if there are congressional mandates, we need
to review them.
Senator Murray.
Senator Murray. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Secretary, I join my colleagues in welcoming you here,
and I would be remiss if I did not take this opportunity to
invite you to my State. We are a very internationally-engaged
community. Our trade is very important to my State. We have a
number of sister city relationships. I think that we send more
men and women to the Foreign Service than most States do--many
of them retire back in my community--and for every issue you
consider on a daily basis, I have constituents who are debating
it somewhere at home, and we would love to have you come and be
a part of that conversation.
Secretary Powell. Thank you, Senator.

china's bid for the 2008 summer olympics

Senator Murray. Mr. Secretary, let me first take this
opportunity to commend you for the handling of the recent EP-3
incident in China. It came very close to home. I live on
Whidbey Island, where our service men and women are stationed,
and on behalf of my neighbors and my constituents, we
appreciate the job that you did in bringing our service men and
women home. We are all very, very proud of them.
I think we have to continue to convey our disappointment to
China on this issue, but I think we are really at a very
delicate point, and I think we have to be very cautious in
sending any message. I think we need to recognize that our
words and deeds do have long-term consequences that will
directly affect U.S. interests at this time.
I understand that the House of Representatives is likely to
take up and pass legislation that will oppose China's bid to
the 2008 Summer Olympics, and I know that this week, the U.S.
Commission on International Religious Freedom presented you
with a report recommending that the U.S. Government oppose that
bid.
What do you think would be the long-term effect on United
States-China relations if the United States is viewed by both
the Chinese Government and the Chinese people as having stopped
the Beijing Olympics bid?
Secretary Powell. I am sure the Chinese Government and the
Chinese people would be very, very unhappy and very
disappointed. But there are other nations that are also bidding
for the Olympics that are going to be very unhappy and
disappointed if they do not get it.
We have taken no position on this within the
administration, and essentially it is an independent judgment
by the International Olympic Committee, although I am sure they
would be interested in what the Congress and the administration
might say.
We are trying to calibrate a response to this incident in a
very, very careful way to make sure we do not cut off our nose
to spite our face, and I think we have done rather well. The
Chinese now have allowed our assessment team onto the island,
and the assessment team is at work this morning; we had a
meeting on this this morning. I think we will get past this,
but we should have no illusions about the nature of the regime
that exists in Beijing. It is a totalitarian government; they
can turn human rights on or off as it suits their purpose. They
can act in ways that we find very distasteful, and when they
do, we should point it out to them and not let them get away
with it, but at the same time recognize it is a nation, a
powerful, strong, proud nation, in transition and
transformation, and we should work with them to try to bring
them into the international community.
Senator Murray. On the question of the Olympics, then, I
assume the administration is not going to take a position.
Secretary Powell. We have not decided----
Senator Murray. You have not decided.
Secretary Powell [continuing]. Whether we will or will not.
Senator Murray. Let me just read you a couple of quick
items from the International Olympic Committee's Code of
Ethics. They state that ``The Olympic Games are competitions
between athletes in individual or team events and not between
countries'' and that ``the Olympic parties shall neither give
nor accept instructions to vote or intervene in a given manner
with the organization of the IOC.''
I think it is really important that we take this issue very
seriously and abide by the rules of the International Olympic
Committee. I think we all recall the last time the United
States allowed our relations with another country to interfere
with the Olympic movement. A number of Olympic games were
affected, including the 1984 Los Angeles games, where we had
athletes who lost their opportunity to participate.
And U.S. foreign policy is still dealing with the
ramifications of allowing politics to enter into the Olympic
arena. You can talk to any wheat farmer in the State of
Washington, and they will tell you about mixing politics with
the Olympics.
So I think I would just like to tell you the seriousness
with which I view this and to really caution all of us to be
very careful as we use words and the administration determines
how they are going to handle this.
Secretary Powell. I understand, Senator. Thank you.
Let me also, through you, thank and congratulate the
wonderful young men and women who did such a great job getting
that plane on the ground and how they comported themselves
during the 11 days that it took us to get them home.
Senator Murray. Yes. We are all very proud of them.
Secretary Powell. We all should be.
Senator Murray. Thank you very much.
Senator Gregg. Senator Mikulski?
Senator Mikulski. Thank you very much.
Secretary Powell, how wonderful to see you again.
Secretary Powell. Nice to see you, ma'am.
Senator Mikulski. I again wish to extend my hand to you to
work to really advance American values around the world. I like
the way that, in your testimony, you talked about your CEO
responsibility and then these global policy issues.

adequate support for foreign service officers

On CEO responsibilities, I have the good fortune that a
significant number of your Foreign Service Officers live in
Maryland; they make Maryland their home as they do service
abroad. This goes to my question. Looking at how we can keep
our embassies secure, of course, is a key priority. But do you
feel that in this year's budget we have done two things--one,
in terms of our Foreign Service, are there adequate moneys to
really be looking at pay, health care, pensions, and issues
around spouses? And two, are we addressing demands on our
embassies and our consulates? I think the consulates are among
the most stressed-out operations within the State Department,
with students abroad, more desire for business activity, more
people traveling, and more places in the world open for
Americans to travel.
So I would like very much to play a role with you, to be
sure, about our professional FSOs, but in addition to really
look at the number and the support to the consulate offices.
Secretary Powell. Thank you, Senator. I think you are
absolutely right.
Senator Mikulski. Because that is where Americans come in
contact with----
Secretary Powell. That is where they see their United
States Government out there, when they have lost a passport or
they have a problem of some kind, or they want to learn about
the United States or want to come to the United States. I think
we can do a much better job--and you are quite right, Maryland
has been a great host for not only our Foreign Service
employees but for so many of our civil service employees as
well. I always like to put the two together and then add our
Foreign Service nationals; it is all one family, one team,
around the world.
In this year's submission, I think we have a start on that
problem. As I indicated in my opening statement, we have a lot
of work that needs to be done, and as Senator Hollings
mentioned earlier, we have not spent enough on this over the
years. So I hope that I will be back here next year with the
President's permission and with OMB's permission to make a case
for even more resources for just the kinds of things you said,
to make sure that people are getting what they need to do the
job--and it isn't just $318 million going to Sierra Leone, but
that we are taking care of all of our people around the world
and their families. We just started a pilot program for spouse
employment in Mexico City, and there are a lot of other things
we are trying to do to make families more satisfied with their
service overseas.
Senator Mikulski. Well, I would really look forward to
working with you, and judging from your answer, you are saying
that this year's request is a down payment----
Secretary Powell. A start, yes.
Senator Mikulski [continuing]. And that over the next years
that each year, we will look at how to upgrade and expand this
most important service to both the Nation and to our people.
Secretary Powell. Exactly right. I think the President was
quite generous to the State Department in this first year of
his administration, and he has indicated to me that if I come
back and make the case, he will examine the case very, very
carefully for future years.

middle east affairs

Senator Mikulski. Now I would like to go into some foreign
policy issues as well. Mr. Secretary, the issues around the
great State of Israel, of course, are indeed complex and
compelling, and we appreciate where you are heading.
My question is that there seems to be a need for
supplemental assistance to Israel in the area of military
expenditures. Is the administration planning to send a
supplemental expenditure up, and also some robust activity to
move the Jordan Free Trade Agreement forward?
Secretary Powell. Starting with the second point, we are
very committed to the Jordan Free Trade Agreement. Jordan needs
this agreement. Jordan is a good friend of the United States.
Jordan plays a very key role in the region, especially now
during these difficult times. So we are anxious to see that
agreement come into force and be passed.
Mr. Zoellick, our Trade Representative, is hard at work
examining that one plus a number of others that are out there,
as well as trade preference authority, to see whether we should
package this or we should start moving them one at a time. I
will leave it to Bob to figure out the answer to that question,
but you can be sure that the President, this Secretary of
State, and Mr. Zoellick are fully behind the Jordan Free Trade
Agreement and will do everything we can to get it passed as
quickly as we can, consistent with our other free trade needs.
Senator Mikulski. I think there is strong bipartisan
support.
Secretary Powell. Yes, I see that; I have sensed that.
Senator Mikulski. What about the supplemental issue?
Secretary Powell. On the supplemental, I am well aware of
the need that the Israelis have. We have discussed it with
them, and at the moment, we do not have a proposal up here yet.
It is something that we have under consideration, but it has
not yet been acted on for submission to the Congress.
Senator Mikulski. One last question. Has my time expired?
Senator Gregg. No. Go ahead and ask the question.

special envoy to cyprus

Senator Mikulski. On special envoys, the issue of Cyprus
goes back, as you know, to another way you served the Nation.
What is the administration's plan and your plan on being able
to move on a continued special envoy on Cyprus and plans to try
to resolve this issue? It has significant consequences.
Secretary Powell. As you know, we are at a bit of an
impasse right now because of the position taken by Mr.
Denktash. We are supporting the U.N. efforts on this. At the
moment, I am examining the whole issue of special envoys. When
I took over, I discovered that we had over 50 special envoys
and ambassadors-at-large here and there, and in order to sort
of clean up things and start fresh, I eliminated quite a number
of them. Some are in law, and they were not eliminated, and
some are doing very, very useful work.
I want to continue to examine Cyprus a bit longer to decide
what best we can do with respect to our representation to move
that process along. I have not made a decision yet.
Senator Mikulski. Well, we would like to hear more about
that.
Secretary Powell. Yes.

trafficking in humans

Senator Mikulski. Another area where we have bipartisan
agreement has been on passing the Trafficking Victims
Protection Act. This is legislation that Senator Brownback,
Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison, myself, and others have been
working on. You might not be familiar with this, because the
legislation passed last year, but it is something in the world
that I know you will find so repugnant if you are not already
aware of it. It is the trafficking of women and children--out
of Asia, in the Ukraine, et cetera.
I wonder what efforts you have underway to implement the
Act, and if you have not given it consideration, if you could
review it.
Secretary Powell. We will implement it in tone and intent.
Senator Mikulski. Because it really does not come under the
classic human rights, but----
Secretary Powell. It really should--it is an abuse of human
rights in the most fundamental sense.
Senator Mikulski. Truly. And also on a human rights issue,
I would hope we would continue to be working with Israel in
terms of their missing soldier situation, with perhaps the
encouragement of Red Cross.
Secretary Powell. Yes. Foreign Minister Peres and I
discussed that yesterday.
Senator Mikulski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Gregg. Senator Stevens.
Senator Stevens. Pardon me, Mr. Secretary. Good morning.

china's bid for the 2008 summer olympics

I understand the Senator from Washington has made some
comments about the Olympics. That is what I came over here for.
I am involved in a little bit of an extracurricular activity
called ``the budget'' right now, but I did want to come and
greet you and thank you for coming.
Secretary Powell. Thank you, sir.
Senator Stevens. I too believe that the current crisis with
China is one thing. But keeping the Olympics out of disputes
between individual countries is a policy that this
administration should adopt and pursue. I hope it will be your
policy to not let our current relationship with China interfere
with the decision of the International Olympic Committee as to
where the Olympics will be held.
Secretary Powell. As I said to Senator Murray, I am very
sensitive to that, and we have made no decision with respect to
this issue. We have talked about it when we had the crisis on
our hands a few weeks ago; obviously, you would expect us to
look at the full range of alternatives. Right now, we are
anxious to get the relationship back on an even keel so we can
move forward and work in areas with which we agree with the
Chinese and work in areas where we disagree with the Chinese.
So no decision has been made about what the United States might
or might not do with respect to the Olympics.
Senator Stevens. I told a group this morning that, in case
they did not realize it, my home is just about the same
distance from Peking as it is from where we sit right now. We
have people who fly out of Anchorage daily to somewhere in
China and return, with both FedEx and UPS and other carriers
going through there daily.
I am alarmed at some of the comments we are hearing about
the muscle that the Chinese military is flexing in terms of
civilian matters. Would you care to comment on that? Is that
perception wrong, that the military, as reflected in the EP-3
instance, was using extreme muscle and really interfering with
the normal civilian relationship between our countries?
Secretary Powell. The People's Liberation Army is more than
just an army. It is an organ of power within that state. As we
went through the EP-3 incident, I could see that the Chinese
Foreign Ministry as it tried to handle that matter had to be
enormously sensitive to the interests and equities of the
People's Liberation Army.
As you know, it is deeply involved in businesses, although
recently, Chinese leaders have been trying to get the army out
of business.
So I do not think they are in a position of overruling what
their civilian masters would choose to do or want to do. But,
it is also clear that the civilian leaders, party leaders,
political leaders, and the bureaucracy within the Chinese
Government have to take into account very seriously the views
and attitudes of the People's Liberation Army, and we could see
that both in the circumstances we went through to get our young
men and women out, and also we can see it as we work on getting
our plane out.

secretary's comments on middle east visit

Senator Stevens. I am sorry to have been late, but have you
commented on your trip through the Middle East and what the
situation is there, as you see it?
Secretary Powell. No, but I would be pleased to take a
moment to do that, sir. I met with Foreign Minister Peres
yesterday for a long period of time, and I also met with
Foreign Minister Gutter, and I meet with leaders from the
region on a regular basis. What is absolutely clear to me is
that there has to be a reduction in the level of violence in
the region before we can move forward to improve the economic
situation of the Palestinians and before we can move forward to
getting back on track toward negotiations for peaceful
resolution of this crisis.
Many people say, well, let us start negotiating right away,
but it is clear to me, and I think it is clear to most of the
leaders in the region, that the two sides are not going to be
able to conduct fruitful negotiations under the conditions of
violence that currently exist.
When Mr. Peres was here yesterday, he described, and then
he and I gave a press conference describing some ideas for
negotiations that had been presented by the Jordanians and the
Egyptians and the Palestinians that the Israelis are working
with. So they are talking to each other about what they might
do in a negotiation when they are able to get to a negotiation,
but they are not going to be able to get to a negotiation until
the level of violence has gone down. And that has been our
consistent message to both sides, that leaders on both sides
have to take every action within their power to restrain the
passions that exist in the region and to call on their
followers to foreswear violence, to knock it off, to bring it
back down, not to zero--we will not get it to zero--but to
bring it back down to a level where we can start building
confidence again so that people are then willing to take
chances for peace.
The United States is heavily involved in this. I spend a
large amount of my time speaking to leaders in the region,
calling them on the phone day and night; the President spends a
large amount of his time doing the same thing. So we are deeply
engaged, but we have to make sure we understand that we are not
going anywhere until the level of violence starts to go back
down.
We are sponsoring two sets of security consultations at the
moment between the Palestinians and the Israelis. Those
consultations back and forth are starting to show a little bit
of progress. There is a little bit of traction. But this little
bit of traction will not really be enough unless the level of
violence goes down.
I am repeating myself for purposes of the public audience
out there and in the region. You have got to knock it off if
you want to get back to discussions on permanent solutions and
on peace.
Senator Stevens. I can only make one last comment. Some of
us were with Minister Peres yesterday, and he told us that he
had had to request to move $1 billion from the civilian
accounts to the military accounts in order to counter the
current level of military activity in the region.
When I was in Greece earlier this year, it was suggested to
me that the trade between the countries in the Middle East is
almost nil now and that if we had a role, perhaps we should try
to find some way to restore the trade and urge some way to
establish a free trade zone there between those countries.
There may be some way they could get back together in terms of
providing employment and jobs for their people, rather than
this escalating violence. I would just pass it on to you for
what it is worth.
Secretary Powell. Mr. Peres and I talked about that
yesterday. It would be terrific if we could see trade
opportunities for the Jordanians on the West Bank. If the
Jordanians had access to more markets on the West Bank, it
would solve a large part of their financial problem right now.
And Mr. Peres also said that the Sharon Government is going to
be acting more aggressively to provide more work permits and
access points to get through for Palestinian workers to come
back to their jobs in Israel, so that we can get some flow of
money going back and forth.
I have every reason to believe that if the level of
violence goes down, the Israelis will be very forthcoming with
respect to starting up economic activity, because at the end of
the day, the economic activity that is not taking place now,
the lack of that economic activity not only hurts the
Palestinians, but it is also hurting the Israeli economy. So
that is step two, but step one has to be lowering the level of
violence.
Senator Stevens. Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Gregg. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Lowering the level of violence--I was wondering if you
could----
Senator Stevens. See if you can pass that on the Budget
Committee, will you?
Senator Gregg. That is impossible.

situation in iran and iraq

Mr. Secretary, I was wondering if you could give us your
thoughts on what is happening in Iran and Iraq.
Secretary Powell. Let me start with Iraq. We have a country
that was put under a regime 10 years ago, a very simple regime,
that said if you foreswear weapons of mass destruction and
trying to develop weapons of mass destruction, you could be
welcomed back into a community that would be interested in the
welfare of your people. You have enormous wealth in your oil
resources and revenue, if only you would use it for productive
purposes.
Unfortunately, Saddam Hussein is still the same person he
was 10, 12, 15 years ago, and wastes the treasure of his
people, the treasure of his nation. So we are absolutely
committed to imposing the sanctions that were passed by the
United Nations directed against his weapons of mass
destruction.
I have been hard at work for the last several months with
the members of the P-5, the United Nations and with Arab
leaders in the region to reshape those sanctions so that
everybody can see that those sanctions are clearly targeted at
the weapons of mass destruction and are not targeted at
commodities and goods for the Iraqi people.
Our argument is with Saddam Hussein, his regime, and those
weapons of mass destruction and not with the Iraqi people. The
case we have been making to the people of the region to the
``Arab street,'' as it is sometimes called, is that we are
doing this to help you because he is developing those weapons
of mass destruction not to aim at us but to aim at you, so it
is in your interest to support the United States and the United
Nations in this effort to have him come into compliance with
the obligations he undertook at the end of the Gulf War.
He has not been able to rebuild his forces. He is not able
to project the kind of power he was 10 or 12 years ago, so
Desert Storm did what it was supposed to do. It kicked his army
out of Kuwait, and it brought him down to size. He is still a
danger. He is still in a nation that we have to watch
carefully. And he will not get out from under these sanctions,
if the United States has anything to do about it, until he
allows inspectors back in and behaves. We will keep control of
the oil-for-food money, and we will do everything we can to
stop leakage of that money, or other money, that he may acquire
through sales of oil, leakage out of U.N. control. And we have
some interesting ideas about how to do that.
We will also keep in place the no-fly zone that exists, and
we will also continue to work with Iraqi opposition groups that
believe a regime change is the right answer.
With respect to Iran, it is going to be very interesting in
the upcoming election to see if the gentleman considered
reasonably moderate by Iranian standards, Mr. Khatami, is
actually going to participate in the election and run again.
I think that Iran is a nation that has enormous treasure,
an educated population, and has all the potential to enter the
international marketplace, the international world, and be
successful. Yet, it continues to hang onto an ideology that is
not a political ideology that is really not relevant to the
21st century, and they continue to find that it is in their
interest to try to develop nuclear weapons and weapons of mass
destruction, thinking that this will give them a position of
power in the region and in the world when, at the end of the
day, it will not, because we will contain them and we will
deter them.
We are working with a number of countries to try to cut off
access to this kind of technology. Obviously, we are concerned
about North Korea, which provides this kind of technology, and
frankly, we have had some very direct conversations with the
Russians about this sort of spread of technology to Iran.
So we will have to watch Iran, be willing to engage when
they show that engagement makes some sense. Wish the Iranian
people the best, but be very guarded with respect to Iranian
leadership. Keep in place the sanctions that we have put in
place--as you know ILSA is coming up for reauthorization in
August, and we will have some thoughts about that to share with
the Congress and move forward together. But these two regimes,
Iraq and Iran, are dangerous, have to be contained, and are
out-of-step with the way the world is going, and it is a
tragedy to see them waste the resources that they have in the
pursuit of these evil technologies that threaten the region.
Senator Gregg. Thank you.
Just quickly, the Secretary of Defense suggested that we
withdraw the American troops that are in Sinai.
Can you tell us whether you support that position?
Secretary Powell. The Secretary of Defense is reviewing
that. At the moment, as you know, that mission is not a U.N.
mission; it is a mission that is run by the United States,
Israel and Egypt as a result of the agreements that were
entered into in 1979.
The size of that mission has come down over time. I would
like to eventually see it go away. I have been to the Sinai,
and I have seen those troops. It is not a very exciting
mission, and it costs something. I would like to see it go
away. At the moment, however, we have an obligation to Israel
and to Egypt to support that multinational force.
So Mr. Rumsfeld is reviewing it along with all the other
deployments to see if there is a way to do it with fewer
troops, to do it in a different way, to do it at less cost, but
at the moment there is still a diplomatic and political
necessity to keep a presence of some kind in the Sinai in
accordance with the obligations we picked up in 1979.
Senator Gregg. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
Senator Hollings.

asian-united states relations

Senator Hollings. Mr. Secretary, Senator Stevens asked
about the influence of the military in China with respect to
getting that plane back. But this is another country you want
to watch, they are having a dickens of a time trying to get $1
billion more for their education budget, their military is
coming along with $25 billion more, they have deployed
militarily in 14 countries around the world, they have brought
in from the military-industrial complex the Secretary of
Transportation, and now they have the Joint Chiefs of Staff
from the military in charge of foreign policy. You have got to
watch that country.
I just cannot go along with the idea that we have got to
make China the enemy. We watch it with care, but don't make it
the enemy. I went some 20 years ago with Lee Kuan Yew--
Mansfield said he is the ``wise man of the East''--and we were
talking about the military and how we could not afford, here in
the United States, all of this military and that we had to
share that burden. And we were talking about not wanting Japan
to build up an army or an air force, but maybe a navy. I
suggested to give them from Okinawa down past the Philippines
into Australia, let them go to Bali--they did not have to
worry--and we would take on up around Korea and Vladivostok.
And the prime minister said, ``But Senator, you should not
give them nuclear.'' And I was sort of taken aback, because I
was not even thinking about that, but I said, ``Would you give
the Germans nuclear?'' and he said yes. But he said never give
the Japanese nuclear. He said they do not think they lost that
war. It is taught in the schools today that they did not lose
that war, and historically, they have been the aggressor in the
East, not China.
Then, jump to the reality of our experience in Korea and
the reality of our experience in Vietnam, where you served. I
remember a conversation with you--yes, the United States has
all these tinkertoys, all this technology and so on, we had the
flame-throwers, the helicopters, the B-52s and everything
else--but the Vietnamese were on foot and beat the hell out of
us.
So as we puff and blow about what we are going to do, ask
yourself how many in the Congress are going to vote to commit
troops again in that area.
With respect to their activity running that country, I have
some little, very, very minute--maybe it is mistaken--
understanding. I know that Tiananmen Square was brutal, and we
all abhorred it, yet I ask myself how do you run a country with
a population of 1.3 billion.
I remember when I was Governor of South Carolina and had
the dichotomy of the law saying you could not take over the
streets--all the marry-ins, bed-ins, sit-ins--that is what the
law said. But President Kennedy at that time said if they do
not have recourse in the courts or in the Congress, they only
have the streets of America.
So I was in between the devil and the deep blue sea, and I
adopted the old 12th Roman Canon, ``Salus populi supreme lex,''
or ``The safety of the people is the supreme law.'' And I was
running around arresting and holding up people. I will never
forget the lawyer for Woolworth's and what he was going to do
in the Supreme Court. I told them to send down Chief Justice
Earl Warren, and I would lock him up. I was in charge as
Governor of the State.
And so it was that we had no one hurt and no life lost in
South Carolina. I wonder if you had some demonstrations here,
there, or yonder, in China, and it got the least bit out of
control--with 1.3 billion, within a year's time, it would be
totally out of control. And at the same time, we are working
our way--capitalism is defeating communism. That is what really
prevails over the Soviets, and it is working. And as you said,
our foreign policy--do not get all puffed up like some around
here who use it pollster-wise as a political issue to get
themselves elected--they are strong, they are against the reds,
they are against communism and all that--but they have no idea
of sending troops over there. We are deploying and puffing and
blowing.

Embassy construction requirements

Otherwise, get to the construction projects that we have,
Mr. Secretary, on course--not just the new projects. For
example in Moscow, if you go over there in the winter time,
they have a lot of adoptions going on, and U.S. citizens are
standing out on the streets, freezing. The adoption process
takes around 3 weeks, where you have got to check in and stay
and do this, do that, and so on. Our consulate is working
around-the-clock. They are doing a magnificent job, but they
need a facility, and they need it quick, more than Tashkent and
security in Tashkent. We have got to get General Williams on
the stick and have him set some priorities and get Moscow
completed right away.
Otherwise, go to Lebanon. I know there are some realtor
developers, because I have been there, and they want to go way
out on the edge of town, because that will get them a new
development, and if they can get the American facility there,
they can make money. It is like building a golf course and
selling the lots. If they can get you, then they can sell the
lots.
But I have seen the facility that we stopped construction
on. It is all right on three sides. But, on the back side, they
could aim down, but tell them to get that contractor in
Caracas, Venezuela who built the back side of the Embassy
there. We paid a fortune for a particular site in Caracas so
that you could look down the valley--but he built it with no
windows so you cannot look down anywhere. If you just wall it
off, seal it off, on that back side, you have a good facility,
and you have construction started, and it ought to be completed
so it would be available. Otherwise, you will have to go way
out where nobody can get to it there in Lebanon.
Chairman Gregg's staff has been down to look at the
facility in Sao Paulo. I want to get a report from General
Williams on that, because it seems like that building could be
used. Do not tell me they have glass--everything--the State
Department has glass. But it is right in the city, it is a
beautiful site, and rather than tear it down, it seems to me it
could be secure now. I am not all that wedded to Admiral Inman
and General Crowe. We live in the real world, and they would
have gotten rid of the Buenos Aires facility, and now they are
very happy with it. You cannot build ``fortress America''
everywhere and get into $100 million projects. That is really
bothersome.
I will yield with that, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
Senator Gregg. Thank you. Did you want the Secretary to
respond on any of those points?
Senator Hollings. Yes, by all means. Tell us about China--
no kidding.
Secretary Powell. Let me talk about embassies, and then I
will go to China.
On the embassies, thank you. I will point out all three of
these cases to General Williams and see what we can do.

secretary's comments on china-united states relations

I first went to China in 1973 as a young lieutenant colonel
on a fellowship program right after Nixon made his first trip.
It was a shocking visit, a remarkable visit. There were
bicycles everywhere. The only things one could aspire to were a
bicycle, a sewing machine, and a radio--that was it. If you had
all three of those, you were at the top of society. You could
go anywhere in China and ask a question and get the same answer
from anybody. It was total group thought. They were just coming
out of the cultural revolution. It was a depressing 3 weeks--
but they were able to feed this country of, at that time, just
short of one billion people.
Now it is almost 30 years later, and there are skyscrapers
popping up all over the place and a degree of wealth they never
would have dreamed up. There is pollution, not from bicycles,
but from cars running all over the place. And there is some
level of openness that would have been undreamed of 30 years
ago.
Are they a society like ours? No. Are they totalitarian?
Yes. Do they have an ideology that we find fatally flawed? Yes.
But are they also understanding that in the international
marketplace, there is wealth that they never dreamed of before?
Yes. Forty percent of their products are coming to us, and this
does not just benefit big American businessmen, it benefits
your constituents who go to K-Mart and Home Depot and Office
Depot and get products that they need perhaps a little more
inexpensively.
So they are coming out, and we need to keep encouraging it;
but they are also running a country of 1.3 billion people, and
they are determined--whether we think it is appropriate or
not--they are determined that that philosophy, that ideology,
and that country will not fall apart all at once the way the
Soviet Union did, losing your political system, your economic
system, your cultural identity all at once. They are determined
that that is not going to happen.
So I believe our strategy is rather clear--work with them,
and our little ups and downs will come, but continue to work
with them, continue to show them the benefit of moving in the
direction that we think is the correct direction. When we do
not like things about their society, about their government,
about their way of doing business, about their lack of respect
for international norms of human rights, then we should say so,
just as we did to the old Soviet Union, and let the power of
democracy, the power of openness, and the power of the free
enterprise system work. It may take a generation or two. I do
not know. It is up to the Chinese people to decide that. But
let us not cut off our nose to spite our face in order to look
like we are big and bad.
I think President Bush understands this. I know he does. I
think he demonstrated that in the way he handled the EP-3
incident and the way he is handling the situation now--
calibrated, firm, but with an understanding of the nature of
the total relationship between us and China.
Senator Hollings. I was there just at the time when Mao
passed in 1976. So we were the capitalist running dogs, the
gang of five, or whatever. But then I was there in 1986, 1996,
right on down the line, and we are winning as far as your
philosophy and my philosophy. I saw Madame Kang back there in
1976, 25 years ago, and she said if the seed of capitalism ever
got planted--that is why they had to go out to the countryside
and be reeducated under Chairman Mao's doctrine--if the seed of
capitalism ever got planted, it would be uncontrollable. And
its spread is uncontrollable in my opinion. We have 50,000 of
their students here in the United States, going back and forth.
In my time, I think I am going to see a lot happen there.
China is headed in the right direction when you understand that
when you have 1.3 billion people, the first human right is to
feed them; the second is to house them; the third human right
is to educate; and the fourth is to give them voting rights--
one man, one vote. But we have people running around in the
Congress who want one man, one vote tomorrow and cannot
understand why not.
Secretary Powell. Well, it is a pretty good philosophy, but
it is going to take time to get there.
Senator Hollings. And finally on the trade matter, for
example, I am a big cotton-producing State. You heard the
Senator from Washington talk about her wheat. The truth of the
matter is they already export more wheat than they import. They
import more from us because they are smart; diplomatically is
why they are doing it. We have a deficit in the balance of
trade in cotton right now, and 700 million farmers are going to
outdistance 3 million farmers. I do not care how much
technology and equipment you have. So they are going to be an
agricultural exporter, and then, all these people who get
subsidized, the aircraft industry for research, the Export-
Import Bank. Then chastise me when I want no subsidy, just the
enforcement of my textile agreement. The subsidized crowd says
``You are protectionist,'' but they will learn before long, in
the next few years.
China has come along, and they are going to be quite a
competitor, and we had better treat them as a competitor.
Secretary Powell. May I say one more word, Senator--with
your indulgence, Mr. Chairman.
You talked about Japan, you talked about China, you talked
about Vietnam, you talked about Korea--I also served in Korea
after the war, so I have a little experience in the region. And
the one thing that keeps things in balance and keeps China from
becoming any more of a dangerous player, using its wealth for
dangerous purposes--they will modernize their armed forces, and
they will do a lot of other things that we may not like, but it
is not clear to me that they are going to become the kind of
aggressive nation that tries to expand beyond its borders--but
the one thing that keeps it all in balance is the American
presence. The one thing that keeps it all in balance--and
nobody wants to see us leave for this reason--is that the
investment of 100,000 American troops and American presence and
American military commitment to the region underscores our
diplomatic and political commitment to the region and keeps
things in balance.
So we should push for more burdensharing, and we should ask
our friends in the region to do more, but we are the Asian
power that keeps those very difficult competing interests in
balance. At the end of the day, if you scratch any one of them,
nobody really wants to see us leave.
Senator Hollings. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Gregg. Thank you.
Senator Mikulski.

iraq sanctions

Senator Mikulski. Mr. Chairman, I just have one question,
and I hope you do not regard your experience here as a quiz.
Mr. Secretary, I want to come back to Iraq. You have proposed
reshaping sanctions on Iraq and that we call them ``smart
sanctions,'' with a focus on limiting Saddam's ability to
develop weapons of mass destruction.
Could you share with us perhaps an elaboration on the
concept, and have you given up using broader sanctions on
getting the inspectors in? I regard you as really quite an
expert on Iraq for obvious reasons, and I think we would all
like to be supportive here.
Secretary Powell. Others use the term ``smart sanctions.''
It is not a term that I have used. What I found when I became
Secretary of State, and what the Bush Administration found when
we came into office on January 20th, was that the whole
sanctions regime was collapsing in front of our eyes. We had
people running off hither and yon. We had people trying to
undercut the compensation account. People were saying let us
get rid of all the sanctions. We had difficulty with some of
our best friends in the United Nations. The Arab nations were
up-in-arms. And Saddam Hussein had very effectively put the
blame on us for the suffering of his people, when the blame
belonged right on him.
So when we took a look at that and saw the whole thing
collapsing, it was my judgment, shared by the President and
approved by the President, that we ought to refocus the
sanctions against their original target, which was weapons
control, control of weapons of mass destruction and the
technology to build them, and also control his ability to
rebuild an armed force that would be threatening to the region.
What I found was that the United States was placing holds
on huge amounts of material and commodities that were heading
into Iraq under the oil-for-food program at a rate 10 times
higher than our allies were. So we were being very, very tough,
and our allies were saying this is not going to work much
longer--we have all got to have a common view of what we are
doing.
So what I have been working hard to do is to develop that
common view, and I think we are having some success with it. In
the PERM-5, I spoke to my Russian colleague, Foreign Minister
Ivanov, about it again yesterday, and our teams are meeting. I
think I will have good support from our Arab friends in the
region. The Iraqis went to the Arab Summit and blew it and did
not succeed in getting out of the constraints, did not get the
Arab Summit to endorse their getting away from the control of
these weapons as controlled by the United Nations.
So I think we are going to have some progress, and I hope
that by early June, when we have the next rollover of the
sanctions regime in the United Nations, America's ideas will
have taken root, and we will see a change in it.
Senator Mikulski. Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary.
Obviously, this is a work in progress. I think it does require
new thinking while we are thinking about our national goals and
our values.

global public health

I know that we will be meeting again on May 15th in Foreign
Operations, and at that time, I hope we can have a conversation
on global public health issues--the growing rate of
vulnerability, transnational threats to us in infectious
disease, AIDS. And I am sure you are aware that yesterday, the
House International Relations Committee voted 26-22 to reverse
the gag rule. I would hope we could come up with a way of
bridging that so that that is not the big fight--there are
other real big fights--but many of us are quite concerned about
the infectious disease issue, the AIDS problem in both Africa
and Russia, that also, then, constitute threats to the United
States and threats to them in terms of the ability to ever be
able to grow an economy.
Secretary Powell. There are 26 million people in Sub-
Saharan Africa who have been condemned to death by HIV/AIDS,
tuberculosis, and malaria, and the infectious diseases that are
driven by HIV/AIDS, and----
Senator Mikulski. Why don't we save that, then, until May
15th when you come up to Foreign Operations.
Secretary Powell. Very well, Senator.
Senator Mikulski. And we look forward to your hearings next
week, Mr. Chairman, on such a comprehensive approach to
terrorism. It is probably the most----
Senator Gregg. I hope you will have a chance to
participate.
Senator Mikulski. I am going to try to come to everything
that I can.
Senator Gregg. The idea is to have everybody who wants to
participate be able to do so, and we hope the Secretary can
make it, or Mr. Armitage.
Senator Mikulski. Thank you very much.
Mr. Secretary, again, we really look froward to working
with you.
Secretary Powell. Thank you, Senator.

trade with china

Senator Hollings. Just a heads-up on one other function,
that is, studying at the Department of Defense level, along
with the Secretary of State, those items necessary to our
national security. What I am getting at is back in 1961, 40
years ago, President Kennedy could not evoke or take action for
his seven-point textile program unless under the statute it was
found to be necessary to our national security. He brought the
witnesses, including Secretary McNamara, Orville Freeman, and
Secretary of Treasury Doug Dillon, and we had the hearings, and
next to steel, they found that textiles were second most
important to our national security.
You mentioned Ambassador Zoellick a minute ago. This trade
measure has gotten totally out of hand, and the tail is wagging
the dog. That crowd that did not want to go overseas to produce
anything 50 years has now found out that for 10 percent of the
cost, you can move your production overseas and bring it back
in. And as a result, at least two-thirds and probably 75
percent of the clothing I am looking at is imported, and 86
percent of the shoes on the floor here are imported.
I noticed in the newspaper that you were embarrassed, I
take it, to finally stop the production of the Rangers in
China. I was a witness back at that particular time. Tom Dewey
represented the Japanese Government, and they ran me all around
the hearing room of the old International Tariff Commission.
The thrust was, ``Governor, what do you want them to make? We
will make the airplanes and the computers, but let them make
the clothing and the shoes.'' The problem is that today, they
make the shoes, the clothing, the airplanes, the computers--the
whole kit and caboodle. I do not mind losing the textiles,
because they are all Republican anyway. But I really worry
about the disillusionment of the economic backbone of this
Nation. It is like a three-legged stool--first, your values,
which are admired the world around; second, the military, which
is unquestioned; but the third, the economic leg, we have
sacrificed intentionally, really, for the victory of capitalism
over communism. Fine--give them some textiles, give them this,
give them that--but now we are competing with ourselves. The
United States Chamber of Commerce does not represent Main
Street; it represents overseas. I do not have to see the
Japanese Ambassador come in; I see the United States Chamber of
Commerce, with free trade, free trade, and so on.
I have lost 42,500 textile jobs since NAFTA. We have lost
500,000 textile jobs. We used to have 41 percent in
manufacturing at the end of World War II, and now they are down
to 12 percent of the work force.
So the only way to get the attention of these free trade
addicts, really gutting our economic strength, and fracturing
that third leg, is to have a hearing to find out from the
Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense those things
necessary to our national security. Find business for Jordan; I
will vote for that. Find business with Chile--I know we will
have a problem with respect to their salmon and with respect to
their wine, but they have the entities in Chile of a free
economy. They have property rights, a respected judiciary,
labor rights. They had none of that in Mexico, and that is
where we tripped up, and now we have to get some sort of
Marshall Plan--that is another thing over there.
But as we go along with the State Department just
parroting, free trade, free trade, free trade, it is not
necessarily working in our interest. That plane--I would not
have given that much to China for that Boeing 777--50 percent
of it is made in China--because the Chinese know how to trade.
Do not talk about the Chinese--I hear these Senators jumping up
and down, ``Oh, they cheat, they cheat.'' Well, by gosh, the
Japanese continue to cheat; the Koreans continue to cheat. And
they all cheat because that is the rule of thumb, because we
never enforce our dumping laws, because we do not want to be
protectionist.
You have the army to protect us from enemies without; the
FBI to protect us from enemies within. We have Social Security
to protect old age, Medicare to protect health. You can go
right on down--that is the function of Government. We have got
to protect our economy.
So as the Secretary of State, understand that we are doing
pretty good militarily, we are doing pretty good on the values,
but we are enfeebled in a sense--we are going to wind up like
England. They told them at the end of World War II, do not
worry--instead of a nation of brawn, you are going to be a
nation of brains. Instead of producing products, you are going
to produce services; instead of creating wealth, you are going
to handle it and be a financial center. They have a bunch of
Parliamentarians, and downtown London is an amusement park.
They do not do anything. Do not worry when you get into a
conference with that crowd--they do not have anybody to go.
Their army is not as big as our Marine Corps.
So we have got to maintain our economic strength, because
money influences. The Japanese are now giving more to the
United Nations than we are in foreign aid in different
countries. We passed a resolution--they are talking about human
rights in China--we passed it 12 years ago and have never had a
hearing, because the Chinese went down into Africa and places
like that where they had influence, and they forestalled it,
and we have never had a hearing.
So money talks, and watch it as the Secretary of State.
Secretary Powell. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Gregg. We very much appreciate your attendance, Mr.
Secretary, and we thank you for your time.
We are going to begin a series of hearings next week on
terrorism and would appreciate the State Department's
participation in those. They will begin on Tuesday, May 8th,
and run for 3 straight days, with every department that has any
involvement in combating terrorism being in attendance. At
these hearings, we hope to hear from each agency about what
their role is in combating terrorism activity, what they think
their role should be in combating terrorism activity, and with
whom do they coordinate and to whom do they report.

Additional committee questions

It is essentially a set of hearings the purpose of which is
to develop a base from which we can make some intelligent
decisions on how to get better coordination with respect to
terrorism activity. I know the White House is also aggressively
pursuing this issue, but the Congress does have a role here, as
Senator Hollings was just saying. That will be the focus of our
attention next week.
[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
were submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the
hearing:]
Question Submitted by Senator Pete V. Domenici
Question. Mr. Secretary, I listened with great interest to the
President's recent speech on transforming deterrence at the National
Defense University. As he has indicated in earlier foreign policy
statements, he believes it's time to shift from a purely offensive
posture to some mix of reduced offensive capabilities and more emphasis
on layered missile defense possibilities. He also indicated that the
first step would be consultation with allies. At some later point, the
United States would engage Russia and China on this approach.
1. I would like to understand your view of how we best can achieve
consensus among our allies, as well as our potential adversaries, on a
shift from mutually assured destruction to an entirely new approach
that includes defensive capabilities?
2. How do you believe we can assure stability as we proceed to undo
the framework that has dictated the course of arms control over the
past several decades, but as the President rightly indicated is no
longer applicable to today's world?
Answer. 1. We are consulting with our allies and working to
convince Russia and China of the need to shift from a purely offensive
posture to some mix of reduced offensive forces because our
relationship with Russia is different--and limited missile defense
capabilities--because we face missile threats from new challengers. On
his two recent European trips the President described this vision and
our plans to date.
The NATO allies are unanimous in their support for President Bush's
decision to intensify work with Russia on strategic stability, missile
defense and a framework to replace the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM)
Treaty before the U.S. testing schedule bumps up against Treaty limits.
As the pace of United States-Russia discussions continues, we will keep
the Congress as well as our NATO allies informed of our gameplan with
Moscow and the results of our bilateral discussions.
With respect to Russia we are seeking to build a new strategic
framework in which our ability to destroy each other is not the
defining principle. We seek to build a new relationship based on mutual
interests and cooperation in the political, economic, and security
areas.
With respect to China, the United States intends to continue
consulting with Beijing. China was in the process of modernizing its
strategic forces before President Bush's missile defense initiative. It
has continued to modernize its aging deterrent force. We have
established a dialogue with the PRC on our strategic framework,
emphasizing in particular that our plans with respect to missile
defense are not aimed at China's small strategic nuclear force. We
intend to continue our discussions with China on our strategic
framework to promote our broad nonproliferation, arms control, and
transparency/confidence building objectives.
2. The July 22 Joint Statement by Presidents Bush and Putin marks
an important step in our efforts to establish a new strategic framework
for ensuring security and stability into the future. The statement sums
up the Presidents' shared understanding that major strategic changes
require concrete discussions of both offensive and defensive systems
and that there are already some strong and tangible points of
agreement. Intensive consultations have already begun on the
interrelated issues of offensive and defensive systems.
We have told the Russians that we believe it is necessary to move
beyond the structures of the Cold War, including moving beyond the ABM
Treaty. We also seek to develop regular United States-Russian exchanges
to ensure full transparency and understanding of each other's offensive
and defensive systems and future plans. This will provide assurance to
each side that neither side threatens the other's strategic deterrent.
The missile defenses we will deploy will be too limited to affect
the credibility of the Russian deterrent, even at levels of forces far
below those reportedly being considered in Moscow. The reductions in
nuclear forces we both will make also will help preserve the stability
of nuclear deterrence. The United States intends to reduce its nuclear
forces to the lowest level consistent with our national security needs,
including our obligations to our allies.
We will continue consulting with China as we move forward. I was in
Beijing last month, and emphasized that we want to build positive
political, economic, and cultural relations with China. In particular,
the Chinese agreed to further experts' talks on nonproliferation
related issues. These consultations are integral to our ongoing effort
to monitor closely PRC implementation of its nonproliferation
commitments, including its November 2000 commitment to establish an
effective missile technology export control system. We will take action
if we see backsliding, including sanctions, where appropriate.
______

Questions Submitted by Senator Ernest F. Hollings
Question. Mr. Secretary, concern has been raised that the State
Department has been outmaneuvered on the United Nations Compensation
Commission (UNCC) by Russia, France and China. There is a perception
that those countries have implemented a strategy to benefit Iraq
instead of compensating Kuwait and the other victims of Iraq's
aggression. Last year, for example, they got concessions for Iraq at
the UNCC by blocking for several months a $16 billion oil field damage
award to Kuwait, and now they are proposing the use of UNCC
compensation funds to pay for Iraqi consultants to help Iraq oppose
Kuwait's environmental claims. These actions indicate these countries
may be motivated by the prospect of future commercial and oil field
deals with Iraq as well as future military sales to Iraq. Does the
Administration believe Security Council members are attempting to
appease Iraq in order to further their parochial, commercial and
economic interests? If so, what is the Administration's plan to ensure
this pattern of behavior is corrected?
Answer. Fourteen of the fifteen Security Council members support
our new approach on Iraq. The UNCC's Governing Council, consisting of
the same members as the Security Council, has consistently supported
our efforts to keep the UNCC focused on the technical, non-political
completion of the UNCC's workplan, under which it verifies and pays out
claims, including the large environmental claims of Kuwait.
In UNCC meetings, countries have raised questions about the
fairness of the UNCC's processes, especially given the size of the
awards now being considered. We have accepted some adjustments to UNCC
procedures to allow the UNCC to continue processing claims as quickly
as possible, according to its technical standards. The result of these
changes is that the UNCC Governing Council continues to operate
effectively and to approve awards by consensus. The continued
effectiveness of the UNCC in carrying out its mandate to compensate
victims of Iraqi aggression in Kuwait will continue to be the standard
by which we judge any future proposals for change in UNCC procedures.
Question. Concern has also been raised that if the UNCC does not
fully compensate Kuwait and others similarly situated for the damage
Iraq inflicted on them, Iraq and other would-be aggressors will believe
that the United Nations and the international community lack the
collective will to make them pay for the damage that they cause. They
may believe they can avoid compensating the victims of their aggression
by stalling for time and offering commercial inducements to targeted
members of the Security Council. What steps will you take with the UNCC
to ensure that Iraq fully compensates the victims of its 1990 invasion
of Kuwait instead of marshaling its assets to fund Iraq's military
programs?
Answer. The Department has led the support for the UNCC's Work
Program in order to ensure that every claim filed before the UNCC is
adjudicated, and is working to ensure that the Compensation Fund is
adequately funded until all awards rendered are paid.
Question. The largest Kuwaiti war damage claims, totaling more than
$140 billion for environmental damage and reconstruction costs, are
still pending in the UNCC and are due to be decided later this year.
The 42 Kuwait government claims processed so far have received an
average amount of 55 percent of the amount claimed. Do you believe that
the pending claims, which go to the heart of the damage caused by Iraqi
aggression, will receive at least as favorable a rate of compensation
as the claims processed earlier?
Answer. We are not privy to any of the claims filed with the UNCC
by any other government, including the government of Kuwait and are
therefore not in a position to make our own assessment of the strengths
or weaknesses of the claims made. Even if we did have access to these
materials, it is impossible to guess, in advance, how the independent
panels of commissioners will decide any given claim.
Question. There is a perception that the UNCC Governing Council has
made recommendations by panels of commissioners before the United
States has had an official opportunity to review the claims. Will you
make sure that the State Department and its legal Advisers engage the
UNCC earlier in the process, review the Commissioners' analysis of the
claims, and take steps to ensure that their recommendations do not
unfairly favor Iraqi interests or discount claims unnecessarily?
Answer. The UNCC's panels of commissioners independently review the
claims before them, including any supporting evidence, and arrive at
their own independent conclusions regarding the dispositions of claims.
They submit their written reports and recommendations to the UNCC
Secretariat, which makes them available to all members of the Governing
Council simultaneously. Neither the U.S. Government, nor any other
Governing Council member, is privy to those reports before that time.
Before the UNCC's rules of procedure were revised in December 2000, the
UNCC circulated reports to all Governing Council members 30 days before
the quarterly sessions of the Governing Council at which the given
report was to be discussed and approved. As a result of the revisions
to the rules, certain reports, including those containing significant
legal, factual and technical issues and those containing claims with
recommended awards of $100 million or more, are to be made available
three months in advance of the relevant Governing Council session.
Although it is not privy to the evidence and expert reports that
underlie panels' recommendations, the Department reviews all such
reports for patent errors prior to Governing Council consideration.
While under the rules the Governing Council does not function as an
appellate body, in appropriate but infrequent occasions, the United
States has sought clarifications from panels or in the Governing
Council resolution approving an award. To date, all awards have been
approved by consensus among Governing Council members.
Question. Concern has been raised that of the $34 billion awarded
by the UNCC to date only $11 billion has been paid. In addition, the
United Nations reduced the amount Iraq had to contribute to the U.N.
Compensation Fund from the oil-for-food proceeds from 30 percent to 25
percent. What steps does the United States plan to take to ensure that
this rate is not further reduced and that the remaining awards,
including those resulting from the $140 billion in remaining Kuwaiti
claims, will actually be paid?
Answer. As part of an agreement that led to UNCC Governing Council
approval of a $16 billion award to Kuwait, the United States accepted a
temporary reduction in the allocation from Iraqi oil revenues to the
U.N. Compensation Fund. These funds that made up the reduction are
earmarked exclusively for humanitarian projects under the control of
the United Nations to benefit the people of Iraq, not to the Iraqi
regime. During negotiations on the Security Council resolution that
would have established a new approach to Iraq, we have supported a
return to a 30 percent allocation. Within the UNCC we will continue to
ensure that the UNCC has the resources to pay awards and that its award
adjudication and payments reflect the technical merits of the awards
and UNCC procedures claims and not extraneous political factors.
______

Questions Submitted by Senator Barbara A. Mikulski
Question. President Bush promised during his campaign to
immediately begin the process of moving the U.S. Embassy in Israel to
Jerusalem. What funds in the Embassy Security and Construction request
will be used for that purpose?
Answer. The President remains committed to beginning the process of
moving our Embassy to Jerusalem. However, we are not in a position to
establish an embassy in Jerusalem at this time. A fundamental and
overarching foreign policy and national security goal of the United
States is to help the parties end the current violence in Israel, the
West Bank and Gaza.
The President has determined that moving the embassy now would
complicate our ability to play a helpful role in bringing and end to
this violence. That is why on June 11 the President exercised the
waiver authority given him by the Jerusalem Embassy Act to waive for
six months the Act's limitations on the Department's ability to
obligate the funds appropriated for overseas buildings.
Question. U.S. citizen Zachary Baumel and two other Israeli
soldiers have been missing since June 1982, when they were captured
after a tank battle with Syrian forces. Three other Israeli soldiers
were kidnapped in northern Israel and taken to Lebanon last October.
What are we doing to help find these Israeli soldiers captured and
taken into Lebanon or Syria? Why hasn't the Red Cross and Red Crescent
even managed to locate them?
Answer. The Department considers ascertaining the fate of all
Israelis missing in Lebanon as an important humanitarian goal. U.S.
citizen Zachary Baumel, and fellow Israeli soldiers Yehuda Katz, and
Zvi Feldman have been missing since 1982, while Israeli pilot Ron Arad
has been missing since 1986. In October, 2000, Hizballah captured three
Israeli soldiers, Avi Avitan, Benny Avraham, and Omar Souad while they
were patrolling the Israeli side of the United Nations certified Blue
Line. Shortly thereafter, Hizballah seized Israeli businessman Elchanan
Tanenbaum, though the circumstances remain unclear.
The Department is in close touch with Israel and the families, with
whom the Secretary met in June. We have endeavored to be as helpful as
possible in pushing for International Committee of the Red Cross access
and in ascertaining the fate of all missing Israelis. At every
opportunity we call on Syria and Lebanon to do their utmost to help
achieve the release of, and/or information about the missing Israelis.
Assistant Secretary Burns stressed our concerns directly in Beirut and
Damascus in July, and met again with the families in Washington on
August 2.
The United States maintains a strict prohibition against contact
with Hizballah. Negotiations on the prisoners have accordingly been
pursued through non-U.S. channels. The Department of State will
continue to monitor and raise this issue whenever and wherever doing so
will contribute to the resolution of this humanitarian issue.
Question. Last year, the State Department requested $30 million in
the Foreign Operations bill to establish a Center for Anti-Terrorism
and Security Training (CAST). The purpose of CAST is to provide one
good site to be shared by Diplomatic Security service for its own
training and for the International Narcotics and Law Enforcement (INL)
bureau to provide training for selected foreign officials. That request
was not met, because it was felt that building such a facility should
be funded in Commerce-Justice-State, not Foreign Ops. I hope you will
look into getting this important facility established.
I believe Aberdeen Proving Ground in Maryland could be an
outstanding site for the CAST. It has the space you need as well as
other related institutions. It is within easy distance of Washington
and close to BWI airport.
Why didn't the Administration request CJS funds for CAST this year?
Would you please ensure that your DS and INL officials fully consider
the advantages of locating the facility at Aberdeen Proving Ground?
Answer. The Antiterrorism Assistance Program's CAST initiative is
intended to significantly increase training for foreign law enforcement
and Government officials. The Department is continuing to explore
sites, which would serve the CAST training requirements, as well as
those of the Diplomatic Security Service. Proximity to Washington, DC,
existing infrastructure, and potential for dual use are among the
criteria being reviewed. The Aberdeen Proving Ground is among a number
of venues, which continue to be vetted.
However, while the Department firmly believes in the value of CAST,
the prioritizing of needs for the fiscal year 2002 budget cycle could
not accommodate funding for CAST. While we cannot now commit to fiscal
year 2003 spending initiatives, the CAST program will be given every
consideration.
______

Questions Submitted by Senator Patrick J. Leahy
Question. In my opening statement, I mentioned the Bureau for
Democracy, Human Rights and Labor. The Administration has already made
its budget request, which I believe falls short, and I will be talking
to the Chairman and Ranking Member about that.
But there is also a lot that can be done, without spending money,
to strengthen that office. It all depends on what message you, as the
Secretary, send to the rest of the Department. If you make clear that
you want their unvarnished views whenever there are potential human
rights issues at stake, that would make a difference. Would you comment
on this?
Answer. Since taking office, I have made it clear to all my Under
Secretaries and Assistant Secretaries that I want to be presented with
all views on an issue even where a position may affect our relationship
with a foreign country. This understanding applies directly to human
rights issues. For example, Assistant Secretary of State for Democracy,
Human Rights and Labor Lorne Craner, who is a key member of my team and
participates in my daily senior staff meetings, accompanied me on my
recent trip to Asia. I value his unvarnished views.
Question. An election will be held in East Timor later this year to
establish an independent government. I know there is a waiting list for
construction of new embassies, and for the renovation of existing
embassies and other facilities. However, we do need an embassy in East
Timor, and I would like to know the status of the Department's efforts
to open a fully functioning diplomatic mission there.
Answer. The Department shares your desire for an expeditious
opening of diplomatic mission in Dili. A U.S. presence in East Timor is
essential to monitor our bilateral assistance programs and work with
officials of U.N. transitional administration in East Timor as well as
the nascent East Timorese government.
On May 7, 2001, the Department transmitted a notification letter to
the Congress requesting reprogramming of funds for facilities
renovation and operating expenses associated with opening a U.S.
diplomatic post in Dili, East Timor. However, language included in the
Report (107-42) accompanying the fiscal year 2002 Senate Commerce-
Justice-State Appropriations Bill (S. 1215) puts a hold on this
reprogramming action. In the Report, the Committee expresses its
concern with the safety of American people and property in East Timor
and directs the Department to report on the situation by January 1
2002, at which time the Committee will reconsider our request to open a
post in Dili. While we will provide the Committee with the requested
report, we still believe that opening a U.S. diplomatic mission in Dili
as soon as possible is in our national interest, and we would hope the
committee could find a way to allow the administrative preparation for
opening a post to proceed in the interim.
office of war crimes issues
Question. I am pleased that you decided to keep the position of
Ambassador-at-Large for War Crimes. There have been reports that there
is consideration within the State Department to place the Office of War
Crimes (S/WCI) under the authority of either the Under Secretary of
State for Arms Control and International Security (T) or the Office of
the Legal Advisor (L). Do you intend to maintain the current structure
where S/WCI reports directly to the Secretary of State?
Answer. I have decided that the Office of War Crimes Issues (S/WCI)
will continue to report directly to me. Pierre-Richard Prosper, our new
Ambassador-at-Large for War Crimes Issues, advises me directly on U.S.
efforts to address serious violations of international humanitarian
law, including genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes,
committed throughout the world. President Bush and I count on him to
ensure that the United States remains a leader in the effort to punish
war criminals and to prevent the commission of future crimes.
Question. Don't you think the best strategy is to remain a
signatory [to the ICC treaty]--to maintain our leverage in the
negotiations and allow our representatives to get more protections for
Americans?
Answer. The Administration's primary objective in its ICC review is
to find avenues to protect United States officials and service
personnel from politically motivated prosecutions by the International
Criminal Court. That review is currently underway.
Question. Does the Administration's policy on the ICC include
``unsigning'' the treaty or actively pressuring our friend and allies
not to ratify it?
Answer. As you know the Administrative has no intention to submit
the ICC treaty to Senate for advice and consent to ratification. The
Administration has currently underway a review of the ICC and is
seeking to develop a strategy that best protects the interests of the
United States.

subcommittee recess

Senator Gregg. I thank you for your attendance, and this
hearing is recessed.
Secretary Powell. Thank you, Senator.
[Whereupon, at 11:18 a.m., Thursday, May 3, 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 2002

----------

TUESDAY, MAY 15, 2001

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

STATEMENT OF SCOTT B. GUDES, ACTING UNDER SECRETARY AND
ADMINISTRATOR
ACCOMPANIED BY:
JACK KELLY, ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR, NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE
BILL HOGARTH, ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR, NATIONAL MARINE
FISHERIES SERVICE

Senator Gregg. The subcommittee will come to order.
It is a pleasure today to have the Acting Administrator of
NOAA, Scott Gudes, with us. He is reasonably familiar to the
committee.
I have no opening statement. Senator Hollings.
Senator Hollings. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I note the bio or resume here of Scott B. Gudes, and I see
mentioned Fullerton and scuba diving and many other things, but
it does not mention my name.
I think of the time that Bess Truman--they used to tell all
kinds of stories about President Harry Truman--had gone to have
her annual physical, and she was standing in front of the
mirror, admiring herself. The President looked at her and
asked, ``What in the world are you doing?''
She said, ``I have just had my annual physical, and the
doctor said I am in the best shape of anyone he has ever seen
my age.''
And Harry asked, ``Well, what did he say about your big,
fat . . .''
And she said, ``Harry, he did not even mention your name.''
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Gregg. That may go down as one of the more original
opening statements.
Mr. Gudes. You cannot say those things in the executive
branch, so I will just listen.
Senator Gregg. Senator Inouye, did you have any opening
remarks?
Senator Inouye. I do not think I can add to that.
Senator Gregg. No, I do not think any of us can.
Senator Inouye. I just want to welcome Scott.
Senator Gregg. Mr. Gudes, the floor is yours.
Mr. Gudes. Thank you, Chairman Gregg, Senator Hollings,
Senator Inouye.

opening statement by under secretary gudes

I will submit my full statement for the record, and I would
like to use these powerpoint slides and just make some oral
comments if I could.
First of all, let me say on behalf of Secretary Evans and
our 12,500 men and women working around the country that I want
to thank you for this opportunity to come here today and
testify on behalf of our fiscal year 2002 budget for your
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
I also want to thank this subcommittee for your unwavering
and strong support through the years for our Nation's ocean and
atmospheric programs and especially highlight your outstanding
professional staff who have worked so closely with NOAA--Jim
Morhard and Luke Nachbar, Lila Helms, Jill Shapiro-Long, Nancy
Ragland-Perkins, and Dana Quam.
Mr. Chairman, I would also like to recognize my management
team that is here today--my deputy chief financial officer and
budget director, Jolene Lauria Sullens; Sonya Stewart, our
chief financial officer and chief administrative officer;
Margaret Davidson, head of the Oceans Service; Bill Hogarth,
head of Fisheries; Jack Kelly, head of the Weather Service;
Louisa Koch, deputy head of research; Greg Withee, who is here
for satellites; Bob Taylor from Office of Marine Aviation
Operations.
These are, I think, testament to the fact that NOAA is much
greater than the sum of its parts, and I rely on this whole
management team to help run the agency.
For fiscal year 2002, the NOAA budget totals $3.152
billion. That is a $61 million reduction from the current year.
So we are not talking about how much real growth above the
current year or below the current year.
That really does not tell the whole story. We have about
$330 million in reductions and about $270 million of
investments or add-backs. That is most of what I will talk
about today. But when you look at those add-backs, Mr.
Chairman, I think you will see that in fact they really do
emphasize NOAA's core mission; that Secretary Evans really did
come to us and say ``Please invest in the things that will help
NOAA do its mission in the future.'' And I think you will see
that that $270 million is wisely invested.
I also believe that this subcommittee will find this budget
to be more realistic than past budgets that have been submitted
in that we have fully funded programs that this subcommittee
has been telling us for years are important and high priority
that have too often come up being cut or terminated in the
President's budget.
So that, for example, the Coastal Services Center is fully
funded; the Joint Hydrography Center; CICEET, the National
Undersea Research Program. We are almost at last year's level
for the Steller sea lion programs. The Juneau lab in Alaska for
the first time has a substantial funding request, and Sea Grant
is fully funded. Coastal Zone Management actually has an
increase. Those are programs that this committee for years has
supported and told NOAA that it wants to be funded.

noaa management improvements

If I could turn to the first slide that shows management
improvements, before talking about what we are asking for in
terms of funding this year, I would like to show you what we
have been doing with the funding that this subcommittee and
committee have been providing to us in the past and just show
you some of the impacts we have had.
If you look at the box in the middle, that is hurricane
track forecasts. What the slide shows is that since the mid-
1980's, we have reduced the error in hurricane track forecasts
from about 400 nautical miles out at 72 hours down to 200
nautical miles. We are coming down every year a few percentage
points. We can do better, but we have cut it in half since the
mid-1980's, and that is a factor of better satellites, better
training, better research, but most importantly, better
supercomputers and models. That really shows the impact of
that.
Another example is tornado lead time, where in the early
1990's, we had very little lead time; we got a nationwide
system of NEXRAD Doppler radars, of AWIPS communications and
forecasting systems, and now we are up to 10\1/2\ minutes of
lead time, and that is for all types of tornadoes. If we are
looking at the larger tornadoes on the Fujita Scale, we have
greater lead times.
On acquisition reform, this committee played a real
leadership role. In the 1991 time frame, we had one
geostationary satellite left in this country. I remember when
this subcommittee got together with the Commerce Committee and
held a special hearing to get on top of the situation and do
something about the fact that we had one geostationary
satellite, and we did not think it was going to last until the
next series came and replaced it. And by the leadership of this
committee, Loral Corporation, our satellite service, and Ray
Kamer, who just retired from NIST and was the Deputy Under
Secretary of NOAA at the time, we made real improvements and
fixed those instruments.
The situation we now have is that we basically kept the
costs of a geostationary satellite in constant dollars frozen
or slightly less than it was. We have two--one West, one East--
geostationary satellites, one in cold storage in orbit, ready
to turn on; and a fourth satellite that is going to be launched
this summer. So we have gone from a situation through better
acquisition management of keeping down costs but also providing
robustness to our system and being able to maintain coverage
for the American people.
Turning to the budget for this fiscal year, the next slide
shows some of the cross-cutting themes that we have used and it
highlights some of the numbers that I showed you before.

noaa budget priorities

The next slide shows my number one priority. If you ask me,
``Scott, you are Acting Administrator. What is your top
priority in the budget?''--it is our people. It is funding our
adjustments to base--the pay raises, the rent costs, the must-
pay bills. That is about $60 million of our request, and about
$24 million of that is for the Weather Service, which is the
most people-intensive part of NOAA. For too long, too many
years, the President's budgets did not come up fully funding
it, and we have done that.
The next slide shows my next-highest priority, which is
infrastructure--equipment, facilities, maintenance. It is what
I call infrastructure, and it is about areas where we have not
traditionally done well in NOAA, worrying about how this agency
is going to continue to do its mission, not just today but in
the future.
I would just like to highlight a few of the things that are
covered in here. Three million is to help start building our
new Honolulu Fisheries Laboratory. It is collocated at the
University of Hawaii. It is non-ADA-compliant right now--that
is the Americans for Disabilities Act. It has leaks in the
computer areas, and I think it was originally designed for 45
employees, and we currently have about 120 there.
Then, $1.7 million is for overall safety and environmental
issues; $5.8 million is for overhaul and repair of two of our
NOAA fisheries vessels, including the Albatross IV, which is
home-ported in Woods Hole and is the workhorse of our Northeast
surveys.
And $7.5 million is for a backup telecommunications gateway
for our National Weather Service. The gateway puts out all
products to emergency managers, the media, and to the public.
We have a single point of failure in Silver Spring. We talk
about critical infrastructure a lot on this committee and in
the executive branch. This is about giving us a backup
telecommunications gateway so that we do not have that single
point of failure. It is the right thing to do.

cross-cutting issues

The next slide, I will just go through very quickly, but
there are a few cross-cutting issues. I want to talk about
satellites and our weather forecasting.
Under coastal conservation--that is a program sometimes
called Lands Legacy, coastal ocean activities--we have a number
of programs there from coral reefs to marine sanctuaries to the
estuarine research reserve program, like Ace Basin and Great
Bay. The total increase for that is $34.4 million, and included
in the marine sanctuary request is $6.5 million to build and
fully fund the Nancy Foster complex in Key West for the Florida
Keys Sanctuary.
On the right, modernizing NOAA fisheries--we are really
following the lead of this committee, and we have an increase
of $60.1 million for science, for management, and for
enforcement; $13.3 million for surveys, which is largely by
contract, days at sea--829 days, I believe, by contract. We
have $2.5 million for Fisheries Management Councils. They are
really the way that we manage fisheries in this country in
partnership with the industry and the States, and they have
adjustments to base as well, and they have not gotten an
increase in quite some time.
We have $2 million for the community-based Habitat
Restoration Program, which has been making a big impact across
the country. We have some $16.5 million in increases requested
for the Climate Services Initiative, like Argo floats, which
are like radiosondes, weather balloons, if you will, for the
ocean, for studies of carbon in Arctic ice. It includes $3
million for supercomputing to get our capability at the
Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Lab, our principal climate modeling
center in this country, up to speed with the Japanese and the
Europeans, which have more capable supercomputers right now.
Climates, both seasonal and long-term--this is a major
interest of NOAA and of this country. Increasingly, we are
realizing that it is of interest to the energy industry as
well, something that we have increasingly become aware of and
they have increasingly become aware of. And of course, it is
also about the oceans. Of course, climate is one of the areas
in NOAA that is not about atmospheric NOAA or oceanic NOAA; it
really is both, because in order to understand climate, you
need to understand the oceans and their impact.

maritime transportation system

One slide that you have up there, a final area before I
turn to satellites, is the maritime transportation system. I
know this is a major area of interest to a number of people on
the committee. What we are talking about there is really
looking at our maritime transportation system in the same way
we do at aviation, at surface transportation. We have a number
of specific initiatives--$3 million for working with
communities in coastal storms, $2 million for oil and hazardous
spill response, and $3.6 million for electronic navigational
charts to really move the smart charts, vector charts, and a
digital database to cover 200 of the most important ports of
this country.
I would just like to highlight--there is an image of a NOAA
polar satellite here on the bottom--I would like to cover two
programs that are under satellites and weather, because I think
they are highly important, and one of them is the biggest
budget initiative that we have in here.

hurricane forecasting

The first is a $2.2 million increase for something called
the U.S. Weather Research Program. I guess I would probably
refer to that as hurricane forecasting, if you will. It is
about hurricane track forecasts, about intensity, about
quantitative precipitation forecasts. Increasingly, the number
one killer from hurricanes is not the storm surge and the winds
at the coast--we are doing a better job getting the public to
pay attention to that--but it is about inland flooding. In
Hurricane Floyd, we lost over 50 people to inland flooding. So
the U.S. Weather Research Program is really about doing the
science, working with our partners in the academic community
and other agencies, doing a better job in all of those areas,
being able to determine where a hurricane is going to hit, with
what intensity and how much rainfall.
If you turn to the next slide, I just want to show you an
example of why I think we need to move on this area, and I am
pretty proud that it is in our budget. On this side is a
depiction of Hurricane Georges. Hurricane Georges came over Key
West and did not intensify quite as much as we had thought,
which was good. But 48 hours later, it came in to southern
Mississippi just about exactly where we predicted it would; it
did a few things in between that scared the people in New
Orleans, but it came in pretty much where we said 48 hours
later. So it is an example in 1998 of where we got it right.
On the other side of the page is Hurricane Mitch. Hurricane
Mitch came across the Caribbean, and it actually came back into
tropical storm status and then went down over Honduras and
became sort of like Hurricane Agnes here on the East Coast,
with major flooding, and killed over 10,000 people.
No model--NOAA's GDFL hurricane model, the Navy's model, or
the European model--predicted that hurricane to come south like
it did or to stall. So 98 years or so after the Galveston
hurricane, we lost 10,000 people just 3 years ago. So it is an
example of how far we have got to go in terms of hurricane
forecasting in this country.

npoess satellites

The last major program that I would like to mention is
NPOESS, the National Polar-Orbiting Environmental Satellite
System. The satellites that you see on television are
geostationary satellites; you see them every night. You do not
see our polar satellites. Our polar satellites do several
functions. They get the meteorological measurements, which are
the backbone of how we do our numerical weather prediction,
those models we talk about for winter storms and for all the
long-term forecasting that we do. They do search and rescue,
SARSAT with the Coast Guard. We have saved over 12,000 lives
since 1982. They do ozone, and they also do imaging. And
actually, with our very high advanced resolution radiometer, I
have some pictures of how that satellite actually does disaster
assistance all over the world. It is a global satellite.
This shows some examples of where we got Mozambique some
forecasts of flooding, and Ethiopia and the Horn of Africa,
with drought and fires. These really are global satellites;
they cover the globe every day.
In the polar satellite area, we have two programs. We have
the NOAA civil satellite, and we have the Air Force satellite,
called DMSP. For 40 years, these two agencies have run separate
satellite systems--NOAA runs two, and the Air Force runs two.
In about 1993-1994, the previous administration said we are not
going to do that anymore; we are going to have one system, and
we are going to call that NPOESS, National Polar-Orbiting
Environmental Satellite System, and merge them together and
only have three satellites at any time.
It is an issue of improving those forecasts, improving the
data. It is also an issue of continuity. And that is the one
thing I want to leave you with today. It is the largest budget
increase in our budget, $83 million. It is a 50-50 program,
half in NOAA, half in the Department of Defense, Air Force.
We only have three current-generation polar satellites left
on the ground to get us to the first NPOESS satellite, and that
is in 2008-2009 for delivery if everything works on time.
So my point is that I would like us not to take a chance of
getting back into a gap like we were in the geostationary
program. I think it is very important to keep NPOESS on
schedule. It is very important for the civil community, which
is represented by NOAA, to be an equal partner in that program
along with the Department of Defense.

ocean exploration

Finally, you talked about the ``O'' in NOAA. At the
Secretary's hearing, you heard that ocean exploration is about
the ``O'' in NOAA. It is responding, I think, to the points
that have been made here. It is one of the areas that the
Stratton Commission asked NOAA to be involved in that we really
never stepped up to the plate on. And really following your
lead, you gave us $4 million, and we are moving expeditiously
to do missions in the East, called Big East, diving in the
Hudson Canyon off the East with the Alvin submersible, along
with our partners in universities, NSF, and Woods Hole; out on
the West Coast, working in Astoria Canyon in the Gulf. We are
moving ahead on that program, and we have requested an increase
of $10 million. It follows the recommendations of the
President's blue ribbon panel on ocean exploration headed by
Dr. Marcia McNutt, which also included Dr. Bob Ballard, the
fellow who found the Titanic, and Dr. Shirley Pomponi from
Harbor Branch, and a number of other oceanographers. So I think
it is doing the right thing for what you want.
The final slide shows that ocean exploration is also about
education and outreach. That is a major part of what we are
doing. Ten percent of the program--any number that you give us,
10 percent will be for education and outreach.
The final slide is of our website, www.noaa.gov. I for one
think that NOAA's core mission includes training the
meteorologists, the oceanographers, the marine biologists, the
explorers, if you will, of tomorrow. And as I go around the
country, one thing that is very rewarding to me is to have
students and teachers and the public come out and talk about
how great our website is and how they can really navigate from
anything from our hurricane imagery, satellite imagery, to our
weather forecasts, to learning about whales and marine mammals.
It really is about reaching your constituents and my
customers, really, and it is about education and outreach, and
we are usually in the top 10 websites in Government and private
sector on any given week--when we have severe weather, it is
even higher. But it has really been an example of where our
people got together and did the right thing in engineering and
taking a look at how to outreach the agency.
The last point I would like to make is that this committee
played a leadership role in keeping our NOAA Corps 7th
Uniformed Service a uniformed service in this country. Last
Wednesday night, I had the opportunity to go to Kings Point, to
the U.S. Maritime Academy, to the graduation ceremony for the
100th basic officer training class. This is a picture of that
class, and those ensigns are now being deployed to ships across
the country. One is going to work in South Carolina; two are
going to work in Seattle; and one of these ensigns, Ensign
Sook, is from the University of New Hampshire and grew up in
New Hampshire. So I thank you for what you did to keep our NOAA
Corps.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement Scott B. Gudes
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the Subcommittee, for this
opportunity to testify on the President's fiscal year 2002 Budget
Request for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
I am accompanied today by Sonya Stewart, Chief Financial Officer/
Chief Accounting Officer.
Let me begin by saying that NOAA, a key component of the Department
of Commerce, plays a vital role in the everyday lives of our citizens
through our numerous contributions to the Nation's economic and
environmental health. In a period of strongly competing Government
priorities, the President's fiscal year 2002 Budget Request for NOAA is
$3,152.3 million in total budget authority for NOAA and represents a
decrease of $60.8 million below the fiscal year 2001 enacted levels.
Within this funding level, NOAA proposes essential realignments that
allow for a total of $270.0 million in program increases in critical
areas such as infrastructure, severe weather prediction, coastal
conservation, living marine resources, and climate.
The funding requested in the fiscal year 2002 President's Budget
Request will allow NOAA to ensure that our vision for environmental
stewardship and assessment and prediction of the Nation's resources
becomes a reality and that NOAA will continue to excel in our science
and service for the American people.
From weather forecasting to fisheries management, from safe
navigation to coastal services, remote sensing to climate research and
ocean exploration, NOAA is at the forefront of many of this Nation's
most critical issues. NOAA's people, products and services provide
vital support to the domestic security and global competitiveness of
the United States, and positively impact the lives of our citizens,
directly and indirectly, every single day.
NOAA's mission is to describe and predict changes in the Earth's
environment and to conserve and manage the Nation's coastal and marine
resources to ensure sustainable economic opportunities. NOAA implements
its mission through its line and staff offices: the National Ocean
Service (NOS); the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS); the Office
of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research (OAR); the National Weather Service
(NWS); the National Environmental, Satellite, Data and Information
Service (NESDIS); the Office of Marine and Aviation Operations (OMAO);
and Corporate Services (CS).
Today, the Nation and the world look to NOAA to provide timely and
precise weather forecasts that protect lives and property; to manage
fisheries and protected species; to promote and sustain healthy
coastlines; to make America more competitive through safe navigation;
to examine changes in the oceans; and to inspire and create approaches
that will protect and keep our precious natural resources alive for the
generations to come.
NOAA conducts research to develop new technologies, improve
operations, and supply the scientific basis for managing natural
resources and solving environmental problems. NOAA's comprehensive
system for acquiring observations from satellites and radars to ships
and submersibles provides critical data and quality information needed
for the safe conduct of daily life and the basic functioning of a
modern society.
NOAA's products and services include short-term weather and space-
weather forecasts, seasonal climate predictions, long-term global
change prognoses, environmental technologies, nautical charts, marine
fisheries statistics and regulations, assessments of environmental
changes, hazardous materials response information, and stewardship of
the Nation's ocean, coastal, and living marine resources.
NOAA's programs for fiscal year 2002 support several key cross-
cutting initiatives. These cross-cutting initiatives illustrate the
degree to which NOAA's programs are inter-related. Each of the
component programs within a cross-cutting initiative uniquely
contributes to NOAA's ability to meet its mission.
The fiscal year 2002 President's Budget Request supports NOAA's
cross-cutting initiatives, each of which is I will discuss in greater
detail.
People and Infrastructure
The request of $73.3 for the People and Infrastructure cross-
cutting initiative brings together the heart of what NOAA is and does.
These are the underlying and interconnecting threads that hold NOAA and
its programs together. Investments in NOAA's scientific and technical
workforce and NOAA's facilities and equipment is essential to the
agency carrying on its mission into the 21st Century. ``People and
Infrastructure'' is about investing in the future.
People ($60.0 million)
NOAA requests $60.0 million in base adjustments that are critical
to preserve and develop NOAA's human capital, our greatest asset. The
demand for NOAA's scientific work products and services is expected to
increase significantly in fiscal year 2002 and beyond. This trend is
evidenced by market responses to increasingly accurate seasonal
forecasts, protection of life and safety, competing interests for
marine resources and the need to protect and recover endangered
species, and the application in pharmaceutical manufacturing of the
earliest rewards from increased ocean exploration. Similar increases in
demand for NOAA's products and services are expected from the national
energy community and other potential user communities. To ensure NOAA's
mission capacity is adequate to respond to these demands, NOAA must
continue to invest in its people.
This investment will ensure NOAA's programs are maintained at the
current services level. These are ``must-pay'' bills like pay raises,
benefits, inflation, and rent. Failure to receive these adjustments in
any given year results in program dislocations and minor cutbacks.
Failure to receive these adjustments over time has a cumulative erosion
effect that can be programmatically devastating. Consequently, these
adjustments to NOAA's funding base are essential for NOAA to continue
meeting core mission-related requirements and the expectations of the
American public.
Infrastructure ($73.3 million)
NOAA's facilities and information technology infrastructure
directly and immediately impacts the ability of NOAA's program offices
to satisfy mission demands. The condition, readiness and
vulnerabilities of this infrastructure have direct consequences on
human welfare, economic well being, and the advancement of the state of
the sciences. To ensure mission capacity, NOAA requests infrastructure
funding of $73.3 million in the following key categories: critical
systems, construction, maintenance and repair, and NOAA program
support.
Systems ($16.4 million)
The total request of $4.0 million for the National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS) Computer Hardware and Software represents an increase of
$0.5 million. This continued investment will be used for information
technology refreshment to support the scientific and computational
needs of the NMFS. Many of the observational data elements obtained
from the new sensors, observers, Fisheries Research Vessels (FRVs) and
survey and census data collection programs in this budget submission
will rely on the NMFS Information Technology infrastructure for all or
part of their life cycle. The cumulative effect of rising costs, the
unmet need for adjustments to base, and expanding requirements have
created an erosion of base program functionality. These funds will
result in a continuous process of technology refreshment to keep pace
with the increasing information flow created by the deployment of new
sensors, platforms and data collection activities throughout NMFS'
initiatives.
NOAA requests a total of $7.5 million for the National Weather
Service (NWS) Telecommunications Gateway (NWSTG) Backup, to provide
critical infrastructure protection. This investment will enable NOAA to
acquire the equipment and facility infrastructure necessary to ensure
continuity of operations at the NWSTG. The NWSTG is the Nation's
critical telecommunications hub for collecting, processing, and
distributing weather data and information. The data processed by the
NWSTG are used by hundreds of customers worldwide but the current NWSTG
facility, located in NWS headquarters in Silver Spring, MD has no
operational backup and is therefore a single point of failure
vulnerable to natural disasters, human error, computer viruses, hacker
attacks, and terrorism. This investment will mitigate these risks and
will enable NOAA to comply with Presidential Directives on critical
infrastructure protection and continuity of government operations.
NOAA requests a total of $0.3 million to begin to address the
critical single point of failure for NOAA's satellite products. This
investment will fund a study to evaluate the backup capabilities for
critical satellite products and services currently delivered from
Federal Building 4 in Suitland, MD. This initiative is essential to
address the potential for a catastrophic outage, which would prevent
the delivery of critical satellite data and products to the NWS. In the
event of such an outage, approximately 85 percent of the information
used in weather forecast models would be lost, seriously limiting the
ability to make accurate weather forecasts. This would be particularly
dangerous if data was not available during times of severe weather
events.
NOAA requests a total of $4.6 million to ensure Continuity of
Critical Facilities for Satellite Operations. This investment will
allow NOAA to address deficiencies and risks associated with the
infrastructure of the NOAA environmental satellite command and control
centers at Wallops, VA and Fairbanks, AK. This initiative forms a
cohesive approach to resolving known infrastructure problems by
reducing facilities' threats and risks, and completing the renovation/
repair of the Satellite Operations Control Center. These problems could
jeopardize NESDIS' ability to control the Nation's environmental
satellite systems and potentially lose in- orbit assets.
Construction ($16.0 million)
NOAA requests a total of $3.0 for the Honolulu laboratory. This
investment will continue the replacement of the Honolulu Laboratory
which consists of a main lab building and two annex building. This
funding will enable the project to proceed with work needed to correct
several deficiencies such as overcrowding, lack of laboratories,
inadequate or nonexistent handicap access, and hazardous materials.
The total request of $12.0 million for National Weather Service
(NWS) Weather Forecast Office Construction represents an increase of
$2.5 million above the fiscal year 2001 enacted level. This continued
investment will ensure the continuation of critical facility
modernization efforts in the NWS. In fiscal year 2002, NWS plans to
finalize construction of the new Weather Forecast Office in Caribou,
Maine and complete the new Alaska Tsunami Warning Center in Palmer,
Alaska. NWS also plans to complete modernization of the weather offices
in Hilo, Hawaii and Kotzebue, Alaska.
The fiscal year 2002 Presidents Budget request includes a total of
$1.0 million for the Coastal Services Center Wing. This investment will
allow for construction of a new wing adjacent to the main facility of
the Coastal Services Center (CSC) in Charleston, SC. This small
expansion will add an estimated 6,000 square feet to house office
space, a storage area and a loading dock. The funding will also allow
for a partial demolition of CSC's obsolete and deteriorating
structures. The demolition would eradicate some, but not all, of the
structures that pose threats to CSC's inhabited buildings. Additional
needs for security enhancements and other expansion remain under
consideration in the comprehensive facilities plan being completed in
fiscal year 2001.
Maintenance ($24.4 million)
The total request of $4.4 million for the National Marine Fisheries
Service Facilities Operations and Maintenance represents an increase of
$0.4 million above the fiscal year 2001 enacted level. This continued
investment will be used to cover increased operation and maintenance
costs of two key NMFS facilities, the new Santa Cruz, California
Laboratory, and the Kodiak, Alaska Laboratory.
The total request of $4.6 million for Weather Forecast Office (WFO)
Maintenance represents an increase of $0.3 million above the fiscal
year 2001 enacted level. This continued investment will allow NWS to
fund recurring maintenance contracts and address a backlog of over $7.0
million in deferred maintenance repair actions. WFOs provide
forecasters with modernized facilities, supporting the advanced
technology systems and the provision of weather service to the public.
As the WFOs continue to age, the facilities require a significant
investment in recurring and cyclic maintenance, including replacement
of major facility support systems such as power backup and heating,
ventilation, and air conditioning. The request will allow NWS to
protect the $250 million capital investment in modernized facilities in
accordance with GSA and private industry standards.
NOAA's request of $3.6 million for Facilities Maintenance, Repairs
and Safety represents an increase of $1.7 million above the fiscal year
2001 enacted level. This continued investment will allow for
remediation of NOAA's deteriorating facilities. NOAA's capital assets,
totaling 496 installations spread across all 50 states are valued in
the hundreds of millions of dollars. The majority of these facilities
are over 30 years old, and 29 percent are over 40 years in age. To
date, renovations have been relatively few, and maintenance has been
deferred. NOAA has already identified over $50 million in maintenance
and repair projects, and this continues to grow as a comprehensive
facility assessment unfolds. Major systems in many facilities are in
imminent danger of failure, or are well past their useful lives. The
requested funds will help address these facilities maintenance, repair
and safety needs.
Funding in the amount of $1.0 million is requested for NOAA's
Beaufort Laboratory. This investment will allow for repairs at NOAA's
Beaufort, NC Laboratory. The funds will be used to address health and
safety issues, primarily the installation of a sanitary sewage
connection and electrical repairs. The Beaufort Laboratory is the
Nation's second oldest marine research center--a national treasure--and
is collocated with the Rachel Carson National Estuarine Research
Reserve.
NOAA's request of $1.8 million for the GORDON GUNTER will allow for
the upgrade of the vessel to meet modern safety standards and to
provide a more capable platform to support fisheries research, stock
assessment and other missions such as submersible operations. The
upgrade will include modifications to an engine-room bulkhead that will
enable the ship to meet modern safety standards for one-compartment
damage stability, allowing a compartment to be fully flooded and the
ship to remain afloat with stability. This funding also would provide
positioning and instrumentation upgrades. The GORDON GUNTER, homeported
in Pascagoula, MS, is a former Navy T-AGOS vessel which has been
converted and currently serves in the Gulf of Mexico, the Caribbean Sea
and the Southeast Atlantic Ocean.
Included in NOAA's fiscal year 2002 Presidents Budget request is
$4.0 million for the ALBATROSS IV. This investment will allow for
repairs and the extension of the ship's useful life until a new
Fisheries Research Vessel (FRV) can be constructed for the Northeast
Fisheries Science Center (NEFSC). In order to calibrate the new vessel
with the ALBATROSS IV, the ALBATROSS IV must be upgraded and its
service extended until a new vessel is completed. This calibration-
overlap protects the integrity of long-term surveys.
Additional funding has also been requested for the FAIRWEATHER.
This investment is identified under the Marine Transportation System
crosscut.
The total request of $5.0 million for Boulder Facilities Operations
represents an increase of $1.0 million above the fiscal year 2001
enacted level. This provides funds for rent charges levied by the GSA
which owns and operates the facility. This is a ``must pay'' bill,
without which the science programs would bear the burden.
Support ($16.5 million)
The President's Budget request for fiscal year 2002 includes $2.3
million for the Cooperative Observer Network, which represents an
increase of $1.9 million above the fiscal year 2001 enacted level. This
continued investment supports a nationwide network of over 11,000
volunteer operated weather observing sites used by NOAA to maintain the
Nation's climate record and to provide data to local NWS field offices.
These sites are staffed by citizens dedicated to maintaining climate
records and assisting the NWS. In a recent report, the National
Research Council recommended that NOAA take immediate steps to sustain
and modernize this critical network. NWS plans to replace 900 rain
gauges and 200 temperature sensors in fiscal year 2002. This is the
first of an anticipated 3 year rescue effort which will result in the
total replacement of 2,700 rain gauges and 5,000 temperature sensors.
The total request of $14.2 million for Aircraft Services represents
an increase of $2.4 million above the fiscal year 2001 enacted level.
This continued investment will provide an additional 300 flight hours
for data collection for a total of 1,970 flight hours. Of these
additional flight hours, 150 flight hours are specifically for
hurricane surveillance and for severe winter storms. Another 150 flight
hours will support measurements of ocean winds during high windspeed
conditions, which are critical to planning for future satellite
sensors. These flying hours will enable NOAA to more efficiently use
its heavy aircraft and to maintain pilot proficiency during data
collection under severe weather conditions.
Maintain Satellite Continuity and Severe Weather Forecasts ($712.3
million)
Critical to meeting our 21st Century mission is the continuity of
NOAA's Satellites and Severe Weather Forecasts. In order to ensure our
success, the fiscal year 2002 President's Budget Request includes a
total of $712.3 million, of which $127.1 million is new funding. The
programs that comprise this initiative are summarized in the preceding
table and the program descriptions below.
Satellite and Data Services ($693.8 million)
NOAA's total request of $65.0 million for Environmental Observing
Services represents an increase of $14.3 million above the fiscal year
2001 enacted level. This continued investment supports the operations
of all of the NESDIS satellite systems, the ingesting and processing of
satellite data, and the development of new product applications
required for continuity of operations. NESDIS provides satellite
command and control services on a 24 hours per day, 365 days per year
schedule. Funding is required to keep up with increases in labor costs,
software licensing, communications, and ground system maintenance.
Requirements have expanded due to greater demands on operations and
control, greater amounts of data requirements for new products,
requirements for more advanced software and the development of improved
products, and increased demand to support users.
The total request of $146.3 million for Polar Orbiting Satellites
represents an increase of $9.6 million above the fiscal year 2001
enacted level. This continued investment will allow for the
continuation of spacecraft production (NOAA K-N'). It will also allow
for completion of the instruments for the European Meteorological
Operational (METOP) satellites which will replace NOAA's morning polar
orbiting satellite during calendar year 2005. Funding is included for
upgrading and replacing aging and deteriorating ground systems to allow
for continuation of operations for the Polar K-N' series through the
end of its lifetime in about 2012. These ground systems are needed in
order to communicate with the satellites until the last of the series
is decommissioned. In addition, funds provide for replacing and
upgrading the aging product generation and distribution system.
Funding in the amount of $156.6 million is included in NOAA's
budget request for the National Polar Orbiting Environmental Satellite
System (NPOESS) represents an increase of $83.4 million above the
fiscal year 2001 enacted level. This continued investment will allow
for the convergence of NOAA's Polar program, the Department of
Defense's (DOD) Defense Meteorological Satellite Program and National
Aeronautic and Space Agency's (NASA) research and development into a
single satellite system that will save the United States Government
millions of dollars over the life of the program. NPOESS is essential
to meeting both NOAA's requirements in weather forecasting,
oceanography, climate and search and rescue services as well as the
DOD's National Security mission. NOAA has only three remaining current
generation satellites on the ground to use until the first NPOESS
satellite is delivered in late 2008. NPOESS needs to stay on schedule
as provided for in this fiscal year 2002 Budget Request to help ensure
that polar data continuity is maintained. NPOESS satellites are
critical for weather forecasting, climate observations, U.S. military
operations on a worldwide basis, and search and rescue operations.
The total request of $293.3 million for the Geostationary Orbiting
Environmental Satellite (GOES) Program represents an increase of $3.1
million above the fiscal year 2001 enacted level. This continued
investment will fund the spacecrafts and launch services, including the
launch vehicle and launch control personnel. Funding is necessary to
maintain continuity of geostationary operations.
NOAA requests a total of $1.2 million for the Commercial Remote
Sensing Licensing Program. This investment will ensure the timely
review and processing of satellite license applications. Under the Land
Remote Sensing Policy Act of 1992 (as amended in 1998), NOAA is charged
with licensing and enforcing licenses of the U.S. private sector remote
sensing industry. Funding will be used to establish a program to
provide technical support for such reviews, support of an industry
advisory mechanism, and computer infrastructure. Major monitoring and
compliance activities will include review of quarterly licensee
reports, on-site inspections, audits, license violation enforcement,
and implementation of shutter control in national security and foreign
policy crisis situations.
The total request of $31.4 million for Data and Information
Services--operational activities represents an increase of $6.5 million
above the fiscal year 2001 enacted level. This continued investment is
for core operational activities and will increase the Data Centers
capacity to ingest, process, and archive data as well as continue the
rescue of valuable environmental data. Requirements have expanded due
to growing customer demands for data and products, and increased data
management has become a necessity as the volume of new data continues
to grow. Combined with other funding for fisheries oceanography,
habitat characterization, the climate reference network, climate
database modernization, and environmental data systems modernization,
these funds support NESDIS' Data and Information sub-activity request.
Severe Weather Forecasts ($18.5 million)
The total request of $3.7 million for the U.S. Weather Research
Program (USWRP) represents an increase of $2.2 million above the fiscal
year 2001 enacted level. This continued investment in research will
improve the accuracy of hurricane landfall predictions for location,
intensity, and rainfall estimates. Decreased error and uncertainty in
hurricane forecasts will save lives and will help reduce the length of
coastline recommended for evacuation during these powerful storms. This
will allow localities to avoid millions of dollars worth of unnecessary
preparations, and, at the same time, encourage those in the warned
areas to have greater confidence in the accuracy of the warnings. The
USWRP is a partnership between NOAA, other Federal Agencies, and
universities.
NOAA's total request of $5.1 million for Automated Surface
Observing Systems (ASOS) represents an increase of $1.3 million above
the fiscal year 2001 enacted level. This continued investment will
complete the acquisition of 346 new ASOS dewpoint sensors. The existing
dewpoint sensors fail on average every ten days and have the highest
failure rate in the ASOS suite of sensors, and consequently are in need
of replacement. These funds will also complete the acquisition of 346
new ASOS processor units which are needed because the current
processors are over capacity. Lastly, these funds will allow NOAA to
begin acquisition of the all-weather precipitation gauge necessary for
climate record continuity and aviation safety. In fiscal year 2002,
NOAA will acquire 115 all-weather precipitation gauges.
The fiscal year 2002 total request of $5.9 million for the National
Center for Environmental Prediction (NCEP)--Environmental Modeling
Center represents an increase of $1.7 million above the fiscal year
2001 enacted level. This continued investment will sustain operations
at NCEP's Environmental Modeling Center (EMC). The EMC develops the
computer models and other numerical forecast products which provide the
basic guidance that forecasters use in making weather and climate
forecasts. Today, the EMC is overly dependent on external sources of
funding for its operations, degrading its ability to transfer proven
weather forecasting science into NWS operations. The National Research
Council in its report From Research to Operations in Weather Satellites
and Numerical Weather Prediction: Crossing the Valley of Death, states
``Almost all of the Nation's operational weather and climate guidance
products come from EMC, which does not presently possess the necessary
resources to transfer many of the U.S. advances in observations and
modeling to operations.'' In fiscal year 2002, NWS plans to provide
direct base support for its suite of operational forecast models,
including the aviation, regional, and global models.
NOAA requests a total of $3.8 million for Data Assimilation and the
Joint Center for Satellite Data Assimilation. This request comprises
$3.0 million for data assimilation and $0.8 million for the Joint
Center for Satellite Data Assimilation. The investment for data
assimilation will allow NOAA to improve data assimilation and modeling
at the National Center for Environmental Prediction (NCEP). Data
assimilation is the collection and processing of weather observations
(satellite, aircraft, radar, data buoys, upper-air balloons) for use in
operational numerical weather prediction models. These models are the
foundation for all short and medium range and severe weather forecasts
including aviation, marine, hurricane, rainfall, and severe weather.
This critical funding request aims to improve forecasts through the use
of enhanced satellite data and other data-sets in the NCEP prediction
models, leveraging one of the Nation's largest capital investments in
global and environmental observing systems. Investment in data
assimilation ensures that the large investment in observing systems and
computers has maximum benefit for the public.
In addition to data assimilation, $0.8 million will be used to
establish the Joint Center for Satellite Data Assimilation with NWS,
NESDIS and NOAA Research in order to accelerate and improve the use of
satellite data in forecast models. The core scientific staff and
computing facilities of this ``virtual'' Center will consist of current
NOAA resources. This request will allow for NOAA to accelerate the use
of current and future satellite data in NWS weather and climate
prediction operations. In addition to the NOAA contributions, NASA,
with a similar level of support, will be a partner in a coordinated
national effort to realize the full potential of the vast quantities of
new satellite data that are becoming available. This center will make
more effective use of NOAA remotely sensed data as well as integrate
NASA, Department of Defense, and international satellite data into
NOAA's operational models.
Coastal Conservation Activities ($284.4 million)
Over the past several years NOAA has proposed, through various
initiatives and programs, funding to address some of the most serious
challenges facing the U.S. coasts and oceans. Through those programs
NOAA has made significant progress in addressing a number of critical
environmental issues. The Coastal Conservation Activities Initiative
will continue to build on the progress made to preserve the Nation's
coasts and oceans.
In the fiscal year 2002 President's Budget, NOAA requests $284.4
million to continue environmental programs that are critical to
ensuring the continued preservation of our Nation's coastal and ocean
resources. The fiscal year 2002 Budget Request includes resources to
enhance our ability to effectively manage the National Marine
Sanctuaries, enhance habitat protection through the National Estuarine
Research Reserve System and strengthen and improve Marine Protected
Area (MPA) programs and their conservation goals. These funds will be
leveraged through improved Federal, state, local, tribal, and
territorial coordination and collaboration to fill shared information,
technical and operational needs. Also included are additional resources
to increase Coastal Zone Management grants to states to enable coastal
states to address such issues of national importance as the impact of
coastal storms, declining water quality, shortage of public shoreline
access, loss of wetlands, deteriorating waterfronts, and the challenge
of balancing economic and environmental demands in the coastal zone.
With the funds requested in fiscal year 2002 NOAA will also continue to
implement recommendations of the Coral Reef Task Force and enhance the
recovery of threatened and endangered coastal salmon. The programs that
comprise the Coastal Conservation Activities cross-cut are highlighted
below.
Coral Reef Activities ($27.7 million
The total request of $27.7 million for Coral Reef Activities
represents an increase of $0.7 million above the fiscal year 2001
enacted level. This continued investment will allow for NOAA's support
for coral reef activities across the Nation. Funding will enable NOAA
to continue implementing priorities of the U.S. Coral Reef Task Force
and recommendations included in the America's Ocean Future Report.
Working with state, territorial, and local partners, this level of
funding will support research, monitoring, and local level projects to
reduce human impacts and increase sustainable use of America's valuable
coral reefs.
Coastal Zone Management Program ($75.4 million)
The total request of $75.4 million for the Coastal Zone Management
(CZM) Program represents an increase of $12.2 million above the fiscal
year 2001 enacted level. This includes an increase of $8.6 million for
CZM grants, a technical change in the transfer from the CZM Fund, and
an increase of $0.4 million for Program Administration. In addition,
$10.0 million is requested for Nonpoint Pollution Implementation
Grants, a separate but integral program, which will be discussed later.
The total request of $69.0 million for CZM Grants represents an
increase of $8.6 million over the fiscal year 2001 enacted level. This
continued investment will allow NOAA to provide direct grants to
coastal states for implementing and improving their approved coastal
management programs. Currently 33 of the 35 eligible coastal states
have an approved coastal management program, with approval of the 34th
state program, Indiana, expected in fiscal year 2002. Combined, these
programs serve to manage and protect 99.9 percent of the Nation's
shoreline to the benefit of the environment and the economy. The
requested investment would provide resources for coastal states to more
fully implement their coastal management plans. Specifically, NOAA
provides grants to coastal states and territories to address issues of
national importance such as the impact of coastal storms and flooding,
declining water quality, shortage of public access to the shoreline,
loss of wetlands, deteriorating waterfronts and harbors, and the
challenge of balancing economic and environmental demands in
increasingly competitive ports.
In order to streamline CZM administrative processes, NOAA proposes
to consolidate all funding for CZM Program Administration under ORF.
Doing so requires replacement of the $3.2 million that had been
transferred from the CZM Fund (a non-ORF account) in prior years. In
fiscal year 2002, the CZM Fund is proposed as a general offset to CZM
Act activities.
The total request of $6.4 million for the CZM Program
Administration represents an increase of $0.4 million above the fiscal
year 2001 enacted level. This continued investment will support NOAA's
national program administration responsibilities under the Coastal Zone
Management Act (CZMA), which continues to grow. This request will
assist NOAA's ability to bring together representatives from state,
Federal, and tribal governments and the private sector, to address
issues such as coastal hazards, habitat and polluted runoff. It will
allow NOAA to address the increasing requests of the states (33 in the
program, one state program in development) for support and technical
assistance. This level of funding will also enable NOAA to maintain
national support for the 25 National Estuarine Research Reserves.
Nonpoint Pollution Implementation Grants ($10.0 million)
NOAA requests a total of $10.0 million for Nonpoint Pollution
Implementation Grants. This investment will provide states with
resources to reduce nonpoint pollution, the greatest single threat to
coastal water quality. Coastal waters are increasingly impacted by
polluted runoff. Symptoms include the impacts of Pfiesteria in coastal
waters of the eastern seaboard, nutrient over-enrichment in the Gulf of
Mexico, the loss of salmon fisheries in the Pacific Northwest and local
closures of shellfish beds and beaches throughout the country. NOAA
will provide grants to states with approved plans to address the causes
of these and other symptoms of the degradation of our coastal water
quality.
National Estuarine Research Reserves ($26.3 million)
The total request of $26.3 million for the National Estuarine
Research Reserves (NERRS) represents a decrease of $29.3 million below
the fiscal year 2001 enacted level. This funding level supports an
increase in operations of $1.7 million for a total of $16.4 million in
the Operations, Research and Facilities (ORF) Account, and a decrease
in one-time construction items of $24.5 million, for a total request of
$9.9 million in the PAC Account. With regard to the increase for NERRS
operations, these funds will improve the ability of NOAA and its state
partners to understand, manage, and protect these special estuarine
habitats and biodiversity. The NERRS is a network of protected areas
established to improve the health of the Nation's estuaries and coastal
habitats through long-term research, protection, and education and to
address such issues as water quality, loss and degradation of habitat,
and loss of species biodiversity. The increase will significantly
enhance the monitoring and technical training programs at the 25
designated reserves, and ultimately lead to healthier estuaries,
coastal water quality, and fisheries.
Of particular interest is the NERRS' System-Wide Monitoring Program
(SWMP). The SWMP is a national monitoring system that will integrate
water quality, and biological and land-cover change elements, making
the information available to scientists and managers. The 25 existing
reserves will expand their participation in SWMP by increasing spatial
coverage of water quality stations, and by monitoring additional
biological indicators. Reserve staff will also improve estuarine
resource management by providing enhanced technical training for
planners, policy-makers, and other state and local coastal decision-
makers on water quality, habitat, invasive species, and sustainable
ecosystem issues.
Funding of $9.9 million for infrastructure investments in the
Procurement, Acquisition, and Construction (PAC) account includes
resources to complement these activities by providing resources for
research, education, and visitor facilities at multiple reserve sites
across the Nation. The NERR system uses a competitive priority-setting
process each year to fund the best projects from the long list of
eligible proposals. At some sites, land acquisition from willing
sellers may be a high priority to enhance the protection of key
resources. At other sites, facilities and related structures, such as
interpretive centers, laboratories, boardwalks, and boat docks may be
the best use of funds to enhance the outreach, education, and research
programs within the NERRS.
National Marine Sanctuaries ($52.0 million)
The total request of $52.0 million for the National Marine
Sanctuaries represents an increase of $16.6 million above the fiscal
year 2001 enacted level. This increase of $16.6 million is comprised of
$3.6 million for operations (for a total ORF request of $36.0 million),
and an increase of $13.0 million for new construction (for a total PAC
request of $16.0 million). With regard to National Marine Sanctuaries
operations, this continued investment will provide funding to upgrade
the operating and technical capacity in the thirteen national marine
sanctuaries. The results will improve protection of important sanctuary
resources, including coral reefs, endangered marine mammals, sensitive
habitats, and significant cultural resources. In addition to supporting
the operations, this investment will provide for additional site
characterization, additional enforcement capabilities, public
education, and the implementation of key management changes. Changes
are expected in a wide range of activities, including drafting and
amending regulations, establishing new partnerships, expansion of
outreach and education efforts, and additional research, monitoring and
restoration.
The Congress has called for sufficient resources for operational
staff, facilities and equipment, effective implementation of management
plans, enforcement, and particularly for site characterization
including cultural resources and inventory of existing natural
resources. Elements that must be compiled for cultural and natural
resource inventories include location of shipwrecks, data on marine
mammals, fish, shellfish and sea birds, habitat types, and physical
characteristics, such as bottom typography, water quality, and water
temperature. The goal is to gather enough characterization information
at each site to be able to effectively manage the resources. New
funding will support these efforts and the Sustainable Seas
Expeditions. This fiscal year 2002 Budget responds to Congressional
direction and the recently passed National Marine Sanctuary Amendments
Act.
With regard to the increase of $13.0 million for Marine Sanctuaries
construction in the PAC Account, NOAA will continue to implement the
detailed, comprehensive facilities plan developed in fiscal year 2000
in order to respond to the growing public interest in the ocean
environment and the Marine Sanctuary System. NOAA will work in
partnership with other Federal agencies and private institutions such
as museums, aquaria, and foundations. NOAA will establish or upgrade
facilities to ensure access to sanctuary resources and allow public
appreciation of the unique marine habitats in those sanctuaries. These
facilities provide important outreach and education functions for these
special places, since many visitors are unable to visit the actual
sanctuary sites which, in several cases, are many miles offshore or
require individuals to be certified scuba divers in order to view
firsthand these national treasures.
Within these funds, an estimated $6.5 million is targeted for the
Dr. Nancy Foster Florida Keys Environmental Center to complete
renovation and construction at this former Navy installation and
properly support the multi-agency partnership and the Center's mandates
to promote environmental education, protection, marine safety and
rescue, and coastal stewardship. This center, which was dedicated last
year, stands as a tribute to the late Dr. Nancy Foster, NOAA's
Assistant Administrator for the National Ocean Service. One of the two
buildings will host a state-of-the-art multi-agency (NOAA, National
Park Service, Fish & Wildlife Service) visitor center. The other
building will become the operations center for the Florida Keys
National Marine Sanctuary and host office space; laboratory space; a
diving locker; a maintenance area for mooring buoys, boats and
vehicles; and dock space. The new facility will also provide
consolidation of office space and boat docks that are currently
scattered across multiple leased facilities in the Key West area.
Marine Protected Areas ($3.0 million)
NOAA requests a total of $3.0 million for Marine Protected Areas.
This investment will strengthen and improve agency-wide Marine
Protected Area (MPA) programs and their conservation goals. This effort
supports NOAA's responsibilities for fulfilling the National Marine
Sanctuaries Program, National Estuarine Research Reserve Program,
Coastal Zone Management Program, and coral reefs. This funding will
foster collaboration with the Department of the Interior and other
Federal agencies, state, local, tribal and territorial governments as
well as non-governmental partners. Efforts will focus on developing a
supporting framework for effective communication and collaboration
among MPA programs by creating a national system of marine protected
areas including NMS, NERRS, and other Federal, state, and tribal marine
protected areas. These funds will also support preparation of the first
comprehensive inventory and assessment of the existing system of U.S.
MPAs. The NOAA MPA Program will consist of a Marine Protected Areas
Center, comprised of a small core staff in Washington, DC and two
regional Institutes of Excellence.
Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery Fund ($90.0 million)
The total request of $90.0 million for the Pacific Coastal Salmon
Recovery Fund represents an increase of $0.2 million above the fiscal
year 2001 enacted level. This continued investment will allow the
states and tribes to continue support for habitat restoration and
protection, research and enhancement, monitoring and evaluation, and
salmon recovery planning and implementation efforts. Funding will be
used to enhance Pacific coastal salmon recovery and for the purpose of
helping share the costs of state, tribal and local conservation
initiatives. Programs funded within this account will assist in the
conservation of Pacific salmon runs, some of which are at risk of
extinction in the states of California, Oregon, Washington, and Alaska.
Funds provided to these states will have at least a 25 percent matching
requirement. This request 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.
Climate Services ($34.7 million)
From the storms of next week to the drought of next season to the
potential human-induced climate change over the coming century, issues
of climate variability and change will be continue to be a major issue
for the Nation. Whether responding to the ongoing drought in the
Pacific Northwest and its effect on power generation and endangered
salmon, or in determining how much atmospheric carbon dioxide is taken
up by the North American biosphere, these questions influence users
from the Western water manager to the shapers of national policy. The
challenge is to extend the research successes, maintain the
observational backbone, and improve the capability to provide useful
information services to our customers. Improved climate predictions
will enable resource managers in climate sensitive sectors such as
agriculture, water management, and energy supply to alter strategies
and reduce economic vulnerability. Building on the understanding of the
Earth's climate system that has resulted from the Nation's strong
scientific research and numerical modeling programs, this Climate
Observations and Services Program will begin the transition of research
data, observing systems and understanding from experiments to
applications, and from basic science to practical products.
NOAA maintains a balanced program of focused research, large-scale
observational programs, modeling on seasonal-centennial time scales,
and data management. In addition to its responsibilities in weather
prediction, NOAA has pioneered in the research and operational
prediction of climate variability associated with the El Nino Southern
Oscillation (ENSO). With agency and international partners, NOAA has
been a leader in the assessments of climate change, stratospheric ozone
depletion, and the global carbon cycle. NOAA scientists have been
leaders internationally in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change (IPCC). It maintains national coordination through participation
in the U.S. Global Change Research Program.
The agency-wide Climate Observations and Services activity
represents a partnership that allows NOAA to facilitate the transition
of research observing and data systems and knowledge into operational
systems and products. During recent years, there has been a growing
demand from emergency managers, the private sector, the research
community, decision-makers in the United States and international
governmental agencies and the general public to provide timely data and
information about climate variability, climate change and trends in
extreme weather events. The economic and social need for continuous,
reliable climate data and longer-range climate forecasts has been
clearly demonstrated. NOAA's Climate Observations and Services
Initiative responds to these needs. The following efforts will be
supported by this initiative:
Continuing Climate Services ($11.0 million)
The total funding request for NOAA's Continuing Climate Services is
$11.0 million. These continued investments will allow NOAA to build on
the climate activities started in fiscal year 2001.
NOAA's fiscal year 2002 budget request includes $3.0 million for
the Climate Reference Network. In order to ensure NOAA's capability to
monitor very long-term changes of temperature and precipitation, a
climate reference network consisting of several hundred stations must
be developed by making use of the historical data from the best sites
in the network of 11,000 cooperative observing sites. This climate
reference network will build on data from stations identified as those
with the longest environmentally stable records, most dedicated
observers, and most reliable data with few interruptions.
Also included in NOAA's request of $1.0 million for improving the
Availability of Climate Data and Information: $1.0 million. As the
observational capabilities increase and the observing networks expand,
it is essential that data management and dissemination systems are in
place to make the resulting data and information widely and easily
accessible to public and private sector decision makers. During recent
years, NOAA has struggled to respond adequately to questions from
industry, the general public, and the Government regarding potential
changes in weather and climate events. NOAA is developing the required
infrastructure to assemble, develop, and communicate the data,
information, and knowledge about the trends, likelihoods, and future
expectations of climate and weather events.
The request for funding for Baseline Observatories is $2.0 million.
Funding for this activity is for operations at NOAA's remote manned
Global Atmospheric Baseline Observatories, measuring up to 250
different atmospheric parameters relevant to the study of climate
change at: Barrow, AK; Mauna Loa, HI (since 1957); American Samoa; and
the South Pole, Antarctica (also since 1957). These observations are
critical to the collection and continuity of the world's longest
atmospheric time series, supplying the scientific community with
information on the state and recovery of the ozone layer, global carbon
dioxide, and other trace gases impacting the global climate.
NOAA's request for Ocean Observations in fiscal year 2002 is $5.0
million. NOAA maintains the sustained global observing and data
stewardship system necessary for climate research and forecasting as
well as the long-term monitoring system necessary for climate change
detection and attribution. The observation network is based on a set of
``core'' observations (e.g., temperature, surface wind stress,
salinity, sea level, carbon dioxide), consisting of both in-situ and
remotely sensed measurements, that have been identified in NOAA and
other national and international reports as needed to satisfy research
and operational climate requirements.
Regional Assessments, Education and Outreach ($1.9 million)
NOAA requests a total of $1.9 million for Regional Assessments,
Education and Outreach. This investment will allow for regional
assessments, education and outreach related to climate variability. The
impacts of climate variability from season-to-season or year-to-year
manifest themselves on regional and local levels. The goal is
utilization of climate variability information by regional and local
managers and decision-makers to maximize economic gain and mitigate
potential harmful impacts.
Weather-Climate Connection ($0.9 million)
NOAA requests a total of $0.9 million for Weather-Climate
Connection. This investment will assist in understanding predictions
variability beyond the El Nino Southern Oscillation (ENSO) and
predicting the weather-climate connection. As during El Nino, other
sub-seasonal tropical fluctuations can also lead to shifts in the
Pacific storm track, affecting the paths of storms approaching the U.S.
west coast, and influencing weather across the entire country. Sub-
seasonal tropical-mid-latitude interactions thereby provide a
potentially important additional source of predictability beyond ENSO.
NOAA will expand its diagnostic and modeling efforts to understand the
relationship between sub-seasonal tropical variability and changes in
the frequency, location and intensity of extreme weather events over
the United States, and document the structure of variations in tropical
rainfall on weekly to monthly time-scales, as well as air-sea
interactions in both tropical systems and in mid-latitude oceanic and
land-falling storms.
Carbon Cycle ($2.3 million)
NOAA requests a total of $2.3 million for the Carbon Cycle. This
investment, as part of a multi-agency effort, will allow NOAA to
establish a network of more densely spaced airborne and tall-tower
based sampling sites over North America. The U.S. scientific community
recently completed a plan for an integrated carbon cycle science
program which aims to quantify, understand and project the evolution of
global carbon sources and sinks in order to better predict future
climate.
Ocean System for Improved Climate Services ($7.3 million)
NOAA requests a total of $7.3 million for the Ocean System for
Improved Climate Services. This investment will contribute to the
global operational ocean-observing system by enhancing its present
components and establishing new components. Of the $7.3 million
requested, $3.2 million is required to support the U.S. commitment to
deploy and maintain 1,000 ARGO profiling floats in the proposed global
array of 3,000 floats. This commitment requires a deployment of 280
ARGO floats per year. The remainder of this request, $4.1 million,
supports other observational components including Arctic Ocean fluxes,
ocean reference stations, oceanic carbon, and augmentation of the
volunteer observing ship (VOS) instrumentation. Finally, investments
are to be made for data management and assimilation. Based on a firm
scientific foundation, this ocean observing system is closely coupled
with other United States and international observing efforts, and will
greatly improve the data available for understanding climate variation.
Climate Change Assessments ($0.7 million)
NOAA requests a total of $0.7 million for Climate Change
Assessments. This investment will continue contributions to
environmental assessments that have become the primary tool to deliver
climate information to governments, industry, the scientific community
and the general public. Over the past two years NOAA has led and
contributed to Ozone assessments under the Montreal Protocol, the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), and U.S. National
Assessments. This investment will support NOAA's leadership in
assessing climate change and its global impact on the United States and
other communities.
High Performance Computing and Communications Program/
Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory: $7.0 million
The total request of $7.0 million (in the PAC Account) for the High
Performance Computing and Communications (HPCC) Program and Geophysical
Fluid Dynamics Laboratory represents an increase of $3.0 million above
the fiscal year 2001 enacted level. This continued investment will
provide full-year support for the High performance supercomputer system
at NOAA's Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory (GFDL). The system will
be used full-time to attack some of the most difficult but critical
obstacles to developing and testing new and more realistic models for
predicting climatic variability, detecting climate change, and
forecasting hurricanes. Expansion of GFDL's supercomputer is needed to
answer questions regarding long-term global warming and to evaluate
various scenarios reflecting different levels of anthropogenic
influences on the atmosphere.
Comprehensive Large-Array data Stewardship System ($3.6
million)
The total request of $3.6 million for the Comprehensive Large-Array
data Stewardship System (CLASS) represents an increase of $1.6 million
in the Procurement, Acquisition and Construction (PAC) Account. This
continued investment will afford efficient management of high volumes
of data, including radar and satellite data, as well as data from
radiosondes and ocean data buoys. This data is critical to the joint
U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) and the scientific
community. Significant increases in the volume of data require a rapid
expansion in storage capacity, currently located in Asheville, NC.
Similarly, telecommunications and automated access systems upgrades are
needed to ensure easy and efficient access to the data.
Modernization of NOAA Fisheries ($143.8 million)
The fiscal year 2002 President's Budget Request for the National
Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), referred to as ``NOAA Fisheries,''
follows Congressionally enacted levels in fiscal year 2001 and invests
in core programs needed for NOAA to meet its mission to manage
fisheries, rebuild stocks, and protect endangered species such as sea
turtles and whales. NOAA Fisheries modernization funds will be
allocated within NMFS to ensure that existing statutory and regulatory
requirements are met for fisheries and protected species management
programs (including the Magnuson-Stevens Act, National Environmental
Protection Act, Endangered Species Act, Marine Mammal Protection Act,
and other statutory requirements). In fiscal year 2002, there are
sufficient funds for NMFS to meet its statutory and regulatory
requirements.
This budget request builds upon last year's effort to begin the
modernization of NOAA Fisheries. The Modernization of NOAA Fisheries
Initiative encompasses a long-term commitment to improve the NMFS'
structure, processes, and business approaches to meet its mission of
sustaining the Nation's living marine resources and their habitat. This
initiative focuses on improving NMFS' science, management, and
enforcement programs and beginning to rebuild its aging infrastructure.
These improvements will result in measurable progress in the biological
and economic sustainability of fisheries and protected resources. In
order to ensure the viability of these modernization efforts, the
fiscal year 2002 President's Budget Request includes the following
program investments:
Science ($54.6 million)
A total of $1.9 million is requested for research and monitoring
activities for the South Florida ecosystem, an increase of $0.6 million
over the fiscal year 2001 enacted level. As a result of the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers construction projects within the Florida Everglades,
NMFS must monitor the impact of inland restoration efforts and the
changing freshwater inflow on Florida Bay habitats, nutrient flow,
hydrodynamics, and ultimately on measurable ecosystem productivity and
health.
The total request of $15.0 million for Expanding Annual Stock
Assessments represents an increase of $13.3 million above the fiscal
year 2001 enacted level. This continued investment will provide for
additional scientific survey data collection to improve NMFS' ability
to make accurate, timely stock predictions. Funding at this level would
add 829 chartered ship days toward the deficit of 2,564 days identified
in the NMFS Stock Assessments Improvement Plan as needed for adequate
stock assessment coverage. Included in this increase is $1.0 million to
enhance the assessment of marine mammal population status and trends as
required by the Marine Mammal Protection Act.
A total request of $2.0 million for fisheries oceanography
represents a $2.0 million increase above the fiscal year 2001 level.
This request is comprised of two increases, $1.5 million for NMFS and
$0.5 million for fisheries oceanography within the National
Environmental Satellite, Data and Information Service (NESDIS). The
$1.5 million increase will enable NMFS to assess how long-term
environmental factors affect fish stocks. By better identifying the
potential environmental causes of fish population fluctuations, NMFS
will be able to improve its stock predictions and resultant management
actions. The $0.5 million increase will enable NESDIS to explore using
Synthetic Aperture Radar technology and data in fishery resources
monitoring. This investment would build on applications demonstrated in
October 1999 using RADARSAT-1 imagery in Alaska, and would result in
radar data and products useful in fisheries enforcement, NMFS
laboratories and for other agencies such as the Coast Guard.
NOAA requests a total of $1.0 million to promote environmentally
sound marine aquaculture. NOAA will improve the aquaculture regulatory
framework by developing and implementing of a code of conduct for
responsible aquaculture. NOAA will also address the important
environmental aspects of aquaculture in the non-indigenous species
area, especially for shrimp viruses.
NOAA requests a total of $1.0 million for Pacific highly migratory
species research. This request would fund growing and critical research
needs as a new Fishery Management Plan for these species is
implemented. Activities include: conducting stock assessments and
biological studies for four major tuna species and three species of
sharks, conducting research to evaluate the extent of bycatch and
effectiveness of mitigation measures in purse seine fishing using fish
aggregating devices, and developing and implementing assessment
methodologies tailored for highly migratory species.
A total request of $6.0 million for Cooperative Research represents
an increase of $0.5 million over the fiscal year 2001 enacted level.
This request will expand cooperative research activities in the
Southeast and will involve fishermen in designing and conducting
research programs, utilizing their expertise and insights in resource
survey design and interpretation. By working together to design and
implement data collection programs, these partnerships between NMFS and
the industry significantly strengthen fisheries research. This
Southeast cooperative research effort compliments similar efforts,
including Northeast Cooperative Research funded at $5.0 million,
cooperative research coordinated by the Northeast Consortium funded at
$5.0 million and, and National Cooperative Research efforts, funded at
$3.0 million.
A total request of $4.4 million for expanding economic and
statistics research represents a $1.4 million increase over the fiscal
year 2001 level. This request is needed to conduct economic and social
assessments of management alternatives by improving NMFS' economic and
social science staff capability, and initiation of data and applied
research programs. This funding will enable NMFS to better evaluate and
predict the economic and community impacts of potential management
actions, and satisfy statutory, regulatory and Executive Order
requirements for assessing the benefits and costs of fisheries
management and protected species management actions.
NOAA requests a total of $8.0 million for the National Fisheries
Information System. This investment will begin the implementation of a
National Fisheries Information System to improve the quality,
timeliness, coverage and access to data collected by state and Federal
entities for use in the science and management of fisheries. This
system will be developed in cooperation with the fishing industry,
states, interstate fisheries commissions, and other stakeholders as
outlined under section 401 of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. The funding
provided to the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission for
regional implementation activities in fiscal year 2001 is included in
addition to this funding. The proposed system would improve the
accuracy and effectiveness of existing data collection programs by
establishing common data collection, information technology, and
quality standards for regional programs, and integrating the results
into unified Web-enabled information system. The proposal will also
fill critical information gaps through initiation of new data
collection programs that will subsequently improve living marine
resource policy decisions by reducing data uncertainties.
NOAA requests a total of $1.0 million to reduce fishery impacts on
essential fish habitat. This request funds research that will focus on
the effects of specific fishing activities on essential fish habitat,
comparing those impacts with other sources of habitat degradation,
monitoring habitat recovery in areas where fishing has been curtailed,
and developing management strategies to ensure sustainable harvesting
practices.
NOAA requests $4.0 million for additional Fishery Observers--
Improving Data Collection. This investment will provide for increased
observer coverage to minimum levels around the country as required by
regulation or to optimal levels as recommended by fisheries scientists
for statistical validity, and initiates coverage in fisheries that were
previously not observed. Observers are increasingly essential to
managing fisheries and marine mammal stocks. To improve the quality of
data collected by observers and to provide a more sound base for
fishery management decisions, the plan includes resources to provide
better coordination and consistency of NMFS observer program policies
and procedures. It also provides for the development of technological
enhancements to make the future observer program less costly and more
efficient.
A total request of $10.0 million for Fisheries Habitat Restoration
represents an increase of $2.0 million over the fiscal year 2001 level.
These funds will expand NMFS involvement in community-based restoration
projects. This highly successful national effort encourages
partnerships with groups outside NOAA and has regularly leveraged
appropriated funds by factors of five to six, and by as much as ten to
one. Presently, NOAA receives many more high-quality habitat
restoration proposals than it has funds to support. The requested funds
would enhance national restoration efforts to meet this enthusiastic
demand.
NOAA requests a total of $0.3 million for Habitat Characterization.
This investment will allow NESDIS to develop maps of fishery habitat
distributions in space and time, and to answer important questions with
such maps. A computer mapping capability will be created that will
allow spatial/statistical delineations (stratification) of the
landscape. Such maps can represent inferred ecosystem ``potentials''
that are critical in monitoring, assessment, and management. The system
will allow rapid iteration of the mapping process, thus affording
opportunities to test, modify, and document model criteria, statistical
mapping technique, and data selection. In this manner, habitat maps can
be adaptively maintained.
Management ($41.9 million)
NOAA requests a total of $1.5 million to refine essential fish
habitat designations. This request funds programs to collect critical
scientific data needed to identify essential fish habitat more
precisely for managed species, enhancing the effectiveness of fishery
management actions, and filling data gaps that can result in
litigation.
NOAA requests a total of $3.5 million for the Northeast Fisheries
Management program. This investment will enable NMFS to continue
rebuilding overfished and overcapitalized Northeast fisheries including
groundfish and scallops by reducing the amount of fish takes by
fishermen, thus giving the fish stocks time to recover. Funding will
also be used, in part, to implement new and innovative cooperative
research efforts in the Region.
The total request of $15.6 million for Regional Councils represents
an increase of $2.5 million above the fiscal year 2001 enacted level.
This continued investment will support all eight Regional Councils'
increased workload from new programs and regulations as a result of
implementing the Sustainable Fisheries Act amendments to the Magnuson-
Stevens Act. The Regional Councils are integral partners with NOAA in
the management of the Nation's fisheries. NOAA is the Regional
Fisheries Councils' only source of funding to carry out their mission.
The total request of $6.3 million for marine sea turtle activities
represents an increase of $3.0 million over the fiscal year 2001
enacted level. This investment will allow NOAA to recover Atlantic and
Pacific marine sea turtle stocks threatened by domestic and
international fisheries interactions as well as inadequate conservation
of marine turtles on nesting beaches.
The total request of $4.5 million for dolphin conservation and
recovery represents an increase of $1.0 million over the fiscal year
2001 enacted level. This investment will allow NOAA to expand current
activities in dolphin stock identification and assessment, to reduce
mortality incidental to commercial fishing activities, and to initiate
efforts to use bottlenose dolphins as an indicator of the health of the
ecosystems they occupy.
The total request of $3.5 million for Atlantic salmon represents
and increase of $1.5 million over the fiscal year 2001 enacted level.
This investment will allow NOAA to conserve and restore healthy
populations of Atlantic salmon in the Gulf of Maine Distinct Population
Segment (DPS) and their habitats. NOAA will use this investment to
expand the monitoring of Atlantic salmon population dynamics, expand
habitat assessment and conservation, enhance scientific knowledge
related to human resource usage and development activities that are
affecting species survival, and strengthen evaluations to minimize risk
through coordinated planning, innovative partnering, and on-site
involvement in restoration, conservation, and protection activities.
The total request of $7.0 million for Northern Right Whales
represents an increase of $2.0 million over the fiscal year 2001
enacted level. This investment will allow NOAA to expand current
Northern Right Whale population and health assessments and recovery
efforts in the North Atlantic and in the North Pacific.
Enforcement ($47.3 million)
The total request of $47.3 million for Enforcement Activities
represents an increase of $10.0 million above the fiscal year 2001
enacted level. This continued investment will allow NOAA to modernize
its fisheries and protected species enforcement programs. Improved
enforcement is essential to ensuring that fisheries regulations are
effective and yield conservation benefits for the industry and the
public. Of the total funding amount, $7.4 million (of which $6.1
million is new funding) is included for additional support, continued
modernization and expansion of the vessel management system (VMS)
program. The VMS national program is capable of accommodating nearly
10,000 vessels throughout a number of different fisheries. The request
also includes $39.9 million (of which $3.9 million is new funding) to
expand and modernize base enforcement programs. These programs include
Alaska and west coast groundfish enforcement, protected species
enforcement, state and local partnerships, specialized Magnuson-Stevens
Act investigatory functions, community oriented policing and problem-
solving, and swordfish/Patagonian toothfish import investigations.
Modernization of the Marine Transportation System (MTS) $20.1 million
Since our Nation's founding, maritime trade has been vital to
economic prosperity. NOAA's lineage dates back to 1807 when President
Thomas Jefferson called for charting the coasts and harbors. Today,
more than 95 percent of U.S. foreign trade moves by sea. In 1998, about
2.4 billion tons of cargo moved on our waterways and through our ports.
U.S./foreign waterborne commerce grew about 23 percent from 1993 to
1997--about 4.6 percent per year. Trade is projected to at least double
by 2020. Vessels have also grown dramatically; over the last 50 years,
the length, width, and draft of commercial vessels has doubled, pushing
the limits of many ports and posing significant safety concerns.
Ensuring safe and efficient port operations is vital to maintaining the
competitiveness of the U.S. port industry and exports. Growth in ferry,
cruise line, and recreational boating is contributing to increased
congestion on our waterways. Nearly half of all goods in marine
commerce are petroleum products or other hazardous materials. One key
to reducing risk is to invest in the national information
infrastructure that supports the safe and efficient movement of goods
and people.
In 1998, Congress directed Federal agencies to produce an
assessment of the U.S. Marine Transportation System (MTS) and a plan
for modernizing government navigation services. This fiscal year 2002
request is NOAA's effort to direct a set of targeted investments to
expand and capitalize on its existing programs in Mapping and Charting,
Survey Backlog, Geodesy, Tide and Current Data, Response and
Restoration, and Fleet Replacement to further the goals of this ongoing
effort. This is a first step toward developing a 21st century
transportation system that can address the major issues faced by the
country in maritime safety, security, infrastructure, the environment,
and competitiveness.
NOAA maintains the Nation's suite of nautical charts, the coastal
water level observations system, and the geodetic positioning reference
system needed to ensure safe navigation. NOAA also maintains the
scientific expertise to respond to hazardous releases when they occur.
NOAA charts are developed from NOAA's hydrographic and shoreline
surveys, tide and current measurements, and national geodetic/
geographic positioning data, as well as information from other sources.
Demonstration projects have shown that these programs can provide the
accurate data necessary for determining precise under-keel and
overhead/bridge clearances and support near zero visibility docking,
allowing commercial vessels to more safely navigate and efficiently
load and move cargo in and out of depth-limited harbors. NOAA's
integrated suite of surveying, charting, water level, and positioning
services is capable of increasing the efficient movement of goods while
significantly reducing the risk of marine accidents and resulting
environmental damage. When accidents do occur, NOAA can provide the
necessary support to ensure a scientifically-based response and
restoration of damaged coastal resources. Economic benefits include
reducing vessel fuel consumption and port pollution, supporting just-
in-time delivery of goods, enhancing the competitiveness of U.S.
exports, and restoration of important coastal resources that support
tourism, fishing, and other ocean- and coastal-dependent industries.
Specific program increases are described in detail below.
NOAA requests an increase of $3.6 million for Electronic
Navigational Charts (ENCs). This continued investment will allow for
the ongoing production and maintenance of ENCs and the ability to
enhance and expand the full suite of ENCs to a total of 200 from the 70
in existence at the end of fiscal year 2000. ENCs provide a more
complete picture of coastal waterways.
NOAA requests an increase of $1.0 million for Shoreline Mapping.
This investment will allow for a more accurate national shoreline. An
increased emphasis on shoreline mapping is required to keep pace with
the growing stress on our Nation's marine transportation system and to
assist states and coastal managers.
NOAA requests an increase of $0.5 million for the National Spatial
Reference System (NSRS). This investment will increase the Nation's
access to the Continuously Operating Reference Stations (CORS), a set
of Global Positioning System (GPS) stations, and the mainstay of the
NSRS. This investment will expand the number of National CORS, expand
the Federal Base and Cooperative Base Network stations connected to the
national standard for vertical heights, which are used for all
applications that require surveying. These activities will provide
better access to accurate and consistent height data for a wide-range
of economic pursuits.
NOAA requests a total of $0.5 million to Implement Forecast Models.
This investment will enhance tides and tidal current services to the
user by obtaining new current meter measurements at locations critical
to the navigation community and by accelerating the development of
nowcast/forecast products for users of oceanographic data.
NOAA requests a total of $3.0 million for Coastal Storms. This
investment will build upon existing NOAA environmental monitoring and
data management capabilities and will enhance our efforts to provide
Marine Transportation System users, as well as coastal resource
managers, with the data and tools needed to safely maximize commercial
shipping, mitigate hazards, and sustain the environmental health of
coastal communities and resources when disasters strike. Initial
efforts will focus on a pilot project in Florida and include updating
shallow water bathymetry, adding sensors to National Water Level
Observation Network stations, and developing a hydrodynamic model for
improved forecasting applications.
NOAA requests an increase of $2.0 million for Spill Response and
Habitat Restoration. This investment will develop and distribute tools
and guidance to assist decision makers when releases of contaminants
occur within the Marine Transportation System and other coastal
environments. These funds will enable NOAA to more accurately evaluate
the effectiveness of spill response measures, leading to improved
response techniques as well as better methods of restoring injured
resources.
The total request of $9.5 million for the FAIRWEATHER repair and
activation represents an increase of $2.7 million above the fiscal year
2001 enacted level. This continued investment will complete the
refurbishment and reactivation of the FAIRWEATHER and help reduce the
survey backlog, a high marine transportation priority. This project was
directed by Congress in 2001 and makes efficient use of this vessel
which has been located at NOAA's Pacific Marine Center. With its home
port in Alaska, the FAIRWEATHER will provide a platform that will help
reduce the critical hydrographic survey backlog.
Other Key NOAA Programs
The total request of $14.0 million for Ocean Exploration represents
an increase of $10.0 million above the fiscal year 2001 enacted level.
Despite covering 70 percent of Earth's surface, the oceans remain
largely unexplored and unknown. Not surprisingly, most of the oceans'
resources remain untapped. Our best scientists believe that fewer than
25 percent of the species that live in the oceans have ever been
identified. Even within America's own Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ),
less than five percent of the ocean floor has been mapped in high
resolution. In fact, prior to fiscal year 2001, the United States did
not even have a concentrated program of ocean exploration. As a result,
NOAA has pursued a course of ocean resource management without adequate
decision-making data and information being available to policy makers,
regulators, and commercial users of the ocean's resources.
However, today we live in an age of technological innovation. There
are many opportunities that simply were not available in earlier
decades. We now can completely rethink how we might conduct exploration
in Earth's oceans. Developments in sensors, telemetry, power sources,
microcomputers, and materials science have greatly improved our ability
to go into and study the undersea frontier.
The benefits of such a program of exploration are potentially
enormous. For example, gas hydrates comprise more than 50 percent of
all of our planet's carbon--and potentially hold more than 1,000 times
the fuel in all other estimated reserves combined! In addition, there
are certain to be other benefits which currently are beyond our ability
even to conceive. With 95 percent of the underwater world still unknown
and unseen, what remains to be explored may hold clues to the origins
of life on earth, cures for human diseases, answers to how to achieve
sustainable use of our oceans, links to our maritime history, and
information to protect the endangered species of the sea.
We are stewards of our oceans' resources. We need to explore and
know more about our oceans if we are to effectively manage them. We
need to explore the oceans in the same way that the United States has
successfully explored space. We need to determine what our marine
resources are, their relative abundance, and the rates at which they
can be used and replenished. Accurate knowledge of the oceans is
essential for environmental, economic, and national security.
The fiscal year 2002 budget increase will enable NOAA to fund six
major and several minor interdisciplinary voyages of discovery that
will map the physical, geological, biological, chemical, and
archaeological aspects of parts of the U.S. EEZ. NOAA will conduct
missions of exploration in the Gulf of Mexico, South Atlantic Bight,
Northwest Hawaiian Islands, Northeast Pacific, California, and the Gulf
of Alaska. Education and outreach is a major component of NOAA's Ocean
Exploration Initiative. NOAA will carry-out this program relying on
partnerships with universities, the private sector, and other agencies.
NOAA's Ocean Exploration Initiative will help us to fulfill our
national strategic goals to Sustain Healthy Coasts, Recover Protected
Species, and Build Sustainable Fisheries.
Marine Environmental Research ($11.6 million)
The total request of $11.6 million for Marine Environmental
Research represents an increase of $1.8 million above the fiscal year
2001 enacted level. This continued investment will support ongoing
operations at OAR's Atlantic Oceanographic Meteorological Laboratory
(AOML) and the Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory (PMEL). The
requested funds will enable AOML's Remote Sensing Division to
reactivate its field measurements that provide data for major community
health-related decisions in contaminant-release emergencies in Florida
and elsewhere. Coral reef monitoring activities are also supported.
These funds will also enable PMEL's Fisheries Oceanography program to
continue ocean measurements planned for the Gulf of Alaska and the
Bering Sea. These funds are important to the study of the potential
influences of climate changes on recent shifts in the species
composition of these ecosystems including declines in salmon and
steller sea lion populations.
NOAA requests a total of $2.0 million for the Estuary Restoration
Act. This investment will allow for NOAA-wide activities mandated by
the Estuary Restoration Act of 2000. NOAA will work with other partners
to implement a national estuary habitat restoration strategy designed
to ensure a comprehensive approach towards habitat restoration
projects. Healthy estuarine ecosystems provide a number of benefits
pertaining to wildlife habitat, commercial and recreational fisheries,
water quality, flood control, erosion, and outdoor recreation. NOAA's
activities include the development of scientifically sound monitoring
protocols and standards for coastal habitat restoration projects
throughout the United States and its protectorates. NOAA will develop
restoration databases that provide quick and easy access to accurate
and up to date information regarding all projects funded under the
Estuary Restoration Act of 2000. This work will provide scientists and
resource mangers with information critical to successful estuary
habitat restoration efforts.
NOAA requests a total of $19.8 million for the Commerce
Administrative Management System (CAMS). This investment will allow for
the full benefit and value of CAMS to be realized in NOAA. CAMS is in
the final stages of completion, expected in fiscal year 2003, and
adequate funding will ensure that CAMS is deployed in a timely manner,
allowing all modules to progress toward completion. Once fully
deployed, CAMS will contribute in significant ways to maintaining a
clean NOAA financial audit through systematic controls rather than
through labor-intensive manual efforts. It will provide managers with
on-line, real-time, and accurate financial information in support of
their programmatic missions, and will be legally compliant. Requested
funding for CAMS is vital to preserve NOAA's ability to have a
satisfactory financial accounts system and allow NOAA and DOC to meet
statutory obligations under the Federal Managers' Financial Integrity
Act (FMFIA) and the Chief Financial Officer Act (CFO Act).
The total request of $63.8 million for Marine Services represents
an increase of $1.9 million above the fiscal year 2001 enacted level.
This continued investment will allow NOAA to operate its fleet of 15
vessels capable of safely collecting hydrographic and coastal
assessment data, conducting fishery independent scientific and survey
operations, and conducting sustained oceanographic and atmospheric data
collection in various marine environments and provides funds for
outsourcing to meet some data-collection requirements. The request
includes an increase of $1.0 million to provide days-at-sea, primarily
through University-National Oceanographic Laboratory System (UNOLS) and
charter vessels, to support research in the Gulf of Mexico concerning
the interactions of the Mississippi River plume, nutrient loading, and
resulting effects of hypoxia on Gulf fisheries. These funds will also
maintain or increase day-at-sea levels supporting other NOAA programs,
including the science programs in NOS and the sanctuary program. The
request also includes an increase of $0.9 million which will be used to
pay the increased costs for operating the ADVENTUROUS' and to add days-
at-sea on fisheries research vessels. The ADVENTUROUS, which will
replace the TOWNSEND CROMWELL, is a larger and more capable vessel that
will carry more scientists and complete more research on a daily basis.
NOAA's Budget and Financial Management
For the fiscal year 2000, NOAA received an unqualified opinion on
NOAA financial statements from an independent auditor. The fiscal year
2000 audit represents the second consecutive year NOAA has received a
clean audit and demonstrates the intensive efforts made by NOAA to
improve financial management. NOAA continues to place a high priority
on improving fiscal and financial management in order to increase
accountability and efficiency.
Over the past several years, NOAA has been working to respond to
Congressional concerns stemming from the NOAA budget structure. The
Congressional Appropriation Committees have challenged NOAA to make
recommendations to simplify its budget structure. NOAA has taken
several actions that address the restructuring of its budget and
financial management processes. The outcome of these actions is already
apparent and demonstrated in its improved budgetary communications as
well as in the improved accuracy of its documentation (e.g., sustaining
a clean audit and improved timeliness in the distribution of funds).
NOAA continues to work toward meeting the challenges of restructuring
the NOAA budget and is excited about the improved efficiency a new
budget structure will bring.
As evidenced by NOAA's improving financial and budgetary
management, NOAA is doing its part to exercise fiscal responsibility as
stewards of the Nation's trust as well as America's coastal and ocean
resources. And, in the same way that NOAA is responsible for assessing
the Nation's climate, we are responsible for assessing our management
capabilities. It is within this broader management context that NOAA
continues looking for opportunities to improve. As in past years,
NOAA's fiscal year 2002 Budget Request includes measures which track
results to the level of public investment. NOAA will continue to
leverage its programs and investments by developing those associations
that most efficiently and economically leverage resources and talent,
and that most effectively provide the means for successfully meeting
mission requirements.

Senator Gregg. Thank you for that comprehensive
presentation on what NOAA is up to these days and where the
money is going. I appreciate it.
Senator Inouye was here before anybody else, including
myself, so I will turn to him first.
Senator Inouye. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I wanted to come by today because Hawaii in a real sense is
the NOAA State. I wanted to come by to thank you, Mr. Gudes,
for all that you have done for us and continue to do so.
Mr. Chairman, if I may, I have just one question, and I
would like to submit the rest.
Senator Gregg. As you wish.

jurisdictional authority of interior

Senator Inouye. Mr. Gudes, we have had an ongoing problem
with Interior as to who has jurisdiction over 3 miles from
shore. What is the present situation? I know that the legal
counsel of Justice issued an opinion which called into question
Interior's authority, but we gather that Interior continues to
exert management authority over marine resources.
Mr. Gudes. Are you talking about specifically in the
Northwest Hawaiian Islands, Senator?
Senator Inouye. Yes.
Mr. Gudes. In the Northwest Hawaiian Islands, I thought
that basically had been settled at the end of last year, partly
through the legislation that you put forward in terms of the
marine sanctuary authorization as well as the former
President's Executive order on the Northwest Hawaiian Islands.
We do work closely with Interior in a number of areas. They
do run National Parks which have coral reefs; we work on coral
reefs. But in the case of the Northwest Hawaiian Islands, the
land site, if you will, is a national refuge, and after 3 miles
is the Northwest Hawaiian Islands--I guess currently, a ``coral
reef preserve'' is the right term--with legislation telling us
to move and hold public hearings toward becoming a marine
sanctuary.
Senator Inouye. As you know, Palmyra is an important
addition. At the present time, we have been advised that
Interior is exerting strong influence and jurisdiction over the
resources of Palmyra. Is that true?
Mr. Gudes. In the case of Palmyra, I think they actually
were given jurisdiction under the previous administration--it
is south, as I understand it, not in the Northwest Hawaiian
Islands. In the case of Palmyra, I think they did. In the case
of the Virgin Islands, they have jurisdiction over the undersea
national parks. In American Samoa, actually, which you are very
familiar with, we have a marine sanctuary, and they actually
have a new national park. Both of us are very interested in
preserving corals. We are working very hard in terms of corals,
as you know and your staff knows. I think about 70 percent of
the funding that this committee gave us for corals is going to
the Pacific, and the Northwest Hawaiian Islands is a major area
that we are focusing on.

fisheries lab construction

Senator Inouye. Can you tell us about the status of the
fisheries lab construction?
Mr. Gudes. Yes. This committee has actually previously
given us appropriations over some number of years for I want to
say about $4.5 million or so. This year's budget request is $3
million for the Honolulu laboratory. In total, we are going to
need about another $34 million to finally build that lab to the
specifications that we have, the design that we have.
I think it is very significant, because we have been trying
for some number of years to get funding in the President's
request up to you, and to move ahead and get that lab built.
Senator Inouye. Thank you very much.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Gregg. Over what period are you going to need that
$34 million?
Mr. Gudes. We will be back going into the 2003 process and
probably the 2004 process, realistically, the way most NOAA
construction projects have worked over time. Chairman Stevens
has just come in--the Juneau laboratory, for example, has
really started, I think, around 1991 in a similar fashion where
Senator Stevens had some money put in, and it was not--really,
last year was the first time we got a President's request for
$1 million, and this year, we have over $11 million. So it will
probably take some number of years.
Senator Gregg. As is the tradition in this committee, when
the chairman of the full committee arrives, we recognize him.
Senator Stevens. Thank you very much for the courtesy. I
have visited three other committees so far this morning, and
this is where I am going to sit for a while, so I will wait my
turn.
Thank you.
Senator Gregg. Senator Hollings.

hurricane tracking and forecasting

Senator Hollings. First, that is about as good a
presentation as I have heard since I have been here over
several years, and I commend you for it.
I am still hung up on Hurricane Mitch. What caused
Hurricane Mitch to turn tail and start back inland in an
opposite direction? You say we have got to do some more
studying. From the studies on air currents and hurricanes, what
causes that?
Mr. Gudes. Senator, there are a number of factors that
affect where a hurricane will steer, where it will go. A lot of
it has to do with the boundary conditions, the area where the
hurricane is moving into. A lot of it has to do with water
temperature; when the sea surface temperature gets over 80
degrees, it is a much higher probability of feeding the energy;
a hurricane has an energy engine.
In the case of a number of hurricanes, it has to do with
other meteorological conditions. For example, when we see a lot
of these hurricanes come up the East Coast, and then they turn
out, it is often because we have some frontal action that takes
place that is a blocking motion toward that hurricane, and as
it goes into colder water, it tends to lose energy.
In the case of Mitch--Jack or Louisa--do we know why it
went south the way it did? I will have Jack Kelly respond, who
is head of the Weather Service.
Mr. Kelly. There a host of factors, as Scott explained,
that influence where a hurricane goes. With Mitch, you had a
stronger weather system to the north, which prevented it from
going in the direction everyone anticipated it to go, so it got
pushed south. Everyone thought that that would not materialize
as strongly as it did, and the storm would have gone to the
north. So you just had a stronger air mass to the north, and it
shifted to the south and then went stationary.
What really caused the damage in Central America was not so
much the winds with that storm but the fact that it went
stationary and rained for 3 or 4 days and dumped tens of inches
of rain per day over the mountainous areas.
Senator Hollings. But there is really no inadequacy of our
hurricane studies. I mean, we have the plane up there and so
on, right in the middle of it.
Mr. Kelly. No, Senator. What it is is an inadequacy of our
understanding of how the atmosphere unfolds many days in
advance. In spite of all the progress that we have made, we
really do not have perfect knowledge on how the atmosphere will
respond, and we make mistakes on forecasts.
Senator Hollings. But there is nothing money-wise that we
can do to improve it, is there?
Mr. Kelly. The U.S. Weather Research Program will have the
universities try to understand better how the atmosphere
unfolds, and in terms of that, yes, we can do that. In terms of
satellites and aircraft to monitor what is happening, we have
enough satellites and enough aircraft. The question is how will
the atmosphere unfold in the next 24 to 48 hours, and we do not
know that with perfect certainty.
Senator Hollings. Thank you.
I like your presentation on the satellites. We both
remember Bernard Schwartz from Loral coming in and saving that
contract from Ford, and on time and under cost, getting that
geostationary satellite up first.

steller sea lion issues

Let me ask a question now that both sides are represented
here. Some kind of sea lion ruling held up the budget, the
appropriations process, the Congress, and the Government until
December because of Fisheries not taking a position, or a
ruling or whatever. All that I remember is that you said, or
somebody over in NOAA said that we ought to get in there
earlier and get the information out or make the decision early
so the same issue will not get into one of those political
snarls.
Have you corrected that?
Mr. Gudes. I am watching Senator Stevens as I answer this.
Senator Hollings. And look at Senator Murray, too--oh, she
has gone.
Mr. Gudes. The Steller sea lion issue took place over some
period of time. It was not just last year--it probably started
in the early 1990's with closed areas starting and some people
arguing that we had not done enough to space out the fishing
pressure and the sea lions.
Definitely since the biological opinion and since the judge
allowed us to proceed with fishing again, we have been working
very hard with the North Pacific Fisheries Management Council
in Anchorage, to try to find every opportunity that we can to
be sensitive to the impact on fishermen, to allow the maximum
amount of fishing that we can in a way that still protects the
sea lions. We are still under the Endangered Species Act, we
still have a finding of jeopardy, we are still working with the
courts, and we still have to find a way to work to protect
those sea lions. Their populations have been declining. So we
are trying every opportunity that we can.
We had an emergency rule that allowed jig and line fishing
to take place there. We have been doing some satellite tagging
to take a look at how far the sea lions go from the rookery
areas. Actually, we are finding that a lot of them actually go
about 10 miles out rather than 20 miles, and we are working
with the Council on that issue.
Then, finally, often we talk about science and data, and
this committee and this Congress came forward and gave us $43
million last year to start putting together the best science to
deal with this issue, and we have been doing that--Bill Hogarth
and the people at Fisheries and Jim Balsinger and the people up
in Alaska have been doing everything they can to try to get
this research and this effort going expeditiously to really try
to solve this problem.
We are extremely sensitive and extremely knowledgeable of
the economic impact that it has had and the impact that it has
had on Alaska, and we are trying everything we can to work with
them.

hollings marine laboratory

Senator Hollings. Very good. Let me make the record on the
marine science center that is just opening up down at Fort
Johnson. This is the most modern, updated marine scientific
research center tied in with medical research. At that site, we
also have the agricultural research center, which is the most
modern and updated one of the Federal Government.
Now, it has just come to my attention that the American
Health Foundation along with Rockefeller University in New York
City are interested in the study of proteomics. They tell me
that with the human genome--and we can look at the morning news
and hear about all the things being done with cancer--but that
is for the study of human genes. They say the genes give a
message to the proteins, and the proteins overlap, and if they
overlap too fast, it is like stepping on the gas, or if they
overlap too slow, it is like stepping on the brakes. But at the
earliest stage, it can be studied and researched with what they
call a geomagnetic resonance imager. There has got to be a
follow-through to that marine science center working on
medicine. If they can do that, Dr. Burley and others who have
won Nobel Prizes up there in New York are convinced that we can
get to the prevention of cancer, because at the early stage, it
is very effective; down the road, the proteins have hundreds of
thousands of mutations, and it is way too late. That is why we
just treat it, treat it, and treat it all over the country. But
this gene research is a thrust and endeavor to prevent it. The
``big blue'' IBM has promised free of cost to follow through
with this and correlate all the information that we can get, so
we are looking at that very closely.
Mr. Gudes. Senator, I will just say that we are very
excited about the Hollings Marine Laboratory at Fort Johnson. I
totally agree with you that working with the Medical University
of South Carolina, with the partners that we have there in the
State of South Carolina--Margaret Davidson is here from the
Ocean Service, which that lab comes under, and if there is
anybody we have who really knows how to bring in different
people into issues and really make a result that is bigger than
the sum of the parts, it is Margaret. In terms of the marine
sciences, there are any number of drugs that have been found by
using marine organisms--that is part of what ocean exploration
is about as well--and we are really excited about the
laboratory there and the role it can play in NOAA and actually
with the country.
Senator Gregg. Thank you.
Senator Stevens.
Senator Stevens. Thank you very much.
We welcome you as the spokesman for NOAA, Mr. Gudes. I want
you to know that obviously, there is nothing personal in my
comments.

findings on steller sea lions

I would ask first, though, have your people been briefed by
the North Pacific University's Marine Mammal Consortium on
their findings regarding the Steller sea lion?
Mr. Gudes. I believe so, Senator. Let me ask Dr. Hogarth,
the head of Fisheries.
Mr. Hogarth. Yes.
Mr. Gudes. Yes, we have.
Senator Stevens. You realize that they do not believe there
is an endangered species there, that there is just one species.
Your people singled out the eastern portion of the species to
declare them under the Endangered Species Act.
I urged the Secretary to be briefed by them. I wonder why
we have ignored them. I also wonder why NOAA ignored its own
study that showed that sea lions rarely go beyond 10 miles from
a haul-out. In preparing your biological opinion, you set aside
a basic finding of your own scientists--that sea lions rarely
go beyond 10 miles--and required that we protect 20 miles from
a haul-out. This has had a devastating effect on the fishery.
The Coast Guard urged you not to do it for safety reasons, and
your people rejected that.
I wonder why we should wait for another study when you have
ignored your own findings in the past. And you refused to
accept the findings of the North Pacific University's Marine
Mammal Consortium.
We are going to be in for another battle, that is for sure,
if NMFS now comes up with another unproven theory, ignores the
Marine Mammal Protection Act, ignores the Magnuson-Stevens Act,
and uses the Endangered Species Act to bring about a collision
course with the State of Alaska over the most significant
source of employment in our State, the fisheries from Kodiak to
Atka. Then we are going to have another battle. I may lose, but
I have got to tell you, it will be another battle.
I do not understand why NOAA will not get with it and pay
attention to its own studies.
I am told that you are now on another course, having lost
the round on the biological opinion. I am told that there is a
draft Environmental Impact Statement using the same unproven
theories to put another level of environmental attack on our
commercial fisheries.
Are we now facing a situation where the biological opinion
is subject to an agency-generated Environmental Impact
Statement, as required supposedly by the Endangered Species
Act, when there is still no agreement that we are dealing with
an endangered species?
How far do I have to go. I am asking you, in order to keep
my people at work? North Pacific University's Marine Mammal
Consortium says that these mammals are not being depleted
because the food chain is based upon pollock. It says that they
are depleting for a whole series of reasons, and they believe
that despite the depletion, they should not be listed as an
endangered species.
What do I have to do--ask the Commerce Committee to have a
special hearing on this in order to expose this? How do I get
some kind of response to the truth and to scientific fact in
relation to pollock and the sea lion?
Mr. Gudes. Mr. Chairman, I will ask Dr. Hogarth in a second
if he would like to respond as well, but I would say that, as I
often point out to NOAA employees, I am the one non-scientist
in NOAA leadership, but I do get a chance to look at some of
these issues and try to understand them in their entirety, and
I think one of the problems that we have in Alaska--and I think
the Steller sea lion is just one example--is conflicting
messages on laws, on what we are required to do. And when we
tend not to do what some people believe we are tasked to do
under the law, the courts move in, and they say, ``NOAA, we are
going to take this authority away from you.'' And I think in
part with Steller sea lions, that is part of what happened.
A year ago, we had a situation where a Federal judge
stepped in and shut down all the fisheries----
Senator Stevens. Yes, but keep in mind--you prepared three
biological opinions that the courts did not disturb. You
changed the scientists and the lawyers involved, and you came
up with a fourth and a fifth that the court would not accept.
I do not understand how you could destroy your own
credibility with the courts any more than you did in that
process.
But beyond that, how are you going to get your credibility
back? The North Pacific Regional Council--and I believe it
includes the top national marine fisheries scientists from
Seattle--have agreed on a set of rules to protect the sea lions
and still allow the fisheries to go forward.
I am told that Washington people, particularly the lawyers,
have said that that recommendation will not be followed, and it
will not be defended in court.
Now let me tell you a little story about Roosevelt. In
World War II, when Roosevelt wanted to start the lend-lease
program, he called in the Secretary of the Navy, and he said,
``Mr. Secretary, I want to start this program, and I want to
let the British have some of our gear, but it is up to you to
work this out. Now go and work out a program--we will call it
lend-lease--so we can get this material to them so they can
defend themselves.''
The Secretary of Navy came back the day after that and
said, ``Mr. President, I am sorry to tell you that my lawyers
tell me that it is not possible.''
The President said, ``Which lawyer?'' This is God's truth--
he said it--``Which lawyer?''
And he said, ``My chief counsel.''
And the President said, ``Mr. Secretary, you go back to
that legal group, and the first person you find who is a lawyer
and who agrees with me is your new general counsel.''
I would suggest to you that if you have some problem with
your legal office that it be remedied. I was the chief counsel
for the Department of the Interior, and I know that Government
lawyers are bent upon finding a different client than the
public at times. But these people had better not hold up a
decision by the Regional Council's decision that is based upon
science and supported by the North Pacific University's Marine
Mammal Consortium and by your top scientists in the field.
Lawyers are not going to deter us from seeing that that opinion
is enforced.
Mr. Hogarth, what are you going to do with it when it comes
to Washington?
Mr. Hogarth. Thank you.

eis on steller sea lions

There are several things going on. Number one, the draft
Environmental Impact Statement was required by the courts, and
it is a draft.
Senator Stevens. Wait a minute. The court that required the
biological statement also required the Environmental Impact
Statement? Under the same act?
Mr. Hogarth. The courts required us to do a programmatic
EIS to open the fishery. That is----
Senator Stevens. Just a minute. Where were your lawyers?
The Marine Mammal Protection Act protected the sea lions to
start with. They should have defended on that basis. The
Magnuson-Stevens Act protected those. Never before have we had
an Environmental Impact Statement or a biological opinion on a
marine mammal.
Mr. Hogarth. Because if it was considered endangered, it
was under the Endangered Species Act.
Senator Stevens. That is strange. You began with three
biological opinions that were accepted. You change the
personnel. It is filed; you go to court and do not defend it,
and the court says you are not properly defending it, go and
write another one. You go back with a fifth one, and the court
says it is still insufficient and puts into effect a moratorium
that puts all my people out of work. Now, that is bad
management and bad law.
I want you to know that I am not going to give up on this.
You are allowing the courts to make a decision affecting one
species which destroys opportunities for commercial fishing and
at the same time subjects you to further restrictions under the
Endangered Species Act, and you are already subject to a third
because you have to comply with the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
I do not understand why you do not stand up and tell that
court what the law is. The law is clear--Congress did not
intend the Endangered Species Act to override the Magnuson-
Stevens Act. Congress did not say that you had to have an
Environmental Impact Statement every time you made a decision
under the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
These significant decisions are not yours to make. The
decisions are made by the regional councils. The Secretary
makes the decision that you might have to have an Environmental
Impact Statement once in a while, but you as an agency do not
because you do not have jurisdiction. The jurisdiction is with
the regional council.
Someone had better read the Magnuson-Stevens Act. Beyond
that, did you know that the emergency provisions that you used
were from the Magnuson-Stevens Act? There is no emergency
provision in the Endangered Species Act. I do not know what
kind of lawyers you have down there, but they did not study the
law like I did. Somehow we have got to get control over this.
Now, is it true that you are going to hold up fishing until
you get the approval of the Environmental Impact Statement?
Mr. Hogarth. No, sir. Right now, we have a group that was
set up by the Council called the Reasonable and Prudent
Alternative (RPA) Committee, to look at reasonable and prudent
alternatives. They have made a recommendation to the Council,
and the Council has made that recommendation to us. That is
under review right now, and it looks very good. One thing we
are looking at is in the Steller conservation area, we have
always had some kind of limits, even back in 1998. They have
removed all of those limits, so right now, we are looking to
see if we should approve that. They will be in place for the
second half of this year.
I have set up a process so hopefully we will not go through
another issue like we went through last fall. We have set up a
process for any disagreements to be resolved, and if they
cannot resolve them in the region, they will come to me with
the options, and I will make the decision.
We are going----
Senator Stevens. Excuse me. I do not want to be offensive,
but the Magnuson-Stevens Act gave the regional councils the
right to make the decisions that you are making. The reasonable
and prudent alternatives are decided by the regional council.
Mr. Hogarth. That is correct.
Senator Stevens. I understand you are now negotiating with
the plaintiffs in a lawsuit what is a reasonable and prudent
alternative.
Mr. Hogarth. The plaintiffs are part of that committee. The
Council put them on the committee. The plaintiffs have come
forward and said that they may go forward and ask the judge for
another injunction if we implement all this because they feel
like they have deviated so far from the biological opinion.
Senator Stevens. I hope they do, because we will then amend
the Magnuson-Stevens Act for sure and take them out of it
entirely. What is a group of plaintiffs in a lawsuit doing on a
committee of the Magnuson-Stevens Act which deals with the
regional council's activities?
Mr. Hogarth. Because the Council felt it was better to have
them part of the process than to have them taking potshots, I
guess. So they are part of it, but they are one member out of
11, if I am not mistaken.
Senator Stevens. Well, I do not remember the good Lord
inviting the Devil to the last supper, my friend.
They have no business trying to decide the outcome of this
by negotiation. We did not create regional councils for
negotiation. We created them for decisionmaking. The courts
have got to get out of the business of making those decisions,
and you brought them into it by letting the Endangered Species
Act be part of this process. It is not part of this process.
Mr. Hogarth. If I can do anything about it, we are going to
get them back out of it. I do not think the courts should make
those decisions, either.
There are several things that have happened that I think
are very positive. There is some data from Sea Grant on the
Steller sea lions and the use of rookeries and the haul-outs.
There is some scat data and food habits and so on that shows
very little reliance on pollock. There is also the telemetry
data that we have done, which shows that about 92 percent of
the adults go no further out than 10 miles, and 88 percent of
the sub-adults do not go any further than 10 miles.
Senator Stevens. You had that study even before you even
made the last biological opinion.
Mr. Hogarth. We have a lot more data now that has been
utilized by this RPA Committee. We also will, in my opinion,
reinitiate the consultation for the 2002 season, because I
think there is so much more data that is available to look at,
and that biological opinion needs to be reinitiated and
revisited for the 2002 season. But for the second half of this
year, there will be changes again made based on your rider and
the additional data that we have. So there will be some changes
the rest of this year.
The only thing I can tell you is that things are being done
differently than they were in the last go-around, and they will
continue to be done differently. We are in constant contact
with the Council and the region. There is a 4-hour conference
to go over everything. We are having regular conversations. We
have a different process set up so that we do not come to a
stalemate. It is all transparent. We have never let a
biological opinion be reviewed in draft form before; this one
will be. I have released three biological opinions--the Hawaii
long line was released as a draft; the Pellagic long line for
the South Atlantic was released, and this one will be released
in draft form to get input before it is finalized.
Senator Stevens. We are going to have to go back, I am
sure. My two colleagues are on the conference committee, as I
am. The Marine Mammal Act was passed because Congress did not
believe the Endangered Species Act applied to marine mammals.
It was passed after the Endangered Species Act was in place.
The Marine Mammal Act was the result of Congress' intention to
protect marine mammals under that Act, and that was Muskie's
Act.
Somehow, we have got to get a sense of the history here and
understand that the Endangered Species Act was not designed to
protect marine mammals. It is not Congress' intention that it
be so used. But no one in your department has ever argued that.
Why did we need the Marine Mammal Protection Act if the
Endangered Species Act, which was already in existence, was
effective as far as marine mammals were concerned?
We have to get to where we have management control under
scientific principles. But what is happening is that more and
more of these environmental litigation agencies are destroying
your agency with litigation that is just too redundant.
I have taken too much time, and I apologize, but somehow,
this has got to come to a halt. We cannot afford it. My people
are not that rich that they can keep going to court with your
agency and these environmental organizations. They work on
donated funds. They do not make enough money to do this, and
they are being squashed out of this business because they
cannot afford legal fees. Are you aware of this? They just
cannot do it.
Mr. Gudes. Can I respond?
Senator Hollings. Yes, surely. Mr. Chairman, you are asking
the gentleman to explain Congress, and even I cannot do that.
But the record should show that I heard about this controversy,
so I asked about this Mr. Bill Hogarth, and let the record show
that they said he is a good man.
Senator Stevens. I know he is.
Senator Hollings. Yes, and he has withstood your wrath
better than I can.
Do you have any comment, Mr. Hogarth or Mr. Gudes? No
kidding--it is a serious problem, and the Senator from Alaska
is right on target about the seriatim of the enactments with
respect to the Endangered Species Act and the Marine Mammal
Protection Act. Our frustration is that you are disregarding
the recent Act and the real controlling Act.

nmfs lawsuit backlog

Mr. Gudes. I am not a lawyer, and I am talking to some of
the authors of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, so I want to be
careful. But I think the general issue that you have raised is
much more than just Steller sea lions in Alaska. We have 110 or
so lawsuits right now. It is not just from environmental
groups, as you said, Senator. It is from both sides. When
someone, even with something that has nothing to do with the
Endangered Species Act, is not happy with the decision--
sometimes it happens at the Council--they go to court. Often,
when I go to these fisheries meetings with Bill, I feel as
though I am in a law school class instead of talking about
fisheries. Very often, we are talking about the Administrative
Procedures Act, and when is this rule going to come forward,
and Notice of Rulemaking.
Senator Hollings. What can this subcommittee do to undo
that logjam? I mean, having 110 lawsuits backed up--something
is wrong there.
Mr. Gudes. Well, some of it is probably more appropriate--
although the three of you are on the Commerce, Science,
Transportation Committee of the authorization committee--but it
is a problem in terms of the laws and the conflicting laws and
how the laws are being used.
Senator Stevens. Well, could I make a suggestion? These
decisions that are theoretically based on science should not be
appealable to courts to be handled by a bunch of lawyers who do
not understand. If there is going to be an appeal, it ought to
be to a group of scientists.
Mr. Gudes. Well, Bill just helped solve an issue on summer
flounder by working with the States. We had a situation where
we had two conflicting laws, but more important than that, we
had two conflicting Federal judges, one of whom was saying one
thing and one of whom, here in Washington, D.C. was saying
something different.
Senator Stevens. What they do, Scott, is they find a judge
where they know what he is going to decide. I can tell you what
the judge in Seattle is going to decide, or the one here, or
the one down in San Francisco.
Mr. Gudes. And Senator Hollings, part of what you did last
year was give us funding through your leadership to try to
respond to things like NEPA, to try to get some of our EISs
updated. In the case of Steller sea lions, it was giving us the
idea to do some of the research and get the data that we need
to be able to determine--that is part of it, because sometimes
when we lose in court, it is because we do not have good enough
data. And this is not only Department of Commerce, this is
Department of Justice; they are the ones who litigate for us in
court. This is a bigger issue.
To end, Mr. Chairman, I understand exactly everything that
you have said and your passion about this issue. We are in a
situation where, if we do not do things right, we will end up
back in the court, right or wrong, with the judge shutting down
the fishery again, and we do not want that to happen.
Senator Stevens. You are right. As a matter of fact, let us
get off fish and look at the airport and SeaTech. For 19 years,
we have been waiting for that Seattle runway to be completed,
and every time it is just about ready to go, there is another
lawsuit and another review by some judge, and we are told to do
something different.
You are about to get in the same position, where every
year, everything you do will be reviewed by some court, and a
group of lawyers will tell you what to do, when you thought
your decisions were based on scientific data.
So I think we have got to find some way to make these
decisions appealable to a group of scientists. Tell the courts
they can only get involved if someone has violated the law.
They are substituting their feelings--not even their judgment,
but their feelings--about the science, rather than allowing our
scientists to make the decisions and see if they were the right
decisions. I think these cases should be appealable to a
scientific process and not the legal process.
Mr. Gudes. If I could, one final comment on what Bill
mentioned. Secretary Evans very strongly said to both Bill and
me that he wants an open process that brings in everyone who is
affected, and Bill has really worked very hard on biological
opinions, on EISs, as he referred to, to try to open up that
process, to bring in stakeholders, to bring in the Fisheries
Management Councils ahead of time.
Senator Inouye talked to us about long line issues and
biological opinion issues--very similar--Endangered Species Act
issues, and in this case, sea turtle interactions. So it is not
a Marine Mammal Protection Act, it is what you would argue is
an Endangered Species Act issue. And Bill went out and met with
the Fisheries Management Council and with all the commercial
fishermen in the area, and at least opened up the process in a
way that had not been done before. That did not mean that what
finally came out of NOAA and Fisheries was what those fishermen
wanted to see, but it was a much more open and transparent
process, and that is what we are working toward.

factor's contributing to steller sea lion decline

Mr. Hogarth. I would just like to say one final thing, that
we are doing two other things to take a look at this. We have
reconstituted the Steller sea lion recovery team with new
members, and it will get to work right away. We hope we have a
good group there to take another look.
Also, we have gone outside and gotten a group to look at
how to integrate Marine Mammal, Magnuson-Stevens, and ESA,
because as an agency, I do not think we have really integrated
them as they should be, and that is what has caused many of the
problems. We are supposed to have that report back by the first
of June, and then we can move forward.
Senator Stevens. I hope that you will show all of those
people the videos of the killer whales and the young sea lions.
Mr. Hogarth. That has been documented, too, yes, sir.
Senator Stevens. And the picture of the stomach of the one
that had 17 Steller sea lion tags in the stomach.
The Endangered Species Act apparently does not deter killer
whales, which are increasing in number and overwhelming in our
area. And if you listen to the consortium people, they will
tell you that it is a combination of factors that are leading
to the decline of the Steller sea lion, and one of them is
predation. We are not taking them; other mammals are taking
them. So I do not think we should base a recovery for the sea
lions entirely upon stopping man from harvesting pollock.
Incidentally, your people also overlooked the fact that
pollock as a biomass is about four times the size it was when
we passed the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
Mr. Hogarth. It was an all-time record last year, the
biomass.
Senator Stevens. So I do not understand anyone saying there
is not enough pollock for sea lions. But the problem lies in
where they are located and where the Steller sea lions are
located. The fatty fish are no longer there. If you want to do
anything for us, find some way to restore the fatty fish and
the Steller sea lion will come back.
Mr. Hogarth. Yes. I have to agree with that.
Senator Stevens. Thank you.
Senator Hollings [presiding]. Our distinguished chairman is
momentarily on the floor with the education bill.
Senator Inouye.
Senator Inouye. I have no questions.
Senator Hollings. Very good. And thank you, Senator
Stevens.

critical backlog in hydrographic surveys

With respect to the critical backlog in the surveys, Mr.
Gudes, what are we doing there, with the marine transportation
system?
Mr. Gudes. I think the number is somewhere around 32,000
nautical miles of critical backlog. Actually, the largest event
of that is in Alaska, Senator Stevens' State.
We are doing a number of things. One, we have about $20
million in this budget for private contracting for hydrographic
surveys. That is the first time that our budget actually has
fully funded where Congress has been asking us to use more
private sector. On the Gulf of Mexico, for example, we use all
private sector ships.
We are modernizing the FAIRWEATHER. This is a NOAA ship,
the sister ship to the RAINIER, which has six launches and is
very capable. This committee came forward and gave us funding
last year, and our budget actually has the funding to complete
the modernization of that ship. The sister ship, the RAINIER,
which is currently operating off Alaska, is actually our most
productive hydrographic ship and is very capable.
This is an area that we are focused on more and more in
trying to work down that backlog. I think we are working down
about 4 percent per year. We would like to do better than that.
It is a very important issue, and we are working in the most
critical areas.

coastal storms initiative

Senator Hollings. Under the funding for the modernization
of the marine transportation system, you have a $3 million item
there. Is that for the National Ocean Service, a pilot program
there?
Mr. Gudes. Yes, most of this comes under the National Ocean
Service. Which specific program--the Coastal Storms?
Senator Hollings. Yes. What are we getting there for that
$3 million?
Mr. Gudes. I think the $3 million that you are talking
about is the Coastal Storms Initiative; is that correct?
Senator Hollings. Right.
Mr. Gudes. Coastal Storms is really taking a look at how
much of the American population is moving to areas just like
Isle of Palms, where we have more and more people living who
are in danger of coastal storms, evacuation routes. It is about
doing better bathymetric models, better slosh models, taking
existing current meters and providing oceanographic and
atmospheric sensors. It is really about taking a look at the
whole system and doing a better job. It includes the Weather
Service as well, working in hydrology and floods.
The first prototype that is in this budget actually
proposes an effort in northeastern Florida, Jacksonville and
the St. John's River area.
Senator Hollings. Let me ask one final question, because we
have to move on to the Small Business Administration.

funding for pacific salmon recovery

With respect to the Pacific salmon funding for coastal
salmon, we had $100 million, and now it is $90 million. I was
surprised that the Bush administration put that $90 million in,
because there is some question that the money is all being used
for Columbia River salmon, and they have the dams there, and it
is not doing what was intended.
What is your comment on that?
Mr. Gudes. The Pacific Coastal Salmon program, habitat
restoration program, is about $90 million. It is a high
priority to us. It really is a grant to States to work on
habitat with a memorandum of understanding----
Senator Hollings. But can you enumerate for the committee
any successes at all?
Mr. Gudes. It is having an impact in States like
Washington, where we really have good community-based efforts
to restore watersheds, to bring back the salmon.
I would say, Mr. Chairman, that primarily it is in coastal
areas. When Congress created the first appropriation, it gave
us funding for Columbia River tribes, Native American groups.
There is an issue this year that is significant which has to do
with the drought in the Northwest, and one of the issues is--I
think the State of Washington is using some of those funds to
buy water rights, because in the Columbia River, we are going
to have a real problem where we are not going to be able to get
salmon back down the river. So that is an issue up the Columbia
River.
There is a related program, as you know. We fund the
Mitchell Act hatcheries on the Columbia River--I want to say
$16 or $18 million--which NOAA has been responsible for since
we were created as an agency.

additional committee questions

Senator Hollings. The record will remain open for any
further questions.
The committee thanks you for your outstanding presentation.
Thank you very much, Mr. Gudes.
Mr. Gudes. Thank you, Senator. Thank you, Senator Inouye.
[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 Judd Gregg
weather buoys in the northeast
Question. How many weather buoys currently cover the Northeast
fishing grounds?
Answer. NWS operates 11 marine buoys and Coastal Marine Automated
Network Systems (C-MAN) in the Northeastern United States (ie. North of
40 degrees). This includes 7 marine buoys and 4 C-MAN Stations. Canada
also operates 8 marine buoys off the coast of Nova Scotia.
Question. Are there any holes in the coverage?
Answer. NOAA is aware of some recent concerns with buoy coverage
from various marine associations. NOAA will review these issues and
report back to the Committee as soon as possible.
Question. Does NOAA own all of these buoys?
Answer. Yes, the 11 marine buoys and C-MAN stations in the
Northeastern United are base funded and owned by NOAA. Of note, NOAA
currently operates a total of 136 buoys and C-MAN stations. This
includes 108 base funded and 28 reimbursable stations.
Question. What did the 1997 National Research Council Report say
about the adequacy and priority for buoys in the Northeast?
Answer. The 1998 NRC study recommended that a core network of buoy
and C-MAN stations should be established and maintained. The report
recommended the network should be based on NOAA's 1995 Marine
Observation Plan (MAROB) which called for additional buoys. However,
the NRC stated the exact number and placement of additional buoys
should be determined through an objective assessment and numerical
analysis. With regard to priorities, the NRC study stated ``where and
how fast changes should be made were beyond the scope of the study''.
Question. Is NOAA currently considering moving any of these buoys?
If so, why?
Answer. No, NOAA does not plan to move any of these buoys. NOAA has
received a request from the Cape Cod Commercial Hook Fishermen's
Association to move the Nantucket Marine Buoy (#44008). However, the
current location is optimal for NWS mission needs and provides critical
observations to other marine users in the area.
Question. If coverage is inadequate for the fishing fleet, how many
more buoys would be required to complete the coverage? Please provide a
plan for complete buoy coverage.
Answer. NOAA is aware of some recent concerns with buoy coverage
from various marine associations. As indicated in the previous
response, NOAA will review these issues and report back to the
Committee as soon as possible.
Question. How long would it take to bring these buoys online?
Answer. NOAA would need to review the current situation and assess
the need for additional buoys. The deployment schedule for a buoy
varies from 1-2 years. The actual deployment time can depend on the
type of buoy, availability of a Coast Guard ship to deliver the buoy,
production capacity at the National Data Buoy Center, and marine
weather in the deployment area.
nmfs cooperative research
Question. I've noticed that your budget request for the National
Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) includes an increase for Cooperative
Research. This idea shows great promise for the future of fisheries
management, but only if your fisheries scientists and managers are
equipped and willing to use the data that is being collected. Can you
demonstrate that they are willing and equipped to do so?
Answer. NOAA's fiscal year 2002 request includes $3.5 million for
NMFS cooperative research implementation under the Northeast Fisheries
Management Programs line item. These funds cover the NMFS costs
associated with cooperative research in the Northeast, including
specific research design, field scientific staff, data assimilation and
analysis, program administration, and application of the research
results to Council management issues. These NMFS cooperative research
implementation funds complement our $16 million request for specific
cooperative research activities to utilize the expertise and insights
of fishers in research including resource survey design and
interpretation. For the Northeast, this two-part request provides both
the resources for NMFS and the industry to ensure future cooperative
research programs are successful and provide needed data.
fisheries lawsuits
Question. As you know, NMFS' untimely action in the Ninth Circuit
Court last year resulted in a temporary shutdown of one four nation's
biggest fisheries. A NEPA-related lawsuit could threaten the lobster
fishery in New England. How do you intend to approach the backlog of
litigation? What is your plan to avoid this kind of backlog in the
future? How are you planning to reduce the agency's risk to litigation?
What steps are you taking to ensure that the entire staff of the agency
is not pulled into litigation, and away from the science and
regulations that they are required to implement? Many of the lawsuits
involve a debate about the science. How is NMFS evolving to ensure that
it makes decisions based upon the most up-to-date and sound science?
You have requested $8 million for NEPA in fiscal year 2002. How do you
intend to spend these funds?
Answer. NOAA is certainly concerned about NMFS' litigation load, as
it has approximately doubled in the last five or six years. Some of
this increase is inevitable. The more species or populations an agency
lists under the Endangered Species Act, the more litigation will ensue.
Another example is the Sustainable Fisheries Act, which in 1996
increased NMFS' responsibilities to rebuild overfished fisheries,
minimize bycatch, and protect essential fish habitat. Those who believe
NMFS has gone too far in conserving fish stocks and habitat have sued
the agency, and so have those who think NMFS has not done enough to
protect fish stocks.
NMFS may be able to avoid other lawsuits in the future if it can
improve its compliance with procedural statutes such as the National
Environmental Policy Act and the Regulatory Flexibility Act. We have
new guidelines for complying with the Regulatory Flexibility Act, and
recently received an honorable mention from the Small Business
Administration for our improved performance under that statute. We have
a task force working now, with assistance from a contractor, to
identify ways to better manage our decision making process by
incorporating all of these procedural requirements more efficiently. We
expect to make improvements in our compliance with procedural statutes
that will result in better decision making, as well as ameliorate our
litigation problems. Where possible, we have tried to continue programs
in addition to meeting the needs associated with the court cases.
However, in many cases this has not been possible and ongoing programs
have suffered as staff have had to work on issues associated with the
cases.
The $8 million appropriated in fiscal year 2001 will address two
primary needs. First, there is an immediate need to update numerous
Environmental Impact Statements (EISs) around the country. The short-
term needs of the agency to comply with court ordered deadlines and
reduce the overall vulnerability to NEPA-related lawsuits will be
addressed by allocating $5.6 million among the regions to support the
highest priority projects. Second, NMFS is in need of systemic change
to address the demands of NEPA on a continuing basis. We have
established a task force and contracted for a study to aggressively
review the agency's decision making process and compliance with all
applicable law including NEPA.
The $8 million continued in the fiscal year 2002 budget will be
used to build on the task force recommendations and institute a
management process that improves the decision making and integration of
the agency's growing statutory, regulatory, and legal requirements.
Additionally, the fiscal year 2002 budget request includes several
items that will improve the agency's science. For example, proposed
funding of $13.3 million for additional stock assessments, and $1.4
million for more socio-economic analysis. Support for these requests
would provide better data for the management arena and help reduce
future litigation regarding science.
headquarters office support
Question. According to your budget request, it appears that there
are 14 staff offices that report to you, is that true?
Answer. Of the 14 functional activities shown on the organizational
chart accompanying the budget request, only nine (9) may be
appropriately described as staff offices reporting to the Under
Secretary (e.g., Chief Scientist, Public and Constituent Affairs,
Policy and Strategic Planning, Sustainable Development and
Intergovernmental Affairs, Legislative Affairs, International Affairs,
General Counsel, Military Affairs, and Federal Coordinator for
Meteorology). The resources supporting the Federal Coordinator for
Meteorology are requested to be transferred from the National Weather
Service to the Under Secretary and Associate Offices in fiscal year
2002.
Program Coordination and Executive Secretariat are operationally
integrated with the Office of the Deputy Under Secretary. The resources
for the NOAA High Performance Computing Center are carried in NOAA's
Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research.
Finally, the Office of Finance and Administration and the Office of
Marine and Aviation Operations are operational offices supporting the
NOAA mission.
Question. What is the mission of each of these offices?
Answer. The Under Secretary for Oceans and Atmosphere and
Administrator of NOAA formulates policies and programs for achieving
the objectives of NOAA and has the authority for program execution. The
Assistant Secretary for Oceans and Atmosphere and Deputy Administrator
of NOAA assists the Under Secretary/Administrator in formulating
policies and programs and directs their execution.
The Deputy Under Secretary for Oceans and Atmosphere serves as a
key advisor to the Under Secretary/Administrator and Assistant
Secretary/Deputy Administrator on all program and policy issues and is
responsible for ensuring the timely and effective implementation of
NOAA policies and objectives; oversees the development of and recommend
policies and programs to meet NOAA's objectives; coordinates the
implementation of policies promulgated by the Under Secretary/
Administrator and Assistant Secretary/Deputy Administrator; coordinates
actions required of NOAA in response to Executive Branch policy
decisions; develops, plans, and coordinates major program efforts; and
exercises delegated authority in committing NOAA to courses of action;
assists the Under Secretary/Administrator and Assistant Secretary/
Deputy Administrator in the administration of programs and operations
of NOAA; and represents NOAA in executive level liaison with other
Federal agencies, the Congress, and private industry. The Executive
Secretariat and the Program Coordination Office are part of the Deputy
Under Secretary's office.
The Chief Scientist of NOAA is the principal scientific advisor to
the Under Secretary. The Chief Scientist is NOAA's principal
spokesperson on scientific and technological issues, formulates and
recommends scientific policy to the Under Secretary/Administrator, and
provides guidance to NOAA Line and Program Offices on scientific and
technological issues; is NOAA's primary point of contact with the
National Science Foundation, the National Academy of Sciences, the
National Academy of Engineering, and other national and international
science and technology organizations; superintends a continual process
of independent peer evaluation to determine the quality and relevance
of NOAA's science and technology programs, products, services, and
professional staff, and recommends where and how improvements should be
made; ensures that all NOAA services are based on sound science, that
NOAA research programs are designed to improve existing NOAA services
or establish the basis for needed new services, and that NOAA's
research laboratories are meeting the agency's mission goals; and
fosters sound research strategies and scientific program development
within NOAA to meet long-range societal needs and emerging scientific
and technological opportunities.
The Office of Public and Constituent Affairs provides advice and
counsel to the Office of the Under Secretary, Assistant Administrators,
Program and Staff Office Directors and their staffs on media and
constituent relations. The Office of Public and Constituent Affairs:
establishes policies for communicating NOAA's activities to the media,
constituencies and other audiences both internally and externally;
provides a wide range of services to the media including responding to
all inquiries, planning and conducting press conferences and media
briefings; provides services to the public and NOAA's constituencies
including writing fact sheets and press releases, responding to
inquiries, coordinating conferences, briefings and luncheons, and
responding to other constituency needs; serves as NOAA's central focus
for internal communications; work with public and private sector
organizations for collaborative outreach projects, planning and
conducting ceremonies; produces video news releases and slide shows,
full-length videos or films, maintains libraries of existing NOAA
photographs, slides, film, videos and television news footage; responds
to all public mail with materials updated and maintained by the
correspondence unit; and coordinates the office's activities with the
Office of Public Affairs, Department of Commerce.
The Office of Sustainable Development and Intergovernmental Affairs
provides advice and counsel to the Office of the Under Secretary, and
the Department of Commerce on matters dealing with sustainable
development and intergovernmental affairs. The Office, through
consultation within NOAA and with the Department of Commerce,
identifies opportunities for the deployment of coordinated interagency/
intergovernmental policy strategies which recognize the importance of
linking economic and environmental goals; provides advice and
assistance on intergovernmental issues affecting NOAA; facilitates new
partnerships among governments, private industry, academic
institutions, trade and professional associations to bring Federal,
state, and local resources to bear on economic problems aggravated by
conflicts over resource management and other issues; supports the
Secretary of Commerce and Under Secretary/Administrator on policies to
encourage positive relationships between economic growth and
environmental protection; reviews proposed NOAA policies and programs
to assess their impacts on state, local and regional governments;
prepares reference documents, and coordinates studies and analyzes data
that will be the basis for recommendations to NOAA management in its
areas of responsibility.
The Office of Policy and Strategic Planning provides advice and
counsel to the Office of the Under Secretary to achieve NOAA's goals
through policy development, planning, and monitoring of appropriate
agency policies. The Office develops and evaluates in coordination with
the Assistant Administrators, and Program and Staff Office Directors,
policies, strategies, and long-range plans for new initiatives and
modification of existing programs; conducts and coordinates planning
research and program and economic evaluations to provide a rigorous
analytical basis for identifying changing national needs in NOAA's
mission areas, identifies strengths and weaknesses in NOAA's programs
to respond to national needs, and designs new strategies and approaches
to achieve NOAA's high priority mission objectives; updates, as
appropriate, the NOAA Strategic Plan; coordinates all NOAA activities
implementing the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and ecology
and environmental conservation matters; and serves as the focal point
for the Department's NEPA compliance and implementation.
The Office of Legislative Affairs coordinates all NOAA contacts
with the Congress other than those relating to appropriations; and is
responsible for the planning, direction, and coordination of
legislative programs that are of immediate concern to the Office of the
Under Secretary. The Office serves as the primary liaison for NOAA with
the members and staff of the Congress; identifies and tracks all
legislation of interest to NOAA, keeping the Assistant Administrators
and Office of the Under Secretary informed; assists in the development
of positions setting forth NOAA's views on the merits of proposed or
pending legislation, receives requests for preparation of testimony
before the Congress and coordinates responses to questions submitted
for the record by members and staff; directs and coordinates NOAA
cross-cutting and special interest congressional and legislative
activities; provides leadership to improve communications and
coordination among legislative activities within Line and Program
Offices and provides oversight of those programs; and coordinates the
Office's activities with the Office of Legislative and
Intergovernmental Affairs, Department of Commerce.
The Office of International Affairs, which includes the Deputy
Assistant Secretary for International Affairs, is responsible for
planning and coordinating NOAA's international programs and carries
out, as directed by the Office of the Under Secretary, tasks of special
interest related to international activities. The Deputy Assistant
Secretary for International Affairs exercises a leadership role in
establishing policies, guidelines, and procedures for NOAA's
international programs, including the coordination of NOAA's major
international activities including those programs that overlap
Assistant Administrators' or Program Directors' interests or
responsibilities; provides support for the development and coordination
of NOAA's international policies regarding ``trade and environment''
issues and the negotiation of trade agreements; coordinates NOAA's
interactions on international issues with other Federal departments and
agencies, as well as other bureaus within the Department of Commerce;
develops Administration policy on international issues affecting NOAA;
coordinates NOAA's participation in U.S. delegations to international
fora; and participates in the negotiation of international agreements
and appropriate representation of NOAA and the Department of Commerce
at international fora on environmental issues.
The Office of General Counsel assists the General Counsel of NOAA
in carrying out his/her statutory functions established by
Reorganization Plan No. 4 of 1970.
The Office of Military Affairs facilitates coordination and joint
planning with the military services and other Department of Defense
(``DOD'') offices as required, on programs of mutual organizational
interest.
The Office of the Federal Coordinator for Meteorological Services
and Supporting Research, more briefly known as the Office of the
Federal Coordinator for Meteorology, is an interdepartmental office
established to ensure the effective use of federal meteorological
resources by leading the systematic coordination of operational weather
requirements and services, and supporting research, among the federal
agencies.
Question. Are they in any way duplicative of each other or
duplicative of similar offices within the NOAA Line Offices?
Answer. Similar positions exist in the NOAA line offices, however,
the work they complete is not duplicative. The staff supporting the
Under Secretary and Associate Offices are responsible for producing
NOAA-wide workproducts.
Question. How many people, Full-Time Equivalents (FTEs), detailees,
and contractors work in each of these offices? What is each office's
budget level? Which accounts in NOAA's budget support these offices?
Answer. See attached table entitled ``Resource Analysis for Under
Secretary and Associate Offices''.

RESOURCE ANALYSIS--UNDER SECRETARY AND ASSOCIATE OFFICES, MAY 2001
[Dollars in millions]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FTE Detailees Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
USEC \1\............................... 12 ......... $3.2
DUS \2\................................ 8 8 .7
Chief Scientist........................ 5 ......... .6
Public & Constituent Affairs........... 36 5 3.7
Policy & Strategic Planning............ 10 ......... 1.2
Sustainable Development & 10 ......... 1.2
Intergovernmental Affairs.............
Legislative Affairs.................... 21 ......... 2.0
International Affairs.................. 8 ......... .8
General Counsel........................ 129 ......... 10.6
Military Affairs \3\................... ......... ......... .........
Federal Coordinator for Meteorology \4\ 11 ......... .8
--------------------------------
Subtotals \5\.................... 250 13 24.9
Detailees.......................... 13 ......... .........
--------------------------------
Totals........................... 263 ......... 24.9
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes Offices of Assistant Secretary for Oceans & Atmosphere and
Deputy Administrator. Also includes $1.7 million in GSA rent and
utilities for all Under Secretary and Associate Offices with exception
of Office of General Counsel and OFCM.
\2\ Includes resources supporting Program Coordination Office (7
detailees, 1 contractor) and Executive Secretariat (4 FTEs) which are
operationally integrated with the office of Deputy Under Secretary. As
of May 7, 2001, Office of Deputy Under Secretary was supplemented by
one contractor position.
\3\ Military Affairs is supported by non-NOAA detailees from Department
of Defense.
\4\ Resources shown above are as of May 2001. The fiscal year 2002
budget request reflects the Congressionally-approved transfer of
$1,059,000 and 12 FTE from the National Weather Service base to
Corporate Services' base.
\5\ Includes 10 Presidential Appointees and 6 Schedule ``C''
appointments.

Question. Which accounts in NOAA's budget support these offices?
Answer.

[Dollars in millions]

Amount
Direct Appropriations............................................. 17.4
Mgt Fund.......................................................... 5.9
Earnings.......................................................... 1.6
______
Total....................................................... 24.9

Question. Is it your intention to continue to support all of these
offices, or are there some offices which you intend to terminate?
Answer. Yes, NOAA will continue to support all of these offices.
real facility and equipment needs
Question. The Committee is concerned that NOAA continues to defer
its real facility, construction, and equipment needs into the outyears,
without regard for the costs associated with putting off critical
repairs. In the fiscal year 2002 Budget request, NOAA is asking for $1
million in the Construction Account for critical repairs to the
Beaufort Laboratory. Will this funding be sufficient to address all of
the Lab's critical infrastructure concerns?
Answer. The $1 million for Beaufort Lab repair projects requested
in fiscal year 2002 is not sufficient to complete all of the required
repair and renovation work. These funds would allow NOAA to address the
two highest priority repairs: major electrical repairs and the
planning, design and construction of a sewage and water system hookup
to the Town of Beaufort system to avoid potentially harmful releases
into the environment from the antiquated septic system.
Question. What level of funding is required to solve the Beaufort
problem?
Answer. An additional $2 million (total of $3 million) would be
required to complete the full suite of identified repairs at the
facility. These additional needs include: Replacement of obsolete
modular space (mobile homes that house laboratory and office space);
replacement of the fish sampling platform; upgrade of shop electrical
equipment; renovation of the radiation building; replace multiple heat
pumps and AC units; window replacement; damaged seawall replacement;
final electrical system renovations; mechanical renovation in the Main
lab; elevator replacement; repair/conversions of old, damaged turtle
rearing pens; lighting efficiency upgrades; fire alarm system
evaluation; and refurbish the coatings on salt water tanks.
Question. If resources are available this year, could you use them
to solve this problem?
Answer. Yes, the required repairs at Beaufort could be completed
with additional resources.
Question. Please provide a prioritized list of all of NOAA's needed
facilities upgrades.
Answer. See attached list entitled ``NOAA Facilities Maintenance,
Repair & Safety''.

NOAA FACILITIES MAINTENANCE, REPAIR & SAFETY
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Priority Remaining
LO State/Installation Name ---------------- Project Description Funds
Rank Cat Req'd
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOS NC--Beaufort, NC, Lab 10 ...... Major Electrical Repairs (1,154 comb)................................................ $270,480
NOS NC--Beaufort, NC, Lab 10 ...... Elect. upgrade--ADP Bldg, Satwater Tower, Dock....................................... ..........
NOS NC--Beaufort, NC, Lab 10 ...... Structural repairs................................................................... ..........
NOS NC--Beaufort, NC, Lab 10 ...... Repair bridge to Pivers Island....................................................... ..........
NWS HI--Ewa Beach, HI, Tsunami 10 ...... Electrical Distrib. System Repair.................................................... ..........
Warning Ctr
NMFS TX--Galveston, TX, Lab 10 ...... Complete rehab of lab--Phase III--Design............................................. 100,800
NMFS TX--Galveston, TX, Lab 10 ...... Complete rehab of the laboratory--phase I............................................ ..........
NMFS TX--Galveston, TX, Lab 10 ...... Complete rehab of lab--Phase II...................................................... ..........
NMFS HI--Honolulu, HI, Lab 10 ...... Auto-fire alarm system (all bldgs)................................................... ..........
NMFS AK--Juneau, AK, AFSC 10 ...... Replacement and repair of dock....................................................... ..........
Subport
NMFS AK--Juneau, AK, AFSC 10 ...... Replace subport floats (funded and in progress)...................................... ..........
Subport
NMFS AK--Juneau, AK, Auke Bay 10 ...... Design Spec. to Repair Subport Pier Facing........................................... ..........
Lab
NMFS AK--Juneau, AK, Auke Bay 10 ...... Freight Elevator Elim.&Crane Install. (completed 1997)............................... ..........
Lab
NMFS CA--La Jolla, CA, S.W. 10 ...... Replace light fixtures in basement aquarium.......................................... ..........
Fisheries Science Ctr
NMFS CA--La Jolla, CA, S.W. 10 ...... Further Planning studies for LaJolla Remed. Project.................................. ..........
Fisheries Science Ctr
NMFS AK--Little Port Walter, AK, 10 ...... Install fire suppress. systm kitchen (completed 1997)................................ ..........
Lab
NMFS FL--Miami, FL S.E. 10 ...... Structural analysis and repair--Main lab............................................. ..........
Fisheries Science Center
OAR FL--Miami, FL, AOML 10 ...... Electrical Upgrade of Lab Building................................................... ..........
NMFS CT--Milford, CT, Lab 10 ...... Seawater tank supports............................................................... ..........
NMFS CT--Milford, CT, Lab 10 ...... Structural Investigations............................................................ ..........
OAR MI--Muskegon, MI, GLERL Lab 10 ...... Erosion repair and control........................................................... ..........
OAR MI--Muskegon, MI, GLERL Lab 10 ...... Safety and security repairs--GERL.................................................... ..........
NMFS RI--Narragansett, RI, Lab 10 ...... Construct chemical storage building.................................................. ..........
NMFS RI--Narragansett, RI, Lab 10 ...... Facility Chiller Replacement......................................................... ..........
NMFS FL--Panama City, FL, Lab 10 ...... Replace HVAC--Study mold problem..................................................... 378,000
NMFS MS--Pascagoula, MS, Lab 10 ...... Replace old dock bldg................................................................ 728,000
NMFS AK--Pribilof Islands, AK, 10 ...... St. Paul Catwalk repair.............................................................. ..........
St. Paul Lab
NMFS NJ--Sandy Hook Lab 10 ...... Travel for Construction Inspection................................................... ..........
OFA WA--Seattle, WA Western 10 ...... Fence repairs........................................................................ 72,800
Regional Ctr
NMFS WA--Seattle, WA, NW 10 ...... Abate mold and install controls...................................................... 95,200
Fisheries Science Ctr,
Montlake
NMFS WA--Seattle, WA, NW 10 ...... East Building Ventilation system upgrade............................................. 896,000
Fisheries Science Ctr,
Montlake
OFA WA--Seattle, WA, Western 10 ...... Emergency Repairs Child Care Center (80k-100k)....................................... ..........
Regional Ctr
NMFS CA--Tiburon, CA, Lab 10 ...... Structural integrity of Tiburon Physiology Bldg...................................... ..........
NMFS MA--Woods Hole, MA, N.E. 10 ...... New Bulkhead......................................................................... ..........
Science Ctr & Lab
NMFS MA--Woods Hole, MA, NE 10 ...... Construct chemical storage building.................................................. ..........
Fisheries Science Center
NMFS MA--Woods Hole, MA, NE 10 ...... Install fueling and safety equipment................................................. ..........
Fisheries Science Center
NMFS MA--Woods Hole, MA, NE 10 ...... Upgrade laboratory electrical system................................................. ..........
Fisheries Science Center
NMFS MA--Woods Hole, MA, NE 10 ...... Replace sand filters--Aquarium....................................................... ..........
Fisheries Science Center
NMFS MA--Woods Hole, MA, NE 10 ...... Repair basement ceiling--Aquarium.................................................... ..........
Fisheries Science Center
NMFS MA--Woods Hole, MA, NE 10 ...... New Warehouse @ Otis AFB (land/100k)................................................. ..........
Fisheries Science Center
NMFS MA--Woods Hole, MA, NE 10 ...... Public Aquarium Electrical Panel Replacement......................................... ..........
Fisheries Science Center
NMFS CT--Milford, CT, Lab 9 ...... Construct chemical storage building.................................................. ..........
OAR AK--Barrow, AK, GMCC 9 A General rehab 8 projects............................................................. ..........
Observatory
NWS AK--Barrow, AK, WSO 9 A City Water Line Connection--NWS FUNDED............................................... ..........
OAR AK--Barrow, AK,GMCC 9 A New garage/Replace storage bldg...................................................... ..........
Observatory
NOS NC--Beaufort, NC, Lab 9 A Replacement of fish sampling platform................................................ 29,400
NOS NC--Beaufort, NC, Lab 9 A Construct Sanitary Sewer Collection System........................................... 823,200
OAR CO--Boulder, CO, Table 9 A New Roof Building I-10-C............................................................. ..........
Mountain Observatory
NOS SC--Charleston, SC, Coastal 9 A CSC Building #2 Fire Alarm........................................................... ..........
Services Center
NWS HI--Ewa Beach, HI, Tsunami 9 A Sanitary Sewer System................................................................ ..........
Warning Ctr
NWS HI--Ewa Beach, HI, Tsunami 9 A Replace deteriorated water mains..................................................... ..........
Warning Ctr
OAR CO--Fritz Peak, CO 9 A Pave Loading Dock/Entranceway Steps.................................................. ..........
Observatory
OAR CO--Fritz Peak, CO 9 A Install fire detection system........................................................ ..........
Observatory
OAR CO--Fritz Peak, CO 9 A Peak Exterior Stairs................................................................. ..........
Observatory
OAR CO--Fritz Peak, CO 9 A Replace power receptacles............................................................ ..........
Observatory
OAR CO--Fritz Peak, CO 9 A Main Lab: replace switchgear, elec. panls, etc....................................... ..........
Observatory
NMFS OR--Hammond, OR, Pt. Adams 9 A Mezzanie Structural Reinforcement.................................................... ..........
Field Station
NMFS AK--Juneau, AK, Auke Bay 9 A Chemical Fume Hoods for Safety at Lab (10 hoods)..................................... 140,000
Lab
NMFS AK--Juneau, AK, Auke Bay 9 A ABL foundation leak repair (NMFS completed 1997)..................................... ..........
Lab
NOS HI--Kihei, HI Marine 9 A Upgrade non-conforming electrical wiring............................................. ..........
Sanctuary
NOS HI--Kihei, HI, Marine 9 A Repair foundation columns of Main Building........................................... ..........
Santuary
NOS HI--Kihei, HI, Marine 9 A Main Building Roof Replacement....................................................... ..........
Santuary
NOS HI--Kihei, HI, Marine 9 A Visitors Activity Center Roof Repair................................................. ..........
Santuary
NOS HI--Kihei, HI, Marine 9 A Repair insect damaged beams & joists (Main Bldg.).................................... ..........
Santuary
NMFS AK--Kodiak, AK, Gibson Cove 9 A Rmvl of electrical safety hzrds in main bldg & pier.................................. ..........
NMFS CA--La Jolla, CA, S.W. 9 A Concrete stairway Concrete stairway repair........................................... ..........
Fisheries Science Ctr
NMFS CA--La Jolla, CA, S.W. 9 A Repair/replace concrete pad under water tower........................................ ..........
Fisheries Science Ctr
NMFS AK--Little Port Walter, AK, 9 A White House masonry repairs & Weir Cabin Roof Replac................................. 560,000
Lab
NMFS AK--Little Port Walter, AK, 9 A Panabode found; Weir warehse repairs (CIP funds)..................................... ..........
Lab
NMFS AK--Little Port Walter, AK, 9 A Correct nonconforming hazardous electrical wiring.................................... ..........
Lab
NMFS AK--Little Port Walter, AK, 9 A Replace power generator system (cip funds, almost compl)............................. ..........
Lab
NMFS AK--Little Port Walter, AK, 9 A Install communications system (LO done).............................................. ..........
Lab
NMFS AK--Little Port Walter, AK, 9 A Install Automatic Fire Alarm/All Bldgs. (in progress)................................ ..........
Lab
NMFS AK--Little Port Walter, AK, 9 A Weir Hoist-Rail support beam footbridge replacmt..................................... ..........
Lab
NMFS AK--Little Port Walter, AK, 9 A Replace unsafe fire escapes and structures........................................... ..........
Lab
NWS Pac.Is--Majuro & other 9 A Relocate hydrogen generators......................................................... ..........
Pacific WSOs; Marshall Is,
Lihue, AmSamoa, Wake, WSOs
OAR HI--Mauna Loa, HI, GMCC 9 A Emergency Electrical Repairs......................................................... ..........
Observatory
NMFS FL--Miami, FL S.E. 9 A Ground electrical receptacles--Main Lab (Safety Funded).............................. ..........
Fisheries Science Center
NMFS FL--Miami, FL S.E. 9 A Life Safety Modifications--Annex (Safety Funded)..................................... ..........
Fisheries Science Center
NMFS FL--Miami, FL S.E. 9 A Replace card reader system........................................................... ..........
Fisheries Science Center
NMFS CT--Milford, CT, Lab 9 A Masonary and concrete repairs........................................................ 89,600
OAR MI--Muskegon, MI, Fld Sta 9 A Renovate Bldg. I..................................................................... 717,360
NMFS RI--Narragansett, RI, Lab 9 A Replace Trailers (see e071).......................................................... ..........
NMFS RI--Narragansett, RI, Lab 9 A Fire Detection System for Trailers................................................... ..........
NMFS OR--Newport, OR, Lab 9 A Exhaust fumehoods vertically from roof............................................... 11,200
NMFS OR--Newport, OR, Lab 9 A Improvement of facility fire protection sys. (done by LO)............................ ..........
NMFS OR--Newport, OR, Lab 9 A Fire Safety in Aquaculture Lab....................................................... ..........
OMAO VA--Norfolk, VA, Atlantic 9 A Bulkhead Repairs..................................................................... ..........
Marine Center
OMAO VA--Norfolk, VA, Atlantic 9 A Dockside fire sup. sys. (study funded, sys. not needed).............................. ..........
Marine Center
OMAO VA--Norfolk, VA, Atlantic 9 A Patch Bulkhead....................................................................... ..........
Marine Center
OAR TN--Oak Ridge, TN, AT&D Lab 9 A Upgrade darkroom exhaust ventilation................................................. ..........
OAR TN--Oak Ridge, TN, AT&D Lab 9 A Replace Walker Branch site bldgs..................................................... ..........
OAR TN--Oak Ridge, TN, AT&D Lab 9 A Replace electrical wiring--main bldg................................................. ..........
OAR TN--Oak Ridge, TN, AT&D Lab 9 A Flooring Reinforcements.............................................................. ..........
OAR AmSam--Pago Pago, AmSamoa, 9 A Construct concrete reinforced sampling bldg.......................................... ..........
GMCC Observatory
OAR AmSam--Pago Pago, AmSamoa, 9 A Replace Stairway/Rehab. Generator Bldg............................................... ..........
GMCC Observatory
NMFS FL--Panama City, FL, Lab 9 A Investigate condition of piles....................................................... ..........
NMFS FL--Panama City, FL, Lab 9 A Replace HVAC system.................................................................. ..........
NMFS FL--Panama City, FL, Lab 9 A Replace Boiler and controls.......................................................... ..........
OAR CO--Platteville, CO 9 A General bldg rehab. (incl. Fencing & ground impr.)................................... ..........
NMFS AK--Pribilof Islands, AK, 9 A Sewage System Upgrade................................................................ ..........
St. Paul Lab
OAR NJ--Princeton, NJ, ERL 9 A Masonry Repairs...................................................................... 106,400
Geophysys. Dynam. Lab
OAR NJ--Princeton, NJ, ERL 9 A Ceiling Asbestos Removal............................................................. 1,624,000
Geophysys. Dynam. Lab
OAR NJ--Princeton, NJ, ERL 9 A Asbestos Removal Study............................................................... ..........
Geophysys. Dynam. Lab
NMFS WA--Seattle, WA, NW 9 A Demolish Pilot Plant................................................................. 1,008,000
Fisheries Science Ctr,
Montlake
OFA MD--Silver Spring Metro 9 A Plaza Tiles.......................................................................... ..........
Center
NWS Various NWS Sites--60 9 A Hydrogen valve repl:NWS FUNDED, DONE................................................. ..........
WSOs
NMFS MA--Woods Hole, MA, NE 9 A Second Means Egress&Handicap Access--Aquarium........................................ ..........
Fisheries Science Center
NWS AmSam--American Samoa, Pago 9 B Arch. Upgrade for WSO (delete--WSO to be replaced)................................... 336,000
Pago WSO
NOS CO--Boulder, CO, Table 9 B General Building Rehab--F-6.......................................................... 16,800
Mountain Observatory
OAR CO--Boulder, CO, Table 9 B Renovate bldg E-12-B................................................................. 72,800
Mountain Observatory
OAR CO--Boulder, CO, Table 9 B Renovate bldg I-10-C................................................................. 168,000
Mountain Observatory
NOS CO--Boulder, CO, Table 9 B Resurface roof--F6 Lab............................................................... ..........
Mountain Observatory
NOS CO--Boulder, CO, Table 9 B Resurface driveway & parking lot..................................................... ..........
Mountain Observatory
NOS SC--Charleston, SC, Coastal 9 B CSC bulding #2 roof (funded by NOS).................................................. ..........
Services Center
OAR CO--Erie, CO, Field Sta 9 B Erie Facilities upgrade.............................................................. 72,800
NWS HI--Ewa Beach, HI, Tsunami 9 B Roof replacement (NWS Funded)........................................................ ..........
Warning Ctr
OAR CO--Fritz Peak, CO 9 B Cottage: repair/upgrade mech, elec. wins., doors, tiles; paint....................... 29,904
Observatory
OAR CO--Fritz Peak, CO 9 B Renovate ceiling and lighting........................................................ 77,280
Observatory
OAR CO--Fritz Peak, CO 9 B Replace Cottage roof................................................................. ..........
Observatory
OAR CO--Fritz Peak, CO 9 B Replace HVAC & hot water system...................................................... ..........
Observatory
OAR CO--Fritz Peak, CO 9 B Replace lightning protection......................................................... ..........
Observatory
OAR CO--Fritz Peak, CO 9 B Main Lab: replace exterior equipment elevator........................................ ..........
Observatory
NMFS TX--Galveston, TX, Lab 9 B Variable speed drive pump............................................................ 60,480
NMFS TX--Galveston, TX, Lab 9 B Replace Salt Water Tanks............................................................. 64,960
NMFS TX--Galveston, TX, Lab 9 B Variable air controls for the buildings 213 & 302.................................... 67,200
NMFS OR--Hammond, OR, Pt. Adams 9 B Replace termite damaged wood storage building foundation............................. 33,600
Field Station
NMFS HI--Honolulu, HI, Lab 9 B Central Air Conditioning............................................................. ..........
NMFS HI--Honolulu, HI, Lab 9 B Electrical upgrade................................................................... ..........
NWS TX--Houston, TX, WSO 9 B Complete--NWS FUNDED................................................................. ..........
NMFS AK--Juneau, AK, Auke Bay 9 B Genetics lab foundation repair & reinforcement....................................... 95,200
Lab
NMFS AK--Juneau, AK, Auke Bay 9 B Eng. Design for Repl. Water Line Auke Creek Hatchery................................. 448,000
Lab
NMFS AK--Kodiak, AK, Gibson Cove 9 B Refurbish Sanitary Sewage Treatment Unit............................................. ..........
NMFS CA--La Jolla, CA, S.W. 9 B Repair the deterioration of the exterior walkway edges............................... 50,400
Fisheries Science Ctr
NMFS CA--La Jolla, CA, S.W. 9 B Boiler retubing and repair........................................................... ..........
Fisheries Science Ctr
NMFS AK--Little Port Walter, AK, 9 B General rehab--safety systems upgrade................................................ ..........
Lab
OAR FL--Miami, FL, AOML 9 B Replacement of cooling tower......................................................... 29,344
OAR FL--Miami, FL, AOML 9 B Roof Replacement..................................................................... 56,168
OAR FL--Miami, FL, AOML 9 B Replacement of Existing York 250 Ton Cent. Liq. Chiller.............................. 306,880
NMFS CT--Milford, CT, Lab 9 B Seawater Chiller (NMFS funded)....................................................... ..........
NMFS RI--Narragansett, RI & 9 B Replace Service Entrance Switchgear & Generators..................................... 240,800
Milford, CN Labs
NWS TN--Nashville, TN, Upper 9 B Replace doors on upper air bldg...................................................... ..........
Air Facility
OAR TN--Oak Ridge, TN, AT&D Lab 9 B New roof for modular office bldg..................................................... 56,000
OAR TN--Oak Ridge, TN, AT&D Lab 9 B Replace roofing--main bldg (funded by DOE)........................................... ..........
OAR TN--Oak Ridge, TN, AT&D Lab 9 B Repl. Roof Ship./Rec. Bldg. (funded by OAR).......................................... ..........
NMFS CA--Pacific Grove, CA 9 B Rehab of heating & ventilation system (LO done)...................................... ..........
NMFS CA--Pacific Grove, CA 9 B Roof Drain Repairs (completed by NMFS)............................................... ..........
OAR AmSam--Pago Pago, AmSamoa, 9 B Restore solar power sys.; rehab main lab (w/o A&E, etc).............................. 61,600
GMCC Observatory
OAR AmSam--Pago Pago, AmSamoa, 9 B Repair roof/water catchmain sys.; rehab main lab..................................... 168,000
GMCC Observatory
OAR AmSam--Pago Pago, AmSamoa, 9 B Rehabilitate government house (Bldg. 2).............................................. 168,000
GMCC Observatory
OAR AmSam--Pago Pago, AmSamoa, 9 B Rehabilitate Govt. Employee Housing (bldg. 1)........................................ ..........
GMCC Observatory
NWS AK--Palmer, AK, Tsunami 9 B Basement water damage repairs (NWS Funded)........................................... ..........
Warning Ctr
NMFS FL--Panama City, FL, Lab 9 B Replace Overhead htrs................................................................ 3,920
NMFS FL--Panama City, FL, Lab 9 B Upgrade Electrical system............................................................ 11,200
NMFS FL--Panama City, FL, Lab 9 B Foundation erosion engineering evaluation............................................ 22,400
NMFS FL--Panama City, FL, Lab 9 B Shoreline Stabilization.............................................................. 22,400
NMFS FL--Panama City, FL, Lab 9 B Dock and bulkhead stability study.................................................... 56,000
NMFS FL--Panama City, FL, Lab 9 B Engineering Evaluation............................................................... 64,960
NMFS MS--Pascagoula, MS, Lab 9 B Replace Chapman Warehouse............................................................ 147,840
NMFS MS--Pascagoula, MS, Lab 9 B Replacement of Floor and Wall Coverings.............................................. ..........
NMFS MS--Pascagoula, MS, Lab 9 B HVAC repairs (funded 1997, not complete)............................................. ..........
OAR CO--Platteville, CO 9 B Remove Asbestos Floor Tile........................................................... ..........
NMFS AK--Pribilof Islands, AK, 9 B Rehab of Garco Building--St.Paul..................................................... 84,000
St. Paul Lab
NWS AK--Pribilof Islands, AK, 9 B Reroof Composite Building (NWS funded)............................................... ..........
St. Paul WSO
OAR NJ--Princeton, NJ, ERL 9 B Chiller #3 Replacement (funded by OAR)............................................... ..........
Geophysys. Dynam. Lab
OAR NJ--Princeton, NJ, ERL 9 B Chiller Plant Upgrade (funded by OAR)................................................ ..........
Geophysys. Dynam. Lab
OAR NJ--Princeton, NJ, ERL 9 B Chiller Plant Upgrade Design......................................................... ..........
Geophysys. Dynam. Lab
NMFS WA--Seattle, WA, NW 9 B Fire alarm system--all buildings..................................................... ..........
Fisheries Science Ctr,
Montlake
OFA WA--Seattle, WA, Western 9 B Roof replacement bldg 3, incl. canopy................................................ 504,000
Regional Ctr
OFA WA--Seattle, WA, Western 9 B Roof replacement bldg 4.............................................................. 657,664
Regional Ctr
NWS OR--Sexton Summit, OR, WSO 9 B Repair/replace water line to Weather Svc Station..................................... 67,200
NWS LA--Slidell, LA, NEXRAD 9 B Flood control dyke around NEXRAD (Funded by LO)...................................... ..........
NWS AK--Barrow, AK, WSO 8 A Upgrade heating systems (NWS Funded)................................................. ..........
NWS Eastern Region--10 WFOs 8 A Install 10 fire detection and alarm systems.......................................... 224,000
OAR CO--Erie, CO, BAO 8 A OAR Tower safety repairs & replacement............................................... 39,200
OAR CO--Erie, CO, Observatory 8 A BAO Trailer & Storage Space Upgrades................................................. 39,200
OAR CO--Fritz Peak, CO 8 A Install inter. stairs, firedr/wall, janit. closet (Desgn funded)..................... 63,168
Observatory
OAR CO--Fritz Peak, CO 8 A New Roof and Lighting--Main Lab Bldg................................................. 95,200
Observatory
OAR CO--Fritz Peak, CO 8 A Cottage Site Grading/Drainage........................................................ ..........
Observatory
OAR CO--Fritz Peak, CO 8 A Site grading, paving, install parking area........................................... ..........
Observatory
OAR CO--Fritz Peak, CO 8 A Flammable Liquid & Gas cylinder storage area......................................... ..........
Observatory
OAR CO--Fritz Peak, CO 8 A Bldg. & Site security system upg. DOC sy funded...................................... ..........
Observatory
NMFS TX--Galveston, TX, Lab 8 A Bldg demolition--East Lagoon Bldg.................................................... 91,840
NMFS TX--Galveston, TX, Lab 8 A Construct Boat Barn.................................................................. 247,520
NWS KS--Goodland, KS, WFO 8 A Installation of LED Exit Lights...................................................... 6,944
NWS KS--Goodland, KS, WFO 8 A Condensing Units Disconnect Switches................................................. 10,080
NWS KS--Goodland, KS, WFO 8 A Installation of Smoke Detectors (NWS Funded)......................................... ..........
NMFS OR--Hammond, OR, Pt. Adams 8 A Marina Shop Life Safety Upgrade...................................................... 39,078
Field Station
NMFS OR--Hammond, OR, Pt. Adams 8 A Fire/intrus. detect. & fire suppress. systm (Complete Secyfnds)...................... ..........
Field Station
NMFS OR--Hammond, OR, Pt. Adams 8 A Remed. unprotect wiring/Marina Bldg (NMFS complete 1997)............................. ..........
Field Station
NMFS AK--Juneau, AK, AFSC 8 A Crane for Subport Pier............................................................... 168,000
Subport
NMFS AK--Juneau, AK, Auke Bay 8 A Replace gangway to the ABL Float with a new covered gangway.......................... 85,120
Lab
NMFS AK--Juneau, AK, Auke Bay 8 A Relocation of Sewage Pumping Tank & Pier Decking..................................... 112,000
Lab
NMFS AK--Juneau, AK, Auke Bay 8 A Arrest earth movement in parking lot................................................. 224,000
Lab
NMFS AK--Kodiak, AK, Gibson Cove 8 A Replace heating boiler (completed by LO)............................................. ..........
NMFS AK--Kodiak, AK, Gibson Cove 8 A Install fire detection & security alarm systems...................................... ..........
NMFS CA--La Jolla, CA, S.W. 8 A Replace space heaters w/HVAC sys. in Library......................................... 50,400
Fisheries Science Ctr
NMFS CA--La Jolla, CA, S.W. 8 A Walkway Coating Repair (810 combined)................................................ 448,000
Fisheries Science Ctr
NMFS CA--La Jolla, CA, S.W. 8 A Upgrade exhausthoods & exhaust fans (NMFS completed 1997)............................ ..........
Fisheries Science Ctr
NMFS AK--Little Port Walter, AK, 8 A Implement Safety Measues, Railings, Eyewash, etc..................................... ..........
Lab
NMFS WA--Manchester, WA Field 8 A Correct electrical safety issues..................................................... 11,200
Station
NMFS WA--Manchester, WA Field 8 A Provide retaining wall outside bldg. 13.............................................. 28,000
Station
NMFS WA--Manchester, WA Field 8 A Electrical Upgrade and exterior lighting............................................. 42,000
Station
NMFS WA--Manchester, WA Field 8 A Provide Adequate Lateral Bracing..................................................... 65,296
Station
NMFS WA--Manchester, WA Field 8 A Install fire hydrant................................................................. 78,400
Station
NMFS WA--Manchester, WA Field 8 A Dock/pile repair..................................................................... 103,712
Station
NMFS WA--Manchester, WA Field 8 A Replace fume hoods (NMFS funded)..................................................... ..........
Station
NWS AK--McGrath, AK, WSO 8 A Water treatment system (NWS Funded).................................................. ..........
NMFS FL--Miami, FL S.E. 8 A Entrance modification................................................................ ..........
Fisheries Science Center
OAR FL--Miami, FL, AOML 8 A Miscellaneous Electrical Repairs..................................................... 26,096
OAR FL--Miami, FL, AOML 8 A Structural Study of Concrete Decks................................................... 59,472
NMFS OR--Newport, OR, Lab 8 A Install mag. door rel.& close gapsfire doors (LO done)............................... ..........
OMAO VA--Norfolk, VA, Atlantic 8 A Eng. Study on Bulkhead Replacement................................................... 106,400
Marine Center
OAR TN--Oak Ridge, TN, AT&D Lab 8 A Structural investigation............................................................. ..........
NWS CA--Oakland, CA, Upper Air 8 A Facility repairs..................................................................... 84,000
Facility
NMFS CA--Pacific Grove, CA 8 A Upgrade Emergency lighting system.................................................... 6,608
NMFS FL--Panama City, FL Lab 8 A Install carbon monoxide detector..................................................... 2,240
NMFS FL--Panama City, FL, Lab 8 A Fire alarm & lighting................................................................ 49,616
OFA WA--Seattle, WA Western 8 A Master fire panel upgrade for WRC campus............................................. 112,000
Regional Ctr
OFA WA--Seattle, WA Western 8 A Hangar door lead based paint abatement & repair, bldg 32 & 33........................ 288,288
Regional Ctr
OFA WA--Seattle, WA Western 8 A Structural renovation of pedestrian skybridges, Buildings 1, 3 & 4................... 338,240
Regional Ctr
OFA WA--Seattle, WA Western 8 A Install bird netting as an emergency remedy to potential hlth. problem............... 370,048
Regional Ctr
OFA WA--Seattle, WA Western 8 A Fire alarm panel replacement for buildings 3, 4 and 8................................ 448,000
Regional Ctr
NMFS WA--Seattle, WA, NW 8 A Install chemical lab fume hoods...................................................... ..........
Fisheries Science Ctr,
Montlake
OFA WA--Seattle, WA, Western 8 A Repair skybridges.................................................................... 338,240
Regional Ctr
OFA WA--Seattle, WA, Western 8 A Auto. Fire sprinkler System, Bldg. 8 ofc............................................. 118,720
Regional Ctr
NMFS CA--Tiburon, CA, Lab 8 A Replace Lab Hoods (NMFS Funding)..................................................... ..........
NWS AK--Valdez, AK, WSO 8 A Safety hazard correction............................................................. ..........
NESDIS VA--Wallops Island, VA, 8 A Hurricane shutters................................................................... 198,240
Data Acquis. Station
NESDIS VA--Wallops Island, VA, 8 A Screen Walls......................................................................... 333,760
Data Acquis. Station
NESDIS VA--Wallops Island, VA, 8 A Strengthen Ext. Walls................................................................ 991,200
Data Acquis. Station
NOS NC--Beaufort, NC, Lab 8 B Repl. of pkg.heat pump & AC unit--Larva Rearing Lab.................................. 6,468
NOS NC--Beaufort, NC, Lab 8 B Repl. thru-wall heat pump in Ecology Wing Main Lab................................... 31,634
NOS NC--Beaufort, NC, Lab 8 B Upgrade shop electrical equipment.................................................... 58,240
NOS NC--Beaufort, NC, Lab 8 B Renovation--Radiation Bldg. (Survey Prop. #6)........................................ 109,015
NWS NY--Buffalo, NY WFO 8 B Replace upper air inflation building (UAIB).......................................... 196,000
NWS Eleven Sites 8 B UPS Replacements..................................................................... 616,000
NWS HI--Ewa Beach, HI, Tsunami 8 B Resurface asphalt roadways to PTWC................................................... 212,800
Warning Ctr
NWS HI--Ewa Beach, HI, Tsunami 8 B Structural repair of residences damaged by ants...................................... ..........
Warning Ctr
NWS HI--Ewa Beach, HI, Tsunami 8 B Replace concrete window sills........................................................ ..........
Warning Ctr
NESDIS AK--Fairbanks, AK, Gilmore 8 B Paint 4 Exterior Buildings........................................................... 28,000
Creek CDA Sta
NESDIS AK--Fairbanks, AK, Gilmore 8 B Road Pavement Repair (funded by LO).................................................. ..........
Creek CDA Sta
OAR CO--Fritz Peak, CO 8 B Upgrade electrical service........................................................... ..........
Observatory
NMFS OR--Hammond, OR, Pt. Adams 8 B Replace heating boiler in station main bldg.......................................... 28,000
Field Station
NMFS OR--Hammond, OR, Pt. Adams 8 B Repair Termite-damaged Foundation.................................................... 58,430
Field Station
NMFS OR--Hammond, OR, Pt. Adams 8 B Combine & upgrade elect. svcs on site (NMFS completed)............................... ..........
Field Station
NMFS HI--Honolulu, HI, Lab 8 B Main Building Roof................................................................... 32,032
NMFS AK--Juneau, AK, Auke Bay 8 B Structural repair of General Purpose Bldg. roof...................................... 134,400
Lab
NMFS AK--Juneau, AK, Auke Bay 8 B Hydronics System Repair to Main Bldg................................................. ..........
Lab
NMFS AK--Juneau, AK, Auke Bay 8 B Repair foundation, ABL Main Bldg (NMFS funded)....................................... ..........
Lab
NOS HI--Kihei, HI, Marine 8 B Repair old Garage and construct Shed endwall (fund LO)............................... ..........
Santuary
NMFS AK--Kodiak, AK, Gibson Cove 8 B Repair timber/retain. walls/timber pier repair....................................... 89,600
NMFS AK--Kodiak, AK, Gibson Cove 8 B Replace bldg exterior closure (LO funded)............................................ ..........
NMFS CA--La Jolla, CA, S.W. 8 B Replace Seawater chiller sys., incl. cool tower & Pumps.............................. 168,000
Fisheries Science Ctr
NMFS WA--Manchester, WA Field 8 B Marine Net-pen System Repair......................................................... 196,000
Station
NWS AK--McGrath, AK, WSO 8 B Correct heating problems (6 residences).............................................. 247,520
NWS AK--McGrath, AK, WSO 8 B Replace electrical panel, etc. (NWS Funded).......................................... ..........
NMFS FL--Miami, FL S.E. 8 B Packaged Heat Pump Replacements...................................................... 10,416
Fisheries Science Center
NMFS FL--Miami, FL S.E. 8 B Replace Fresh-Air Unit............................................................... 22,400
Fisheries Science Center
NMFS FL--Miami, FL S.E. 8 B Repair 2nd Flr interior walls of the east wing....................................... 33,600
Fisheries Science Center
NMFS FL--Miami, FL S.E. 8 B Paint exterior of the buildings...................................................... 89,600
Fisheries Science Center
NMFS FL--Miami, FL S.E. 8 B Replace condensing unit--Main Lab.................................................... ..........
Fisheries Science Center
OAR FL--Miami, FL, AOML 8 B Caulking AOML windows................................................................ 11,200
OAR FL--Miami, FL, AOML 8 B Replace condensing unit--Lab Building................................................ ..........
NWS TX--Midland/Odessa, TX, 8 B Replace doors on upper air bldg (funded by NWS)...................................... ..........
Upper Air Facility
NMFS CT--Milford, CT, Lab 8 B Building 1 HVAC Upgrades............................................................. 280,000
NMFS CT--Milford, CT, Lab 8 B Heat Exchangers (NMFS funded)........................................................ ..........
NMFS RI--Narragansett, RI, Lab 8 B Re-pave Entrance Road and Parking Lot................................................ 61,600
NMFS RI--Narragansett, RI, Lab 8 B Replace HVAC System--Lab Building.................................................... 168,000
NMFS RI--Narragansett, RI, Lab 8 B Replace Facility Office/Storage Bldg................................................. 196,000
NMFS RI--Narragansett, RI, Lab 8 B Replace Greenhouse (NMFS Funded)..................................................... ..........
OMAO VA--Norfolk, VA, Atlantic 8 B Replace Windows...................................................................... 89,600
Marine Center
OMAO VA--Norfolk, VA, Atlantic 8 B Replace HVAC Systems Building 1...................................................... 476,000
Marine Center
OMAO VA--Norfolk, VA, Atlantic 8 B Roof Replacement (funded by ONCO).................................................... ..........
Marine Center
OAR TN--Oak Ridge, TN, AT&D Lab 8 B New shipping/receiving and storage bldg.............................................. 196,000
OAR TN--Oak Ridge, TN, AT&D Lab 8 B HVAC system replacement in main bldg (pd DOE)........................................ ..........
NMFS CA--Pacific Grove, CA 8 B Electrical repairs................................................................... 10,080
NMFS CA--Pacific Grove, CA 8 B Exterior concrete repairs and modification........................................... 33,600
NMFS CA--Pacific Grove, CA 8 B Reroofing............................................................................ 39,200
NMFS FL--Panama City, FL, Lab 8 B Replace windows...................................................................... 4,704
NMFS FL--Panama City, FL, Lab 8 B Replace Entrance doors............................................................... 8,400
NMFS FL--Panama City, FL, Lab 8 B Upgrade Lighting..................................................................... 11,200
NMFS FL--Panama City, FL, Lab 8 B Replace pilings...................................................................... 11,984
NMFS FL--Panama City, FL, Lab 8 B Paint Buildings...................................................................... 28,448
NMFS FL--Panama City, FL, Lab 8 B Replace roof system--main bldg....................................................... ..........
NMFS MS--Pascagoula, MS, Lab 8 B Boiler and pump replacement.......................................................... 33,891
NWS PA--Pittsburgh, PA WFO 8 B Overhaul PBZ UAIB.................................................................... 72,800
OAR CO--Platteville, CO 8 B Electrical upgrade & repair.......................................................... ..........
NMFS AK--Pribilof Islands, AK, 8 B Rehab staff quarters--St. Paul....................................................... 308,000
St. Paul Lab
NWS AK--Pribilof Islands, AK, 8 B Electric & furnace renovation (NWS Funded)........................................... ..........
St. Paul WSO
NWS UT--Salt Lake Cty, UT, 8 B Improve Access Road: NWS FUNDED...................................................... ..........
Tremonton Radar Site
OFA WA--Seattle, WA Western 8 B Asphalt repairs and seal coating of parking lots at BLD 1, 3, 4 and road surfaces 149,539
Regional Ctr area.
OFA WA--Seattle, WA Western 8 B Replace (7 HVAC roof top units, Building 3).......................................... 802,576
Regional Ctr
NMFS WA--Seattle, WA, NW 8 B Electrical upgrade--West bldg........................................................ 63,028
Fisheries Science Ctr,
Montlake
NMFS WA--Seattle, WA, NW 8 B Ceiling grid system and tiles East building.......................................... 168,000
Fisheries Science Ctr,
Montlake
NMFS WA--Seattle, WA, NW 8 B Replace boiler in east building...................................................... 224,000
Fisheries Science Ctr,
Montlake
NMFS WA--Seattle, WA, NW 8 B Roof replace--East, West bldgs, & library (NMFS funded).............................. ..........
Fisheries Science Ctr,
Montlake
OFA WA--Seattle, WA, Western 8 B Asphalt repairs & Seal coating parking lots 1, 3, 4 & surfaces....................... 149,539
Regional Ctr
OFA WA--Seattle, WA, Western 8 B Replace HVAC controls & operators.................................................... 235,200
Regional Ctr
OFA WA--Seattle, WA, Western 8 B Roof replacement Bldg. 1 incl. canopy................................................ 598,080
Regional Ctr
NWS FL--Tampa, FL, Ruskin Upper 8 B Replace doors on upper air bldg (funded by NWS)...................................... ..........
Air Facility
NESDIS VA--Wallops Island, VA, 8 B Water plant upgrade (funded by NESDIS)............................................... ..........
Data Acquis. Station
NWS FL--West Palm Beach, FL, 8 B Roof replacement: NWS FUNDED......................................................... ..........
WSO
NMFS MA--Woods Hole, MA, NE 8 B Repl. windows--Aquar. & Maint. Bldgs. (NMFS part fnd)................................ 61,600
Fisheries Science Center
NOS SC--Charleston, SC, Coastal 8 C Inst. new HVAC in bldg #2 (funded by NOS--contr. prob.).............................. 319,200
Services Center
NMFS WA--Manchester, WA Field 8 C Electrical upgrade of armored power cable to facility................................ 112,000
Station
NMFS WA--Manchester, WA Field 8 C Upgrade seawater delivery system..................................................... 112,000
Station
OAR HI--Mauna Loa, HI, GMCC 8 C General construction................................................................. ..........
Observatory
OMAO VA--Norfolk, VA, Atlantic 8 C Building 2 office space.............................................................. 184,800
Marine Center
OAR OK--Norman, OK Nat'n. 8 C Repair of Norman radar dome facility (OAR funded).................................... ..........
Severe Storms Lab
NMFS FL--Panama City, FL, Lab 8 C Replace/repair underground dosmestic water lines..................................... 5,600
NMFS FL--Panama City, FL, Lab 8 C Repairs for walk in freezer.......................................................... 11,200
NMFS MA--Woods Hole, MA, NE 8 C Seal Pool Upgrades--Aquarium......................................................... 448,000
Fisheries Science Center
NWS UT--Salt Lake City, UT, 8 D Paint exterior and seal exterior walls (funded by NWS)............................... ..........
Upper Air Facility
NWS AmSam--American Samoa, Pago 7 B Residence repairs: NWS FUNDED........................................................ ..........
Pago WSO
NWS AK--Barrow, other AK WSOs: 7 B Energy conservation renovations...................................................... 56,000
Nome, St. Paul, AnnetteIs,
McGrath, AK
NOS NC--Beaufort, NC, Lab 7 B Window Replacement--Admin. Wing...................................................... 23,520
NOS NC--Beaufort, NC, Lab 7 B Window Replacement Project--Fisheries Wing........................................... 119,952
NOS NC--Beaufort, NC, Lab 7 B Electrical ystem renovation--Main Lab................................................ 151,312
NOS NC--Beaufort, NC, Lab 7 B Mechanical Renovation, Main Lab (Ecology wing)....................................... 175,392
NOS NC--Beaufort, NC, Lab 7 B Seawall Replacement--North Side of Pivers Island..................................... 486,864
NOS NC--Beaufort, NC, Lab 7 B Misc. building upgrade--Main Lab (completed)......................................... ..........
OAR CO--Fritz Peak, CO 7 B Main Laboratory Rehab................................................................ 69,776
Observatory
NMFS TX--Galveston, TX, Lab 7 B Roof Repairs--Bldgs. #302 & #306..................................................... ..........
NMFS AK--Juneau, AK, AFSC 7 B Subport Drainage and Paving.......................................................... 280,000
Subport
NMFS CA--La Jolla, CA, S.W. 7 B Freight Elevator Upgrade (incl. A/E des. & Tvl)...................................... 78,400
Fisheries Science Ctr
NMFS CA--La Jolla, CA, S.W. 7 B Office heaters, a-201, library (NMFS funded)......................................... ..........
Fisheries Science Ctr
NMFS WA--Manchester, WA Field 7 B Dicap ramp and exterior repairs...................................................... 39,200
Station
OAR HI--Mauna Loa, HI, GMCC 7 B Repair Access Road................................................................... 33,600
Observatory
NWS AK--Nome, AK, WSO 7 B Heating system Renovation (Removal asbestos)......................................... 19,600
OMAO VA--Norfolk, VA, Atlantic 7 B Replace bulkhead--Parcel 1........................................................... 4,032,000
Marine Center
OAR TN--Oak Ridge, TN, AT&D Lab 7 B Main Bldg. Floor Finish Replacement.................................................. 72,800
OAR TN--Oak Ridge, TN, AT&D Lab 7 B Replace siding--main bldg (funded by DOE)............................................ ..........
NMFS CA--Pacific Grove, CA 7 B Refurbish heating and ventilation system............................................. 22,400
NMFS FL--Panama City, FL, Lab 7 B Replace roof system--other than main bldg............................................ 62,272
NMFS WA--Seattle, WA, NW 7 B Replace heating system--West bldg.................................................... 324,800
Fisheries Science Ctr,
Montlake
NESDIS VA--Wallops Island, VA, 7 B Replace Generators 1 & 2............................................................. 201,600
Data Acquis. Station
NESDIS VA--Wallops Island, VA, 7 B Roof Repair--funded by NESDIS........................................................ ..........
Data Acquis. Station
NMFS MA--Woods Hole, MA, NE 7 B Replace Ceiling--Aquarium............................................................ 106,400
Fisheries Science Center
NMFS MA--Woods Hole, MA, NE 7 B Replace Floor Coverings (tile)--Aquarium............................................. 106,400
Fisheries Science Center
NMFS MA--Woods Hole, MA, NE 7 B Replace Fac. Elec. Svc. Entrance--Maint. Bldg........................................ 224,000
Fisheries Science Center
NMFS MA--Woods Hole, MA, NE 7 B Install new mech. system--Aquarium................................................... ..........
Fisheries Science Center
NMFS MA--Woods Hole, MA, NE 7 B Replace emergency generator.......................................................... ..........
Fisheries Science Center
NWS AK--Yakutat, AK, WSO 7 B Water/electrical system renovation................................................... 56,000
NOS NC--Beaufort, NC, Lab 7 C Engineering study for bridge repair.................................................. ..........
NOS SC--Charleston, SC, Coastal 7 C Correct sinkhole problem............................................................. 28,000
Services Center
NESDIS AK--Fairbanks, AK, Gilmore 7 C Construct Vehicle Maintenance Facility............................................... 2,576,000
Creek CDA Sta
OAR MI--Muskegon, MI, Fld Sta 7 C Build New Harbor (CG funding harbor dredging)........................................ 403,200
NMFS RI--Narragansett, RI, Lab 7 C New storage building: NMFS FUNDED.................................................... ..........
NMFS MS--Pascagoula, MS, Lab 7 D Replace roof, upgrade roof insulation................................................ 194,040
NMFS MS--Pascagoula, MS, Lab 7 D Old Wing Window Renovation Replmt. (funded by LO).................................... ..........
NMFS WA--Seattle, WA, NW 6 ...... Construct water recycling facil: CIP FUNDED.......................................... ..........
Fisheries Science Ctr,
Montlake
NOS NC--Beaufort, NC, Lab 6 A Elevator Replacement................................................................. 130,536
OAR CO--Boulder, CO, Table 6 A Replace Bldg. T-2.................................................................... 112,000
Mountain Observatory
NMFS OR--Hammond, OR, Pt. Adams 6 A Lighting improvement................................................................. 17,920
Field Station
NMFS HI--Honolulu, HI, Lab 6 A Replace the outside stor. structure--NMFS complete 1997.............................. ..........
NMFS FL--Miami, FL S.E. 6 A Replace Generator.................................................................... 89,600
Fisheries Science Center
NMFS OR--Newport, OR, Lab 6 A Electrical Repairs................................................................... 6,720
NMFS OR--Newport, OR, Lab 6 A Replace existing roof on 2 bldgs (incl. A/E Design & Tvl)............................ 756,000
NMFS FL--Panama City, FL, Lab 6 A Handicap Access./Safety/Exit Sign.................................................... 46,144
OAR CO--Platteville, CO 6 A Rehab Warehouse Office Space......................................................... 106,400
NWS AK--Pribilof Islands, AK, 6 A Emergency communication system....................................................... 95,200
St. Paul WSO
OFA WA--Seattle, WA Western 6 A Improve HVAC duct distrubution to American Society for heating, refrigeration, a/c 623,056
Regional Ctr engine.
NOS SC--Charleston, SC, Coastal 6 B Exterior Survey...................................................................... 50,400
Services Center
NMFS CA--La Jolla, CA, S.W. 6 B Replace some heaters throughout facility............................................. 84,000
Fisheries Science Ctr
OAR FL--Miami, FL, AOML 6 B Roof replacement--Lab Bldg (OAR Funded).............................................. ..........
NMFS CT--Milford, CT, Lab 6 B Replace Roofing--Several buildings................................................... 95,200
NMFS CT--Milford, CT, Lab 6 B Repave Parking Lot................................................................... 95,200
NMFS CT--Milford, CT, Lab 6 B Building 2 HVAC Upgrade.............................................................. 140,000
NMFS CT--Milford, CT, Lab 6 B New Storage/Office Building.......................................................... 252,000
NMFS OR--Newport, OR, Lab 6 B Renovate seawater sand filter system; repair temp rms................................ 36,736
OAR TN--Oak Ridge, TN, AT&D Lab 6 B Upgrade HVAC system in wind tunnel bldg (funded DOE)................................. ..........
NOS MD--Oxford, MD, Lab 6 B Construct new storage bldg (funded QP4AOX)........................................... ..........
NMFS FL--Panama City, FL, Lab 6 B Resurface parking lot and roadway.................................................... 118,832
NMFS AK--Pribilof Islands, AK, 6 B Rehab of Laboratory Bldg--St. Paul................................................... 196,000
St. Paul Lab
OAR NJ--Princeton, NJ, ERL 6 B Exterior Repairs (Masonry & Link Roofs).............................................. 50,400
Geophysys. Dynam. Lab
OFA WA--Seattle, WA, Western 6 B Replace 7 HVAC rooftop units, bldg 4................................................. 802,592
Regional Ctr
NESDIS VA--Wallops Island, VA, 6 B Painting and Doors (NESDIS funded)................................................... ..........
Data Acquis. Station
NMFS MA--Woods Hole, MA, NE 6 B Replace Siding--Aquarium Building.................................................... 95,200
Fisheries Science Center
NMFS MA--Woods Hole, MA, NE 6 B Install new HVAC System--Laboratory.................................................. 448,000
Fisheries Science Center
NWS AK--Barrow, AK, WSO 6 C Water treatment system (funded by NWS)............................................... ..........
NOS NC--Beaufort, NC, Lab 6 C Repair/Conversion of old turtle rearing pens......................................... 448,000
NWS AL--Birmingham, AL, WFO 6 C Underfloor water sensor.............................................................. 5,600
NMFS OR--Hammond, OR, Pt. Adams 6 C Restore emergency generator system................................................... 33,600
Field Station
NMFS OR--Hammond, OR, Pt. Adams 6 C Wet Lab Repair & Maintenance......................................................... 231,840
Field Station
NMFS CA--La Jolla, CA, S.W. 6 C Install Riprap Revetment............................................................. 761,600
Fisheries Science Ctr
NMFS WA--Manchester, WA Field 6 C Develop Freshwater recycle system.................................................... 180,320
Station
NMFS RI--Narragansett, RI, Lab 6 C Replace sea water system............................................................. 392,000
NWS LA--New Orleans, LA, WFO 6 C Walter Filtration System............................................................. 22,400
NMFS OR--Newport, OR Lab 6 C Replace Seawater Heating system...................................................... 16,800
OMAO VA--Norfolk, VA, Atlantic 6 C Security Upgrade (ASC/EASC Secy. Proj. funded)....................................... ..........
Marine Center
NMFS FL--Panama City, FL, Lab 6 C Install temperature alarms, walk-in freezers......................................... 2,240
NMFS MA--Woods Hole, MA, NE 6 C Install security system--Laboratory (ASC secy. funded)............................... ..........
Fisheries Science Center
NOS NC--Beaufort, NC, Lab 6 D Fire Alarm System Evaluation......................................................... 11,760
NOS NC--Beaufort, NC, Lab 6 D Underground Outflow collector system................................................. 15,758
NOS NC--Beaufort, NC, Lab 6 D Lighting Efficiency Upgrade.......................................................... 73,472
NWS KS--Goodland, KS, WFO 6 D Lighting Efficiency Upgrade.......................................................... 17,024
NMFS AK--Juneau, AK, Auke Bay 6 D Modify fire sprinkler system in fish house and pier.................................. 212,800
Lab
NOS HI--Kihei, HI, Marine 6 D Repair asph.concrete drivewy & parking lot (done by LO).............................. ..........
Sanctuary
NMFS WA--Manchester, WA Field 6 D Upgrade building and site for ADA accessibility...................................... 95,200
Station
NMFS WA--Manchester, WA Field 6 D Install High Security Locks (funded by Security)..................................... ..........
Station
NMFS WA--Manchester, WA Field 6 D Intrusion detection system (completed w/security fnds)............................... ..........
Station
NMFS FL--Miami, FL S.E. 6 D Replace doors and frames............................................................. 67,200
Fisheries Science Center
NMFS FL--Miami, FL S.E. 6 D Restroom Renovation.................................................................. 75,040
Fisheries Science Center
OAR FL--Miami, FL, AOML 6 D Fire Alarm System Evaluation......................................................... 17,920
OAR FL--Miami, FL, AOML 6 D Lighting Efficiency Upgrade.......................................................... 93,632
OAR MI--Muskegon, MI, GLERL Lab 6 D Finish new boat maintenance bldg..................................................... 39,368
OMAO VA--Norfolk, VA, Atlantic 6 D Security Upgrades.................................................................... 56,000
Marine Center
OMAO VA--Norfolk, VA, Atlantic 6 D Handicapped Accessibility............................................................ 280,000
Marine Center
OAR TN--Oak Ridge, TN, A&TD Lab 6 D Modify restrooms for handicapped accessibility (DOE fnd)............................. ..........
NMFS FL--Panama City, FL, Lab 6 D Replace Entrance Gate................................................................ 10,080
NMFS FL--Panama City, FL, Lab 6 D Replace irrigation pumps............................................................. 12,085
NMFS FL--Panama City, FL, Lab 6 D Replace doors........................................................................ 16,800
NMFS FL--Panama City, FL, Lab 6 D New Emergency Generator.............................................................. 84,000
OFA WA--Seattle, WA Western 6 D Facility Condition survey............................................................ 280,000
Regional Ctr
NESDIS VA--Wallops Island, VA, 6 D Handicapped Access................................................................... 106,400
Data Acquis. Station
NMFS MA--Woods Hole, MA, NE 6 D Handicapped Access. Renovations--Cottage............................................. 61,600
Fisheries Science Center
NMFS MA--Woods Hole, MA, NE 6 D Handicapped Access. Renovations--Lab Bldg............................................ 252,000
Fisheries Science Center
NMFS MA--Woods Hole, MA, NE 6 D Renovate public restrooms--Aquarium (NMFS funded).................................... ..........
Fisheries Science Center
NOS NC--Beaufort, NC, Lab 5 B Sea wall repair...................................................................... 200,704
NMFS FL--Miami, FL S.E. 5 B Install new roof--Annex--NMFS FUNDED................................................. ..........
Fisheries Science Center
NWS AK--Pribilof Islands, AK, 5 B Residence renovation................................................................. 16,800
St. Paul WSO
OAR NJ--Princeton, NJ, ERL 5 B Repair & resurface parking lot--OAR funded........................................... ..........
Geophys. Dynam. Lab
OFA WA--Seattle, WA, Western 5 B Carpet Replacement Bldg. 1........................................................... 320,656
Regional Ctr
NWS VA--Sterling, VA, R & D Ctr 5 B Resurface Roadway (Funded by LO)..................................................... ..........
NMFS CA--Tiburon, CA, Lab 5 B Replace roof 2nd floor admin bldg (NMFS funded)...................................... ..........
NESDIS VA--Wallops Island, VA, 5 B Replace roof--ops bldg............................................................... 212,800
Data Acquis. Station
NMFS MA--Woods Hole, MA, NE 5 B Replace sea water supply system--NMFS funded......................................... ..........
Fisheries Science Center
NMFS MA--Woods Hole, MA, NE 5 B Repave parking lots at Aquarium/Cottages............................................. ..........
Fisheries Science Center
NWS GA--Atlanta, GA, WSO 5 C Parking lot extension (NWS funded)................................................... ..........
NOS NC--Beaufort, NC, Lab 5 C Refurbish Coatings on Salt Water Tanks............................................... 5,264
NWS AL--Birmingham, AL, WFO 5 C Construct WFO Storage Building....................................................... 56,000
NWS TX--Brownsville, TX, WFO 5 C Construct WFO storage bldgs.......................................................... 56,000
NWS FL--Jacksonville, FL, WFO 5 C Construct WFO Storage Building....................................................... 56,000
NMFS AK--Kodiak, AK, Gibson Cove 5 C UFAS (ADA) upgrade................................................................... 67,200
NWS FL--Melbourne, FL, WSO 5 C Replace ceiling and lights (funded by NWS)........................................... ..........
NWS AL--Mobile, Alabama, WFO 5 C Construct WFO Storage Building....................................................... 56,000
NWS TN--Morristown, TN, WFO 5 C Construct WFO Storage Building....................................................... 56,000
Site
NMFS OR--Newport, OR Lab 5 C Upgrade Emergency distribution....................................................... 44,800
NMFS OR--Newport, OR, Lab 5 C Balance air pressure in Aquaculture Lab.............................................. 112,000
OAR TN--Oak Ridge, TN, AT&D Lab 5 C Wind Tunnel Bldg. Addition........................................................... 420,000
NMFS FL--Panama City, FL, Lab 5 C Replace boat house doors............................................................. 3,920
OFA WA--Seattle, WA Western 5 C Utility vault replacement............................................................ 112,000
Regional Ctr
NWS VA--Sterling, VA, R & D Ctr 5 C Storage Building (NWS funded)........................................................ ..........
NESDIS VA--Wallops Island, VA, 5 C Resesl Antenna Found................................................................. 72,800
Data Acquis. Station
NESDIS VA--Wallops Island, VA, 5 C Construct equip. storage bldg (funded by NESDIS)..................................... ..........
Data Acquis. Station
NOS NC--Beaufort, NC, Lab 5 D Split type heat pump sys. replacement--radiation bldg................................ 4,234
NOS NC--Beaufort, NC, Lab 5 D Exterior Rehab.--Nine Buildings...................................................... 74,144
NOS SC--Charleston, SC, Coastal 5 D CSC Building #2 Former Boilder Room.................................................. 28,000
Services Center
NWS TX--Corpus Christi, TX, WFO 5 D Exterior lighting (funded by Security)............................................... ..........
OAR CO--Fritz Peak, CO 5 D Handicap Accessibility Modifications................................................. 268,576
Observatory
NMFS TX--Galveston, TX, Lab 5 D Construct Freezer Building (NWS Funded).............................................. ..........
NWS KS--Goodland, KS, WFO 5 D New water softner/water filtering system............................................. 3,472
NWS KS--Goodland, KS, WFO 5 D Install New Temperature Control System (NWS Funded).................................. ..........
NMFS HI--Honolulu, HI, Lab 5 D Air Conditioning Upgrade............................................................. 22,400
NMFS HI--Honolulu, HI, Lab 5 D Complete restroom upgrade--NMFS FUNDED............................................... ..........
NMFS CA--La Jolla, CA, S.W. 5 D Repl. inadeq. windows, doors & louvers............................................... 336,000
Fisheries Science Ctr
NMFS WA--Manchester, WA Field 5 D Fire Support system.................................................................. 67,200
Station
NMFS WA--Manchester, WA Field 5 D Foundation corrections............................................................... 282,912
Station
NMFS WA--Manchester, WA Field 5 D Site Paving (NWS Funded)............................................................. ..........
Station
NMFS FL--Miami, FL S.E. 5 D Rebuild Parking lot.................................................................. 42,560
Fisheries Science Center
NMFS FL--Miami, FL S.E. 5 D Replace windows...................................................................... 134,400
Fisheries Science Center
NMFS FL--Miami, FL S.E. 5 D Remodel Bathrooms.................................................................... 168,000
Fisheries Science Center
OAR FL--Miami, FL, AOML 5 D Replace Exterior Doors and Frames.................................................... 6,944
OAR FL--Miami, FL, AOML 5 D General Repairs to Exterior of Storage Bldg.......................................... 11,021
OAR FL--Miami, FL, AOML 5 D Solar Film Replacement............................................................... 24,304
NMFS OR--Newport, OR Lab 5 D Install handling unit smoke detectors................................................ 7,280
NMFS OR--Newport, OR Lab 5 D Powerwash roofs...................................................................... 33,600
NMFS OR--Newport, OR Lab 5 D Install Environmental Controls System................................................ 84,000
OMAO VA--Norfolk, VA, Atlantic 5 D HVAC Upgrades........................................................................ 56,000
Marine Center
OMAO VA--Norfolk, VA, Atlantic 5 D Handicapped elevator access (delete--part of E1271).................................. ..........
Marine Center
OAR TN--Oak Ridge, TN, AT&D Lab 5 D Paving and Landscaping............................................................... 50,400
NMFS CA--Pacific Grove, CA 5 D Access control system................................................................ 11,200
NMFS CA--Pacific Grove, CA 5 D Retrofit light fixtures.............................................................. 13,440
NMFS CA--Pacific Grove, CA 5 D UFAS compliance...................................................................... 168,000
NMFS CA--Pacific Grove, CA 5 D Fence maintenance repair (Funded by Security)........................................ ..........
NMFS WA--Seattle, WA, NW 5 D Complete Asphalt Paving Repairs (NMFS completed)..................................... ..........
Fisheries Science Ctr,
Montlake
OFA WA--Seattle, WA, Western 5 D lighting upgrade, bldg. 4............................................................ 195,888
Regional Ctr
NWS Southern Region, NWS 5 D Refurbish radar domes and towers (NWS funded)........................................ ..........
multiple locations
NWS Southern Region, NWS 5 D Rehab upper air bldgs & radomes (funded by NWS)...................................... ..........
multiple locations
NESDIS VA--Wallops Island, VA, 5 D Upgrade Water & Sewer................................................................ 392,000
Data Acquis. Station
NMFS MA--Woods Hole, MA, NE 5 D Renovate Restrooms--Lab.............................................................. 72,800
Fisheries Science Center
NMFS MA--Woods Hole, MA, NE 5 D Pier & Bulkhead Water Service........................................................ 78,400
Fisheries Science Center
NMFS MA--Woods Hole, MA, NE 5 D Replace existing elevator--Lab....................................................... 123,200
Fisheries Science Center
NMFS MA--Woods Hole, MA, NE 5 D Replace Elevator--Maintenance Bldg................................................... 123,200
Fisheries Science Center
NMFS MA--Woods Hole, MA, NE 5 D Install sprinkler system--laboratory................................................. 168,000
Fisheries Science Center
NMFS MA--Woods Hole, MA, NE 5 D Install sprinkler system--Aquarium................................................... 336,000
Fisheries Science Center
NMFS MA--Woods Hole, MA, NE 5 D Install new entrance--Laboratory..................................................... ..........
Fisheries Science Center
NMFS MA--Woods Hole, MA, NE 5 D Repl handcppd ramp at main entry to Lab Bldg......................................... ..........
Fisheries Science Center
NWS NM--Albuquerque, NM, WFO 4 C Parking lot Extension................................................................ 16,800
NWS AL--Birmingham, AL, WFO 4 C Parking Lot Extension................................................................ 16,800
NWS TX--Brownsville, TX, WFO 4 C Parking lot Extension................................................................ 16,800
NWS TX--Corpus Christi, TX, WFO 4 C Water line to UAIB................................................................... 3,360
NWS TX--Corpus Christi, TX, WFO 4 C Parking Lot Extension................................................................ 16,800
NMFS OR--Hammond, OR, Pt. Adams 4 C Enclose lean-to & add sliding doors.................................................. 56,000
Field Station
NWS FL--Jacksonville WFO 4 C Parking lot Extension................................................................ 16,800
NOS HI--Kihei, HI, Marine 4 C General upgrade of Visitor Center.................................................... 67,200
Santuary
NOS HI--Kihei, HI, Marine 4 C General upgrade of Main Building (part. compl. by LO)................................ 115,360
Santuary
NWS TN--Knoxville, TN, WFO 4 C Parking lot Extension................................................................ 16,800
NWS LA--Lake Charles, LA, WFO 4 C Parking Lot Extension................................................................ 16,800
NWS AR--Little Rock, AR, WFO 4 C Parking lot Extension................................................................ 16,800
NMFS FL--Miami, FL S.E. 4 C Interior painting.................................................................... 50,400
Fisheries Science Center
NWS TX--Midland/Odessa, TX, WFO 4 C Parking Lot Extension................................................................ 16,800
NWS AL--Mobile, AL, WFO 4 C Parking Lot Extension................................................................ 16,800
NMFS WA--Mukilteo, WA, Field 4 C Sea Water System..................................................................... 46,816
Station
OAR MI--Muskegon, MI, GLERL 4 C New boat maintenance bldg (OAR funded)............................................... ..........
Vessel Ops Facility
NMFS FL--Panama City, FL, Lab 4 C Seawater system...................................................................... 231,840
OFA WA--Seattle, WA Western 4 C Smoking shelters & signs............................................................. 44,800
Regional Ctr
OFA WA--Seattle, WA Western 4 C Halon fire suppression system replacement............................................ 104,944
Regional Ctr
NWS FL--Tampa, FL, Ruskin WSO 4 C Parking lot repair: NWS FUNDED....................................................... ..........
NOS SC--Charleston, SC, Coastal 4 D Security Fence Installation.......................................................... 61,600
Services Center
NOS SC--Charleston, SC, Coastal 4 D Demolition of 2 towers & assoc. small buildings...................................... 72,800
Services Center
NWS HI--Ewa Beach, HI, Tsunami 4 D Replace existing water sprinkler system.............................................. 185,920
Warning Ctr
NWS HI--Ewa Beach, HI, Tsunami 4 D Clear & Grub for Security Access (NWS funded)........................................ ..........
Warning Ctr
NWS HI--Ewa Beach, HI, Tsunami 4 D PTWC Solar Hot Water & outdoor Lighting DOE fund..................................... ..........
Warning Ctr
NWS TX--Ft. Worth, TX, WFO 4 D OPS Room Lighting.................................................................... 5,600
NWS TX--Ft. Worth, TX, WFO 4 D Loading Dock......................................................................... 11,200
NMFS OR--Hammond, OR, Pt. Adams 4 D Oil cedar shake roofs................................................................ 5,600
Field Station
NMFS HI--Honolulu, HI, Lab 4 D Painting and relighting-NMFS FUNDED.................................................. ..........
NMFS AK--Juneau, AK, Auke Bay 4 D Replace sec. gates at ABL & Subport (NMFS complet 1997).............................. ..........
Lab
NMFS CA--La Jolla, CA, S.W. 4 D Painting and relighting (NMFS Funded)................................................ ..........
Fisheries Science Ctr
NMFS WA--Manchester, WA Field 4 D Upgrade Bldg. lab counters, sinks, shelves (NMFS funded)............................. ..........
Station
OAR FL--Miami, FL, AOML 4 D Seal Coating of Access Drives & Parking Lots......................................... 10,192
NOS MD--Oxford, MD, Lab 4 D Replace pump house windows & doors (QP4AOX).......................................... ..........
NMFS FL--Panama City, FL, Lab 4 D Install Security Screens............................................................. 5,320
NMFS MS--Pascagoula, MS, Lab 4 D Cork removal......................................................................... 42,336
NWS TX--San Antonio, TX, WFO 4 D Misc. interior repairs............................................................... 8,400
NMFS MA--Woods Hole, MA, NE 4 D Install New HVAC System--Cottage..................................................... 84,000
Fisheries Science Center
NMFS MA--Woods Hole, MA, NE 4 D Upgrade Interior Finishes--Lab Bldg.................................................. 235,200
Fisheries Science Center
NMFS AK--Kodiak, AK, Gibson Cove 3 C Complete bldg interior (LO funded)................................................... ..........
NOS SC--Charleston, SC, Coastal 3 D Seismic Survey....................................................................... 72,800
Services Center
NMFS OR--Hammond, OR, Pt. Adams 3 D Paint main bldg...................................................................... 44,800
Field Station
NMFS OR--Newport, OR, Lab 3 D Replace fluorescent lights w/energy efficient fixtures............................... 44,800
NMFS OR--Newport, OR, Lab 3 D Replace fluorescent lights w/energy efficinet fixtures............................... 56,000
NMFS WA--Seattle, WA, NW 3 D Exterior Painting--All Bldgs......................................................... 151,200
Fisheries Science Ctr,
Montlake
NMFS MA--Woods Hole, MA, NE 3 D Construct new park lots.............................................................. ..........
Fisheries Science Center
NOS NC--Beaufort, NC, Lab 2 D Infrared Scan and Reliability Testing................................................ 2,464
NOS SC--Charleston, SC, Coastal 2 D Resurfacing exterior grounds......................................................... 95,200
Services Center
NMFS FL--Panama City, FL, Lab 2 D Repair Fence......................................................................... 13,888
NMFS MS--Pascagoula, MS, Lab 2 D Underground sprinkling system........................................................ 19,404
NMFS MS--Pascagoula, MS, Lab 2 D Refurbishing of Existing Warehouses.................................................. 42,336
NMFS MS--Pascagoula, MS, Lab 2 D Laboratory Cabinets.................................................................. 48,451
OFA WA--Seattle, WA Western 2 D Art works restoration................................................................ 280,000
Regional Ctr
NMFS OR--Hammond, OR, Pt. Adams 1 D Cedar shingle roof coating (NMFS completed 1996)..................................... ..........
Field Station
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ocean exploration and education programs
Question. In recent years, NOAA has expanded its role into
exploratory oceans research and education. This expanded role is
evident in NOAA's Ocean Exploration, Sustainable Seas, and JASON
Programs. What is your goal in expanding NOAA's mission into these
areas?
Answer. NOAA's expanded role in ocean exploration is actually
overdue. It can be traced back to the 1970 report of the Stratton
Commission which recommended that NOAA develop U.S. Leadership in Ocean
Exploration. In October 2000, the report of the President's Panel on
Ocean Exploration, ``Discovering Earth's Final Frontier: A U.S.
Strategy for Ocean Exploration'', recommended (page 33) that a single
lead agency be designated as, ``. . . in charge and accountable for the
Program and its budget.'' NOAA has had over 30 years of experience in
managing the conservation, sustainable use, and commercial aspects of
our oceans. Recognizing our stewardship role regarding the oceans, the
Secretary of Commerce offered NOAA to the President as lead agency for
the new national effort in ocean exploration. Congress also recognized
NOAA's role by appropriating $4 million in NOAA in fiscal year 2001 to
begin the program.
The chief goal of the Ocean Exploration Program (OE) is to increase
our body of knowledge by collecting scientific data on areas of the
ocean, particularly the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), where no or
inadequate data exist today to serve NOAA and other policy and
decision-makers in managing ocean resources. We will engage in the
search and systematic investigation of the oceans for the purpose of
discovery, and will record the findings for future research. We also
intend to educate America's school children and the general public on
ocean science and related issues. The purpose of the Program is to gain
fuller knowledge of the fundamental aspects of ocean phenomena and of
observable facts without specific applications toward processes or
products in mind. Thus, it differs somewhat from NOAA's traditional
applied research role which is intended to solve specific management
concerns.
Ocean exploration efforts such as Sustainable Seas Expeditions
(SSE) and JASON do not represent an expansion of NOAA's mission.
Instead, they represent mechanisms for integrating much of NOAA's
exploration and research activities in a more cohesive manner.
Exploration linked to: (1) learning more about areas we know nothing or
very little about; (2) addressing scientific hypotheses related to the
resources we are mandated to manage and protect; and (3) educating the
public whose behavior can affect these resources provides a solid
foundation for existing NOAA programs. The information derived from
these efforts is inextricably linked to how NOAA does business.
Given the regional nature of ocean exploration efforts such as SSE,
these endeavors also provide the opportunity for existing programs to
collaborate on shared problems. This is especially true in relation to
marine protected areas whose boundaries often do not reflect the true
nature of dynamic oceanic processes. Exploration provides the impetus
for looking beyond these boundaries and striving to understand how
these processes influence the resources the areas were established to
protect. In the long term, this approach provides much needed
information for identifying, implementing, and monitoring more
meaningful management strategies.
The mission of The JASON Foundation for Education is to excite and
engage students in science and technology, and to motivate and provide
professional development for their teachers through the use of advanced
interactive telecommunications. JASON expeditions, supported by
extensive professional development for teachers and award-winning
curricula, feature live, interactive broadcasts from distinctive sites
on our planet through advanced technologies in robotics, fiber optics,
television production, computer science, mechanical and electrical
engineering, and satellite communications. Far behind the exploration
of space and the investment of educational programs based on space
exploration, NOAA is facing a deficit of programs and resources to meet
the basics in educating our nation's youth on the importance of oceans
and coastal areas. The JASON Project helps NOAA meet the challenge of
educating the public about the importance of marine resources,
particularly those protected by the National Marine Sanctuaries.
Question. Why is NOAA the best agency for this field of research?
Do you have any concerns that a shift toward this kind of research will
come at a cost for your mission-critical programs?
Answer. Ocean exploration is a part of NOAA's mission and the
President's budget request reflects a balance that will serve all NOAA
missions. In fact, rather than detract from existing programs, Ocean
Exploration, Sustainable Seas and JASON complement and benefit other
programs by improving the quantity and quality of information
available, providing for additional education and outreach, and by
increasing the effectiveness of NOAA at-sea missions by engaging in
multidisciplinary voyages. These efforts actually provide a means to
strengthen NOAA's other programs by providing basic information that is
critical for making decisions related to targeting additional research
and managing resources. Up to now, NOAA has not had a mechanism like
SSE for integrating traditional scientific research with manned and
unmanned submersible operations with a focus on improving our programs.
Nor has NOAA had an effective mechanism, such as the Ocean Exploration
program, to search and systematically investigate the oceans for the
purpose of discovery, and record the findings for future research and
application. Ocean exploration provides the agency with a means to both
gather essential basic information about the oceans to provide
information critical for selecting new areas requiring the attention of
our programs and evaluate the effectiveness of existing programs and
management measures.
Question. In fiscal year 2002, you are asking for $18.5 million in
funding for these programs. How do you intend to spend this money?
Answer. In fiscal year 2002, the $14 million Ocean Exploration
money will be spent as follows: $1 million (7 percent) for eight (8)
full-time-equivalents and related operating expenses to manage the
program; $1.4 million (10 percent) for education and outreach to
stimulate interest in ocean sciences among the youth of America, and
better inform all Americans about the oceans and their importance to
life on Earth; $11.6 million (83 percent) on Science, which includes 6
major and several minor multidisciplinary Voyages of Discovery to
observe and record the biological, chemical, geological, and
archaeological characteristics of the ocean areas being studied. Major
voyages will include expeditions to the Gulf of Maine, South Atlantic
Bight, Gulf of Mexico, Baja to the Bearing Sea, the Northwest Hawaiian
Islands, and one of the Polar Regions.
In terms of SSE, fiscal year 2002 represents the last year of the
original five-year project. The funds invested in SSE will build on the
ecosystem approach established this year in conjunction with the
Islands in the Stream expedition. The fiscal year 2002 request for $2
million for ``Sanctuaries and SSE Data Collection'' includes about
$900,000 to support SSE. Specifically, the money will be invested in
ensuring that the proper mix of resources are available (ships,
submersibles, sampling equipment, personnel) to collect qualitative
(visual) and quantitative (environmental data, bathymetric information)
data in existing marine protected areas and other critical habitats
along the west coast of North America from Baja California to the
Bering Sea, Alaska areas that are environmentally important, and that
are under increasing pressure from human activities. The data collected
will be targeted at supporting existing management efforts, as well as
continuing to educate the public that uses and influences these areas.
The remaining portion of the $2 million request, about $1.1 million
will be used to support non-SSE habitat and cultural resource
characterization and science missions in the National Marine Sanctuary
System.
In fiscal year 2002, JASON ($2.5 million) will focus on one or more
of NOAA's National Marine Sanctuaries. Using these ``living
laboratories'', JASON will focus the minds of America's youth on the
marine sanctuaries and broaden the knowledge and understanding of their
resources and importance. NOAA's National Marine Sanctuary System is
working with JASON and the Institute for Exploration on a pilot
education effort. The goal of this joint effort is the creation of a
pilot educational effort using these new technologies like
telepresence, distance learning and virtual experience learning
techniques with interactive capabilities. The initial program will be
linking, in real time, Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary in
Monterey, California and the Mystic Aquarium in Mystic, Connecticut.
This joint effort will include the creation and testing of new
underwater video equipment; the usage of new and emerging transmission
technologies including satellite, broadband lines and web based
programs; new ``immersion'' or virtual and interactive learning
technologies; the creation of new marine science-based curriculum; and
the evaluation of the video technologies, transmission techniques and
educational accomplishments. The JASON Project funding is a pass-
through grant.
Question. What do you expect to learn from this research? How do
these programs benefit the American Public? How do they benefit NOAA?
Answer. The chief product and benefit of the Ocean Exploration
program will be knowledge. The value of collecting and having this
knowledge available is comparable to the value of education itself--
which is not quantifiable. The result will be a better informed science
community, and better information for policy and decision-making. With
95 percent of the underwater world unseen and unknown to man, what
remains to be explored may hold clues to the origins of life on Earth,
cures for diseases, answers to how to achieve sustainable use of ocean
resources, links to our maritime history, or information to protect
endangered species. The potential return on investment is immense, but
exploration and the collection of knowledge should be considered a
success regardless of what is ultimately discovered.
The SSE program will also visit areas that have never been seen
before and gather new information about our ocean resources, primarily
in the National Marine Sanctuaries. The information on habitat, fish,
marine mammals, cultural resources, and other resources will provide a
foundation for stimulating ideas, generating questions, and influencing
future efforts to understand more about these resources. These areas
may provide the Nation with new resources that we currently have no
knowledge of, or that require a level of protection and management from
adverse influences that we know little about. The effort will also
provide the managers of existing marine protected areas with additional
information critical to their programs.
OE and SSE also benefit both NOAA and the nation by providing for a
broad program of exploration of ocean resources across many scientific,
cultural, and technological disciplines, and among many participants.
These two projects provide the Government--NOAA--with a means to build
an in-house capability for (a) directly engaging in undersea research
using our own resources; and (b) helping to direct the efforts of other
undersea research efforts conducted by private institutions to help
address mandated needs. The programs promote discovery-based science,
collaboration, education and outreach.
The JASON Project helps NOAA meet the challenge of educating the
public about the importance of marine sanctuaries and resources they
protect. The JASON Project offers students and teachers in grades 4
through 9 a comprehensive, multimedia approach to enhance teaching and
learning in science, technology, math, geography, and associated
disciplines. JASON excites and engages students in science and
technology, and motivates and provides professional development for
teachers. This education of our Nation's children is a clear benefit to
the American public and is an important part of NOAA's mission.
The SSE project and the collaboration with the National Geographic
and other public and private institutions has proven to be a catalyst
for new education and outreach partnerships and activities. The
National Marine Sanctuary Program, as well as other NOAA programs that
support SSE, have been the focus of unprecedented coverage from local
and national media. Numerous products, including over 300 print
articles and a variety of long-term workshops on topics such as marine
resources, teacher education, marine geographic information systems,
and others that use the information collected, are just some of the
results.
The information gained to date from SSE has been applied directly
to current management issues in the Sanctuaries, i.e., the management
plan revision for the Channel Islands, California site and the Tortugas
2000 Initiative for the Florida Keys. Similar direct benefits are
expected from OE expeditions. OE and SSE are collaborating on the
``Islands in the Stream'' expedition set for May through September 2001
in the Gulf of Mexico and the U.S. east coast. This expedition targets
specific areas along the Gulf Stream as it flows from Belize and along
the Eastern U.S. Coast. The expedition includes characterization of
Marine Protected Areas in Mexico, the anoxic zone beneath the Texas-
Louisiana border, and the area of high productivity along Florida's Big
Bend. It, and other expeditions will provide valuable opportunity for
academic collaboration and heightened public awareness of coastal
processes through exposure by National Geographic media. With knowledge
as the chief product and benefit of OE, expeditions aim to characterize
ecological systems in near-totality, looking at biota, geology, food
web interactions, history, and benthos of a region, enabling potential
better management of fisheries populations.
Forty years ago, space and ocean exploration were both plunging
into unknown realms at about the same pace. While we have made
significant progress in space, our knowledge of earth's oceans has
lagged. The Russians and Japanese have vehicles that provide them with
access to deeper waters than we do. The Irish have mapped a larger
portion of their EEZ than we have. America leads the world in Space
Exploration and related technologies, and these ocean exploration
programs are the first steps toward regaining our leadership in Ocean
Exploration.
budget development process
Question. How does NOAA develop its budget initiatives?
Answer. NOAA has engendered the Government Performance and Results
Act goal of linking planning and budget. NOAA implements a planning and
budget process that forms a framework by which policy, program, and
budget decisions are made. NOAA's annual request is arrayed as an
operations-based budget, with performance indicators directly tied to
the proposed application of resources. NOAA's Strategic Plan describes
the goals and objectives that have been established to fulfill its
visions. The strategy consists of seven interrelated goals that are
grouped within the two missions of Environmental Assessment and
Predication; and Environmental Stewardship. NOAA's budget initiatives
are generated through the Strategic Team process by the seven teams;
vetted through a series of reviews and meetings, with final decisions
made by NOAA senior management.
Question. How much staff time is spent developing NOAA's budget
request?
Answer. The budget development process is an agency-wide
collaborative effort, and is difficult to track total staff hours spent
on the development of the budget. The Office of Finance and
Administration, and NOAA's five Line Offices' management and budget
staffs, focus a significant part of their workforce on budget
development. The NOAA Office of Budget, alone, dedicates approximately
37,440 staff hours a year to the formulation process. Almost without
exception, every office and program within NOAA devotes some time to
budget development, and the amount of time depends upon the size,
complexity and sensitivity of their individual program or project. This
includes staff at regional and field offices who provide valuable
expertise about program implementation and budgetary needs. The
formulation process begins in February and continues through June with
the Department budget submission; followed by the September OMB
submission; and the submission of the President's Budget the following
fiscal year.
Question. In your view, is the time spent developing NOAA's budget
request the best use of your staff's time?
Answer. Yes. NOAA is a diverse agency responsible for providing
timely and precise weather and climate forecasts that protect lives and
property, managing fisheries and building healthy coastlines, making
our nation more competitive through safe navigation and examining
changes in the ocean. NOAA's budget formulation warrants the energy and
focus. Since budget management (formulation, presentation, and
execution) is one of the primary management functions of any
organization, and considering the size and complexity of the NOAA
budget, it is indeed the best use of staff time.
Question. Do you intend to change this process in the future?
Answer. The NOAA Office of Finance and Administration, NOAA Office
of Budget, in 2001 conducted an assessment of the budget formulation
process. One aspect of the process that was problematic was the fact
that the budget formulation process was divided between the Office of
Budget and the Office of Policy and Strategic Planning. A large part of
the budget development was conducted outside the financial management
chain of command. This created unwanted complexity in the budget as
well as difficulties in matching what was developed to the actual
budget structure. The outcome was that the formulation process was
obfuscated by the separation of budget formulation and performance
planning into separate offices. At the request of the Acting Under
Secretary, the Director of the Office of Budget implemented a change in
fiscal year 2001 to address this challenge. The budget development
process was consolidated under one office--the Office of Finance and
Administration (which houses the NOAA Office of Budget). This
consolidation more firmly links budget formulation and development of
program performance creating a unified framework within which policy,
program and budget decisions are made.
research vessel allocation
Question. Why did you decide to consolidate the Days At Sea
responsibility under the Office of Marine and Aviation Operations
(OMAO)?
Answer. Consolidation of funds from the data acquisition line items
to OMAO Marine Services will allow NOAA greater flexibility to meet
high priority ship needs. Previously, the National Ocean Service,
National Marine Fisheries Service, and Office of Oceanic and
Atmospheric Research contained separate data acquisition line items
that funded Line Office days-at-sea. With consolidation of NOAA's
marine services, funding is now centrally located. An advantage of this
consolidation is that it will allow NOAA increased integration of high
priority programs of the agency as a whole, without being solely
focused on Line Office missions. OMAO can ensure that the agency's
vessel needs are best achieved with the funding provided for NOAA days-
at-sea.
Question. Which programs that have ship times do not fall under
OMAO?
Answer. The following are fiscal year 2002 ship days supporting
NOAA programs which are not funded by the Marine Services account. The
Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research, National Undersea Research
Program (NURP) will use approximately 150 ship days of university and
commercial charter ships to support underwater vehicle operations. The
National Marine Fisheries Service will use approximately 2,265 ship
days of university and commercial charter ships to provide fisheries
stock assessment and habitat research data. Additional, yet to be
determined ship support, will be required for NOAA's Ocean Exploration
Program. National Ocean Service plans to contract for $20.5 million of
charting survey data, most of which is collected from ships and small
craft and will use approximately 50 days of university and commercial
charter ships to collect data for the National Marine Sanctuary
Program.
Question. Why is this the case?
Answer. The funds include items other than ship time, (e.g.,
scientist salaries and overtime, contract support), so the funds are
requested under the programs to avoid multiple internal NOAA fund
transfers. The Marine Services request includes funds for NOAA ships
and over 900 ship days of charter time, but these funds for charter
time are used only to procure ship time.
Question. Where does that ship time appear in NOAA's budget?
Answer. The funds for shiptime that do not fall under OMAO are
included in the line items that fund the programs.
Question. How will this new allocation process change the
individual Line Office allocations?
Answer. The new budget structure will not affect the NOAA ship
allocation process nor will it affect the ship time allocated to NOAA
line offices. The NOAA ship allocation council will continue to
allocate ship time to the line offices independent of the budget
structure.
Question. How will this process change the allocations of Days At
Sea on NOAA-owned vessels versus NOAA-chartered vessels?
Answer. There will be no change in the process for allocating ships
days on NOAA ships and chartered ships. The NOAA ship allocation
council will continue to allocate marine services funds for charter and
university ship time as well as NOAA ship time. The line offices will
continue to use funds separate from the marine services account for
some outsourced ship time and associated support items.
Question. How will you ensure that the critical science programs
within NOAA still get their fair allocation of Days At Sea on their
customary research vessels?
Answer. The restructuring of the data acquisition accounts to the
marine services account will not impact the NOAA ship allocation
process. NOAA's science programs will still be represented as before on
the NOAA ship allocation council and will have the same opportunity as
before to acquire their needed ship time.
Question. What proportion of the OMAO budget line will support the
Sustainable Seas Expedition?
Answer. Approximately 1 percent of the Marine Services budget is
planned in fiscal year 2002 for ship support of the Sustainable Seas
Expedition.
Question. Who makes the final decision on the allocation of Days At
Sea?
Answer. The NOAA allocation process is a collaborative process
which involves a working group with representatives of all the NOAA
ship users, and an allocation council, composed of the NOAA Line Office
Assistant Administrators and chaired by the NOAA Deputy Under
Secretary. In those rare instances where conflicts cannot be resolved
by the working group or by the council, the Deputy Under Secretary
makes the final NOAA decision.
Question. Can you provide me with the Days At Sea allocations for
the last five years, including fiscal year 2001?
Answer. The NOAA Fleet and Outsourced days-at-sea for fiscal years
1997 through 2000 and the allocation plan for 2001 are shown below. The
outsourced days include days funded through acquisition of data
accounts and through other line office accounts, except for fiscal
years 1997 and 1998. The files that included outsourced days funded
through other line office accounts for 1997 and 1998 were temporarily
misplaced. Also, the NOS outsourced days exclude the days for contracts
for hydrographic data because the contracts are for square nautical
miles of hydrography rather than days-at-sea.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOAA
Fiscal Year/Line Office Fleet Outsourced Total
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1997:
NOS............................... 835 .......... 835
NMFS.............................. 1,709 96 1,805
OAR............................... 447 221 668
---------------------------------
Totals.......................... 2,991 317 3,308
=================================
1998:
NOS............................... 793 97 890
NMFS.............................. 1,565 103 1,668
OAR............................... 548 236 784
---------------------------------
Totals.......................... 2,906 436 3,342
=================================
1999:
NOS............................... 735 220 955
NMFS.............................. 1,596 935 2,531
OAR............................... 604 428 1,032
---------------------------------
Totals.......................... 2,935 1,583 4,518
=================================
2000:
NOS............................... 782 305 1,087
NMFS.............................. 1,621 1,223 2,844
OAR............................... 530 397 927
---------------------------------
Totals.......................... 2,933 1,925 4,858
=================================
2001:
NOS............................... 833 396 1,229
NMFS.............................. 1,947 1,650 3,597
OAR............................... 559 470 1,029
---------------------------------
Totals.......................... 3,339 2,516 5,855
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Question. Could you provide a plan for the fiscal year 2002
allocation?
Answer. The NOAA Fleet and outsourced allocation for fiscal year
2002 is shown below. The outsourced days include days funded through
Marine Services and through line office accounts. The outsourced days
shown for OAR exclude days to be outsourced for the Ocean Exploration
Program because details are still in process. The NOS outsourced days-
at-sea exclude $20.5 million in contracts for hydrographic data because
the contracts are for square nautical miles of hydrography rather than
days at sea.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOAA
Line Office Fleet Outsourced Total
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOS................................... 925 485 1,410
NMFS.................................. 1,985 2,265 4,250
OAR................................... 460 670 1,130
---------------------------------
Totals.......................... 3,370 3,420 6,790
------------------------------------------------------------------------

nautical charts
Question. I understand that the critical survey backlog encompasses
less than 1.5 percent of the entire U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ),
and only 9 percent of the navigationally significant areas. If funded
at the requested level, how long would it take to chart both the
critical areas and the navigationally significant areas?
Answer. At fiscal year 2001 funding levels, it will take just under
20 years to eliminate the 43,000 square nautical mile critical survey
backlog. Currently NOAA contracts out over $20 million in survey funds.
The remaining navigationally significant areas (507,000 square nautical
miles) would take 312 years to survey at current rates.
Responsible for over 3.4 million square nautical miles of the U.S.
Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), NOAA has prioritized the EEZ to maximize
the efficiency of resources available for hydrographic survey data.
NOAA has identified approximately 550,000 square nautical miles as
navigationally significant, which are further prioritized by threat of
hazard to surface navigation. The critical survey backlog addresses the
43,000 square nautical miles, or approximately 1.3 percent of NOAA's
charting responsibility, considered the most important to safe
navigation. The highest priority are those critical waterways that have
high commercial traffic volumes (cargo, fishing vessels, cruise ships,
ferries, etc.), extensive petroleum or hazardous material transport,
compelling requests from users, and/or transiting vessels with low
under-keel clearance over the seafloor. Over half of the critical
backlog area exists in Alaskan waters. This hydrographic survey
information supports the production of Electronic Navigational Charts,
and other navigation products and services, and also benefits other
users such as ports authorities and coastal zone managers.
Question. At this rate, how does NOAA intend to tackle the survey
backlog?
Answer. As stated above, NOAA has made the 43,000 square nautical
miles considered most critical to safe navigation its top survey
priority. Between in-house capability and funds allocated to contract
surveys, NOAA has reduced the survey backlog to about 32,500 square
nautical miles through the end of fiscal year 2000. NOAA will continue
its mix of methods, contracting, in-house surveying, and possible
future leased vessels, in efforts to eliminate the survey backlog.
Funds were appropriated in fiscal year 2001 and proposed in the fiscal
year 2002 President's Request to bring the deactivated NOAA Survey
Vessel FAIRWEATHER back online in fiscal year 2003. Reactivation of the
FAIRWEATHER would contribute significantly to reducing the backlog in
Alaskan waters.
Question. What will it take to collect hydrographic survey data and
create electronic navigational charts (ENCs) to connect the
navigationally significant waterways between the charted ports and
harbors?
Answer. Some areas between the ports charted on ENCs are also
considered part of the critical survey backlog, particularly along the
East and Gulf Coasts. Other areas between ports are considered
navigationally significant, but are not part of the critical backlog.
Ideally, surveys of these waters would be acquired before building the
ENCs, but resource limitations have required a survey prioritization
schedule. It would take significant additional resources, including
contracts, charters, and in-house capabilities, to survey these areas
in a reasonable time frame. The cost would depend heavily upon the time
table established to complete the effort.
NOAA supports a phased approach to building ENCs of U.S. waterways.
With the proposed fiscal year 2002 funding increase, NOAA will build 65
new ENCs in 2002 to complete the suite of 200 ENCs that cover the
Nation's 40 major ports and harbors. The ENCs will then be continually
maintained with new data and updates as part of NOAA's nautical
charting database. The prioritization of the top 40 major U.S. ports
and harbors for commercial navigation was determined by analyzing data
ranking U.S. ports by cargo tonnage and major ports of call visited by
the cruise line industry.
NOAA's proposed next step would be to provide minimum contiguous
ENC coverage for U.S. waters, in order to connect coastal waters
between U.S. ports for safe navigation. A total of 660 ENCs would be
required to achieve this goal. This next step is not included in the
President's Request for fiscal year 2002. The estimate for full ENC
coverage for U.S. waters, including specialized charts NOAA now
produces in paper format, is 1,000 ENCs. NOAA would like to produce a
seamless database of ENCs, which would significantly aid the U.S. Coast
Guard and U.S. Navy, professional mariners, maritime pilots, commercial
fishers, recreational boaters, and many other chart database users,
such as coastal managers and emergency planners.
Question. Are there new technologies, such as ships or charting
equipment, that could speed up the process?
Answer. Additional hydrographic survey vessel capacity would
certainly speed up the process, whether NOAA platforms, funds for
additional contracting, or leased vessels operating at NOAA's
direction. Similarly, expansion of NOAA's Navigation Response Teams
would increase the rate of production. These teams provide on-the-
ground field verification and generate small-scale, fast-response
hydrographic surveys and item investigations for major port and harbor
ENCs. Currently, there are two such teams operating in the United
States.
Installing the newest survey technology on all NOAA hydrographic
survey ships and Navigation Response Team launches would also increase
production capability and data accuracy and contribute to reducing the
survey backlog. Multi-beam sonar systems collect a wide full-bottom
swath or fanshaped coverage of the seafloor for highly accurate depths,
and high-speed/high resolution side scan sonar, which searches and
detects objects on the seafloor, is very useful for identifying wrecks
and obstructions, particularly in the shallower waters of the East
Coast. Installing multi-beam sonars on NOAA's other research vessels
would serve dual purposes, e.g., collecting fisheries habitat data and
hydrographic survey data at the same time, since many of the areas that
are important to fisheries research are also navigationally significant
areas.
Question. What areas do you intend to survey in fiscal year 2003?
Answer. In fiscal year 2003, NOAA plans to survey or contract for
surveys in: the Mid-Atlantic Corridor (Delaware-New Jersey), Eastern
Long Island Sound (New York-Connecticut); Southern Chesapeake Bay
(Virginia-Maryland); Block Island Sound (Rhode Island-New York); the
Gulf of Mexico shipping corridors; Sitka Sound and adjacent waterways
(Alaska); SW Alaska Peninsula; Eastern Prince William Sound; SE Alaska
and Chatham Strait; and the Bering Strait.
Question. Why did you decide to survey those areas first?
Answer. These areas are all part of the identified critical survey
backlog, and NOAA has scheduled them based on survey priority,
stakeholder need and requests for survey from various government
agencies and commercial groups.
Question. What uncharted regions stand to be the most at risk from
potential maritime disasters?
Answer. The uncharted regions most at risk for potential maritime
disasters are Alaskan waters where glaciers are receding at a rapid
pace. Cruise ships ``pushing the envelope'' for the view enter these
uncharted waters. A number have run aground in recent years, each one a
potential catastrophe.
Aside from Alaska, there are many other areas portrayed on nautical
charts that have never been adequately surveyed. Nearly half of the
depths on current charts were acquired before 1940 using less
efficient, less accurate, and less complete leadline techniques. While
charted, areas such as Houston/Galveston, Puget Sound and Prince
William Sound, which see high commercial traffic, particularly in
hazardous material cargo including oil and liquified natural gas, are
also at tremendous risk for maritime disasters.
restoration programs
Question. NOAA spends a significant amount of resources on habitat
restoration. Much of this work is outstanding and has led to the
restoration of thousands of acres of habitat. However, it has come to
my attention that the restoration programs are scattered throughout
NOAA in at least six different offices. What NOAA offices are currently
involved in some aspect of habitat restoration, and how much are they
spending on restoration work?
Answer. NOAA is involved in the restoration of coastal habitats in
a variety of ways and through a number of offices and programs. The
diversity of programs reflects the wide variety of mandates under which
NOAA operates and the complex series of issues captured under the
umbrella term of ``restoration.'' NOAA has successfully implemented
mechanisms for cooperative management of restoration programs
encouraging cooperation and efficient use of resources. Restoration
activities of the three NOAA line offices (National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Ocean Service (NOS), and Office of Oceanic and
Atmospheric Research (OAR) are described below.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS)
The major restoration activities of the National Marine Fisheries
Service include the programs of the NOAA Restoration Center and as well
as activities by the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Restoration Center, Pacific
Salmon Recovery Fund, South Central Florida Restoration Initiative, and
the NMFS Coral Reef Initiative.
Damage Assessment and Restoration Program (DARP)
The Damage Assessment and Restoration Program (DARP) is a cross-
cutting program composed of the NOAA Restoration Center, the Damage
Assessment Center (housed in the NOAA National Ocean Service) and the
Natural Resources section of the NOAA Office of General Counsel. (The
Damage Assessment Center is mentioned again below in the NOS section.)
The program receives its mandate from statutory authorities including
the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability
Act (CERCLA), the Oil Pollution Act, the Clean Water Act, and the
Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act (MPRSA). These
statutes authorize NOAA, through the DARP, to assess and claim damages
for injuries to trust resources in marine and coastal settings
resulting from discharges of oil or hazardous substances or other
human-induced environmental disturbances.
Restoration Center
The NOAA Restoration Center uses recovered damages to restore,
replace, or acquire the equivalent of injured resources and has
initiated restoration efforts at over one hundred sites around the
country with over $313 million to date. NMFS uses approximately $1.6
million of NOAA Restoration Center appropriated operational funds to
support planning for and implementing restorations resulting from
settlements with responsible parties.
The NOAA Restoration Center also engages in regional restoration
programs, including the Coastal Wetlands Planning, Protection, and
Restoration Act (also known as the Breaux Act) to develop and implement
habitat projects to restore salt marshes in Louisiana lost to erosion,
subsidence and hydrological alterations. Today, the NOAA Restoration
Center is actively involved in implementing twenty-two large- and
small-scale wetland restoration projects benefiting more than 80,000
acres with approximately $92 million in project funding. While most of
these activities result from reimbursable Breaux Act funds made
available through the Army Corps of Engineers, the NOAA Restoration
Center annually uses between $50,000 and $100,000 of its operational
funds to support the Breaux Act. In support of CWPPRA, the NMFS
Galveston Laboratory invests a portion of its appropriated funds for
scientific studies of the ecology, fishery productivity and restoration
of Louisiana's coastal wetlands.
The NOAA Restoration Center also actively supports special area
regional restoration activities throughout the country. Examples
include the Bronx River, NY (funded in fiscal year 2001 with $8.5
million), and Pinellas County, FL (funded in fiscal year 2001 with $1.5
million). Another regional program is Kentucky PRIDE (Personal
Responsibility In a Desirable Environment) which undertakes regional
and local riparian habitat restoration to benefit significant aquatic
resources. To date over $55 million in Federal grants have been awarded
to address aquatic resources issues in the south eastern part of
Kentucky.
The NOAA Restoration Center coordinates with the Damage Assessment
Center and the Office of General Council to assist in the development
of a proposed Regional Restoration Planning Program for Louisiana on a
state-wide basis that addresses natural resource injuries caused by oil
spills. The planning program is intended to increase efficiency and
effectiveness in addressing restoration needs for small injury cases.
The NOAA Restoration Center is home to the Community-Based
Restoration Program (CRP) which involves communities in the restoration
of local marine and estuarine habitat. Partnerships with Federal
agencies, states, local governments, non-governmental and non-profit
organizations, businesses, industry and schools have helped over 170
local efforts restore coastal habitat. The NOAA Restoration Center and
its partners provide funding and expertise to numerous coastal
community projects that promote coastal stewardship and develop a
conservation ethic. Through partnerships, the CRP has been able to
leverage $4-$10 for every Federal appropriated dollar. These
partnership are implemented at the national, regional and local levels.
In the fiscal year 2000, a partnership with Restore America's Estuaries
and the NOAA Restoration Center initiated the development of a National
Coastal Restoration Strategy to further improve the effectiveness of
this and other regional restoration programs. The CRP began with an
investment of $250,000 in 1996, increased to $2 million in fiscal year
2000 and is being implemented with an appropriation of $8 million in
fiscal year 2001.
Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Restoration Center
The NMFS Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Restoration Center, housed in the
Alaska Fisheries Science Center assists the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill NRDA
Trustee Council in implementing projects valued at over $700 million to
restore significant coastal habitat damaged from the oil spill. The
funds are principally targeted at land acquisition to preserve high
priority coastal resources and the understanding the long-term natural
resource injuries and the associated recovery processes.
Pacific Salmon Recovery Fund
NMFS staff from the Alaska, Northwest, and Southwest Regional
Offices are assisting the States of Alaska, Washington, Oregon, and
California and regional tribes in implementing restoration under the
Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery Fund (PCSRF). Congress appropriated $58
million in fiscal year 2000 to be used for salmon habitat restoration,
salmon stock enhancement, salmon research, and implementing the Pacific
Salmon Treaty Agreement and related agreements. The $58 million PCSRF
appropriation was distributed as follows: $50 million to the states
($18 million for Washington, $14 million for Alaska, $9 million for
Oregon, and $9 million for California), $6 million to Pacific coastal
tribes, and $2 million for Columbia River tribes. Fiscal year 2001
funding in support of the PCSRF is $74 million.
South Central Florida Restoration Initiative
The NMFS Southeast Fisheries Science Center supports the $500
million South Central Florida Restoration Initiative (Everglades
restoration). This Federal and State partnership is aimed at restoring
significant national fish and wildlife resources and the Everglades
ecosystem that supports them. NMFS support includes restoration methods
research and monitoring ($401,000), technical program oversight
($450,000), and education/outreach of ecological restoration principles
and practices ($130,000).
Support for Restoration: Funding, Technical Assistance, and
Information
The NOAA Chesapeake Bay Office (NCBO) supports the Chesapeake Bay
Program, a unique regional partnership aimed at restoring the
Chesapeake Bay ecosystem. A major component of Bay restoration includes
reestablishing once abundant oyster populations which have value as
harvestable resources as well as habitat for living marine resources
and water quality enhancement. Towards this end, the NCBO administers
the Oyster Recovery Program, a cooperative effort with Bay waterman to
replant over-fished beds and address critical issues related to
successful oyster restoration, including the importance of oyster
sanctuaries, benefits of protecting historically productive areas and
the importance of reef design. The Oyster Recovery Program received
$850,000 for fiscal year 2001.
The five NMFS Science Centers each conduct local programs of basic
research on the structure and function of coastal ecosystems. This
includes evaluating restoration techniques on such diverse habitats as
salt marshes, seagrasses, coral reefs, and riverine systems important
to salmon. In fiscal year 2001, NMFS will spend about $2-$3 million in
restoration related research.
National Ocean Service (NOS)
Response and Restoration Programs
NOAA's Office of Response and Restoration (OR&R) protects and
restores coastal ecosystems threatened or harmed by releases of oil and
hazardous substances and other environmental disturbances, such as ship
groundings. OR&R uses sound science and effective partnerships with
other NOAA components, other government agencies, industries, and the
public to accomplish its legislative mandates under CERCLA, the Oil
Pollution Act (OPA), the Clean Water Act, and the National Marine
Sanctuaries Act. OR&R houses the Damage Assessment Center (DAC), part
of NOAA's Damage Assessment and Restoration Program (DARP) that is
described in the NMFS portion of this answer. OR&R:
Responds to over 100 oil and hazardous materials spills and other
incidents in the coastal and marine waters each year. OR&R uses the
best available scientific information and technologies to improve
response strategies at these incidents, setting the stage for effective
and efficient habitat restoration.
--Restores coastal natural resources by improving recovery and
expediting restoration at coastal waste sites (intervening
successfully at more than 500 sites since 1984).
--Restores coastal natural resources directly by providing funding
for restoration projects through settlements of liability under
CERCLA and OPA (both as part of the Damage Assessment and
Restoration Program and through comprehensive government
settlements with EPA).
--Implements restoration, develops restoration plans, monitors
projects to ensure success, and promotes regional restoration
planning to maximize benefits of individual projects on a
broader scale (for example, as a leader in funding and
developing the first ever National Strategy for Coastal Habitat
Restoration).
--Supports coastal managers to build state and local capabilities to
protect and restore our coasts through technology transfer and
training and by providing tools and information that can be
directly applied to improve restoration planning and
implementation.

[In millions of dollars]

OR&R Funding for Restoration:
Base funding for fiscal year 2001 focused on restoration...... 7.0
Expected settlement funding for restoration in fiscal year
2001 \1\.................................................... 48.5
CERCLA funding through EPA.................................... 2.45

\1\ OR&R has collected and used $313 million in settlement funds to
restore coastal habitat since its restoration programs were initiated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The National Marine Sanctuary System
The National Marine Sanctuary System (NMSS) is involved in habitat
restoration at many of its sites. The National Marine Sanctuaries Act
allows the program to recover funds for restoration from those parties
responsible for injury to sanctuary resources. In addition to
restoration efforts funded by its base appropriation, NMSS uses damage
assessment settlement funds from specific cases to support actual
restoration project implementation.

NMSS Funding for Restoration:
Base funding for fiscal year 2001 focused on restoration.. $300,000
Settlement funding for restoration in fiscal year 2001 \1\ 350,000

\1\ NMSS settlements vary by year, ranging from approximately $2 million
in fiscal year 1999 to $350,000 in fiscal year 2001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
National Estuarine Research Reserve System
The National Estuarine Research Reserve System (NERRS) conducts a
small amount of restoration work through the Reserve system and the
Cooperative Institute for Coastal and Estuarine Environmental
Technology (CICEET), an innovative partnership between the National
Ocean Service and the University of New Hampshire. NERRS is also
engaged in a number of activities related to restoration and is
currently preparing a NERRS Restoration Science Strategy. CICEET
currently has 12 active projects developing innovative restoration
technologies and methods for estuarine and coastal ecosystems.

[In millions of dollars]

Base funding in fiscal year 2001 for CICEET restoration activities 2.3
Support for Restoration: Funding, Technical Assistance, and
Information
The following NOS programs provide funding, technical support,
data, and other resources that are critical to restoration nationwide:
--NOAA Coastal Services Center participates in coastal habitat
restoration through the sponsorship of conferences, the
development of tools, and the funding of restoration projects.
CSC partners extensively with the private sector, academia,
Federal agencies, and other NOAA offices. For example, CSC has
partnered with the National Marine Fisheries Service's
Southeast Fisheries Science Center to establish a joint
collaborative effort at Lafayette, Louisiana, whose primary
interest is coastal habitat restoration. The amount of funds
expended each year is variable, but can approach $500,000 per
year.
--The Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management (OCRM)
administers the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA), a federal
state partnership for managing the nation's coastal areas.
Through the CZMA, OCRM provides funding and other support, some
of which states devote to restoration activities. OCRM also
administers two new programs: the Great Lakes Coastal
Restoration Grants Program and the Coastal Impact Assistance
Program. These are referenced below.
--The National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science conducts scientific
research to support agency mandates that require habitat
restoration. Approximate funding for NCCOS restoration
activities in fiscal year 2001 is $3.45 million. Such research
is directed at providing NOAA and state and local managers with
new and advanced restoration protocols and tools, as well as
monitoring and assessment techniques and strategies, and the
development of success criteria for multi-year restoration
activities.
--The National Geodetic Survey (NGS) plans and conducts highly
accurate vertical control surveys, assisting partners such as
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in conducting coastal habitat
restoration. In south Florida, leveling surveys will be used
throughout the Everglades Restoration Project as a baseline for
determining local water flow patterns. The allocation for 2001
is $469,000.
--The Center for Oceanographic Products and Services provides the
accurate water level information critical to successful
restoration. COOPS generates tidal elevation data through its
nation-wide network of tide gauges and, in many major port
areas, Physical Oceanographic Real Time Systems (PORTS). COOPS
is also collaborating with other NOS and NOAA programs, with
state and local agencies, and with the private sector to
develop new techniques for integrating tidal elevation
information into local restoration projects.
Specific directed restoration grant programs
In fiscal year 2001, NOS also had a number of directed projects
that provided funds to outside recipients for restoration activities.
Most of these are short-term efforts and are not included in the fiscal
year 2002 President's request. These include:
--Great Lakes Coastal Restoration Grants Program (GLCRGP).--There is
approximately $29.9 million under the GLCRGP available to
states and coastal communities to support the legislative
purpose of protecting and restoring Great Lakes coastal
resources and water quality.
--Brown Marsh Grant Program.--$3 million grant to the Louisiana
Department of Natural Resources for science studies and
restoration and remediation efforts focused on the large marsh
die back in the state.
--New Hampshire Marsh Restoration.--$1 million for several new and
on-going salt marsh restoration projects.
--River Restorations.--$11.5 million grants for restoration projects
along the DuPage River, Illinois, and the Detroit and Lower
Rouge Rivers in Michigan. These projects will provide for
study, characterization and restoration efforts along these
three rivers.
--National Fish and Wildlife Foundation Grants.--Part of the $2
million provides resources for some small-scale restoration
projects. (This is requested to continue at a level of $2
million in fiscal year 2002--$1 million each in NOS and NMFS.)
--Some small portion of the Coastal Impact Assistance Program (CIAP)
may also be made available for restoration projects in the
seven states that will receive these grants (Alaska,
California, Texas, Louisiana, Alabama, Mississippi, and
Florida).
Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research (OAR)
National Sea Grant College Program
In fiscal year 2001 to date, NOAA's Sea Grant College Program
awarded $2.339 million of their funding (plus $1.5 million in matching
funds from the grantees) for habitat related research. Of that amount,
$2.2 million ($1.4 million matching) went to habitat structure and
function; $139,000 ($115,000 matching) was awarded to habitat
restoration research.
Question. How is NOAA coordinating these habitat restoration
efforts to ensure the most efficient and effective use of its
resources?
Answer. NOAA's offices and programs cooperate on restoration at a
number of levels. The Damage Assessment and Restoration Program (DARP)
is a cooperative program among the National Marine Fisheries Service's
Office of Habitat Conservation, National Ocean Service's Office of
Response and Restoration, and NOAA's General Counsel for Natural
Resources to address the coastal impacts of oil and chemical spills and
releases, as well as the physical damage resulting from events such as
ship groundings. Through DARP, NOAA scientists, economists, and
managers participate in the evaluation of damage to coastal resources,
development of restoration plans, and implementation and monitoring of
restoration projects.
To implement the Estuary Restoration Act, NOAA has established a
``Secretariat,'' a cross-line office body that will assure that NOAA
expertise, tools, and databases are efficiently and effectively applied
to coastal restoration throughout the United States and the
protectorates.
Coordination also occurs between offices in instances such as the
restoration of damage to NOAA's protected resources. For example,
scientists and managers from NOAA's Marine Sanctuary System and the
DARP collaborate to design, implement, and monitor coastal habitat
restoration projects within the sanctuaries. Informal coordination and
cooperation is very common throughout the country, with staff from the
line offices working together on all aspects of coastal habitat
restoration. In order to capitalize on the extensive regional-level
interaction, a NOAA-wide restoration workshop was held to discuss means
of facilitating communication across the NOAA restoration community and
to continue to improve the agency's ability to restore coastal
habitats. An outgrowth of this workshop was the NOAA Restoration
Network, which provides electronic communication for the diverse and
widespread employees of NOAA and its partners to share information and
assist one another in the more efficient completion of restoration
activities.
Question. Does NOAA have a comprehensive habitat restoration plan?
Answer. NOAA funded the development of a National Strategy for
Coastal Habitat Restoration through Restore Americas Estuaries (RAE), a
consortium of all of the major non-governmental organizations involved
in estuary restoration, in fiscal year 2000. RAE identified, evaluated,
and synthesized existing restoration plans and programs to form the
foundation of a national strategy for restoration. The strategy will
identify a common set of restoration principals, goals, objectives,
monitoring protocols and priority setting methods to increase
effectiveness and efficiency of ``on-the-ground'' restoration
activities. The strategy is intended to assist both NOAA and other
Federal agencies in undertaking restoration activities.
Question. Would such a plan make better use of the integration
between offices?
Answer. NOAA and RAE hope that the National Strategy for Coastal
Habitat Restoration will provide a common a framework for the
integration of restoration programs and activities at the national and
regional levels, both within NOAA and outside of NOAA. NOAA believes
that the strategy's development along with the improved communication
and coordination through such mechanisms as the Restoration Network and
the creation of the Secretariat under the Estuaries Restoration Act
will provide a comprehensive approach to restoration planning, and
implementation that should lead to improved use and integration of NOAA
conducted restoration activities. It will also promote federal, state,
local, and private cooperation and leverage these efforts to contribute
to successful restoration based on needs and priorities established at
the regional level.
Question. NOAA is asking for $2 million in fiscal year 2002 to
implement the Estuary Restoration Act. What is NOAA's role in the Act
and how will NOAA spend this funding?
Answer. The Estuary Act assigns specific responsibilities to NOAA,
including:
--Developing monitoring protocols for restoration projects, including
standards for data collection and frequency of monitoring
efforts;
--Developing and maintaining a database of information on all
projects carried out under the Act, including progress toward
achieving the restoration goals;
--Compiling and making available relevant information on estuary
restoration to assist in successful and efficient restoration
efforts; and
--Enhancing monitoring and research capabilities through NERRS and
CICEET to ensure the use of sound science and encourage
innovative technologies.
The $2 million request will help fund these activities through
existing programs.
In addition to the legislative mandates above, NOAA has been
identified in the Estuary Restoration Act as a member of the Estuary
Habitat Restoration Council. Council membership will include
participating in the setting of goals for the program, evaluation of
proposed projects, development of a national restoration strategy, and
collaborating with non-Federal partners to implement projects.
NOAA's National Estuarine Research Reserve System (NERRS) and
Cooperative Institute for Coastal and Estuarine Environmental
Technology (CICEET) were specifically identified as participating in
the development of innovative restoration technology.
fisheries vessels
Question. I am concerned that as NOAA's fisheries research vessels
are pushed into proposed future budget requests that the cost per
vessel will increase. As you know, the NOAA fleet is aging and many of
the NOAA vessels must be replaced. Why wasn't the second fisheries
vessel included in the budget request? Will you support its funding if
we find resources for it? Can you assure me that next year we will see
the third vessel in budget request?
Answer. Delaying funding for the second Fishery Research Vessel
(FRV) to fiscal year 2003 delays the production schedule one year. The
production design of the first FRV did not begin until last month, 6
months later than anticipated. This pushes back construction of the
first vessel to fiscal year 2002. Designing and constructing the second
FRV in fiscal year 2003 would allow the second vessel to benefit from
some lessons learned in constructing the first one, but does not
provide continuity for the workforce to transition from one hull to the
next. Funding two ships in fiscal year 2003 or fiscal year 2004 saves
approximately $1 million over consecutive year funding and might still
allow for calibration with retiring ships, thus preserving the validity
of decades of time series data.
The construction contract (signed this year) for the new Fisheries
Research Vessel funded by the fiscal year 2000 and fiscal year 2001
budgets, includes options to build three additional vessels. The
Department is committed to replacing the aging NMFS fleet to assure
continuity of NOAA's mission.
______

Questions Submitted by Senator Ted Stevens
marine protected areas
Question. Will Executive Order 13158 regarding ``marine protected
areas'' impact any rulemaking or other regulatory activity specifically
authorized by Congress through the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the Marine
Mammal Protection Act, and other laws? If so, please describe the
process.
Answer. With the exception of Clean Water Act authorities of the
Environmental Protection Agency (see below), Executive Order 13158 does
not promulgate of new regulations, make existing MPAs more restrictive,
or establish new MPAs. The Executive Order does not supplant existing
statutory authorities or create new legal authority to regulate marine
resources and activities conducted under this Order will be consistent
with current law. It tasks NOAA with providing information and services
on existing MPAs, and leaves all management and establishment of MPAs
with the agencies who have existing authorities. Any actions by these
authorities, including rulemaking or other regulatory activity, to
modify existing MPAs or establish new MPAs are subject to all of the
currently existing and applicable laws, regulations, etc. This includes
National Environmental Policy Act requirements for impact assessments,
public notice and public review.
The following proposed regulation was published in the Federal
Register by EPA in early fiscal year 2001 and is currently under
review.
Section 4(f) of the Executive Order states ``To better protect
beaches, coasts, and the marine environment from pollution, the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), relying upon existing Clean
Water Act authorities, shall expeditiously propose new science-based
regulations, as necessary, to ensure appropriate levels of protection
for the marine environment. Such regulations may include the
identification of areas that warrant additional pollution protections
and the enhancement of marine water quality standards. The EPA shall
consult with the Federal agencies identified in subsection 4(a) of this
order, States, territories, tribes, and the public in the development
of such new regulations.''
authorizations for marine activities
Question. Is it NOAA's position that existing laws regarding
activities in the marine environment, including the Magnuson-Stevens
Act, the Marine Mammal Protection Act, the Coastal Zone Management Act,
and other laws, do not provide sufficient authority for NOAA to carry
out its mission?
Answer. NOAA believes that the existing legal authorities
mentioned, as well as the Endangered Species Act, National Marine
Sanctuaries Act, and other laws, do indeed provide sufficient authority
for NOAA to carry out its mission. However, the independent application
of these authorities for the distinct purposes of each statute may
still leave gaps in the conservation and management of marine
resources, particularly from an ecosystem perspective. The MPA
Executive Order promotes improved coordination among key Federal
agencies involved in management of marine areas and provides for the
development of better information and tools to enhance the benefits of
existing authorities.
cost for executive order 13158
Question. Please provide the Committee with a full accounting of
all costs and expenses, including FTE's, that NOAA has incurred in its
implementation of Executive Order 13158 to date, and the expected costs
through the end of fiscal year 2001.
Answer. In fiscal year 2000, NOAA spent approximately $312,000 to
support the tasks defined in the Marine Protected Areas (MPA) Executive
Order. The equivalent of 2 FTEs were involved in this effort from June
through September 2000. Estimated expenses for fiscal year 2001 are 2
FTEs and $490,000. These funds are planned for expenditure as follows:
1. Inventory/Website/Library.--$125,000 funds contracts with state
organizations to assist in the collection of information about state
protected areas.
2. Outreach/Education/Federal Advisory Committee.--$157,000
supports the first Advisory Committee meeting, provides for the
preparation of educational and public information materials, sponsors
two meetings with MPA stakeholders, and enables NOAA to conduct an MPA
education workshop with Sea Grant, National Estuarine Research Reserve,
National Marine Sanctuary, zoo, and aquarium staff.
3. National Center and Institutes for Marine Protected Areas.--
$208,000 supports activities of the National Center and its Science and
Training/Technical Assistance Institutes including conduct of MPA
natural and social science strategy workshops and regional coordination
workshops.
______

Questions Submitted by Senator Daniel K. Inouye
highly migratory species
Questions. NOAA's fiscal year 2002 budget request includes a new
program for the West Coast of the United States to research and manage
highly migratory species. The budget request also includes funds for
the Joint Institute of Marine and Atmospheric Research (JIMAR) to
continue ongoing research and related management of highly migratory
species in the Western, Central and South Pacific. While I recognize
that there are some species of distinct importance to each region,
given the nature of highly migratory species, there are also species
which the two regions have in common. What is NOAA doing to ensure
coordination between the West Coast and Pacific region programs and to
avoid duplication of effort and jurisdictional conflicts?
Answer. The Pacific Highly Migratory Species initiative was
developed to deal with management information needs arising from the
purse seine fisheries operating under the existing Tuna Treaty, the
developing Multi-lateral High Level Conference on the Management of
Highly Migratory Species in the Pacific Ocean (MHLC Treaty), as well as
the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC). A preliminary
spending plan for the $1 million proposed in the President's fiscal
year 2002 request is outlined below and focuses on the new scientific
research and monitoring that will be undertaken. While the Southwest
Fisheries Science Center's La Jolla Laboratory has responsibility for
these purse seine fisheries and so would be the beneficiary of this
proposed increase, the Center's Honolulu Laboratory would share
significantly in other Presidential fiscal year 2002 requests,
including the Expanded Stock Assessment Initiative and Sea Turtle
Recovery Activities, as well as receiving directly funds for the
Adventurous Refit and Honolulu Laboratory Renovation Planning.
Preliminary Spending Plan
Economic assessments of purse seine fisheries, including capacity
issues--$0.150 million.
commerce jurisdiction over marine resources
Question. A debate continues on the issue of which Federal
department has jurisdiction over marine resources between 3 to 200
miles. This issue was at the core of efforts during the previous
Administration to establish an area of protection around the coral
reefs in the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands. Initially, the Department
of the Interior sought to extend its existing wildlife refuge out to 12
miles, or in the alternative to establish a national monument. During
this debate, the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel issued a
legal opinion which called into question the Department of the
Interior's authority to exert jurisdiction beyond the 3 miles from
shore.
The Department of the Interior continues to exert management
authority over marine resources beyond 3 miles from shore. The most
recent examples are the Fish and Wildlife Service's establishment of
refuges at Kingman Reef and Palmyra Atoll which extend out to 12 miles
from shore. What is the Department of Commerce doing to protect its
management jurisdiction over marine resources within the 3 to 200 mile
zone?
Answer. The NOAA Office of General Counsel has responded:
The Department of Commerce is the primary management authority for
living marine resources, including fish and corals, in federal waters
and the underlying seabed and subsoil, pursuant to its authorities
under statutes including the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the National Marine
Sanctuaries Act, the Marine Mammal Protection Act, and the Endangered
Species Act.
DOC regards its authority and jurisdiction under these laws as
unaffected by the wildlife refuges around Kingman Reef and Palmyra
Atoll. The Western Pacific Fishery Management Council has established
fishery management plans that include the territorial sea around
Kingman Reef and Palmyra Atoll and the Department gives full effect to
its regulations for these fishery management plans. The Department also
continues fully to exert its management authority and jurisdiction
around Kingman Reef and Palmyra Atoll under federal laws including the
Endangered Species Act (for listed species under its jurisdiction such
as sea turtles in the marine environment and whales), the Marine Mammal
Protection Act, and the Lacey Act.
northwestern hawaiian islands sanctuary
Question. The reauthorization of the National Marine Sanctuaries
program enacted last year authorized the Commerce Department to
initiate a sanctuary designation process for the Northwestern Hawaiian
Islands. This legislation also authorized the President to establish an
interim coral reef reserve during the pendency of the sanctuary
designation process. The clear intent of the Congress was that upon
completion of the sanctuary designation process, the critical areas
around the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands would be managed as a
sanctuary. Despite Congress' clear intent, some officials at NOAA are
taking the position that the sanctuary will overlay the reserve.
Indeed, timelines prepared by NOAA officials for the implementation of
the reserve and for the sanctuary show no target dates for the
transition from a reserve to a sanctuary, implying that the reserve
will continue indefinitely. What is NOAA's official position on this
matter?
Answer. NOAA's official position is that a Sanctuary designation
process for the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands is underway, and that
when a Sanctuary is designated as a result of that process, it will
replace the Reserve.
Question. If NOAA's position differs from the intent of Congress as
outlined above, please specify the authority upon which NOAA justifies
its departure from Congressional intent.
Answer. NOAA's position does not appear to differ from the intent
of Congress as outlined above.
______

Questions Submitted by Senator Patty Murray
biological opinion for columbia river salmon
Question. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you, Mr. Gudes, for
your testimony. I would like to compliment you on many of the
initiatives included in NOAA's budget request, such as your emphasis on
infrastructure and ocean exploration. In many ways, this is a budget
proposal I can support. I also appreciate your willingness to learn
more about projects important to Washington state, such as the
Northwest Straits Initiative. As I mentioned when Secretary Evans
appeared before the Subcommittee, I strongly support your request to
maintain funding for the Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery account and
the Pacific Salmon Treaty account. But there is a crucial cross-cutting
issue that I must raise: How does the Administration propose to fund
the Biological Opinion for Columbia River salmon? The Bi-Op is already
being challenged by litigation. It is estimated that the Bi-Op will
cost hundreds of millions of dollars to fully fund. I am also posing
this question to other Federal agencies, such as the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, the Army Corps of Engineers and the Bureau of
Reclamation. But NMFS must play a crucial role as well. How can we get
a cross-cut budget from relevant Federal agencies detailing the funding
necessary to implement the Biological Opinion?
Answer. NOAA and NMFS realize that this is a significant issue that
is made more critical because of the current drought in the Northwest.
While NOAA is not currently contemplating a supplemental budget request
including funding for the Biological Opinion, we will continue to
review this situation as part of the normal budget development process.
permit backlog problem
Question. On a related issue, I appreciate the progress made
impartially lifting the hiring freeze. But I am concerned that NMFS
still doesn't have enough staff in the Northwest Region to adequately
address the permits backlog caused by ESA consultations. I frequently
hear about this issue from constituents who are very frustrated with
how long it takes for them to get permits. Unfortunately, the backlog
undermines support for protecting endangered species and threatens the
regional economy. How do you propose to address the permits backlog
problem in this budget?
Answer. The NMFS Northwest Regional Office is proceeding to hire 4
additional staff to address the existing backlog in consultations in
Puget Sound. Unfortunately, the Corps of Engineers is also facing a
huge backlog on projects requiring Endangered Species Act
consultations, and as the Corps addresses their backlog, the demands on
NMFS consultations increase since many of the actions have been pending
for months with the Corps. Also, our constituencies have encouraged us
to devote additional resources to development of Recovery Plans through
the Shared Strategy arena and to implement the 4d rules for
municipalities--all of which will add to workload on staff and require
prioritizing these needs with ESA Section 7 consultations with the
Corps' backlog on private citizen permit action.
agreement between noaa and port of everett
Question. The Northwest Fisheries Science Center has a research
facility located on a former U.S. Air Force Tank Farm in Mukilteo,
Washington, about 30 miles north of Seattle. NOAA is currently working
with the Port of Everett to incorporate the research center into long-
term plans for redevelopment. These plans include constructing a
commuter rail station, upgrading ferry terminals, expanding a marina
and building commercial space along 22 acres of waterfront property.
NOAA wants to own a portion of the land instead of leasing it from
the Port of Everett. The Port will receive the land from the Air Force
because of legislation I worked to pass last year. I am committed to
facilitating an agreement amenable to all parties involved. Are you
aware of this effort and does it have NOAA's support at the highest
levels?
Answer. NOAA supports this effort and has been involved with the
ownership discussions. Representatives from the NMFS Northwest Regional
Office, the NOAA Facilities Office, the Port of Everett, Senator
Murray's office and others met on May 4, 2001 to try to resolve
ownership issues at the Mukilteo tank farm facility. It is our desire
to own the site rather than lease it because of flexibility in making
improvements, etc. The Port is amenable to NOAA owning the site. We
believe this could be accomplished through legislation or through an
agreement between NOAA and the Port that would result in transfer of
title to the site immediately upon the Port obtaining title. The two
sides agreed to develop an option for accomplishing the transfer
without legislation. Both agreed in principle that the site could
revert to the Port if NOAA ever abandons it. NOAA plans to continue its
operations at the site indefinitely. While no specific plans have been
made for improving the site, we will continue to consider improvements
within available resources. We will keep you informed of our progress.
industry and government buy-back programs
Question. Last year the omnibus appropriations bill authorized $50
million for a North Pacific crab vessel and permit buy-back program.
The West Coast Groundfish recovery plan developed by the Pacific
Council also includes a buy-back program dependent upon $25 million
from the Federal Government. Other sectors of the commercial fishing
industry are also interested in buy-back programs. I realize budget are
tight, but this is an issue I hear about frequently. I also support
providing relief to sectors of the industry that are suffering from
major downturns in the resource. What is your position on government
and industry funded buy-back programs to address some of the fisheries
crises currently facing us? And if you can't support buy-back programs
because of the costs, how do you propose to help crab fishermen in the
North Pacific and groundfish fishermen along the West Coast in the
short term?
Answer. NOAA recognizes the need to reduce capacity in some
fisheries and that buy-backs is a management tool to reduce capacity.
The Magnuson-Stevens Act Section 312(b) includes provisions for
industry funded buy-backs. We have begun the necessary regulatory
actions to conduct the crab buyout, however, we do not have full
funding for this program. The total estimated cost for the buyout is
estimated at $100 million per legislation included in the fiscal year
2001 appropriation. However, NMFS has only received enough subsidy for
a $50 million buyback loan. The additional $50 million needed for the
buyout has not been appropriated, only authorized.
Likewise, the Pacific Fishery Management Council has determined
that the West Coast groundfish fishery capacity needs to be reduced by
at least 50 percent. The Fishermen's Marketing Association has been
holding meetings along the coast to gage industry interest in a buyback
program that would involve a combination of government and industry-
funding. The plan includes the purchase of vessels, all federal
groundfish permits, and all state permits (shrimp, crab, salmon, etc.)
assigned to the vessel. The plan includes the purchase of state permits
to address concerns about groundfish fishermen increasing their effort
in other fisheries because of the buyback. The plan is based on a
bidding system that ranks the bids according to the amount of total
fishing revenue the vessel earned over the 1998-2000 period. The
industry needs federal funds to help pay for the buyback and for
establishing a buyback loan. The industry will repay the loan through
landings fees. A total of $50 million ($25 million direct and $25
million loan) is needed to fund the buyback. Not only would groundfish
fishermen be responsible for paying back the loan but shrimp, salmon,
and crab fishermen would also be responsible as this plan would reduce
capacity in these fisheries as well.
SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

STATEMENT OF JOHN WHITMORE, ACTING ADMINISTRATOR
ACCOMPANIED BY GREG WALTERS, DEPUTY CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

Senator Hollings. We will now hear from Mr. John Whitmore,
Acting Administrator of the Small Business Administration.
Very good, Mr. Whitmore. Your statement in its entirety
will be included in the record, and you can summarize or
deliver it as you wish.
Mr. Whitmore. Thank you, Senator Hollings, Senator Inouye,
for inviting me here today to testify.
I am pleased to present the Small Business Administration's
budget request for fiscal year 2002. With me today is Greg
Walters, the Deputy CFO at SBA.
The budget request of $539 million represents a renewed
focus on SBA's core programs. It will provide credit, capital,
and technical assistance to America's small businesses at a
substantially reduced cost to the taxpayer. It includes $5
million for SBA's portion of the President's New Freedom
Initiative to help small businesses comply with the Americans
with Disabilities Act, and $5 million as part of the Paul G.
Coverdell Drug-Free Workplace Program.
The budget also seeks to streamline the agency and
eliminate duplicative programs.
The budget proposes funding the SBA technical assistance
programs at last year's levels, with three exceptions. We are
proposing to increase funding for the SCORE program by $250,000
up to a level of $4 million. SCORE is one of SBA's most cost-
efficient programs and will soon implement an electronic
delivery system to broaden its reach.
The Veterans' Business Development Program was not funded
in 2001 but will receive $750,000 in 2002. The budget proposes
a funding level of $88 million for the Small Business
Development Center Program, $75.8 million coming from
appropriations and $12 million in fees. Some SBDCs already
impose a variation on the counseling fee by requiring new
start-up businesses to take their training courses at a cost of
$35 to $45 before receiving counseling. This is also in line
with other SBA technical assistance programs such as the
Women's Business Center program.
Charging a modest fee of under $11 an hour will maintain
the current service levels while reducing the cost to the
taxpayer.
The budget proposes funding the Government contracting
assistance programs at the 2001 level, but does include
$500,000 for a Women's Contract Initiative and a contract
bundling study.
The budget fairly demands that those who benefit most from
SBA programs share in its cost. In the exact language of the
President's budget, ``These programs will become self-financing
by increasing fees. The budget acknowledges that some small
businesses may have trouble accessing private capital in the
absence of a Government guarantee but does not require the
Government to subsidize the cost of borrowing. The budget
increases fees sufficiently to make these programs self-
financing and would save $141 million.'' This will reduce the
burden on appropriations, will allow for expanded program
levels, and is fair to the taxpayer.
The budget also proposes increasing fees for the Small
Business Loan Program and the Small Business Investment Company
Program. In the Small Business Loan Program, the budget raises
fees for small business loans above $150,000. There is no fee
increase for loans made under $150,000 benchmark, and we will
continue a rebate to the lender.
We hope this will encourage small loans to those who are in
the start-up phase. This will also serve to provide capital to
those most in need and will support a zero subsidy rate.
The new administrator faces many challenges once confirmed.
Two principal, large-scale challenges include antiquated
programs and delivery systems that are out of touch with
today's dynamic small business environment and resource and
personnel questions. SBA needs to transform itself into an
entity that is governed by efficiency, flexibility, and the
empowerment of small business through knowledge.
More specifically, within the SBA loan program, the number
of loans has decreased by 21 percent between the period of 1995
and 2000, while the dollar volume has increased 26 percent.
While the dollar volume has increased, the Small Business Loan
Program suffers from lack of reach. Larger loans have gone to
fewer companies. This is where the program faces its biggest
challenge. Cultivating businesses in their initial stage of
growth is crucial to advancing America's small business
community. This is where SBA should focus its attention. This
is true gap lending.
The fastest-growing groups in America's small business
community are Hispanic and women-owned businesses. These
groups, along with African Americans, Native Americans, and
veterans, are also the most underrepresented in SBA's Small
Business Loan Program. While the volume to Asian Americans went
up significantly, loan volume to women, veterans, and other
minorities has been flat or trending down.
Another major challenge facing us is the need to focus on
the current organizational and functional structure of SBA.
This challenge has been exacerbated in recent months by the
hiring in the November-January time period without regard to
the agency's top priorities--the small business investment
company, loan monitoring, and lender oversight
responsibilities.
I would also like to address the SBA Loan Monitoring
Project which was authorized in December of 1997. I have
concluded that the congressionally-mandated loan monitoring
system has become commingled with an internally-sought Systems
Modernization Initiative where cost and time lines for
implementation have risen significantly. I have since directed
that the program be refocused on activities for which Congress
authorized and appropriated.

prepared statement

With this in mind, we have signed a contract with KPMG to
provide us with expertise in assessing available options. Other
efforts of the modernization effort will wait until the loan
monitoring system is fully operational.
Thank you. I will be pleased to answer any questions.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of John Whitmore
Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Hollings, and members of the
committee, thank you for inviting me here today. I am pleased to
present the U.S. Small Business Administration's (SBA) budget request
for fiscal year 2002. This request of $539 million signals a renewed
focus on SBA's core programs and a commitment to do them well. It will
provide record levels of credit, capital, procurement, and
entrepreneurial development assistance to America's 25 million small
businesses at one of the lowest costs to the taxpayers ever. This is a
fiscally sound budget request that will provide more than $17.5 billion
in loans and guarantees, and counseling and training assistance to over
1 million firms and entrepreneurs, to help them start, sustain and grow
their businesses.
As I said, this budget request will allow us to focus on our core
programs and delivering them to those who need them most. The
proliferation of new programs at the SBA has come at a cost of diluted
focus and lack of attention to our bread and butter programs. We are
concerned with the recent performance of key programs, such as our 7(a)
loan, 8(a) business development assistance, and HUBZone programs. We
are concerned that neither our programs nor our delivery structure are
ready to serve small business needs in 2002 and beyond. We will present
the Administrator, upon his confirmation, with an array of decision
options to address these and other concerns.
financial assistance programs
President Bush's budget will provide SBA's Financial Assistance
Programs with a record level of financial support to our nation's small
businesses--$17.5 billion. SBA's 7(a) Loan Guaranty Program, SBA's
primary loan program, will support $10.7 billion in lending while
saving the taxpayers $114.5 million. The savings will be accomplished
by increasing the tax-deductible fees to those who benefit from the
larger loans in the 7(a) program and to those Small Business Investment
Companies using participating securities. However, loans of $150,000
and less will have no change in their fees. In fiscal year 2000, of the
43,748 total number of 7(a) loans, approximately 60 percent were under
$150,000. For specific groups of borrowers, loans under $150,000 made
up: 69 percent of the 2,000 loans to African Americans, 58 percent of
the 5,359 loans to Asians, 65 percent of the 3,221 loans to Hispanics,
81 percent of the 525 loans to Native Americans, 69 percent of the
4,809 loans to veterans, and 74 percent of the 9,206 loans to women.
From fiscal year 1995 through fiscal year 2000, the number of SBA
7(a) loans dropped from 55,591 to 43,748, while the dollar volume of
loans increased from $8.26 billion to $10.5 billion. The number of
loans to Asian-Americans went up dramatically, but for Native
Americans, other minorities, women and veterans, loan numbers have
remained level or gone down slightly--even though businesses owned by
Hispanics and women were the fasting growing segments of the business
community.
In an effort to encourage more of these smaller loans, the
President's proposal makes no change in fees for loans under $150,000.
The proposal aims to encourage the smaller loans that many banks are
reluctant to make, which are the ones that help the neediest of small
businesses.
Finally, eliminating the need for appropriations will ensure that
the 7(a) Program will not run out of money if there is a significant
increase in demand, an approach that has worked well for other SBA
programs.
The 504 Certified Development Company Program provides financing
for major fixed assets. The program will provide $3.75 billion in
lending in fiscal year 2002, the same as fiscal year 2001, with a
slight decrease in the fee paid by the users of the program. This
program has not had a subsidy from taxpayers since fiscal year 1996.
The 7(a) proposal is based on the 504 model.
Through the Microloan Direct Program, SBA provides small loans up
to $35,000 to small businesses through a network of locally based not
for profit intermediary lenders. The fiscal year 2002 budget will
provide $20 million for new loans to intermediary lenders. The average
loan to microborrowers in this program is $10,500 and over the last
five years the average number of microloans made each year has been
around 1,500. Small businesses in economically distressed urban and
rural areas have benefited from this program. The Microloan technical
assistance aspect of the program will also receive $20 million in
fiscal year 2002. These funds will be used to support technical
assistance to microborrowers, increasing their chance of success and
enhancing their ability to repay their loans. Training and other
technical assistance will also be funded to help additional
microbusinesses obtain financing from sources outside SBA.
The program level for the Small Business Investment Company (SBIC)
Program, a venture capital investment program, will increase to $3.1
billion in fiscal year 2002, an increase of $600 million over fiscal
year 2001. With a small increase in fees for participating securities,
the SBIC Program, including the debentures program, will be fully self-
supporting. I note that the National Association of Small Business
Investment Companies accepts this approach because it allows for a
larger program volume.
The Surety Bond Guarantee Program guarantees bid, performance, and
payment bonds for small business contractors working on construction,
service and supply contracts for public and private sector projects.
The program will be level funded at $1.7 billion and does not require
taxpayer funds.
counseling and technical assistance programs
The budget provides $5 million as SBA's share of the President's
New Freedom Initiatives. The funds will provide technical assistance to
help small businesses comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act
(ADA) and hire more people with disabilities. This funding will also
help SBA increase awareness and promote use of the Disabled Access
Credit, which provides a 50 percent tax credit on up to $5,000 of
eligible expenses annually to help small businesses make their
facilities ADA compliant.
The budget includes funding for the Paul D. Coverdell Drug-Free
Workplace Program that awards grants to organizations helping small
businesses establish drug-free workplace programs. This is part of the
President's initiative to combat drug abuse. To date, SBA has not been
able to meet the demand for assistance from intermediary partners. For
example, in 1999 SBA received 160 grant applications from
intermediaries, but issued only 16 grants. To help meet this need, the
President's budget includes $5 million and proposes to spend $25
million over the next five years.
Business Information Centers (BICs) provide both counseling and
information for start-up and early operating businesses. There are 70
locations nationwide in both distressed and non-distressed areas. The
program will be level funded at $500,000.
One Stop Capital Shops (OSCSs) provide financial and business
assistance to small businesses. Located in 22 socially and economically
disadvantaged areas nationwide, OSCSs will be level funded at $3.1
million.
Small Business Development Centers (SBDCs) provide management and
technical-assistance. This 21-year old program has slowly evolved as a
counseling program for more mature businesses, not start-up businesses,
although SBDCs do counsel some start-ups.
SBDCs will receive $76 million in fiscal year 2002, plus $12
million through the collection of nominal fees-for-counseling, as is
currently done for training. After the initial first free hour, the
estimated cost will be $10.75 per hour. The average use of counseling
is 5.3 hours, which means clients will pay on average $46.23 for
counseling. The fee proposal will allow the program to continue to grow
while reducing the expense to the taxpayers. Currently the average SBDC
counseling case costs Federal and state taxpayers approximately $700.
Charging fees is not precedent setting. SBDCs have always charged
fees for training and other services, such as publications and
conferences. Some SBDCs already impose a variation on a counseling fee
by requiring new start up businesses to take their training course, at
a cost of $35 to $45, before receiving any counseling. During 1998 (the
latest year that figures are available), SBDCs generated over $7
million of program income over and above their Federal and matching
funds.
Beneficiaries of most SBA programs pay fees, directly or
indirectly, including fees for loan programs, investment capital, pre-
qualification counseling. Even some of our small Women's Business
Centers charge fees in excess of $50 per hour for counseling.
In fiscal year 2000, the SBDCs trained 326,000 clients and
counseled 262,000 clients. From fiscal year 1995 to fiscal year 2001,
SBDCs funding increased $14 million while funding for SCORE only
increased $500,000 and funding for 7(j), a technical assistance program
for all low income areas as well as 8(a), was reduced by $4.5 million.
For the Service Corps of Retired Executives (SCORE), we are
proposing to increase to $4 million the amount to help pay the expenses
of the 11,400 SCORE volunteers. These volunteers counseled and trained
over 377,000 clients in fiscal year 2000. SCORE is making more and more
use of electronic means to be able to use its expert counselors
anywhere in the country.
A recent Washington Post article recounted how SCORE counselors
Gene Rosen and Herbert Robinson helped Sarah Hill start an antique
business in Alexandria, Virginia by providing invaluable assistance on
many aspects of their business, from negotiating the lease to pricing
merchandise. The time and advice of these volunteers was free. The
government paid 34 cents a mile for their expenses. Sarah is projecting
annual sales of over $100,000 in each of the next several years.
The SBIR (Small Business Innovation Research) Program awards grants
or contracts to small businesses for their innovative ideas to meet the
specific research and R&D needs of the federal government. SBA's budget
will provide $5 million in fiscal year 2002 to fund two programs to
help small businesses compete for SBIR awards. The FAST (Federal and
State Technology Partnership) will receive $3.5 million under this
proposal. The SBIR Technical Assistance Outreach Program will receive
$1.5 million.
A nationwide network of U.S. Export Assistance Centers (USEACs)
combine in single locations the trade-promotion and export-finance
assistance of the SBA with the programs of the Department of Commerce
and the Export-Import Bank. USEACs will be level funded at $3.1
million.
The Veteran's Business Outreach Program will receive $750,000 in
fiscal year 2002. The program ensures that small businesses owned and
controlled by eligible veterans have access to entrepreneurial
training, business development assistance, counseling and management
assistance. The program was not funded in fiscal year 2001. The
Veterans Business Development Corporation, which was funded at
$4,000,000 in fiscal year 2001, will no longer be funded through SBA's
budget, but will have its own separate appropriation.
Women's Business Centers (WBC) provide women entrepreneurs with
business training and counseling, technical assistance, mentoring, and
access to SBA's programs and services. The centers also have programs
to assist economically and socially disadvantaged women, especially
those on welfare. Each center tailors its services to the needs of the
local community. SBA awarded 15 new grants, funded 62 centers with
regular grants, and provided sustainability grants to seven centers
with its fiscal year 2001 appropriation of $12 million. In fiscal year
2002, the budget request is for $12 million.
The Women's Council supports programs and research on behalf of
women's business enterprise. In the President's Budget, the Council
will receive $750,000 in fiscal year 2002.
In fiscal year 2000, women business owners received only 2.8
percent of Federal procurement dollars. The Office of Federal Contract
Assistance for Women Business Owners (CAWBO) was established within
SBA's Office of Government Contracting to increase the number and size
of federal contracts to women business owners. Additionally, the Office
of Government Contracting is charged with providing studies on how
contract bundling affects all small businesses. We request $500,000 to
implement a recently-enacted procurement initiative, including
conducting a legislatively mandated study on women's procurement,
creating a contract bundling database, and conducting analysis of
procurement trends and practices.
The 8(a) Business Development (BD) Program assists the development
of small companies owned and operated by socially and economically
disadvantaged individuals. Eligible companies may be awarded set-aside
federal contracts and other business development assistance. The number
of contracts in this program has gone down. The new Administration is
looking at ways to more efficiently and effectively run this program.
In the interim, funding for fiscal year 2002 is requested at the same
level as fiscal year 2001.
The HUBZone (Historically Underutilized Business Zone) Program
encourages economic development in distressed areas through the
establishment of Federal contract award preferences for qualified small
businesses located in such areas. This program has gotten off to a very
slow start. Under the President's budget, the program will receive $2
million in fiscal year 2002, the same as fiscal year 2001 again with an
emphasis by the new Administration on more efficient and effective ways
to fulfill the intent of the program.
PRO-Net (Procurement Marketing & Access Network) is a government-
wide online database used as a link to procurement opportunities and as
a marketing tool for small companies. We request level funding at
$500,000.
The 7(j) Technical Assistance Program provides management and
technical assistance to small and emerging businesses owned and
controlled by socially and economically disadvantaged individuals and
also individuals in areas of low income and high unemployment. Under
the President's budget, the program will receive $3.6 million in fiscal
year 2002.
disaster assistance loan program
The Bush Administration is fully committed to meeting the needs of
disaster victims and has proposed a base loan volume of $300 million
for SBA's Disaster Assistance Loan Program. Additional needs for the
Disaster Program will be funded through the proposed National Emergency
Reserve.
However, there will be no interest rate change for disaster home
loans. Under the President's proposal, businesses without access to
credit elsewhere will receive disaster assistance loans at the U.S.
Treasury Rate, with a ceiling of 8 percent. Based on current rates, the
business loan interest rate would be increased from the current 4
percent ceiling to 5.4 percent. On an average loan of $56,300 over 15
years, the monthly payments would rise from $429 to $473. Over the life
of the loan, the business would incur an additional cost of $7,344.
Also, SBA will have the flexibility of keeping the payment at $429 by
extending the maturity of the loan.
sba operating costs
Although the budget request proposes a small increase in SBA's
operating costs, we are looking at streamlining SBA's operations and
doing away with redundant programs. SBA will contract out, as
appropriate and consistent with the Federal Activities Inventory Reform
(FAIR) Act, and will continue its asset sales program.
A major challenge facing SBA is improving its level of customer
service to meet the growing and changing needs of small business. Over
the last 10 years, SBA has dramatically changed the way it delivers
services to small business, using private-sector partners to make and
service its loans and to provide training and counseling. Yet the
structure has not changed. For example, by taking advantage of
electronic commerce, the oversight function carried out today by SBA's
Procurement Center Representatives could be streamlined and
centralized.
SBA has been downsized over the last eight years, but its structure
has not. SBA still needs to reduce its staff while maintaining critical
positions.
SBA met with GAO on April 27, 2001 to discuss the findings in its
study of SBA's structure. We will take an aggressive look at additional
privatization and streamline what we do to reduce duplication and
increase efficiencies. We will develop succession plans and
reprioritize the use of resources. We will be preparing options for the
confirmed Administrator to ensure that both SBA's programs and
structure can serve America's small businesses efficiently and
effectively.
loan monitoring system
SBA's loan monitoring system (LMS), a four-year project authorized
in December of 1997 with $8 million appropriated each year since fiscal
year 1998, is undergoing a substantitive review. In early February
2001, after I became Acting Administrator, I began looking into the
status of the project. I have reported my findings to both your
Committee and the Appropriators. In brief, I have concluded that the
LMS had become commingled with an internally-sought Systems
Modernization Initiative (SMI).
I have since ordered that the program be refocused on the
activities for which the Congress authorized and appropriated the
funds--an information technology-based system for risk management,
lender oversight, and loan monitoring. SBA intends to contract on a
pilot basis with several established financial institutions that
already have operational risk management/loan monitoring systems.
Rather than develop a proprietary system--with all its attendant costs
and risks--we intend to determine if such a system already exists.
To this end, we have put Janet Tasker in charge of overseeing all
of our lender and portfolio oversight. She is a Certified Public
Accountant (CPA) and served as the Director of the Office of Government
Sponsored Enterprises Oversight, responsible for providing oversight to
FANNIE MAE and FREDDIE MAC. She is taking the lead for the LMS project
and has developed the requirements for our LMS system. These concepts
have been presented to your staff and the GAO. We are in negotiations
with highly experienced project management organizations to provide us
with the expertise to manage and assess the various options that are
available, and to assist us in presenting those options to our new
Administrator upon confirmation. In fiscal year 2002, we have requested
an appropriation of $8 million to bring the original program's scope to
completion.
At this point, I emphasize that the agency must have a new
financial system in place by the end of this fiscal year--September 30,
2001--when the current Federal Financial System run by Treasury is
scheduled to be phased out. SBA is proceeding with an Oracle-based
integrated standard general ledger that will integrate program and
accounting data, resulting in more timely and accurate financial
reports and program analysis. This is one of the elements of SMI I felt
we must pursue. Other elements will wait for decisions by the
Administrator after his confirmation.
programs that will not be funded in fiscal year 2002
The Administration supports the objectives of the New Markets
Venture Capital (NMVC) Program but believes those objectives can be
achieved more efficiently and at a lower cost through other existing
means. Several vehicles and incentives to direct investment into
economically distressed communities already exist. Communities targeted
by NMVC have access to a wide range of private for-profit and economic
development programs, including the federally supported community
development financial institutions administered through the Department
of Treasury. In addition, SBA's SBIC program, which has 412 licensed
venture capital companies with total capital resources amounting to
$17.7 billion, is implementing incentives to encourage investment in
economically distressed areas.
The NMVC Program is also expensive relative to the impact it is
expected to have. The total cost of the program in fiscal year 2001 is
$52 million, not including the administrative cost of running the
program. Since the program is expected to generate $150 to $200 million
of investment activity, it will yield only $3 to $4 of investment for
every taxpayer dollar spent. In comparison, under the Small Business
Investment Company (SBIC) Program, there is no cost associated with the
debenture portion of the program. The participating securities portion
of the SBIC program required a $26.2 million credit subsidy in fiscal
year 2001. Since this subsidy generates $3 billion of investment
activity, each taxpayer dollar spent provides $114 of investment
activity in the participating securities program.
The NMVC legislation also included a $15 billion tax credit for new
investment in the same communities targeted by the NMVC Program. The
Administration believes that targeted tax policy and other private
sector incentives are the right formula to spur economic development
with less emphasis on government outlays. The NMVC Program has been
funded in fiscal year 2001. However, until the program can show some
results in the way of established return on equity, any additional
funding would be premature.
The Program for Investment in Microentrepreneurs (PRIME) Program,
like the NMVC Program, is duplicative of existing SBA programs and
other programs within the Federal government and the private sector,
i.e., community development organizations and local financial
institutions (see attached chart). SBA has a wide array of funded grant
programs that provide technical assistance to small businesses. SBA's
Microloan Program, for example, provides grants enabling intermediaries
to provide marketing, management, and technical assistance to
individual microborrowers. Additionally, the Microloan Program provides
funding to non-lending technical assistance providers to help low-
income individuals start or improve their own business. Microloan
intermediaries and non-lending technical assistance providers are the
same groups targeted by PRIME grants. There are also other private-
sector entities, such as trade organizations, whose members are engaged
in the microenterprise industry and provide similar services. Other SBA
programs available for these customers include SCORE, SBDCs, OSCS and
WBCs.
The Business Learning, Innovation, Networking and Collaboration
(BusinessLINC) program was designed to create and foster mentor-protoge
relationships that would promote the growth of small businesses by
matching them with larger concerns. The program is similar to other SBA
technical assistance programs already in place. One of SBA's most
successful technical assistance programs, SCORE, manages a nationwide
network of 11,400 volunteers who provide free expert advice based on
their many years of experience on virtually every aspect of business.
SCORE's free counseling service provides a mentor framework to assist
small businesses similar to that envisioned for BusinessLINC. The SBDC
consulting service is another means of providing technical assistance
and services to more mature companies seeking to expand their
relationships or customer base to include larger concerns. SBA also
provides the 8(a) mentoring program and a women's mentoring program.
Other agencies such as the Department of Defense and NASA support
mentor-protege programs.
BusinessLINC is duplicative of SBA's 7(j) management and technical
assistance program, which authorizes contract grants and cooperative
agreements to organizations that provide direct assistance to small and
emerging businesses owned by socially and economically disadvantaged
individuals. SBA is authorized to target 7(j) services to businesses
and individuals located in areas of high unemployment and low income.
Many of these providers were successful in fostering business-to-
business relationships between larger and smaller firms. Service
providers report direct assistance to nearly 3,000 eligible businesses.
Many BusinessLINC activities can be accomplished using the existing
7(j) authorization.
BusinessLINC was designed to provide small businesses with an
online information source and database of companies interested in
mentor-protege programs. These goals may be achieved through existing
BICs, WBCs, TBICs, OSCSs and PRO-Net. Private sector alternatives that
would provide incentives for larger businesses to enter into mentoring
programs should also be examined.
As I mentioned at the beginning of my testimony, SBA's fiscal year
2002 request is a good budget for small businesses. Thank you for the
opportunity to appear here today. I will be happy to answer your
questions.

Senator Hollings. Thank you, Mr. Whitmore.
Senator Inouye.
Senator Inouye. Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to come by to
thank SBA for all the help they have provided. One of the
lesser-known facts about Hawaii is that 98 percent of our
businesses are small businesses. In fact, on a per capita
basis, if it were not for SBA, we would still be in a slump.
It is no secret that about 7 or 8 years ago, there was a
major downturn in the economy in Asia, and as a result, it
affected tourism in Hawaii. But with your help, we put new
businesses into operation, and we are back in business. Our
unemployment rate, incidentally, is less than the national rate
thanks to these people here.
So I have no questions. I just want to thank you.
Senator Hollings. Very good.
Mr. Whitmore, the SBA has been doing an excellent job. We
depend on it substantially in the State of South Carolina.
You mentioned the 1997 Act, and in that 1997 Act, we
prohibited the Small Business Development Centers from charging
fees. In your testimony, you talk about empowering small
business, but then you burden them by charging them fees,
otherwise in violation of the 1997 statute. Where do you get
the authority to impose a fee?
Mr. Whitmore. We are proposing a new legislative proposal
to accompany the budget that would allow the charging of fees.
Currently, the SBDCs do charge training fees, and they also
charge some processing fees in the beginning. Our other
technical assistance programs, like the Women's Business
Centers, also charge fees. With the new Administration, we
looked at all of our programs to find a way of controlling the
rising cost of delivering technical services.
We are proposing charging a fee of $10.75 an hour. We know
that the average counseling hours in a given year for a small
business is approximately 5 hours, Senator. We propose no fee
charge for the first hour, so it would be about $44 over the
course of the year. We think that that is a rather modest fee
to pay for the advice given by the SBDCs, and it helps share
the burden of the cost with those who benefit from the service.
Senator Hollings. SBA, of course, is a Government program
for small businesses that do not have the wherewithal. They
cannot hire counsel, lawyers, consultants, computer experts and
otherwise. That is why the Federal Government furnishes this
service and assistance to small business--and it works. I am
beginning to be of the Bush school--give a tax cut wherever we
can, particularly for small business. Do not start taxing
them--you call it a ``fee'' but all of a sudden, they are going
to pay a tax. Let us go right to the 7(a) program, not just the
$12 million that you have got to make up for SBDC's, but under
7(a), you have got to make up $114.5 million in fees annually
in the 7(a) guaranteed loan program. Is that right?
Mr. Whitmore. Yes, sir. In the 7(a) loan program, we do not
intend to charge fees where the loans are most needed, and that
is loans under $150,000. We think that that is the area where
small businesses really struggle to obtain loans.
On loans of $1 million, the cost to the business would be
about $42 a month more. We think that borrowing at that level,
they should be able to pay some of that cost.
Under $150,000, we have no proposal to increase fees to
small business. Sixty percent of our loans are less than
$150,000, so the fees would only be on approximately 40 percent
of the loan program.

additional committee questions

Senator Hollings. Well, we will have to see if the
committee wants to go along with that justification.
[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 Judd Gregg
7(a) program
Question. I am concerned that SBA's budget request would drive both
small business borrowers and lenders from the 7(a) program. I do not
believe that it is the intent of the Administration to deny needed
business loans to small business borrowers at the same time the economy
is slowing and credit underwriting standards have tightened
significantly. Has the SBA analyzed the effect of the 7(a) proposal on
borrowers and lenders? Approximately how many entities would no longer
take advantage of the program?
Answer. The Administration believes that the 7(a) program plays a
valuable role in strengthening the nation's economy by making credit
available to small businesses that would be unable to access loans in
the commercial marketplace.
SBA agrees with the Administration in that it is unfair for
taxpayers to subsidize the government costs for such loans. With this
in mind, the Administration's budget provides for modest fee increases
only on loans over $150,000. In effect, those who benefit most from the
program should share in the cost.
Last year, more than 60 percent of the loans that SBA guaranteed
were at or below $150,000. Since we are proposing no change in the fees
paid on those size loans, none of the borrowers with smaller credit
needs would be impacted by the proposed fee changes. This allows for
those businesses who are in the most crucial stage of business
development to secure valuable funding.
While it is difficult to quantify how many borrowers or lenders
might not take advantage of the 7(a) program because of the fee
changes, SBA thinks that both parties will adjust to the changes. SBA
cannot guarantee a loan if the credit is otherwise available. Thus,
most of the borrowers that require SBA's support of their loans would
continue to make appropriate use of the 7(a) program.
Question. This Committee believes that the 7(a) program is already
operating at or near a zero subsidy rate. How were the subsidy cost of
the 7(a) program estimated? Please provide in writing a list of experts
from within SBA, the OMB, the GAO, and outside of the government groups
who could be charged with compiling an accurate accounting of the
subsidy rate.
Answer. SBA's 7(a) subsidy rate model has been refined over a
number of years. Principal model inputs include actual loan performance
over an approximate 15-year period, and technical assumptions on the
structure/operation of the program. These assumptions produce a series
of estimated cash flows over the life of the loans for a given year.
These cash flows are then discounted using the Treasury discount rate
provided by OMB to generate an estimated subsidy cost of the program.
The principal assumptions used by the model, and added by SBA each
year, are the distribution of the dollar value of loans to be made by
size, the fee structure, the Treasury discount rate (provided by OMB),
and the level of prepayments (provided by Bloomberg). The remaining
significant modeling factors are derived from the loan portfolio's
actual performance over the approximate 15-year period, including
defaults, recoveries, expenses, and fee income.
SBA's Office of Financial Analysis calculates these subsidy rates
and is staffed with finance, economic, and modeling experts to provide
the appropriate level of skills and knowledge to this complex process.
We supplemented this expertise with private-sector experts from
PriceWaterhouseCoopers (PwC), Ernst & Young (E&Y), and use a private
firm (Bradson Corp.) to independently validate our annual results.
Additionally, GAO has worked closely with us over the last several
years to extensively review these models. In their 1997 report, they
cited SBA as one of only two agencies in government able to do
reasonable cost estimates of its programs.
The models are also annually audited by our Inspector General and
its private-sector auditor, Cotton & Co. Finally, experts in Federal
Credit Reform at the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) thoroughly
review and approve the SBA models and results, and provide final
decision authority over methodologies and results. As part of the
annual budget process, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) also
reviews these models.
As indicated above, SBA's subsidy rate modeling process undergoes
an extensive and comprehensive review. While there are certainly
different modeling methods that could be used that would produce
different results, the current process is sound and attested by a large
number of experts in Federal Credit Reform and financial/econometric
modeling.
disaster loan program
Question. Your budget provides for a $300 million disaster loan
program. In fiscal year 2001, Congress provided for a $900 million loan
level. My understanding is that your budget request proposes to cover
the cost of loan guarantees above the $300 million level through a $5.6
billion government-wide emergency reserve. Have you made plans to cover
the cost of disaster loans without the use of this reserve? If so,
please provide them in writing. Assuming an emergency reserve were
available, what is the mechanism that would trigger loan authority as
needed? Assuming that the SBA would be in competition with other
agencies, how would SBA be guaranteed to qualify for use of this
reserve?
Answer. In the President's budget request, enough funds were
included in a National Emergency Reserve to cover a five year average
for programs that make up a large part of the Federal Government's
response to man-made and natural disasters. However, in the Budget
Resolution that Congress passed, a National Emergency Reserve was not
included nor was the $5.6 billion to cover the five year average.
Therefore, in fiscal year 2002, additional funding may be needed in one
form or another.
small business development centers
Question. In 1997, in response to an SBA request for fiscal year
1998 which directed that the SBDCs begin charging fees, the Congress
passed the Small Business Reauthorization Act of 1997. The Act
prohibits the SBDCs from imposing or collecting fees in connection with
small business counseling services provided by the program. What
circumstances have changed whereby, in your opinion, the Congress and
the small business community would support repealing this provision?
Answer. The SBA is aware of the current legal prohibition against
charging fees in the Small Business Development Center program. Since
1997, when the prohibition was enacted, the Federal share of the SBDC
program has gone from $73,500,000 to $84,281,000. The number of clients
counseled and trained in those years is shown below:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Year Counseled Trained
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1997.......................................... 245,766 377,651
1998.......................................... 237,655 309,382
1999.......................................... 263,927 331,464
2000.......................................... 258,306 324,292
------------------------------------------------------------------------

In each year, SBDCs trained many more clients than they counseled
and, in most cases, charged fees for that training.
Total income for the SBDC program in the preceding three years is
shown below:

Year Program Income
1998.................................................... $7,000,388
1999.................................................... 7,884,864
2000 estimate........................................... 8,300,000

Training events generated the majority of this income. Many of the
fees for a single training event are equal to the potential total cost
for the average counseling client. Therefore SBA's fiscal year 2002
proposal simply builds upon the SBDCs' success in already generating
program income through training.
program for investment in microenterprises (prime)
Question. When will applicants be able to submit proposals for the
first round of PRIME grants? When will the PRIME grants be awarded?
Answer. The final regulations were published in the May 29, 2001
Federal Register, along with a ``Notice of Funds Available'' inviting
eligible entities to submit funding proposals to the Agency. The PRIME
regulations will become final on June 28, 2001 which is also the
closing date for acceptance of the funding proposals.
PRIME grant awards will be made late in the forth quarter of fiscal
year 2001.
systems modernization initiative
Question. Please provide a report in writing on exactly how funds
for the Systems Modernization Initiative have been spent. In this
report, please include any funds that were appropriated for the Systems
Modernization Initiative that were spent for other activities. It is my
understanding that SBA will review its plans for the Systems
Modernization Initiative and report a revised schedule to the Congress.
When will this report become available? Who will write this report?
Have you considered contracting with an outside expert to head this
project?
Answer. As stated in the oral and written testimony, the creation
of a Loan Monitoring System (LMS) expanded to include an internally
sought modernization initiative. John Whitmore, Acting Administrator,
asked both this subcommittee as well as the House not to act on the $8
million spending plan for fiscal year 2001 submitted by the previous
Administration until he had time to determine where we were and where
we should be going. We have retained KPMG to assist in assessing
available options. The following is an accounting of the $23,934
(includes rescission) 4 million, appropriated in fiscal year 1998-2000:

LMS:
Planning..................................................$2,941,000
Systems Acquisition....................................... 1,371,000
Infrastructure............................................ 175,000
Other costs (travel, etc)................................. 508,000
Personnel................................................. 2,849,000
--------------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________

Subtotal................................................ 7,844,000
==============================================================
____________________________________________________
Financial Accounting and Management System:
Project Planning.......................................... 717,000
Training.................................................. 48,000
Systems Acquisition....................................... 1,579,000
Systems Integration....................................... 3,673,000
Other Costs (travel, etc)................................. 39,000
Personnel................................................. 1,187,000
--------------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________

Subtotal................................................ 7,243,000
==============================================================
____________________________________________________
Other:
Project Planning.......................................... 238,000
Subsidy Rate Analysis..................................... 678,000
SBLC Reviews.............................................. 740,000
Infrastructure............................................ 421,000
Personnel................................................. 19,000
Disaster project planning................................. 150,000
Other SBA programs: Project planning.......................... 100,000
--------------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________

Subtotal................................................ 2,464,000
==============================================================
____________________________________________________
FEDSIM (includes $2,300,000 transferred from operating funds
in fiscal year 2000)...................................... 8,683,000

SBA is presently taking steps to determine the exact cost of
implementing an effective and reliable loan monitoring system. With the
information to date, the Agency believes the total of implementation of
both the LMS and Financial Accounting and Management system will be $40
million or less.
The Acting Administrator plans to send a spending letter once
precise cost estimates are determined, which we hope will happen within
the next month.

subcommittee recess

Senator Hollings. I have momentarily a requirement to be on
the floor, so let me say that the record will remain open
subject to the direction of our distinguished chairman, and
unless you have anything further, we will stand in recess
subject to the call of the chairman.
Thank you very much, both of you.
[Whereupon, at 11:13 a.m., Tuesday, May 15, 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 2002

----------

THURSDAY, MAY 17, 2001

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Federal Bureau of Investigation

STATEMENT OF LOUIS J. FREEH, DIRECTOR

opening remarks of senator gregg

Senator Gregg. We will begin the hearing.
I understand Senator Hollings is in another hearing and
will be joining us, as will a number of members of the
Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, State of the Appropriations
Committee.
Let me briefly say a couple of things, because this will be
the last hearing that we have the Director with us, as he is
moving on.
I want to congratulate him for being an extraordinary
leader of the FBI. This committee has had an intimate and
intricate relationship with the FBI. We have had some
disagreements, but we have had many more agreements.
During the period of the Director's service, the FBI has
expanded its role and resources dramatically. It has had to
take on all sorts of new issues involving the question of
protecting America and Americans, especially the issue of
counterterrorism; the issue of cybercrime; the issue of crimes
against our children, especially over the Internet; the issue
of a nation which is more complex every day, and bigger, and
the crime issues associated with that.
We have dramatically expanded the number of agents,
dramatically expanded the resources, and under your leadership,
significantly improved innumerable functions within the FBI.
When issues have arisen, of which there have been a few, such
as the labs, they have been addressed aggressively, in my
opinion, and effectively.
And as a result, I think your tenure at the FBI will be
marked down as one of the finer periods of leadership of that
agency. And I certainly admire your leadership.
That is not to say that we do not have issues, and we
obviously have issues pending that are fairly significant, very
significant, especially relating to the document-handling
activities in the McVeigh case and the potential that that
might reflect for systematic problems within the agency.
And I know that the Bureau, under your leadership, is
setting up processes for addressing those. This committee may
take a look at additional ways to address that. I know we are
going to--I personally, want to take a look at--I know you are
going to have the Inspector General looking at the issue, I
know you are personally looking at the issue, and I know you
have brought in a specialist to look at the issue.
But we may want to take a look at setting up an independent
group to come in, such as Arthur D. Little or some management
team, because, after 10 years and a dramatic amount of money
and personnel expansion, it might be appropriate to get an
evaluation by an independent group.
But that is not to be looked on, from my point, as a
negative, rather as simply a reasonable management decision
that should be considered.
The Bureau is our premier effort in this country to protect
our citizens and to make sure that people who commit crimes
which affect our citizenry are brought to justice. And you do
an exceptional job. Mistakes happen, some of them are terrible.
And certainly, in the McVeigh situation, this is a man who
under no circumstances should escape the justice of our system,
and who committed a crime so heinous that it is hardly even
believable.
And the people that he harmed continue to be harmed by it.
And we want to make sure that no activities occur which will
negatively impact his conviction and would in any way relieve
him of the responsibility of the crime he committed.
But I think I understand, and I think most of us
understand, that this was not an international oversight. It
was an oversight of error and management that has to be looked
at and which is being looked at and will be corrected.
And, obviously, there are other areas in which you are
proceeding, dealing with agents who have not acted
appropriately.
So I just wanted to make the point that, having worked with
you for these last 7 years it has been a pleasure. I admire
what you have done. I think you have taken a very strong agency
and made it a lot stronger.
And it needs, obviously, to address some very significant
issues. But on balance, America is lucky to have the FBI. And I
feel fortunate to have worked with you over the years, Mr.
Director.
And so, with that, I give you the floor.

director freeh's opening statement

Mr. Freeh. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning, and thank
you for your very kind words.
And let me reiterate my great honor and great pleasure in
this period of my government service, the last 8 years, in
working with the Senate, of course, but particularly the
committees with which we have had such daily and intensive
interaction, and particularly this committee.
I would like to thank you for your leadership in broad
areas of responsibility that have been strengthened with the
support, as well as the interest, and the hearings and the
examination and the questioning, tough questioning, as
appropriate to our mission, how it has been shaped by changes
in the global world and the technology. And I think that we are
better for that.

counterterrorism, technology, and crimes against children

I am particularly proud of your leadership in the
counterterrorism area, the technology area, and the crimes
against children area. And I just wanted to mention those very,
very briefly.
The Innocent Images Project, which was initiated by
interest in this committee several years ago, has now developed
into a full-blown operation that saves children's lives and
protects people in a very extraordinary way. We have now over
1,000 convictions in the Innocent Images operations, which, as
you know, are in 22 offices and occupy dozens of our FBI
special agents and personnel.
These are crimes and threats which were not addressed
heretofore by any Federal agency. And there was certainly no
focused and directed resources and attention placed on these
types of crimes until this committee and, quite frankly, your
leadership, took charge of that.
The problem is really not solved, as we know; 2,000
children are reported missing every day in the United States,
not all because of criminal conduct, but many because of that.
The Innocent Images initiative, which now has grown into a
Crimes Against Children Program where we have at each of our
offices two agents who are the coordinators of that program,
interfacing directly, not just on Innocent Images modality, but
all the other aspects of that program, is something that did
not exist a long time ago.
As the Director, and certainly as a father, I want to thank
you for your support for that particular program of which I am
very, very proud.
In the counterterrorism area, I visited Kenya and Tanzania
about 3 weeks ago. The purpose of my visit was to return to
those countries before the end of the prosecution in New York
so I could thank the police officers and the leadership of
those two governments for the assistance that they provided--
remarkable assistance--in the embassy bombings case, which is
now before a jury deliberating in New York City.
The ability to investigate that case, from the initial
deployment of resources to the expenditure of personnel and
other materials to develop the investigation, obtain the
evidence, bring it back to the United States as well as all of
the preparation that had to be done, could not have been done
in my view, 5, 6, 7 years ago. The FBI was not equipped either
organizationally or, maybe more importantly, on a funded level
to do that type of a case as successfully, as it was done
almost on the other side of the world.

threefold increase in counterterrorism

Your support of the rapid deployment teams, all of the
laboratory enhancements, and the ability to give us a threefold
increase in the counterterrorism program, is what enabled FBI
agents to go to East Africa and, in conjunction with their
colleagues in those countries, make a case which I often say
the FBI was not entitled to make, because it was far outside
our jurisdiction and authority. But you gave us the
infrastructure and the support to do that.
I am very thankful for that, and I think the FBI and the
American people are grateful for the ability that we have in
the counterterrorism area.
It goes well beyond that, though, in your support for the
overseas operations of the FBI. Also, I would like to note in
my final appearance before the committee--Senator Hollings,
good morning.
Senator Hollings. Good morning.
Mr. Freeh. When I arrived in Nairobi to, as I said, thank
the two principal leaders of the country and the police for
their assistance, they gave me a newspaper as I landed.
I will just pass it up to the committee with your
permission.
And the headline reads, this was the day I arrived in
Nairobi, ``Three Americans Rescued in Kidnap Ordeal.'' It was
not timed for my arrival, but what it exemplified is the
gratitude I just expressed for the support of our overseas FBI
programs.
What happened in this case is that two American businessmen
from California thought they found on the Internet a supporter
for a financial enterprise that they wanted to engage in, and
they traveled to Nairobi.
But instead of meeting their business partners, the two
Americans were kidnapped. Using e-mail, very sophisticated e-
mail, as well as cellular phones, the kidnappers communicated
with the families of the two Americans to extort them for a
sizable sum of money under threat of death.
The FBI agents who were in Nairobi, and were there because
of the committee's support and were not there a couple of years
ago, actually worked on this kidnapping with the Kenyan police
on the ground. They mounted the operation that led to the
direct rescue of these two Americans.
In fact, the FBI agent was on the phone negotiating with
the hostage takers and was the individual directly responsible
for their release.
When the two Americans were released, they mentioned that a
third American was being held. There was a third kidnap victim
who had been held for 4 months by the same group, but his
disappearance had not been reported. Nobody knew that he was
being held. The agents were told after they secured his release
that he thinks other people, Americans, may have been held
during that period and perhaps even killed.
The ability to work a kidnapping case in Nairobi and the
necessity to exploit and intercept e-mail communications and
deploy people back and forth, again, is something that was not
present in the FBI a short time ago, but is there now because
of the commitment that has been made, not just to the
counterterrorism program, but to our ability to operate
overseas.

national infrastructure protection center

Finally, in the technical area, whether it is the National
Infrastructure Protection Center, which supports Innocent
Images, or the funding that this committee has provided does
not make us the perfect model for information technology. We
know that is not the case and we have a lot to build in that
area.
But we have been furnished with the raw materials, with
what the leadership in this committee has provided. The
mission, and now I believe the expertise on board at the FBI is
enough to not just make the Trilogy project a successful IT
model, but to help us through the difficulties that the
information age necessarily portends for an agency that is
involved in collecting information every day.
So in those three areas--and I could highlight others--I
want to particularly thank you, Mr. Chairman, Senator Hollings,
and the other members of this committee.
You have had hearings well beyond the normal scope of the
appropriations process into the counterterrorism area. You
organized a very extraordinary hearing last week by several
Senate committees, who, as I understood it, have never gotten
together before on the central issue of counterterrorism. And
for that, I want to compliment you and tell you how grateful we
are.

Mc Veigh matter and records management

With respect to the McVeigh matter, I have a statement,
which the committee has received and which I read yesterday at
my hearing. I do not want to repeat it again; I am certainly
pleased to answer any questions that you or the members have.
I will highlight, however, that we note in that statement
that we are taking some particular steps which we believe are
necessary, but also will be instrumental in dealing with a
fundamental problem, which is not a technology problem. We
believe it is just a management and execution problem.
And even given the very extraordinary scope of this case,
in terms of the numbers of materials involved, millions and
millions, we did a less than good job with respect to the
accumulation and the discovery of documents called for in an
unprecedented type of discovery agreement, but nevertheless
called for and not produced as they should have been by the
FBI. And I take responsibility for that.
I am also taking some steps to try to address it. As I
mentioned yesterday, we asked for the recruitment of a records
management expert, who would be a senior official concerned
only with this particular problem, the problem of records
management. We have over 6 billion paper records, as well as
many electronic records, and we are going to look at it as a
separate and critically important structure to improve on its
own.
We are also going to take some steps to increase the
training of all of our personnel with respect to the management
of records. We are going to propose a modification of the
Trilogy project, which will give us, we believe, the ability to
account and order documents in an electronic format, which we
have not done. We are going to have a stand-down in the FBI, as
I mentioned yesterday, so we can take full measure of both the
importance and the necessity of correcting this problem.
The creation, filing, and dissemination of our own
investigative records is as important to ensuring the rights of
those that we protect, as well as those who we investigate, and
that is as important as every other constitutional requirement
that we have.
So I will endeavor to not only get that initiative going,
but to make sure that it is followed through. And you have our
commitment for that.

2002 budget request

With respect to the 2002 budget, I just wanted to briefly
comment on the matters, which are well-known to the committee
and the staff. The budget calls for four new initiatives with
respect to increased program support. The categories are
counterintelligence, counterterrorism, cybercrime, and
infrastructure. There are a number of subissues with respect to
those main categories.
The budget will take us where we need to be on the
information technology front. Also, the budget will give us the
additional enhancements in the counterintelligence and
counterterrorism programs that are required to meet some of the
new challenges. And with respect to cybercrime, which is really
the cross-cutting technology affecting all of our programs,
some of the requests for enhancement will give us the ability
to manage not only the programs that we currently employ, but
also give us network data interception abilities. It will go a
long way to at least beginning to deal with the encryption
issue.

Communications assistance for law enforcement (CALEA)

One of the pieces of unfinished business which I regret to
leave is the encryption issue. We have not made much progress
over the course of 8 years in addressing that central problem.
The CALEA statute and the $500 million in support of that
program have been very successful with respect to solving the
access issue. However, remaining behind is the plain text issue
of the materials that will now be accessed by the CALEA funding
and the common carriers' cooperation as set forth in the
statute.
My prediction as I leave is probably equal to what it was
several years ago, and that is, if we do not solve the
encryption problem very decisively, in a very short period of
time, many of the avenues of investigative opportunities will
become either difficult or closed to us.
The speed with which the digital systems are being employed
and telecommunications are migrating from the old analogue
environment to the digital environment will preclude law
enforcement officers with court orders in hand from
understanding, if not accessing, materials, evidence, and
information which they will receive in due course.
Unless we can address that problem, the main complicated
areas of our programs, particularly in counterterrorism,
complex international crime, but also everything else, will
suffer as a result.
We take a couple of small steps in the 2002 request to lay
the foundation for the counterencryption strategy. What is
going to be needed in the years to come, is a lot more
measures: the technical support center, the integration of our
efforts with our State and local counterparts in this
particular area.
The voluntary approach I think has worked with the
industry, but the industry is looking for statutory support for
those voluntary efforts of assistance to the FBI and to the
government.
The Cyberspace Electronic Surveillance Act statute, which
came up to the Congress last year, would give the industry some
measure of protection in the areas where we will be asking them
for their assistance.
These are the kinds of measures that I think are going to
need to be addressed. And I am very thankful, Mr. Chairman, for
your leadership on this issue.
This has been a very difficult issue. It is where law
enforcement and privacy intersect. There are very good
arguments and very persuasive arguments on both sides, but I
think a balance has to be struck between those equities.
I do not think law enforcement should have a free rein
here, but I also do not think that valid privacy interests
should preclude the effectiveness of a Federal court order that
allows and authorizes an agent of the United States to
intercept information and evidence. If they cannot understand
the evidence that is being intercepted, the order almost
becomes a nullity in itself.
So one of my continuing recommendations will be to keep the
interest and the movement in this particular area, which, is
very cumbersome. It is easy to get distracted, and it is easy
to get frustrated, either on the privacy side or on the law
enforcement side, which is why I think a voluntary approach
really needs to be struck. I believe this voluntary approach
can be struck. And that would be my hope in the years to come.

prepared statement

I will certainly be pleased to answer any of your questions
at this point.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Louis J. Freeh
Good morning, Chairman Gregg, Senator Hollings and other members of
the Subcommittee. Once again, I am pleased to discuss the fiscal year
2002 budget request for the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI).
The work of the FBI, whether it is catching criminals, drug
traffickers, terrorists, and spies; providing training, investigative
assistance, and forensic and identification services to our law
enforcement partners; or developing new crime-fighting technologies and
techniques, is made possible by the strong support of this
Subcommittee. On behalf of the employees of the FBI, I thank you.
challenges facing the fbi
Before discussing our fiscal year 2002 budget request, I would like
to highlight for the Subcommittee several of the challenges facing the
FBI, and update you on the implementation of the FBI Strategic Plan
that we adopted in 1998 to prepare the FBI for the 21st Century. This
plan and its vision of the FBI is 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 operates. For example, the Southwest Border and
East Caribbean crime strategies are based upon a coordinated attack
against drug trafficking (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 and
international trafficking in prostitution.
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 and
the Internet allow criminals in foreign countries to commit theft and
fraud or to distribute child pornography 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. Since assuming the position of Director in September
1993, the FBI has hired and trained approximately 4,800 new Special
Agents. Agents hired since September 1993 represent about 41 percent of
the agents on board today. While I am immensely proud of our agent
workforce, I am also aware that it is a young workforce in terms of
experience. Similarly, we have hired nearly 7,800 new support employees
since September 1993; nearly 36 percent of our current support
employees entered on duty since September 1993.
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.
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. Criminals,
terrorists, and foreign intelligence agents, mirroring legitimate
businesses and society in general, have embraced information technology
and recognize the potential of new efficiencies and capabilities in
developing and maintaining criminal enterprises and other illegal
activities. Traditional crimes, especially financial and commercial
crimes, are now being committed in a digital world. Paper trails are
now electronic trails. Records which were once written and stored in a
safe are now written to electronic media and encrypted. At the same
time, the same efficiencies and capabilities being exploited by
criminals and others to commit crimes can also be used to improve the
effectiveness of the FBI and law enforcement in fighting those very
same illegal activities. 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.
Ensuring an infrastructure to support the operational, information
technology, administrative, safety, and security requirements of the
FBI also presents challenges. The FBI employs over 27,000 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 44 foreign countries on the
continents of Africa, Asia, Europe, North and South America, and
Australia. Tying these offices together are large, complex radio
communications and telecommunications networks. In addition, we also
operate and maintain a nationwide criminal justice, forensic, and
investigative information systems and services, such as the Integrated
Automated Fingerprint Identification System, the National Crime
Information Center, the National Instant Criminal Background Check
System (NICS), Law Enforcement On-line, the Violent Criminal
Apprehension Program, and the Combined DNA Identification System, that
are relied upon by federal, state and local law enforcement and
criminal justice agencies.
fbi strategic plan update
Three years ago, I issued the FBI Strategic Plan, 1998-2003. This
plan represented the culmination of work performed over a year's time
by a strategic planning task force. 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 are being
corrected by reengineering processes and implementing policy decisions,
while others may 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 identified 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 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, as follows:
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.

KEY TIER 1 PERFORMANCE INDICATORS, 1999-2000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1999 2000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Applications 531 562
Processed........................................
Counterespionage (CE) Arrests and Locates......... 16 11
CE Information and Indictments.................... 18 9
CE Convictions and Pre-trial Diversions........... 17 6
Joint Terrorism Task Forces....................... 23 29
Counterterrorism (CT)-related Arrests and Locates. 305 596
CT-related Information and Indictments............ 139 223
CT-related Convictions and Pre-trial Diversions... 186 241
FBI Field Computer Intrusion (CI) Squads/Teams.... 10 16
National Infrastructure Protection Center (NIPC) 6 3
Crisis Action Teams Activated....................
NIPC Threat and Warning Notices Issued............ 33 36
Key Assets Identified............................. 2,745 5,384
Infragard chapters................................ 8 31
Infragard participants............................ 18 392
CI-related Arrests and Locates.................... 40 62
CI-related Information and Indictments............ 49 66
CI-related Convictions and Pre-trial Diversions... 54 62
Health Care Fraud (HCF) Arrests and Locates....... 376 362
HCF Information and Indictments................... 696 825
HCF Convictions and Pre-trial Diversions.......... 607 653
HCF Recoveries and Restitutions ($000)............ 312,861 581,517
HCF Fines ($000).................................. 51,724 137,456
------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.

KEY TIER 2 PERFORMANCE INDICATORS, 1999-2000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1999 2000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. based drug organizations affiliated with 13
national priority targets that were:
Identified.................................... 64 201
Dismantled.................................... 8 16
Percent of La Cosa Nostra members incarcerated.... 18 22
Eurasian Criminal Enterprises dismantled.......... 3 6
Asian Criminal Enterprises dismantled............. 4 15
Safe Streets Task Forces (SSTFs).................. 165 175
SSTF Arrests and Locates.......................... 17,473 16,147
SSTF Information and Indictments.................. 2,049 1,989
SSTF Convictions and Pre-trial Diversions......... 2,576 2,300
Violent Gang Task Forces.......................... 45 49
Violent Gang Arrests and Locates.................. N/A 5,987
Violent Gang Information and Indictments.......... N/A 2,549
Violent Gang Convictions and Pre-trial Diversions. N/A 2,315
Violent Gangs affiliated with 7 national target 31 37
groups that were dismantled......................
Public Corruption (PC) Arrests and Locates........ 355 422
PC Information and Indictments.................... 597 606
PC Convictions and Pre-trial Diversions........... 552 551
Civil Rights (CR) Arrests and Locates............. 240 145
CR Information and Indictments.................... 204 149
CR Convictions and Pre-trial Diversions........... 257 195
------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.

KEY TIER 3 PERFORMANCE MEASURES, 1999-2000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1999 2000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Crimes Against Children (CAC) Resource Teams...... 35 35
CAC Arrests, Locates, Summons..................... 872 1,004
CAC Information and Indictments................... 621 731
CAC Convictions and Pre-trial Diversions.......... 591 802
Number of Missing Children Located................ 90 92
``Innocent Images'' National Initiative (IINI) 10 14
Undercover Operations............................
IINI Arrests, Locates, Summons.................... 337 482
IINI Information and Indictments.................. 307 421
IINI Convictions and Pre-trial Diversions......... 315 476
Safe Trails Task Forces (STTFs)................... 6 6
Indian Country (IC) Arrests and Locates........... 668 733
IC Information and Indictments.................... 819 755
IC Convictions and Pre-trial Diversions........... 726 735
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Note: In some instances, data shown reflects updated information from
that presented in the Department of Justice Fiscal Year 2000
Performance Report and Fiscal Year 2000 Performance Plan issued in
April 2001.]

Overall, during fiscal year 2000, FBI investigations led or
contributed to the indictment of 19,134 individuals, the conviction of
21,420 individuals, and the arrest of 36,387 persons on federal, state,
local, or international charges. Additionally, FBI investigative
efforts led or contributed to $946,811,505 in fines being levied,
$1,012,851,257 in recoveries of stolen property, and $3,259,384,477 in
court-ordered restitutions.
To achieve the strategic objectives that we have identified, the
FBI has developed five operational support strategies that are designed
to build enhanced investigative capabilities and effectiveness. These
operational support categories are: intelligence, information
technology, applied science and engineering, management, and assistance
to State, local, and international law enforcement partners.

KEY SUPPORT PERFORMANCE INDICATORS, 1999 AND 2000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1999 2000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Students trained, FBI Academy:
New FBI Special Agents.................. 718 312
FBI employees (in-service, advanced).... 11,250 11,767
Other federal, state, local, and 4,881 5,796
international..........................
Other students trained (regional, local):
State, local............................ 117,599 120,233
International........................... 7,105 7,709
Countries represented............... 121 161
Forensic examinations performed:
Federal agencies........................ 727,354 651,751
Non-federal agencies.................... 139,354 120,101
Fingerprint identification services:
Criminal cards processed................ 5,926,920 8,577,911
Civil card processed.................... 6,496,415 6,743,428
Civil submissions with criminal records. 565,929 701,164
Civil submissions using false identity.. 66,213 82,036
National Crime Information Center (NCIC) 764,189,606 850,351,631
transactions...............................
National Instant Check System:
Checks performed by States.............. 3,480,832 4,511,866
Checks performed by FBI................. 3,346,743 4,489,113
Persons with criminal records prevented 62,189 71,890
from purchasing firearms (FBI checks)..
------------------------------------------------------------------------

For the fiscal year 2002 budget, FBI program managers continued to
use the FBI 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 2002 budget request
For fiscal year 2002, the FBI is requesting a total of
$3,507,109,000 and 24,938 permanent positions (10,420 agents) and
24,490 workyears for its Salaries and Expenses ($3,505,859,000) and
Construction ($1,250,000) appropriations. For FBI Salaries and
Expenses, this amount represents a net increase of $277,377,000 from
the current year and consists of $106,569,000 for adjustments to base
and $170,808,000 for program increases. The adjustments to base include
such items as the proposed 3.6 percent pay raise for fiscal year 2002,
higher federal employee health insurance costs, additional General
Services Administration (GSA) rent costs, and annualization of prior
year increases and pay raises provided by Congress. Program increases
proposed for fiscal year 2002 would provide 279 new positions,
including 76 new agents, and $170,808,000 for four budget initiatives:
Counter-intelligence; Counterterrorism; Cybercrime; and Infrastructure.
In addition to direct funded resources, the fiscal year 2002 budget
request assumes a total of 2,826 reimbursable workyears, including
1,041 agents. Under the auspices of the Interagency Crime and Drug
Enforcement (ICDE) program, the FBI would be reimbursed for a total of
912 workyears, including 547 agents, and $115,436,000 for FBI drug and
gang-related task force investigations and operations. Pursuant to the
Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, the FBI
will receive $101,000,000 in fiscal year 2002 to fund 793 workyears,
including 465 agents, for health care fraud enforcement. For user fee
programs of the Criminal Justice Services program, a total of 692
workyears are planned, based on estimated fees. The remaining
reimbursable workyears are used to facilitate a variety of other
activities, including victim/witness assistance, name checks for other
federal agencies, facility and maintenance support to other agencies
sharing FBI facilities, pre-employment background investigations, and
detail assignment to other agencies.
At this point, I would like to describe in more detail the four
budget initiatives proposed for fiscal year 2002.
counterintelligence
Despite the fall of the Iron Curtain and the emergence of democracy
in many of the countries formerly under the rule of communism, the
threat posed to U.S. national, military, and economic security from
foreign countries remains significant. Investigations in this area have
become more complex as foreign intelligence services have expanded
their focus from traditional military-related targets to new areas,
including technology, intellectual property, economic espionage, and
proliferation. The FBI continues to work closely with the intelligence
community to identify and reduce the presence of hostile intelligence
services in the United States.
To keep pace with the changing counterintelligence threat to the
United States, the FBI is proposing a counterintelligence initiative
that would provide an additional $31,277,000 and 182 positions (62
agents) in four areas of this mission-critical responsibility:
--enhancing field investigative activities focused on identifying,
preventing, and defeating intelligence operations conducted by
any foreign power within the United States or against U.S.
interests abroad that pose a threat to U.S. national security;
--improving national-level program management and coordination of
field investigative activities;
--developing and acquiring technology to support FBI
counterintelligence activities; and
--improving security countermeasures to ensure the reliability of FBI
personnel and contractors and security of information and
facilities.
counterterrorism
The United States continues to face a serious, credible threat from
terrorists both abroad and at home. The number of groups and
individuals capable of carrying out a terrorist act has increased over
the past several years. Of continuing concern to the FBI are groups and
individuals for which political or religious beliefs constitute
sufficient motivation for carrying out a devastating terrorist act.
To deal effectively with domestic and international terrorism, the
FBI must concentrate on both prevention and response. The FBI's
counterterrorism strategy is focused upon five inter-related elements
to build and maintain an operational capacity for identifying,
preventing, deterring, and investigating terrorist activities. First,
the FBI must have the capacity to respond to acts of terrorism
committed in the United States and abroad when those acts are directed
against the U.S. government or its interests. Second, the FBI must have
the capacity to receive, react to, and disseminate counterterrorism
information. Third, the FBI must develop its internal capacities to
support proactive counterterrorism programs and initiatives. Fourth,
the FBI must have the capacity to establish and maintain sound and
productive relationships with other domestic and foreign law
enforcement and intelligence counterparts. Fifth, the FBI must have the
capacity to use all of the necessary assets and capabilities of the FBI
and other U.S. government agencies to support and initiate complex
investigations and operations against domestic and international
terrorists and terrorist organizations. For fiscal year 2002, the FBI
is requesting increases totaling $32,059,000 and 42 positions (8
agents) to improve and enhance existing counterterrorism capabilities
and operations.
2002 Winter Olympics Preparation.--The 2002 Winter Olympic Games
have been designated a National Special Security Event. Consistent with
FBI lead-agency responsibilities for intelligence collection and crisis
management as contained in PDD-39 and PDD-62, the FBI is working
closely with the United States Secret Service and other federal, State,
and local law enforcement and consequence management agencies to plan
for security and public safety issues for the 2002 Winter Olympic Games
that will be hosted by Salt Lake City, Utah.
For fiscal year 2002, the FBI requests increases totaling
$12,302,000 for 2002 Winter Olympic Games deployment. The funding
requested will cover travel, per diem, vehicle lease, utilities,
telecommunications, and FBI overtime costs for the planned deployment
of over 800 FBI personnel for the event period. The Salt Lake City
games will be conducted at 20 official Olympic venues spread over a
6,000 square mile area. Olympic competition will take place
simultaneously at 10 venues in 3 major cities and 6 remote mountain
resort areas.
Recurring Security Services.--The FBI is committed to implementing
the security standards contained in the June 1995 Department of Justice
report entitled, ``Vulnerability Assessment of Federal Facilities.''
FBI facilities are often the target of potential terrorist threats.
Safeguarding agency employees and physical security must be a priority.
For fiscal year 2002, the FBI requests an increase of $2,020,000 to
acquire contract guard services for 6 stand-alone field office
facilities where GSA does not provide such service ($1,600,000),
replace an outdated closed-circuit television (CCTV) security system at
FBI Headquarters ($320,000), and replace three guard booths at FBI
Headquarters to facilitate new visitor identification procedures
($100,000).
Incident Response Readiness.--Consistent with the provisions of
PDD-62, the FBI initiated a long-term program in fiscal year 2000 to
develop law enforcement capabilities for the technical resolution of a
weapons of mass destruction incident involving chemical, biological, or
radiological threats or devices. Initial funding for this effort was
provided through an interagency agreement with the Department of
Defense. For fiscal year 2002, the FBI requests 42 positions (8 agents)
and $17,737,000 to support ongoing efforts in the areas of threat
assessment, diagnostics, and advanced render safe equipment.
cybercrime
In recent years, technological advances have fundamentally changed
the way of life in this country. Computers and networks allow millions
of individuals to access, on a daily basis, a broad range of
information services, databases, commerce, and communications
capabilities that were previously unavailable. A combination of reduced
cost for computer technology and increased storage capacity allows the
accumulation, storage, and management of large amounts of information
by individuals on personal computers and peripheral devices. Many FBI
investigations, especially those involving organized crime, drug
trafficking, crimes against children, white-collar crime,
counterintelligence, and counterterrorism, are encountering the use of
computer technology to facilitate illegal activities. As a result, the
FBI must develop the investigative and forensic capacities and
capabilities to deal with the use of computer technology by criminals
and others to commit crimes or undermine national security. For fiscal
year 2002, the FBI is requesting an increase of 33 positions (6 agents)
and $28,144,000 for providing specialized technical assistance to field
investigators and for developing investigative tools for law
enforcement to counter the use of digital technology by criminals,
terrorists, and others.
Technical Support to Field Offices.--Criminals and other subjects
of FBI investigations are employing advanced, complex physical and
electronic security technology to protect their operations from
competing criminal groups and to thwart law enforcement from executing
lawful searches of premises and conducting court-approved interceptions
of communications. The ability of the FBI to overcome such defensive
measures is often critical to the success of high profile
investigations and operations and the collection of evidence. The FBI's
Laboratory Division provides technical support to FBI field offices, as
well as the Drug Enforcement Administration, United States Customs
Service, and other federal, state, and local law enforcement
encountering such problems. To be able to continue providing this
assistance, the FBI is requesting an increase of 10 positions (4
agents) and $1,358,000.
Network Data Interception.--In the Omnibus Safe Streets Act of
1968, as amended, Congress provided the FBI with the basic legal
authority to conduct the interception of oral, wire, or electronic
communications in criminal investigations. The statutory authority to
intercept communications in national security cases was provided by
Congress in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. The use of
court-authorized intercepts is the investigative tool of last resort,
and allowed only after all other logical investigative avenues are
exhausted. Often, the evidence collected through the use of court-
authorized intercepts of communications is critical to the prosecution
of criminal enterprise leadership who are otherwise able to insulate
themselves through the use of intermediaries from direct ties to
criminal acts and illegal activities. The increasing use of the
Internet and world-wide web by criminals, terrorists, and intelligence
agents to commit illegal acts and carry out conspiracies against U.S.
national security has presented the FBI and law enforcement with new
challenges in conducting court-approved interceptions of communications
and obtaining evidence and intelligence.
Increasingly, affidavits for the interception of communications are
including e-mails, file transfers, and Internet Relay Chat messages,
within the scope of court orders. Emerging new digital technologies,
such as Internet telephony, digital subscription lines, cable Internet,
wireless Internet, and satellite communications, are likely to be
exploited by criminals and others in their continuing efforts to thwart
law enforcement detection. Law enforcement requires the development of
capabilities and techniques for conducting court-approved interceptions
of communications in existing and emerging digital environments.
For fiscal year 2002, the FBI requests an increase of 7 positions
(2 agents) and $7,664,000 to develop and procure network digital
interception technologies; to provide on-site assistance to field
offices, pursuant to court-approved orders; and to provide training to
FBI technically trained agents.
Counterencryption.--The widespread use of digitally-based
technologies and the expansion of computer networks incorporating
privacy features and capabilities through the use of cryptography
presents a significant challenge to the continued ability of law
enforcement to use existing electronic surveillance authorities. The
FBI is already encountering strong encryption in criminal and national
security investigations. In 1999, 53 new investigations encountered
encryption. The need for a law enforcement cryptanalytic capability is
well documented in several studies, including the National Research
Council's 1996 report entitled, ``Cryptography's Role in Securing the
Information Society.'' The report recommends high priority be given to
the development of technical capabilities, such as signal analysis and
decryption, to assist law enforcement in coping with technological
challenges.
The Administration supports the enhancement of a centralized law
enforcement capability within the FBI for engineering, processing, and
decrypting lawfully intercepted digital communications and
electronically stored information. For fiscal year 2002, the FBI
requests an increase of $7,000,000 to further develop an initial
operating capability that will allow law enforcement to obtain plain
text and meet the public safety challenges posed by the criminal use of
encryption. With this funding, the FBI intends to work with existing
national laboratories and other government agencies to ensure all
existing resources are used in executing processing functions. This
approach will prevent duplication of effort. Additionally, the FBI
plans to acquire necessary computer hardware, software tools, technical
expertise, and services to develop capacities in four counterencryption
program areas: (1) analytical engineering; (2) signal analysis
research; (3) counterencryption deployment; and (4) industry-assisted
technology transfer. The FBI also requests an increase of 13 positions
and $1,202,000 for the collection and examination of evidence (devices
and communications) which include encrypted materials and other
electronic analysis forensic and technical examinations.
Electronic Surveillance Data Management System.--With funding
appropriated by Congress in fiscal year 2001, the FBI is acquiring and
installing new digital collection systems to update existing analog
equipment currently being used in FBI field offices. For fiscal year
2002, the FBI requests an increase of 3 positions and $10,920,000 for
the Casa de Web project which would serve as a distributed database
that provides agents and analysts with access to minimized (not
unprocessed) recordings of audio, data, and reports generated by
digital collection systems. The Casa de Web system will consist of two
separate databases, one for criminal law enforcement data and one for
foreign counterintelligence data. This separation ensures compliance
with Executive Order 12333 that prohibits the commingling of such
materials. Firewalls and security protocols will prevent data from
being accessed by unauthorized users and prevent external access of the
system. The Casa de Web project is being coordinated with Trilogy, the
FBI's information technology upgrade program.
Casa de Web will allow authorized agents, analysts, and translators
to share and analyze minimized data on an inter and intra office basis.
Analytical tools planned for Casa de Web, such as key word speaker
identification, and speech recognition, will improve information and
intelligence sharing capabilities and permit FBI Agents and analysts to
view, listen, and act on collected minimized electronic surveillance
information on a more timely basis.
infrastructure
To be successful, the FBI must have the capacity for collecting,
storing, managing, analyzing, and disseminating case and intelligence
information on a timely basis to its own investigative personnel, as
well as other federal, State, and local law enforcement and the
intelligence community. Existing systems and capacities must be
upgraded to meet increased investigative demands. New technologies also
present opportunities for making for effective and timely use of case
information and intelligence currently being collected. On a daily
basis, the FBI depends on its core infrastructure to ensure its agents
and support staff can perform their jobs. A strong, solid
infrastructure is necessary for providing everyday tools and services,
such as replacement and safe automobiles for responding to and
conducting investigations and equipment and supplies for conducting
forensic examinations of evidence.
Trilogy.--Trilogy is the FBI's three-year information technology
infrastructure upgrade initiative. Trilogy consists of three key
components: User Applications, a collection of user-specific software
applications and tools to enhance the ability of agents and support
employees to organize, access, and analyze information; Information
Presentation, replacement computer hardware and office automation
software within each office to link employees at their desks with
counterparts throughout the FBI; and Network, upgrades to acquire high-
speed local and wide area networks and telecommunication circuits to
deliver information between users and locations securely and quickly.
Congress provided the approval to proceed with the first year of
the Trilogy implementation plan in fiscal year 2001 and authorized the
expenditure of $100,700,000 in appropriated and unobligated prior year
funds. Since receiving approval to proceed with this project, the FBI
acquired the services of Mitretek Systems to provide management and
technical assistance to the FBI Trilogy Program Office and the services
of GSA's Federal Systems Integration and Management Center (FEDSIM) to
act as the acquisition agent for the project. The FBI also selected the
GSA Millenia contract as the acquisition vehicle for the project. In
January 2001, the FBI, through FEDSIM, issued two task order requests
(TORs) to the Millenia contractors. One TOR addresses the User
Applications component of Trilogy, while the second TOR addresses the
Information Presentation and Network components. In April 2001, after
separately reviewing vendor proposals for both TORs, the FBI selected
vendors. Contractor work is expected to commence by June 2001.
Second year implementation costs of the Trilogy project are
estimated at $142,390,000. To help meet this requirement, the FBI plans
to allocate $38,230,000 of existing base funding and apply $36,500,000
of unobligated prior year funds toward Trilogy in fiscal year 2002. To
complete second year funding requirements, an enhancement of
$67,660,000 is required. Second year activities of the Trilogy project
will focus on implementing multi-case analytical tools, intranet
upgrades, and multi-media electronic case files; continuing office
automation upgrades in field offices; and continuing upgrades to local
and wide-area networks and telecommunications circuits. The third year
of implementation will complete the office automation upgrades in field
offices and at Headquarters, provide for additional wide-area network
circuits, and permit additional improvements to FBI case databases.
Telecommunications Services.--An enhancement of $6,500,000 is
requested to begin the replacement and upgrade of telecommunications
equipment used to provide connectivity between FBI legal attache
offices and the Department of State's (DOS) worldwide network and to
provide telecommunications support for FBI participation in High
Intensity Drug Trafficking Area (HIDTA) multi-agency investigations and
meet special case needs. The DOS Diplomatic Telecommunications Service
(DTS) is upgrading its telecommunications network over the next five
years. This upgrade will require the FBI to replace its legacy
equipment with new equipment compatible with the DTS network.
Motor Vehicle Program.--An increase of $4,007,000 is requested for
the FBI motor vehicle program, including $2,557,000 to replace an
additional 110 vehicles with mileage exceeding 80,000 miles, $450,000
for automotive diagnostic tools, and $1,000,000 to upgrade the Vehicle
Management System to enhance fleet management and maintenance.
FBI Laboratory Activation.--Occupancy of the new FBI Laboratory
facility at Quantico, Virginia, is scheduled to begin in Summer 2002.
Activation of the facility will require an increase of 22 buildings and
facilities management employees and $1,161,000 to properly operate and
maintain the new building.
Additionally, the fiscal year 2002 budget proposes that $40,000,000
from the Department of Justice Working Capital Fund be used to meet
costs associated with the activation of the new facility. These costs
include the following:
--$3,868,750 for the transfer of 125 Laboratory Division employees;
--$15,000,000 for general and specialized equipment;
--$4,695,812 for office furniture and shelving;
--$600,000 for information technology equipment, such as network
routers, hubs, and multiple access units;
--$908,438 for moving services;
--$792,000 for part-year fiscal year 2002 operations and maintenance
costs, such as utilities; maintenance supplies; environmental
testing, trash removal, and other miscellaneous services; and
housekeeping, landscaping, and other building maintenance; and
--$14,135,000 for decommissioning and renovation/alteration of
existing Laboratory Division space in the J. Edgar Hoover
Building being vacated. This amount includes $3,000,000 for
abatement and clean-up activities and disposal of hazardous
materials/waste and $11,135,000 for renovations and alterations
of approximately 131,000 square feet of space.
related departmental funding requests
Mr. Chairman, I would like to highlight several requests for
funding included within other Department of Justice programs that are
considered important to FBI initiatives and programs.
State and Local Bomb Technician Equipment.--Within the funding
proposed for the Office of Justice Programs (OJP), $10,000,000 is
included to continue an FBI Laboratory-managed program of training and
equipping approximately 386 accredited State and local bomb squads
located in communities throughout the United States.
Continuation of funding for this program will ensure State and
local bomb squads are properly trained and equipped to deal traditional
improvised and explosive devices, as well as the initial response to
devices that may be used by terrorists or others to release chemical or
biological agents. Through this program, the FBI has provided State and
local bomb squads with weapons of mass destruction (WMD) protective
search suits, real-time x-ray devices, multi-gas monitoring systems,
portable radiation detectors, and computers to access the Chemical and
Biological Organisms--Law Enforcement database. This initiative
compliments the State and local bomb technician training and
accreditation program that the FBI Laboratory provides at the Hazardous
Devices School, Redstone Arsenal, Alabama.
Grants for DNA Convicted Offender and Crime Scene Backlog
Reduction.--Also, requested under Community Oriented Policing Services
(COPS) program is $35,000,000 for grants to reduce the backlog of DNA
profiles for entry into the FBI's national Combined DNA Information
System (CODIS) database ($15,000,000), and to reduce the backlog of
crime scene evidence awaiting DNA testing ($20,000,000). These
proposals are related to several on-going FBI Laboratory initiatives
for improving State and local crime-fighting and forensic capabilities.
White-Collar Crime.--The OJP, Justice Assistance appropriation
proposes $9,230,000 for the operations of the National White-Collar
Crime Center (NW3C). The FBI has entered into a partnership with the
NW3C to staff the Internet Fraud Complaint Center (IFCC), which opened
in May 2000. The IFCC serves as a focal point for receiving and
analyzing complaints from citizens and private industry victimized by
Internet fraud and as a resource to federal, State, and local law
enforcement and regulatory agencies.
legislative proposals
Mr. Chairman, the fiscal year 2002 budget request includes several
general provisions proposed by the FBI, including: danger pay, foreign
cooperative agreements, railroad police training, and warranty
reimbursement authorities. I encourage the Subcommittee to include
these general provisions as part of the fiscal year 2002 Justice
Appropriations Act.
Danger Pay.--Section 108 would extend to the FBI the same authority
that the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) 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 responsibilities. At
times, FBI personnel are deployed to overseas locations where, due to
the nature of our work, they face a threat or hostile environment that
does not always extend to all members of the United States diplomatic
team in a particular country. This authority would allow me to address
those situations. This authority has been requested by the
Administration in each of the past three budgets.
Foreign Cooperative Agreements.--Section 109 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 with the FBI. This authority would facilitate projects with
friendly foreign governments, especially in support of our national
security mission. The authority was first proposed by the
Administration last year, was adopted by the House, but did not make
its way into the final Conference bill.
Railroad Police Training.--Section 110 would allow the FBI to
establish and collect a fee to pay for the costs of railroad police
officers participating in FBI law enforcement training programs
authorized by Public Law 106-110, and to credit those fees to its
Salaries and Expenses appropriation to cover the costs of providing
such training. Public Law 106-110 authorized railroad police officers
to attend FBI training programs, but directed that no federal funds be
used to provide such training. Railroad police officers are willing to
pay for such training; however, the law does not provide an authority
for the FBI to collect and retain the fees to pay for the training.
This provision provides the requisite authority.
Reimbursement for In-house Warranty Work.--Section 111 would allow
the Attorney General to seek and retain reimbursement from vendors for
warranty repairs and maintenance performed in-house by Department of
Justice employees when it is not possible for the vendor to perform
such services. For example, FBI motor vehicles are equipped with radios
that use government encryption devices. As a result, these vehicles
cannot be left unattended at vendor repair facilities for servicing.
FBI mechanics currently perform warranty work that normally would be
provided at no cost by the vendor. Many vendors are willing to
reimburse or credit the FBI for the cost of the warranty work provided
in-house. This provision would provide the authority needed to enter
into such agreements when there is a law enforcement, security, or
mission-related reason that precludes vendor servicing and permits the
crediting of payments received to the appropriate appropriation.
summary
Mr. Chairman, I am especially proud of the work being performed
everyday by the employees of the FBI. Their ability to do that work--
the work asked of us by the Congress through the laws it passes, by the
President through executive orders, and by our federal, state, local,
and international law enforcement partners--is a reflection of the
strong fiscal support given to the FBI by this Subcommittee.
The budget proposed for the FBI for fiscal year 2002 addresses
critical resource needs identified through our Strategic Planning
process. These important investments will allow the FBI to meet the
investigative and technological challenges we face as the FBI enters
the 21st Century. These investments will also enable us to develop the
core competencies that will allow us to be successful in investigating
crimes, protecting national security, developing and sharing technical
and forensic expertise, and working better with our federal, state,
local, and international partners. I believe that the national
priorities and objectives we have put forth reflect the expectations
for the FBI that are held by the American people, as well as the
Congress.
Congress, and this Subcommittee in particular, has been extremely
generous in its financial support of the FBI over the past several
years. Our successes in the field, whether they be preventing
pedophiles from luring children over the Internet, to bringing
terrorists from foreign lands back to the United States to stand trial
for their actions, to protecting our Nation's critical infrastructure
from cyber attacks, to fostering greater cooperation with foreign law
enforcement through our Legal Attache Offices, were made possible
because of your support for the FBI. As we look forward to fiscal year
2002, I am hopeful that we can continue to depend upon your support.
Again, I thank you for this opportunity to appear before the
Subcommittee.

Encryption issue

Senator Gregg. It would be helpful on the encryption issue
if you could send us, before you depart, a memo listing where
you think Congress could take action to be constructive in this
area. You have noted a couple places, but this is such a big
issue and such a difficult issue, if you could give us your
parting thoughts on----
Mr. Freeh. Yes, sir.
Senator Gregg [continuing]. Where you think agreements can
be reached, either legislatively or through some sort of
compact of understanding between law enforcement and the people
who produce the products that encrypt these different
communication devices.
Mr. Freeh. Pleased to do that.
Senator Gregg. Senator Hollings, you were not here. I made
a brief opening statement reflecting----
Senator Hollings. You go ahead with your questions, because
I have questions here.
Senator Gregg. Well, go ahead.

Mc Veigh matter error

Senator Hollings. All right.
Mr. Director, let the record show that I have had a long
affiliation with the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Back in
1954, I served on the Hoover Commission, the task force
investigating the intelligence activities.
I came to the old Senate office building, which is now
known as the Russell Building. And the Director, Mr. Hoover,
turned over a cardboard box full of all the McCarthy charges to
General Clark and myself, and I sat down at the GAO building
and went over all of those with the Director.
Since that time, I have been over 30 years here at the
appropriation subcommittee level of the Federal Bureau of
Investigation, I am an honorary FBI agent. So I speak with
affection and admiration for the department.
But let me ask you, I keep reading here in the last few
days about this error. Is that your position that this was just
an error, something that just slipped through the cracks?
Mr. Freeh. Yes, sir, it is. It was a grievous error and one
that should not have occurred, given the number of requests
that were made. The only context in which to place it is the
context of volume, in terms of the millions and millions of
records that were part of the discovery agreement and the
several hundred that were not.
But my information at this point is that this was an error.
This was an oversight. The Inspector General of the Department
of Justice is conducting a thorough investigation.
But I have no reason at this point to think that it was
anything but an error. This error was brought to the attention
of the court and the defendant by the FBI, by FBI analysts who
were archiving all of the records of the case.
Now, the archiving statute requires that this be done in 25
years. They decided to do it in year three. Instead of just
putting the documents in boxes and filing them away, which is
all they were legally required to do, they started to check all
of these documents against the database. When they discovered
that some of them were not in this database, they reported
this.
So I do believe it was an error, a terrible error, and one
that I think we can take steps to correct. I also think it will
not affect justice in this case.
Senator Hollings. Specifically, so everyone will
understand, the record ought to show that the Office of the
Inspector General has an exceptional assignment with the
Federal Bureau, in that they are not regularly, as the OIG
would do in any other governmental department, looking and
reviewing for fear that they would mess up a case or whatever
it is. Usually these things are handled by the Office of
Professional Management or whatever it is in the Department.
But in addition to the claims of an error, there has been
inference too that we may have had improper or antiquated
computerization. Is that the case?
Mr. Freeh. I do not believe that was the case here,
Senator. And again, I have looked at this as carefully as I can
look at it without conducting a separate investigation. But I
do not think this was a computer failure here.
All of the materials that got to Oklahoma City were
uploaded into their database, and those are reliably there.
This is what was not either given to Oklahoma City or had not
found its way into the database.
So it is really not a computer failure. It is a human
failure, and one which goes to the basics: keeping records and
making them available when requested.

Congressional automation funding and FBI culture

Senator Hollings. Well, overall, let the record show that
in the last 10 years, this subcommittee of the Congress has
appropriated $1.81 billion for that automation communications
computerization. So we never have been conservative or puny or
denied the FBI request, because we know, at the subcommittee
level, from experience that if you go down on the floor and the
FBI has not been provided for, an FBI add-on amendment would
easily pass. No one wants to vote against the FBI.
The record should show that over the 10 years we have
appropriated--you have requested $29.3 billion, and we have
appropriated $28.714 billion. So we have given you 99 percent
of your requests.
I wanted to make sure of that, because I have seen some
coverage of this, and it is my considered opinion from
experience that this is not just an error. On the contrary, Mr.
Director, this is the culture in the bureau.

FBI discovery process errors

And the reason for that is, I know of other similar cases.
I don't want to use the committee's time in getting to all of
the cases, but let me refer to the Lost Trust case that we had
down in the State of South Carolina that the judge asked the
Department of Justice to look in.
The OIG, Office of Inspector General, went to work and made
its report through the Office of Professional Management. And
thereafter, the Office of Inspector General wasn't satisfied.
They continued the investigation over the last 10 years. And
they filed in February this year this voluminous report.
And what happened was, they had been defending these
misdoers in the legislature in the State of South Carolina,
they had been defending two former U.S. attorneys, so they knew
the ropes. They knew the game.
And they knew, for example, about these 302s. When an FBI
agent interviews a witness, they make notes, and that is called
a 302 memo. And they knew different 302 memos were made about
payoffs and everything of that kind.
And let me quote something, so you will understand why I
even ask the questions, and the record ought to reflect it. And
I quote, ``As set out in this report, we are critical of the
government's management in its discovery obligations.'' This
was way in the mid-1990s.
``An embarrassing amount of arguably disclosable material
was not found, considered or produced during discovery. We are
critical of the FBI's failure to attend to this responsibility,
to provide effective assistance or supervision to new,
overworked special agents, to seek guidance from the U.S.
Attorneys Office, or to apply resources necessary to support
the investigation and trial.''
Later on, with respect to agent Michael Clemens on his
several FBI 302s, his memos, quote, ``The controversy arose in
part because the FBI 302s were not produced in discovery and in
part because the substance of the reports led to allegations
that their nonproduction was based upon the government's
intention to allow Cobb to testify inconsistently or
perjuriously at trial.''
Cobb was a special undercover agent that they had. I read
further.
The OIG report notes, quote, ``FBI 302s covered by standard
discovery requirements were not produced. Indeed, some were not
even located and considered for possible production during the
first wave of prosecutions in 1990.''
Then, ``During the second wave,'' that same quote, ``During
the second wave of prosecutions back in 1991, defense counsel
called FBI Special Agent Clemens to testify, and Clemens was
asked, `Did you do a 302 or anything concerning that debriefing
of Mr. Cobb?' Clemens denied preparing an FBI 302. Assistant
U.S. Attorney Barton argued to the court, `Defense counsel is
looking for the secret 302 of Ron Cobb, where the payment to
Lindsay is discussed. It does not exist.' ''
That response was false.
I am quoting further, ``The most remarkable fact concerning
pretrial preparation for further trial, namely the Derrick
trial, is that the FBI 302s that had not been provided in
discovery in the Taylor, Blanding or Gordon cases were to a
large extent given to Derrick, specifically the FBI 302 about
payments to Senator Lindsay and Clemens that testified did not
exist in February 1991 was produced in March 1991 to Derrick
and his counsel.''
I am still quoting, this is from the Office of Inspector
General, ``Other FBI 302s that the district court would later
conclude had been withheld purposefully from previous
defendants also were produced during the discovery in the
Derrick trial.''
And finally, Mr. Director, ``We believe the FBI''--this is
from the Office of Inspector General--``We believe the FBI
supervisors had sufficient information to alert them to the
fact that the discovery process was fraught with difficulties.
We concluded that the deficiencies in the FBI's early pretrial
preparation had an adverse impact on the subsequent trials and
should have been dealt with more effectively and sooner. While
the immediate fault for this discovery failure was Clemen's
disorganization, his superiors contributed to this shortcoming
by failing to guarantee adequate support,'' end quote.

errors in Mc Veigh matter

You can see that is why I asked the question, because the
OIG says they are not really getting support or direction or
discipline, if you might say, from the Director and from the
main office. Because you have in here, between August of 1995
and November of 1996, this is your statement, sir: Eleven
separate communications were sent to the field offices
requesting that all evidence be sent to the OKBOMB command
post.
And nothing happened. It did not come in. And as recently
as last week, you were still giving more directions. You
finally made the local people sign off under oath that they had
sent everything in, and then some Baltimore information came.
So what we really have is a culture at the bureau that
agents don't have to worry about even the top standing
directors and everything else. We send what we can get our
hands on. Some casually, perhaps; some intentionally, perhaps.
But this thing should not be looked upon as an error. It
should be looked upon as a culture and absolutely cleaned up.
And there is no expert necessary. I know your abilities.
You have outstanding abilities. And with this knowledge, I wish
you were going to stay here because we could clean this thing
up.
Any comment?
Mr. Freeh. Your insight and your comments are very much on
the mark and very fair. Let me just say two things.
I have no information and no evidence and no basis to
believe at this point that there was anything done here
purposefully. I think you could probably distinguish the
situation we have here, which is an egregious one, and the one
reflected in the report, which does find purposeful withholding
and also finds that the substance in those 302s could have
adversely affected the trial.
I do not believe either of those circumstances are true
here. But I do not know, and I could be mistaken. The Inspector
General is going to do as thorough a job as they have done in
other reviews, whether it is the laboratory or the Lost Trust
case that you mentioned.
There was an enormous amount of discovery here, and there
was an extraordinary agreement. The agreement was any interview
anywhere would be turned over. That is never called for under
the Federal rules of criminal procedure or even discovery
orders that many judges enter beyond the Rule 16 requirements.
This was an extraordinary agreement to give them every single
interview.
In the course of that, they received thousands and
thousands and thousands of interviews and had access to
millions and millions of records.
The questions now is twofold.
One, whether there was a purposeful withholding. I agree
with you, that it is a critical question that has to be
answered. I see no evidence of that at this point.
The other question is whether any of that information would
go to the guilt or innocence of the defendant. My very strong
belief at this point, as well as the prosecutors who have
looked at it, is that this is not the case. A judge is going to
decide that, and perhaps, may come out differently. But I do
not see either a purposeful withholding here or materials that
go to the guilt or innocence of someone.
That is not to diminish the seriousness and the
egregiousness of this matter, which I have accepted as such and
will take some sincere efforts to change.

FBI culture problem

Senator Gregg. Could you address Senator Hollings' point,
though, on culture?
Senator Hollings. In addressing that, if you do not mind--
excuse me, Mr. Chairman--you and I are both lawyers. The law
presumes a purposeful nature of the natural consequences of
your act.
I was looking at this case of the young lad convicted down
there in Florida. He claims that the trigger went off. If I
fire a pistol down Constitution Avenue and six blocks down
somebody gets hit, drops dead, I cannot throw up my hands,
``Oh, I did not even know him. I did not have any intent of
killing that fellow.'' That is nonsense.
And the same with the fellow who aims a gun at someone
right between the eyes and claims that the trigger went off
accidently. ``I did not think it would go off.''
Similarly here on the purposeful nature, when you come in
and you, as the Director--boy, this would really tee me off if
I was the director--send 11 separate communications--these are
your words--to the field offices requesting all evidence to be
sent in. That is back in 1996. And here you are 5 years later,
2001, still sending up directives and still getting information
from Baltimore.
So don't say it was not purposeful. It is the culture.
Excuse me. And answer the chairman's question about culture.
Senator Gregg. Actually, it was your question. I just----
Senator Hollings. Yes, sir.
You are right.
Senator Gregg. I thought it was a good point and wanted to
just hear----
Mr. Freeh. It is a good point. I think there is a cultural
problem here by not taking seriously the very clear and
explicit commands that were given in a very important case.
But in any case, if a field office is required and asked
specifically and unquestionably to send in all materials
relating to a case, the culture ought to take that with the
seriousness that would result in a complete, timely disclosure
and dissemination, which was not the case here.
That is a cultural defect, which I will attempt to address
by the stand-down that we are going to do, by all the different
training protocols and efforts and interests that I can bring
to bear on this problem.
Senator Hollings. Yes. Don't hire anybody. Fire some
people. Make them accountable. They will know. They will
understand. Until you do that, they will play the game.
When they ignore 11 separate communications from the
Director back in 1996 and you are still having to say, ``The
only way I can catch you is to make you under oath sign a
statement that you have sent the information in,'' that is
pretty poor administration.
Some heads ought to roll where they didn't respond to these
communications appropriately.
And incidentally, as lawyers, we are not to determine at
the FBI level whether it is material to the case or not. It is
the defense counsel's decision. You have to give it all to them
in discovery, and let him decide.
Mr. Freeh. Yes. You are absolutely right.
Senator Gregg. Thank you.
Senator Hollings. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

training and experience

Senator Gregg. On the budget--this is a part of our hearing
process--but obviously this issue goes to a very significant
question which has to be resolved and which we intend to work
with you on to try to make sure that it does not happen again.
In fact, following up on that, we have had the lab issue,
and we have had the rogue agent issue, and now we have the
documents issue.
Do you see another area where we may have such a system
failure? I am sure if you do, you have already addressed it,
but where should we take extra caution--that the Bureau might
be overwhelmed and we could have a system failure?
Mr. Freeh. I think it is in the training and experience
level, and this is a demographic problem. We have the majority
of our employees--the overwhelming majority of our employees
with very small years of experience. I think 41 percent of our
current FBI special agents have less than 6 years' experience,
which means in major divisions the youngest agents, in some
cases, are getting the most complex cases, the most difficult
cases.
On the support side, the technical side, we have also hired
thousands of new employees over the last couple of years, not
enhancements as much as replacements.
So one of our intense internal concerns is the experience
level, the training level. And there is much that can be
learned on the job, but then there is a lot of things, which
cannot be learned on the job; they have to be pre-trained and
pre-ordered and pre-configured.
So I think we are going to have in the next couple of years
this shaking out period in terms of getting the training,
particularly the academic type of training and the practical
operations type of training. And we are taking some measures to
do that, particularly in the computer area, but also in the
basic areas, in white collar crime investigations, and in
counterintelligence investigations.
We do not have an FBI anymore where only a small percentage
of new agents are running major cases. Now we have most of the
major cases being run by relatively inexperienced agents.
I think, in the long term, it is very good for the country,
because I think if our attrition rate stays as it has stayed--
very, very low--in another 4 or 5 years, we will probably be
more competent in these areas than ever before in our history.
In the meantime, the experience level, the training level,
and the margin for error, is going to be at risk unless we can
take active training measures and institutional measures to
address that.
And we are taking those problems, but that is a major
concern.

analyses of training and automation needs

Senator Gregg. Well, if you see that coming, maybe you
could give us an assessment of it, of how you are trying to
manage that issue. A little more complete analysis of it, and
how you are trying to manage it, so that we could see if there
is something there that we can be of assistance on.
As a tangential point, one of our concerns on this
committee--I know, Senator Hollings' concern and my concern--
has been the tooling up of the lab and the tooling up of the
technology capability of the computers, not only on the
hardware side but on the people side. In particular, getting
the good people and keeping them in a competitive marketplace,
maybe a little less competitive than a year ago, but still a
competitive marketplace.
So could you give us an analysis of where you are and what
you need in both of those areas?
Mr. Freeh. Yes. With respect to the computer training, we
have, as you mentioned, a challenge here that is going to go
beyond the basic computing challenge into the practical
application of what all of these investigators are going to be
expected to do in the information age.
We have a ``train the trainer'' program, which we are
actively perpetuating and particularly now directed at our card
examiners. We have, as you know, a limited number of card
examiners. You have given us the wherewithal to increase that
support, and make some conversions to full-time examiners. But
the training of the trainers in that area is going to be a
major focus.
The second level will be the evidence response technicians,
who are not only required to work crime scenes and exploit
physical evidence, but also hard-drive and computer evidence,
which is almost as routine as everything else. The technicians
in all of these different areas, particularly card related, is
going to be a major challenge for us.
Dr. Kerr, who you know, the Director of our laboratory, is
working with the Training Division to develop this tiered
approach: train the trainers; get to the technicians in the
field; and make sure that the equipment, which is coming on-
line, particularly new laboratory equipment, is going to be
exploitable and usable, whether we are working a crime scene in
the United States or someplace else.

State forensic computer technology centers

Senator Gregg. Can I break in there?
We are getting a fair amount of pressure in this committee
to create forensic computer technology centers at the State
level. A lot of States are now asking us to try to get some
Federal funds to do that.
Is it a good idea for there to be State forensic computer
capability or should it be regional?
Mr. Freeh. I think you are going to need to do both, Mr.
Chairman, in the years to come, because the number of
examinations is exploding.
We had 3,400 computer forensic searches, examinations in
fiscal year 2000 and estimated 5,494 for fiscal year 2001. We
expect about 9,000 or more in fiscal year 2002.
I think you are going to need an enhanced regional ability,
but I think it is also going to devolve down to the State
level. So just like they now manage fingerprint evidence in
many local laboratories, the computer evidence is going to
become as routine.
The San Diego lab, the regional computer forensic lab,
which was funded here, has been a remarkable success as a
regional operation. There is one in Texas, which we are also
participating in.
I think this is a good format for certainly coordinating
State and Federal resources and responses in that area. But I
think the States on their own are going to need this capacity.
What I would recommend is that if we build this bridge from
two sides, which is maybe the best way to build a bridge, we
should coordinate what we are doing. It would be a very good
investment to ensure that the Federal efforts, particularly the
ones coming out of the FBI, and its regional forensic labs, are
coordinated and that they are interfacing with large
investments into State or local capability. What you want is a
national law enforcement computing ability in this particular
area. And, we should interface like national labs interface on
their technology issues. I think that is the way to build the
bridge.

Lab and equipment situation

Senator Gregg. I broke into your statement. Were you going
to tell us about the lab situation and equipment there?
Mr. Freeh. With respect to the laboratory, the activation
and the operation is, as you know, scheduled for the summer of
2002. And that is moving along on time and under budget.
The laboratory will provide world-class forensic services,
not just for the FBI but for State and local partners, much
like our criminal justice information systems in West Virginia
provide on the informational side.
The laboratory will also have a very significant research
and development component, which our laboratory now has in the
Engineering Research Facility (ERF) at Quantico, as well as the
forensic laboratory capability of Quantico.
But this will give us, right alongside the workbench,
Research and Development (R&D) capability where we can
hopefully attract and get scientists from other law enforcement
departments and from universities.
We have now several scientists working with our laboratory
from local universities. We want to integrate this R&D with not
just national laboratories but also the private sector.
The other aspect of it is we are designing this facility to
be a teaching laboratory. In addition to providing forensic
services, we can also bring in State and local scientists. We
can have faculty that are experts themselves in teaching. We
can also use technology for long-distance learning, as well as
information technologies to help compare and work on actual
cases.
This laboratory will give us a strength in the forensic
area that we have not had. We have mostly been a reactive
laboratory over the years. And what happens is the number of
requests build up and every year there is more and more of a
backlog. This will not simply address the backlog, but it will
give the State and local laboratories enhanced abilities where
they will be able to do a lot of this technology and
examinations by themselves.
We want to have the laboratory doing what they did in the
mitochondrial DNA area. That was a FBI-developed forensic tool
of immense investigative value. We can make a case out of a
genetic sample, which could not be made in any other way but
for the mitochondrial technique developed in our laboratory.
There are probably all kinds of things that can be done in
that regard. There are laboratories around the world that do
things that we do not. This will be, on the R&D side and the
teaching side, hopefully, a center of expertise that we have
not had in the past.

role of Dr. Kerr in Lab improvement

Senator Gregg. Senator Domenici?
Senator Domenici. Mr. Chairman, I have no questions.
I am assuming this is the last appearance of the Director
before this subcommittee, and I just want to personally and on
behalf of my constituents thank you for the job you have done
and wish you the very best.
I am hopeful that your laboratory will improve, and I
wholeheartedly support the ideas you have just described.
Mr. Freeh. Thank you.
Senator Domenici. I gather that Dr. Kerr is still there
with you.
Mr. Freeh. Yes, sir, he is.
Senator Domenici. And you are finding him to be quite a
scientist in helping you build this laboratory? Or how would
you assess it?
Mr. Freeh. We could not build it without him. And I think
the vision that he has for its future is one that we had to
import. We did not have it in the FBI.
We had, as you know, for many years, assistant directors
who were sometimes scientists, mostly not, running the
laboratory. They did a fairly respectable job.
But in terms of research, teaching, peer review, and state-
of-the-art capabilities, we needed to bring in somebody of his
caliber. So that was one of the good decisions I made.
Senator Domenici. I might just say that the doctor that I
referred to at one point in his life was the director of the
National Laboratory at Los Alamos, and was out looking for
work, doing something else, and he was recruited.
And I gather that from the day he came on, there has been
just tremendous changes in what we are going to be doing in
that laboratory and how we do it.
Mr. Freeh. Yes, sir.
Senator Domenici. Thank you very much.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Gregg. Thank you, Senator.

Polygraphs and national security

Senator Hollings. Mr. Director, I know polygraphs are not
conclusive, but they are good indicators. What is the policy at
the bureau for its agents?
Mr. Freeh. We polygraph all new employees who come into the
FBI. We have done that since 1994. We have regularly
polygraphed people who work in our most sensitive
counterintelligence programs.
Prior to the recent espionage case, for instance, 73
percent of the agents in the National Security Division were
polygraphed because of the sensitive matters on which they were
working.
We have not had a random polygraph policy. We have not had
a policy that went beyond the national security context that I
just described.
We are waiting now for Judge Webster's specific
recommendations on this area. With his permission and consent,
in the interim, we have taken some steps to broaden the pool of
individuals who should be polygraphed. We have also taken some
steps in the information assurance area by protecting the
computerized information systems that we have from people going
into them who should not go into them.
We are also taking some steps on the whole security
program, making significant changes in both the structure and
leadership of that program and the resources needed to support
it.
Senator Hollings. It is interesting you note that it
started in 1994. I know, serving on the Intelligence Committee
here in the Senate back in the 1980s, you could not get a job
on the Capitol police force unless you were polygraphed.
When last was Hanssen polygraphed?
Mr. Freeh. He was not polygraphed.
Senator Hollings. I see.
And the Hoover Commission recommended 45 years ago that all
agents be polygraphed every 5 years, and those in
counterintelligence, every 3 years. And they have followed that
at the Central Intelligence Agency. But they have not followed
it at the FBI, and only commenced it, according to your answer,
in 1994. Is that right?
Mr. Freeh. In 1994, we started to polygraph all new
employees. Yes, sir.

law enforcement school in Mexico

Senator Hollings. Then let me jump to the Mexico question,
because I have been trying my best to get any kind of facet of
a Marshall Plan started there.
And you and I discussed at a previous hearing the idea of
an FBI school down below the border. Have you made any progress
on that?
Mr. Freeh. We have made some progress. I have met
personally with the foreign minister, Mr. Castaneda, Mr.
Aguilar, the National Security Adviser, the new Attorney
General of Mexico, as well as the head of the Federal Judicial
Police. We are in discussions in conjunction with the State
Department about exactly that establishment.
They have made a request; the new government should be
commended for making the request that we become directly and
overtly involved in the training of the Federal Judicial
Police, which the new government wants to model as a National
Bureau of Criminal Investigations.
We are very excited about this opportunity. I have
discussed it with Secretary Powell, and it is something that I
am sure is going to come before the committee at some point for
a request for assistance.

conclusion

Senator Hollings. Well, I thank you, and I thank you for
your service, Judge. Good luck to you.
Mr. Freeh. Thank you, Mr. Hollings.
Senator Gregg. Let me join Senator Hollings in those
comments.
We appreciate your service. The country has been well-
served. And you are generous to have given this large chunk of
your life to our nation, and we thank you for doing that.
We look forward to continuing to work with you and wish you
Godspeed as you move forward.
Mr. Freeh. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, very much. I appreciate
it.
Senator Gregg. Thank you, Mr. Director.

Immigration and Naturalization Service

STATEMENT OF KEVIN D. ROONEY, ACTING COMMISSIONER

opening remarks of chairman gregg

Senator Gregg. We will now hear from the acting
Commissioner and Administrator of DEA and INS, Mr. Marshall and
Mr. Rooney.
Well, we thank you, gentlemen, for waiting and being so
patient. I recognize you have a busy day and appreciate you
participating.
We will open the hearing up to your statements, if you wish
to make any.
So we can start with you, Mr. Commissioner, and then we
will go to the Administrator.

opening statement of acting commissioner rooney

Mr. Rooney. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the
opportunity to appear here today to discuss the President's
fiscal year 2002 budget request for the Immigration and
Naturalization Service.
In recent years, this subcommittee's strong support has
allowed INS to make significant improvements in how we carry
out our dual enforcement and service responsibilities.
Our fiscal year 2002 budget request at $5.5 billion is 10
percent higher than our current funding level and will enable
the agency to build on a solid foundation and further
strengthen the nation's immigration system.
INS's aim has been to build a seamless web of enforcement,
extending from our borders to the Nation's interior. The
proposed budget continues support for the comprehensive
strategies that we have been implementing in pursuit of this
goal. The focus is on border control, which is the anchor for
our entire enforcement web.

border control strategy

Our border control strategy is designed to create and
maintain borders that both facilitate the legal flow of people
and products into our Nation, while preventing illegal
immigration and the smuggling of drugs and other contraband.
To move closer to our goal in fiscal year 2002, we are
seeking 570 Border Patrol agents. These new agents, plus an
additional 570 that the Administration has proposed for next
year--fiscal year 2003--will complete the 5,000 agent increase
authorized by Congress in 1996. We are also asking for $20
million for intrusion detection technology, which has a force-
multiplying effect on the border.
We plan to deploy the bulk of these resources along the
Southwest border, particularly in Arizona and eastern
California, where we want to replicate the recent success we
have had in San Diego and elsewhere.
Enhanced enforcement between our ports-of-entry is not
enough, however. INS must also continue to strengthen
activities occurring in the ports, at the border, and in the
Nation's interior.
And this budget request will allow us to do that by
providing $50 million for 417 new immigration inspectors. It
also earmarks $26 million for improving various automated
information systems, including the database that the inspectors
use to prevent criminals, suspected terrorists, and other
inadmissible individuals from entering the country.
Border Patrol agents and immigration inspectors will be
further aided by proposed improvements to INS's intelligence
program. We have asked for 78 positions and $7 million to
expand the intelligence program on our borders, where
intelligence plays a critical role in preventing the entry of
undocumented aliens, drug traffickers, and terrorists, as well
as in detecting and dismantling smuggling rings.

effective detention and removal program

Without an effective detention and removal program,
however, detecting and apprehending deportable aliens becomes
little more than a training exercise, lacking in credibility
and producing few results. And that is why we are asking for an
additional 158 positions and $82 million in fiscal year 2002
for detention and removal.
With these new resources, we will be able to use 1,600 more
beds in State and local detention facilities, which are crucial
for accommodating a daily average population now of more than
19,000 detainees, which is triple the 1995 number.

immigration benefits

As INS continues to strengthen enforcement in response to
the unprecedented pressure that illegal immigration has created
at our borders and in the Nation's interior, we must also
handle the skyrocketing demand for immigration benefits.
Based on receipts to date, we project that by the end of
this fiscal year, we will receive some 9.5 million applications
and petitions for benefits. That is 50 percent more than we
received last year and 80 percent more than the year before
that.
The demand for services is being fueled by both changes in
immigration law and record-level legal immigration. Preliminary
figures indicate that we welcomed more newcomers in the last 10
years than in any decade in U.S. history.
INS is currently implementing the Legal Immigration Family
Equity Act, the LIFE Act, which was signed into law in
December. We estimate that the agency will receive nearly 4.5
million LIFE Act related applications by the end of fiscal year
2003.
In fact, we are already feeling the impact of the law. It
is the chief reason why we received more non-naturalization
applications in March than in any other month in more than a
decade.
In recent years, INS has worked diligently to rebuild a
service structure that was weak and woefully inadequate to
handle the agency's workload. Reconstruction is far from
complete, but I can assure you that considerable progress has
been made.
Last year, for example, we completed 24 percent more
benefit applications than we did in 1999. As a more meaningful
measure for those applicants who had languished in line, we
completed last year 430,000 more applications than we received.
The Administration has proposed establishing a universal
62-month standard for processing all benefit applications and
petitions within the next 5 years. To meet this goal, the
Administration has pledged to support a $500 million initiative
to fund new personnel and enhance technology and to make
customer satisfaction a first priority. Our fiscal year 2002
budget request includes the first $100 million installment of
this 52-year plan.
Mr. Chairman, from what little of the budget request that I
have just highlighted, you can see that in both enforcement and
in services INS faces enormous challenges in this fiscal year
and fiscal year 2002.
However, as I have seen since taking over as Acting
Commissioner 7 weeks ago, I believe there are clear indications
that the agency is moving in the right direction to start to
meet those challenges, and I look forward to working with you
to maintain this momentum.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I look forward to any questions
that you may have.
Senator Gregg. Thank you, Commissioner.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Kevin D. Rooney
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 2002 budget request for the Immigration and
Naturalization Service (INS). This INS budget request builds upon the
accomplishments that have been achieved with your strong support. The
resources Congress has provided have enabled INS to meet new challenges
and strengthen the Nation's immigration system. They have resulted in
improvements in how we enforce immigration laws and how we deliver
services to our customers.
The President's fiscal year 2002 budget request for the Immigration
and Naturalization Service totals $5.5 billion, a 10 percent increase
over the fiscal year 2001 funding level. This budget includes $380
million in enhancements to go with a base funding level of $5.1
billion. The budget will add a total of 1,364 new staff positions,
which will allow INS to grow to over 36,200 workyears by the end of
fiscal year 2002.
The INS budget for fiscal year 2002 continues to support the
immigration goals and strategies that the agency has pursued over the
past several years. The thrust of INS' fiscal year 2002 budget is to
extend the ongoing initiatives aimed at controlling the Nation's
borders and maintaining the physical integrity of those borders. INS
intends to build on its successful multi-year strategy to: effectively
regulate the border; deter and dismantle smuggling or trafficking of
aliens and narcotics in the interior of the United States, as well as
other immigration-related crime; identify and remove suspected
terrorists; identify and remove incarcerated criminal aliens from the
United States, and minimize recidivism; enhance services and reduce
processing backlogs; and reduce immigration benefit fraud and other
document abuse.
Border Management
The fiscal year 2002 budget includes an additional 570 Border
Patrol Agents and $75 million to support the border control strategy.
We would propose that these resources will be primarily directed to the
Southwest border so as to increase the emphasis provided to the eastern
California, Arizona and Texas borders. These new agents, plus 570 in
fiscal year 2003, will complete the 5,000-agent increase authorized by
the Congress.
The fiscal year 2002 budget also requests $20 million so that
deployment of intrusion detection technology, including high-resolution
color and infrared cameras and state-of-the-art command centers, will
continue. This technology acts as a ``force multiplier'' to supplement
the new agents and provide continuous monitoring of the border from
remote sites. This combination of intrusion detection technology and
the increased number of Border Patrol Agents will permit INS to enforce
the rule of law and enhance border management over larger portions of
the U.S. border. This technology assists agents in determining the
source of the ``hit,'' including the number of intruders, and if they
are armed, thereby increasing agent safety. The Integrated Surveillance
Intelligence System (ISIS) enhancement is an important part of the
overall strategy for strengthening control of the border against
illegal entry. ISIS will improve remote detection and tracking
capabilities, resulting in increased deterrence of illegal border
crossing and increased officer safety. Ultimately, it will provide the
INS, in particular, the Border Patrol, with the capability to
effectively monitor the integrity of the United States/Mexico and
United States/Canada national boundaries for purposes of border
management.
The INS Intelligence program provides strategic and tactical
intelligence support to INS offices enforcing the provisions of the
Immigration and Nationality Act, and assists other federal agencies in
addressing national security issues. Intelligence program activities
contribute support to: preventing the entry of illegal aliens,
terrorists and narcotics traffickers; identifying and dismantling alien
smuggling operations; detecting fraudulent documents and false claims
to U.S. citizenship; and detecting other individuals or organizations
involved in the manufacture and sale of counterfeit documents, in
application and benefit fraud schemes, and other related criminal
activity. The fiscal year 2002 budget includes 78 positions and $7
million to expand the intelligence program on the northern and southern
borders of the United States.
Air and Sea Ports-of-Entry
INS must balance its limited resources between its goals of
detecting those who should not be allowed to enter the United States
and managing legal travel across the border. The fiscal year 2002
budget request includes $50 million for 417 new Immigration Inspectors
to staff newly activated air and sea port terminals, high-growth
understaffed gateway ports, and joint INS/U.S. Customs passenger
analysis units. The request also includes 122 inspection assistants and
clerks, along with detention and removals resources to support the
significant increases in workloads at high-growth air and sea ports-of-
entry. The budget provides for an expansion of the Carrier Consultant
Program to enhance airline carrier training and for the increased
workload attributable to the 2002 Winter Olympics.
With these resources, the Service will strive to process 77 percent
of all commercial flights within 30 minutes and make strides in
streamlining and automating manual processes, improving data integrity,
and supporting enforcement requirements. To finance these initiatives,
the fiscal year 2002 budget includes language that will increase the
current airport inspections fee by $1 from $6 to $7 for arriving
international air passengers. It would also lift the cruise ship fee
exemption, instituting a $3 fee for those passengers currently exempt.
The increase is to provide resources to cover more of the true costs of
operating the program.
In addition, the fiscal year 2002 budget contains $26 million to
expand significant resources for information technology initiatives.
Resources are provided to update the National Automated Inspections
Lookout System (NAILS) a centralized lookout database which is a
compilation of information supplied by automated systems within INS and
other federal and local law enforcement agencies. It is a critical
system that contains data on individuals who are inadmissible,
including criminals and suspected terrorists. The request includes
resources to study technology for automated airport inspection
alternatives. This budget will provide resources to purchase Live Scan
Devices that will send electronic fingerprint submissions to the FBI,
develop the Vessel Inspection Processing System (VIPS), and purchase
portable workstations to access NAILS at the seaports. The fiscal year
2002 budget will also provide the initial investments necessary to
develop an automated entry/exit system as required in the INS Data
Management Improvement Act of 2000.
Detention and Removal
In addition to the expansion of INS' more visible enforcement
functions, additional funding will strengthen the detention and removal
process. It is critical that INS continue to have resources to
efficiently house and repatriate illegal aliens encountered both at the
border and through enforcement of immigration laws beyond the immediate
border area. To that end, 173 positions and $89 million are requested
in fiscal year 2002 for detention and removal initiatives in the areas
of expanded national transportation, improved health services for
detained aliens, increased detention bed space, and improved
coordination with U.S. Attorneys. Included in the $89 million is a
projected $40 million in Breached Bond/Detention Fund revenue which is
anticipated as a result of the reauthorization of adjustment of status
provisions of section 245(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act
(INA), and $7 million for detention beds to support increases in
workloads at high-growth air and sea ports of entry.
Consolidated Detention Bed Space
To continue to meet the mandatory detention requirements of the
Illegal Immigration and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, the
budget request includes $69 million for 131 positions (68 Detention
Enforcement Officers, 33 Deportation Officers, and 30 support
positions) and an additional 1,607 average daily state and local
detention bed spaces. This initiative includes resources to detain,
transport and remove aliens.
National Transportation System
The INS uses the Justice Prisoner and Alien Transportation System
(JPATS), created in 1995 by INS and the U.S. Marshals Service, to
transport large numbers of detained aliens each year, transferring them
to detention facilities or repatriating them. The budget includes an
increase of $9 million to fund the costs associated with the INS' share
of JPATS. This increase, when combined with current funding, will fund
additional air movements to transfer or repatriate detainees.
Public Health
The budget includes funding of $9 million to support the increased
cost of providing health care for detainees. The INS is committed to
ensuring that its facilities are safe and humane, and that adequate
medical care is provided to aliens in its custody.
Coordination with U.S. Attorneys
The budget includes 42 positions (28 attorneys and 14 support
personnel) to enable the INS to better fulfill its role of providing
agency counsel support to the U.S. Attorneys Offices and the Office of
Immigration Litigation in immigration-related matters arising in the
Federal courts. This critical role involves such efforts as preparing
litigation reports when lawsuits arise, and coordinating agency
witnesses and evidence. These litigation efforts will facilitate the
removal of detained aliens, a substantial number of whom are convicted
felons. It will also ensure that aliens not eligible for immigration
benefits are appropriately identified and denied any benefit.
Immigration Services
The INS is proud of its accomplishment of processing over one
million naturalization applications during fiscal year 2000, and plans
to continue the quality and timely processing of applications. The
President's fiscal year 2002 budget includes $100 million to implement
the first installment of the President's five-year, $500 million
initiative to process all applications within six months and provide
quality service to all legal immigrants, citizens, businesses and other
INS customers. These resources will be used for increased personnel,
enhanced information technology and other resources to make customer
satisfaction a priority.
Infrastructure Improvements
The INS continues to face a number of challenges in maintaining its
infrastructure during a period of rapid growth. New and expanded
facilities are required to support a work force of over 32,000. The
Border Patrol's infrastructure needs are most serious and have been and
continue to be given priority attention. Since the authorization of the
INS Construction Account in fiscal year 1995, the Congress has provided
much-needed resources to allow INS to replace, expand and renovate
facilities and to enhance border infrastructure. The INS budget request
for fiscal year 2002 continues support for critical infrastructure
requirements. It includes $75 million for construction projects. This
total includes $69 million for Border Patrol and detention construction
projects, and $6 million for additional work on the San Diego Border
Barrier System and for the enhancement of border infrastructure through
the critical direct support of Joint Task Force Six (JTF-6) for
projects such as fences, roads, and border barriers.
Significant Accomplishments
There are several areas of INS operations that should be
highlighted due to the accomplishments that have been achieved.
Border Patrol Recruiting and Hiring
The President's blueprint states his intention to fund the INS to
hire the remaining 1,140 Border Patrol agents needed to complete hiring
of the 5,000 agents authorized by the Congress in the Illegal
Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA) of 1996.
His plan is that the INS will be funded to hire 570 agents in each of
fiscal year 2002 and fiscal year 2003 to achieve the hiring goal. With
these 1,140 additional agents, the total increase of 5,000 Border
Patrol Agents will be achieved, and the authorized strength of the
Border Patrol will be about 11,000.
In fiscal year 2000, INS experienced record increases in the number
of Border Patrol applicants and hires as a result of: (a) a more
focused, local recruitment process, (b) the training of 300 Border
Patrol Agents as recruiters, (c) intensified advertising, and (d)
offering a $2,000 recruitment signing bonus. The enhanced recruitment
program was supported in part by $1.5 million included in the fiscal
year 2000 appropriation for these efforts. The Border Patrol has been
able to attract sufficient numbers of applicants to meet hiring goals
through fiscal year 2001. The INS is currently recruiting to ensure
maintenance of a qualified pool of applicants for fiscal year 2002 and
is no longer experiencing Border Patrol hiring problems and is
confident that hiring commitments will be met in fiscal year 2002 and
fiscal year 2003.
In fiscal year 2000, the INS implemented ``compressed testing'' at
10 Sectors. This allowed applicants to take the written test and
receive results immediately upon completion of the exam. If the
applicant passed the written exam, he/she could schedule the oral board
examination in 2 weeks. This process is 5 or more weeks shorter than
the traditional testing process and resulted in a 44 percent increase
in applicants actually showing up to take the test.
In fiscal year 2000, the Border Patrol trained 300 agent recruiters
who participated in over 1,400 recruiting events ranging from campus
and military job fairs, to open houses, to booths at local malls.
Border Patrol recruiters were encouraged to establish personal contact
and feedback with all interested applicants with positive results. We
significantly increased advertising and recruitment incentives.
As a result, in fiscal year 2000, the INS achieved a record number
of applicants (an 80 percent increase over fiscal year 1999) due to
aggressive recruitment and hiring initiatives to address Border Patrol
Agent hiring shortfalls. The increase in recruitment provided the
applicant pool with sufficient candidates for an associated increase in
hiring. In fiscal year 2000, the INS hired 52 percent more agents than
in fiscal year 1999.
During this fiscal year, INS has hired 900 new Border Patrol agents
and will hire another 700 by the end of the year. Our training classes
are already full through July.
Anti-Smuggling and Anti-Fraud Activities
The INS has a number of significant accomplishments to report in
anti-smuggling and anti-fraud operations. During fiscal year 2000, INS
disrupted alien smuggling organizations at source countries, the
borders and the interior of the United States. The agency used
traditional and non-traditional investigative techniques, cooperation
and coordination with the FBI, and broadened use of statutory
authorities. The INS presented 7 major cases and 2,520 smuggling
principals for prosecution. For example, the ``Operation Knight
Riders'' investigation involved a large-scale alien smuggling
organization that specialized in moving large numbers of undocumented
aliens from Central and South America and the Middle East into the
United States. The successful completion of this case resulted in 9
criminal arrests and the closure of a major smuggling pipeline. In
``Operation Telecom'' INS investigated and shut down a sophisticated
alien smuggling organization that engaged in recruiting and arranging
for the smuggling of Chinese nationals from the People's Republic of
China. This investigation also involved a law firm that assisted the
smugglers by arranging bonds so aliens could be released and returned
to the smugglers. The firm also filed fraudulent political asylum
claims on behalf of the aliens to ensure that they would remain in the
United States.
Border Management and Control
The INS' border management and control efforts have been producing
significant impacts on the border. In fiscal year 2000, INS carried out
immigration inspections for nearly 438 million travelers at the land
borders and nearly 92 million travelers at airports and seaports. In
fiscal year 2001, these inspections are projected to reach 450 million
at the land border and 98 million at airports and seaports, with
continued growth in fiscal year 2002. The INS has set fiscal year 2001
performance targets of 80 percent of land border inspections in 20
minutes or less, and 72 percent of air flights cleared within 30
minutes. The INS will also continue the use of automated systems such
as dedicated commuter lanes to facilitate the flow of inspection
traffic.
During fiscal year 2001, INS is continuing to implement the Border
Patrol's National Strategic Plan, a systematic four-phase approach to
strengthen control of the border with a national focus of ``prevention
through deterrence.'' It is a means to restrict illegal traffic and
encourage legal entry. The plan has been implemented in San Diego, El
Paso, Brownsville and Nogales and it is getting results. For example,
in San Diego apprehensions are at a 25-year low. Apprehensions at other
points on the border have also declined. With the deployment of
additional personnel and equipment this year, we expect this trend to
continue. Changes in apprehension trends will be monitored carefully.
Interior Enforcement/Quick Response Teams
Considerable progress has been made in establishing and staffing
the Quick Response Teams (QRTs). In the fiscal year 1999 INS
appropriation, Congress provided for the creation of QRTs and directed
INS to establish 45 teams with 200 positions. These teams work directly
with State and local law enforcement officers to take into custody and
remove illegal aliens. Of the 200 QRT officers that have been selected,
193 have entered on duty at their assigned locations. The remaining
officers are expected to enter on duty before the end of fiscal year
2001.
Based upon costs incurred during deployment of QRTs to date, INS
estimates that it costs approximately $1.2 million to make each
additional QRT site fully operational. Operating costs primarily
include an average of estimated personnel-related costs for the
combination of INS special agents, detention officers, and deportation
officers, any projected acquisition and build-out costs of any new
offices, standard alterations (as required) to existing facilities, and
funding to purchase and retrofit the additional vehicles needed. Hence,
the funding provided in the fiscal year 1999 appropriations was not
fully sufficient to deploy the 45 QRTs, and base funds had to be
identified to fund the shortfall. The proposed use of the QRT funds
provided in fiscal year 2001 is under development.
Much has been accomplished with the QRTs. During the first quarter
in fiscal year 2001, the teams received 2,532 requests for assistance
from State and local law enforcement agencies. This figure reflects the
largest number of requests received by the QRTs in any given quarter to
date. Of the 2,532 requests, QRTs were able to respond to 92 percent
(2,317). The response time for 98 percent of all requests was less than
three hours. In addition, QRT officers made 2,246 administrative
arrests. Of these arrests, 1,214 were voluntarily returned to their
respective countries of citizenship. Special Agents deployed at QRT
sites presented 171 individuals for criminal prosecution related to
alien smuggling, document fraud, and illegal entry.
Detention and Removal
Since the early 1990's, the average daily population of INS
detainees has grown from less than 6,000 to over 19,000. This rate of
growth was the result of INS' expanded enforcement capability and
changes in detention requirements contained in the IIRIRA of 1996. That
law requires the agency to detain without bond virtually any alien
subject to removal on the basis of a criminal conviction. The INS is
also required to detain aliens who have been ordered removed from the
United States for up to 90 days or until they are removed, regardless
of the basis for the order and the prospects that their home countries
will accept their return. As a result, annual removals in fiscal year
2000 were over 180,000. Over 64,000 of these were criminal alien
removals. In fiscal year 2001, we project that 67,000 criminal aliens
will be removed from the country.
In dealing with the growth in the detention population, INS has
issued detailed standards aimed at ensuring consistent treatment and
care for all detainees. The standards apply to INS' 9 Service
Processing Centers as well as contract facilities and state and local
facilities under intergovernmental service agreements. In addition to
standards for safe, secure and humane confinement, they provide for
consistent and expanded access to legal representation, telephones and
family visits.
Immigration Services
Due to an intense, two-year Naturalization Backlog Reduction
Initiative, the INS has made tremendous progress in increasing its
immigration services' productivity and customer service. In fiscal year
1999, the INS met its first stage goal of completing 1.2 million
naturalization applications. In fiscal year 2000, INS again met its
naturalization goal by completing approximately 1.3 million
applications while achieving a processing time goal of six to nine
months nationwide. In fiscal year 2000, INS also completed 564,000
adjustment of status applications, more than in any other year in the
INS' history, and outperformed its national processing time goal. The
Service also streamlined the ``Green Card'' renewal process, decreasing
the processing time significantly from between 12 and 24 months to 90
days. In fiscal year 2000, the INS also reduced the processing time for
employment petitions from 18 months to 90 days. By transmitting
fingerprints electronically to the FBI, the INS decreased the average
processing time for background investigation checks from 21 days to one
day. The INS enhanced its customer service quality and accessibility by
expanding the National Customer Service Center's live, toll-free (1-800
telephone) assistance area across the U.S. mainland, Puerto Rico, the
U.S. Virgin Islands, and Guam. In fiscal year 2001, the INS continues
working diligently to meet its goal of completing 800,000
naturalization and 800,000 adjustment of status applications.
The INS faces significant challenges in delivering immigration
services in the years ahead: (1) eliminating backlogs in all
immigration benefit applications; (2) managing and responding to new
and changing workload; (3) ensuring process integrity; and (4)
positioning itself for the future, including making needed investments
in information technology. Over the last several years, the INS has
seen a dramatic rise in the number of applications and petitions
received. The LIFE Act amendments alone will add an additional caseload
of 2.3 million applications and petitions in fiscal year 2001 and 1.2
million applications and petitions in fiscal year 2002 to the current
6.9 million applications received annually, a 26 percent increase over
a two-year period. Because this additional workload will strain the
existing infrastructure, the INS is exploring new ways of doing
business to manage the new workload effectively while continuing to
tackle the backlogged caseload aggressively. Premium Processing Service
and electronic filing are examples of these new ways of doing business.
Besides increased productivity, the INS continues working towards
achieving process integrity through its anti-fraud and quality control
efforts. Most importantly, the INS strives for excellence in customer
service through process reengineering, effective and new use of
technology, and greater accessibility to information and services.
conclusion
The fiscal year 2002 request will provide INS with resources needed
to carry out an effective immigration strategy. As you know, this
Administration is committed to restructuring and splitting the INS into
two agencies with separate chains of command that report to one policy
official within the Department of Justice. I look forward to working
with the Subcommittee. With your continued support, we can add to the
improvements that have already been made and address problem areas and
ensure the agency's integrity.
This concludes my formal statement on the fiscal year 2002 budget
request for INS. I would be happy to answer any questions which you,
Mr. Chairman, and Members of the Subcommittee may have.
______

Biographical Sketch of Kevin D. Rooney
Kevin D. Rooney was appointed Acting Commissioner of the
Immigration and Naturalization Service, effective March 26, 2001. Prior
to assuming this position, he served as Director of the Executive
Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) since 1999. EOIR oversees the
immigration court system, including the Board of Immigration Appeals
and 52 immigration courts nationwide. Mr. Rooney previously served as
Deputy Director of EOIR from 1995 to 1997.
As the Assistant Attorney General for Administration from 1977 to
1984, Mr. Rooney served as the Department of Justice's senior career
official and chief management and financial officer under three
Attorney's General during the Carter and Reagan Administrations. He was
Assistant Director of the Bureau of Prisons from 1997 to 1999, and
practiced law in Washington, D.C. from 1984 to 1995.
Mr. Rooney is a native of Palmer, Massachusetts and a graduate of
St. Mary's Seminary and University and George Washington University
School of Law.

Drug Enforcement Administration

STATEMENT OF DONNIE R. MARSHALL, ADMINISTRATOR
Senator Gregg. Mr. Marshall.
Mr. Marshall. Mr. Chairman, good morning, and thank you. I
appreciate the opportunity to be here this morning, and I want
to first take this opportunity to express my gratitude to this
subcommittee and the entire committee for your ongoing support
of the 9,000 very dedicated and courageous and talented men and
women of DEA.
As the world's premier drug law enforcement agency, DEA's
mission, quite simply, is to identify and dismantle the world's
most sophisticated drug trafficking organizations.
Throughout the United States and, in fact, the world, DEA
is at the cutting edge of drug law enforcement. We continuously
adapt our methods to the quickly changing dynamics of the
criminal enterprises and the drug trade.
DEA's efforts, Mr. Chairman, have had a major impact on
global drug trafficking. The demise of the Medellin and Cali
cartels in Colombia are due, in large part, to DEA's aggressive
investigations and our long-standing domestic and international
cooperative efforts.
Our successes against Southeast Asia drug trafficking
organizations have really all but eliminated Southeast Asia
heroin from the United States market.
And we have had an impact on Mexico-based methamphetamine
organizations, which has resulted in a marked decrease in the
purity of methamphetamine coming out of laboratories operated
by those criminal groups.
But despite that good news, we have many challenges ahead.
We see in the United States now that Colombian-based
traffickers dominate the heroin market. We see that the Mexican
organizations have really evolved into what I think is the most
significant challenge that faces law enforcement in the United
States today and, perhaps, in our history.
Along with the traditional drugs of cocaine, heroin,
methamphetamine, marijuana, we see new drugs coming on the
market, and they continue to emerge. Two of the most recent
examples of those are the popular club drug, so-called Ecstasy,
and the very newest threat of OxyContin.
Now, if we are to successfully address each of these new
challenges, we have to rely on the resourcefulness, dedication,
and integrity of our agents, our cooperation with other law
enforcement agencies, and the consistent support that we have
received from this committee.
Now, in that context of, I hope, continued success and
continued addressing of these new and emerging threats, let me
briefly summarize our budget request that is before you today.

dea budget request

In our salaries and expenses appropriation, we are
requesting a total of $1.5 billion and a little over 7,600
positions. That represents an increase of about $120 million
over the 2001 enacted levels.
Our request contains $62.5 million needed to maintain
current levels of operations and $58.2 million and 134
positions for three basic program initiatives, and I will very
briefly outline those three initiatives.

special operations division budget request

First, we are seeking $15.1 million and 62 positions for
the Special Operations Division and Communications Intercept
Initiative. The Special Operations Division, as you may know,
is designed to coordinate multiagency, multijurisdictional,
even multinational investigations, which we aim at the command
and control structures of the criminal drug organizations
operating both domestically and abroad.
Senator, the Special Operations Division has really, over
the last several years, become our very most effective tool
against the command and control structure of those major drug
trafficking organizations.
Now, the resources we are asking for will be used to
enhance staffing levels at our Special Operations Division
investigative units that focus on the Southwest border, Latin
America, the Caribbean, Europe, and Asia. And it also augments
our funding base for contract linguists, communications
intercept equipment, and technical support personnel.

firebird budget request

The second initiative is an enhancement of $30 million and
three positions for our FIREBIRD network. The FIREBIRD network
is the primary office automation infrastructure that serves, as
the communications backbone for DEA, for our intelligence
network, and for many other mission-critical databases and
operational systems.
We are requesting funding to complete the deployment of the
FIREBIRD system, to provide network security, and support
technology renewal so that the system can be updated and so
that we can replace outdated equipment and software on a
regular schedule.

laboratory operations initiative budget request

The third and final initiative is for $13.1 million and 69
positions for our Laboratory Operations Initiative, which will
help us meet mission-critical requirements within that
laboratory services program.
DEA's forensic chemists provide a variety of essential
services, including drug and evidence analysis, on-site
assistance for clandestine laboratory seizures and crime scene
investigations, and vital courtroom testimony to support
prosecution efforts, which is the ultimate goal and product of
all the work that we do.
Now, these resources, I think, will enable DEA to more
effectively meet our mission requirements of both our special
agent workforce and to better support the prosecution of drug
offenders through timely analysis of evidence.

prepared statement

Mr. Chairman, that concludes my summary. I do have a
written statement that I would like to enter for the record,
and I will be happy to answer any questions that you may have.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Donnie R. Marshall
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, I appreciate the
opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the fiscal year 2002
budget request of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA).
Before I begin my testimony today, I would like to take this
opportunity to express my sincere gratitude for the subcommittee's
ongoing support. Without your support, DEA could not continue to safely
and effectively meet the growing challenges posed by increasingly
sophisticated and dangerous international drug trafficking
organizations operating throughout the global community. The
subcommittee's support has helped us to send a message to these
traffickers that their assault on the citizens of this nation will not
be taken lightly, and that we will continue to fight to ensure that our
streets remain safe for generations to come.
The mission of the DEA is to enforce the Controlled Substances laws
and regulations of the United States and to bring to the criminal and
civil justice system of the United States, or any other competent
jurisdiction, those organizations involved in the growing,
manufacturing and/or distribution of controlled substances destined for
illicit traffic in the United States. The DEA also recommends and
supports non-enforcement programs aimed at reducing the availability of
illicit controlled substances on both domestic and international
markets. To accomplish this mission, DEA works with international,
federal, and state and local law enforcement partners to target and
immobilize the organizations of major drug traffickers operating at all
levels of the drug trade.
I have long said this fight cannot be won through law enforcement
alone. There must be a ``holistic'' approach to a global problem. DEA
has in place a five-year strategic plan, which addresses the problems
posed by illicit drug availability and abuse and provides for a
comprehensive balanced approach. There is no doubt that interdiction
and enforcement, coupled with education, prevention and treatment, are
the essential elements for reducing the supply and demand of illicit
drugs in this country.
DEA, in its capacity as the world's leading drug enforcement agency
and the only single-mission federal agency dedicated to drug law
enforcement, has developed the unique ability to direct resources and
manpower to identify, target, investigate and dismantle drug
organizations headquartered overseas and within the United States.
DEA's strategy to successfully accomplish these goals is
straightforward, requiring that the agency's resources and manpower be
focused on all three levels of the drug trade: the international,
national/regional, and local levels. Each of these categories
represents a critical aspect of the drug continuum, which affects
communities across the nation.
The 9,000 dedicated men and women of the DEA are committed to
improving the quality of life of the citizens of the United States. The
agency directs and supports investigations against the highest levels
of the international drug trade, their surrogates operating within the
United States and those traffickers whose violence and criminal
activities threaten towns and cities across the country. These
investigations are intelligence-driven and frequently involve the
cooperative efforts of numerous other law enforcement organizations.
DEA's strategy to reduce drug trafficking at all levels of
operation is flexible and reflects the constantly changing nature of
the drug trade. In concert with the Department of Justice, our sister
law enforcement agencies, and the Office of National Drug Control
Policy (ONDCP), DEA has crafted an innovative and effective program to
keep pace with developments and shifts in the drug trafficking spectrum
and bring both national and international drug traffickers to justice.
fiscal year 2002 budget request
Consistent with this strategy, DEA is requesting additional
resources to implement these plans. For fiscal year 2002, DEA is
requesting a total of $1.6 billion, 8,314 positions, and 8,171 FTE, of
which $1.5 billion, 7,654 positions and 7,515 FTE are funded by our
Salaries and Expenses (S&E) Appropriation, and the remainder is funded
by the Diversion Control Fee Account. For the S&E Appropriation, this
represents an increase of $120.6 million and 134 positions over the
fiscal year 2001 enacted levels. The increase consists of $62.5 million
needed to maintain our current level of operations and $58.2 million
and 134 positions (including 13 Special Agents) for three program
initiatives: a Special Operations Division (SOD) and Communications
Intercept Initiative, a FIREBIRD Initiative, and a Laboratory
Operations Initiative. I will briefly discuss each in turn.
First, DEA is seeking $15.1 million and 62 positions (including 13
Special Agents) under the Special Operations Division and
Communications Intercept Initiative to provide critical enhancements to
its SOD and Investigative Technology programs. SOD is a comprehensive
enforcement operation designed specifically to coordinate multi-agency,
multi-jurisdictional and multi-national Title III investigations
against the command and control elements of major drug trafficking
organizations operating domestically and abroad. These resources will
be used to enhance staffing levels in key investigative units within
the SOD, to include support for drug enforcement investigations
associated with the Southwest Border, Latin America, the Caribbean,
Europe, and Asia. This request also augments DEA's funding base for
contract linguists, and enhances DEA's investigative technology
programs through new resources for equipment, technical support
personnel, and training.
Second, under our FIREBIRD Initiative, DEA requests an enhancement
of $30 million and 3 positions for the global FIREBIRD network.
FIREBIRD is DEA's primary office automation infrastructure. It provides
essential computer tools for agents and support staff, including E-
mail, uniform word processing, and many other forms of office
automation software. FIREBIRD also serves as the communications
``backbone'' for DEA's MERLIN intelligence network, and serves as the
platform for numerous other mission critical databases and operational
systems. DEA is requesting funding to complete deployment of the
system, provide vital network security, and support technology renewal
of the system. The technology renewal resources will allow DEA to
replace outdated technology and adopt a reasonable replacement cycle
for FIREBIRD equipment.
Third and finally, DEA requests $13.1 million and 69 positions
(including 46 chemists) for our Laboratory Operations Initiative to
meet mission-critical requirements within our laboratory services
program. DEA's forensic chemists provide a variety of essential
services, including drug and evidence analysis, on-site assistance for
clandestine laboratory seizures and crime scene investigations, and
vital courtroom testimony to support prosecution efforts. Likewise, the
recent success of DEA's Operation Breakthrough program in providing the
U.S. Government with new scientific data on coca cultivation and
cocaine production in Colombia has demonstrated the crucial role played
by DEA forensic chemists and intelligence analysts in supporting the
critical intelligence needs of senior U.S. policy makers and the
counterdrug intelligence community. We must be able to enhance our
capability to carry out this type of strategic analysis and reporting.
The requested funds and staffing are needed to address a growing
backlog of exhibits and establish a laboratory equipment base that will
better support program operations. Collectively, these resources will
enable DEA to more effectively meet the mission requirements of its
Special Agent workforce and better support the prosecution of drug
offenders through timely analysis of evidence.
the challenge: international drug trafficking organizations
DEA targets, investigates, and dismantles the most powerful drug
syndicates operating around the world which are responsible for
supplying drugs to American communities. The most significant drug
syndicates operating today are far more powerful and violent than any
of the other organized criminal groups that we have experienced in the
history of American law enforcement. Unlike traditional organized
crime, these new criminals operate on a global scale with transnational
networks to conduct illicit enterprises simultaneously in many
different countries. DEA has grown in sophistication and effectiveness
to meet the challenge posed by international drug trafficking in the
new century.
The main challenge DEA faced during the late 1980's was posed by
the major drug traffickers from Medellin, Colombia. These drug lords
were investigated, arrested and prosecuted by the Colombian National
Police (CNP), the DEA, and U.S. Federal prosecutors, beginning with the
landmark return of Carlos Lehder to face drug charges in the United
States, and ending with the death of Pablo Escobar in a shoot-out with
the CNP. During this same time frame, narcotics investigations by the
DEA and other Federal, state and local entities created a choke point
in South Florida and the Caribbean, through which most of the illicit
drugs arriving in our country were being transported. These enforcement
strategies led to the demise of the Medellin Cartel.
As the Medellin traffickers disintegrated, the Cali traffickers
quietly coalesced and assumed power equal to that of their
predecessors. Due to law enforcement's response to the trafficking in
the Caribbean, the Cali traffickers would later form an alliance with
Mexican trafficking groups in order to stage and transport drugs across
the Southwest Border. The drug traffickers from Cali were far more
sophisticated than the Medellin group and eventually became deeply
involved in all aspects of the cocaine trade, including production,
transportation, wholesale distribution and money laundering. Whereas
the Medellin traffickers seemed to revel in the terror and violence
that became their trademark--and ultimately contributed to their
downfall--the Cali traffickers attempted to avoid indiscriminate
violence and sought to build their image as legitimate businessmen. The
Cali leaders--the Rodriguez-Orejuela brothers, Jose Santacruz Londono,
and Helmer ``Pacho'' Herrera-Buitrago--amassed fortunes and ran their
multi-billion dollar cocaine businesses from high-rises and ranches in
Colombia. Miguel Rodriguez-Orejuela and his associates comprised what
was, until then, the most powerful international organized crime group
in history.
During 1995 and 1996, intense law enforcement pressure was focused
on the Cali leadership by the brave men and women of the Colombian
National Police. As a result, all of the top trafficking leaders from
Cali were either in jail or killed. During that time frame, U.S. law
enforcement agencies were effectively attacking Colombian cells
operating within the United States. With the Cali leaders' imprisonment
in Colombia and the successful attacks by law enforcement on their U.S.
cells, traffickers from Mexico took on greater prominence. A growing
alliance between the Colombian traffickers and the organizations from
Mexico worked to benefit both sides.
Traffickers from Mexico had long been involved in smuggling
marijuana, heroin, and cocaine across the United States/Mexico border,
using entrenched distribution routes to deliver drugs throughout the
United States. The emergence of the Mexico-based organizations as major
methamphetamine producers and traffickers also contributed to making
them a major force in international drug trafficking. The Mexican
traffickers, who were previously paid in cash by the Colombian
traffickers for their services, began to routinely receive up to one-
half of a shipment of cocaine as their payment. This led to Mexican
traffickers having access to multi-ton quantities of cocaine and
allowed them to expand their markets and influence in the United
States, thereby making them formidable cocaine traffickers in their own
right.
The United States/Mexico border is now the primary point of entry
for cocaine shipments being smuggled into the United States. According
to a recent assessment, more than half of the cocaine smuggled into the
United States crosses the Southwest Border. Today, traffickers
operating from Colombia continue to control wholesale level cocaine
distribution throughout the heavily populated northeastern United
States and along the eastern seaboard in cities such as Boston, Miami,
Newark, New York City, and Philadelphia. Traffickers operating from
Mexico, however, control wholesale cocaine distribution throughout the
western and Midwestern United States. The distribution of multi-ton
quantities of cocaine once dominated by the Colombia-based drug groups
is now controlled by Mexico-based trafficking groups in cities such as
Chicago, Dallas, Denver, Houston, Los Angeles, Phoenix, San Diego, San
Francisco, and Seattle.
Members of international crime groups today pose a much greater
threat than did their Medellin and Cali predecessors. They have at
their disposal the most sophisticated communications technology,
including faxes, the Internet, and cell phones. Additionally, they have
in their arsenal radar-equipped aircraft, weapons and an army of
workers who oversee the drug business from its raw beginnings in South
American jungles to the urban areas and core city locations within the
United States. All of this modern technology and these vast resources
enable the leaders of international criminal groups to build
organizations which, together with their surrogates operating within
the United States, reach into the heartland of America. The leaders of
these crime groups work through their organizations to transport drugs
into the United States, and franchise others to distribute drugs,
thereby allowing them to remain beyond the reach of American justice.
Those involved in drug trafficking often generate such tremendous
profits that they are able to corrupt law enforcement, military and
political officials in order to create a safe haven for themselves.
Successes against the Medellin and Cali drug lords accelerated the
decentralization of the international cocaine trade. In this new
century, we are seeing ``second generation'' traffickers emerge as
major players in the Colombian cocaine trade. They tend to be less
willing to directly challenge government authority and are much more
sophisticated in their methods of operation. They extensively use
wireless communication devices, which they change with great frequency.
Other emerging characteristics are the use of computerized
communications, elaborate concealment of clandestine cargo, and
avoidance of direct involvement in retail distribution or even direct
distribution to the U.S. market. The successful identification,
investigation, and prosecution of these violators has become an even
greater challenge to law enforcement both in the United States and
Colombia.
the response: today's dea
DEA is continuing to identify and build cases against the leaders
of the new criminal groups from Colombia. As the criminals have become
more sophisticated, we have built what is in many ways a new DEA, far
more sophisticated than that which was created in the 1970s.
As an organization, DEA has grown and changed tremendously over the
years. From 1,446 agents and 1,422 support personnel in 1973, we have
grown to 3,772 agents and 4,340 support staff at the end of 2000. From
our first budget of $74 million in 1973, DEA's budget authority has
grown to $1.44 billion for the current year.
Domestically, we now operate through 21 Field Divisions, in
addition to the Special Operations Division at DEA Headquarters, with
offices in every State. Also within the United States, we work through
the Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Forces (OCDETF) program. This
program was initiated in 1982 to combine federal, state, and local law
enforcement efforts into a comprehensive attack against organized crime
and drug traffickers. DEA continues to be the leading initiator of
OCDETF cases.
Overseas, the DEA now maintains 78 offices in 57 countries. These
offices support DEA domestic investigations through foreign liaison,
training of host country officials, bilateral investigations, and
intelligence gathering. Through the International Visitor Program, DEA
provides foreign officials and U.S. diplomats with briefs on drug
trafficking trends and national and international counter narcotics
activities.
Electronic surveillance is critical to our success in combating the
drug problem in the United States. In fact, the vast majority of court
authorized electronic surveillance actions are directly tied to
enforcement of the controlled substances laws and regulations of the
United States. Without this essential tool, we in drug law enforcement
would be unable to prevent, investigate, and solve many of the crimes
associated with the growing, manufacture, or distribution of illegal
drugs. In order to meet the challenges presented by these sophisticated
drug trafficking organizations, it is necessary for us to attack the
command and control mechanisms of these organizations. Our center for
targeting command and control is the Special Operations Division (SOD),
a combined DEA, U.S. Customs, FBI, IRS/Criminal Investigations, and
DOJ/Criminal Division effort that supports ongoing investigations by
producing detailed and comprehensive analyses of data revealing the
activities and organizational structures of major drug trafficking and
drug-related money laundering organizations and identifying
relationships among traffickers and their related enterprises.
Today's international drug trafficking organizations are the
wealthiest, most powerful, and most ruthless organized crime entities
we have ever faced. We know from our investigations that they utilize
their virtually unlimited wealth to purchase the most sophisticated
electronic equipment available on the market to facilitate their
illegal activities. The Special Operations Division has enabled us to
build cases against the leaders of these powerful organizations by
targeting their command and control communications with multi-
jurisdictional criminal investigations based on state-of-the-art, court
approved Title III electronic interceptions. We rely on the information
and evidence gathered from these Title III interceptions of their
communications to build a picture of the organizations, identify the
individual members, and obtain evidence enabling us to make arrests and
take apart whole sections of the criminal organizations at a time. The
capability provided by SOD is at the core of our ability to make cases
against the leadership and U.S.-based infrastructure of these powerful
organizations that control the drug trade in our hemisphere.
Our State & Local Task Force program carries out one of the DEA's
priority initiatives: addressing the problem of drug-related violent
crime with our state and local counterparts. There are currently 1,134
Special Agent positions dedicated to this enforcement effort working
alongside 1,868 State or local police officers in 203 Task Forces. Of
this number, 45 task forces are funded through the HIDTA program.
DEA's Mobile Enforcement Teams (METs) were conceived in 1995 in
response to the overwhelming problem of drug-related violent crime in
towns and cities across the nation. MET teams assist local law
enforcement officers in identifying major drug traffickers and
organizations that commit homicide and other violent crimes,
collecting, analyzing, and sharing intelligence, arresting drug
traffickers and assisting in the arrests of violent offenders and
gangs, seizing assets, and assisting prosecutors. METs have completed
294 deployments so far, with 18 more currently under way. There are 262
DEA Special Agents assigned to the MET Program nationwide, comprising
24 teams.
The High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas (HIDTA) program was
authorized by the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988 and is administered by
the Office of National Drug Control Policy. Its mission is to reduce
drug trafficking throughout the country by coordinating federal, state,
and local law enforcement efforts.
To ensure that criminals do not benefit financially from their
illegal acts, federal law provides that profits from drug-related
crimes may be legally seized. Asset forfeiture is an effective weapon
because it removes the profit from illegal activities thereby
financially disabling the drug-trafficking organizations. Property is
seized by the DEA only when it is determined to be a tool for, or the
proceeds of, illegal activities such as drug trafficking, organized
crime, or money laundering. The DEA has also launched major operations
specifically targeting the money-laundering capabilities of major
trafficking organizations.
DEA is also in the forefront of the forensic science industry.
DEA's eight Regional laboratories make up the largest accredited
federal lab system in the United States. They provide the best
available forensic drug analysis to the law enforcement community.
These Labs each serve a region of the country. The Northeast Laboratory
is located in New York City, the North Central Laboratory in Chicago,
the Southeast Laboratory in Miami, the South Central Laboratory in
Dallas, the Southwest Laboratory in National City (CA), the Western
Laboratory in San Francisco, and the Mid-Atlantic Lab in Washington,
D.C. In addition, the Special Testing Laboratory is in the Washington,
D.C. suburbs.
The DEA's Computer Forensics Program (CFP) is the application of
computer technology and specialized seizure and evidence handling
techniques to retrieve information from computer systems for
investigative or intelligence purposes. Like many other business
people, drug traffickers rely on computers and electronic pocket
organizers to store information. Modern law enforcement routinely
encounters and seizes home computers, laptops, computer networks,
pocket organizers, and magnetic media in every conceivable size and
format. These items, when seized, are forwarded to the CFP for
duplication and extraction of information in such a way as to preserve
the integrity of the evidence in a court-admissible manner. The
Computer Forensics Program was established in October 1994, and has
processed hundreds of computer items and pieces of electronic equipment
each year since then. Over the last five years, the number of cases and
computer seizures have increased by approximately 30 percent each year.
Most of the drugs in the illicit traffic are products of illicit
processing or synthesis. Prior to 1988, there were virtually no legal
impediments to obtaining the chemicals necessary to manufacture drugs
of abuse, no records required to be maintained for inspection, and no
penalties for negligence or willful diversion. However, the Chemical
Diversion and Trafficking Act of 1988 extended the concept of commodity
control to those chemicals most often used for the manufacture and
synthesis of drugs of abuse. With the support of the State Department,
the DEA pursued the same goal for incorporation into the U.N.
Convention Against Illicit Drug Traffic of 1988 (the Vienna
Convention). On these legal bases, DEA has established controls over a
list of critical chemicals commonly diverted for the production of the
major drugs of abuse.
major investigations
Using the law enforcement tools available to today's DEA, as
outlined above, in the past several years we have participated in a
number of very significant investigations. These actions demonstrate
not only the new sophistication of drug trafficking organizations at
the beginning of the Twenty-First Century, but also the significance of
the law enforcement response.
We continue to carry out cutting-edge, sophisticated
investigations, which successfully targeted major traffickers who had
previously operated without fear of capture or prosecution in the
United States, believing that only their low-level operatives were at
risk. These operations underscore the importance of cooperation among
international drug law enforcement agencies. Such operations benefit
from the closest possible cooperation between the DEA and our foreign
counterparts. These investigations will continue to lead to the
dismantling of major portions of the most significant drug trafficking
organizations operating today. Allow me to review just a few of DEA's
recent successes.
Operation Millennium, brought to a successful conclusion in 1999,
effectively demonstrated that even the highest level traffickers based
in foreign countries could not manage drug operations inside the United
States with impunity. Operation Millennium was made possible by direct
support from the governments of Colombia and Mexico. Operation
Millennium effectively targeted major cocaine suppliers who had been
responsible for shipping vast quantities of cocaine from Colombia
through Mexico into the United States. Operation Millennium
specifically targeted drug kingpin Alejandro Bernal-Madrigal, who, by
his own admission, had been smuggling 30 tons, or 500 million dosage
units, of cocaine into the United States every month.
Operation Mountain Express was a joint operation between DEA's
Special Operations Division and the Office of Diversion Control.
Mountain Express targeted traffickers of the methamphetamine precursor,
pseudoephedrine. Existing regulations make it possible for California-
based Mexican criminal organizations to purchase multi-ton quantities
of pseudoephedrine for use in methamphetamine production. Since January
2000, SOD coordinated a number of multi-jurisdictional investigations
targeting pseudoephedrine traffickers, many of whom were of Middle
Eastern origin, using 11 wiretaps during the course of the
investigations.
Operation Tar Pit was a DEA led multi-jurisdictional investigation
targeting a Mexican heroin transportation and trafficking organization
based in Tepic, Nayarit, Mexico. Primarily, this organization imported
multi-kilogram quantities of black tar heroin from Mexico into the
United States. During the course of the operation, more than 30 Federal
Title III investigations were conducted. In June 2000, a nationwide
takedown occurred against Operation Tar Pit targets, which included the
principal Mexican command and control members in Mexico, U.S. based
cell heads, workers for each cell, couriers, and customers.
In November 2000, the DEA, FBI, U.S. Customs Service, and Federal
prosecutors culminated an 18-month investigation targeting a multi-
ethnic, transnational MDMA (Ecstasy) and cocaine distribution
organization, following-up on enforcement action by Dutch police in the
Netherlands. The investigation, known as Operation RED TIDE, was a
textbook example of the new multi-agency, multi-national law
enforcement cooperation needed to thwart organized crime in the 21st
Century. As a result of this cooperative effort, Customs agents seized
1,096 pounds (2.1 million tablets) of MDMA, the largest single seizure
of the drug in history. The head of the organization, Tamer Adel
Ibrahim fled the United States after the seizure, but was quickly
traced to Mexico and then to Europe by the multi-agency team. Ibrahim,
along with others, was arrested and the Dutch National Police seized
1.2 million tablets of MDMA.
Operations like RED TIDE exemplify the unprecedented level of
international law enforcement cooperation in effect today. The
investigation targeting a transnational MDMA and cocaine trafficking
syndicate was a cooperative effort by the U.S. law enforcement
agencies, as well as the Dutch National Police/Regional Team South,
Mexico's Fiscalia Especializad Para La Atencion De Delitos (FEADS), the
Israeli National Police, the German Federal Police (Bundes Kriminal
Amt), the Cologne Germany Police Department, the Duissburg Germany
Police Department, the Italian National Police and the French National
Police.
This investigation is extremely important because MDMA (Ecstasy) is
a new threat with the potential to cause great damage, especially to
America's youth. Operation Red Tide has ensured that a large volume of
Ecstasy that would have made it into the hands of our youth never hit
the streets, and sent a strong message to the traffickers that the DEA
is leading a truly global response to the drug threat.
Last December, the DEA, together with U.S. Customs and the FBI,
completed Operation Impunity II, resulting in 141 arrests and the
seizure of 5,266 kilograms of cocaine, 9,325 pounds of marijuana, and
approximately $9,663,265 in U.S. currency and assets. Impunity II
follows earlier successes dating back to 1996 in Operation Limelight
and Operation Impunity I and was the result of the outstanding
coordination between federal, state, and local law enforcement
officials and prosecutors across the country.
Operation Impunity II was a multi-agency law enforcement effort
that targeted a wide-ranging conspiracy to smuggle thousands of pounds
of cocaine and marijuana from Mexico, across the southwest border into
Texas, for distribution throughout the United States. Impunity II
targeted an organization that placed managers in the United States and
retained the organizational command and control elements in Mexico. In
addition to remnants from the Carrillo-Fuentes organization, agents
learned that some members of the Mexican Gulf Cartel had also become
associated with the organization, including Osiel Cardenas-Guillen,
allegedly a former Gulf Cartel lieutenant. In addition to the domestic
enforcement activity in this country, the United States Government
presented provisional arrest warrants for extradition for eight Mexican
nationals in Mexico and one Dominican national in the Dominican
Republic.
In January of this year, Operation White Horse targeted a large
scale heroin trafficking organization, directed by Wilson SALAZAR-
Maldonado, which was responsible for sending multi-kilogram quantities
of heroin from Colombia to the Northeastern United States via Aruba.
The investigation was conducted jointly by the Colombian National
Police, DEA Bogota, Curacao, Philadelphia and New York, and the Special
Operations Division. This investigation resulted in 96 arrests, as well
as the seizure of multi-kilograms quantities of heroin and cocaine,
weapons and U.S. currency.
current drug trafficking threat to the united states
Drug law enforcement agencies face an enormous challenge in
protecting American communities from drug traffickers who smuggle in
cocaine, heroin, methamphetamine, and marijuana for distribution in
U.S. neighborhoods as well as from domestic suppliers of these drugs.
Cocaine Trends
The primary U.S. drug threat is cocaine, particularly in its
smokable form known as ``crack'' cocaine. The trafficking,
distribution, and abuse of cocaine and crack cocaine over the past
decade, along with increasing drug-related violence, seriously
debilitate the quality of life in many cities and towns across the
country. Most of this nation's drug law enforcement assets are directed
against cocaine traffickers.
Crack, the inexpensive, smokable form of cocaine, continues to be
distributed and used in most major cities. While cocaine use in the
United States has declined over the past decade, the rate of use in
recent years has stabilized at high levels. Crack cocaine usage, which
drove these rates, has reached the saturation point in large urban
areas throughout the country. Street gangs, such as the Crips and the
Bloods, and groups of ethnic Dominicans, Puerto Ricans, and Jamaicans
dominate the retail market for crack cocaine nationwide.
Heroin Trends
Heroin is readily available in many U.S. cities as evidenced by the
unprecedented level of average retail, or street-level, purity. The
increased availability of high-purity heroin, which can effectively be
snorted, has given rise to a new, younger user population. While
avoiding the stigma and additional health hazards of needle use, this
user group is ingesting larger quantities of the drug and, according to
drug treatment specialists, progressing more quickly toward addiction.
South American Heroin
The availability of South American (SA) heroin, produced in
Colombia, has increased dramatically in the United States since 1993.
South American heroin is available in the major metropolitan areas of
the Northeast and along the East Coast. Investigations also indicate
the spread of South American heroin to smaller U.S. cities as well.
Within the United States, ethnic Dominican criminal groups have played
a significant role in retail-level heroin distribution in northeastern
markets for at least the past two decades. Currently, Dominican groups
dominate retail heroin markets in northeastern cities such as New York,
Boston, and Philadelphia.
Mexican Heroin
Mexican heroin has been a threat to the United States for decades.
It is produced, smuggled, and distributed by polydrug trafficking
groups, many of which have been in operation for more than 20 years.
Nearly all of the heroin produced in Mexico is destined for
distribution in the United States. Organized crime groups operating
from Mexico produce, smuggle, and distribute the black tar heroin sold
in the western United States. Once the heroin reaches the United
States, traffickers rely upon well-entrenched polydrug smuggling and
distribution networks to deliver their product to the market, primarily
in the metropolitan areas of the Midwestern, southwestern, and western
United States with sizable Mexican immigrant populations.
Southeast Asian Heroin
High-purity Southeast Asian (SEA) heroin dominated the market in
the United States during the late 1980s and early 1990s. Over the past
few years, however, all indicators point to a decrease in SEA heroin
available domestically. Despite the recent decline in trafficking of
SEA heroin, Chinese criminal groups based in Asia remain the most
sophisticated heroin trafficking organizations in the world.
Southwest Asian Heroin
While a large portion of Southwest Asian (SWA) heroin is consumed
in Western Europe, Pakistan, and Iran, traffickers operating from
Middle Eastern locales smuggle SWA heroin to ethnic enclaves in the
United States. Criminal groups composed of ethnic Lebanese, Pakistanis,
Turks, and Afghans are all involved in supplying the drug to U.S.-based
groups for retail distribution. West African traffickers, who primarily
smuggled SEA heroin to the United States in the 1990s, now also deal in
SWA heroin.
Methamphetamine Trends
Domestic methamphetamine production, trafficking, and abuse are
concentrated in the western United States. Methamphetamine is also
increasingly available in portions of the South. Clandestine
laboratories in California and Mexico are the primary sources of supply
for methamphetamine available in the United States.
Over the last decade, the methamphetamine trafficking and abuse
situation in the United States changed dramatically. In 1994, ethnic
Mexican drug trafficking organizations operating ``super labs'' (labs
capable of producing in excess of ten pounds of methamphetamine in one
24-hour production cycle) based in Mexico and California began to take
control of the production and distribution of methamphetamine
domestically. The entry of ethnic Mexican traffickers into the
methamphetamine trade in the mid-1990s resulted in a significant
increase in the supply of the drug.
The primary points of entry into the United States for
methamphetamine produced in Mexico have traditionally been California
ports of entry, particularly San Ysidro. Although a great amount of
methamphetamine still transits this area, ports-of-entry in south Texas
are experiencing significant increases in smuggling activity.
The vast majority of methamphetamine precursor chemicals diverted
to clandestine laboratories in the United States are dosage-form
pseudoephedrine or ephedrine drug products. They are usually purchased
from U.S. manufacturers and distributors who sell case quantities of
the tablets. The finished methamphetamine is then distributed
throughout the United States through preexisting smuggling methods to
the traffickers.
Marijuana Trends
Marijuana is the most widely abused and readily available illicit
drug in the United States with an estimated 11.5 million current users.
At least one-third of the U.S. population has used marijuana sometime
in their lives. The drug is considered a ``gateway'' to the world of
illicit drug abuse.
Marijuana smuggled into the United States, whether grown in Mexico
or transshipped from other Latin American source areas, accounts for
most of the marijuana available in the United States. Marijuana
produced in Mexico remains the most widely available. Moreover, high-
potency marijuana enters the U.S. drug market from Canada. The
availability of marijuana from the Far East, primarily Thailand,
generally is limited to the West Coast. U.S. drug law enforcement
reporting also suggests increased availability of domestically grown
marijuana.
MDMA Trends
Commonly referred to as Ecstasy, XTC, Clarity or Essence, the
chemical substance known as 3, 4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA)
is a synthetic psychoactive drug possessing stimulant and mild
hallucinogenic properties. In the early 1990s, MDMA became increasingly
popular among European youth. However, it is within the last five years
that MDMA use in the United States has increased at an alarming rate.
Although the vast majority of MDMA consumed domestically is
produced in Europe, a limited number of MDMA laboratories operate in
the United States. Law enforcement seized seven clandestine MDMA
laboratories in the United States in 2000 compared to 19 seized in
1999. It should be noted that these labs were primarily capable of
limited drug production. While ``recipes'' for the clandestine
production of MDMA can be found on the Internet, acquiring the
necessary precursor chemicals in the United States is difficult.
MDMA is manufactured clandestinely in Western Europe, particularly
in the Netherlands and Belgium. Much of the MDMA is manufactured in the
southeast section of the Netherlands near Maastricht. International
MDMA traffickers based in the Netherlands and Belgium consistently use
other European countries, such as France, England, Germany, and Spain
as transshipment points for MDMA shipments destined for the United
States. Russian, Israeli and European criminal organizations, the
principal traffickers of MDMA worldwide, supply the United States with
the drug.
drug diversion
The purpose of DEA's Drug Diversion Control Program is to prevent,
detect, and investigate the diversion of controlled substances from
legitimate channels. The goal is to ensure that these ``controlled
substances'' are readily available for medical use, while preventing
their distribution for illicit sale and abuse.
OxyContin
OxyContin is a Schedule II controlled release form of the
narcotic oxycodone. It is legitimately used as a medication to treat
moderate to severe pain and is becoming the drug of choice in many pain
management clinics. In a little over four years, sales have reached $1
billion.
The pharmacological effects of OxyContin make it
attractive to abusers as it offers reliable strength and dosage levels
and may, in some instances, be covered by the abuser's health
insurance. Abusers have discovered that the controlled release formula
of OxyContin can be easily compromised by inhalation or
injection resulting in a powerful, morphine-like high.
Reports of the diversion and abuse of OxyContin are
currently concentrated in rural areas of the eastern United States;
however, DEA's Office of Diversion Control has identified this activity
as a growing problem throughout the nation. This is consistent with the
increase in emergency room episodes involving oxycodone. The estimated
number of episodes involving oxycodone were stable from 1990 through
1996. However, the number of emergency room episodes doubled from 1996
to 1999: 3,190 episodes in 1996 to 6,429 in 1999.
In order to combat the serious and growing problems stemming from
the diversion and abuse of OxyContin, DEA has developed and
initiated its first national action plan for a prescription medication.
The elements of this plan are: coordinating enforcement and
intelligence operations, to include interagency efforts; utilizing
regulatory and administrative authorities, including the support of
other regulatory agencies; seeking industry cooperation; and
implementing aggressive education and outreach efforts.
impact on the united states
None of the major drug traffickers headquartered overseas could
operate without the assistance of national and regional drug
trafficking organizations which are responsible for trafficking huge
quantities of drugs into U.S. communities. These organizations are
comprised of a network of operatives who transport, store and
distribute drugs and collect and repatriate drug proceeds throughout
the United States and whose activities are directed by drug lords based
in foreign countries. In many cases, national and regional drug
trafficking organizations are comprised of numerous cells whose
directors are responsible for specific tasks such as communications,
financial matters and/or logistics. These cell heads are sent to the
United States for a period of time to carry out the business mandates
of the top drug lords and are given specific tasks to accomplish. The
national and regional drug syndicates have infiltrated many states and
communities, bringing with them the crime and violence once limited to
major urban areas. A survey of recent DEA investigations revealed that
over 400 investigations stemming from Operations Reciprocity and
Limelight involved drug traffickers from foreign countries who had set
up operations in various cities across the United States.
Local violent drug trafficking organizations also operate across
the United States and are responsible for eroding the quality of life
in many American communities. Previously centered in major urban areas,
violent drug trafficking groups are now part of the landscape in
smaller cities and rural areas. Fueled in large part by methamphetamine
production and trafficking, violent drug trafficking organizations are
now affecting the crime rates in smaller cities such as Spokane,
Washington and Cedar Rapids, Iowa. While these local, violent groups
appear to be unrelated to the large international drug trafficking
organizations headquartered overseas, it is important to note that all
of the cocaine and heroin that is trafficked by these groups is
produced overseas and transported to the United States for eventual
distribution on the local level.
demand reduction
The number one goal of the National Drug Strategy is to educate and
enable America's youth to reject illegal drugs as well as alcohol and
tobacco. DEA believes that there is a role for everyone to play in this
goal, including law enforcement. Law enforcement may not take the lead
in demand reduction efforts, but it has a unique perspective and wealth
of experience to bring to the prevention arena. DEA special agents have
seen first hand the terrible impact of drug abuse in communities, and
speak with a compelling authority in explaining to citizens why this
problem needs to be conquered. They also have great expertise in
planning, organizing and implementing proactive efforts to deal with
drug abuse.
As an example of DEA's contribution to drug prevention, Demand
Reduction Coordinators (DRC's) have been instrumental in working with
media to place public service announcements from the Partnership for a
Drug-Free America in support of the President's Youth Media Campaign.
Demand Reduction Coordinators worked collaboratively with state and
local authorities to produce an educational video (several thousand
distributed to date) for adults and adolescents in the Midwest to
educate them about the dangers of methamphetamine. In New York and
Washington, D.C., Demand Reduction Coordinators developed an ad
campaign geared to engaging youth that is being posted on busses,
subway trains, and taxis. And the Demand Reduction Section has
participated in satellite video conferences that were broadcast all
over the United States.
Additionally the Demand Reduction Section, the Bureau of Justice
Assistance, and the National Crime Prevention Council have conducted
seminars for teams of community leaders from cities and towns that
received MET deployments. The objective is to educate community leaders
to start programs that prevent the return of the drug trafficking and
violent crime that plagued their neighborhoods. CPD hosted a group of
national experts in drug and crime prevention to review the proposed
curriculum for this training.
The DEA web page is yet another way of reaching a large segment of
the public with demand reduction information both for young people and
their parents. But not everyone has access to computers, or is
computer-literate. Therefore, DEA also reaches the public through
publications and direct contact such as seminars, conferences and
meetings with youth, parents, employers, employees, businesses,
community and civic groups, teachers, coaches, clergy, prisoners, as
well as law enforcement personnel.
The driving force behind DEA's demand reduction program has always
been the particular credibility that law enforcement, and especially
federal law enforcement officers bring to the drug prevention arena.
DEA agents possess a certain authority because of their background and
job experiences, which play an important role in the overall drug
demand reduction picture. This is why DEA's current demand reduction
program has been so successful.
dea's strategic plan
In order to meet the enormous challenges posed by internationally-
based narcotics traffickers and their surrogates within the United
States, DEA has developed a five-year Strategic Plan which is a key
part of our commitment to establish and maintain a clear focus on the
outcome of our efforts. In its unique capacity as the world's leading
drug enforcement agency, DEA carries out its legal mandate for
enforcing provisions of the controlled substances and chemical
diversion, trafficking laws and regulations, and serves as the single
point of contact for the coordination of all international drug
investigations.
To ensure mission success, DEA attacks all levels of drug
trafficking using both traditional and innovative drug control
approaches, focusing its enforcement operations on the full continuum
of drug trafficking. This overall strategic approach is based on the
recognition that the major drug traffickers, operating both
internationally and domestically, have insulated themselves from the
drug distribution networks but remain closely linked to the proceeds of
their trade. Consequently, the identification and forfeiture of
illicitly derived assets is a powerful tool in successfully destroying
the economic base of the drug trafficking organization, as well as a
means of proving a connection between violators and a criminal drug
conspiracy at the time of prosecution.
In view of this assessment, DEA's investigative efforts are
directed against the major international drug trafficking organizations
and their facilitators at every juncture in their operations--from the
cultivation and production of drugs in foreign countries, to their
passage through the transit zone, and eventual distribution on the
streets of America's communities. DEA's Strategic Plan takes into
account the current drug trafficking situation affecting the United
States, and works to identify the characteristics and exploit the
vulnerabilities of all three levels of the drug trade. By focusing
directly on the agency's investigative priority targeting system, DEA
responds to each of the following levels simultaneously:
International Targets.--DEA will eliminate the power and control of
the major drug trafficking organizations and dismantle their
infrastructure by disrupting and dismantling the operations of their
supporting organizations that provide raw materials and chemicals,
produce and transship illicit drugs, launder money worldwide, and halt
the operations of their surrogates in the United States.
National/Regional Targets.--DEA will continue an aggressive and
balanced enforcement program with a multi-jurisdictional approach
designed to help focus Federal and interagency resources on illegal
drug traffickers, their organizations and key members who have control
of an area within a region of the United States, and the drugs and
assets involved in their activities.
Local Initiatives.--DEA will continue to assist States and
localities in attacking the violence that plagues our cities, rural
areas, and small towns to protect our citizens from the impact of
drugs, and help restore a positive quality of life. DEA considers this
an important part of its overall strategy to complement the state and
local efforts with specialized programs that bring DEA's intelligence,
expertise, and leadership into specific trouble spots throughout the
nation.
In each of the aforementioned forums, DEA seeks to identify,
target, investigate, disrupt, and dismantle the international,
national, state, and local drug trafficking organizations that are
having the most significant impact on America. DEA's strategic goals
reflect the agency's efforts to use its unique skills and limited
resources in a manner designed to achieve maximum impact. This requires
maintaining a clear focus on Deals core competency--the destruction and
dismantlement of drug trafficking organizations. The implementation of
DEA's strategic plan is carried out with the ``holistic'' approach,
which I mentioned at the beginning of my statement. This approach
addresses the problems posed by illicit drug availability and abuse and
provides for a comprehensive approach of interdiction and enforcement,
coupled with education, prevention and treatment.
Mr. Chairman, that concludes my prepared remarks. I will be happy
to take any questions you may have for me at this time.

[ins] deg.more Immigrants entering the country

Senator Gregg. Thank you very much, and we will include
your written statements in the record.
Commissioner, you mentioned that in the last decade we had
more immigrants coming into the country than in any period in
the country's history?
Mr. Rooney. Yes. It was rather surprising to me, but in the
last decade more than in any other decade, including the
beginning of the last century, the first 10 years, which is
rather staggering.
Senator Gregg. Are you referring to legal and illegal, or
are you just talking about legal immigrants?
Mr. Rooney. Legal.
Senator Gregg. Legal immigrants. And what percent----
Mr. Rooney. I am talking about applications that come in,
yes.
Senator Gregg. Applications?
Mr. Rooney. Right. The processing of applications for
benefits.
Senator Gregg. All right. And what percentage of those
folks become citizens?
Mr. Rooney. I do not know that off hand.
Senator Gregg. Now, you said you had an 80 percent increase
in applications last year and 50 percent over last year this
year?
Mr. Rooney. Yes. The applications this year, in 2000, were
50 percent more than the previous year and 80 percent more than
the year before that.
Senator Gregg. And what percentage of those applications do
you approve?
Mr. Rooney. Well, looking at two different types of
applications.
We take the naturalization applications, for example, Mr.
Chairman, in fiscal year 2000, we completed 1.3 million of
those and reduced the backlog down to 800,000. The backlog
previously had been 1.8 million. So we are on our way to
getting that backlog eliminated, which is part of the
President's 52-year plan to do that.

[ins] deg.Guest worker proposals

Senator Gregg. Right. Have you taken a look at all of the
guest worker proposals that have been floating around? The
President talked, I guess, to President Vicente Fox about it,
and it has been mentioned a number of times by Senator Gramm.
Mr. Rooney. Yes, Mr. Chairman. In fact, I had the
opportunity in my first week at INS, about 5 or 6 weeks ago, to
participate in the first round of those talks with the Mexican
Government.
The President put the Attorney General and Secretary Powell
as the head of the talks, and a staff group from the State
Department and Justice and INS--INS is part of Justice--
participated in those. And there have been several proposals
that have come forward in the last week.
The guest worker program, employment opportunities, is
clearly a priority of the Mexican Government in those talks.
And at the moment, we have looked at Senator Gramm's guest
worker proposals, and we have looked at some of the other
proposals that previously had been introduced in the Congress,
and they vary. But we are working closely with the other
agencies.
Senator Gregg. Well, as a general statement, what do you
think the effect of a guest worker program would be on illegal
immigration coming over the Mexico border?
Mr. Rooney. The past problems with the types of programs
that we have had, going back to the Bracero program several
years ago, is that the people come into work and then they
stay. Now, of course, the argument can be made, ``Well, people
are coming in to work illegally and staying.'' But in general,
the programs differ in many different ways.
The Mexican Government is particularly interested in the
opportunity for people to come in in a circularity concept;
people coming in, working, and going home.
One of the proposals would be opened only to agriculture
workers. Other proposals would be opened to a broader range of
workers.
Some would offer the opportunities to apply ultimately for
adjustment of status for permanent residency or citizenship.
Other proposals would not.
But if we can keep track--and this is a major part and a
burden that falls upon INS, of improving the data systems so
that we can monitor income and outgo of the people who would be
part of these programs--it would certainly go a long way toward
making it less likely that illegals would come in and stay.

[ins] deg.Detention space

Senator Gregg. Now, you said you had 1,600 new beds under
this proposal. How many new beds do you actually need?
Mr. Rooney. I do not know if I could give you a direct
response. The 1,600 bed request, which was made and is being
made here before the Congress, is consistent with the
projections. So we have about 19-some odd now, 19,000, and
1,600 would put us just over----
Senator Gregg. So if we funded that, you would have
adequate detention capability so that you would not have to be,
as you say, going through a training exercise anymore.
Mr. Rooney. We believe so. Now, we also are very interested
and hopefully the agency will be aggressive about looking at
some alternatives to detention and exploring in more depth some
of the programs that we have already experienced in the past
where there has been success, so that we can free up some of
those beds.

[ins] deg.Border Patrol facilities

Senator Gregg. The border facilities, which the Border
Patrol use, are in pretty tough shape. In fact, my staff tells
me that 63 of the 85 outposts on the Southwest border are
overcrowded. Is that accurate?
Mr. Rooney. Yes, that is, Mr. Chairman. I think we have
about 70 facilities that are at double the capacity for the
number of agents.
Senator Gregg. And under the budget that you have sent up,
what is the workout time to get those facilities into a
percentage that is reasonable?
Mr. Rooney. The budget here does not focus much on
increases for that purpose. We have some projects going on, and
the focus, though, here has been to get more agents.
Senator Gregg. Where are you going to put them?
Mr. Rooney. We are going to increase the population of each
of those Border Patrol stations.
Senator Gregg. Now, do you have--I presume you have sent it
to us--but do you have the facilities' workout sheet that would
tell us what we would need to spend in order to bring these----
Mr. Rooney. Yes. I do not have it handy, but we certainly
can get it to the subcommittee. We have a long-range plan for
all of our facilities, vehicles, fences, et cetera,
helicopters, replacement plans, but unfortunately the funding
has simply not been available.
Senator Gregg. Okay. I have some questions for you too,
Administrator Marshall, but I wanted to let Senator Murray go.
[The information follows:]

[ins] deg.Facilities Construction Funding Requests

While Congress has consistently provided Immigration and
Naturalization Service (INS) facilities construction funding,
including $133 million in fiscal year 2001, and $128 million
included in the fiscal year 2002 President's budget, Border
Patrol facilities funding has not kept pace with the growth in
new agents. INS has a facilities shortfall that it is
addressing through a long-range plan. However, the backlog in
facilities will require a number of years to overcome.

[ins] deg.Long-Range Facilities Plans

The long-range facilities plans workout sheets for the
Immigration and Naturalization Service were delivered to the
Subcommittee in July 2001.

[ins] deg.Northern border

Senator Murray. Thanks very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Rooney, I particularly want to address my comments to
you, although you may have some responses as well.
I am really concerned about the lack of commitment the INS
has had in recent years on the northern border. The level of
staff for the Border Patrol inspections hasn't grown at the
northern border but threats of drug trafficking and terrorist
attacks have grown substantially.
We have seen commercial traffic moving across the northern
border, and it has increased by more than 30 percent over the
last decade. Our incidence of drug trafficking have increased
threefold during that same time. And many of the world's
terrorist groups have established themselves in Canada, they
seek safe haven, they set up operational bases, and they
attempt to gain access to the United States.
And I think the incident last year with Ahmed Ressam in
December of 1999 actually, who was trying to cross into the
State of Washington from Canada with 100 pounds of bomb-making
supplies, is just one example of what our northern border folks
have to deal with.
We are seeing an increasing number of criminal enterprises
set up above our northern border that our Border Patrol has to
deal with.
An inspector general report was published last year--I am
not sure if you are familiar with it--but it said that there
were 300 Border Patrol agents assigned to patrol the entire
4,000 miles of border between Canada and the United States.
That is one agent for every 13 miles of border.
Now, in comparison, on the Southwest border, it is 2,000
miles and has 8,000 agents, so they have four agents for every
mile. They have four for every mile; we have one for every 13
miles.
I think that that is significant, particularly with the
increasing problems we are having with drug trafficking and
terrorism that we see.
And I will add that traffic across our border is just
awful. We hear complaints on a constant basis. It is
increasing, the lines are increasing. We have a good
relationship with our friends north of the border, and we do a
lot of trade, and the traffic is really impacting the economy
as well.
I am happy to see that your proposed budget adds 570
additional Border Patrol agents in 2002 and 2003 and fully
funds the 5,000 positions, but this increase is not going to
achieve the level of control that is outlined in your own
strategic plan.
And I think I am concerned that your plan looks at the
Southwest border to deal with that before the problems of the
northern border, where we are seeing incredible problems that
have developed. And my own constituents are becoming
increasingly concerned about that.
I think if we are going to meet those threats, a
substantial portion of the new border agents and inspection
staff have to be deployed at the northern border. And I have
submitted a request actually to this committee to require that
25 percent of those new Border Patrol agents be assigned to the
northern border.
I wanted your comments on that, to see if you would support
it, and to find out whether you think that the INS staffing on
the northern border is adequate.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Senator Patty Murray
Mr. Chairman, thank you.
Mr. Rooney, I appreciate you coming before this committee.
I am very concerned about the lack of commitment the INS has had in
recent years to protecting the Northern Border. The level of staff for
Border Patrol and Inspections have not grown at the Northern Border
despite large increases in your budget, but the threats of drug
trafficking and terrorist attack have grown substantially.
Several developments over the last decade have made security at the
Northern Border a major concern.
--Commercial traffic moving across the Northern Border has increased
by more than 30 percent over the last decade.
--Incidents of drug trafficking have increased three-fold during that
same period.
--Many of the world's terrorist groups have established themselves in
Canada, seeking safe haven, setting up operational bases and
attempting to gain access to the United States. The arrest of
Ahmed Ressam in December of 1999, who was trying to cross into
the state of Washington from Canada with 100 pounds of bomb
making supplies, is one frightening example of our security
concerns at the Northern Border.
It is clear that criminal enterprises see the Northern Border as
easy access to the United States, when compared to the iron fence they
meet when they try to enter the United States through Mexico.
An Inspector General report published last year underscores my
point. The report noted that there are only about 300 Border Patrol
Agents assigned to patrol the entire 4,000 miles of border between the
two countries.
That is about one agent for every thirteen miles of border.
In comparison, the Southwest Border is 2,000 miles and has 8,000
agents.
Four agents for every mile.
It found that Northern Border agents were fourteen times more
likely to encounter aliens involved with smuggling weapons, and they
were nine times more likely to encounter aliens involved with smuggling
drugs when compared to agents along the Southwest Border.
Many other studies have shown that inspection staff at the Northern
Border is also inadequate to address its needs. In fact, in the state
of Washington, traffic is often stacked up for miles at many of our
Washington state/Canadian border crossings, and this traffic has gotten
progressively worse. They simply lack the inspection staff to handle
the traffic.
The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of
1996 authorized 5,000 additional Border Patrol agents. To date, only
3,860 positions have been funded.
I am pleased that the Administration's proposed budget for fiscal
year 2002 would add 570 additional Border Patrol agents in both 2002
and 2003, fully funding the 5,000 positions.
However, this increase will not allow the Border Patrol to achieve
the level of control outlined in your own strategic plan.
This plan outlines achieving control of the Southwest Border before
dealing with problems on the Northern Border. Considering this focus on
the Southwest Border, it would take 161 years before Northern Border
the INS turned to the concerns of the Northern Border.
It is obvious that the proposed strategy of achieving control of
the Southwest Border before turning attention to the Northern Border is
unrealistic and short-sighted. The Border Patrol and inspection staff
need to develop a unified strategy that focuses the limited resources
on as many areas of activity as possible. This strategy must be
flexible enough to quickly adapt to the inevitable shifts in such
activity. It does little good to maintain control over small stretches
of border when the rest of the border is overwhelmed.
It is clear that if we are to meet the threats that exist at the
Northern Border, a substantial proportion of new Border Patrol agents
and Inspection staff must be deployed at the Northern Border. I have
submitted a request to this committee requiring that at least 25
percent of new Border Patrol agents be assigned to the Northern Border.

Mr. Rooney. Yes, Senator.
First of all, going to the strategy, the plan, you are
correct in that our procedures for implementing the border
control plan is on the Southwest border first in San Diego and
El Paso, et cetera, and ultimately to include the Northern
border.
But as you indicated, the lines that are growing for people
coming in, not on the Border Patrol side, but on the inspection
side, that is a situation that we are aware of and that we are
trying to address.
And what we have done is we have taken a workload analysis
model of ideal staffing at the borders all over the country.
And with the available resources, both Border Patrol agents and
inspectors--and I must say, it is not 25 percent for the
northern border. I am not sure exactly what the breakdown,
maybe somebody here has it.
But increased agents as well as inspectors are deployed in
accordance with a percentage of the overall needs at the
border. And we are clearly not----

[ins] deg.meeting needs at the Northern border

Senator Murray. Do you take into account the increasing
needs at the northern border? I am concerned that your
strategic plan, focusing on the south border, is ignoring the
facts of the increased jeopardy we are placing our staff at the
northern border in. The morale is low. We are having trouble
retaining or recruiting any agents, because it is a dangerous
job.
And I am worried that your strategic plan will simply mean
that all of the new border patrols will go to the south border,
and we will be left behind in the northern border at an
increasingly difficult time.
Mr. Rooney. Well, yes, the strategic plan does focus more
on the deterrent effect starting at the Southwest border.
The staffing plan, however, where we look at both Border
Patrol agents as well as inspectors, we take an overall picture
of what the need is, and then based upon the number of agents
that we have, we fill the need. That need, particularly in the
inspections area, which you also mentioned, is based upon the
percentage that would naturally be--for example, if we needed
1,000 more, and 300 were at the northern borders, then if we
got a hundred, 30 would go to the northern borders, on
inspections.
Senator Murray. Well, I am asking that as you take a look
at where you place those, both inspection agents and border
patrols, that you recognize the extreme difficulty we are
putting those folks in today, and that they are being asked to
do a job that is much more complex than on our southern border,
because of the miles that they have to cover, particularly our
Border Patrol, obviously.
And we have had a problem in the past with INS transferring
a number of our agents to the southern border every time there
is a problem and leaving our border even more impacted.
And can you assure me that that will not occur, under your
watch, that we will not just simply see our Border Patrol
agents transferred to the south when we know how important that
is that they be on the northern border?
Mr. Rooney. Well, we certainly will. Anytime we have an
emergency situation--and we actually have had some up on the
Northern border at times, particularly the concern about the
demonstrations that were going on up there last month. But,
yes, generally we would try not to do that, move them out of
the north to the south.

[ins] deg.Workload models

Senator Murray. I have met and talked with our Border
Patrol, in particular, many times. And it is a very tough duty
we are asking them to do.
There is increasing terrorist activity that has developed
in Canada and comes across at my border. And we want to make
sure we are not forgotten, as these new agents are put into
place. I think that that is extremely critical.
And finally, we have not seen the workload model that you
are referring to. And if I could get a copy of that, I would
really appreciate it.
Mr. Rooney. Sure. We will provide you what we can,
certainly.
Senator Murray. Okay. Thank you very much.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Gregg. Thank you, Senator.
Yes, we have a border crossing in New Hampshire. We have
three or four moose there, and we have actually had an agent
come through once or twice.

[dea] deg.DEA's progress with Mexico

Mr. Marshall, what sort of progress are we making with
Mexico?
Mr. Marshall. I just visited Mexico about a month ago, and
I met with the Attorney General and a number of other Cabinet
members. And I am optimistic, cautiously optimistic, about our
prospects in Mexico.
I believe that the Fox administration has some good ideas.
I believe that they want to do the right thing. President Fox
has announced his priorities as addressing corruption and drug
trafficking. And from some of the actions that the Government
has taken since he has been in office, I believe he is making
steps in that direction.
He has done a number of things in the corruption area. One
of the most significant, I think, is creating a system where
they track officers that are fired from agencies for
corruption, so it is not as easy for those officers to move to
some other agency in some other part of the country and get
rehired without knowing their history. That is a good sign.
The Administration has made progress on extradition. We
have actually very recently, within the last week or two,
extradited the first top-echelon Mexican citizen drug-
trafficker, that person being Arturo Paez.
I have long said that extradition of the top drug kingpins
out of Mexico is the first step toward breaking the cycle of
corruption and intimidation, and allowing us to work with our
partners in Mexico to really create a climate where we can
begin to address all of these issues.
Now, I want to temper that optimism, however, with a bit of
realism. And the realism is that corruption does pervade many
institutions in Mexico, not only public institutions, such as
law enforcement, the judiciary and the prosecutors, but also
private institutions with which we have to work; utility
companies, telephone companies and things of that sort.
So while I am very optimistic that the Fox administration
is moving in the right direction, we need to recognize that it
is a monumental problem, and it will take time to fix. But I
believe that the Fox Government is making the right first steps
in that direction.

[dea] deg.OMB budget request

Senator Gregg. Did you make any submissions to OMB that
were not funded?
Mr. Marshall. Well, we have a budget formulation process,
obviously. And I suppose any agency probably never gets 100
percent of its budget request. But I will report to you,
Senator, that the three broad areas of enhancements that we did
receive were among my very top priorities.
And I have a strategic plan that I have established for
DEA, and I believe these are the top three that I need to move
us in the right direction in that strategic plan. I would
expect future budget requests to have more items that will move
us further in that direction in the areas of intelligence,
infrastructure, the Special Operations Division that I talked
about, and computer forensics, perhaps.
But I am pleased that we got our top priorities, and that
will allow us to move in the right direction.

[dea] deg.Methamphetamine resources

Senator Gregg. Do you have all the resources you need in
the methamphetamine area?
Mr. Marshall. We have increased our resources to
methamphetamines substantially over the last 3 or 4 budget
years, I would say.
And again, Senator, if you ask any field commander, I
suppose, or any head of an agency, ``Do you have everything
that you need to adequately address the problem?'' the answer
is generally going to be, ``I could use more resources.''
But we have made progress on methamphetamine. We have put
resources in there, and I am pleased with the progress that we
have made.

[dea] deg.DEA/FBI cooperation

Senator Gregg. How are the efforts of cooperation at the
agent level with the FBI?
Mr. Marshall. It is very good. We have had a relationship
that has been in existence for now, I suppose, close to 20
years with the FBI having Title 21 jurisdiction. And that
relationship, frankly, was a bit rocky when it started out in
the early 1980s.
But we have committed to a partnership. We have committed
to a productive relationship and a cooperative relationship.
And we are working together very well, particularly in our
Special Operations Division, where most of our substantial
national operations come out of now.
Now, the relationship obviously is never totally problem-
free, as you would expect with any two agencies, but we have
very good cooperation. I would say that the cooperation between
DEA and FBI, and really among law enforcement in general,
Senator, is better now than I have ever seen it in my career.

[dea] deg.Quantico training facility

Senator Gregg. Well, we hear grumblings that the DEA and
the FBI have turf issues. And this has been a hangup of mine
for a long time, as you know, and it is the reason I was
willing to build the building at Quantico for DEA, because I
wanted to at least start the agents out going to school
together.
And I am not even sure that that is worked out down there.
I have a sense that you are operating pretty independently,
down there, of each other.
But I do hope, and I am concerned with Director Freeh's
leaving, because I know he was committed to this. I am
concerned that there is no systematic activity in place to
create cross-culture cooperation.
Mr. Marshall. Senator, we have done a number of things. As
you referred to, we shared the FBI Academy down there for our
training purposes for, I suppose, it was close to 10 years. And
during that time, we did build good relationships.
Now, that also caused some problems. I mean, there were
space problems, as you would expect when a space is designed
for one agency and then you have two agencies in there. And the
space was basically the reason that we separated our academies.
Periodically, we do other things, such as, joint Special
Agent in Charge conferences. We do cross-detailing and cross-
assignments of agents in many cases--our agents to their office
and theirs to ours. We have in many places FBI agents or FBI
supervisors running drug routes. We have DEA agents supervising
FBI agents in some of those drug routes. We have HIDTA task
forces. We have Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Forces.
We are working together in many, many arenas.
And I think that what Director Freeh and I have done to
cement that was to establish our own very close relationship.
We consult very frequently, and we let it be known very vocally
that we expect cooperation among our two agencies.
And while there are grumblings from time to time, and while
there are some issues occasionally, I would characterize those
really as bumps in the road, not major potholes. And they are
issues that we generally work through very quickly.
Senator Gregg. Well, I thank you both for your testimony.
We look forward to working with you. We know you both have
huge obligations, huge areas to cover. And this committee
certainly intends to try to be supportive and give you the
resources you need to accomplish it.
Good luck.
[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
were submitted to the agencies for response subsequent to the
hearing:]
Questions Submitted to the Federal Bureau of Investigation
Questions Submitted by Senator Pete V. Domenici
black tar heroin and methamphetamine trafficking
Question. This Subcommittee has been very helpful over the past two
years in tackling an issue of great concern to me. That issue is the
serious ``black tar'' heroin problem that has plagued several northern
New Mexico counties.
Both the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and the Drug
Enforcement Administration (DEA) have cooperated with the state and
local law enforcement officials in New Mexico to try to break the
serious cycle of black tar heroin trafficking and use. Several major
drug busts have been implemented in this area of New Mexico.
Would you please give the subcommittee the Department's assessment
of the progress these joint law enforcement operations in breaking the
Black Tar Heroin ring in Northern New Mexico?
Answer. In December 1999, DEA's Special Operations Division
initiated ``Operation Tar Pit,'' a multi-jurisdictional investigation
targeting a Mexican heroin trafficking organization. The FBI's
Albuquerque Division, the DEA and the New Mexico State Police (NMSP)
with other local LEAs in northern New Mexico have focused this
investigation on a well-entrenched heroin distribution organization
controlled by individuals from Tepic, Nayarit, Mexico. Primarily, this
organization smuggles multi-kilogram quantities of high purity Mexican
black tar heroin from Mexico into the United States along the
California and Arizona borders. However, one of the organization's
primary distribution cells was located in northern New Mexico. The
organization routinely sent couriers and distributors from Nayarit to
the United States to transship and sell heroin. After approximately 6
months, the leaders of the organization would order the distributors
back to Mexico and other individuals would be sent as replacements.
On June 15, 2000, a nationwide takedown of ``Operation Tar Pit''
targets occurred in several cities throughout the United States. In New
Mexico, 34 subjects were arrested and prosecuted, with all of these
subjects convicted of drug-related offenses. To date, ``Operation Tar
Pit'' has resulted in the seizure of approximately 64 pounds of high
purity black tar heroin, $300,000, numerous vehicles, 10 weapons, 1
residence, and the arrest of 249 individuals.
The FBI, DEA, NMSP and the various state and local law enforcement
agencies continue to work closely together to target heroin
distribution organizations operating in northern New Mexico. These
investigations, in conjunction with ``Operation Tar Pit,'' have greatly
reduced the availability of black tar heroin and its associated crime
problems. Also, multi-agency efforts targeting multiple organized
criminal enterprises involved in drug trafficking show considerable
result and only through a sustained multi-agency effort will LEAs be
able to eliminate the distribution and use of heroin as a major drug
problem in northern New Mexico.
In fiscal year 2001, the FBI allocated 21 agents to the Albuquerque
Division and local resident agencies to address the drug problem. The
Albuquerque Division has 2 agents assigned to the DEA task force. This
task force relationship maximizes both the FBI's and the DEA's
investigative efforts in the northern New Mexico area. Additionally,
the Albuquerque Division's assistant special agent in charge is the
Chairman of the New Mexico High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area (HIDTA)
Executive Board.
During February 2001, the Albuquerque Division of the FBI, in
conjunction DEA and LEAs, culminated the first phase of a 16-month drug
investigation with the arrest of 25 federal subjects and 35 state
subjects, who were the primary source of the organization transshipping
cocaine from Mexico and California to distribution organizations in
northern New Mexico and California. The organization was transshipping
cocaine from Mexico and California to distribution organizations in
northern New Mexico and other area of California. The organization was
also associated with 2 drug trafficking organizations on the FBI's
National Priority Target List.
Question. An equally serious problem is methamphetamine trafficking
and usage. I believe both the FBI and DEA have encountered this illegal
activity in its law enforcement activities in New Mexico, including
northern New Mexico.
Would you please give the subcommittee your assessment of the
effect these joint law enforcement operations in northern New Mexico
have had on methamphetamine trafficking in the area?
Answer. Traditionally, northern New Mexico's primary illegal drug
threat has been the transshipment and distribution of cocaine, black
tar heroin and marijuana. In recent years, however, the manufacture,
transshipment and distribution of methamphetamine have developed into
significant problems in New Mexico. The FBI crime survey and the New
Mexico High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area (HIDTA) Threat Assessment
have identified methamphetamine as a sizeable drug problem throughout
the state. The drug trafficking threat in northern New Mexico is
largely a result of the new trafficking patterns and local distribution
networks. Mexican drug trafficking organizations smuggle bulk
quantities of methamphetamine into the state from laboratories in
Mexico and California. Law enforcement agencies (LEAs) have also
discovered an increased number of methamphetamine laboratories being
operated within the state.
To address the growing drug problem within the existing complement
of resources, the FBI has pursued a Task Force strategy throughout the
state and is participating in the following task forces: Southern New
Mexico Violent Gang Task Force; the FBI-led Central New Mexico Violent
Gang Task Force; the Otero County HIDTA Task Force; the Lee County
HIDTA Task Force; and the Santa Fe/Rio Arriba HIDTA Task Force. The
Task Forces are composed of state, local and federal LEAs in northern
New Mexico and enable all participating LEAs to maximize their
investigative efforts.
The LEA joint efforts resulted in the seizure of 48 methamphetamine
laboratories during fiscal year 2000 and 18 methamphetamine
laboratories during fiscal year 2001. Two of the laboratories seized
were classified as ``super-labs,'' capable of producing more than 10-
pounds of the drug per production run. Also, during fiscal year 1999
and fiscal year 2000, the Albuquerque Division participated in 12
Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force cases. Methamphetmine
distribution organizations operating in the northern New Mexico area
will continue to be identified and dismantled by joint LEA efforts.
Several other methamphetamine investigations have resulted from
interdiction seizures on airplanes, trains, buses, and New Mexico
highways. Over 15 kilograms of methamphetamine have been seized since
October 1, 2000. Additionally, one seizure from a semi tractor-trailer
near Gallup, New Mexico resulted in the seizure of over 363 pounds of a
combined load of methamphetamine and cocaine. Analysis is proceeding to
determine exactly what percentage of the load was methamphetamine and/
or cocaine. The driver of the tractor-trailer, a Mexican National
resided in Calexico, California and has admitted to driving three prior
loads of narcotics for the organization; however, he was uncertain what
drugs and what quantities had been in these prior loads.
Six investigations conducted by Albuquerque DEA in fiscal year 2001
have focused on methamphetamine trafficking groups operating within New
Mexico. These investigations deal primarily with individuals or small
groups of individuals who distribute from 1 gram to 1 ounce of
methamphetamine. Areas involved in these investigations have included
the cities of Albuquerque, Clovis, Grants, and Farmington. The most
significant of these investigations was a seven-pound buy/bust
operation in Farmington, New Mexico. The eventual target of this
investigation was, at the time of his arrest, also under investigation
as a primary heroin source of supply in Albuquerque, New Mexico.
Intelligence information obtained from the above detailed
investigations indicates the following:
--While the majority of methamphetamine distributed in northern New
Mexico is Mexican produced and distributed, the majority of
resources and efforts are directed at the numerous small
clandestine methamphetamine production laboratories. Because
they pose such significant environmental and safety hazards and
because they continue to increase in numbers, these clandestine
manufacturing laboratories will continue to be a priority for
Albuquerque DEA.
--Cooperative local impact investigations disrupt the availability
and distribution of methamphetamine in northern New Mexico
communities for a brief time; however, the continued
availability of Mexican produced methamphetamine allows these
distribution markets to recover within a few months.
--As with all other illegal narcotics, the primary methamphetamine
trafficking problem in New Mexico is the transshipment of
multi-pound/multi-kilogram quantities of methamphetamine
through New Mexico destined for distribution markets in the
east. Follow-up investigations on interdiction seizures are
perhaps the most significant investigations currently conducted
by the Albuquerque District Office. These investigations will
significantly impact the distribution of methamphetamine in New
Mexico and also will help to dismantle/disrupt Mexican-based
distribution networks located in Arizona, California and Mexico
that are distributing methamphetamine throughout the United
States.
--While the user and distribution base for methamphetamine in New
Mexico is increasing, cocaine and heroin remain the ``drugs of
choice'' in New Mexico. The majority of the investigative
efforts of the DEA Albuquerque District Office are directed
against these two drugs.
fbi development of domestic terrorism division
Question. The Federal Bureau of Investigation has separated the
functions of counterintelligence and antiterrorism, placing each under
an assistant director who would first report to the Bureau's deputy
director and then to the Director. However, it is still unclear what
constitutes domestic terrorism. This permits the Bureau to now enter
into any case, no matter how small, and in practical terms means that
hundreds of agents can now enter into any number of crime scenes that
once belonged to a variety of agencies. Worse, this could create
circumstances in which the Bureau's agents, in the name of counter-
domestic terrorism, poke into the activities of any organization deemed
subversive, no matter how innocuous it really was.
What constitutes the Bureau's definition of domestic terrorism? Has
the Bureau established clear guidelines about the decision made to
enter into a case it has deemed one of domestic terrorism?
Background: The development of terrorism as a major threat and the
need to meet it with increased funding and personnel has provided a
solid budgetary base for the Bureau that promises to continue
developing. While it is reasonable to consider such incidents as
Oklahoma City and the 1996 Atlanta Oylmpic games as domestic-terrorism,
the Bureau has used this rationale to take over the investigations of
scores of crimes that are just that--crimes--with no hint of a greater
plot for domestic violence. Meanwhile, the Bureau's failure with
respect to the Investigation of Chinese spying on the nation's nuclear
labs or its insistence--despite significant evidence to the contrary--
that TWA Flight 800 was a terrorist incident rather than a mechanical
failure, gives pause to the idea that we should continue to endorse the
Bureau's expansion of the Division, or even its reorganization into
``spy-catching and domestic terrorism'' functions. As Dan Thomasson
wrote in the Washington Times: ``The concern in law enforcement . . .
is that a large number of agents now will have nothing more to do than
to seek out potential terrorism and deal with it no matter under whose
bed they believe they have found it.''
The FBI must provide parameters to define the problem and
appropriate actions; otherwise, permitting the Bureau to justify
anything it does under the guise of preventing it is too sweeping a
concession of power.
Answer. The FBI categorizes terrorism as either domestic or
international, depending on the origin, base, and objectives of the
terrorist organization. In this context, domestic terrorism is the
unlawful use, or threatened use, of force or violence by a group or
individual based and operating entirely within the United States or its
territories without foreign direction and whose acts are directed at
elements of the United States Government or its population, in the
furtherance of political or social goals. The FBI has entered into
agreements with other agencies clearly defining the role of the FBI in
exercising its primacy over terrorism matters. The FBI only operates
within the confines of those agreements and pursuant to clear statutory
authorities. A discussion of these authorities is set forth below.
Effective March 1, 1973, jurisdictional guidelines were adopted by
the Attorney General (with the concurrence of the Postal Inspection
Service and the Department of the Treasury) and published in the United
States Attorneys Bulletin on April 13, 1973, governing investigations
of violations of the federal explosives control statute found in Title
18, Sections 841-848. These guidelines clarified jurisdiction for the
FBI, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, and the Postal
Inspection Service. The guidelines state that the FBI will exercise
primary jurisdiction over all Section 844 violations perpetrated by
terrorist/revolutionary groups or individuals unless otherwise directed
by the Department of Justice.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The 1973 guidelines may also be consulted in order to determine
which investigative agency has primary jurisdiction to investigate
explosives violations not involving a terrorism nexus. For example, the
investigative agency having jurisdiction over the underlying felony is
assigned primary jurisdiction over Section 844(h) violations (use/
carrying of explosives in commission of a felony).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, pursuant to Title 28, Section 533, the Attorney
General ``may appoint officials to detect and prosecute crimes against
the United States.'' This statute confers on the Attorney General broad
general investigative authority with respect to federal criminal
offenses.
The Attorney General has delegated investigative authority to the
FBI for all crimes not specifically assigned (through statute or
otherwise) by Congress to another agency. This delegation was
officially published under Title 28, Subpart P, Section 0.85 of the
Code of Federal Regulations, which also provides in paragraph (l) that
the FBI should ``exercise lead agency responsibilities in investigating
all crimes for which it has primary or concurrent jurisdiction and
which involve terrorist activities or acts in preparation of terrorist
activities within the statutory jurisdiction of the United States.
Within the United States, this would include the collection,
coordination, analysis, management and dissemination of intelligence
and criminal information as appropriate. If another federal agency
identifies an individual who is engaged in terrorist activities or in
acts in preparation of terrorist activities, that agency is requested
to promptly notify the FBI.''
Furthermore, Presidential Decision Directive (PDD) 39, dated June
21, 1995, sets forth the United States policy on counterterrorism and
outlines the FBI's jurisdictional responsibilities in relation to
terrorism. This PDD built upon previous directives for combating
terrorism, further elaborated a strategy and an interagency
coordination mechanism and management structure to be undertaken by the
Federal Government to combat both domestic and international terrorism
in all its forms. The FBI was appointed the lead federal agency for
both investigations and crisis or operational management of terrorist
incidents. Based on the above sources, the FBI may exercise lead agency
authority over any federal violation if there is a terrorism nexus. It
should be noted that the FBI does not always have absolute knowledge
that a criminal act is one committed by a terrorist. In those instances
where it is known, or reasonably presumed (by the nature of the act or
target) to be a terrorist act, the FBI should exercise its lead agency
authority in order to maintain investigative control over the incident
so that evidence may be preserved and investigative leads may be
pursued. In those instances where the FBI does not know the motivation
for the crime, it has authority to work concurrently with other
agencies to pursue leads and maintain evidence control until a clear
terrorism nexus is found. If the incident involves only ordinary
criminal activity, the FBI defers to the agency which has primary
jurisdiction.
In connection with the execution of investigative activities,
guidelines exist to govern decisions to initiate investigations of
domestic terrorists and to manage crisis incidents involving terrorist
attacks. Some of these investigations necessitate and require
coordination with other government agencies. The FBI is proud of the
cooperative working relationships established with local, state and
other federal agencies to ensure effective investigation of terrorist
activities and appropriate crisis management. Such is demonstrated by
the thirty Joint Terrorism Task Forces (JTTFs) initiated by the FBI
throughout the United States. These JTTFs consist of local, state, and
other federal law enforcement personnel working cooperatively with FBI
special agents.
Some of the guidelines and agreements governing investigation of
domestic terrorist activities and management of crisis incidents
include the following:
(1) The Attorney General's Guidelines on General Crimes,
Racketeering Enterprise and Domestic Security/Terrorism Investigations;
(2) Advice to FBI Field Offices Regarding Domestic Security/
Terrorism Investigations and Preliminary Inquires Under the Attorney
General's Guidelines on General Crimes, Racketeering Enterprise and
Domestic Security/Terrorism Investigations;
(3) Manual of Investigative Operations and Guidelines, Part I,
Sections 100, 266 and 279;
(4) PDD/NSC-39, U.S. Policy on Counterterrorism;
(5) PDD/NSC-62, Protection Against Unconventional Threats to the
Homeland and Americans Overseas;
(6) PDD/NSC-63, Critical Infrastructure Protection;
(7) Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) Incident Contingency Plan;
(8) United States Government Interagency Domestic Terrorism Concept
of Operations Plan (CONPLAN);
(9) Federal Response Plan;
(10) Guidelines for the Mobilization, Deployment, and Employment of
U.S. Government Agencies in Response to a Domestic Threat or Incident
of Terrorism in Accordance with PDD-39; and
(11) Title 28, Code of Federal Regulations, Subpart P, Section
0.85.
Specifically, the Attorney General's Guidelines on General Crimes,
Racketeering Enterprise and Domestic Security/Terrorism Investigations
serve as a means to ensure that FBI investigations are performed with
care to protect individual rights and confined to matters of legitimate
law enforcement interest. These guidelines provide guidance for all
investigations by the FBI of crimes and crime-related activities,
except investigations involving foreign counterintelligence and
international terrorism matters. Furthermore, all investigations
undertaken pursuant to the Attorney General's Guidelines on General
Crimes, Racketeering Enterprise and Domestic Security/Terrorism
Investigations are conducted to ensure appropriate application of
privacy laws.
______

Questions Submitted by Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell
international crime
Question. What types of international crime are of principal
concern to the FBI, and what is the basis for that concern?
Answer. The types of international criminal activities that are of
principal concern to the FBI are committed by those international
criminal enterprises that pose the greatest threat to Americans and
their communities, United States businesses and financial institutions,
and global security and stability. The violations committed by these
criminal enterprises that fall under FBI jurisdiction include drug
trafficking, alien smuggling, trafficking in women and children, crimes
against children, arms trafficking, trafficking in precious gems, non-
drug contraband smuggling, intellectual property rights violations,
financial fraud and money laundering, international art theft, and
parental kidnaping.
The International Crime Threat Assessment is one of many resources
upon which the FBI relies to develop its response to international
crime. Through these threat assessments, field office crime surveys and
liaison with foreign police organizations, the FBI has identified those
international criminal enterprises that pose the greatest threat to
Americans and their communities, United States businesses and financial
institutions, and global security and stability.
Question. What new steps will the FBI take to improve the Federal
Government's response to international crime?
Answer. To improve the Federal Government's response to
international crime, the FBI will continue to provide leadership and
implement international crime control initiatives such as:
Budapest Project.--The FBI/Hungarian National Police Task Force has
been established in Budapest, Hungary to identify emerging Eurasian
criminal enterprise threats to the United States and to disrupt those
enterprises before they can become entrenched in the United States.
Linchpin Initiative.--Operation Linchpin was established to
facilitate the sharing of information and operational leads, both
domestic and foreign, between the law enforcement and intelligence
communities. Linchpin focuses on significant international criminal
groups (e.g., Eurasian, Italian, and Asian organized crime). Several
law enforcement and intelligence agencies, including the FBI, are
involved in sharing intelligence at regularly scheduled Linchpin
meetings.
Project Millennium.--The FBI, along with law enforcement agencies
from 23 countries, has provided INTERPOL with the names and profiles of
thousands of Eurasian organized crime subjects in order to establish a
worldwide database that would allow participating countries to cross-
reference and coordinate leads involving Russian and Eastern European
organized crime members.
United States-Mexico Fugitive Initiative.--An initiative with the
FBI, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Mexican Government,
designed to improve procedures for obtaining provisional arrest
warrants for fugitives that have fled to the United States from Mexico.
United States-Canada International Fugitive Initiative--The DOJ,
FBI, United States Marshals Service, Royal Canadian Mounted Police
(RCMP), Toronto Police Service, and Immigration and Naturalization
Service exchange intelligence and improve efficiency in locating/
apprehending fugitives who flee to the United States from Canada and to
Canada from the United States.
Canadian Eagle.--This joint initiative between Canadian law
enforcement agencies and the FBI targets unscrupulous Canadian
telemarketers victimizing United States citizens, particularly the
elderly. The FBI is working with the RCMP and other police agencies to
identify, investigate, and prosecute these individuals.
The International Securities and Commodities Working Group.--This
group was established to bring together individuals dealing in
international markets, primarily through FBI Legal Attaches and their
counterparts, to discuss ways to effectively coordinate investigations
relative to United States and international financial markets.
Plan Colombia.--DOJ and the FBI are assisting Colombia in
developing a comprehensive program to investigate kidnapings. This
program will include the establishment of a Colombian law enforcement
task force consisting of specially trained investigators. Where
appropriate, the task force will work closely with the FBI,
particularly in cases involving United States nationals. The FBI is
implementing a comprehensive training initiative designed to train law
enforcement and military personnel from Colombia in anti-kidnaping
investigative methods and procedures.
The High Intensity Financial Crimes Area (HIFCA).--This program is
a Congressionally mandated approach to addressing complex and egregious
money laundering conspiracies in a task force environment. The
designation of HIFCA is intended to concentrate law enforcement efforts
at the federal, state, and local levels to identify, target, and
prosecute money laundering activity. Due to the international nature of
most money laundering crimes, HIFCA efforts to address money laundering
domestically will have an impact on international money laundering
conspiracies. HIFCAs have been established in the New York/Newark, Los
Angeles, San Juan, Phoenix, El Paso, and San Antonio Divisions.
Applications for similar designations have been made by the San
Francisco and Chicago Divisions.
INTERPOL Project Rockers.--With respect to Outlaw Motorcycle Gangs
the FBI participates in the INTERPOL Project Rockers annual conference
and takes part in the Project Rockers Steering Committee.
Representatives from Europe, Australia, and Canada also participate.
The goals of the meetings center on efforts to evaluate and strengthen
the international cooperation between the countries that are affected
by criminal activities engaged in by Outlaw Motorcycle Gangs and its
members.
Project Stocar.--This joint initiative between the FBI and INTERPOL
was implemented to share and exchange data regarding international
vehicle theft.
In addition to the above ongoing initiatives, the FBI is working
with seven European nations to develop an automated system to connect
existing art theft databases.
Question. How does the FBI propose to coordinate its response to
international crime with the efforts of other federal agencies--such as
the Departments of State and the Treasury--to ensure that the response
is focused and the potential for bureaucratic overlap is reduced?
Answer. FBI executive management will continue to provide
leadership to international crime working groups, and will continue its
liaison with other federal agencies in this regard. With regard to its
response to international crime, the FBI maintains effective liaison
with the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA); Drug Enforcement
Administration (DEA); United States Customs Service; and the United
States Department of State.
The FBI will also continue to detail supervisors to the CIA and DEA
in order to maintain its close relationship with these federal
agencies. Further, the FBI will continue to expand its partnership with
DEA in the Special Operations Division, looking to increase coverage
beyond the traditional drug trafficking arena into those areas of the
world currently being dominated by organized crime groups.
Question. Also, recognizing that considerable law enforcement
activity to counter international crime occurs in foreign countries,
how does the State Department propose to coordinate its efforts with
its foreign counterparts?
Answer. The FBI cannot speak to the State Department's coordination
efforts with its foreign counterparts.
______

Questions Submitted by Senator Patrick J. Leahy
data storage and retrieval
Question. In a July 1999 report, the Justice Department's Inspector
General strongly criticized the Federal Bureau of Investigation's
(FBI's) information management system. He concluded: ``The FBI's
procedures for culling information for its teletypes and electronic
communications and inputting it into its databases essentially makes it
impossible for the FBI to state with confidence that a database search
has yielded all information in the FBI's files about a particular
subject.''
What steps have you taken over the years to update and improve the
FBI's data storage and retrieval system?
Answer. Currently, the FBI's Information Technology (IT)
environment is composed of historic stovepipe systems. The FBI has
consolidated all systems under the Chief Information Officer, Assistant
Director Bob E. Dies (rather than maintaining them by individual
Divisions). The Trilogy upgrade investment plans the initial movement
to a modem database structure, to enable consolidating investigative
data into a central ``data warehouse.'' As an interim step, however,
the FBI has developed a ``global search'' of its five most frequently
used investigative applications databases to improve the ability to
find data it already has (spread across numerous systems).
Since the initial deployment of Automated Case Support (ACS), the
FBI has made many software updates and enhancements to increase the
efficiency and effectiveness of the system. The Manual of
Administrative Operations, which sets forth FBI policy on records
management, has been updated to include policy on these enhancements of
ACS.
The serialization (attributes only) of Top Secret/SCI documents was
incorporated into ACS in September 1997 (and reiterated in February
2000,) thereby increasing the accountability of all documents related
to a specific case.
Beginning in the latter half of 1998, the FBI began uploading into
ACS all teletypes received from other government agencies into a
control file. The uploading of these teletypes provides full-text
retrieval for the yearly receipt of over 300,000 messages. A technical
design and implementation plan is in place to transition the current
semi-automated and manual processing of these teletypes to more direct,
secure, audited, and automated methods by the second quarter of fiscal
year 2002. The planned implementation will transition the current
system from manual profiling to automated profiling, and from paper
delivery to direct delivery of teletypes to an authorized FBI user's
desktop. This system will also automatically upload these teletypes
into the existing ``control file,'' which will allow full-text
retrieval, but with added security functions to protect the integrity
and access to the data and information, and provide the appropriate
accountability, identification, and authentication of users.
The FBI is continuing to improve its data storage and retrieval
systems.
Question. Does the Federal Bureau of Investigation have adequate
resources in its fiscal year 2002 budget request to correct the
problem?
Answer. Today's record storage (as exemplified in the Oklahoma City
Bombing case recently) is paper intensive and subject to manual error.
The FBI is currently standing down in July to reinforce procedures that
have been in place, but not always followed, in its Records Management
System. As an immediate step, the FBI is planning a document tracking
addition to its Trilogy program, which will not require additional
funding. However, the long-term solution to the FBI's records
management problem requires database management systems (Trilogy) in
addition to the use of ``electronic signatures'' to avoid the need for
paper transfers and reduce the chance of manual errors. The FBI is
currently assessing the resource requirements for these improvements.
Question. When did you first learn that the Federal Bureau of
Investigation (FBI) had withheld evidence from prosecutors in the
Birmingham church bombing case? Why did the FBI wait as long to hand
over everything it had?
Answer. The FBI's original investigation into this matter was
initiated in September 1963 and was actively pursued for more than 5
years. This investigation consisted of thousands of interviews,
extensive evidence examination and a variety of other investigative
techniques. The original investigation, which utilized hundreds of
agents throughout the United States, resulted in approximately 90
volumes of material in Birmingham (consisting of tens of thousands of
pages). In addition to the Birmingham file, there were auxiliary office
files opened in each of the FBI's other field offices and at FBI
headquarters. In 1968, the active phase of the FBI investigation ended
and, in 1972, the case was formally closed for lack of a prosecutable
federal violation.
In response to a request from the Alabama Attorney General's office
in 1977, the FBI made the Sixteenth Street Baptist Church Bombing case
file available to an investigator from that office, Mr. Robert Eddy,
for the purpose of establishing a basis for state prosecution. The
entire file was provided with the exception of specific informant
files, to include voice recordings of conversations involving an
informant and one of the primary suspects, Thomas Blanton. Under an
agreement with the Alabama Attorney General, case file information that
would reveal the identities of FBI informants--many of whom were still
in danger--was not to be disclosed. This understanding was--and still
is--consistent with federal law and policy that enables federal law
enforcement agencies to protect their informants.
While the voice recordings were not provided to Mr. Eddy, summaries
of information derived from some of the tapes were included in the
files made available. The tape recordings fell into two distinct
categories: body recordings made by an FBI informant of conversations
with Thomas Blanton; and recordings made through a microphone, or
``bug'' placed in the wall adjoining Mr. Blanton's kitchen, which
became known as the ``kitchen tapes.'' It is unclear from our review of
the file to date, or from recent contact with Mr. Eddy, whether or not
he was aware of the existence of any tape recordings in this matter.
Summaries of information derived from the informant tape recordings
were included in the files that were made available to Mr. Eddy.
Although the file did not contain summaries of the ``kitchen tapes,''
there were references within the file regarding information obtained
from the kitchen tapes.
Mr. Eddy was provided FBI office space and an agent was assigned to
facilitate his review of the case file. Mr. Eddy was also provided
access to case agents, including those who had retired or had
transferred to other field offices. Mr. Eddy's review took
approximately 6 months, during which time he had access to 90 volumes
of material.
In response to concerns expressed by various civic leaders, the
special agent in charge of the FBI Birmingham office reopened the
investigation in 1995 on his own initiative. During the ensuing case
file review by FBI personnel, the presence of the tape recordings was
discovered. All tapes were subsequently released to the United States
Attorney for the northern District of Alabama, who ultimately used them
in the 2001 state prosecution of Mr. Blanton.
There is no indication that the ``kitchen tapes'' provided to the
United States Attorney in 1995 were intentionally withheld from Mr.
Eddy. With hindsight, some explanations for the reasons the tapes were
not discovered by Mr. Eddy are more probable than others. With respect
to the ``kitchen tapes,'' the technique of recording conversations
without the consent of either party, although not prohibited by law at
that time and authorized by FBI Director Hoover, pursuant to Department
of Justice policy in existence at the time, was considered highly
sensitive. For this reason, information obtained through this technique
was not clearly documented as being attributable to a ``bug.''
Second, it was the general policy of the FBI to use non-consensual
tape recordings for criminal intelligence and internal security
purposes, and they were not commonly viewed as evidence in the
traditional prosecutive sense. Therefore, they were typically kept
apart from witness interviews and other information of a clearly
evidentiary nature. In 1967, the United States Supreme Court made clear
in Katz v. United States that the non-consensual interception of
private communication constituted a ``search'' under the Fourth
Amendment and therefore, required the same constitutional protection as
physical searches. Congress followed in 1968 with the Federal Wiretap
Act, which established fixed procedural requirements to record private
conversations and admit them into evidence in a criminal trial. This
was 4 years after the tapes were made.
Third, Mr. Eddy's review occurred 13 years after the tapes were
made and 9 years after active FBI investigation ceased. While Mr. Eddy
had access to and interviewed agents who were familiar with the
original investigation, it appears that the existence of the tapes was
never discussed. Finally, summaries of the informant tapes and
references to information derived from the ``kitchen tapes'' were
contained in files made available to Mr. Eddy; however, the primary
focus of his investigation was Robert Chambliss, not Thomas Blanton.
This focus on Chambliss, combined with the limited time period he was
given to complete his review and investigation were likely factors in
Mr. Eddy's not discovering the existence of either the ``kitchen
tapes'' or the informant tapes.
Question. What steps have you taken to determine whether the FBI
has been sitting on evidence in other cases and to ensure that it does
not happen again?
Answer. As explained above, the belated discovery of the tape
recordings in the Birmingham case was not the result of the FBI
``sitting on,'' or hiding evidence. With respect to other FBI
investigations involving civil rights violations, the FBI has received
no indication from any source--including federal prosecutors, the
defense bar, judicial rulings, and its own internal inspection
process--that there exists a practice of withholding evidence or of
failing to adhere to criminal discovery requirements in any other
manner.
FBI agents are throughly trained in the rules of discovery,
including their legal obligations to adhere to those rules, beginning
with new agent training. This training continues on a regular basis
throughout a field agent's career in all FBI field offices and is
continuously reinforced in practice through guidance from federal
prosecutors and FBI field supervisors. Finally, the handling of
evidence in a manner that both preserves its integrity and efficiently
serves the discovery process is a significant part of the thorough
inspection that each FBI field office receives every 3 years. Our
inspection process mandates, for example, that the Chief Judge of that
District be interviewed about the FBI's role in the District's federal
criminal prosecutions. Other mandatory interviews include the local
United States Attorney and members of his/her staff. These interviews
are designed to elicit feedback about the FBI's performance in ongoing
federal prosecutions and serve as the basis for recommendations for
policy changes.
``hanssen'' case
Question. With respect to the Hanssen case, the question on
everyone's mind is how the alleged espionage could go on uninterrupted
for 15 years without being detected. Until recently, the Federal Bureau
of Investigation (FBI), unlike other national security agencies like
the Central Intelligence Agency and the Department of Energy, did not
routinely polygraph its employees who had access to classified
information, even though some experts recommended that such screening
be done. What were the reasons for the FBI's policy against using
polygraph examinations?
Answer. The FBI has had a limited polygraph program in place since
1978. The polygraph program was established in 1978 for on-board
investigators on a case-by-case-basis. In 1983, the FBI expanded the
program to include employees who had a need for special access. This
included counterintelligence focused polygraph examinations for
personnel with access to selected, highly sensitive information. A
threshold was established to determine who qualifies on a case-by-case
basis for the special access polygraph exams. In December 1992, the
FBI's polygraph program was updated to incorporate a requirement for
contract employees who have access to sensitive information and/or are
assigned to select locations. This included contract linguists, select
task force personnel, and other contractors on a case-by-case-basis
depending on their job requirements. In March 1994, a comprehensive
polygraph examination program was established for all FBI applicants.
Furthermore, in June 1994, issue-based polygraph examinations began in
security adjudication and other personnel administrative inquiries.
Between 1994 and 1996, serious consideration was given to
instituting routine polygraph examinations of on-board employees.
However, the FBI did not adopt a mandatory polygraph program due to
differing views on effectiveness and the significant impact resulting
from false positives.
The FBI will be glad to provide you a briefing on this issue at
your convenience.
Question. Do you believe that if the Federal Bureau of
Investigation had been conducting routine polygraph screening,
Hanssen's alleged espionage would have been detected sooner?''
Answer. Due to the sensitive nature of Mr. Hanssen's assignments
within the FBI, had the FBI's current interim polygraph program, which
was initiated subsequent to his arrest and is described in the response
to the next question, been in place earlier, he would have been tested.
It can only be speculated as to whether such a test, if administered to
Hanssen, would have led to earlier detection of his alleged espionage.
Question. According to press reports, in the wake of Hanssen's
arrest, the Federal Bureau of Investigation decided to give polygraph
examinations to 500 of its employees who have access to intelligence
information. Why was this kind of testing appropriate after Hanssen's
arrest but not before?
Answer. As a result of the Hanssen case, the FBI has been caused to
rethink the issue of security with regard to the ``trusted insider.''
Polygraph examinations of on-board employees are merely one of the
tools which will be used in the personnel security reinvestigation
processing of existing employees.
Question. The Judiciary Committee recently held a hearing on
``Issues Surrounding Use of the Polygraph.'' All of the expert witness
[es] we heard (both pro- and anti-polygraph) agreed that polygraph
screening will produce a certain percentage of ``false positive''
responses, that is, where an innocent person's reactions falsely show
deception on the polygraph. According to a recent public statement by
Attorney General Ashcroft, polygraph screening has a false-positive
rate of about 15 percent. If we accept that figure, that means that if
you administer polygraphs to 500 people, approximately 75 people will
have false positive polygraph results. What is the Federal Bureau of
Investigation doing to protect the rights of those employees who may
have false positive polygraph test results?
Answer. The population being tested is very selective, and the
polygraph questions being asked are very focused, resulting in an
anticipated false positive rate significantly lower than 15 percent.
Further, independent of the exact rate of false positives, the Federal
Bureau of Investigation has established a process to ensure that
negative polygraph results are carefully investigated. Adverse actions
against employees will not be taken based solely on the results of a
polygraph examination. Rather, information developed as the result of
investigative activity taken subsequent to the conduct of the polygraph
examination will be used to determine if an adverse action is
appropriate.
Question. Do you believe that any adverse action should be taken
against an Federal Bureau of Investigation employee based solely on the
results of a polygraph examination, in the absence of any corroborating
evidence that they have done anything wrong or given any deceptive
answers?
Answer. In a legal sense, an adverse action under 5 U.S.C. chapter
75, is a suspension in excess of 14 days up through termination or a
demotion in grade. The FBI does not believe that such actions should be
taken against FBI employees based solely on the results of polygraph
examinations. Having said this, however, it must be readily apparent
that federal agencies are obligated to take all reasonable and prudent
actions to protect the interests which they represent. Therefore,
though the FBI will take no adverse actions against FBI employees based
solely on the results of polygraph examinations, it may, as necessary,
temporarily transfer persons to positions with less sensitive access,
at no loss of pay, during the pendency of investigations pursuant to
polygraph examinations.
______

Questions Submitted to the Drug Enforcement Administration
Questions Submitted by Senator Pete V. Domenici
linking dea's budget to performance
Question. The DEA has benefited in recent years from publicity
attendant to a series of ``largest seizure in history'' busts.
According to Nexis, in the past year newspapers have reported 66 of
these ``biggest busts'' in history whether by state or type of drug or
whatever.
Biggest bust stories suggest that we are now winning the war on
drugs. While it is true that more drugs are interdicted, for example
cocaine seizures rose from 9,000 kilos in 1983 to 108,000 in 1997, one
might wonder whether, in fact, more drugs are crossing our borders.
Street prices for cocaine and heroin are holding constant or even
falling which also suggests that plenty of these drugs are still
crossing the borders.
Americans seem willing to pay for illegal drugs and, no matter how
many biggest busts in history are accomplished, replacement smugglers
and dealers, even replacement countries, are ready to step in to take
the place of those arrested.
What is the DEA's intention with respect to balancing a focus on
supply with a focus on demand reduction?
Answer. Drug law enforcement is the primary focus of the DEA as
expressed in the agency's mission statement: ``To enforce the
controlled substances laws and regulations of the United States and
bring to the criminal and civil justice system, those organizations and
principal members of organizations involved in the growing,
manufacturing, or distribution of controlled substances appearing in or
destined for illicit drug traffic in the United States; and to
recommend and support non-enforcement programs aimed at reducing the
availability of illicit controlled substances on domestic and
international markets.''
Because DEA's mandate is primarily supply reduction, the agency
will continue to focus its resources, financial and human, toward this
supply focused mission responsibility.
However, without detracting significant financial and human
resources from the mission to focus on supply reduction, DEA attempts
to bring balance to the agency's approach by providing demand reduction
activities both in the field and at the headquarters level.
Established in 1986, DEA's Demand Reduction Section (CPD) provides
information to the public including youth, community groups, educators,
law enforcement organizations and businesses about drug prevention and
the dangers of drugs. This is accomplished through the efforts of the
agency's 22 field Demand Reduction Coordinators (DRC) and headquarters
support staff. The staff closely coordinates training programs,
seminars and other prevention-related activities with federal, state,
and local drug prevention agencies and organizations nationwide,
providing training and technical assistance to audiences around the
country. In total, the Demand Reduction program represents less than
one percent of the agency's annual budget appropriation.
DEA's Demand Reduction program has four national priorities. These
priorities include: mobilization of communities and public awareness;
education of youth; education of parents; and drug free workplaces.
Stemming from these priorities are numerous initiatives to increase
awareness about drugs and provide organizations with advice and the
tools they need to succeed. They include:
--MET II /``Cutting Edge'' Training.--DEA has Mobile Enforcement
Teams (METs) that, at the invitation of a community's police
chief, sheriff, or prosecutor, discretely work in a community
for several months to eliminate targeted violent drug-
trafficking organizations impacting the community. After the
MET team completes its work, DEA sends a team of five leaders
from that community to a three-day training session to learn
how to develop and operate a community coalition and develop
and implement a drug-and-crime-prevention plan. This training
is called ``MET II'' and it incorporates the ``Cutting Edge''
crime prevention and community mobilization curriculum widely
used in crime prevention. The Department of Justice and DEA pay
for the training, so there is no cost to the participants.
DEA's goal is to offer the training to every community that has
hosted a MET deployment. To date, DEA has hosted 5 training
sessions for 394 leaders in 87 communities across the United
States DEA is in the process of surveying these communities to
see how they are using what they learned in the training.
--Teens in Prevention (TiP).--TiP is a network of youth-driven,
community-supported, school-based organizations. The goal of
this network is to increase the number and effectiveness of
young people, adults, and community organizations involved in
drug and violence prevention. With a focus on individual
responsibility and positive peer pressure, TiP is based on the
idea that teens hear information coming from adults as
lectures, but they hear information coming from their peers as
gospel. TiP was launched in El Paso, Texas, in 1998 and now
over 5,000 teens belong to TiP groups in Texas as well as in
New Mexico and Colorado.
--Youth Leadership Conferences.--Keeping in mind the impact that
youths have on other youth, DEA holds these conferences around
the country. The purpose of this week-long event is to promote
leadership skills and education about prevention issues.
Conferences have been held in San Antonio, Texas as well as in
Milton, Florida (at a Naval Air Station), and at the Pensacola
Naval Air Station in Pensacola, Florida. To date, over 100
youth leaders have attended these sessions.
--Law Enforcement Explorers.--Throughout the United States, DEA DRCs
are working with Boy Scouts and Law Enforcement Explorers. In
some cases, DEA sponsors the Explorer post. DRCs provide
training in the area of narcotic enforcement, community
involvement, and general drug abuse issues for Explorers. The
CPD always participates in the Boy Scout Jamboree every 4
years, as well as the biennial Law Enforcement Explorer
Conference and Explorer Leadership Training sessions held at
both the DEA and FBI Academies during the summer.
--Drug Free Workplace Training.--Most DRCs are conducting this
training on a routine basis. While most large corporations have
adopted Drug Free Workplace policies, small businesses are
still in need of training. DRCs can provide this training,
helping to develop policy for the company, implement Department
of Transportation regulations, and assist in providing updates
on the drug abuse situation in any particular community.
--Regional Club Drug Conferences.--Following an International Club
Drug Conference in July, 2000, CPD planned Regional Club Drug
Conferences in a number of cities in the United States. The
first conference was recently held in Atlantic City, New Jersey
and was attended by approximately 250 participants from the law
enforcement, treatment and prevention communities. Two other
conferences are planned for fiscal year 2001 in San Diego and
Chicago. The focus of these conferences is to provide
information on the dangers of club drugs and work to find
solutions for dealing with the problem. Evaluations of the
first conference were outstanding. Additional Regional
Conferences are planned for fiscal year 2002 throughout the
United States.
In addition to these programs, there are a variety of demand
reduction initiatives going on in each of DEA's 22 field divisions
around the country. Many DRCs provide drug prevention and education
training for parents, teachers, community leaders and law enforcement.
It has been and will continue to be the DEA's position that agency
efforts will be focused primarily on its supply-based mission. However,
DEA will continue to pursue opportunities to partner with government
agencies and other organizations with demand-based missions to address
demand-based issues. Such collaborative efforts will receive DEA
attention to the fullest extent possible without detracting from the
agency's given mission.
Question. Since quantities interdicted seem to produce ever upward
budgets for the agency, when the seizures may indicate a failure to
stem the flow of drugs, what should we use as an indicator of success
in the war on drugs?
Answer. The perception that seized quantities of illicit substances
has a causal and proportionate relationship to the size of the DEA's
budget is unfortunate when there are factors, such as the cost of
investigative tools and basic agency support functions (i.e., Title III
support, Firebird), that account for significant portions of the
agency's recent budget increases.
The collective seizure trends of the DEA and of the other federal,
state and local law enforcement entities may or may not indicate
success in the overall assessment of the United States law enforcement
community to impact the supply of drugs in the United States. The
ability to isolate seizure data as an indicator is troublesome at best
given the other potentially contributing factors such as the
improvement of data-sharing relationships and investigative techniques
among agencies. Other externally-based factors may include the per-
shipment distribution methods employed by traffickers and their
concealment methods.
But beyond these difficulties in assessing the relationship, if
any, between seizure data and success in anti-drug activities by the
DEA, the most appropriate indicator has very little to do with data
such as drug quantities seized. The DEA has developed a 5-year
strategic plan in which more appropriate indicators have been
introduced. Termed Measures of Effectiveness, DEA sets forth
Anticipated 5-Year Outcomes in 3 areas: International Impact Targets,
National Impact Targets, and Local Impact Targets. While DEA includes
indicators tailored to each area, the indicator common to each
references the disruption of targeted drug organizations. It is this
disruption assessment that is the most appropriate indicator to measure
DEA's success in anti-drug efforts.
The indicators apply to DEA's contribution to the nation's anti-
drug efforts. Any more comprehensive assessment must be made a higher
level and include an assessment of the efforts put forth by all
agencies with anti-drug functions, whether supply- or demand-based.
linking dea's budget to gpra indicators
Question. According to the 2002 budget, the Administration has
mandated that agencies use performance-based budgeting on selected
programs in the fiscal year 2003 budget cycle.
Under this mandate, agencies will be required to submit
performance-based budgets for selected programs in the fiscal year 2003
budget process, the first time agencies have been required to tie their
spending decisions to performance goals.
The Department of Justice (DOJ) was among the poorest performers
under the criteria by which performance plans were reviewed by the GAO
as well as in the Mercatus evaluation.
Please tell me what specific steps you see necessary to improve the
agency's performance plan and how this will be coupled with the
Department's performance plan in order to fulfill the new mandate.
Answer. While, it is true that the Justice Department's fiscal year
2001 Performance Plan received low marks from the Mercatus Center and
GAO; the evaluation of the combined fiscal year 2000 Performance Report
and fiscal year 2002 Performance Plan noted significant improvement. In
the recent ranking by the Mercatus Center, the DOJ moved from 23rd to
the 5th position. In addition, GAO addressed many of the improvements
that DOJ made under the section comparing the performance report and
plan with the previous year's report and plan. In regard to planning
and reporting of DEA's mission accomplishments, we are continuing our
efforts to improve performance measurement.
To accomplish our mission, the DEA developed a Strategic Plan,
which sets forth the agency's strategic goals and objectives over a 5-
year time frame. It provides the long range goals and strategies by
which we will measure our progress and be held accountable. This
Strategic Plan is key to establishing and maintaining a clear focus on
the outcome of our efforts in response to the Government Performance
and Results Act (GPRA) of 1993. The plan builds on the statutory
mandated mission of the DEA. It provides the framework within which we
prioritize and allocate our resources and establishes the foundation
for the development of more detailed annual performance plans, budgets,
and related program performance information.
In order to improve the agency's performance plan there must be
clearly articulated Critical Success Factors set forth in the agency's
Strategic Plan in measurable terms. In other words, the actual
performance measures must be set. This is the articulation of how DEA
will measure its primary indicators, i.e., the disruption or
dismantlement of targeted drug trafficking organizations. Second, DEA
must set its performance goals for the assessment period. The
performance goals will be based on a Priority Target list assembled
from the field and refined by headquarters. Third, DEA must adopt
whatever data collection mechanisms necessary to accurately and
efficiently assemble the measurement. This is likely to include some
traditional databases measuring operational output, but more
importantly will include the development of a data system sufficient to
capture resource data that is connected to the activity on drug
trafficking organizations contained in the agency's Priority Target
list.
This information will feed the Department's performance plan by
providing meaningful data that can easily be blended with that of other
DOJ counterparts without relying solely on traditional statistics, such
as arrests and seizures.
Question. Do you have preliminary thoughts on which programs will
be chosen for performance-based budgeting?
Answer. DEA plans to submit future budget requests in a format that
is consistent with its Strategic Plan framework. Specifically, funding
will be tracked by the 4 DEA Strategic Focus Areas: International
Targets, National/Regional Targets, Local Impact, and Management
Infrastructure.
DEA has not yet set in motion a decision process to determine which
agency programs will receive the benefit of performance-based
budgeting. Until a comprehensive assessment mechanism is in place, it
is premature to identify any programs, therefore no preliminary
selections can be put forth at this time.
dea work with amtrak in new mexico
Question. Although this program ended some 3 weeks ago, for several
years Amtrak provided federal drug police in Albuquerque with ticketing
information about passengers. As part of a singular arrangement, a
computer with access to Amtrak's ticketing information resides in the
DEA's local office. This computer can provide drug agents with
information such as passengers' names, origination and destination, and
whether the passenger paid for their travel with cash or credit as well
as when the ticket was purchased. Information obtained from Amtrak
helped drug agents determine which passengers they speak to and whose
luggage could be checked by a canine as trains roll into Albuquerque.
Amtrak receives 10 percent of any cash seized from suspected drug
couriers at the Downtown Albuquerque Station.
When the article was written, the Albuquerque DEA office indicated
that, although ``substantial,'' it did not immediately know how many
arrests had been made or how much cash had been seized. Also, the
specter of Constitutional concerns, such as ethnic targeting and
unreasonable searches and seizures, seemed to be arising.
Please provide me with specific information on the number of
arrests, cash seized, and all demographics of those arrested including
such data as origin of travel.
Answer. Statistics are for October 1, 1999--April 12, 2001
Demographics of Arrested Subjects:
White Non-Hispanic Males: 30.2 percent.
White Hispanic Males: 25.4 percent.
Black Non-Hispanic Males: 23.8 percent.
Black Non-Hispanic Females: 6.3 percent.
White Non-Hispanic Females: 6.3 percent.
White Hispanic Females: 6.3 percent.
Other: 1.6 percent.
Travel Origin Cities:
Los Angeles, California
San Bernardino, California
Fullerton, California
Flagstaff, Arizona
Seizures:
U.S. Currency--$2,427,848.
Marijuana--470.7 kilograms.
Cocaine--20.55 kilograms.
Crack Cocaine--3.25 kilograms.
Methamphetamine--2 kilograms.
Heroin--.4 kilograms.
Ephedrine (Precursor for methamphetamine)--74 kilograms.
DEA does not utilize racial profiling or employ a national drug
trafficker profile that our Special Agents invoke in deciding whether
to approach or investigate a particular individual. Rather, DEA agents
rely upon their experience and training in determining when to commence
an investigation. Experience has shown that there are clear patterns of
activity that some drug traffickers, particularly drug couriers, often
display. DEA does train its agents and law enforcement personnel from
other agencies concerning behaviors and activities that experience has
shown are consistent with drug trafficking. Proactive narcotic law
enforcement is an effective strategy to protect the public from the
drug-related crime and violence. Drug enforcement activity based on
race, national origin or gender is not only ineffective, but it is
unethical and illegal. Such methods have no place in DEA, or in law
enforcement in general.
Question. What is the status of any Constitutional challenges,
including those based on sharing of private information by federal
agencies, to this practice? Please provide information concerning the
numbers of cases in which a Constitutional challenge was raised and the
disposition.
Answer. DEA is not aware of any Constitutional challenges regarding
DEA's access to the AMTRAK reservations systems. Based on our research
to date, we find no such issues. DEA's access to the AMTRAK
reservations systems is a matter of public record, and is thoroughly
reported in the federal case law. AMTRAK also monitors its reservations
systems for suspicious activity. The core issue here is that the
information DEA accesses belongs to AMTRAK, not the individual, and the
Supreme Court has held that an individual does not have an expectation
of privacy in information he or she has disclosed to a third party.\1\
If the government's access to information is not prohibited by the
Fourth Amendment, the only other protection a party might have is
statutory, such as exists with information maintained by electronic
communications service providers,\2\ and financial institutions.\3\ But
we know of no statutes that prohibit the government from obtaining
train manifests from AMTRAK.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See United States v. Jacobsen, 466 U.S. 109, 118, 104 S. Ct.
1652, 80 L. Ed. 2d 85 (1984) (``It is well settled that when an
individual reveals private information to another, he assumes the risk
that his confidant will reveal that information to the authorities, and
if that occurs the Fourth Amendment does not prohibit governmental use
of that information.''); United States v. Miller, 425 U.S. 435, 443, 96
S. Ct. 1619, 48 L. Ed. 2d 71 (1976) (``This Court has held repeatedly
that the Fourth Amendment does not prohibit the obtaining of
information revealed to a third party and conveyed by him to Government
authorities, even if the information is revealed on the assumption that
it will be used only for a limited purpose and the confidence placed in
the third party will not be betrayed.'').
\2\ See 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2703(c)(1)(A)(2001) (``Except as provided
in subparagraph (B), a provider of electronic communication service or
remote computing service may disclose a record or other information
pertaining to a subscriber to or customer of such service . . . to any
person other than a governmental entity.'').
\3\ See 12 U.S.C. Sec. 3402 (``no Government authority may have
access to or obtain copies of, or the information contained in the
financial records of any customer from a financial institution'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To date, defendants whose arrests have flowed from DEA's access to
AMTRAK's reservations records have unsuccessfully raised Equal
Protection objections based on race,\4\ and unsuccessfully challenged
the government's ability to use administrative subpoenas to obtain
passenger information.\5\ Those issues disposed of, our research has
disclosed no other constitutional issues.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ See United States v. Gordon, 173 F.3d at 761-768 (``[The
defendant] makes much of the fact that the description provided by
[AMTRAK] referenced his race and from that he reasons the tip was race-
based. This rampant speculation is not supported by any evidence in the
record. . . . [The defendant] ignores the evidence that prompted the
Amtrak employee to contact the DEA in the first place--he had purchased
a one-way ticket, with cash, only minutes before the train departed.
The AMTRAK employee contacted the DEA after noting these facts because
the employee previously had been told by the DEA that these facts fit
the DEA profile of an individual who is a likely transporter of
drugs.'').
\5\ See United States vs. Moffett, 84 F.3d 1291-1293 (10th Circuit
1996) (defendant lacked standing to challenge Government's use of
administrative subpoena against AMTRAK).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. What are your plans to share this information with other
enforcement agencies?
Answer. The passenger information contained in the Amtrak database
was used by members of the Albuquerque District Office's interdiction
unit working at the train station. An officer with the AMTRAK Police
Department is a member of this interdiction unit. The passenger
information provided some indicators that, coupled with the agent or
officer's training and experience, gave them reasonable suspicion to
believe that an individual may be a drug courier. The agent or officer
would either approach the individual in the Albuquerque train station,
or pass the information on to a law enforcement agency in a city where
the train was destined.
DEA did not utilize passenger information contained in the Amtrak
database to develop a separate DEA database so that DEA could share the
names of all AMTRAK passengers with other law enforcement agencies. DEA
was only interested in identifying and interviewing suspected drug
couriers.
______

Questions Submitted by Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell
ecstasy
Question. It has come to my attention that there is a new drug on
the streets of our country known as Ecstasy and we have seen a dramatic
increase in the use of it over the last year or so. There have been a
couple of high profile cases in my home state of Colorado where young
adults who have taken this drug have died.
What, if any, findings has the DEA come across with regard to
Ecstasy manufacturing, distribution, and use? Has the DEA seen an
increase in the amount of Ecstasy tablets penetrating our borders from
overseas distributors? Given this, can we determine from what region,
or what specific countries these tablets are coming from? What are the
major ports of entry?
Answer. Methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA), or Ecstasy, is a
synthetic, psychoactive drug possessing stimulant and mild
hallucinogenic properties. Ecstasy is a dangerous drug--deceptively
dangerous. For this reason, the widespread growth of Ecstasy use has
been nothing short of alarming. Ecstasy-related emergency room
incidents have increased from 1,143 in 1998 to 2,850 in 1999, the last
full year for which data is available. In 2000, DEA seized over 3
million tablets of Ecstasy, compared to slightly over 1 million tablets
in the previous year.
The oral form of MDMA is usually sold in tablets inscribed with
brand logos such as the trade symbols of Mitsubishi, Rolex, and the
Rolling Stones. MDMA was temporarily listed as a Schedule I controlled
substance on an emergent basis in 1985 and permanently placed into
Schedule I in 1988. The vast majority of MDMA consumed worldwide is
manufactured in clandestine laboratories based in Western European
countries such as the Netherlands and Belgium. Once the MDMA reaches
the United States, a domestic wholesale distributor will sell the drug
for $6 to $8 per tablet. The retailer then distributes it for $25 to
$40 per tablet.
The MDMA manufactured in Europe is routinely transported and
distributed by factions of Israeli and Russian organized crime groups.
These organizations also utilize couriers, common carriers and parcel
services to facilitate the transport of MDMA into and within the United
States. Recently, Colombian and Dominican trafficking organizations
have become involved in the transportation and distribution of MDMA.
The increase in MDMA consumption is directly related to the
increased popularity of a social gathering known as the ``rave,'' an
all night techno-dance party. The common rave participant can be as
young 14 years old and as old as the mid to late 20s. Participants can
take several MDMA tablets during an evening spent at a rave to enhance
the rave experience. Unfortunately, many teens do not perceive MDMA as
harmful or dangerous. Acute effects of MDMA ingestion include bruxism
(teeth grinding), trismus (jaw clenching), increased heart rate,
increased blood pressure, hyperthermia, sweating and dehydration.
Complications from MDMA use include acute renal failure, cardiac
arrhythmia, cardiovascular collapse, cerebral infarction, depression,
mental fatigue and psychosis.
The Drug Abuse Warning Network (DAWN) estimates reveal that
nationwide hospital emergency room mentions for MDMA increased
dramatically from 1993 to 1998. Seizures of MDMA also have increased
drastically from 1993 to 1999. There have been reports of deaths in the
United States and abroad related to the ingestion of PMA (para-
methoxyamphetamine), which is represented and sold as MDMA. While the
drugs may be chemically similar, it appears that PMA does not share the
same physiological effects as MDMA. Believing that the tablets have a
lower concentration of MDMA, the user will take several more tablets in
a short period of time (``stacking'') to attempt to achieve the desired
effect. This repeated ingestion of tablets could lead to toxicity and a
potentially fatal overdose.
Question. What has been done to stem the rising number of incidents
involving the use of this drug? What specific action or plan of action
is the DEA taking to curtail the illegal importation of Ecstasy into
the United States? On a national front? On a local front (communities
and schools)?
Answer. Due to the exponential growth of MDMA use and abuse, DEA
has developed a very ambitious multi-faceted MDMA/Club Drug Initiative.
The primary objective of this approach is to target and dismantle
various elements of the MDMA trafficking groups from all fronts--
international, national and local. To augment this enforcement
initiative, DEA also has instituted a very aggressive demand reduction
program targeted at students and parents alike.
Through close coordination and the sharing of intelligence with our
foreign host counterparts, DEA has identified several international
MDMA drug trafficking organizations and their surrogates that transport
and distribute MDMA throughout the United States. Because the
Netherlands is the principal source zone for ecstasy destined for the
United States, DEA has worked closely with Dutch and other European law
enforcement authorities in an effort to dismantle these MDMA
trafficking organizations. On a national front, through close multi-
agency coordination, DEA continues to pursue the domestic command and
control networks of these organizations. By utilizing the resources of
the Special Operations Division, DEA, in conjunction with the Federal
Bureau of Investigation, the United States Customs Service, the
Internal Revenue Service and other federal, state and local agencies,
has effectively identified and dismantled several of these
organizations.
On a local level, it has been well established that raves are the
primary venues in which MDMA is used. It is quite evident that many
rave club owners and operators cater to MDMA users and appear to
advocate the club drug culture. As such, in furtherance of this
initiative, DEA, in close coordination with state and local
counterparts, has attempted to reduce rave activity through enforcement
of juvenile curfews, health and fire code ordinances and various
licensing requirements. Furthermore, DEA field divisions identify the
most active rave clubs in their areas of responsibility as well as
resources necessary to target these clubs and their owners/promoters.
One anti-rave initiative of note was undertaken in New Orleans,
Louisiana, by the DEA New Orleans Field Division, the New Orleans
Police Department and the U.S. Attorneys Office. Through the innovative
use of 21 U.S.C. 856, also referred to as the ``Crack House'' statute,
a rave promoter was arrested and the largest rave operation in New
Orleans was closed. Perhaps most significant is the fact that since the
completion of this operation, ``club drug'' related overdoses in New
Orleans have dropped 90 percent, with ecstasy overdoses disappearing
altogether. This statistic clearly shows a very strong correlation
between rave activity and club drug overdoses resulting in emergency
room visits.
To focus national attention on the MDMA threat, DEA hosted the
International Conference on Ecstasy and Club Drugs in partnership with
approximately 300 officials from domestic and foreign law enforcement,
judicial, chemical, prevention and treatment communities. The
conference was held from July 31, 2000, to August 2, 2000, at DEA
headquarters in Arlington, Virginia. As a follow-up to last year's
conference, DEA is planning a series of regional club drug conferences,
that will serve the purpose of taking DEA's demand reduction message
out to a variety of selected communities. The first of these regional
conferences was held in Atlantic City, New Jersey on May 2-3, 2001.
Hosted by the DEA Newark Division in conjunction with the New Jersey
State Police, and New Jersey Prevention Network, the conference focused
on providing community based solutions to problems relating to the
abuse of club drugs. Future regional conferences will be held in
Austin, Texas, San Diego, California and Chicago, Illinois.
Furthermore, the following demand reduction objectives have been
institutionalized by DEA. These objectives include:
--Working with local, state, and other federal agencies and nonprofit
organizations in an effort to advance drug education and
prevention;
--Enhancing parental knowledge of raves and club drugs and engage
their active participation in education and prevention of drug
abuse; and
--Educating high school and college students on the realities of
raves and the effects of club drugs on the human body.
The education of high school and college students on the realities
of raves and the effects of club drugs in the human body is a necessary
part of DEA's demand reduction program. Institutions of higher
education that receive federal funds are required under the Higher
Education Act to implement a drug and alcohol abuse prevention program
for students and staff, and the DEA, working with the Department of
Education, must focus institutions' efforts on meeting this
requirement.
Finally, DEA will continue to apply a ``holistic approach,''
utilizing a well coordinated combination of programs that include
Demand Reduction, Education, Treatment, and a Law Enforcement strategy
that makes maximum use of realistic penalties that reflect the
destructive nature of Ecstasy trafficking.
hidta
Question. As you know, the DEA has participated in the Rocky
Mountain HIDTA program since it was created in 1996. This combined
anti-drug enforcement effort among federal, state, and local law
enforcement agencies has been expanding its anti-drug efforts in the
Rocky Mountain region. I would be interested in your opinions and
observations as to the success and effectiveness of the HIDTA program
generally, and the Rocky Mountain HIDTA specifically.
Answer. The HIDTA program has shown some definite results, and has
been particularly effective in uniting local, state and federal
agencies in the pursuit of high level regional, national and
international investigations.
In general the HIDTA program has been very successful in achieving
its individual goals and objectives in support of the National Drug
Control Strategy. In most instances there have been continuously
improving coordination and cooperation among all the HIDTA participants
at all levels. Even the newly established HIDTAs have this as a
principal goal to achieve for success. It should be noted that HIDTA
functions through task forces that are chaired by various participating
agencies. HIDTAs have continued to have a regional impact on drug
enforcement operations.
The Rocky Mountain HIDTA is unique in its geographical scope. It is
one of only a few HIDTAs that covers more than one state. The Rocky
Mountain HIDTA covers 3 states covering approximately 286,000 square
miles with a total population of approximately 7 million people. The
region includes two major interstate highways, I-70 and I-80, that are
primary corridors for illicit drugs going from California to areas of
the midwest and the eastern United States. Traffickers from the
southwest border are using rural highways through New Mexico and
Arizona with no need to hit major interstates until well into Colorado
and Utah where they are able to reach I-25 and the I-70 corridor.
Due to the large geographical area involved, the Rocky Mountain
HIDTA has a greater number of initiatives than most other HIDTA's. Many
of these initiatives do not have direct federal participation due to
the limited number of federal resources in such a large geographic
area.
Investigative initiatives have upgraded their investigations to
focus on a more regional and national level. There is new emphasis on
pursuing the investigations as far as possible, even outside their
initial jurisdiction and outside their state. There is a new attitude
of cooperation, coordination and support among the different
initiatives working more closely than they have in the past. Arrest of
drug traffickers, drug seizures, clan lab seizures and dismantling/
disrupting of drug trafficking organizations have all increased. The
number of investigations that were coordinated outside the Rocky
Mountain HIDTA region also has increased.

subcommittee recess

Senator Gregg. If there is nothing further, the
subcommittee is recessed.
[Whereupon, at 11:34 a.m., Thursday, May 17, 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 2002

----------

THURSDAY, JUNE 28, 2001

U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 10:23 a.m., in room SH-216, Hart
Senate Office Building, Hon. Ernest F. Hollings (chairman)
presiding.
Present: Senators Hollings, Inouye, Kohl, and Stevens.

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

STATEMENT OF MICHAEL K. POWELL, CHAIRMAN
Senator Hollings. The committee will come to order. We
apologize for the lateness, but these votes and work on the
floor has kept our ranking member, Senator Gregg, from being
here. He is handling the bill on the floor.
We welcome Chairman Powell this morning and we would be
delighted to hear from you, sir.
Mr. Powell. Thank you, Senator. It is always an honor and a
privilege to appear before you. I am particularly pleased to do
so given that so many of the members of this subcommittee are
also on our authorizing committee. It gives us an opportunity
to continue the dialogue that we began in one forum and
continue it in another to make sure that we have the resources
we need to deal with the challenges we face.
Simply put, we know the old adage is things change.
Sometimes they do more than change, they transform and
metamorphosize, and I would suggest that that is the basis of
the challenges we are facing in the communications industry
today.
The Federal Communications Commission is in a period that
it has never faced before. Virtually every segment of its
portfolio is in the midst of its most profound revolution,
whether that be television, cable, wireless technologies, or
satellite technologies. All of them are struggling to take
advantages of substantial and dramatic technological
breakthroughs that will change forever not only the way they
provide service, but the potential kinds of products and
services that are going to be available to our citizens. The
Federal Communications Commission is going to sit in the midst
of this, trying to figure out the proper and thoughtful
regulatory paradigm that will govern in this period of
transformation. All the while, service providers attempt to
move their architectures to the advanced IP based, digital type
of architectures that are more efficient and offer more
possibility and potential for consumer welfare. So the role of
the Federal Communications Commission is going to be critical
in that regard.
It seems to me that in order for us to do our job well, we
are going to have to have a period of change ourselves to make
sure that we have what equates to a blueprint or business plan
that allow us to be an efficient, effective, and responsive
institution in the midst of this uncertainty, cacophony, and
change. We believe that that challenge is going to be
paramount, and so we have begun to develop what I fondly refer
to as the Commission's business plan. That business plan will
have four key planks.
The first is to constantly struggle to provide a clear,
substantive policy vision that guides our deliberation. It is
becoming crystal clear to me that we have to have a very
pointed focus on advanced technology development and
deployment, broadband technology for our citizens whether that
is wireline and cable and DSL, whether it is in the wireless
space in the name of third generation and advanced wireless
infrastructures, or whether it is new satellite offerings.
These are the products and services that our consumers are
waiting to receive and I think that that has to be a central
focus of the Commission.
But all the vision in the world is useless if we do not
take our responsibilities to operate and manage the agency
effectively and efficiently. I take great pride--it is not a
burden to me--in being the central manager of the Federal
Communications Commission. I take that part of the
responsibility deeply seriously. I think the Commission needs
to be an agency that can get to the bottom of things
effectively and make decisions quickly to remove the
uncertainty associated with regulatory action.
We are working hard to do that. We have developed annual
strategic planning cycles. We are looking to measure our
productivity measures across bureaus and offices. We are
working hard to modernize our internal IT structure, putting
greater emphasis on efficient electronic filing and the kinds
of automated processes that allow us to get through our work
more efficiently. And we are working on telecommuting so that
our employees have the opportunity both to invest in their
families as well as their workplace, and can continue to use
the technology to provide a contribution to the public
interest.
The third component, and I think perhaps the most important
component of an FCC----
Senator Hollings. I started to say ``amen.'' You are doing
great, but I heard the expression ``public interest'' and I
appreciate it.
Mr. Powell. Thank you. I know that is of interest to you
and all of us.
The third component, which I think is the most important,
that has been neglected, frankly, over the years, and that is
the understanding that the agency is in a position of needing
an independent indigenous technical capability. I will tell
you, I have been at the Commission 4 years and I have seen the
pitfalls of regulating companies and dealing with regulatory
decisions with the likes of Steve Case or Bill Gates having to
teach us how their technology works at the same time we are
supposed to make an independent regulatory judgment about that.
It is at some levels at crisis stage, and we are fond of
pointing out that in 4 years, 40 percent of our engineers are
eligible for retirement and we simply are not replacing that
capability at anywhere near that rate of attribution. We need
to make sure that our engineering and technical components will
get improved upon so that we can make those decisions more
effectively in a world to which the technology is the central
driver of change in that industry.
Not only do we need focus on the recruitment and retention
of technical talent, we need to have professional development
and training when we get them. Engineers have to stay current
in their guild. They have to have the programs and policies
that allow them to continue to stay on the cutting edge and we
need to modernize our own engineering laboratory facilities so
that we can use the tools there to measure conflicting and
competing claims about technology and interference and issues
of the like.
And finally on that component, I think we have to remember
that the technology issues are not just one for technologists.
They are for lawyers and economists and policy makers and
analysts, as well. We have to have a confluence in that regard.
One of the things I am most proud of is we are building what I
like to refer to as the ``FCC University''. We are working hard
to develop an annual curriculum of courses in which we use our
most talented individuals to hold instructional courses. We
have partnered on occasion with universities, with professors,
with scholars, with technologists, so that our employees have
an annual cycle of being able to access that curriculum, take
courses to stay current in their field, and hopefully be
revitalized both in their morale and their attention to public
service, which I think is also critical to the country.
And finally, the Commission needs to take a concerted and
thoughtful study of its organizational structure to see whether
it is organized optimally to make the kinds of decisions that
these markets are increasingly demanding. We have all heard the
overused word and concepts of ``convergence'', but what it does
mean is the traditional ``buckets'' which we often look at in
terms of regulatory policy are more and more strained by the
cross-interests of different organizations and we need to look
at whether there are thoughtful ways to reorganize the
Commission in a way that it can more effectively respond to
those functions.
But to be clear on that, in my opinion, that is not cutting
the agency. I don't envision any significant diminution of
personnel or assets, but more an optimization of the way we are
organized and a more fruitful use of the people that we do have
so that we can make decisions in this world of converged
uncertainty.
So within that regard, the Commission's budget submission,
we ask that you and the American taxpayer invest $248.5 million
in that regard. That is maintaining the current level of the
labor force at about 1,975 FTEs. This represents approximately
an 8 percent increase over last year.
As is usually the case with the Commission, we have chosen
to seek most of that increase in the form of regulatory fees as
opposed to direct appropriations. The direct appropriations
component of the budget submission remains flat over last year,
and that is the program that we hope to work with this
committee and our authorizers to put into place and, hopefully,
make it an institution that not only the committee but the
American taxpayer is proud of.

prepared statement

And so with that, I am more than honored and happy to
entertain your questions.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Michael K. Powell
In order to serve the American public, the Federal Communications
Commission, as an institution, must be efficient, effective, and
responsive. The challenges of reaching these goals at the Commission
are complicated by the sweeping, fast-paced changes that characterize
the industries that we regulate. Indeed, the Commission is experiencing
a challenge it has never faced--each industry segment in our portfolio
is in the midst of revolution, and is attempting to adapt to
fundamental economic and technological changes. There are new markets,
new competitors, and new regulatory challenges.
Our fiscal year 2002 budget reflects the Commission's mission to
keep abreast of industry changes and set rational productivity and
regulatory goals. We are asking you to invest $248.5 million to ensure
that the FCC has the tools to facilitate its reform efforts, upgrade
its technological capabilities and further enhance its workforce. My
goal is not only to make the Commission an example of efficient
management practices, but to create and maintain an employee friendly
environment--a place where employees can hone their skills and take
pride in their service to the American people, as well as a place where
employees have plenty of time to invest in their families. We can work
together to encourage participation in telecommuting programs, build
internal training programs, and utilize programs designed to lure the
best and the brightest to government service. We can do this by
purchasing and maintaining state of the art technological equipment to
ensure better service to the public as well as a productive workplace.
My request for funding is tied to a specific business plan that I
present here today for your evaluation. We have developed this plan
along four dimensions: (1) a clear substantive policy vision,
consistent with the various communications statutes and rules, that
guides our deliberations; (2) a pointed emphasis on management that
builds a strong team, produces a cohesive and efficient operation, and
leads to clear and timely decisions; (3) an extensive training and
development program to ensure that we possess independent technical and
economic expertise; and (4) organizational restructuring to align our
institution with the realities of a dynamic and converging marketplace.
My goal is to improve the agency on all these levels--and to make
many of these changes within the next year. To that end, I have been
seeking opinions from a wide range of participants, including Members
of Congress and their staffs, the businesses that come before the
Commission, consumer groups, and our own skilled employees.
I cannot predict the future, nor can anyone else at the Commission.
When faced with future challenges that are uncertain, the best approach
is to build a first-class operation, with top talent, that is trained
and disciplined enough to adapt quickly to new and changing situations.
I hope to build, along with my colleagues and the outstanding FCC
staff, just such a unit--one well suited to an uncertain future.
Mr. Chairman, Ranking Minority Member, and Members of the Commerce,
Justice, State Appropriations Subcommittee, thank you for inviting me
to appear before you today to present the Federal Communications
Commission's (``FCC'') fiscal year 2002 Budget and discuss our
priorities for the year ahead.
Although I have testified before the Senate before, this is my
first appearance before your subcommittee. I want to use this
opportunity to affirm my commitment to working with the Members of this
Subcommittee to build a better FCC. I also want to thank the members of
this subcommittee for their unyielding support in seeing to it during
the past few years that the Commission received sufficient funding to
complete its core mission. Although the Commission is an independent
regulatory agency, the assessment, development and implementation of
communications policy is a team-effort, with shared responsibilities
between the various branches of government. It is my primary
responsibility to ensure that the FCC follows its statutory mandates in
enforcing communications laws. And, I want to work with you to make the
Commission a model of efficiency and transparency for all independent
regulatory agencies.
I believe that a critical part of my job is to be a leader and
steward of the Commission, and I take this responsibility very
seriously. In order to serve the American public, the FCC as an
institution must be efficient, effective, and responsive. The
challenges of reaching these goals are complicated by the sweeping,
fast-paced changes that characterize the industries that we regulate.
Indeed, the Commission is experiencing a challenge it has never faced--
each industry segment in our portfolio is in the midst of revolution,
and is attempting to adapt to the most fundamental changes. There are
new markets, new competitors, and new regulatory challenges.
Serving as Chairman of the FCC at this juncture in history gives me
a unique opportunity to take stock and assess our regulatory framework,
and to develop guiding principles that will encourage economic growth
in the communications sector and maximize consumer welfare. Our fiscal
year 2002 Budget request represents a critical part of our efforts to
make the Commission more cost-effective and results-oriented. Today, I
will provide you with a summary of our fiscal year 2002 Budget
Estimates and discuss our plans for using these funds to enhance the
Commission's productivity, and ensuring that we are capable of meeting
the future needs of both consumers and the communications industry.
new beginnings for an old commission
In order to understand our budget request, it is important to
assess where we are now, and how we plan to use our resources in the
future. The Federal Communications Commission received its initial
statutory authorization when Congress passed the Communications Act of
1934. It was a time of severe economic depression--but also of
technological change necessitating regulation of the cacophony of
voices on the nation's airwaves. The Commission became part of
Washington's alphabet soup, and developed a culture and structure
designed to handle the licensing of radio stations. When change came in
the beginning, it was slow and gradual, from the hardwiring of American
homes for telephones, even in rural areas, to the advent of television,
and the introduction of cable--these are the issues that the Commission
had to deal with in the middle part of the twentieth century. The
Commission divvied up the airwaves according to what was seen as the
highest and best use of the spectrum and often decided who would
receive the spectrum based on the subjective evaluation of the
character of the applicants.
The Commission's processes and mission have evolved during the past
70 years. While we still spend a great deal of time on spectrum
management, the number of potential users and uses increases
dramatically each year. Instead of exclusively focusing on broadcasting
and hardwired phones, we concentrate on expanding the spectrum to
accommodate new technologies like third-generation wireless and ultra-
wideband. Our goals and regulatory mission are defined in a host of
adjustments to the Communications Act of 1934, including the
Telecommunications Act of 1996. Our responsibility to auction the
spectrum is a creation of the budget and appropriations process, and it
currently represents both a mechanism for encouraging competition and a
valuable source of revenue for the U.S. Treasury. Today, the
Commission's primary mission is to promote a fully competitive
marketplace as well as access for all Americans to communications
services. We achieve our mission with a combination of manpower and
technology--from electronic auctions, to automated licensing, and
innovative spectrum management techniques.
No one in 1934, or even 1964, could have foreseen the revolution in
communications that we have experienced in the last decade alone. We
know that communications developments are not finite and that they will
no longer come slowly. The winds of profound and dynamic change,
unleashed in part by the 1996 Act, have buffeted the Commission and
blown it into a position where its decisions have far-reaching impact
on the future of communications, not only in the United States, but
also throughout the world. We have come a long way from an agency where
the principal focus was the assignment of radio licenses, and its
principal activity was conducting lengthy comparative hearings to
assign those licenses. This new environment is no longer linear, but
chaotic and dynamic. During the next part of this decade, we expect the
communications markets to expand exponentially and develop in a
competitive environment.
In thirty years, the Commission will not be our FCC, but our
children's FCC. I want to join with you to make the FCC a better place
and to ensure that we keep in step with the future. To facilitate
progress and not stand in its way, we must review our mission and goals
within the confines of Congress' mandate and develop an internal
mechanism for improving our ability to foster competition in an ever-
changing marketplace. For this agency to fulfill its congressional
charge, indeed to remain relevant at all, it must put together a new
business model and build the type of team that can execute it
effectively. And with your help, that is precisely what we intend to
do.
an investment in the future: the fcc's 2002 budget
To realize a more effective, efficient and responsive FCC, it
requires enhancing productivity, management review and retraining, as
well as technological upgrades to integrate all of these facets into a
productive work environment. Today, I ask you to invest in achieving
these objectives. Our fiscal year 2002 Budget requests that you commit
$248,545,000 to the future of communications policy. Our total budget
request is $18.5 million over last year's appropriation, representing
slightly more than an eight-percent increase. This increase is critical
to financing programmatic and mandatory costs. The budget supports a
staffing level of 1,975 full-time equivalents (``FTEs''). This level
includes FTEs funded from both appropriations and auctions resources.
Much of the increase--41 percent--covers uncontrollable cost
increases to fund proposed government-wide pay raises, rent increases
and other inflationary increases. Specifically, our request includes $6
million for mandatory salary and benefit increases and $1.6 million for
Consumer Price Index adjustments in contract services. The remaining
portion of our budget--and, by far the most critical--comprises
programmatic increases to accomplish the Commission's comprehensive
information technology strategic plan initiatives. We are requesting
$10,997,000 for these information technology (``IT'') enhancements.
This amount includes funding for equipment originally scheduled (but
not funded) for replacement in fiscal year 2000 and fiscal year 2001.
We intend to use our requested funding to build upon past
improvements. In the past few years, we have streamlined our licensing
procedures and implemented electronic filing capability in 78
applications--that is 72 percent of all major information systems. At
the end of fiscal year 2000, approximately 62 percent of all
applications were filed electronically. And, 93 percent of all
applicants were acted on within our processing goals. The use of
information technology has led to improved processing time as well as a
significant decrease in the number of backlogged applications. The
failure to invest in our information technology systems, either in the
form of lifecycle replacement or technological upgrades, could lead to
backsliding in our backlog elimination operations, and undermine our
efforts to reform the Commission. It is important, however, that we do
not automate what may be a flawed process. I intend to initiate a
strategic review of our processes to ensure that they are accomplishing
their intended goals.
I am cognizant of the fact that the funds I request here today
belong to the taxpayer and not the Commission. For that reason, we ask
only what is necessary to maintain and improve the Commission's
services and resources. It is important to note, however, that since
1987, the Commission has worked to reduce the cost of government
operations by implementing the congressionally mandated user fee cost
recovery programs. The first program, the ``Application Processing Fee
Program,'' was designed to recover a substantial portion of the costs
of the Commission's application processing functions, which account for
the majority of the licensing activity costs.
In 1994, we implemented the ``Regulatory Fees Cost Recovery
Program.'' Since that time, we have collected fees to recover the costs
attributable to the Commission's competition, enforcement and public
information services. Unlike the Application Processing Fee Program,
these fees can be retained by the Commission and applied to obligations
incurred during the current fiscal year, thereby reducing the amount of
appropriated funds required from the General Fund of the Treasury.
Since fiscal year 1994, the fee offset to our appropriation has
increased from 38 percent to approximately 87 percent in fiscal year
2001. I plan to maintain that level and even increase it slightly to 88
percent during fiscal year 2002. The actual appropriation requested by
the Commission for the next fiscal year represents $29,788,000 in net
direct budget authority since we intend to collect $218,757,000 in
offsetting collections from regulatory fees. I am proud of our work in
reducing our direct appropriation, and I believe that given the
appropriate tools, we will improve on this record.
keeping our part of the bargain
Two months ago, I testified before the House Subcommittee on
Telecommunications and the Internet concerning FCC reauthorization and
reform. Last month I testified before the House Commerce, Justice,
State Appropriations Subcommittee. In both of those instances, I gave
my commitment to following through on reform and asked our House
authorizers and appropriators to join me in this effort. Although the
financial needs outlined here are an important component of our reform
efforts, we already have implemented a management review designed to
make the Commission a model agency. I pledge to you that I will use the
taxpayers' funds constructively as a way to improve our services and I
provide you here with a four-point business plan that you can use to
evaluate the financial worth of our efforts. Let me emphasize that we
are not ``reinventing'' the Commission, because that would be Congress'
prerogative, and until legislation provides us with the ability to
reprioritize some of our functions, we will work within the statutory
limits set by Congress. My plan is designed to use our requested
funding in a constructive fashion--to improve the management and
employment environment in a way that benefits the American people.
fcc reform: the new business plan
I conceive of FCC reform as a comprehensive retooling and
redirection of the Commission's entire mission. Our approach is to
write and execute a new business plan built along four dimensions: (1)
a clear substantive policy vision, consistent with the various
communications statutes and rules, that guides our deliberations; (2) a
pointed emphasis on management that builds a strong team, produces a
cohesive and efficient operation, and leads to clear and timely
decisions; (3) an extensive training and development program to ensure
that we possess independent technical and economic expertise; and (4)
organizational restructuring to align our institution with the
realities of a dynamic and converging marketplace.
Substantive Vision
The United States has a proud legacy in the area of communications
services. This nation built the finest voice communication system in
the world, as well as top-notch mass media delivery systems in the form
of radio, television, and cable. These systems have reached maturity
though--we understand the basic technology and architecture; we largely
understand the cost characteristics; and, we understand what the
consumer wants and what the product is. And, government regulation and
policy had coalesced around these understandings, principally in the
form of regulated monopoly and oligopoly.
We are now only beginning to appreciate and deploy the new advanced
architectures and technologies of services like broadband. The cost
characteristics may differ substantially from those of traditional
networks to which we are accustomed. Broadband Internet products are
still being developed and we all wait to see what service offerings
consumers will and will not embrace. It is a world of dynamic and
chaotic experimentation and unpredictable change.
I believe government policy needs to migrate steadily toward the
digital broadband future, but recognize that we will be unable to
anticipate every change before it happens. I submit that this digital
broadband migration should be built around incubation, innovation and
investment. At the Commission, our policy direction will focus on this
migration and will have several directional guideposts:
--Facilitate the timely and efficient deployment of broadband
infrastructure. Endeavor to promote the growth of a wide
variety of technologies that can compete with each other for
the delivery of content and will strive not to favor--or
uniquely burden--any particular one.
--Pursue the universal service goals of ubiquity and affordability as
new networks are deployed, and do so in creative fashion.
--Redirect our focus onto innovation and investment. The conditions
for experimentation and change and the flow of money to support
new ventures have often been misunderstood or neglected. If the
infrastructure is never invented, is never deployed, or lacks
economic viability we will not see even a glimmer of the bright
future we envision.
--Harness competition and market forces. Drive efficient change and
resist the temptation, as regulators, to meld markets in the
image of any particular industry player.
--Rationalize and harmonize regulations across industry segments
wherever we can and wherever the statute will allow.
--Shift from constantly expanding the bevy of permissive regulations
to strong and effective enforcement of truly necessary ones. To
that end, I support H.R. 1765, which would increase by 10 fold
statutory levels for forfeitures, as well as extend the statute
of limitations for common carrier enforcement actions to two
years. When combined with solid auditing and enforcement of our
rules, especially those prohibiting regulated entities from
passing along their fines to ratepayers, I believe that these
changes will have a solid, deterrent effect against illegal
activities.
Operations and Management
All the vision in the world is useless if you do not build and
manage an institution that can execute it. We intend to actively manage
the agency. Indecision and avoidance are not legitimate policies and,
thus, we will strive to reduce backlogs and put systems in place that
will prevent these problems. Managers will be measured, in part, on
this basis. The Commission will develop an annual strategic planning
process that will be integrated with the federal budget cycle and the
review of our performance as an institution and as individuals. We are
working to establish uniform measures of productivity across the agency
to facilitate this activity.
The Commission is developing a set of internal procedures that will
allow it to function more smoothly. These procedures will cover
subjects such as Commission deliberation, voting procedures and
internal document security.
The Commission should continue to modernize its information
technology infrastructure to ensure productivity gains. We must strive
to be a virtual agency--one in which someone in Connecticut is able to
access us as easily and readily as someone on Connecticut Avenue. We
are working to make this goal a reality through increased electronic
access capability. We are engaged in a time-consuming and expensive
project, but one that is critical to our ability to remain relevant in
this new millennium. We must continue with due speed to use the
advances of technology to our advantage.
We have 18 major information technology systems that incorporate
electronic filing or offer public access to data. The industry can file
most license requests, equipment authorizations, and comments
electronically. A 72 percent electronic filing capability is not
enough--we will do better. We administered well over three million
licenses last year, so it is critical that we are efficient in this
area. It is also important that citizens all over the United States
have the ability to contact us easily and from anywhere--whether by
computer, phone or letter. Last year, we received well over one million
inquiries from consumers. The public must be an active voice in the
communications transformation, for they are the ultimate beneficiaries
of the abundant choices resulting from competition.
Better management and a wider application of technology initiatives
leads to enhanced productivity and an improved quality of life for
employees. The Commission should be a place to work, not live.
Employees should have a fair opportunity to work from home, providing
greater flexibility to meet the demands of modern family life. That is
why the Commission undertook an ambitious rollout plan for
telecommuting last year. We intend to overlay our virtual agency
concept to the benefit of FCC staff through an expansive telecommuting
program, which is open to nearly 100 percent of the Commission's
employees. Approximately 400 of our eligible employees, about 20
percent, have chosen to telecommute on either a regular or ad hoc
basis. We began the telecommuting program to increase productivity,
improve morale, improve job satisfaction and reduce absenteeism. I am
pleased to say that other agencies look to us as a model.
Technical and Economic Expertise
Since advances in technology are driving the communications
revolution, the Commission must have a strong fluency in the language
of technology. We cannot depend on those we regulate for on-the-job
tutorials while we make decisions. Over the last six years, our
engineering staff has decreased by more than 20 percent. Within the
next four years, 40 percent of our engineering staff will be eligible
to retire. Conversely, we are not replenishing the coffers at the other
end by bringing in new employees. Like other governmental departments
and agencies, we are competing for this talent in a tight labor market
and are challenged to convince talent to enter government service. This
has been most apparent trying to recruit entry-level engineers at the
GS-5 and GS-7 levels.
To address this situation the Commission is developing an agency-
wide ``Excellence in Engineering'' program. We will examine creative
ways to gain greater personnel and pay flexibility to attract technical
talent. Increased salaries alone, however, will not do the trick, nor
is it the sole motivator for anyone entering government service. While
government service in and of itself should elicit a sense of pride, we
will increase our technical employees' worth by ensuring that they are
able to continue to develop in their field, through strong training and
development programs and job rotation. Our laboratory facilities in
Columbia, Maryland need to be upgraded to provide engineers with the
tools to engage in critical and challenging work. If we receive full
funding this year, we believe that we can adequately address the
initial needs of this program, and then have the flexibility to plan
for the future to request additional funding during the next budget
cycle.
It also is vital that we train our non-engineering staff in the
areas of engineering and advanced technology. We already have begun to
develop an FCC ``university'' of sorts using our own staff and guest
lecturers, and taking advantage of various programs currently available
through the government and local academic institutions. We can use this
Washington, D.C. location to our advantage and tap into industry and
academia. We can use local scholars and have them participate in an
educational curriculum, to provide lectures, to provide classroom
instruction, to provide counsel and advice.
I am putting similar emphasis on economics and market analysis.
These tools are essential to our agency's mission. We have the
opportunity to take advantage of both internal resources, visiting
experts, and outside educational programs to help not only our
economists improve their skills but to help all the FCC's employees
understand better the impact of our rules on technological innovations,
and competitive markets. It is critical that we look to a plethora of
information sources in gathering opinions and forming our policy.
Restructuring
Communications policy has been written in carefully confined
buckets premised on certain types of technology. The FCC's
organizational structure largely mirrors that premise. But the
convergence of technology tears down those traditional distinctions and
makes it evermore difficult to apply those labels to modern
communications providers. In the same way, it makes it more important
than ever for us to examine whether those organizational buckets still
hold water.
About a year ago, we began breaking down the technology-based
divisions with the creation of the Enforcement Bureau and the Consumer
Information Bureau. With those reorganizations, we created two bureaus
aligned along functional responsibility. We created the Enforcement
Bureau to improve the effectiveness of our enforcement activities in an
increasingly competitive and converging market. We created the Consumer
Information Bureau to enhance consumers' ability to obtain quick, clear
and consistent information about communications regulations and
programs. These changes have proven to be beneficial. As the industry
moves toward fuller competition, the missions of these bureaus become
even more critical. For consumers to take full advantage of the choices
that competition brings, it is important that they have access to
information that allows them to make an informed choice. Their ability
to easily and quickly convey to us instances where the markets are not
providing useful information to consumers in a particular circumstance
or with a particular business is our early warning system for market
failure or malfeasance on the part of industry players. While the
consolidation of these functions is almost complete, there are some
additional functions that are transferable into or out of those two
bureaus.
We have undertaken a structural reorganization project that builds
on some of the initial efforts of my predecessor, Chairman William E.
Kennard. Our efforts will be guided by a few key objectives: (1) a
functional organization designed along market lines, rather than
technical ones; (2) a flatter substantive bureau structure; and (3)
greater consolidation of key support functions.
Our program will proceed in phases. We have begun by systematically
taking account of the agency's activities and functions to see what is
working well and what is not. From that review we will produce a Phase
I, short term, restructuring plan and a Phase II, longer range plan.
The Phase II plan will consider whether wholesale change is necessary
and whether it is timely to move away even more from technology-based
buckets. We will be looking at what economic or marketplace triggers
are indicative of the need for further restructuring. The question has
been asked whether the Commission should be aligned along functional
lines--e.g., enforcement, consumer information, spectrum management,
licensing and competition--given increased convergence in the industry.
This question deserves to be asked and answered. But first, we must
seek additional and substantial information, and be completely
satisfied that it is the right thing to do, before we move to rearrange
substantially the organizational structure of the agency.
My goal is to improve the agency on all these fronts. An informed
decision, however, is better than one based merely on supposition. We
are seeking the opinions and thoughts from a wide range of participants
as we proceed down the path of reform. I also look forward to working
closely with this Subcommittee and other Members of Congress and their
staffs on this matter.
conclusion
The primary impetus for my reform program is to ensure that the
Commission develops an enhanced ability to carry out its core mission:
promoting the public interest through communications competition in a
cost-effective, efficient, and transparent regulatory environment. We
are not here to find a solution to every problem related to
communications. We can promote an atmosphere of competition where we
step into the picture to ensure fairness of process, to stop predatory
and anti-competitive behavior, and to make certain that the airwaves
are free from clutter and pirates. We can and should make certain that
the public interest and public safety are protected, while recognizing
that we must work within the four-corners of our statutory mandate.
I cannot predict the future, nor can anyone else at the Commission.
When faced with future challenges that are uncertain, the best approach
is to build a first-class operation, with top talent, that is trained
and disciplined enough to adapt quickly to new and changing situations.
No army, for example, can know in advance what it will find when it
engages on the battlefield. The fog and terror of war never afford the
luxury of predictability. The key to success is to have a force that is
well-trained in tactics, strategy and the weapons it will need. A force
that is disciplined and able to adjust quickly and adapt to fluid
conditions--threats and opportunities both will present themselves
through the haze. I hope to build, along with my colleagues and the
outstanding FCC staff, just such a unit--one well suited to an
uncertain future.
Thank you. I would be happy to answer any questions this
Subcommittee may have.

Senator Hollings. Does this take care of the engineers,
experts, and lawyers, too, that you need, because it looks like
everything you do is appealed and joined or what have you, so
you have got to make a complete record. On the one hand, you
have got to have the personnel in order to do the work.
Otherwise, you have got to have the engineers, like you say, to
know what we are talking about. This takes care of it?
Mr. Powell. No, it does not take care of it.
Senator Hollings. Two-hundred-and-forty-eight-point-five.
Mr. Powell. It does not, over time, take care of it. I
mean, what I envision is that we have a program that is a
multi-year program and this is the first step of the program,
which is critical. This budget submission includes resources
that we intend to dedicate to this function and to this
program. But I assure you that we will, as we learn more about
our needs in subsequent years, continue to pursue additional
funding in support of that program. In a perfect world, I would
love more now. But I think that we, if we are fully funded, we
will have the critical resources we need to begin the first
steps of this program and make a meaningful difference in our
functions within the next fiscal year.
Senator Hollings. Well, on the House side, they cut the FCC
some $9 million, I think?
Mr. Powell. Yes, sir. I think it is more than $9 million,
roughly $10 million, which is fairly significant because if you
remove that amount, you have essentially removed all of the
funding requests dedicated to new initiatives or the
restoration of IT infrastructure. Basically, the majority of
what remains are the cost-of-living adjustment increases that
are the uncontrollable expenses of the Commission.
Senator Hollings. That is good. I think the committee will
want to make sure you have the entire amount requested. As a
matter of curiosity, over the years, this argument has ensued
until recently with the bankruptcy court in the Next Wave case.
Not getting into the case, but rather to the fundamentals, who
owns the spectrum? Are you and I trustees for that spectrum or
do you just really sell at auction, time, for example, a
license, for that spectrum?
Mr. Powell. It is clearly the case that the spectrum is the
public property of the American taxpayer and that we try to
create the highest and efficient best use of that spectrum on
behalf of that taxpayer.
Senator Hollings. We have licensing.
Mr. Powell. Yes.
Senator Hollings. Let us assume you gave me a license, a
10-year license. Aren't there conditions under that license for
performance?
Mr. Powell. Yes.
Senator Hollings. In other words, suppose I just took the
license and just sat on it. Could the Commission take action to
recover that license or take it back for nonperformance?
Mr. Powell. Yes. Indeed, the Commission often establishes
conditions and benchmarks that allow it to efficiently and
effectively reclaim the spectrum to reissue it for a higher and
best use.
Senator Hollings. You are good, and I appreciate it very
much.
Excuse me. Boy, I am honored. Here is the senior Senator. I
am a junior Senator, not only to Strom, but to Senator Inouye.
Senator Inouye, excuse me, Senator. You are so quiet and
polite.
Senator Inouye. Mr. Chairman, I thank you very much. I have
an opening statement I would like to have made part of the
record.
Senator Hollings. That will be included in the record.
[The statement follows:]

Prepared Statement of Senator Daniel K. Inouye

Thank you Commissioner Powell for addressing us today. The
FCC is tasked with many important undertakings as it encounters
the rapidly changing marketplace and works toward fostering and
protecting open and fair competition.
I applaud you for your goal to reform the efficiency and
structure of the FCC, however, we cannot afford to lose sight
of what is most important--providing affordable and reliable
access to telecommunications services for all consumers
regardless of income level and regardless of whether they live
in densely populated urban areas, as well as sparsely populated
rural America.
I look forward to hearing from you about the Commission's
funding requirements and plans for fiscal year 2002.

Tauzin-Dingell

Senator Inouye. May I ask a question, which may not be
completely relevant, but every time I turn on the radio or the
television set, almost every 5 minutes, there is Tauzin-
Dingell, either for or against.
Mr. Powell. Yes.
Senator Inouye. I suppose you have views, don't you? Can
you share them with us?
Mr. Powell. Senator, I generally do not take a position on
legislation, but I will give you what I think the tradeoffs
are. There are two competing visions for competition currently
struggling for ascendancy. In my opinion, one vision is
represented in part by the bill, which is the most important
market to the American citizens is the digital broadband
market, and that the most efficient way and the most likely way
that that is going to be provided to consumers are going to be
through technology-differentiated products. So the telephone
company or the telephone infrastructure will be one broadband
service. The cable industry will be a separate, competing,
substitutable broadband service. Wireless might provide a
third. Satellite might provide a fourth.
And if that vision were to be realized, some will argue
that then you do not have to worry as much about concentration
within one of those stovepipes, that those are each competitors
with each other, using differentiated technologies. I will
leave for other people's judgment whether that day has arrived
or whether you have a sufficient amount of confidence in that.
It is clear that we have very viable mass market products
out in the marketplace on cable and DSL. Wireless is out there,
but somewhat further behind as a technology, as is satellite.
Is two enough? Is three enough? Is four enough before one has
the confidence to be less concerned about intra-competition?
The other vision says that it is still very important to
have competition within a technology so that you still have to
have effective interconnection relationships, et cetera, et
cetera, and that those should be preserved for now. I think
that in many ways, those are the two competing visions, even
though the advertisements do a bad job of describing them, that
are being wrestled about in that, and so that is my view of
what is at issue.
Senator Inouye. Do the present laws provide for
competition?
Mr. Powell. The present laws do provide for competition. I
think the issue is at what cost and to whom. There is no
question that there is an inherent difficulty--they are not
necessarily insurmountable--when competition has heavy
dependencies, critical dependencies to get your inputs from
those to whom you compete. The Bell interconnection regime,
which has its value, from my perspective, as a competitive
approach, but just frankly does require an enormous amount of
regulation and an enormous amount of arbitration to resolve
conflict of interconnection. It is a very time consuming and
expensive approach, but it is an effective approach up to a
point.
It just seems to me that there are different players who
gain differently from any regime you choose, but I do believe
that we have some fundamentals in place for competition, yes.
Senator Inouye. Will the adoption of this measure have an
impact upon your operations?
Mr. Powell. Oh, it would have a fairly dramatic impact. It
would be essentially a substantial change, a reformation of the
current telecommunications statute. There would be a, though I
have not done the analysis, there would be a whole host of
regulatory proceedings and rulemakings that would be either
changed, modified, or abrogated as a consequence of the change,
and I suspect that the Commission would have another extensive
period of reevaluating its regulatory base, its rules, to be
consistent with the new statutory backdrop of the regulation.
So though we have not necessarily analyzed every aspect of
what would be affected and what resources would be required. I
think it is fair to say it would be a pretty major undertaking,
even if inherently deregulatory in nature. I mean, unwinding
things is an exercise as much as introducing things, and so the
Commission certainly would adopt and adjust changes.
Senator Inouye. Thank you very much.
Mr. Powell. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Hollings. The committee will stand in recess until
the return of the Chair. Thank you very much.
Mr. Powell. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Kohl [presiding]. Chairman Powell.
Mr. Powell. Senator Kohl.

Telecom Act

Senator Kohl. It has been over 5 years since we enacted the
Telecom Act and there have been serious questions as to its
real effectiveness. Instead of competition, it seems that what
we have is litigation, and instead of more companies competing,
we have got companies merging into even fewer companies. Before
the Act, we had seven big telephone companies and now we are
down, as you know, to four. So we are not sure what the
solution is and we would like to hear what your ideas are to
bring about more robust competition in the telecom industry,
especially the local phone and cable television markets.
More importantly, how would you convince Wisconsin citizens
that passage of the Telecom Act was a good thing for them?
Residents in Wisconsin haven't seen the benefits of increased
choice or even something as simple as lower cable rates. So
what would you say to the people of Wisconsin?
Mr. Powell. I would be happy to talk to them. I think that
part of the challenge in explaining the value, which I will
argue is immense to consumers, that there have been many
values, some of which are attributable to the 1996 Act. I think
one of things that we have to do is figure out how we measure
the consumer value.
In 1996, there were an extraordinary amount of things
unavailable to consumers that are now available to them and in
extraordinary numbers. For example, very few Americans owned
mobile telephone services in 1996, a fairly small percentage.
Today, 40 percent of every man, woman, and child in the United
States owns a mobile telephone and uses that telephone to a
great degree unrivaled anywhere in the world in terms of the
number of minutes used by consumers. That is competition,
because if I make a telephone call on my mobile phone in my
driveway rather than walk in and pick up the telephone, that is
a call that would have previously occurred on the telephone
infrastructure. But we do not capture that very well when we
think about competition, but there is no question in my mind
that mobile telephony has proven to be a very substantial set
of competitors to wireline telephone and brought great value to
consumers.
In 1996, very few people had access to the Internet. In
year 2000, 90 percent of Americans have access to at least
narrowband with 10 ISPs or more. What is interesting about that
is that it provided new ways to communicate that we also do not
capture. If I want to talk to my sister, I might call her, but
I might send her an e-mail. It is still a communication. The
communication that I did not pick up the phone to make, I sent
her an e-mail to make. Or I used the new innovations of instant
messaging to have chats with her while I was talking to her.
Broadband was nonexistent in 1996 for consumers and it
really comes into the market in 1998. While that pace could be
a lot faster, 12 percent today of Americans subscribe to that
service. Cable modem capability is at least reaching a level of
potential service and access for a vast number of Americans and
the growth of DSL has been in the triple digits over the last
couple years, and this is just a couple years.
So this is not to defend the places where it is not working
well. Traditional telephony competition for residential
consumers is far below what we would have hoped and expected. I
think that it is a challenging proposition economically and I
think it was hard to foresee all the kinds of challenges to
economic viability.
One of the areas that I put a lot of emphasis on is in
terms of the interconnecting relationships between the
incumbent is we have to have a much stronger enforcement
function.

better Enforcement tools

Senator Kohl. All right, let me ask that question. You said
last month that you needed stronger enforcement tools in order
to better implement the Act. So what sort of a bill would you
draft to beef up your enforcement powers?
Mr. Powell. I would love to work with the subcommittee on
that question. I think that what is most important is whether
you have serious and substantial and credible penalty regime.
The penalties available to us now are just simply trivial. I
mean, a company will never say $1 million fine is trivial, but
it is trivial to a billion dollar company, and it is trivial,
more importantly, to when you are making a rational decision as
to whether it is more expensive to make it viable for a
competitor to use your facility than it is to pay the fine.
If an operation support system has to be modified to make
it effective for a competitor to use it but that system costs
$1 billion and if you don't do it effectively, you will get
fined $1 million, it doesn't seem to me phenomenal why the
wrong decision can get made in that context.
The penalties have never been, as best as I know, adapted
to even inflation, and I just think that they need to be
increased by an order of magnitude because the Commission is
not resourced well enough to enforce every local market in the
country, but it has to have deterrent value, and I think that
the antitrust laws, which you, Stuart, are well aware of that,
there is a reason antitrust has treble damages. It is because
it can't be everywhere all the time, but the threat of that
level of penalty helps deter--helps deter--conduct that
impinges on competitive possibility.

Telephone bills confusion

Senator Kohl. Okay. Turning to another subject, Mr. Powell,
last week, you gave a speech in which you stressed the
importance of the FCC's consumer agenda. Of course, we very
much support your efforts on this front. In particular, you
mentioned an initiative to clarify consumer confusion as it
relates to telephone bills. Today's phone bills, as you know,
practically require services of a lawyer to sort out the
various fees, charges, and taxes that fill line after line of
the invoice.
I very much support this sort of initiative. Can you tell
us in any detail what your plans are to make telephone bills
easier to understand for the average consumer?
Mr. Powell. I think there are a number of fronts we can
pursue in that regard, and it is active and we are doing it, so
this by no means is an exhaustive list, but one of the things
that we have been exploring is can't we be a forum for
explanation?
That is, for example, we are playing with a web-based
product that would essentially provide copies, exemplary copies
of major telephone company bills, and that each line item might
be an active button, so that if you did not understand what it
meant on line three when it says, ``Federal universal
whatever,'' you could click that and get a plain English
explanation of where that comes from, perhaps with points of
contact if you are frustrated by that charge. Whose
responsibility is this charge? Is this a Government charge? Is
this a commercial charge? Is it a competitive charge? And if
you had a number of exemplary bills in that regard, you might
be able to help consumers deal with the confusion of line
proliferation.
Of course, that kind of begs the question. That is, is it
remedying a confusing situation. And I have thought about this
for years, looking at the confusion consumers have over the
bill and the uproar that goes on with increases in phone bills.
What is interesting, it really is not the amount as much as it
is the perception of being cut to death, bleeding to death by
small cuts. Every time you turn around, there is a new line
that pops up there.
And I think that there is a whole effort that we can pursue
in line simplification. You know, I personally wish that the
entire Federal universal service components which are critical
were just one line, right, and I will explain that line to you.
I will provide brochures or literature of what is included in
it. But I think consumers would feel that their bill is more
stable if, rather than every 6 months when we do a proceeding
or carriers make a change, that suddenly there are not 7 lines,
there are 9, there are 12. That sends a--growth in that
component, I think, is a source of great confusion and
frustration to consumers.
And then they do not know how much of that is a competitive
thing. If I switch carriers, does this line item stay there or
is that something that I can compete out of my bill? I think we
still have some good work that we can do in that area.
Senator Kohl. I will be looking forward to what you come up
with.
Mr. Powell. Thank you.

Cable television service costs

Senator Kohl. One more question, Mr. Powell. I continue to
be concerned, as we all are, with the rising cost of cable
television service, with cable rates rising at nearly triple
the rate of inflation in many places. Part of this rising rate
is the cost a consumer pays to the cable company to rent the
set-top box, which is necessary to receive many cable channels,
and many people don't understand why the rental cost of these
boxes continues to rise. We have been trying to create a real
competitive market for these boxes so consumers can walk into a
store and buy a box rather than having to rent it from the
cable company month after month and pay these increases.
But after 5 years of trying, consumers still cannot buy a
box off the shelf. Why can't consumers, Mr. Powell, buy set-top
boxes directly from manufacturers instead of having to rent
them?
Mr. Powell. Well, of course, the Congress passed statutes
that tried to ensure that we created the regulatory environment
that would make that permissible, which we did do. I think that
the problem going on in the market is one of a sort of
marketing and economic viability. Here is what I think is
principally what the challenge is.
The retail outlet--there is a struggle going on among
manufacturers and retail outlets about revenue sharing on the
infrastructure. So, for example, if Circuit City sells you dish
TV, to use a satellite example, they get a cut, a continuing
cut of that revenue from the dish company. So a lot of what
struggling is going on is whether retailers will have an
opportunity to be part of the business model of these boxes.
The other thing is that the manufacturers have struggled to
make the box cheap enough and have enough value that it will
really be of interest to consumers when they walk in the store.
If all the box does is you take it home and it descrambles, at
least their judgment seems to be that there is not much of a
market for that.
What I have seen recently at trade shows is that there is
an effort to start integrating the cable functionality with
other consumer electronics functionalities so that the whole
value of the box rises, just like dish folks are doing. So the
cable box will have a DVD player in it and the cable box may
have TIVO built into it so that the consumer will get the value
of getting a DVD player and a TIVO player and, oh, by the way,
it does cable. That is taking a lot longer than I think anybody
expected in the marketplace, but at least as last I looked at
it, it seemed that those boxes were on the way to stores in the
relatively near future.
Senator Kohl. Thank you very much.
Mr. Powell. You are welcome, sir.
Senator Hollings [presiding]. Thank you. Senator Stevens.
Senator Stevens. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will be brief,
Mr. Chairman.

Department of Defense needs

I have had a series of meetings during the last few days
with the Department of Defense and we are all looking at
Defense's request for additional monies this year. We have
already instituted a review of the needs of the Department of
Defense for spectrum, and I am sure you are involved with that.
I hope you are. You at the FCC share the responsibility with
the Department of Defense, I think.
I made the following suggestion and I wonder what you think
about it. I suggested that Defense should be very hard-headed
about what they really need in terms of spectrum. They ought to
turn back a substantial amount so that it can be auctioned off
on the understanding that Defense would get a substantial
portion of the funds that came in. We have seen a temporary
shortage of funds at the Defense Department for 2 years because
of changes in the economy and other reasons, and I think it
might be possible.
Do you think you would be willing to work with the
Department of Defense on this? Would you tell us your opinion
about the Department of Defense being eligible to receive a
substantial portion of funds resulting from the sale of their
spectrum to support their new modernization programs?
Mr. Powell. Absolutely. It is a tough judgment of value,
the needs of national security and the needs of the commercial
market for the betterment of our citizens on advanced
technology. It is a tough call. But I think that even if you
get there, if you find the spectrum, you have got to make sure
that the defense needs are taken care of through some form of
reallocation of the use of funds in order to mitigate or
ameliorate the dislocation.
From the Federal communications perspective, while budget
authorities certainly keep their eyes on the amounts of money,
I think it is a judgment of the Congress as to what the best
use of the proceeds of auctions are. We do not draw on them
significantly. They are yielded back to the Treasury, and I
think that the idea of tying public policy to money that you
receive as a consequence of that auction toward public policy
objectives is a good idea and is something that I have always
wondered why we did not do more. That is, look to auction
proceeds to continue to supplement and advance other public
policy purposes, but, you know, some of that is above my pay
grade, but I think it is a creative idea.

Universal service fund

Senator Stevens. Thank you very much. The other thing is, I
continue to be worried about the future of the universal
service fund. We have discussed this before, and I know the
chairman has been interested in it. That fund was initially
conceived of to meet rural problems, primarily Alaska problems.
Now, I foresee a time when the universal service account will
go down, particularly because of the enormous strains on it for
providing Internet services to hospitals, libraries, and
schools in areas that are not rural. That is a policy we are
not going to change, but the revenue base for universal service
is declining and the demands are increasing. The result may
well be that rural America goes back to the 20th century and
does not go forward in this century as far as the new
technology is concerned.
I have asked some of the major players, such as AOL and
others, to confer with us about how to meet this challenge. One
solution might be a tax on the Internet, which some people
suggest. I have never supported that yet, but it may be the
only alternative to maintain the universal service fund. If the
fund continues to pay out the costs of connecting people to the
Internet whose providers do not pay anything into the universal
service fund, then it is obvious that the demise is closer
rather than farther away.
I would like to find some way to save the concept of an
industry-based fund that is not a tax. That is what universal
service was in the first place, a contribution from those who
used the services of long distance in order to ensure that
their calls reached all parts of the country. We have such a
multiplicity of communications devices and concepts now. Many
of them do not pay into the universal service fund, or if they
do, they pay very small amounts.
What do you think about the idea that it might be your job
to call together a conference of people who should be providing
contributions to those funds and see what they are willing to
do?
Mr. Powell. Well, I would agree that I think it is one of
our most sacred responsibilities to try to ensure that the
parade of concerns and horribles you have do not occur, and
that requires a lot of tough judgments, including, just to come
through some of the things you pointed out, really making hard
calls between competing demands. I mean, one of the reasons we
promote is the schools and libraries program, for example, but
we are careful to try to rigorously keep it within control so
that it does not further jeopardize other aspects of universal
service which are equally valuable. I think that is the hard
part of what we do for a living, but that is what we do and
will continue to do.
I think that your concerns about how will advanced
technologies, new architectures affect the fundamental values
of universal service--from my perspective, the first thing I
would say is, number one, the unequivocal assertion that
ubiquity and affordability for rural America remains a critical
and paramount objective no matter what the architecture or the
infrastructure is and looking for not only the traditional way
of trying to ensure that occurs, but whether there are new and
creative ways.
One way, of course, always is spread the pain as widely as
possible to ensure that no one component of that bears too
unbearable a burden. There is no question that this is a coming
set of serious questions in the sense that as these
architectures move to IP and data and broadband networks, how
we will ensure that those fundamental, ubiquitous affordability
goals continue to go with it. And I think that the dialogue
between some of the preeminent companies that are working in
this area is probably useful. I would like to go back and think
about other ways that we might at least try to be a facilitator
of debate and evaluation of that question and see if we cannot
at least see what kinds of problems are going to occur and what
ways we might have a solution.
I sort of reserve judgment on whether I think the answer
definitely is whoever, AOL or whoever, should pay universal
service, but one of the things I think that we have to struggle
with is the statutes' limitation to telecommunications carriers
as the source for funds, and that has always been an issue, as
you know, as to whether the bucket of who you can look at is
limited by the 1996 Act. So I think Congress would also need to
be pretty involved in future considerations about expanding the
revenue base.
I also think it has been unfortunate that we, because of
court decisions, we cannot draw on intra-State revenues to help
supplement universal service expenses. So that is an enormous
amount of telecommunication activity occurs intra-State and the
decisions of courts that the statute does not permit that is
another inroad on our ability.
But that said, we have worked hard in the last couple years
to reform and modify universal service that has led to net
increases in money available to continue these goals, so I
think that we are also taking the short-term measures. We have
to keep that viable.

Hardware taxing

Senator Stevens. Thank you for that. I hope you do it. I do
not believe this is a tax question, although it could evolve
into a tax question, God forbid. It will be years before we get
another tax bill that will look into circumstances such as
taxing the hardware that goes along with new technology. I am
not suggesting we should. But there has to be a revenue base
somewhere to assure that these means of communications pay
their way in terms of assuring the message that they originate
can be delivered anywhere: ubiquity, universality, whatever you
want to call it.
Unfortunately, the promise of new technology in terms of
telecommunications, tele-education and the basic concepts of
eliminating isolation through access to certain forms of
entertainment and such, those are rapidly being denied to rural
America, in my judgment. They are made available to schools,
libraries, and health facilities, that is true. But while the
children may have Internet in school, their parents do not have
it at home, the local small businesses do not have it, and even
the postmaster doesn't have it under present circumstances.
So, somehow or other, that has got to be smoothed out. But
this may come at a greater cost to whomever is putting up the
money to interconnect those areas. I think that should be a
universal service obligation, but the money is not there to do
it.
I would urge you to take a hand in bringing together the
great minds of this country who are leading us into new
generations of technology and have them commit to the
preservation of universality as far as communications are
concerned. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Hollings. Thank you, Senator Stevens.
Chairman Powell, I had to leave for a vote, and as I was
leaving, Senator Inouye asked you about Tauzin-Dingell. Can you
repeat that answer again for me, please?
Mr. Powell. It was so carefully crafted, too.

Tauzin-Dingell

Sure, Senator, I can. I began with the usual caveat of a
regulator, which is I do not generally take a clear position on
legislation and have not on Tauzin-Dingell and will not. But I
pointed out to the Senator that I thought that I could give
some articulation of what I thought was being battled over and
what the choices were.
It seemed to me that there are, at an intellectual level,
there is sort of this competing vision of what competition
should look like. That is, one vision is that real competition
is really only going to come from different technology
platforms competing for broadband service to customers. So the
phone network will be one platform that will be available to
consumers. Cable modems will be another platform. Wireless
might eventually be a third, and maybe satellites a fourth, and
if that were really the world or you could really achieve that
world, then you didn't need to be as concerned about
competitive alternatives within any one of those buckets.
That is, even if in the worst case, every one of those
industry segments was a monopolist, for example, just to use
the worst case possible, they would still be competitors to
each other so the argument would go they really aren't
monopolists because there are four of them competing for the
same set of customers. I think at some level, that is the
vision that is the analytical vision that underlies the bill.
On the other hand, there is the view that, no, it is still
critically important to have competition from entrepreneurs and
new entrants within a market, so that would be issues like
interconnection with phone companies or open access in cable or
open access in wireless and that we still need to preserve
aggressively that level of competition, too.
And then at the end of the day, it is sort of, like, and on
what time frame and when, meaning how many--if you believe in
this platform idea, how many of them do you need before you are
comfortable the consumer is going to be served, and that is
just a judgment that I think the members of the institution
will have to make. But I kind of think that is what is battling
for supremacy.
Senator Hollings. Let me correct that answer and state very
categorically the institution has made that decision. You see,
I heard part of that answer as I was leaving and I said, I had
better get back, and I was glad the other Senators were here so
that we could get this cleared up once and for all. As an
administrative body, you administer the law, right?
Mr. Powell. Correct.
Senator Hollings. In all candor, the suggestion made by
Senator Stevens and your answer that you get them together to
set policy as a committee, I think the authorizing committee
ought to get us all together with your expertise, definitely,
and experience, and get us together and see what we can do. I
don't think the Senators should be asking the administrative
body to corral together and set the policy.
That being the case, what was the policy in the 1996 Act?
You have got to get to the initiative of that particular act,
which was by the Bell companies themselves. You are right about
all of this bursting technology, only it did not wait until
2001 for it to burst. It was bursting out all during the 1980s
and the 1990s, the Internet, computerization, satellites.
I remember a race back in the late 1970s, running for
reelection. I went to Carolina Furnishings in Greenville, and
talk about communications, they had an artist there that
flashed a curtain pattern onto the satellite, down to
Australia, and I heard the Australia fellow say he liked and
ordered that particular curtain pattern. This has been going
on, busting out.
The only thing was that the best of the best, namely the
Bell companies, had the best and still have the best of
communications. They wanted to deregulate. They wanted to get
into long distance and all these particular technologies. And
so they couldn't get any financing because the market was
indeterminate and everything else like that. Nobody would move.
They couldn't invest in it, and there were all kinds of rumors
about deregulation and that we had deregulated the airlines, we
had deregulated natural gas, we had deregulated trucking.
I had been a resister, but as the chairman of the
committee, I started and had the original bill, S. 1822, and I
said, all right, and they said, all right. I mean, it was a
matter of agreement. There was never any disagreement. We
deregulated and section 251 wasn't a question of what platform
and everything else like that. It said, you have got to sell at
the wholesale price, period. And so on section 251, that
started all the little competitive CLECs. That is what started
it.
And they said, now we want you to open up and be totally
deregulated, and they said, well, that is what we want. We want
to get into long distance and all of these technologies. So we
said, well, wait a minute, now. We do not want to mess up the
local exchange and the services given and everything else of
that kind. You have got a monopoly. It was created in law and
we guaranteed you a profit and everything else like that and
guaranteed you no competition. Now when we more or less
guarantee you competition on what basis, not to extend your
monopoly.
So we said, look, you can go anywhere in the country as a
Bell Company and get into any of the technologies you wish,
just so long as you don't do it in your own region where you
have got the monopoly. We just don't want to continue that. The
whole idea was not about which platforms are going on now. The
distinguished chairman on the House side wasn't in the room in
all of these negotiations, and we can bring back the original
players and everything else about the intent of Congress, but
the intent of Congress was spelled out and you can read 271 and
you can see the exact wording was deliberate. That was supposed
to have happened.
The whole initiative on the House side is based on a whole
new technology. Data was not even considered. I can show you
the statements made. Data was mentioned, 474 times both in the
bill and 271, by the Senators, in the debate on the House and
Senate side, and in the conference report, 470-some times. So,
I mean, that whole premise of now we are going to get added
services is a big charade, a big strawman to extend the
monopoly.
Now, the Commission has done a good job. They have held
their feet to the fire. These Bells have been coming and coming
and coming, and other than a little bit down in Texas, some in
Kansas, some up in New York and now moving into Connecticut,
they have found compliance. But they are the ones that brought
the bill and questioned the constitutionality. You could see
exactly what they intended to do was to extend their monopoly
some 5 years ago, from 1996 up here to 2001.
So it isn't for the Commission to decide whether there is
enough competition in this platform and enough competition in
that platform, no sir. It was to deregulate, period, and let
the platforms ensue. Let them develop as they will, not to
decide, is there enough satellite, is there enough CLECs, is
there enough Bells, that kind of thing at all. That wasn't the
idea. I never heard that.
I thought I had heard a part of that going out the door,
and I said, I had better get back--I hoped you were still
here--so I could correct that premise. It is not a deliberative
matter now that we ought to sit back and start considering.
What we did is not what the choices are or what the competition
should look like, it was whether or not we got competition and
that was it. There is no question that as long as they think
they have got a Commission or they have got some in Congress to
help them extend their monopoly, they will squat. They won't
move. They will hold on.
They still own--of course, the CLECs have got about 8
percent. That is what you folks have found at the Commission
level. But actually, the ownership of that last line into the
house, into the business, is 98 percent still owned by the
monopoly. That is the big thing, that somehow we have got to
get on top of and make them know. I think if they know, they
are ready to move and to get into all the dynamism of the
technology that you described.
That is what they told us. They congratulated me on what we
had done. We have got the letters and everything else like
that. We worked around the clock. Their lawyers came in, just
reiterated for the record on every Friday morning, and they sat
with our staff on the Commerce Committee and it took over 4
years to get it done. Of course, the competition, the long
distance and others, came in every Tuesday morning. But it was
a very deliberate thing because we know, as we know now,
everybody has got the power to kill somebody else's bill in
this Congress. No one has got the real power to pass. So the
sides have got to get together.
So we are in the favorable position. You can kill Tauzin-
Dingell, but what I am trying to do is get you folks to
understand the law and the intent so that these Bell companies
will start moving, because they have been playing a sordid game
now for 6 years, and going everywhere.
It was amusing, when they had the Senator from North Dakota
at the hearing before the committee the other day and the
question was, why don't you go to North Dakota, and they said
it was too far. I said, Buenos Aires is not too far. They said
it was too difficult. I said, Lima, Peru, where it is in
Spanish, is not too difficult. They are making money hand over
fist but they are not extending. They are investing it in all
those dynamic technologies that you see are bursting out all
over, and they ought to be bursting out all over.
But the kidney stone in this whole system now that must be
passed are these Bell companies knowing and understanding that
the law is going to be enforced, and the Commissions heretofore
have been doing just that. We have had three different chairman
since that time.

Additional committee questions

We appreciate your appearance here this morning.
Mr. Powell. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Hollings. Thank you very much.
Mr. Powell. All right. Take care.
Senator Hollings. Yes, sir.
[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 Daniel K. Inouye
Question. There has been a sense in the news media, on Wall Street,
and some segments of the industry that your market-based approach to
regulatory policy will result in relaxed enforcement of the
Telecommunications Act of 1996 and deregulation of Bell companies. Is
this an accurate assumption?
Answer. The Commission has a statutory duty to carry out the laws
enacted by Congress fully and faithfully, and I am committed to doing
so. I have emphasized that the Commission should vigorously enforce the
Communications Act and Commission rules, and should do so in a prompt
manner. The Enforcement Bureau and Common Carrier Bureau monitor both
compliance with merger conditions and Section 271 approvals. We review,
on a monthly basis, performance reports from each regional Bell
Operating Company (``BOC'') that has received long distance authority
to determine whether there has been any deterioration in performance,
so that any ``backsliding'' can be promptly detected and remedied. I
will remain vigilant with respect to these enforcement activities and
will expand them where appropriate.
To date, the Commission has found that the BOCs have opened six of
their state markets to local competition. As I stated recently in
connection with the Verizon Massachusetts 271 Order, the Commission
will continue to apply the same rigor that it always has to Section 271
applications. No BOC will receive in-region long distance authority
until it has met or exceeded the standards set forth in Section 271
thereby demonstrating that its local market is open to competition. I
will continue to work vigilantly to ensure that the rules of the road
are not only in place, but also vigorously enforced, so that consumers
can benefit from both competitive LEC entry into the local market and
BOC entry into the long distance market.
Although the Commission is working hard with its existing resources
to enforce the local competition provisions of the 1996 Act, I believe
there is even more that we can do with the help of Congress. Currently,
under 47 U.S.C. Sec. 503(b)(2)(B), the Commission's forfeiture
authority for violations of the Act or Commission rules by common
carriers is limited to $120,000 for a single violation, and $1.2
million for a continuing violation, including inflationary adjustments.
To enhance the deterrent effect of Commission fines and make sanctions
more meaningful, Congress should consider increasing the forfeiture
amount to $1 million for a single violation and $10 million for a
continuing violation.
Question. The broadcast industry is in the midst of its digital
transition, and there are concerns about whether the broadcast industry
will make this transition successfully. The FCC has a number of
proceedings before it that relate to the digital transition. These
include proceedings on must-carry and digital television tuners. What
must be done, in order for the digital transition to be successful--
that is for broadcasters to migrate their systems from analog to
digital service, begin showing digital programming, and vacate the
spectrum they are currently using for analog service?
Answer. The transition to digital television is a tremendous
undertaking, which is well under way. There are now approximately 200
stations on the air with digital television signals. There are,
however, a number of challenges ahead. But while the FCC has an
important role in facilitating the transition to DTV, the most
significant challenges are in the hands of the industries that are
working together to launch this new service.
As an initial matter, the FCC should continue to provide
broadcasters with regulatory and licensing certainty. For example,
after extensive testing and analysis, we recently re-confirmed the 8-
VSB transmission standard. We also recently clarified the level and
timing of service that DTV broadcasters must provide to their
communities of license. We will continue to clarify potentially
ambiguous requirements to ensure that the rules of the digital road are
clear. In that regard, we have in place a DTV periodic review mechanism
to examine issues that arise on an ongoing basis and to provide
guidance to licensees as early as possible in the build-out process. On
licensing matters, we have granted, and will continue to grant, all
applications that generally conform to the DTV Table of Allotments, and
have expedited processing for any applicant that has expressed a
readiness and a willingness to build DTV facilities.
In addition, there are several important issues affecting the DTV
transition that are currently under Commission review. For instance, we
are currently seeking public comment on the question of mandatory cable
carriage of both the analog and digital signals during the transition.
Similarly, the FCC has issued a notice of proposed rulemaking seeking
comment on a requirement that certain television sets contain a tuner
that can receive over-the-air DTV signals. There are also some
difficult challenges to the DTV transition that are not within the
FCC's direct jurisdiction, such as copy protection. In those areas, the
FCC is prepared to do what it can to help facilitate agreements among
industries and is monitoring discussions with the industries involved.
Question. I have long been concerned about undue concentration in
the media marketplace. Today we see the proliferation of vertically
integrated companies that control content and distribution in a
potentially anticompetitive manner. Some of the existing rules designed
to guard against such anticompetitive conduct are the program access
rules, which sunset next year. Do you believe we should allow these
rules to sunset, or should we reinstate them for the foreseeable
future?
Answer. I have not yet formulated a position on whether Section
628(c)(2)(D) of the Communications Act should be allowed to sunset or
be extended. It is widely recognized that the program access provisions
of the 1992 Cable Act and the Commission's implementing rules have been
instrumental in helping new entrants such as the Direct Broadcast
Satellite (``DBS'') companies and overbuilders compete more effectively
with incumbent cable television operators. It is also true, however,
that the percentage of vertically integrated program services in the
cable television industry has declined in recent years. For example,
between 1994 and 2000, while the total number of nationally distributed
cable networks increased from 106 to 281, the proportion of these
networks affiliated with one or more cable television operators
actually declined from 53 percent to 35 percent.
Question. In January of this year, the D.C. Circuit Court struck
down the FCC's EEO rules as unconstitutional. The FCC then petitioned
the D.C. Circuit Court for rehearing. However, this month the court
denied the FCC's petition for rehearing. In light of these court
decisions, what action can the FCC take to foster entry of minorities
and women into the broadcast industry?
Answer. I have consistently supported EEO rules that prohibit
discrimination by FCC licensees. If the public interest means anything
at all, it means that those who hold a government license may not
discriminate against the citizens from whom the license ultimately is
derived. As my voting record shows, I favor EEO rules that prohibit
discrimination and require broad outreach in a race and gender neutral
manner. In my view this is the only judicially sustainable way to
ensure that all Americans, including minorities and women, have access
to opportunities in the communications field. In this regard, I plan to
ask my colleagues to work with me to develop a notice of proposed
rulemaking aimed at putting such rules in place.
Question. Media consolidation is of great concern to me. I have
been troubled by some of your comments that ownership caps are based on
``romantic notions.'' Although the level of consolidation in the media
industry in the marketplace today may not rise to the level of a
violation of our antitrust laws, it nonetheless may have an adverse
impact on such public interest objectives as diversity of ownership,
diversity of voices, and localism. Can you assure this committee that
you intend to work to honor these public interest objectives?
Answer. I am firmly committed to honoring all the public interest
tenets of the Communications Act, including the long-standing
objectives of promoting diversity and localism. I believe that, as the
federal agency that regulates the communications industry, we have an
obligation to ensure that the citizens of this nation have access to
diverse viewpoints on matters, local and national, that affect their
lives. I also recognize that the best way to fulfill that obligation
may change over time. Congress also recognized this when it enacted
Section 202(h) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. I take seriously
the statutory duty embodied in that provision to examine our ownership
rules biennially in light of competitive changes to these industries,
and I intend to carry out that duty faithfully. I can assure you that
any modifications we may make to our ownership rules will only be made
after a thorough and rigorous review of the impact of those
modifications on the public interest.
Question. There has been substantial discussion about ways to
accelerate the deployment of broadband or high speed data service.
However, in Indian country, the rate of telephone penetration still
lags noticeably below that of the general population. What can be done
to ensure that the nation's Indian population is able to obtain the
same telephone and broadband communications options that are available
in other parts of the country?
Answer. The Commission has taken several important steps to
facilitate the provision of telecommunications service to individuals
on tribal lands, including: (1) the Tribal Universal Service Order; (2)
the Tribal Wireless Services Order; (3) initiation of the Indian
Telecommunications Training Initiative (``ITTI''); and (4)
establishment of a Tribal Government Liaison.
In June 2000, the Commission adopted universal service measures to
promote telecommunications subscribership and infrastructure deployment
within American Indian and Alaska Native tribal communities, which, on
average, have the lowest reported telephone subscribership levels in
the country. For example, the Tribal Universal Service Order (FCC 00-
208) modified the Commission's universal service rules in order to
target universal service support to low-income subscribers living on
tribal lands by: (1) increasing the Lifeline program discount to bring
monthly telephone costs down to as little as $1 per month; (2)
increasing the Link Up program discount to provide up to $100 off
initial telephone installation costs; and (3) broadening the
qualification criteria for Lifeline and Link Up to increase the number
of low-income subscribers on tribal lands.
In the Tribal Wireless Services Order (FCC 00-209), the Commission
adopted rules and policies to provide incentives for wireless
telecommunications carriers to serve individuals living on tribal
lands. The Commission expanded its policies to make bidding credits
available to winning bidders who use their licenses to deploy
facilities and provide service to federally recognized tribal lands
that have a telephone penetration rate equal to or below 70 percent. At
present, the Commission is considering modifications to the rules
guiding bidding credits, including: (1) expansion of the bidding
program to tribal areas with penetration rates above 70 percent, but
significantly below the national average; and (2) extending credits to
licensees that enter into partitioning agreements with tribal
authorities to allow the tribal government or a third-party carrier to
provide service.
The Commission also initiated the Indian Telecommunications
Training Initiative (``ITTI'') last year to facilitate the deployment
of telecommunications services at reasonable rates to all Indians
living on federally recognized tribal lands by providing educational
and networking opportunities to Indian tribal governments and
telecommunications industry leaders. The first conference, held in
September 2000, attracted representatives from 135 tribes, some of
which have since reported successful experiences in advancing
telecommunications deployment. More recently, in June of this year, an
ITTI industry conference provided intercultural training and
information on doing business with Indian tribes for equipment
manufacturers and service providers. The second ITTI national
conference will be held in September of this year, with expected
attendance between 600 and 1,000 people.
In addition, for the past three years, the Commission has
designated a Tribal Government Liaison to consult with tribal entities
about specific measures that will assist the Commission in improving
telecommunications service to Indian Country. This Liaison coordinates
across Commission Bureaus and Offices on various forms of outreach to
tribal entities and on matters that involve questions of federal Indian
law and policy. The Liaison serves as an initial point of contact for
tribes and a support resource for Commission staff.
With respect to advanced services, the Commission conducts an
annual Section 706 Inquiry to determine whether advanced
telecommunications capabilities are being deployed to all Americans in
a reasonable and timely manner. Last year, we committed to monitoring
closely the deployment of these services, especially to areas of the
country that might be particularly vulnerable to not receiving timely
access, such as tribal territories.
Through a combination of efforts--including the Indian Training
Initiative, our Tribal Government Liaison, and our universal service
and Section 706 proceedings--I am confident that we will be able to
find creative ways to address the telecommunications needs of this
nation's Indian population.
Question. The territories of American Samoa, Guam and the
Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas Islands, despite paying into the
universal service fund, have not been able to benefit from the
universal service, Rural Health Care program.
The Rural Health Care Program establishes discounts based on a
comparison of rural and urban telecommunication rates, with a theory
that those in rural areas should pay the same amount for equivalent
service as those in urban areas. This is problematic for the Pacific
Insular areas due to the designation of their ``urban areas.'' While
the urban area is usually defined around a city with a population of
50,000, the FCC designated the ``urban city'' for these Pacific Insular
areas to be Pago Pago for American Samoa, Agana for Guam, and Garrapan
for the Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas Islands. None of these
cities have a population of 50,000. In fact, the populations of these
cities are less than 10,000.
The FCC, to its credit, recognized that the Pacific Insular Areas
might be at a disadvantage and in September 1999, issued a docket for a
proposed rulemaking change (FCC Docket 96-45). To my knowledge the
responses to the FCC docket were all positive in support of the
redefinition of the urban area.
Given the great need in the Pacific Insular areas and the positive
comments to the proposed rulemaking, I hope that you would agree that
it would be reasonable for the FCC to re-designate the urban areas to
be either Honolulu or ``the closest urban city with a population of
more than 50,000 that has a medical school and advanced medical
facilities.''
Answer. I believe that the Rural Healthcare Program is critical to
the goal of bringing the advances of medical science to underserved
areas through the use of telecommunications. I intend to explore ways
to more fully utilize the funds that have been set aside for this
program. Specifically, I appreciate your concern that the Commission's
current definition of urban area with respect to the Pacific Island
jurisdictions does not enable health care providers in these
jurisdictions to be connected to a major urban center. With the
addition of our new Commissioners, I intend to review this matter
expeditiously.
Question. The House Energy and Commerce Committee conducted a
hearing two weeks ago regarding the E911 Phase 2 implementation. I
believe a point made at the hearing was that a ``one size fits all''
solution would have a disproportionately negative impact upon wireless
carriers serving rural America than upon those serving urban America.
Moreover, although I am committed to implementing Phase 2 as soon as
possible, I am told that many rural carriers are finding the
implementation schedule set by the Commission to be daunting due in
large part to the lack of equipment needed to comply with Commission
mandates.
Mr. Chairman, have you discussed enforcement options and
ramification of such potential actions with your Enforcement Bureau?
Is the Commission going to fully take into account the unique needs
of carriers serving rural America prior to taking any enforcement-
related actions, especially those who have filed Phase 2 waiver
requests?
Answer. I have met with the Chiefs of both the Enforcement and
Wireless Telecommunications Bureaus to discuss E911 implementation and
enforcement. Because full E911 implementation is an important public
safety goal, we will not hesitate to take whatever enforcement action
is warranted in cases where carriers fail to comply with the
Commission's E911 requirements for both Phase 1 and Phase 2
implementation. Such enforcement action could be taken in response to a
complaint or at the initiation of the Enforcement Bureau.
We are also sensitive to the special challenges faced by rural
carriers. Thus, carriers have the opportunity, before any enforcement
action is taken, to bring to the Commission's attention all factors
that they feel mitigate--in part or in full--any sanction. Prior to any
action, we would take all such factors into account, including any
unique problems encountered by carriers serving rural America.
Question. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for responding to a
letter I wrote to you regarding the Northpoint matter. I was pleased to
learn that the FCC is working expeditiously so that MVDDS (multichannel
video distribution and data service) will be licensed and deployed.
Hawaii gets second-class DBS service compared to the 48 continental
states, but we are hardly alone in not being able to get local channels
via satellite. Clearly, a new terrestrial-based multi-channel provider
will help Hawaii, as well as rural America.
What is the status of the FCC's efforts and when can we expect the
FCC to issue a license?
Answer. The 12.2-12.7 GHz proceeding is one of the most complex
allocation proceedings before the Commission. Three services could
potentially occupy this spectrum in a complex sharing arrangement that
involves Direct Broadcast Satellite service (``DBS''), Non-
Geostationary (``NGSO'') satellites, and terrestrial users, such as
Northpoint (as part of a new terrestrial fixed Multichannel Video
Distribution and Data Service (``MVDDS'')).
Several matters affect the Commission's ability to address these
applications. For example, Section 1012 of the ``District of Columbia
Appropriations Act, 2001,'' requires the Commission to provide for
independent testing for interference potential of any terrestrial
service technology proposing to use the direct broadcast satellite
frequency band (12.2-12.7 GHz). This requirement, to ensure that the
technical interference considerations have been fully vetted and
considered, has been an extraordinary undertaking. The independent
tester, MITRE Corp., subsequently completed the required interference
study and submitted its report to the Commission on April 18, 2001. The
Commission placed the report on public notice on April 23, 2001, and
sought comment on the report. Comments responsive to the study were due
on May 15, 2001, and replies were due on May 23, 2001. The Commission's
engineers are currently in the process of finalizing their evaluation
of the engineering questions for the purpose of making a sound judgment
about technical interference.
Another set of issues we have to work through that are just as
significant as the technical interference question arise from the
different regulatory schemes applicable to wireless land-based and
satellite-based services. Because, as noted above, three services could
potentially use this spectrum, the Commission must determine the
applicability of the distinct statutory frameworks that are used to
license spectrum for domestic and international satellite services as
well as terrestrial services. The Balanced Budget Act of 1997 requires
the Commission to license by competitive bidding spectrum for which
mutually exclusive applications are accepted for filing, unless an
exemption applies. On the other hand, the Orbit Act does not allow the
Commission to use competitive bidding to license spectrum used for the
provision of international or global satellite communications services.
Thus, the use of the spectrum for multiple types of services presents
novel issues.
Because of these complexities, this proceeding has been especially
difficult to resolve. The Commission is working expeditiously in this
regard and plans to act on a Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making to
establish licensing, technical, and service rules for MVDDS no later
than the end of this year, and--subject to the nature of any petitions
for reconsideration of the rule making proceeding--then expects to
commence with the licensing process.
______

Questions Submitted by Senator Herb Kohl
fcc reform and the ``shot clock'' bill
Question. Chairman Powell, you've repeatedly said that you want to
streamline the FCC's internal operations. In fact, you've been quoted
as saying that the ``most important'' goal of the Commission under your
watch is to make the FCC an ``efficient, well-managed and decisive''
organization. We encourage this sort of reform, though you've got a
daunting task on your hands.
As you know, we've been particularly interested in speeding up the
license transfer review process at the FCC. The ``shot clock''
legislation that we introduced last Congress would have imposed
deadlines upon the Commission's review. You've said you want to speed
up to the merger review process, but that ``prophylactic'' time limits
were not needed. We hope you're right.
What's your plan? What will you do as Chairman to expedite FCC
merger review? For example, do you plan to continue the work of the
``Transaction Team'' initiated by your predecessor, Chairman Kennard?
Answer. As you are aware, I have commenced a full review of the way
the Commission operates with a view towards improving efficiency and
making the Commission more responsive to the needs of the fast-changing
industries that it regulates. The way that license transfer
applications, including mergers, are processed is part of that review.
Most license transfer applications, and most mergers, do not
present difficult or complex issues and can be processed quickly. At
the Commission meeting on July 12, we issued a Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking to streamline certain actions on applications to transfer
control of authorizations to provide domestic telephone service under
Section 214 of the Act. On the other hand, some mergers present complex
legal and factual issues that require careful and thorough
consideration. I believe that active case management and avoiding
duplication of the work of other agencies and departments of government
is the best way to ensure timely disposition of these cases. To this
end, the Transaction Team continues to play an important role as an
active coordinator of the Commission's effort in merger review. I am
confident that its timely involvement in major transactions will have a
beneficial effect in expediting the merger review process.
caribbean phone scams
Question. Mr. Chairman, let's turn to an issue that may not be
making the headlines, but one that is important to American consumers.
As you know, 20 new area codes were created for the Caribbean in 1999.
Though these numbers are international toll calls, they can be dialed
as easily as any other long distance call in this country. What's worse
is that a few unscrupulous characters--con artists--have devised
schemes to fraudulently lure Americans to call these international
numbers. They get people to call these numbers with real bottom-of-the-
barrel tactics--telling people they need to call to receive information
of an injured loved one, to avoid a lawsuit, or to accept a luxurious
prize or vacation. Of course, the consumer doesn't realize she is
calling an international phone number until the increased charges
appear on the phone bill. These scam artists need to be put out of
business.
Chairman Powell, I have an idea that would put an end to these
``international calling scams'' and I'd like your input. We are
considering drafting legislation that would require a notification to
the caller before an international call is connected. For example, say
you dial an international number--intentionally or by accident. Before
the call begins to ring, you would hear a simple, short notification
that you are dialing an international phone number that may incur
higher rates. What do you think of that idea, both as a way to prevent
these scams and as a pro-consumer measure?
Answer. I applaud your goal. We at the Commission are aware of and
are also concerned about these scams, and we encourage consumers to
contact our Consumer Information Bureau and to use our informal
complaint procedure. When consumers send a complaint to us we forward
it to the relevant carrier and that carrier is required to respond to
us, and the consumer, in a limited amount of time. We have had a lot of
success resolving complaints to consumers' satisfaction using this
process. I should mention, though, that out of the tens of thousands of
complaints we received in the last twelve months concerning telephone
issues only approximately one hundred touched on this issue. As to the
idea of mandating notifications on all international calls, I believe
there may be value in consulting with industry. Carriers are in the
best position to provide information on how such notification might be
done, whether all 2,600 providers of long distance service would need
to participate, the costs that would be imposed on carriers, and
whether those costs would increase rates for consumers.
universal service reform
Question. The Commission recently dealt with some difficult issues
regarding smaller telephone companies. You are to be commended for
approving the Rural Task Force Proposal in which many of my
constituents participated. As you are well aware, the solvency and
vitality of the Universal Service Fund is very important to the
ratepayers of Wisconsin.
What are your views on additional proposals and policy suggestions
aimed toward guaranteeing the solvency of the Fund? For example, would
you include an initiative to expand the base of the Fund and if so,
what services would you cover with a larger Fund?
Answer. The solvency of the Universal Service Fund is of great
concern to me, especially in light of recent changes in the
telecommunications marketplace. As you know, Section 254 of the
Communications Act mandates that only telecommunications carriers that
provide interstate service shall contribute to universal service.
Although universal service support programs have grown, growth in
interstate industry revenues--the contribution revenue base--has not
kept pace with program growth. Accordingly, the Commission recently
initiated a proceeding to streamline and improve the universal service
contribution system. Among other things, the Commission sought comment
on ways to expand the contribution base, including, for example,
whether carriers should contribute on a flat-rate basis rather than
contributing a percentage of their interstate revenues.
The Commission also recently initiated a proceeding to review the
list of services supported by federal universal service. The Commission
has asked the Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service to review
the definition of the core services supported by universal service,
including whether to include intrastate or interstate toll services,
expanded area service, and prepaid calling plans.
______

Questions Submitted by Senator Pete V. Domenici
Question. Chairman Powell, I am pleased to welcome you to this
Subcommittee.
As you know, New Mexico is a large, sparsely populated rural state.
As such, translators are of immense importance to the people of my
state. In fact, one-third to one-half of New Mexico's population rely
on translators to bring television broadcasts to their homes.
The statutorily mandated conversion from analog to digital
television requires new digital translators to be acquired and
sufficient spectrum to translate digital signals.
Recognizing that translators represent the only source of free,
over-the-air broadcasting capability to rural areas, what is the FCC's
plan for digital translator service to those regions? If no such plan
has been initiated, when could we expect the Commission to act on this
important issue?
Answer. In January of this year in the DTV Periodic Review, the
Commission recognized the need for a proceeding to address fundamental
issues regarding authorization and protection of DTV booster, DTV
translator and digital Low Power Television stations. The Commission
has authorized experiments for digital translators to further evaluate
the feasibility of this service. Those experiments are now being
conducted in Utah and some of the initial indications have been
encouraging. We expect to have a final report on the results of the
experiments early next year.
Question. The FCC has stated that delivery of broadband internet
access is particularly slow in rural and minority communities.
``Rural'' and ``minority'' define much of New Mexico.
I understand that deploying these services is a business decision
rooted in profit maximization and that some companies focus investment
on denser population centers, rather than rural America.
Yet, I am researching options to ensure that rural America, like my
state of New Mexico, may have the same level of services as our biggest
cities.
I applaud those companies who invest in rural America and look
forward to working with them. I am also interested in new technologies
that focus on rural and underserved areas.
Satellite technology that provides high speed broadband service is
one such innovation. Yet, I am troubled by reports that certain
companies horde orbital licenses without developing and deploying
satellites when other companies are prepared to bring such services to
rural areas but lack the requisite licenses.
It is my understanding that when the FCC originally assigned
licenses in May 1997 it waived its anti-warehousing rules but said it
would, instead, strictly enforce milestones to ensure the utilization
of slots.
Has this approach been effective in requiring first-round licensees
to deploy their satellites or return their licenses ensuring
competition in rural markets for high-speed data services via
satellite?
Answer. The enforcement of milestones has been very effective in
ensuring competition and the use of valuable orbit and spectrum
resources. By way of clarification, however, we note that the
Commission did not waive its ``anti-warehousing'' rules in assigning
licenses in the first processing round for Ka-band satellite systems.
Rather, the Commission waived its financial requirements. Generally,
the application of this rule prevents underfinanced applicants from
holding spectrum while attempting to procure financing to the detriment
of qualified applicants ready to go forward. However, because there
were sufficient orbital locations available to accommodate all
applicants, with additional locations left over, the Commission
determined that authorizing all of the first round systems would not
prevent any applicants from using this spectrum. To ensure orbit and
spectrum resources did not go unused, the Commission stated that it
would enforce system milestone schedules.
Last year, the Commission demonstrated its commitment to enforcing
milestones when it revoked the authorizations of three Ka-band
licensees for failure to meet their construction commencement
milestones. Although the Commission subsequently reinstated the license
of one company for good cause, as a result of these revocations orbital
locations that would not have otherwise been utilized are available for
applicants in the second Ka-band processing round. Thus, it appears
that all of the second round applicants may be accommodated. The entry
of new licensees will expand and improve the variety of advanced
communications services to the United States, including rural and
underserved areas. The Commission will continue to monitor all
licensees for compliance and enforce its milestones as necessary.
Question. I strongly support competition in business. Competition
gives consumers better products, optimal service, and better prices.
As you know, some mobile telephone companies claim that they
require more spectrum in order to provide additional services. Spectrum
is a public commodity that the FCC is charged with managing and
licensing.
Recognizing the virtues of competition, the revenue generated
through spectrum auctions, and the consumer's interest in diverse
products and services;
Should incumbent spectrum licensees demonstrate that they are using
spectrum before they are given more?
Answer. A requirement that incumbent licensees demonstrate that
they are using spectrum before they are given more may be more
effective in some areas than in others. The Commission, for example,
has rules for some non-commercial wireless services (e.g., private land
mobile, non-commercial microwave, maritime) that require licensees to
demonstrate they are adequately using their current spectrum holdings
before applying for more spectrum. These non-commercial licenses, which
are not awarded through competitive bidding, tend for be for smaller
amounts of spectrum than those licenses awarded through competitive
bidding. These licenses also are not generally used for wide-area
systems and often have various eligibility and operational
restrictions.
On the other hand, the Commission does not require commercial
mobile wireless providers to utilize all of their currently held
spectrum before acquiring more spectrum. In the commercial context, we
believe there is a need to maintain some additional licensing
flexibility that permits licensees to some extent to aggregate their
spectrum holdings to accommodate spectrum-intensive advanced
telecommunications services. In these circumstances, we have used other
types of safeguards. The Commission maintains performance requirements
for commercial mobile providers, as directed by the Congress.
Commercial licensees must meet specified coverage requirements or
demonstrate substantial service at certain periods within their license
terms. The Commission monitors implementation of these rules to ensure
that they are meeting the goals set forth by statute or public policy
and will readdress them as conditions warrant. Moreover, increasingly,
market conditions provide strong incentives for licensees to use
spectrum allocated to them, especially as the number of commercial
mobile telephone service providers continues to grow. The Commission's
latest report on this industry--The Sixth Annual Commercial Mobile
Radio Service (``CMRS'') Competition Report--estimates that 91 percent
of the U.S. population lives in counties with some level of mobile
telephone service by three or more distinct providers, while 75 percent
live in counties with five or more providers. These carriers are
finding that, in order to remain competitive, they must offer a larger
variety of services at better prices, and, it is estimated that the
move towards third generation (``3G'') high-speed mobile data and voice
service will only increase this competition.
The Commission will continue to monitor closely both marketplace
and policy incentives to ensure that the spectrum is used efficiently,
whether for public safety, private or commercial purposes, and will
monitor their effectiveness in helping to ensure spectrum efficiency.
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

STATEMENT OF LAURA SIMONE UNGER, ACTING CHAIRMAN

summary statement of Chairman Unger

Senator Hollings. Chairman Unger, will you please come
forward. Chairman Unger, we welcome you to the committee and we
would be delighted to hear from you at this time.
Ms. Unger. Thank you very much, Chairman Hollings. I think
I now know what to say about competition, should that issue
arise during the course of my testimony today.
But I appreciate the opportunity to testify today on behalf
of the Securities and Exchange Commission in support of the
President's fiscal year 2002 budget request. As I am sure you
know the SEC today faces some of the most complex and difficult
issues it has ever considered.
At the same time, more Americans invest in our securities
markets than ever before. Twenty years ago, only 5.7 percent of
Americans owned mutual funds. Today, some 88 million
shareholders representing 51 percent of U.S. households hold
$7.4 trillion in mutual funds. This exceeds by about $4
trillion the amount on deposit at commercial banks and
surpasses by $2 trillion the total financial assets of
commercial banks.
At the same time, our markets continue to be transformed by
the rapid pace of technological change in recent years. New
technologies, new market entrants, and new financial products
are reshaping our markets. For example, electronic trading
platforms, some of which didn't exist just a few years ago, are
now matching buyers and sellers of hundreds of millions of
shares every day, anonymously, and for fractions of a penny a
share.
Consider also emerging new products. The QQQ, which the
industry calls Cubes, is an index product that tracks the
Nasdaq 100 and didn't exist 2 years ago. Yesterday, it traded
almost 53 million shares, which is more shares than were traded
in Microsoft, GE, and IBM combined.
No less important, our markets today are increasingly
global, a trend that most people expect to accelerate in the
coming years. Globalization, as you might expect, affects
almost every aspect of the SEC's work. We must be able to
regulate our markets without boundaries and investigate and
prosecute securities fraud irrespective of where that conduct
originated.
All of these developments raise complex and critically
important challenges that the SEC must be prepared to meet. At
the same time that our markets are undergoing such dramatic
changes, the SEC is struggling to keep pace. With approximately
3,000 staff, the SEC is a small Federal agency, but the
industry we oversee grows daily and includes nearly 700,000
registered representatives employed by 8,000 broker-dealers,
some 15,000 companies that file reports with us, some 30,000
investment company portfolios, and almost 8,000 registered
investment advisors. Over $41 trillion in stocks are expected
to trade hands this year on the exchanges and Nasdaq.
Against this backdrop, the President's fiscal year 2002
budget requests an appropriation of $437.9 million for the SEC.
This is only 3.6 percent more than our fiscal year 2001 enacted
level of $422.8 million. The $437.9 million request provides
the resources necessary to meet most of the Commission's needs.
It is a zero-growth budget that funds all but $5.2 million of
the Commission's cost increases with no programmatic staffing
increases.
We support this request. Ironically, though, we can manage
at this level only because of the severe staffing problems that
we face. In the last 3 years, more than 1,000 SEC employees,
nearly one-third of the agency's staff, have left the
Commission, which is a rate nearly double the Government
average. Not only do we lose too many employees, but we also
struggle to find qualified people willing to work for the
salary and benefits we offer.
Over the last several months, the SEC consistently has had
about 280 vacant positions, amounting to almost 9 percent of
our hiring ceiling. Because filling open positions has proven
to be so difficult, we intend to use the staffing funds to
cover some of the mandatory costs for fiscal year 2002.
However, constraining the SEC's growth and relying on cutting
unfilled positions is not sustainable over the long term.
In the coming years, I do believe the SEC will need
staffing increases to meet the challenges that I described
earlier. In addition, the staffing increases will be needed to
meet our increasingly complex regulatory responsibilities under
the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act and the Commodities Futures
Modernization Act of 2000.
Finally, as you know, both the House and Senate have passed
legislation that would, among other things, give the SEC the
ability to grant and match the pay of our sister regulators at
the Federal banking agencies, known as pay parity. While the
SEC economists, lawyers, accountants, and examiners perform
many of the same duties and responsibilities and functions as
the bank regulators, and we often work side by side with them,
the staff at the Federal banking agencies make anywhere from 25
to 40 percent more than the SEC staff, their counterparts at
the SEC. This pay disparity has been a significant drain on
morale and has perpetuated the staffing crisis that has
threatened to hamper the agency's effectiveness.
As you know, the SEC, our Congressional oversight
committees, the securities industry, and the corporate
community have all been strong supporters of pay parity. Pay
parity is important for investors, the securities industry, and
for our markets. I do hope this critical legislation will be
enacted soon and passed in conference in the near future. In
the event that pay parity is enacted during this session, the
full funding for our new pay scale would require additional
funds beyond our current request.

prepared statement

I appreciate the opportunity to appear here today and
request that my written statement be included in the record.
Senator Hollings. It will be included.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Laura S. Unger
Chairman Hollings, Ranking Member Gregg, and Members of the
Subcommittee: I appreciate this opportunity to testify on behalf of the
Securities and Exchange Commission (``SEC'' or ``Commission'') in
support of the SEC's fiscal 2002 budget. The SEC is a civil law
enforcement agency. Since its creation in 1934, the SEC's mission has
been to administer and enforce the federal securities laws in order to
protect investors, and to maintain fair, honest, and efficient markets.
We accomplish this mission by overseeing the markets through a public-
private partnership. This system of shared regulation among the SEC,
state regulators, self-regulatory organizations (``SROs''), and the
securities industry enables the Commission to leverage its resources
and is markedly different from the approach taken by other federal
regulators. Even with this system, however, the SEC must stretch to
keep pace with the rapidly changing marketplace.
The Commission today faces some of the most complex and difficult
issues it has ever considered. No segment of American business has been
more transformed by the rapid pace of technological innovation in
recent years than the securities industry. New technologies, new
participants, and new financial products are reshaping our markets. Our
markets also are becoming increasingly global--a trend that most expect
to accelerate in the coming years. In addition, our national securities
markets are taking steps to shed their long-held membership status and
are moving to become publicly held entities. In short, it is now more
important than ever that the SEC remain vigilant in policing and
maintaining the integrity and transparency of our securities markets.
We are a nation of investors. Twenty years ago, only 5.7 percent of
Americans owned mutual funds. Today, some 88 million shareholders,
representing 51 percent of U.S. households, hold mutual funds. Our
nation's investors have an unprecedented stake in our markets. Whether
through college savings plans 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. In addition,
online trading and new technologies have empowered individual investors
in ways that were previously unimaginable. It is against this backdrop
that I intend to discuss the President's fiscal 2002 budget request for
the SEC and the primary challenge we currently face: our inability to
attract and retain staff.
The President's fiscal 2002 budget requests an appropriation of
$437.9 million for the SEC, 3.6 percent more than our fiscal 2001
enacted level of $422.8 million. This $437.9 million request, while
providing the resources necessary to meet the Commission's current
needs, is a zero-growth budget. It only partially funds the
Commission's inflationary and mandatory cost increases, does not
provide any programmatic staffing increases, and actually requires the
Commission to make a small reduction in its authorized staff level.
We intend to support the Administration and meet the challenges
ahead by continuing to use our existing resources as efficiently and
effectively as possible. Unfortunately, and perhaps ironically, we only
have the ability to operate at this funding level because of the severe
staffing problems we currently face. In particular, our inability to
pay staff at a level comparable with the other federal financial
regulatory agencies has hampered our ability to attract and retain
staff. The resulting high turnover that we have experienced has
resulted in a significant efficiency loss and has left certain
positions unfilled indefinitely. Because filling these positions has
proven to be so difficult, we intend to fund some of our mandatory
costs by making reductions in the number of vacancies that we will fill
in fiscal 2002. However, constraining the SEC's growth and relying on
cutting unfilled positions is not preferred and certainly is not
sustainable over the long term.
The SEC will need significant additional resources in fiscal 2003
and beyond to respond to both the continuing innovations in our markets
and the increasing regulatory responsibilities we face as a result of
several recent legislative initiatives. In particular, we will require
additional examination and oversight staff to meet our new
responsibilities under the recently enacted Commodities Futures
Modernization Act of 2000 (``CFMA''), which provides for joint
oversight with the Commodities Futures Trading Commission of new
security futures products, and the landmark Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act
(``GLBA'').
In addition, the SEC critically needs to stay abreast of the rapid
evolution of our securities markets. New markets and new trading models
are constantly emerging. Electronic trading platforms--some of which
didn't exist just a few years ago--are now anonymously matching buyers
and sellers of hundreds of millions of shares every day. In February of
last year, the Commission approved the International Securities
Exchange's application to become the first new national securities
exchange in twenty-seven years. Now, four entities have applied for
registration as an exchange. At the same time, the traditional exchange
and over-the-counter markets continue to innovate. Both the New York
Stock Exchange and Nasdaq are in the process of incorporating greater
automation into their markets, launching complex and important
initiatives such as NYSE Direct and the SuperMontage.
No less pressing is our need to keep up with the challenges
presented by today's increasingly global marketplace. Companies
throughout the world are now seeking capital on a cross-border basis.
In addition, U.S. investors today can view real-time quotes from
foreign markets, and electronic linkages reduce the costs to U.S.
investors of trading directly in foreign markets. These developments
make it increasingly important for the SEC to promote high quality
disclosure and transparency standards, including high quality
internationally acceptable accounting standards.
Despite these long-term needs, our fiscal 2002 request will allow
the Commission to continue such important initiatives as:
--combating the rise in Internet and financial reporting fraud;
--overseeing the securities industry's automation changes in
connection with the transition to a T+1 settlement system;
--maintaining our formal inspection cycle program for the increasing
number of alternative trading systems;
--updating and improving prospectus requirements for variable
insurance products;
--developing a tailored disclosure document for unit investment
trusts; and
--addressing developments in domestic and international accounting
and auditing matters.
Having outlined our ongoing priorities and how we intend to manage
the funding level approved in the President's budget, I would now like
to discuss the Commission's severe difficulties in attracting and
retaining qualified staff and the status of our pay parity effort.
staffing crisis
On June 14, 2001, the House of Representatives voted 404 to 22 in
favor of H.R. 1088, the Investor and Capital Markets Relief Act, the
companion to S. 143, the Competitive Market Supervision Act of 2001,
which the Senate passed by unanimous consent earlier this year. Both of
these bills would provide the SEC with the authority necessary to match
the pay and benefits of federal banking agencies. We currently believe
that this legislation will be enacted prior to the start of fiscal 2002
on October 1, 2001. As such, I would like to take this opportunity to
review the SEC's current staffing crisis and to discuss the additional
resources that we will need to implement pay parity.
As a result of Congress's passage of the Financial Institutions
Reform, Recovery and Enforcement Act (FIRREA) in 1989, none of the
federal banking regulators is subject to the government-wide pay
schedule. As a result, they are able to provide their staffs with
appreciably more in compensation and benefits than we can. This
disparity is a significant drain on morale. It is difficult to explain
to SEC staff why they should not be paid at comparable levels,
especially when they are conducting similar oversight, regulatory, and
examination activities. It is one thing for staff to make salary
comparisons with the private sector, but quite another for them to see
their government counterparts making substantially more than they are.
This is particularly true in the wake of the landmark GLBA
mentioned above. The GLBA demands that the Commission undertake
examinations and inspections of highly complex financial services
firms. Moreover, by allowing additional affiliations between securities
firms, banks, and insurance companies, the GLBA requires increased
coordination of activities among all the financial regulators. Even
more so than in the past, Commission staff are working side-by-side
with their counterparts from the banking regulatory agencies, including
the Federal Reserve, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, and
the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. However, we cannot match the
salaries that our sister regulators pay.
I appreciate the continued support of our authorizing and
appropriating committees and their recognition that pay parity is good
public policy. With approximately 3,000 staff, the SEC is small by
federal agency standards. This staff is charged with overseeing an
industry that includes about 700,000 registered representatives of
approximately 8,000 broker-dealers, some 15,000 companies that file
reports with us, about 30,000 investment company portfolios, and about
8,000 registered investment advisers. Over $41 trillion in stocks are
expected to trade hands this year on the nation's stock exchanges and
Nasdaq, including transactions on numerous new electronic communication
networks. Mutual funds now hold close to $7 trillion in assets. This is
more than double the amount on deposit at commercial banks and
surpasses by $2 trillion the total financial assets of commercial
banks. Unlike bank deposits, however, mutual fund assets are uninsured
and no SROs help us regulate this sector. Social security reform
initiatives also raise the possibility of greatly increasing the number
of American's invested in our capital markets.
With such important responsibilities and at such a critical time in
our markets' development, the Commission simply cannot afford to
continue to suffer a serious staffing crisis. Since 1996, our attrition
rate has been increasing, particularly among our more senior
professionals. Over the last two fiscal years, the Commission has lost
30 percent of its attorneys, accountants, and examiners.\1\ If this
trend continues unabated, the Commission's mission of protecting
investors and maintaining market integrity will be seriously
threatened.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Over the past several years the Commission has explored
virtually every available approach to keeping staff longer. In 1992, we
petitioned and received from the Office of Personnel Management
(``OPM'') the authority to pay the majority of our attorneys and
accountants approximately 10 percent above their base pay. While
special pay was a step in the right direction, its value erodes over
time and it proved to be a short-term solution. This is because staff
that receive special pay do not receive the government-wide locality
increase each year, which means that their special pay becomes less
valuable over time and hence becomes less effective as a retention
tool. Our appropriation last year included funds to reinstate special
pay rates for certain attorneys, accountants, and examiners and OPM
recently approved our proposed special pay rates for these employees.
While this should help, based on our experience we know that this is at
most a temporary and partial remedy to the SEC's staffing crisis. In
addition, even with special pay, the salaries at the federal banking
regulators are still substantially more than we can pay our staff.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We currently estimate that implementing pay parity will cost
approximately $70 million in fiscal 2002, with yearly adjustments for
inflation thereafter. This increase brings our revised fiscal 2002
appropriation request to $508 million. While I recognize that this
represents a large increase for the Commission, I strongly believe that
the most vital resource the SEC has is its highly professional and
well-regarded staff and that they ought to be compensated at levels
consistent with the other Federal financial regulators.\2\ I look
forward to working with you to ensure that this additional funding is
provided and this issue is resolved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ A broad cross-section of the securities industry, corporate
community, and investor groups have expressed support for pay parity,
including the Securities Industry Association, the Investment Company
Institute, the Investment Counsel Association of America, the Business
Roundtable, the California Public Employees' Retirement System
(CalPERS), Teachers Insurance and Annuity Association College
Retirement Equity Fund (TIAA-CREF), the National Association of
Securities Dealers, the New York Stock Exchange, and Fidelity
Investments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
fee reductions
In addition, I would like to take this opportunity to briefly
comment on the fee provisions of both S. 143 and H.R. 1088. Both bills
would significantly reduce fees for investors, market participants, and
companies making filings with the Commission, while preserving the
amount of offsetting collections available to this Committee to fund
the agency in coming years.\3\ These bills also spread the cost of
regulation among those who benefit from the activities of the
Commission and address the agency's funding structure in a
comprehensive and balanced manner. The fee provisions in these bills
not only have the support of the SEC, but also of the Administration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ The Congressional Budget Office estimates that fees required to
be collected by the SEC from all sources will total over $2.47 billion
in fiscal 2001. This amount represents more than five times the SEC's
enacted fiscal 2001 appropriation of $422.8 million. As stated, both S.
143 and H.R. 1088 are designed to reduce fees while maintaining the
amount of offsetting collections that are available to the SEC's
appropriators. In fiscal 2002, this amount is estimated at $1.15
billion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
station place lease procurement
Finally, I would like to provide some additional details regarding
the Commission's new headquarters lease. On May 29, 2001 the SEC
awarded a 14-year lease for 650,000 rentable square feet at Station
Place, adjacent to Union Station, to Louis Dreyfus Properties, LLC, of
New York. This decision was made after an extensive two-year
procurement during which the Commission held a vigorous competition and
consulted with its authorizing committees, appropriations committees,
the Public Works Committee, the General Services Administration
(``GSA''), the Office of Management and Budget (``OMB''), and the
District of Columbia.
The Commission's current headquarters lease at 450 5th Street, N.W.
ends in fiscal 2004 and we were required to compete for a new lease
pursuant to the Competition in Contracting Act.\4\ The SEC has been at
this location since 1982 and has been suffering from overcrowding for
the last several years. In calendar 2000, we procured additional space
at 901 E Street, N.W. and moved several units out of our headquarters
to ameliorate overcrowding.\5\ While this last move was essential to
deal with severe overcrowding, it has negatively impacted the
activities of the Commission and reduced our efficiency. In preparing
to obtain new space, the SEC sought to consolidate the agency's
offices, relieve existing overcrowding, meet safety and health
requirements, and ensure adequate access to mass transit. We received a
number of proposals and enjoyed a healthy competition. Station Place
offered the best means to reach our goals. More specifically, it was
the lowest cost, highest technically rated offer in the procurement and
represents the best value to the government.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ The Commission currently has several leases expiring in the
regions, in addition to the agency's headquarters lease. We originally
signed many of these leases during the late 1980s and early 1990s when
prices in the real estate market were depressed and significantly lower
than the rates that can be obtained today.
\5\ The Commission previously moved a large portion of its
administrative, information technology, and operations functions out of
headquarters and into the Commission's Operations Center in Alexandria,
VA in the early and mid 1990s as a first step toward alleviating
overcrowding. Those functions will remain in Alexandria after the
Commission moves to Station Place.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
During this procurement, the Commission followed all applicable
laws and worked closely with GSA and OMB. From an appropriations
perspective, the Commission's award to Station Place was scored as an
operating lease and will not require an upfront appropriation of funds
to be constructed. Instead, its rental costs will be covered on a
yearly basis through our appropriation, much as now. I want to assure
you that this move is appropriate for the Commission, good for the
city, and the best deal available to the government.
conclusion
Our nation's markets and the SEC are at a crossroads. New
technologies and activities continue to pose new challenges and threats
to the integrity of our markets, as does increased globalization. I
appreciate the support that this Committee has provided the SEC in the
past and look forward to having a fruitful dialogue regarding the
resource needs and policy issues that currently face the Commission. I
also appreciate the willingness this Committee has already shown in
recognizing the need to resolve the SEC's intractable staffing
problems. I look forward to working with you toward final passage and
funding of pay parity legislation.

Pay parity

Senator Hollings. Let me ask you, how much for pay parity?
Ms. Unger. How much is the cost?
Senator Hollings. Right.
Ms. Unger. Seventy-point-nine million dollars.
Senator Hollings. You sound the alarm that one-third of the
staff has left in the last year and you still have 280 vacant
positions. At the same time, though, your request assumes the
reduction of some 41 FTEs and 57 other positions, almost 100
positions. Do you support that request, or was that OMB's
request?
Ms. Unger. That was the President's budget, which we do
support.

Penalty collections

Senator Hollings. And then that is not what SEC needs. We
want to make sure you do a good job, and heretofore, you have
done a good job. I have a question about the disgorgement,
because you have got a recent Inspector General's report that
was just published that you let quite a bit of penalty fines go
by the board. Can you explain that?
Ms. Unger. Yes. I think the report mentions that of about
$366 million of penalties that were assessed, about $60-
something million was waived. That is usually done under very
specific circumstances where the defendant has made a showing
that they have an inability to pay.
I, as a Commissioner, when I first joined the agency, did a
top-to-bottom review of the Enforcement Division and noted that
we could do better in collecting penalties, and I think we have
strengthened the criteria for permitting when defendants can
waive disgorgement. But, of course, we are constantly looking
at and reviewing that.
We have, since the report that you just mentioned was
released, implemented a few additional steps. One is that we
require the defendant to sign a waiver so that we can get their
actual financial report, their public report. Another is that
the Chief Counsel's Office of our Division of Enforcement will
review each and every request for a waiver. And the third thing
is the inability to pay. We have established a more consistent
approach to granting these waivers and have established clearer
criteria for the staff.

vacant Positions

Senator Hollings. How much money do you need to fill those
280 vacant positions?
Ms. Unger. I think the figure that we had given as to what
we would like our budget to be was closer to $577 million.
Senator Hollings. Five-hundred-and-seventy-seven million?
Ms. Unger. That would include pay parity and full staffing.
Senator Hollings. Now we are talking sense.
Ms. Unger. Of course, we can always make do with more
money, Mr. Chairman.

conclusion of hearings

Senator Hollings. Well, we appreciate very much your
opinion and indulgence. With the late hour and everything of
that kind, the committee will leave the record open, because we
have some Senators that want to ask some questions. We will
leave that record open for those questions and your answers,
and unless you have other comments, the committee will be in
recess subject to the call of the Chair.
Ms. Unger. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Hollings. Thank you very much.
The subcommittee is in recess.
[Whereupon, at 11:29 a.m., Thursday, June 28, 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 2002

----------

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

DEPARTMENTAL 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 2002 budget request for
programs within the subcommittee's jurisdiction.]

THE JUDICIARY

Prepared Statement of Honorable John G. Heyburn II, Chairman, Committee
on the Budget, Judicial Conference of the United States
introduction
Chairman Gregg and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for
giving me the opportunity to testify on the judiciary's fiscal year
2002 budget request. I look forward to working with you, the other
members of the subcommittee, and your dedicated staff as we go through
this process.
Before addressing our fiscal year 2002 request, on behalf of the
entire judiciary, and especially our very busy courts along the
southwest border, I would like to express our sincere appreciation for
the generous funding levels this subcommittee and the Congress provided
to the judiciary for fiscal year 2001. As you know, the courts were
facing a severe crisis along the southwest border and the fiscal year
2001 appropriations provided the funds needed to hire staff to address
the workload explosion that occurred there over the past few years. It
is the first time since 1998 that we have been able to fund the courts'
staffing needs. For that we are thankful. The increase this
subcommittee provided in fiscal year 2001 will demonstratively improve
justice across the country. I would be remiss if I did not state at
this point that while the additional staff resources provided by
Congress will make a huge difference, many courts, especially those
along the southwest border, are woefully short of judges. I will
discuss this issue in more detail later in my statement.
budget overview
Overall, the judiciary has submitted a fiscal year 2002 budget
request that is necessary to maintain our current level of staff and
operations and to allow the courts to handle growing workload and other
critical needs. In total, we are requesting a $610 million increase in
appropriations for all judiciary accounts over the fiscal year 2001
enacted level. More than three-quarters of this increase ($464 million)
funds base adjustments needed to continue current operations. The
remainder ($146 million) is primarily to rectify the critical
deficiencies in the Supreme Court Building that I believe you will be
discussing with the justices next week ($110 million), and to continue
the efforts begun last year to provide the courts the staffing
resources needed to keep pace with workload increases. A detailed
explanation of our fiscal year 2002 request is included as an Appendix.
ensuring the quality of justice
An independent judiciary that all of our citizens trust and respect
is a fundamental tenet of our nation. In order to foster that
independence, citizens must believe that their disputes will be
resolved in a fair and expeditious manner. To do so requires a
commitment by the Congress to provide the courts adequate resources.
Our request before you today provides a blueprint of those resource
requirements.
Of course, we in the Judicial Branch must also make a commitment,
to do everything in our power to utilize the resources provided by
Congress effectively and efficiently. Later in my statement I will
discuss our ongoing efforts to contain costs in the judiciary, but
first I would like to take you behind the scenes and provide examples
of the dedicated work performed throughout our judicial system.
Probation officers who supervise convicted felons as part of their
sentence are a key component of the judicial system. Our probation
officers work very closely with those they supervise, not only to
ensure those individuals do not slip back into a life of crime, but
also to assist them in changing their lives for the better. For
example, Val, a single mom who was deeply involved in the drug culture,
was imprisoned for distribution of cocaine. Once released from prison,
Val was placed under the supervision of one of our probation officers.
With the encouragement and support of her probation officer, Val worked
steadily and supported her child, and at the same time, earned an
undergraduate degree. She then went on to obtain a law degree, was
subsequently admitted to the state bar, clerked for a state court
judge, and was eventually admitted to practice in federal court.
The federal judiciary also brings about fairness and justice to the
common citizen who is wronged and has only the court as its last resort
for protection.
A probation officer's rigorous enforcement of the conditions of
supervision compelled one offender, a businessman who had embezzled
from his employees' pension funds, to return his ill-gotten gains back
to his victims. The offender steadfastly protested that he did not have
money to pay the court-ordered restitution. However, the probation
officer's scrutiny of the offender's affluent lifestyle and his
questionable commingling of business and personal finances revealed
otherwise. As a result of the officer's efforts, the offender paid
$40,000, the balance of restitution owed.
Respect for our system of justice inspires the citizens who serve
as jurors to go beyond the call of duty, as evidenced in a recent civil
case that jurors considered for three days before reaching a verdict.
It was later discovered that one of the jurors was functionally
illiterate. The others took the time to read every exhibit to him.
Finally, this country's independent judiciary serves as a model
worldwide to bring fairness and human rights to other nations. A visit
by Russian Judge Sergei Pashin to a United States District Court helped
inspire his desire to change Russia's courts into something more than a
rubber stamp for prosecutors. Judge Pashin found in America a system of
justice that was ``. . . interested only in finding the truth.''
Our ability to provide a level of service our citizens deserve is
dependent in large part on the resources provided by Congress. The
balance of my statement describes those resource needs in the following
areas--(1) an appropriate level of compensation for private panel
attorneys; (2) a level of judicial officers and support staff
commensurate with the workload placed upon them; (3) an adequate level
of security in the courthouses; and (4) adequate compensation for our
judicial officers.
defender services
There are two areas where significant increases in resources are
required in the defender services area to avoid adversely affecting the
quality of our justice system. An increase of $23 million is needed to
provide counsel for 5,200 additional representations projected for
fiscal year 2002. This requirement is in large part a function of the
projected increase in criminal filings by the Department of Justice.
The other significant increase requested in this account is to provide
$35 million to raise the compensation for private panel attorneys.
The increase of $35 million to raise the compensation for private
panel attorneys is of the utmost importance to the federal judiciary.
One of the biggest impediments to maintaining a fair system of justice
is the low rate of pay that private panel attorneys receive. In 1986,
Congress amended the Criminal Justice Act (CJA) to allow the judiciary
to pay $75 per hour for both in-court and out-of-court work. At that
time, the hourly rates were $60 for in-court and $40 for out-of-court.
This amendment also allowed the judiciary to raise the $75 rate in
future years to reflect inflation. Instead of keeping pace with
inflation, Congress has only funded an hourly rate of $75 in-court and
$55 out-of-court in most locations. In 1986 dollars, this $75/$55 rate
is equivalent to only $46 in-court and $33 out-of-court, significantly
less than the $60 and $40 rates that were effective in 1986.
The $113 rate that is being requested for fiscal year 2002 is the
amount that was envisioned by the amendment to the CJA in 1986,
adjusted for inflation as the statute provides. The failure to
implement higher panel attorney rates is increasingly becoming a
problem in the federal criminal justice system. In some districts,
judges are unable to find qualified attorneys to take many CJA
appointments because the current rate often does not cover overhead
costs. For example, a panel attorney with over 20 years of criminal law
experience indicated that he is unable to provide his employees with
health care or retirement benefits due to the low rates of pay. He
added that rents in downtown Seattle have skyrocketed in recent years,
from $12 per square foot in 1988 in his building to approximately $36
today.
The quality of justice will suffer further and citizens will begin
to question the fairness of our judicial system when unqualified
lawyers who don't have expertise in federal criminal practice are
appointed to represent those defendants who are financially unable to
retain counsel.
court support staff
The judiciary is requesting $16 million for 212 new court support
FTE to allow the courts to keep pace with changes in its largely
uncontrollable workload. Court staff are the backbone of court
operations and as caseload grows, staff must grow along with it.
Without sufficient staff, processes are short-changed, cases may be
delayed, support provided to judicial officers and the public will
deteriorate, and public safety is compromised. This can lead to a lack
of confidence in our judicial system among our citizenry.
Most of the requested increase is for the probation and pretrial
services program. Probation and pretrial services offices play an
integral role in our criminal justice system and ensure public safety
in our communities. There are almost 129,000 offenders under the
supervision of probation and pretrial services officers as compared to
125,000 prisoners currently in federal prisons. The daily cost of
supervision in the community in fiscal year 1999 was $7.74 compared to
$59.41 for the Bureau of Prisons. The extent to which the offices are
adequately staffed directly affects how closely they can monitor the
activities of dangerous convicted felons and prevent potential
problems. For instance, an offender on supervised release receiving
mental health counseling, was given a polygraph examination to gauge
the danger he posed to the community. It revealed that he was stalking
an eight-year-old girl. The child's family was notified, the offender
received treatment to address the problem, and a potential sexual
assault was averted.
Probation and pretrial services offices need sufficient resources
to provide necessary mental health and substance abuse treatment for
offenders. The fiscal year 2002 request includes a $5.2 million
increase for this purpose. These types of treatment programs can put
people on the road to success. For example, John served a term of
imprisonment following conviction for conspiracy to distribute
marijuana and cocaine. While incarcerated, he successfully completed a
drug and alcohol treatment program. When released, John entered an
aftercare program (under contract with the Probation Office) and
regularly attended Alcoholics Anonymous and Narcotics Anonymous
meetings. Eventually, he got a part-time job as a rehabilitation
technician at a local outpatient chemical dependency treatment center.
While continuing his part-time employment at the treatment center, John
completed both a bachelor's degree and a master's degree in counseling,
and is currently a doctoral candidate in the field of counseling. His
career goal is to remain in the field of addiction counseling.
court security
A key tool in ensuring the quality of justice is maintaining
adequate security in our nation's courthouses. If our citizens feel
safe in the courtroom, they will feel more confident about what happens
in those buildings. Being thoroughly screened when entering courthouses
and having court security officers visible throughout is an absolute
necessity to protect all who enter our courthouses.
Unfortunately, our court security appropriation, which funds court
security officers and security systems, is one for which Congress could
not find sufficient resources to meet the needs in fiscal year 2001.
The fiscal year 2002 request rectifies these deficiencies, particularly
in the area of replacing inadequate and outdated equipment. In
addition, it includes funds for both court security officers and
equipment for new buildings that will be coming online in fiscal year
2002.
Another security concern, though not part of the judiciary's budget
request, is the lack of resources available to the U.S. Marshals
Service. The Marshals Service is responsible for the security of
courthouses, judges, court proceedings, and the public who come into
our buildings. They are also responsible for the transportation and
security of prisoners and fugitive apprehensions. They are experiencing
severe personnel resource deficiencies, particularly along the
southwest border, where they do not always have enough deputy U.S.
Marshals to move prisoners safely from their holding cells, through
public hallways in courthouses, or to monitor them in the courtrooms.
The Marshals Service should be funded so they can perform all of their
security related missions in a safe and professional manner.
judicial compensation
We live in a society where cost-of-living salary adjustments to
maintain purchasing power--whether such adjustments are made pursuant
to a collective bargaining agreement or a statute as in the case of
Social Security--are a fact of economic life. Yet, over the past eight
years members, judges, and high level executive branch officials have
received only three annual Employment Cost Index (ECI) adjustments. As
a result, their purchasing power has declined by over 13 percent, which
amounts to more than $16,000 per year. While we are very grateful that
Congress approved an ECI adjustment for fiscal year 2001, and
particularly for your leadership in that effort, Chairman Gregg, it is
noteworthy that even the 2.7 percent increase failed to keep pace with
the change in the cost of living.
The corrosive effects of this salary erosion on judges were well
documented in a recent report published by the American and Federal Bar
Associations. That report discussed in detail the potential effects of
denying judges annual ECI adjustments, including its effect on judges'
recruitment, retention, and productivity. The report was favorably
received by the media. It also confirmed the views of the Chief
Justice, who in his 2000 year-end statement observed that ``in order to
continue to provide the nation a capable and effective judicial system
we must be able to attract and retain experienced men and women of
quality and diversity to perform a demanding position in the public
service . . . In order to continue to attract highly qualified and
diverse federal judges--judges whom we ask and expect to remain for
life--we must provide them adequate compensation.''
For the aforementioned reasons, the Judicial Conference strongly
encourages Congress to authorize an Employment Cost Index (ECI)
adjustment for federal judges, members of Congress, and top officials
in the executive branch for 2002 and subsequent years, as provided by
law; enact legislation to give judges and other high level federal
officials a ``catch-up'' pay adjustment of 9.6 percent to recapture
previous ECI adjustments that were not provided; and authorize a
Presidential commission to consider and make recommendations to the
President on appropriate salaries for high-level officials in all three
branches of the government.
new judgeships
Without judges, justice cannot be administered. There has not been
a major judgeship bill since 1990. Yet increases in federal
jurisdiction and law enforcement resources over that period have
contributed to a more than 25 percent increase in workload for the
judiciary. Only through the appropriations process has there been a
modest increase in judgeships with nine added in the fiscal year 2000
and ten in the fiscal year 2001 appropriations bills. The Judicial
Conference of the United States currently is requesting that 54 Article
III judgeships be created. Despite Congress' efforts in the last two
appropriations bills, there are some districts--particularly those
along the southwest border--where the workload has more than doubled,
but where the number of judgeships remains constant. Justice in these
locations has been compromised because the judges have not been there
to meet the workload demands.
cost containment
One area in which the judiciary takes great pride is its continual
effort to work more efficiently and effectively while still maintaining
the high quality of justice. The Optimal Utilization of Judicial
Resources Report that we send to your subcommittee annually is a
compilation of our initiatives. A bird's-eye view of a court
illustrates the range of efforts we have underway.
In a federal courthouse, a bankruptcy clerk is able to use the
Internet for transactions made by the Bankruptcy Noticing System. The
Internet connection replaces the U.S. Mail method, saving postage
expenses and allowing the transmission of notices at a fraction of the
time. Postage costs were further reduced when fax options were
introduced to the Bankruptcy Noticing Program in fiscal year 2000.
At the same time, a court executive might be checking e-mail for an
important memo from the Administrative Office. In fiscal year 2000 the
Administrative Office began to send official policy directives, time-
sensitive documents, and other important information to chief judges
and court unit executives, electronically rather than using paper
memos.
Meanwhile, in a district clerk's office, staff are calculating
juror payments using the Jury Management System, an automated software
system that also prints and scans qualification questionnaires and
summonses, and tracks jurors, among other things. This system is
expected to be implemented in most courts by the end of 2001. The
system reduces errors caused by redundant data entry and gives the
court immediate access to juror statistics.
A clerk of court's office also is receiving hundreds of case
filings from attorneys--with no one standing in line at the court.
Instead, they may be miles away, in their own offices, making use of
the Case Management/Electronic Case Files System to send and retrieve
case documents over the Internet. In turn, a court uses the electronic
records for efficient docketing, scheduling, and notice production. In
addition, litigants are able to search, locate, retrieve, and deliver
case documents electronically. A version of the system is installed
already in 14 bankruptcy courts and seven district courts. The
judiciary has completed testing of the bankruptcy version and is now
beginning nationwide implementation.
Staff in a judge's chambers are going on-line to post a notice of
an available law clerk position on the Federal Law Clerk Information
System. The judiciary developed this national database to save time and
help judges and law students with the annual process of hiring law
clerks. In the short time this system has been available, nearly one-
third of all judges are using it and the number is growing.
In a busy courthouse, a courtroom equipped with a television
monitor and a video camera can be used to hold a hearing, in which the
parties are separated by several hundred miles. In the district courts,
videoconferencing is being used in pretrial, civil, and certain
criminal proceedings, prisoner matters, sentencing, settlement
conferences, arraignments, and witness appeals. Videoconferencing saves
travel time and reduces security risks in transporting prisoners. At
the appellate level, oral arguments may be heard using
videoconferencing, again saving time and the cost of travel. To date,
more than 200 federal court sites have been equipped to received these
broadcasts.
Television monitors may also be in use elsewhere in the courthouse,
but in a very different role. Judicial employees at the court are
participating in a classroom instruction on use of a word-processing
program. Also on the agenda is a program for probation and pretrial
services officers on the special needs of offenders. Programs
transmitted over the distance learning network, the Federal Judicial
Television Network, allow employees to receive instruction without
traveling to training sessions. Millions of travel dollars are saved by
the use of distance training.
contributions of the administrative office
The Administrative Office of the United States Courts is critical
to the judiciary's ability to provide quality justice. The Director of
the Administrative Office serves as the chief administrative officer
for the federal courts. The Administrative Office provides essential
administrative support, program management, and policy development
assistance to federal courts nationwide. Administrative Office
employees support 32,000 judiciary employees, including 2,000 Article
III, bankruptcy, and magistrate judges, as well as probation and
pretrial services officers, circuit executives, federal public
defenders, clerks of court, court reporters and interpreters, financial
administrators, jury administrators, systems managers and others.
Support of the Judicial Conference and its committees remains an
essential function of the Administrative Office. The twenty-four
committees have Administrative Office staff experts who work closely
with them in conducting research and supporting their judiciary-wide
policy and governance function. The Administrative Office also executes
and implements Judicial Conference actions.
An important Administrative Office responsibility is supporting,
coordinating, and implementing the judiciary's numerous efforts to
reduce costs and manage resources most efficiently. The various cost-
containment efforts I just summarized, as well as all of those listed
in the Optimal Utilization Report, are only possible because of the
efforts of the Administrative Office. Without the Administrative
Office, many of the savings and cost avoidance initiatives would not
have materialized.
In the interest of continuous service improvement, the
Administrative Office conducts or oversees, in connection with Judicial
Conference Committees, a large number of strategic studies of judiciary
programs and operations. An independent study of the national
information technology program found that the judiciary is making
effective use of technology. The study indicated that this is a
significant accomplishment given that the judiciary's investment in
information technology is well below federal government benchmarks and
what would be expected given the complexity of the judiciary. The
Administrative Office also oversaw a comprehensive management
assessment of its space and facilities program. The Administrative
Office is working with an outside contractor to conduct a strategic
comprehensive assessment of the probation and pretrial services system.
The broad issue is whether there are ways to accomplish the system
mission more effectively when facing increasing responsibilities,
changing federal criminal populations, and constrained budgets. There
is also a study being conducted of the judiciary's security program to
evaluate its effectiveness and efficiency.
The fiscal year 2002 budget request for the Administrative Office
is $4.8 million over fiscal year 2001 appropriations. Most of this
increase would fund base adjustments needed to continue current
operations. The remainder ($693,000) will be devoted to improving
programmatic oversight and support of court programs such as the
probation and pretrial services system as well as to developing major
automated systems. In addition, funds are requested for equipment
maintenance and replacement and software upgrades to allow the core
Administrative Office financial and automated systems to remain
functional and current.
I urge the Committee to fund fully the Administrative Office's
budget request. The Administrative Office is integral to the
judiciary's ability to do its work. Without the Administrative Office's
support, the judiciary could not continue to function as effectively.
The increase in funding will ensure that the Administrative Office
continues to provide program leadership and administrative support to
the courts, and lead the efforts for them to operate efficiently.
contributions of the federal judicial center
The Federal Judicial Center is the federal judiciary's agency for
continuing education and training. With this subcommittee's
encouragement, it has worked hard in the last few years, with the
resources available to it, to provide even more of its education
through ``distance learning'' which does not require participants to
travel to the training.
As Judge Smith's statement notes, educational programs sponsored by
the Center or arranged locally using Center resources reached over
50,000 participants last year, and over 90 percent of those
participating did so at their desks, before a TV monitor, or elsewhere
in the courthouse.
Even educational technology, though, requires resources. Last year,
the Center received a current services appropriation, but no more. This
was the first current services appropriation for the Center in ten
years. This year the Board of the Center proposes a modest increase for
normal adjustments to the base budget and for additional positions to
enhance the effectiveness of its distance learning.
In evaluating the Center's request, I ask the subcommittee to
consider not only how the Center uses technology for education but also
the importance of the education itself to the fair and efficient
operation of the judicial branch. Center orientation seminars, for
example, introduce every judge to his or her responsibility for
effective docket management. And, in respect to the growing amount of
complex litigation involving scientific and technical evidence, as the
Chief Justice said in his year-end statement, ``FJC education programs
and reference guides help judges sort out relevant facts and applicable
law from the panoply of information with which the adversary system
bombards them. The FJC thus contributes to the independent decision
making that is the judge's fundamental duty.''
For another example, Center education helps probation officers deal
with the range of sophisticated offenders convicted of federal crimes.
Judge Smith's statement summarizes these and many other ways in which
Center education and Center research improve the administration of
justice.
I believe the Center's request deserves the committee's support and
urge favorable action on the full amount.
conclusion
Chairman Gregg and members of the subcommittee, this concludes my
statement. I look forward to working with you in the future.
appendix
summary
The fiscal year 2002 appropriation request for the Courts of
Appeals, District Courts and Other Judicial Services totals
$4,538,547,000, an increase of $481,823,000 over the fiscal year 2001
available appropriation. In addition to appropriated funds, the
judiciary utilizes other funding sources to supplement our
appropriations including 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 2002
is only $356,810,000 or 8.1 percent.
Of the $481,823,000 increase in appropriations, 94 percent
($452,071,000) is adjustments to the fiscal year 2001 base associated
with standard pay and other inflationary increases as well as other
adjustments that will allow the courts to maintain current services in
fiscal year 2002. The remaining 6 percent ($29,752,000) is needed to
respond to increased requirements for magistrate judges, federal
defender offices, security, drug and mental health treatment, and to
fund additional court staff required to process growing workload. The
request for the principal programs are summarized below.
salaries and expenses
The salaries and expenses of circuit, district, and bankruptcy
courts and probation and pretrial services offices account for most of
our request. A total of $3,964,528,000 is required for this account in
fiscal year 2002. Funding totaling $226,062,000 is expected to be
available from other sources including fee collections and carry
forward balances to fund S&E requirements. This leaves an appropriation
need of $3,738,466,000 which is $374,357,000 above the fiscal year 2001
available appropriation.
Over 90 percent of the $374,357,000 increase ($347,328,000) is
needed to fund adjustments to the fiscal year 2001 base including: pay
and benefit increases for judges ($12,133,000); increases in the number
of filled Article III judges, senior judges and magistrates judges
adjustments ($15,783,000); pay and benefit increases for court support
and probation and pretrial services staff ($126,982,000); annualization
of new court support and probation and pretrial services positions
partially funded in fiscal year 2001 ($30,443,000); increases necessary
to maintain fiscal year 2001 staffing levels because of a reduction in
non-appropriated funding ($105,175,000); increases for space rental and
associated costs ($61,300,000); inflationary increases for operating
costs ($9,731,000); and reductions in non-recurring costs
(-$14,219,000).
The remaining 4 percent ($27,029,000) will fund 14 additional
magistrate judges and their staff to help Article III judges handle the
growing volume of civil and criminal cases facing the courts
($5,638,000); 212 court support FTEs to address a net increase in
workload, almost entirely in the probation and pretrial services
offices ($16,149,000); and increased mental health and substance abuse
treatment for projected growth in the number of offenders and
defendants under supervision requiring this treatment ($5,242,000).
defender services
An appropriation of $521,517,000 is required for the Defender
Services program to provide representation for indigent criminal
defendants in fiscal year 2002. This is an increase of $87,474,000
above the available fiscal year 2001 appropriation.
Over 99 percent of this increase ($86,874,000) is needed for
adjustments to the fiscal year 2001 base for inflationary and workload
increases. Included in these adjustments are standard pay and inflation
increases as well as other adjustments that will allow the program to
maintain the base caseload costs ($28,494,000); an increase of the non-
capital hourly panel attorney rate to $113 for all districts beginning
April 1, 2002 ($35,135,000); and an increase associated with a workload
increase of 5,200 additional representations in fiscal year 2002
($23,245,000).
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, an appropriation of $50,131,000 is
required, a decline of $9,305,000 from the fiscal year 2001 available
appropriation. This decline is the result in the steady growth of carry
forward balances in this account that can be used to offset the
appropriations requirement (-$9,089,000); a decrease in the projected
number of juror days (-$669,000); and an increase for inflation
($453,000).
court security
For the Court Security program, an appropriation of $228,433,000 is
required, which is an increase of $29,297,000 above the fiscal year
2001 available appropriation. Over 90 percent of the requested increase
($27,174,000) is for adjustments to base including: an increase for
standard pay, benefit and contractual services inflation ($9,168,000);
an increase to annualize the costs for 72 new court security officers
(CSOs) partially funded in fiscal year 2001 ($1,684,000); an increase
to provide a security presence in new and renovated courthouse space
being delivered during fiscal year 2002 ($4,667,000); and an increase
for the cyclical replacement of security systems and equipment
($11,655,000).
The remaining increase of $2,123,000 will improve communications
systems in buildings with inadequate capabilities and fund security
systems in probation and pretrial services offices to meet current U.S.
Court Design Guide requirements.
______

Prepared Statement of Leonidas Ralph Mecham, Director, Administrative
Office of the U.S. Courts
introduction
Chairman Gregg and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for
giving me the opportunity to testify before you on the fiscal year 2002
budget request for the Administrative Office of the United States
Courts (AO). I am also pleased to continue to work with you and your
dedicated staff.
role of the administrative office
The AO serves as the central support agency for the administration
of the federal court system. The AO was created in 1939 in response to
the separation of powers concerns that were raised by the Department of
Justice being responsible for the judiciary's administrative needs.
Over sixty years later, judicial independence and exemplary service to
the courts continue to be the guiding principles that govern and
influence AO operations.
The AO plays a key role in the administration of justice and
management of change in the courts. It supports the Judicial Conference
of the United States and its 24 committees in determining and
implementing judiciary policies; develops new methods, systems, and
programs for conducting the business of the federal courts efficiently
and effectively; assists the courts in implementing better practices;
develops and supports new innovative technologies that enhance the
operations of the courts; collects and analyzes statistics on the
business of the federal courts for planning and determining the
judiciary's resource needs; provides financial management services;
provides personnel and payroll support for 32,000 judiciary employees;
conducts audits; and has implemented a strong internal controls program
designed to safeguard against fraud, waste, and abuse.
The work of all of the AO's employees supports the judges and court
staff across the country and ensures that the judicial machine runs
smoothly. In a period of resource constraints, and as the activity of
the federal courts continues to grow in both size and complexity, the
AO will continue to strive for administrative excellence through
ingenuity, commitment, and innovation.
program assessments
Another important leadership role the AO plays is in conducting
management studies. These studies, performed with outside independent
contractors, are aimed at improving court operations in major judiciary
programs. (1) An assessment of the effectiveness and efficiency of the
judiciary's space and facilities program was recently completed. The
study recognizes that the judiciary has an effective long-range
planning process which yields good projections for space planning
needs. The study also offers several technical and process refinements
to the long-range planning process. (2) A study of the judiciary's
information technology program has also recently been completed. This
study found that the judiciary is making effective use of information
technology and that its investment in information technology, both
equipment and human resources, is significantly below federal
government benchmarks given our complex information environment. The
study also provided seven strategic recommendations designed to help
the judiciary continue seeking and capitalizing on technology
improvement opportunities. All the recommendations are already at some
stage of being implemented. (3) Assessments of the court security and
probation and pretrial services program are currently being conducted.
administrative office budget request
The AO's appropriation request for fiscal year 2002 is $63,029,000,
which is an increase of $4,817,000 or 8.3 percent above the available
fiscal year 2001 AO appropriation. Eighty-five percent of the increase
or $4,124,000 is necessary to fund uncontrollable adjustments to base
for standard pay, benefit and inflationary increases. The remaining
small increase of $693,000 will be used to improve the AO's
programmatic oversight and support of court activities and improve the
operations of core financial and automated systems.
Included in this request is funding for only four additional full-
time equivalents. These additional AO staff will be devoted to
providing technical support to probation and pretrial services and
court administration programs with their 22,000 staff, and to
developing major automated systems which support the administrative
functions discussed above. These staff will focus on conducting program
and efficiency reviews; developing new case management programs and
systems; and improving financial management and contracting procedures
and regulations. These additional FTE will bring funded AO staffing
levels back up to where they were in fiscal year 1996. While the AO
could effectively use many more staff, the request is for a minimal
increase.
Also included in the request is a $313,000 increase to fund
necessary automation equipment and services. Due to funding constraints
since fiscal year 2000, the AO has not been able to meet fully its
requirements for equipment and services. This additional $313,000 will
improve the operations of core AO financial and automation systems,
including the Central Accounting System and the AO data communications
network. Without these additional funds, we will not be able to restore
reductions made in fiscal year 2000 to the basic level of automation
service necessary at the AO, including user assistance, software, and
infrastructure support for the entire judiciary. Given the dependence
on personal computers and the data communications network to conduct AO
business and provide essential support to the courts, it is crucial
that funds be provided for replacement of essential equipment and
software to keep the AO's inventory functional and up-to-date.
model of efficiency
This budget request demonstrates the AO's commitment to being a
model of efficiency within the federal government. As an administrative
support organization whose workload is largely driven by the size and
workload of the courts it supports, the AO's growth over the past
several years has not kept up with the growth experienced in the
courts. Between fiscal years 1996 and 2002, the courts are projected to
experience a 15 percent growth in funded staff, increasing the AO's
workload substantially, while the AO's total staffing levels remain
unchanged. Comparing the AO's budget to that of the Department of
Justice's ``Management and Administration'' activities is further
evidence of the AO's leanness. The appropriation for the AO is only 1.6
percent of the judiciary's total appropriation, while the Department of
Justice's ``Management and Administration'' activities comprise 5.4
percent of the Department's total appropriation for fiscal year 2000.
accomplishments and challenges for the future
The federal judiciary accomplishes its constitutional mission with
only two-tenths of one percent of the federal government's budget, and
the AO accomplishes its mission with less than two percent of the
judiciary's appropriations. However, we recognize the fiscal
constraints facing the Congress in the appropriations process and the
necessity to use our small portion of the federal budget efficiently
and economically. In order to achieve this, the AO is tasked with
developing new systems, programs, and policies that will allow the
courts to continue to provide, and in many cases improve, the quality
of services provided to the bench, bar and the public as workload
continues to increase. This is a daunting task on which our dedicated
staff works very hard every day. I would like to take a few minutes to
describe some of our accomplishments, as well as some ongoing
activities and challenges that face the federal judiciary and the AO in
fiscal year 2002. Additional examples can be found in The Optimal
Utilization of Judicial Resources report submitted to the subcommittee
in February.
Management of Court Facilities
Due to the nature of its work, the judiciary is a space intensive
organization whose mission requires that we be available to the entire
population of the United States. The judiciary has operations in over
760 separate facilities across the country. These include
accommodations for probation and pretrial services offices and court
support functions as well as courthouses. Many buildings housing the
judiciary are aging. The judiciary is currently housed in about 225
buildings that are over 50 years old. Even where the structures remain
serviceable, the architecture of that time did not envision the
security and technological needs of today.
The AO, along with the Judicial Conference and GSA, has
aggressively worked to develop policies to minimize the amount of space
required and the costs associated with it. This task is very
challenging given the judiciary's need for additional space to
accommodate workload growth and the need to replace aging and outdated
space. This work has resulted in the U.S. Courts Design Guide which is
used to standardize new space acquired by the judiciary. The AO has
also played an integral role in the development of a rigorous long-
range facilities planning process that is used to estimate the courts'
space needs. This long-range planning process received the General
Services Administration's (GSA) Annual Achievement Award for Real
Property Innovation in 1998. In a January 2001 report titled, Federal
Judiciary Space: Update on Improvements of the Long-Range Planning
Process, the General Accounting Office (GAO) praised recent
improvements the judiciary has made to the long-range planning process.
While the judiciary's space requirements continue to grow, the AO
remains committed to developing and implementing policies that both
provide the courts with the space they require to complete their
mission and minimize the costs associated with operating this space.
Investment in and Recruitment of Skilled Personnel
In a January 2001 report titled High Risk Series--An Update, the
General Accounting Office (GAO) cites a key challenge facing the
federal government as ``Acquiring and developing staff whose size,
skills and deployment meet agency needs.'' The report goes on to state
that ``human capital shortfalls are eroding the ability of many
agencies and threatening the ability of others to effectively,
efficiently, and economically perform their missions''. Although the
judiciary was not included in this study, its findings are directly
pertinent to the judiciary, in fact the judiciary's challenges are even
greater than that of the Executive Branch's. While the judiciary faces
the prospect of losing 40 percent of its employees to retirement over
the next five years, we have additional recruitment issues, such as the
recruitment of law enforcement personnel along the southwest border.
In order to address this problem, the AO has implemented several
programs to enhance the courts' ability to hire and retain skilled
employees. Examples of these programs include an employee-pay-all long-
term care insurance program, and a flexible benefit program which
allows employees to pay for certain medical care, dependent care, and
commuter expenses on a pre-tax basis. Recognizing these as innovative
new programs, the Congress is now considering or has approved some of
these benefit programs for the Executive Branch. For example, Executive
Branch employees are authorized to pay for health insurance premiums on
a pre-tax basis and long-term care insurance will be available to
federal employees in October 2001. The AO is continuing to research
potential recruitment and retention programs that address problems such
as retaining information technology staff and recruiting law clerks.
Another program the AO has implemented that enhances court
managers' ability to manage their staffing needs is the Court Personnel
System. This initiative provides court managers with increased
flexibility to structure their workforce efficiently by decentralizing
decision-making authority from Washington to the local level. For
example, given an individual court's circumstances, local court
managers have the authority to determine how many information
technology staff are required to effectively operate their court's
business within its funding allocation.
The AO, in support of the Judicial Conference, will continue to be
a leader in the federal government in the development of innovative
programs that enhance the courts' ability to hire and retain skilled
staff.
Automated Systems and Technology Advances
Under the guidance of the Judicial Conference Committee on
Automation and Technology, the AO continues to study and invest in
technological innovation to enhance the quality and efficiency of court
proceedings, to improve the services to the bar and public, and to
reduce costs. The AO has an ambitious automation program underway, with
several major projects in various stages of development and
implementation. While all of these projects enhance court operations,
they will also require a sustained commitment from the AO over the next
several years to complete their design, install them in the courts, and
train and support court users on an ongoing basis. A few examples of
the automation programs managed by the AO include:
Videoconferencing.--To date, there are 200 federal court sites
equipped with videoconferencing capabilities. The courts are using this
equipment to conduct a variety of court proceedings including pretrial,
civil and criminal proceedings, prisoner matters, sentencing,
settlement conferences, witness appearances in trials, arraignments,
bankruptcy hearings, and appellate oral arguments. The courts are also
using this technology for administrative meetings, conferences and
training seminars.
Case Management and Electronic Case Files (CM/ECF).--This new
system will provide the courts with a new more efficient case
processing application that will allow court staff to focus their
effort on ensuring more effective case management practices. The CM/ECF
system will also include electronic case filing capabilities (which
will be implemented at the individual court's discretion) allowing
judges, court staff, attorneys and others to send and retrieve case
documents over the Internet without leaving their desks. A version of
these applications is already installed in 14 bankruptcy courts and
seven district courts. Other federal agencies and state courts have
been following our progress on this system and, seeing our work, are
beginning to explore how they might adapt such a concept to their
operations.
While providing substantial qualitative and quantitative benefits
to the courts, this system is consuming a substantial amount of AO
staffing resources in the development, testing, installation, and
training of court users.
Electronic Bankruptcy Noticing.--This system operates like a
sophisticated e-mail system by transmitting bankruptcy notices
electronically and eliminating the production and mailing of papers.
Internet e-mail and fax options make this program accessible to
virtually the entire bankruptcy community.
Federal Judiciary Television Network (FJTN).--In fiscal year 2000,
the judiciary completed implementation of the FJTN, a satellite-based
distance learning network. Each day the network provides more than
eight hours of educational and training broadcasts to over 285
locations throughout the judiciary. The programs provide information on
a wide range of issues such as supervising offenders and defendants,
the law clerk appointment process, and statistical reporting
procedures. The FJTN, along with other distance learning techniques
such as videoconferencing, videotapes and computer-based training,
allows the AO, the Federal Judicial Center and the U.S. Sentencing
Commission to deliver high-quality training and instruction to a larger
audience at reduced costs compared to traditional classroom
instruction.
Federal Law Clerk Information System.--This Internet-based
application implemented by the AO allows judges to post law clerk
position announcements nation-wide and to monitor the availability of
applicants. It also provides law school graduates the ability to locate
opportunities to clerk for a federal judge using a nation-wide database
instead of contacting individual judges.
Core Administrative Systems.--The AO is in the process of
modernizing many of the courts' core administrative systems including
the financial accounting system, the personnel management system, the
jury management system, and the Criminal Justice Act panel attorney
payment system. These new systems are designed to improve the
management of information, the tracking of resources, and the decision-
making processes of the courts. While these new administrative systems
are desperately needed by the courts, their successful implementation
is dependent partially on the level of support and training provided by
the AO during each system's implementation. The AO needs adequate
funding to ensure the courts get the support and training required.
Expansion of the Rule of Law and the Administration of Justice
Throughout the World
The AO supports the Judicial Conference Committee on International
Judicial Relations in coordinating the Third Branch's relationship with
foreign judiciaries and organizations involved in international
judicial relations, the expansion of the rule of law, and the
administration of justice. Federal judges and AO staff provide
information, training and expertise on a wide range of subjects such
as: judicial independence and accountability, judicial ethics and
discipline, court administration, civil procedure, and the selection
and appointment of judges. Requests for assistance are made and funded
by institutions such as foreign judiciaries, the United States Agency
for International Development, the Department of State, and the World
Bank.
Last year the AO conducted briefings for 57 foreign delegations,
including 263 judges. A few examples of these programs include: a
program for judges and court officials from Tanzania on judicial ethics
and corruption; a program for judges from Russia on court
administration; a program for judges from China on judicial
administration and the use of automation and technology in the courts;
and a program for the newly established bankruptcy court in Thailand on
court administration. Last year, the federal judiciary also provided
case management assistance to the European Court of Human Rights.
Remote Supervision Technologies
In fiscal year 2001, the number of offenders under the supervision
of probation officers is projected to be 103,900 and the number of
defendants received for supervision by pretrial services officers is
projected to be 33,300. This total of 137,200 persons under supervision
is higher than the approximately 125,000 prisoners being house in
federal prisons. In certain circumstances, supervision of offenders and
defendants is a cost effective alternative to incarceration as the
daily cost of supervision in fiscal year 1999 was $7.74 compared to
$59.41 for the Bureau of Prisons.
While the number of persons under supervision is at an all-time
high and projected to continue to increase, the population of offenders
under supervision is changing from those on probation to persons
released from prison. Offenders released from prison typically pose a
higher risk to the public as they have difficulty transitioning from
prison to our communities, are more likely to require substance or
mental health treatment, and have committed more dangerous crimes.
In order to address these problems, the AO is assisting probation
and pretrial services offices in exploring the use of remote
supervision technologies to reduce the risk posed by certain defendants
and offenders. These include technologies to detect alcohol use
remotely, to use automated telephone systems to verify an offender's
location, and to employ global positioning satellite technologies to
provide real-time continuous tracking of high risk offenders. Remote
supervision technologies automate certain routine supervision tasks
which free officer time for other supervision activities and allow
probation and pretrial services offices to manage their growing
workload.
conclusion
Chairman Gregg, Senator Hollings and members of the subcommittee, I
hope I have met my goal of impressing upon you the integral role the AO
plays in the administration of justice as well as the effective and
efficient management of the resources this subcommittee provides the
Third Branch. I am proud of the achievements of the AO and am committed
to continue to improve the level of service the AO provides the courts
and the public. I ask for your support in achieving this goal by
providing the AO with the modest funding increase requested for fiscal
year 2002. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to be here today,
and I am available to answer any questions.
______

Prepared Statement of Hon. Fern M. Smith, Director, Federal Judicial
Center
Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee: My name is Fern Smith. I
have been a U.S. district judge since 1988 and director of the Federal
Judicial Center since 1999.
The Center is grateful for the 4.5 percent increase in our 2001
appropriation, our first current services appropriation since 1992.
This statement summarizes our 2002 request and, to put that request in
context, describes Center activities that serve our statutory mission:
``to further the development and adoption of improved judicial
administration'' through education and research. I have grouped those
activities under some major challenges facing the federal judicial
system: fair and efficient disposition of litigation; alternative
methods of resolving disputes; sentencing, offender supervision, and
prisoner litigation; science in the courtroom; responsibilities under
the codes of conduct; court management; implementing technological
change; and globalization of commerce and crime; rule of law assistance
to emerging democracies.
2002 request
The requested 2002 appropriation of $20,323,000 is based on our
recurring assessment of judge and staff educational needs as revealed
by our advisory committees and surveys, and by actions of Congress, the
Judicial Conference, and the Sentencing Commission. Our research
program is structured primarily by requests from committees of the
Judicial Conference. Research projects often provide the bases for our
educational programs.
Basically, we seek in 2002 to increase our non-travel educational
services to meet the growing demand for them while maintaining our
education seminars, albeit at the reduced levels required by our
appropriations. In all cases, our objective is to provide federal
courts practical, job-related education that reflects competing,
legitimate approaches to particular problems.
The Center's statutory Board, which the Chief Justice chairs,
unanimously approved the request before you today. It represents an 8.5
percent increase, providing adjustments to base and ten automation and
video positions. The request is consistent with the Center's long-term
trend toward greater use of distance--education education that does not
require travel. Over 90 percent of those who used the Center's
educational services last year did so through distance education, or
``e-learning'' as some now say.
Last year, at the request of the Chairman of the House Commerce,
Justice, State and the Judiciary Appropriations Subcommittee the Center
and the Administrative Office provided a paper documenting the judicial
branch's use of technology. The following chart from that
paper illustrates the Center's increasing use of e-learning. deg.
Participants in FJC Seminars, and in Programs Using Distance Education,
by Year
As explained in that paper, educational technologies include:
--The Federal Judicial Television Network (FJTN) created in 1998 to
transmit education and information by satellite to over 300
federal court sites where the Administrative Office has
installed downlinks. The first results of a statistical method
we created to measure FJTN viewership suggest that viewership
of FJC broadcasts may be as much as 80 percent larger than
informal estimates that were based on 1999 data.
--Two-way videoconferencing for training that involves only a few
locations.
--Web-based education--our internal judicial branch Web-site provides
interactive tutorials, online seminars and workshops, and
exchanges where court-training specialists throughout the
country can pose questions to trainers who have dealt with
particular problems, view other courts' training databases, and
obtain electronic copies of resource materials.
--Curriculum packages for in-court use--the Center has prepared over
50 specialized training packages for court managers to adapt
for their own training needs for example, teaching probation
officers to conduct financial investigations. These packages
have instructional guides, outlines, overhead transparencies,
and in some cases, video supplements.
In calendar 2000, excluding FJTN viewership, the 632 educational
programs sponsored by the Center or using Center materials had 23,419
participants. Of those programs, 590 programs, with 20,351
participants, were distance education programs. In addition, we
estimate that our FJTN programs had almost 30,000 viewers.
Since 1992, the Center's FTEs have declined by 16. The Center's
appropriation was $18,895,000 in 1992 and is $18,736,000 in 2001, a
decrease in current services dollars of more than $7,000,000.
Meanwhile, the number of judges and court employees has grown, and the
range and complexity of issues they deal with have expanded. A greater
variety of educational technologies has helped us deal with increased
educational requirements with a smaller staff and appropriation, but
these technologies require skilled employees to support them. The
requested program increase for 2002 is for ten additional positions to
support our video and Web-based education.
Five of the additional positions are for our video staff, to allow
us to update our educational programs on videocassettes and to meet
demands for additional videos, while continuing to manage the FJTN as
well as expand it to provide a full day's broadcast schedule for courts
in the western time zones. The FJTN's creation has significantly
expanded our workload, but we have been able to add only one-and-a-half
positions to our video staff by internal reallocations. The current
staff manages the network for Center broadcasts (including those we
produce with the Sentencing Commission) and for Administrative Office
broadcasts. This entails producing live studio programs, operating the
technology to transmit over 1,880 hours of annual programming to the
satellite uplink, and producing the monthly broadcast schedule for use
by federal courts across the country. Our video staff also designs,
films, and edits educational videos that are used in some FJTN
broadcasts, in our judicial orientation programs, and by courts around
the country in local education programs. We have a growing backlog of
needs. Many of the educational videos we use need to be replaced--some
are over ten years old.
The other five positions will let us expand the online computer
conferences we provide the courts, place more interactive training and
reference tools on our Web site, convert onto the Web our training
tutorials now on CD-ROM and computer disc, and develop online
inventory, ordering, and distribution services for Center educational
publications and videocassettes. We also want to use our Web site to
facilitate collaborative research, such as a site we have been asked to
set up to facilitate collaboration by expert witnesses in analyzing
proposed rule changes to accommodate electronic discovery. Additional
technological personnel will not only help increase service to the
courts over our Web site on the judicial branch intranet, but will
increase service to the public over our Internet site by making our
research products and appropriate educational programs available to
wider audiences.
center services and activities
We use a variety of methods and technologies to deliver education
and information to the judicial branch. These include, in addition to
the e-learning methods described above, in-person seminars and both
electronic and print publications. Our curriculum packages, as well as
our publications and satellite broadcasts, enable the courts to tailor
educational programs developed at the national level to meet local
needs.
Fair and efficient disposition of litigation
Center education programs stress the judge's responsibility to
dispose of cases fairly, quickly, and inexpensively. This is the major
theme of the initial orientation seminars for newly appointed judges,
although the videos we use in these programs are increasingly dated.
We also stress case management in our continuing education
seminars, which provide vehicles for judges from different courts to
compare effective techniques and procedures. We also use distance
learning tools when they can be effective. For example, we have in
place contingency plans to use the FJTN and our cycle of continuing
education seminars to explain to bankruptcy judges and clerks new
responsibilities created by the bankruptcy legislation now under
consideration.
Other Center products provide judges with ready sources of advice
on particular aspects of case management and legal trends. Examples
include the following manuals and desk references:
--Manual on Recurring Problems in Criminal Trials (4th ed., in
revision);
--Benchbook for U.S. District Court Judges (4th ed., rev. 2000);
--Manual for Litigation Management and Cost and Delay Reduction
(1992)--the basis for the revised manual approved this year by
the Judicial Conference in compliance with the Civil Litigation
Reform Act;
--Manual for Complex Litigation, Fourth (in production);
--Case Studies of Mass Tort Limited Fund Class Action Settlements &
Bankruptcy Reorganizations (2000) and a forthcoming guide--both
deal with alternative approaches to the management of complex
mass tort litigation;
--The Use of Visiting Judges in the Federal District Courts: A Guide
for Judges & Court Personnel (2001)--to assist the process of
providing courts temporary assistance in managing their
dockets; and
--Case Management Procedures in the Federal Courts of Appeals
(2000)--to describe procedures and practices that courts of
appeals have used effectively.
FJTN broadcasts include the following:
--``New Amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and
Federal Rules of Evidence'' (in cooperation with the American
Law Institute-American Bar Association);
--``The Supreme Court Term in Review''--an annual broadcast to inform
judges and their law clerks of decisions that will affect the
litigation before them;
--``Bankruptcy Law Updates'' (released periodically); and
--numerous broadcasts for clerks' office staff.
The Center this year has begun a multiyear research project to
update the case weights used by the Judicial Conference for determining
judgeship needs.
Alternative methods of resolving disputes
The Alternative Dispute Resolution Act of 1998 directed district
courts to offer litigants alternatives to traditional litigation.
Center activities to implement the statute include:
--an FJTN broadcast soon after passage to inform the courts of the
statute's requirements, and a national seminar for ADR
administrators from all districts with specific instructions on
how administrators can meet their responsibilities under the
Act;
--recurring seminars to teach mediation skills to magistrate judges
and appellate conference attorneys; and
--Judicial Guide to Managing Cases in ADR (2001, in production) and
previous publications on federal court ADR, to advise the
courts on how to implement sound ADR programs and use them
effectively.
Sentencing, offender supervision, and prisoner litigation
Federal sentencing and offender supervision policies are shaped by
statutes, the sentencing guidelines, and case law. Center activities in
these areas include:
--periodic sentencing policy institutes, in cooperation with the
Judicial Conference Committee on Criminal Law, the Sentencing
Commission, and the Bureau of Prisons;
--FJTN programs, including ``Charging and Sentencing after
Apprendi,'' about the case law applying the Supreme Court's
decision last June on permissible sentence enhancements; our
``Special Needs Offender'' series (monographs and FJTN
broadcasts about offenders whose supervision presents special
problems, including gang members, cyber-criminals, and white-
collar criminals); ``Recurring Issues in Federal Death Penalty
Cases,'' for judges assigned capital cases; and a series of
programs on application of the guidelines, produced in
cooperation with the Sentencing Commission;
--print and electronic publications, including Resource Guide on
Federal Capital Cases (2001), an online resource based on
experiences of judges in cases in which the Justice Department
sought the death penalty; Guideline Sentencing Update,
summarizing recent decisions interpreting the legislation and
guidelines; and Financial Investigation Desk Reference for
Probation and Pretrial Services Officers (Dec. 2000 ed.); and
--``Risk Prediction Index,'' a statistical instrument to help
probation officers predict an offender's risk of recidivism;
the Center has recently adapted it for pretrial uses.
We are presently unable to meet the need for biannual video and
Web-based scenarios to sharpen probation and pretrial services
officers' responses to defendant and offender incidents; safety skills
should be routinely honed so reactions are automatic. With additional
media staff we could develop federal court specific foreign language
video and audiotapes for officers and front-office staff.
Prisoner litigation challenging sentences and conditions of
confinement also make up substantial portions of some dockets and are
treated in Center seminars on Sec. 1983 litigation.
Science and statistics in the courtroom
The Chief Justice said in January, ``Federal judges today face
cases involving complicated statutes and factual assertions, many of
which straddle the intersections of law, technology, and the physical,
biological, and social sciences. FJC education programs and reference
guides help judges sort out relevant facts and applicable law from the
panoply of information with which the adversary system bombards them.
The FJC thus contributes to the independent decision making that is the
judge's fundamental duty.''
Center products to help federal judges exercise the responsibility
assigned them by the Supreme Court in assessing the suitability of
scientific and technical evidence include the following:
--Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence (2d ed. 2000), which has
been widely reprinted by private publishers;
--``Science in the Courtroom,'' a six-part FJTN series on such topics
as microbiology, DNA, and toxicology, analyzed in the context
of evidentiary hearings; and
--Center educational seminars for small groups of judges on basic
issues of science in litigation, the impact of new technologies
on intellectual property law, environmental law, and law and
the Internet.
A prime reason for which we seek to increase our automation staff
is to provide judges with online, interactive instructional tools to
help deal with complex evidence.
Responsibilities under the codes of conduct
Judges and court employees operate under a mix of statutory and
administrative rules to avoid conflicts of interest or their
appearance. The Center has stepped up its education in this area to
help ensure that all judges and employees understand these rules.
--Judicial ethics is a major topic at the Center's initial
orientation seminars. Only this year will we be able to replace
the instructional videos we have been using since 1991.
Judicial ethics has also been the subject of at least one
session at each of our general continuing judicial education
programs for the last three years.
--A curriculum program for in-court programs, now used by over 7,000
employees, that explains the code of conduct for federal court
employees.
--A one-hour segment of the Center's annual FJTN orientation for new
judicial law clerks uses a series of hypothetical cases to
alert clerks to their ethical obligations. Those hypotheticals
were produced in 1998 and will soon need updating.
Court management
Effective use of public resources is a challenge in all three
branches of government. The Center uses various means to help judges
(especially chief judges) and court managers apply sound management
principles and provide effective leadership. They include:
--Deskbook for Chief Judges of U.S. District Courts (2d ed., in
revision), which explains chief judges' formal and informal
obligations and lessons from private sector management
experience. Additional automation staff would help us place the
new edition online with links to relevant sources.
--We hope also to produce a video for new chief judges in which
experienced chief judges describe the challenges new ones are
likely to face.
Teaching management skills requires some personal interaction. The
Center provides:
--conferences for chief judges (annual for district chiefs, and
biennial for bankruptcy chiefs);
--seminars to help teams of chief judges and managers devise
strategies and implement strategic plans for effective
operations;
--biennial conferences for senior court managers;
--multiyear leadership development programs to develop mid-level
managers' leadership skills for current and senior management
positions; and
--management education modules for local training on such topics as
performance management and employee relations.
Implementing technological change
Projects to help manage the impact of technology on the judicial
process include:
--Effective Use of Courtroom Technology: A Judges Guide to Pretrial
and Trial (spring 2001, print and CD-ROM)--developed with the
nonpartisan National Institute of Trial Advocacy, it provides
guidance on the procedural, evidentiary, and substantive issues
that arise when a court is equipped with evidence display,
videoconferencing, and other technologies, or when lawyers
bring that equipment to the courtroom for a particular case. It
describes what the lawyers hope to accomplish with the
technology and analyzes the evidentiary objections opponents
are likely to raise and the considerations of fairness that
attend the various uses of technology.
--Electronic case-filing tutorials for the bar--the Center has
developed two prototype computer-based training courses for use
in district and bankruptcy courts that permit lawyers to file
cases electronically. Courts that are now using electronic
filing have adapted our tutorial as the teaching tool for
showing lawyers how to use the electronic filing system in
their courts.
--The cost of pretrial discovery is increasingly affected by
discoverable materials being stored in electronic formats,
including outmoded formats. The Center, anticipating the
growing impact of this problem on civil case management, began
studying it several years ago and now responds to bench and bar
groups' requests for advice on electronic discovery management,
cost reduction, and the appropriate use of computer experts;
sample discovery orders and protocols; and plain-English
explanations of the relevant technology.
Globalization of commerce and crime; rule of law assistance to emerging
democracies
About a third of federal judges at least occasionally face problems
in transnational litigation, such as service of process, discovery in
foreign countries, and disputes over choice of law or jurisdiction.
This type of litigation will increase. Services to help judges include:
--a monograph to be published this year on international insolvency,
and
--development of additional monographs on international law and
transnational legal topics, in cooperation with the American
Society for International Law.
Globalization has also led foreign judges and officials to turn to
the United States to learn about the effective administration of
justice. The Center, pursuant to a statutory mandate, provides
assistance to foreign visitors through briefings at its Washington
offices (last year for over 300 judges and officials from 40
countries). Center staff also provide occasional technical assistance
when consistent with our primary domestic obligations. For example:
--in cooperation with Puerto Rico's Interamerican Center for the
Administration of Justice, assisting Latin American judges,
prosecutors, and defenders to understand common-law criminal
procedures, which hemispheric countries are implementing to
increase accountability and reduce corruption;
--assisting India, Namibia, and Zambia to implement case-management
programs and alternatives to traditional procedures in order to
improve the resolution of legal disputes; and
--assisting the Russian Academy of Justice to develop as a
counterpart institution to the Federal Judicial Center.
Center education for federal court personnel on transnational
issues uses its appropriated funds. Its assistance to foreign
judiciaries, however, is funded by other government agencies and
private organizations.
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate this opportunity to describe the
Center's work and explain our budgetary needs for the next fiscal year.
We are proud of our ability to adapt technology to education and avoid,
for the last five years, requests for increased funds for travel. In
candor, I must tell you that we have probably reached the limits of our
ability to meet the growing needs of the courts without some additional
support for traditional educational methods. This year, however, we
again seek only to enhance our technological personnel.
I will be pleased to answer any questions you may have.
______

Prepared Statement of Diana E. Murphy, Chair, United States Sentencing
Commission
introduction
Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee, thank you for the
opportunity to submit a statement on behalf of the United States
Sentencing Commission's appropriation request for fiscal year 2002. The
Sentencing Commission was reborn when a full complement of seven voting
commissioners finally was appointed on November 15, 1999, and I am
pleased to serve as Chair of this important agency.
The Sentencing Commission is a small independent agency within the
judicial branch. Because of a very long period when there were no
commissioners, the agency's budget was dramatically cut and staff
levels dropped by approximately 20 percent. The effect of the
substantial cut in staff was not immediately felt because when there
were no commissioners to set an agenda or to vote on amendments, the
staff had uninterrupted time to work on background materials in
response to new criminal statutes and legislative directives to prepare
for the day when a Commission was again appointed. This work product
was then ready for the new Commission, and it included legislative
history reviews, sophisticated data analysis, extensive case law
research, and various policy options with intricate draft guideline
options for consideration. This background work enabled the new
Commission to accomplish much during its first amendment cycle ending
May 1, 2000.
Once the Commission embarked upon new work, however, it fully
experienced the inadequacy of the staffing level which had been cut by
one-fifth. We are simply unable to do the job Congress gave us in the
Sentencing Reform Act unless our staff is replenished towards its
earlier level. The Commission requests an appropriation of $12,400,000
for fiscal year 2002 to enable us to begin to restore staffing levels
necessary to carry out our statutory duties.
We look forward to strengthening our good working relationship with
Congress and others in the federal criminal justice community, and hope
that Congress will reaffirm its belief in the mission of the Commission
and its confidence in us by fully funding our request for fiscal year
2002. The Commission has begun to rebuild its policymaking function
envisioned by Congress under the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984.
During our tenure at the Commission, the agency has devoted most of
our resources toward clearing the backlog of legislative directives. We
have worked hard to make substantial progress, promulgating amendments
covering sexual offenses against children, intellectual property
infringement, identity theft, counterfeiting, money laundering, illegal
firearm sales and possession, immigration offenses, and methamphetamine
offenses, to name a few. We also have been updating several guidelines
and creating new guidelines to incorporate new federal criminal
offenses into the guidelines and to respond to the continuing flow of
new congressional directives on important matters such as human
trafficking, methamphetamine and amphetamine manufacturing, and ecstasy
trafficking.
Many of our varied constituents, including Congress, the executive
branch, and the Judicial Conference of the United States, have sought
our technical expertise and judgment about perceived guideline
problems. Areas of concern include the need to ensure that federal
prisons are being used to incapacitate adequately offenders with
extensive criminal histories and high recidivism rates rather than
first time, non-violent offenders; an examination of perceived
difficulties with totally quantity driven drug sentencings rather than
greater reliance on penalties based upon an offender's culpability and
role in the offense; a review of the sentencing guidelines in light of
the holding in New Jersey v. Apprendi, 120 S. Ct. 2348 (2000) (holding
that, other than the fact of a prior conviction, any fact that
increases a penalty for a crime above the statutory maximum must be
submitted to a jury and proved beyond a reasonable doubt); and an
analysis of mandatory minimum penalties in the federal system.
The agency has also experienced a surge in demand for sentencing
data, expert testimony, and training on guideline application. We
cannot meet the demands expressed here with current staff levels.
Therefore, the Commission's human resource needs necessarily have
increased.
resources requested
The Commission's budget request for fiscal year 2002 is
$12,400,000. We understand budget increases are generally hard to
justify, but the Commission continues to struggle from the budget
reductions made in the absence of voting commissioners that occurred
through fiscal year 2000. The agency's fiscal year 2000 funding was
lower than the average funding level over the last ten years, yet
demands on staff resources, including case filings, the number of
proposed guideline amendments, and training requests, have all
increased with the appointment of a full and active slate of
commissioners.
justification
Sentencing Reform Act Requirements
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: (a) to establish a national
guideline system for federal sentencing policies and practices; and (b)
to serve as an expert agency and leading authority on federal
sentencing matters.
In fulfilling these basic requirements, the Commission annually
issues a sentencing guidelines manual that delineates penalty levels
for all federal offenses. In addition to encompassing all federal
offenses, the guideline manual incorporates amendments approved by the
Commission for newly enacted crime legislation passed by Congress. The
guideline manual is used by prosecutors, defense counsel, and probation
officers in making sentencing recommendations to the court. Federal
district judges must use the guideline manual when imposing a sentence,
and it must also be relied upon by all federal appellate judges and the
justices of the United States Supreme Court when reviewing the imposed
penalties. Since the first manual went into effect on November 1, 1987,
over half a million defendants have been sentenced under the guideline
system.
In fulfilling the second component of its ongoing mission, i.e., to
serve as an expert agency and leading authority on federal sentencing
matters, the Commission was given continuing statutory responsibility
and authority in many areas, including--
--ensuring that sentencing policies and practices provide certainty
and fairness, that they avoid unwarranted sentencing
disparities while maintaining enough flexibility for
individualized sentences when those are warranted, and that
they reflect advancements in our knowledge of human behavior as
it relates to the criminal justice process;
--developing means to measure the effectiveness of sentencing, penal,
and correctional practices in meeting the purposes of
sentencing;
--monitoring the performance of probation officers regarding
sentencing recommendations, including application of the
guidelines;
--issuing instructions to probation officers concerning the
application of the guidelines;
--establishing a research and development program within the
Commission to serve as a clearinghouse and information center
for information on Federal sentencing practices;
--consulting with federal courts, departments, and agencies in
developing, maintaining, and coordinating sound sentencing
practices;
--systematically collecting data from studies, research, and the
empirical experience of public and private agencies concerning
the sentencing process;
--publishing data concerning the sentencing process;
--systematically collecting and disseminating information concerning
sentences actually imposed on more than 61,000 cases sentenced
in the Federal district courts each year (and on about 1,000
appellate decisions on sentencing) and the relationship of
those sentences to the factors judges are required to consider
under 18 U.S.C. Sec. 3553(a);
--systematically collecting and disseminating information regarding
the effectiveness of sentences imposed;
--conducting seminars and workshops around the country to provide
continuing studies for people engaged in the sentencing field;
--conducting periodic training programs for judicial and probation
personnel and other persons connected with the sentencing
process;
--making recommendations to Congress on changes that might be made to
statutes relating to sentencing, penal, and correctional
matters that would help to carry out effective, humane, and
rational sentencing policy;
--holding hearings and calling witnesses to assist the Commission in
the exercise of its powers and duties;
--recommending any changes in prison facilities that may be necessary
because of the sentencing guidelines; and
--performing any other functions necessary to permit federal courts
and others in the federal criminal justice system to meet their
responsibilities in the sentencing area.
Commissioners Face Critical Backlog of Legislation
The work of the Commission is generally determined by three
sources: (1) legislative directives by Congress contained in crime
legislation; (2) resolution of conflicting interpretations of
sentencing guidelines among the circuit courts of appeals; and (3)
internal priorities that are set by the commissioners following an
annual solicitation published in the Federal Register. Due to the
extended absence of voting commissioners, the current Commission faces
an ambitious policy agenda addressing the significant backlog of
legislation. These legislative matters cover a wide range of criminal
conduct of great concern to Congress and members of the federal
criminal justice system:
--Intellectual Property Offenses.--In response to a directive
contained in the No Electronic Theft (``NET'') Act of 1997, in
April 2000, the Commission promulgated a temporary emergency
amendment that was subsequently made permanent which made
comprehensive changes to the copyright and trademark
infringement guideline.
--Telemarketing Fraud.--In response to a directive contained in the
Telemarketing Fraud Prevention Act of 1998, in April 2000, the
Commission promulgated a permanent amendment that provides 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 action made a temporary emergency amendment a permanent
amendment to the guidelines.
--Telephone Cloning.--In response to a directive contained in the
Wireless Telephone Protection Act of 1998, in April 2000, the
Commission promulgated an amendment to the fraud guideline that
provides an appropriate sentencing enhancement for these
offenses.
--Identity Theft.--In response to a directive contained in the
Identity Theft and Assumption Deterrence Act of 1998, in April
2000, the Commission promulgated an amendment to the fraud
guideline that provides an appropriate sentencing enhancement
for violations of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1028 (relating to fraud in
connection with identification documents).
--Methamphetamine and Amphetamine Trafficking.--In response to the
Methamphetamine Trafficking Penalty Enhancement Act of 1998,
which reduced by one-half the quantity of methamphetamine
required to trigger various mandatory minimum sentences in the
drug statutes, in April 2000, the Commission promulgated an
amendment to the guidelines' drug quantity table that accounts
for these increased mandatory minimum penalties. In response to
an emergency directive in the Methamphetamine Anti-
Proliferation Act of 2000, in December 2000, the Commission
amended the drug guidelines to provide significant sentencing
enhancements for methamphetamine and amphetamine manufacturing
that creates a substantial risk of harm to human life, the
environment, minors, and incompetents. In February 2001, in
response to another emergency directive in the Act, the
Commission voted to increase the penalties for amphetamine
offenses such that they are identical to the penalties for
methamphetamine offenses. Also in response to an emergency
directive contained in the Act, the Commission is considering
options for increasing the penalties for offenses involving
certain precursors of methamphetamine.
--Human Trafficking.--In response to an emergency directive contained
in the Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act of
2000, in February 2001, the Commission voted to amend the
guidelines applicable to peonage, involuntary servitude, slave
trade offenses, and possession, transfer, and sale of false
immigration documents in furtherance of such trafficking, and
the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Migrant and Seasonal
Agricultural Worker Protection Act to reflect the heinous
nature of these offenses. The amendment accounts for new
offenses and increased statutory maxima created by the Act.
--Protection of Children.--In response to a directive contained in
the Protection of Children from Sexual Predators Act of 1998,
in April 2000, the Commission amended the guidelines pertaining
to certain sexual abuse offenses and distribution of child
pornography that, among other things, provides enhancements for
use of a computer in connection with a sexual abuse offense
against a minor and misrepresentation of an offender's identity
in connection with such an offense. The Commission currently is
considering additional changes to these guidelines to provide
increased penalties for violations of chapter 117 of title 18
and for sexual offenses against children that involve a pattern
of activity.
--Firearms Offenses.--In response to Public Law 105-386, which
amended 18 U.S.C. Sec. 924(c) to create a tiered system of
mandatory minimums and presumed maxima in cases in which a
firearm is involved in a crime of violence or drug trafficking
offense, in April 2000, the Commission promulgated an amendment
which incorporated the new tiered sentencing scheme into the
guideline pertaining to violations of section 924(c). In
addition, the Commission currently is considering options for
addressing a recommendation by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco
and Firearms to provide increased penalties for offenses
involving more than 100 firearms.
--Ecstasy.--In response to an emergency directive contained in the
Ecstasy Anti-Proliferation Act of 2000, the Commission
currently is considering options for increasing the penalties
for the manufacture, importation, or trafficking of ecstasy and
other ``club drugs'' so that they are comparable to penalties
for other drugs of abuse.
--Stalking.--In response to a directive contained in the Victims of
Trafficking and Violence Act of 2000, the Commission currently
is considering options for increasing penalties for certain
stalking and domestic violence offenses.
--College Scholarship Fraud.--In response to a directive contained in
the College Scholarship Fraud Prevention Act of 2000, the
Commission is considering options for providing enhanced
penalties for offenses involving fraud or misrepresentation in
connection with the obtaining or providing of information to
consumers regarding college scholarships, loans, and grants.
--Nuclear, Biological, and Chemical Weapons.--In response to the
Chemical Weapons Implementation Act of 1998, and a sense of
Congress expressed in the National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 1997, the Commission currently is considering
options to provide increased penalties for offenses involving
the importing and exporting of nuclear, biological, and
chemical weapons.
Commissioners Face Large Number of Circuit Conflicts
In addition to sentencing related legislation and other policy
initiatives, the Commission has identified a large number of
conflicts--over 40--among the United States Circuit Courts of Appeal
regarding interpretation of the guidelines accrued during the absence
of voting commissioners. In Braxton v. United States, 500 U.S. 344
(1991), the United States Supreme Court unanimously acknowledged that
the Commission has the initial and primary task of eliminating
conflicts among the circuit courts with respect to statutory
interpretation of the guidelines.
Of course, the Commission cannot resolve all of these conflicts in
one or two years, but the Commission has made substantial progress in
reducing the number of outstanding circuit conflicts. In April 2000,
the Commission promulgated amendments that resolved five circuit
conflicts regarding (i) the circumstances for which a court may
downward depart from the sentencing guideline range for aberrant
behavior; (ii) whether the enhanced penalties in Sec. 2D1.2 (Drug
Offenses Occurring Near Protected Locations or Involving Underage or
Pregnant Individuals) apply only when the defendant is convicted of an
offense referenced in that guideline or, alternatively, whenever a
defendant's relevant conduct included drug sales in a protected
location or involving a protected individual; (iii) whether the
enhancement in the fraud guideline for violation of a judicial or
administrative order, injunction, decree, or process applies to falsely
completing bankruptcy schedules and forms; (iv) whether sentencing
courts may consider post-conviction rehabilitation while in prison or
on probation as a basis for downward departure at resentencing
following an appeal; and (v) whether a court can base an upward
departure on conduct that was dismissed or uncharged as part of a plea
agreement.
Several of the proposed amendments discussed above, if enacted,
will resolve a number of additional circuit conflicts. Apart from those
amendments, the Commission also is considering options for resolving
circuit conflicts relating to: (i) whether admissions made by the
defendant during his guilty plea hearing, without more, can be
considered ``stipulations'' for purposes of Sec. 1B1.2(a); (ii) whether
the four-level enhancement in the aggravated assault guideline for use
of a dangerous weapon during an aggravated assault is impermissible
double counting in a case in which the weapon that was used was a non-
inherently dangerous weapon; (iii) whether the enhancement in the fraud
guideline for misrepresentation that the defendant was acting on behalf
of a charitable, educational, religious, or political organization, or
a governmental agency applies to a defendant who does work on behalf of
such an entity, but illegally diverts all or part of the benefits; and
(iv) whether a reduction for mitigating role is precluded in the case
of a single defendant drug courier if the defendant's base offense
level is properly determined solely by the quantity personally handled
by the defendant.
Commissioners Address Long-Standing Policy Issues
The Commission also has worked hard to address certain policy
initiatives that at different points in time have been supported by
various constituents, including the Department of Justice and the
Committee on Criminal Law of the United States Judicial Conference.
However, because of the absence of voting commissioners and subsequent
lack of resources, these initiatives could not be completed.
--Economic Crime Guidelines.--The Commission currently is considering
a comprehensive reassessment of the guidelines pertaining to
economic crimes. Economic offenses account for more than a
quarter of all the cases sentenced in the United States federal
district courts. The Commission has received from the Federal
Judiciary and the Department of Justice testimony and survey
results that indicate that the sentences for these offenses are
inadequate to punish appropriately defendants in cases in which
the monetary loss was substantial. After a number of years of
data collection, analyses, public comment, and public hearings,
the Commission developed a comprehensive ``economic crime
package'' designed to revise the loss tables for fraud, theft,
and tax offenses in order to impose higher sentences for
offenses involving moderate and large monetary losses. Related
amendments would consolidate the theft, fraud, and property
destruction guidelines and clarify the definition of loss for
selected economic crimes. Our work in this area has been
extensive. 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 the new
definition to actual cases. The results generally were
favorable, with more than 80 percent of the judges preferring
the results obtained with the proposed loss definition over the
current definition. In addition, in October 2000, the
Commission sponsored a two-day National Symposium on Federal
Sentencing Policy for Economic Crimes and New Technology
Offenses at the George Mason University School of Law. The
symposium was attended by approximately 150 judges,
prosecutors, defense attorneys, and academicians and provided
valuable input on the proposed package that the Commission
currently is considering as it deliberates on the package.
--Money Laundering.--Closely related to the economic crimes package,
the Commission has been working with the Department of Justice
to develop a revision to the money laundering guidelines that
would more accurately capture the seriousness of the money
laundering offense conduct. The Commission is considering a
guideline structure that would tie more closely the penalties
for money laundering to the penalties for the underlying
offense that generated the criminally derived proceeds and
would provide appropriate sentencing enhancements for
aggravating money laundering conduct.
--Counterfeiting.--In response to recommendations from the Department
of Treasury, in February 2000, the Commission voted to provide
increased penalties for (1) manufacturers of large amounts of
counterfeit currency and (2) offenders who possess
counterfeiting paper similar to the distinctive paper used by
the United States, or a feature or devise essentially identical
to a distinctive counterfeit deterrent used by the United
States. This amendment to the counterfeiting guideline
addresses recent changes in how counterfeit currency is
produced. Previously, defendants operated expensive printing
presses and manufactured large amounts of counterfeit currency
at one time. Consequently, when these offenders were arrested
they typically were caught with large inventories of
counterfeit currency, which would result in increased
penalties. Because of the advent of new and inexpensive
technology, such as laser printers, and the availability of
illegal copies of currency on the Internet, offenders now
generally print counterfeit currency on an ``as needed'' basis,
with no substantial accumulation of inventory. Thus, an
alternative mechanism to achieve increased sentences was needed
for this class of offenders.
--Safety Valve.--In order to ensure that federal prison space is used
to punish serious offenders, the Commission is considering an
amendment that would expand the applicability of the two-level
reduction for non-violent, first time drug offenders who meet
the safety valve criteria set forth at 18 U.S.C.
Sec. 3553(f)(1)-(5) to defendants who currently receive a
sentence below five years.
Restoration of Personnel Needed to Meet Other Statutory Duties
While the commissioners continue to work to reduce the backlog of
unimplemented crime legislation, the human resource needs of the agency
will increase as the routine annual amendment cycle is reestablished,
new policy initiatives are identified by the reconstituted Commission,
and new crime legislation is enacted by Congress. In order to become a
fully functional agency that performs all of its statutory functions in
an exemplary manner, a restoration of personnel is necessary,
particularly in the following areas:
Commission Contending with Sharp Increase in Caseload
The Commission maintains a comprehensive, computerized data
collection system which forms the basis for its clearinghouse of
federal sentencing information. This comprehensive database is the
basis for the Commission's monitoring and evaluation of guidelines
application, for many of its research projects, and for responding to
the hundreds of data requests received from Congress and other criminal
justice entities each year.
In fiscal year 2000, the Commission received court documents for
more than 61,000 cases sentenced under the Sentencing Reform Act
between October 1, 1999, and September 30, 2000. However, the number of
data entry employees are only one-third the number when there were far
fewer cases. The organizational structure and physical facilities were
set in place for 40,000 cases per year.
For each case received, the Commission extracts and enters into its
comprehensive database more than 260 pieces of information, including
case identifiers, sentence imposed, demographic information, statutory
information, the complete range of court guideline application
decisions, and departure information. This data is vital to the
Commission's deliberations when modifying the guidelines to timely
adjust federal sentencing policy. For example, the Commission was able
to detect a surge in activity regarding the new designer drug, MDMA (a/
k/a Ecstacy) and are now re-calibrating the guidelines to deter use of
this illegal substance. By having the source documents on sentencing,
and relying on expert testimony gathered in briefing sessions, public
hearings and meetings, we were able to capture the harms associated
with this new drug and increase penalties to reflect the seriousness of
this offense. Yet due to staff vacancies, the Commission has a backlog
of 20,000 cases that must be processed. Unless additional staff are
hired, the Commission will be unable to code data on each case
sentenced under the guidelines and will be forced to rely on less
reliable statistical sampling to guide its sentencing policy
development and to advise Congress on crime policy.
Research and Information Dissemination
The Commission continues to advance its statutorily directed
research and information dissemination through presentations of
analyses at numerous sentencing policy symposia, including the annual
meeting of the American Society of Criminology and the annual National
White Collar Crime Summit. In fiscal year 2001, Commission staff made
presentations on sentencing policy for sex offenders, important factors
to consider when conducting disparity research, sentencing increases
for alien smuggling, sentencing white collar crime offenses, and
sentencing organizations.
As noted above, the Commission also held a two-day National
Symposium on Federal Sentencing Policy for Economic Crimes and New
Technology Offenses. As ease and availability of new technology changes
how traditional crimes are committed and gives rise to new crimes, the
Commission has found that greater sophistication in sentencing policy
is required. In order to more fully inform the Commission in this area,
the agency gathered the country's leading experts to discuss sentencing
issues, including computer hacking and planting of program viruses,
intellectual property and copyright infringement, consumer fraud via
the Internet, securities fraud, and day trading fraud.
The agency annually publishes an updated Guidelines Manual and an
Annual Report and accompanying Sourcebook of Federal Sentencing
Statistics, which contains in-depth statistical charts, tables, and
analyses on sentencing pattern and practices gathered from the agency's
extensive database. The Commission also publishes an annual Guide to
Publications and Resources and continues to add a variety of
publications and sentencing data to its award winning Internet web
site.
An important part of the Commission's research agenda for fiscal
year 2002 is to conduct a focused review of the guidelines and a study
of recidivism. By fiscal year 2002, the guidelines will have been in
place for 15 years and have been used to sentence over a half a million
defendants. Following its statutory directive to monitor the guidelines
to insure that they are meeting the purposes of sentencing required by
Congress, the Commission is undertaking this valuable endeavor that
will require the agency to devote significant staff resources to it--
resources that currently we do not have.
The 15 year review, as well as other important research at the
Commission, is imperiled by a depletion of its research staff. During
this recent period of attrition, a significant portion of the
intermediate tier of researchers and all of the lower tier research
associates left the agency. Thus, the Commission requests funding to
rebuild its research staff so that we may continue to critically
analyze sentencing patterns and practices, respond to inquiries about
the effectiveness of sentencing policies, and thoroughly assess the
impact of proposed guideline amendments and new sentencing related
legislation.
Increased Training Needs for Larger Federal Criminal
Justice System
Over the last several years, as Congress has devoted increased
resources to law enforcement, the number of federal judges,
prosecutors, probation officers, and defense attorneys who require
training and assistance on how to use the guidelines has increased
accordingly. The Sentencing Reform Act requires the Commission to
provide guideline training, in part because training promotes
uniformity in guideline application and thereby reduces sentencing
disparity, both goals of the Act.
Commission staff provided training on the sentencing guidelines to
more than 2,500 individuals at approximately 50 training programs
across the country in 2000, including ongoing programs sponsored by the
Commission, the Federal Judicial Center, the Department of Justice, the
American Bar Association, and other criminal justice agencies. 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. To further
expand the availability and cost efficiency of training and information
sharing, the Commission has joined the Federal Judicial Center and the
Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts in launching a satellite
television network to provide cutting-edge programming on sentencing-
related issues. The Commission makes a regular contribution to a news
series for probation and pretrial services designed to update officers
on important information regarding the Commission and its activities.
However, if the Commission is not provided sufficient funding to
restore personnel in other areas of the agency, its quality of training
will suffer because its training staff may have to be utilized for more
pressing projects as they arise.
The organizational guidelines' approach to sentencing, which
mitigates fines when effective compliance programs lead to prompt self-
reporting and disclosure to the authorities, has spawned complementary
efforts by a number of regulatory and law enforcement authorities.
Executive agencies such as the Environmental Protection Agency, the
Department of Health and Human Services, and the Department of
Justice's Antitrust Division have developed, or are developing model
compliance programs, programs for self-reporting, and programs for
amnesty--all of which are modeled after some aspect of the
organizational sentencing guidelines. Industry and peer organizations
are forming to share ideas on ``best practices'' for compliance
training and ethics awareness.
As a result of its leadership in this area, Commissioners and staff
are regularly invited to share their expertise. For example, the
Commission and the Ethics Officer Association (EOA) in 2000 jointly
sponsored a series of day-long regional forums about implementing these
guidelines. The EOA is a non-profit peer organization comprising ethics
and compliance officer representatives of for-profit and non-profit
organizations. Its primary objective is to share ``best practices'' for
ethics and compliance programs among members through peer-to-peer
networking, library services, and educational efforts. In addition to
this, Commissioners and senior staff members have addressed national
and regional compliance organizations and responded to numerous
inquiries on the organizational sentencing guidelines and compliance
issues. Interest and inquiries come from governmental agencies,
corporations, industry coalitions, non-governmental organizations, and
academic institutions, both within the United States and overseas.
Increased Inquiries from Congress
With the appointment of a full complement of commissioners,
Congress once again is turning to the Commission for advice on
sentencing policy, a development that the Commission enthusiastically
welcomes. In the past few months alone, the Commission provided
testimony before the:
--House Governmental Reform Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug
Policy and Human Resources about drug sentencing trends,
mandatory minimums, and how these statutory penalties interact
with the federal sentencing guidelines. The testimony included
a great deal of data that we collected from our comprehensive
database and updated many statistics from an earlier special
report to Congress by the Commission on mandatory minimums. The
Subcommittee expressed an interest in hearing more from the
Commission about mandatory minimums.
--Senate Criminal Justice Oversight Subcommittee about the
Commission's overall agenda, pending amendments, particularly
our efforts on economic crimes, and extensive data involving
eight years of departure trends from the guideline system.
--Senate Caucus on International Drug Control about trends and
responses in Ecstasy availability and use.
In addition to these welcome hearings, 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.
With a full complement of new commissioners in place, the agency
expects its overall activity will intensify, and requests from Congress
and the public will greatly increase. As a result, the Commission needs
to improve its congressional liaison activities and seeks to obtain
additional staff for this effort.
summation
In sum, the Commission has worked very hard with limited resources
to address the significant backlog of crime legislation that await
implementation, long standing policy initiatives that need completion,
and circuit conflicts that require resolution. With the necessary
resources, the Commission expects to be well positioned by fiscal year
2002 to begin identifying important sentencing issues and embarking on
its own policy agenda. However, the Commissioners unanimously agree
that we cannot undertake a policy agenda of any real significance
without restoring our staff to appropriate levels. We are not
requesting a revision to the Commission's full time equivalency ceiling
of 108 employees. Rather, the Commission merely seeks the restoration
of funds so that we can fill some of the currently existing but vacant
positions. We simply cannot continue to operate at current capacity and
perform our many statutory obligations and fulfill our important role
in combating crime by maintaining an effective, certain, and fair
sentencing system.
______

Prepared Statement of Gregory W. Carman, Chief Judge, United States
Court of International Trade
Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee: Thank you for allowing me
this opportunity to submit this statement on behalf of the United
States Court of International Trade, which is a national trial-level
federal court established under Article III of the Constitution with
exclusive nationwide jurisdiction over civil actions pertaining to
matters arising out of the administration and enforcement of the
customs and international trade laws of the United States.
The Court's budget request for fiscal year 2002 is $13,112,000,
which is $637,000 or approximately 5.1 percent more than the available
appropriation of $12,475,000 for fiscal year 2001. The request will
enable the Court to maintain current services and provide funds for an
architectural analysis of the Court's interior and exterior
environment. I would like to specifically point out that almost 88
percent of the Court's overall requested increase is comprised of pay
and other standard inflationary adjustments to base.
The United States Court of International Trade Courthouse was built
over 35 years ago and is in need of repair and upgrades. To this end,
the Court is requesting, for the first time since fiscal year 1989, a
program increase of $75,000 for an architectural study of the
Courthouse that will address the shortcomings of the building in the
areas of security, health and overall operations of the Court and
recommend a course of corrective action, if necessary.
The Court's fiscal year 2002 request includes funds for
maintaining, supporting and continuing the implementation of its new
Case Management and Electronic Case Files System (CM/ECF) and the
related file tracking and scanning and indexing solutions.
Additionally, there are funds for maintaining and supporting several
ongoing projects, specifically: (1) a networked records management and
tracking system for all case records; (2) an online library automation
system that enables the Judges and Court staff to search electronically
for books and materials in the Court's Library collection; (3) the
replacement of the Court's obsolete phone system with one that enables
the Court to address its current and future telecommunication needs;
and (4) the replacement of certain furniture with new ergonomic designs
that will help to minimize the risk of injury to Court personnel. The
Court's fiscal year 2002 request also will support the Court's
continuing effort in education and training for the Judges and Court
staff that will enable the Court to better fulfill its mission. Lastly,
the fiscal year 2002 request also includes funds for the support and
maintenance of security system upgrades implemented by the Court in
fiscal years 1999 through 2001.
During fiscal year 2000, the Court, in accordance with its five-
year plan adopted in 1996, continued to design and implement projects
that support the Court's future needs and utilize technology to enhance
services to the Court family, the bar and the public. Several projects
in support of that plan are expected to be implemented and continued in
fiscal year 2002: (1) the replacement of older category 3 wire with
enhanced category 5 wire and the installation of additional data tap
runs for public access terminals; (2) the planning, design and
development of an Intranet that will enhance the sharing of information
among the Judges and staff and expand in-house training by utilizing
automation and technology; (3) the establishment of an interactive
training environment including new equipment and an additional
satellite downlink that will enable Judges and staff to view and
participate in training programs broadcast through the Federal Judicial
Training Network; and (4) the installation of a raised platform floor
in the Court's data center that will enable the Court to adequately
wire the center for data and electrical connections, thereby providing
greater flexibility and improved connectivity. The Court anticipates
that these projects will be completed and operational by the end of
fiscal year 2004. The continuation of fiscal year 2001 projects and the
implementation of new initiatives will enable the Court to continue to
build and update its infrastructure and operate more efficiently and
effectively.
I would like to reaffirm that the Court always has been modest in
its appropriation requests and 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, were submitted previously. If the
Committee requires any additional information, we will be pleased to
submit it.
______

Prepared Statement of Haldane Robert Mayer, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to submit my statement to the Committee
for this court's fiscal year 2002 budget request.
Our 2002 budget request totals $20,446,000. This is an increase of
$2,492,000 over the 2001 approved appropriation of $17,954,000. Thirty-
four percent of the requested increase, $843,000, is for mandatory,
uncontrollable increases in costs. The remaining increase of $1,649,000
is for funding of additional positions and renovation of our
courtrooms.
Request for Program Increases
$1,649,000 of our fiscal year 2002 request will cover in part the
costs of four statutorily authorized positions for technical assistants
for the court's legal staff and one additional position for the court's
staff. The remainder of the requested increase is for courtroom
renovations and installation of technology in one courtroom.
Funding for Four Technical Assistants ($456,000).--The court is
requesting four technical assistants in addition to the eight now
approved for the court. 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 four technical assistants
requested here, plus those currently on board, will give the court one
technical assistant for each of the twelve active judge positions.
The technical assistants do research and assist the court and all
its judges in addressing technical aspects of appeals, maintaining
consistency in precedential opinions, and otherwise fulfilling the
court's mission. Technical assistants not only must have a law degree
but also must have 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 94 district courts and the Patent and
Trademark Office. These appeals often are difficult and time consuming,
and involve complex issues at the forefront of biotechnology, computer
engineering, pharmacology, and other areas of science and engineering.
The need to hire four technical assistants is critical to the
efficient and effective operation of the court. Intellectual property
litigation is a rapidly expanding area of the law. This is evident from
the growing number of intellectual property cases filed with the court;
the increasing complexity of patent issues submitted in each case; and
the size of appendices accompanying each filing. Patent cases make up
thirty-three percent of the court's docket.
Funding for One Position on the Permanent Court Staff ($78,000).--
The court requests funding to hire a full-time permanent position
entitled Information Technology Specialist. Upon completion of a formal
security review and assessment of the court's electronic information
system, the National Security Agency (NSA) concluded that the court
should hire an Information Technology Specialist. This person would
monitor and protect the security of the court's information system. The
Information Technology Specialist would insure that all electronic
communications and information in judges' chambers and staff offices
are protected and secure from compromise or unlawful release.
Technology in the Courtroom ($215,000).--At the March 1999 session
of the Judicial Conference of the United States, the Judicial
Conference recognized that courtroom technologies are a necessary and
integral part of courtrooms. Based on the Judicial Conference's
findings and the fact that the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts
(AO) currently is implementing this program in courts across the
country, the court is requesting funding to upgrade the courtroom
technology in one of our courtrooms. The figure of $215,000 was
provided to the court by the AO based on its experience to date with
upgrading courtrooms.
Funding for Courtroom Renovations ($900,000).--The court is
requesting $900,000 for use to begin modernizing and updating the
Federal Circuit courtrooms. The National Courts Building opened in
1967. With the exception of replacement carpet, there have been no
renovations or upgrades performed in the courtrooms.
The funding will be used to renovate the courtrooms, upgrade the
security of the Judges' benches, purchase furniture, improve counsel
rooms, modernize the lighting, and upgrade the sound system. The
courtrooms need to be rewired for computer use, recording equipment,
and improved technology. This is a one-time cost and would be reflected
as a nonrecurring expense in our 2003 budget request.
It was recommended that the court request this funding from GSA. We
have done so with no success. We are once again in the process of
discussing the possibility of funding by GSA. Should we be successful
in obtaining funding from that agency we would notify Congress and
cancel this request.
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.

NONDEPARTMENTAL WITNESSES

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Prepared Statement of the California Industry and Government Central
California Ozone Study Coalition

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: On behalf of the
California Industry and Government Central California Ozone Study
(CCOS) Coalition, we are pleased to submit this statement for the
record in support of our fiscal year 2002 funding request of $250,000
from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) for
CCOS as part of a Federal match for the $8.7 million already
contributed by California State and local agencies and the private
sector. NOAA is currently under contract for approximately $700,000 to
use state-of-science instrumentation to measure surface and aloft winds
and temperatures in the CCOS study area. This request will partially
replace funding already spent for NOAA's participation in CCOS.
Ozone and particulate matter standards in most of central
California are frequently exceeded. In 2003, the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) will require that California submit SIPs
for the recently promulgated, national, 8-hour ozone standard. It is
expected that such SIPs will be required for the San Francisco Bay
Area, the Sacramento Valley, the San Joaquin Valley, and the Mountain
Counties Air Basins. Photochemical air quality modeling will be
necessary to prepare SIPs that are acceptable to the U.S. EPA.
Central California Ozone Study is designed to enable central
California to meet Clean Air Act requirements for ozone State
Implementation Plans (SIPs) as well as advance fundamental science for
use nationwide. The CCOS field measurement program was conducted during
the summer of 2000 in conjunction with the California Regional PM10/
PM2.5 Air Quality Study (CRPAQS), a major study of the origin, nature,
and extent of excessive levels of fine particles in central California.
CCOS includes an ozone field study, a deposition study, data analysis,
modeling performance evaluations, and a retrospective look at previous
SIP modeling. The CCOS study area extends over central and most of
northern California. The goal of the CCOS is to better understand the
nature of the ozone problem across the region, providing a strong
scientific foundation for preparing the next round of State and Federal
attainment plans. The study includes six main components:
--Developed the design of the field study
--Conducted an intensive field monitoring study from June 1 to
September 30, 2000
--Developing an emission inventory to support modeling
--Developing and evaluating a photochemical model for the region
--Designing and conducting a deposition field study
--Evaluating emission control strategies for the next ozone
attainment plans
CCOS is directed by Policy and Technical Committees consisting of
representatives from Federal, State and local governments, as well as
private industry. These committees, which managed the San Joaquin
Valley Ozone Study and are currently managing the California Regional
Particulate Air Quality Study, are landmark examples of collaborative
environmental management. The proven methods and established teamwork
provide a solid foundation for CCOS. The sponsors of CCOS, representing
state, local government and industry, have contributed approximately
$8.7 million for the field study. The federal government has
contributed $500,000 some data analysis. In addition, CCOS sponsors are
providing $2 million of in-kind support. The Policy Committee is
seeking federal co-funding of $8.5 million to complete the data
analysis and modeling portions of the study and for a future deposition
study. California is an ideal natural laboratory for studies that
address these issues, given the scale and diversity of the various
ground surfaces in the region (crops, woodlands, forests, urban and
suburban areas).
There is a national need to address national data gaps and
California should not bear the entire cost of the addressing these
gaps. National data gaps include issues relating to the integration of
particulate matter and ozone control strategies. The CCOS field study
took place concurrently with the California Regional Particulate Matter
Study--previously jointly funded through Federal, State, local and
private sector funds. CCOS was timed to enable leveraging of the
efforts for the particulate matter study. Some equipment and personnel
served dual functions to reduce the net cost of the CCOS field study.
From a technical standpoint, carrying out both studies concurrently was
a unique opportunity to address the integration of particulate matter
and ozone control efforts. To effectively address these issues requires
federal assistance, and CCOS provides a mechanism by which California
pays half the cost of work that the federal government should pursue.
For fiscal year 2002, our Coalition is seeking funding of $250,000
from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).--
Meteorological data were continuously collected during the CCOS field
program. Extensive meteorological data collected as part of the field
study can be used by NOAA to strengthen its ongoing research activities
such as improving meteorological forecasting and providing information
on the evaluation of the U.S. weather western boundary conditions. More
importantly, CCOS provides data for research in the areas of air flow
over complex terrain. Improved results obtained from this research has
national applicability.
Thank you very much for your consideration of our request.
______

Prepared Statement of the American Rivers

Many individual programs funded by the Commerce, Justice, State,
and the Judiciary Appropriations Subcommittee have substantial impacts
on America's rivers. We urge that you bear these impacts in mind in
determining levels of funding for these important government programs.
We appreciate your committee's past commitment to important programs
such as the Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery Fund. We would like to
highlight this program again for fiscal year 2002, along with the need
for adequate funding of participation by the National Marine Fisheries
Service in hydropower relicensing.
pacific salmon coastal recovery fund
Pacific salmon are a national treasure with enormous economic,
cultural, and environmental significance in the Pacific Northwest
including Washington, Oregon, California, Idaho, and Alaska. A century
ago, salmon were an anchor of the region's economy, and the United
States was the world's largest salmon producer. But populations of
salmon have declined dramatically over the past century, and 26 runs of
Pacific salmon and steelhead are now listed under the Endangered
Species Act.
One important program aimed at restoring endangered and threatened
runs of wild chinook, steelhead, coho, sockeye, and chum salmon is the
Pacific Salmon Coastal Recovery Fund, funded through the National
Marine Fisheries Service. For the past two years, this program has
provided much-needed assistance to state, local, and tribal governments
in Washington, Oregon, California, and Alaska for salmon recovery
projects. This year we ask that the state of Idaho be made eligible to
benefit from this program as well. In fiscal year 2002, we urge the
Subcommittee to provide $200 million to provide the assistance the
Pacific Northwest states need to restore threatened and endangered
salmon and their habitat.
Increased funding for this program is a key element of funding the
new, multi-agency salmon recovery plan for the Columbia and Snake river
basin. The salmon recovery plan embraces an ``aggressive non-breach''
approach, setting forth a recovery plan that relies on non-dam
breaching actions, including improving salmon spawning and rearing
habitat, water quality and flows, better screening of irrigation
diversions, hatchery and harvest management, and improvements to dam
structures and operations. If this non-breach recovery package is not
funded and implemented, or if the salmon recovery plan does not yield
the expected biological benefit for Snake River salmon, the plan calls
for the federal agencies to seek congressional authorization--as soon
as 2003--to remove the four lower Snake River dams.
In addition to helping to fund salmon recovery in the Columbia and
Snake river basin, the Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery Fund will
provide equally needed assistance for salmon recovery efforts up and
down the Pacific coast, including, but not limited to, Puget Sound,
Oregon's Willamette River, and California's coast and Central Valley.
By increasing funding for the Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery Fund
to $200 million for fiscal year 2002, you can help preserve this
economically, culturally, and ecologically valuable resource and help
the Northwest states and local communities to adopt and embrace the
measures needed to restore Pacific salmon and steelhead. Restoring
salmon also will allow the United States to meet treaty obligations
with Northwest Indian tribes and Canada.
nmfs participation in hydropower relicensing
The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) plays an important
role in hydropower relicensing when a hydropower project impacts
species that migrate between fresh water and the ocean during their
life cycles. Congress should appropriate adequate resources for NMFS to
address fisheries management issues in the increasing number of
hydropower dams seeking renewal of their operating licenses from the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission on the West Coast and in the
Southeast. A $2 million increase in the Habitat Conservation Program:
Operations, Research, and Facilities' ``Sustain Healthy Coasts
Strategic Goal'' will help to ensure a more efficient licensing
process, benefiting the hydropower industry and furthering efforts to
protect and restore fisheries resources.
______

Prepared Statement of the Association of America's Public Television
Stations

The Association of America's Public Television Stations submits
this testimony to the Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, State,
Justice and the Judiciary. APTS, on behalf of the nation's 354 local
public television stations, urges the committee to support funding for
the Public Telecommunications Facilities Program (PTFP) in the National
Telecommunications Information Agency at the U.S. Department of
Commerce.
This year APTS is asking Congress to fund the PTFP in fiscal year
2002 at $110 million. This increase in funding is essential to fund
part of public television's equipment needs in the mandated conversion
of digital broadcast. For over 30 years the federal government has
helped public broadcasting build an infrastructure that reaches
virtually every American television household. The Federal
Communications Commission has mandated that public television stations
must be on the air with a digital broadcast by May of 2003. Public
television appreciates the increase in funding that the committee
provided last year and the recognition it provided to the cost of
converting. We respectfully ask the subcommittee to increase PTFP
funding to help stations convert to digital transmission.
commitment in the digital age
Public broadcasting has estimated the costs of its conversion to
digital at $1.8 billion, and is seeking federal financial assistance in
the amount of $699 million over five years. Public broadcasters
historically have been the leaders in using new technologies for
education and public service. The nation's public television stations
stand ready to make an historic commitment to all Americans to provide
near universal access to wireless, high-speed data for education.
Specifically, public television stations will commit the equivalent of
one multicast digital channel--a daily average of 4.5 megabits per
second (Mbps), among the highest data rates available--for formal early
childhood, K-12, and post-secondary education, as well as workforce
training and professional development. This digital capacity would
provide the equivalent of three T-1 lines to every school in America
and is conservatively valued at $2.4 billion per year.
The congressionally appointed bi-partisan Web-based Education
Commission called for broadband access to be made widely and equitably
available, and affordable for all learners. E-rate funding cannot meet
this need. Applications for E-rate discounts total $5.8 billion, but
only $2.25 is available. Public television stations can fill the gap.
harnessing digital technology to serve the public
With roots going back to the earliest days of radio and television,
America's public broadcasters have played a unique role in a media
industry that is otherwise built on consumer advertising and mass
market entertainment. Since the 1960s, publicly funded noncommercial
television has provided a clear alternative to commercial television,
focusing on education and culture, public affairs and the performing
arts.
While the proliferation of television channels has been driven by
market demands, public television's core mission has not and will not
change in a digital world. We will build on our track record of
providing the best programming and services to educate and enlighten
audiences. We also will continue to be leaders in using new technology
for the public interest. From satellite delivery of broadcast signals,
to the development of stereo broadcasting; from closed captioning and
descriptive video services, to video streaming and cutting edge
interactive television trials, public broadcasters have been inventors,
innovators and blenders of technologies to serve the public.
Public television is committed to use digital technologies to
transform the way we learn--by providing the American public with
educational services anytime anywhere. That means how they want them,
when they want them and where they want them--in homes, schools,
childcare facilities, and workplaces across America.
multicast digital services--unlocking public television's public
service mission
Since receiving their digital channels, public television stations
have been engaged in systemwide and station level planning. In 1997,
public broadcasting put forward a comprehensive plan for its digital
conversion to the Administration and Congress. We set four broad
systemwide goals for the use of digital technology--goals that are
founded on fully utilizing the multicasting capability of the digital
technology to expand and enhance services.
--To make the full complement of Ready to Learn services available to
every child, parent and caregiver in America. The PBS Ready to
Learn Service is currently meeting two national education
goals: it teaches basic reading skills and it helps prepare
more children for school success. Its 133 participating
stations cover over 94 percent of the country. In the past
three years, RTL public television stations have trained
370,000 parents and 250,000 teachers and caregivers, affecting
approximately 6 million children.
--To expand the reach of public television's K-12 educational
programs and services by making them universally available to
all schools and home schoolers. Seventy percent of public
television licensees provide K-12 programming in math, science,
arts and humanities. These services are enhanced by:
--PBS TeacherSource.--An online K-12 teacher resource with line
lesson plans, teacher guides and activities, correlated to more
than 90 national and state standards; and,
--PBS Teacherline.--Online modules to enhance the learning and
teaching of K-12 mathematics and other core subjects.
--To increase the reach of post secondary telecourses so that they
are universally available to all adult learners. Collectively,
public television stations are the largest source of post
secondary telecourses in the nation. PBS Adult Learning Service
(ALS) supports station-college partnerships that offer distance
learning credit-bearing telecourses, enrolling more than
500,000 students in 1999-2000. GED on TV has enabled more than
two million adults in five years to earn their high school
equivalency from home. The estimated positive economic impact
of these programs, workers that are more productive exceeds $12
billion.
--To expand our commitment to serving the un-served and under-served
populations in our country, those who because of economic,
geographic, physical, cultural or language barriers have been
left behind by the commercial marketplace. Public Broadcasting
has pioneered the development of open and closed captioning for
the deaf and descriptive video services and reading services
for the blind or visually impaired. Stations like WYBE,
Philadelphia and WNVC, Fairfax provide programming in multiple
languages serving a variety of different ethnic cultures.
Local public television stations throughout the country have turned
those systemwide goals into concrete and very bold and exciting service
plans tailored to their local communities. APTS maintains an
interactive digital transition clearinghouse of stations' plans for
digital services. Our data shows that virtually every public television
station in the country has developed digital service plans to meet
these and other goals. The centerpiece of virtually every plan is the
delivery of multicast services with a strong focus on education.
--In exchange for federal financial support and favorable cable must
carry regulations, the nation's public television stations
stand ready to commit an average daily rate of 4.5 megabits per
second (approximately one channel) of their digital spectrum to
education. The value of this capacity is conservatively
estimated at $2.4 billion per year
--Three out of every four PTV stations plan to carry at least two
formal education multicast services.
--Approximately 85 percent of PTV stations plan to multicast a
children's channel; 78 percent intend to broadcast university-
level or post-secondary telecourses; and 66 percent plan to
multicast an instructional programming channel for students in
grades K-12.
--Others plan to multicast channels that focus on local public
affairs, teacher training, foreign language programming, and
programming aimed at minority and under-served audiences.
ptv digital service plans--creating local solutions for national
priorities, realizing national educational goals on a local level
While public television stations plan to deliver one or more formal
educational multicast channels, the specific educational services are
tailored to meet local community needs.
Florida public television stations have promised the state
legislature that they will collectively devote a multicasting stream to
the Florida Knowledge Network in return for digital funding. This
statewide educational network will serve as a teacher training
resource, linking Florida's classrooms with direct access to the
highest quality programming, electronic field trips, and distance
learning.
providing unserved and underserved with access to digital
Today, public television stations, through their nationwide system
of transmitters and translators, serve 99 percent of American
households with an over-the-air analog signal. Public television
stations that serve rural communities with a network of analog
translators are ideally positioned to bring the benefits of broadband
digital services to the most rural and remote areas of this country.
KNME in Albuquerque is considering leasing part of its digital
spectrum to the New Mexico Department of Education to facilitate the
delivery of educational materials to the state's K-12 schools. The
station will position itself as the state's virtual classroom,
providing curricular support and teacher training opportunities for
viewers separated by hundreds of miles.
Public television stations also plan to use the multicast
capability to serve populations under-served because of cultural,
language or economic barriers.
KBDI in Denver plans to launch a Latino Initiative Channel. This
channel would feature programming for Denver's Spanish-speaking and
bilingual community and will emphasize news, public affairs, and social
and cultural events.
The Kentucky Network intends to work with art and cultural
organizations to produce more arts education programming for the
state's children. KET plans to create a statewide task force on arts
education and early childhood. Ultimately, the network hopes to produce
a dance series and musical programming for elementary students.
The federal government must play its historic leadership role in
underwriting a portion of public broadcasting's digital transition. The
government's failure to make this investment will have direct
consequences. Millions of Americans may be deprived of the enormous
educational promise of digital television. Many of the smaller and
rural stations may be unable to make the transition at all without some
federal support.
conclusion
For more than 30 years, Congress has invested wisely in public
broadcasting. We now have a strong system of public television stations
that reaches 99 percent of American households, giving viewers tools to
improve and enrich their lives. The public service promise of new
digital technology is enormous:
--for children to provide a dedicated stream of nonviolent,
educational and entertaining programs, commercial-free and
free-of-charge;
--for parents and schools to better educate children;
--for colleges and universities to reach out beyond their campus
walls;
--for students of all ages to have access to lifelong learning;
--for under-served audiences whose income, geography, culture or
disability threatens to cut them off from the digital promise;
--for citizens who feel alienated from their local, state or federal
governments; and
--for public service organizations seeking to build a sense of civic
connection and commitment.
Realizing this potential and remaining a viable service provider in
the digital age is fully dependent on a federal investment to ensure
access to all digital services. Public television stands ready with
service plans, matching state and local grants, and community-based
content partners to fully utilize this technology for public service.
______

Prepared Statement of the Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission

Mr. Chairman, on behalf of the Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish
Commission (CRITFC), thank you for the opportunity to present the
Commission's views on the fiscal year 2002 budget for the National
Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). The tribes support funding the
Columbia River (Mitchell Act) hatchery program at $36 million, in order
to implement reforms called for in the ``Conservation of Columbia Basin
Fish'' (Federal Caucus ``All H'' Paper). Of that amount, $9 million (or
25 percent of the actual enacted amount) should be contracted to the
tribes for new or expanded supplementation programs. Savings can be
realized by ensuring that no funds are expended under the Mitchell Act
program for the so-called ``conservation marking'' program, an unproven
mass marking and selective fisheries program when applied to chinook
and a proven failure as applied to steelhead stocks, without an
agreement of the co-managers. For the Columbia River (Mitchell Act)
screening program, the tribes support funding of $20.6 million for
screens and passage programs as identified in the Federal Caucus Plan.
The tribes support increasing the level of funding for the Pacific
Coastal Salmon Recovery Program to $165 million to provide sufficient
funding for salmon restoration activities within the Columbia River
basin and the rest of the Pacific Coast. Of that amount, $10 million
should be provided to the Columbia River tribes in the form of a direct
grant, and $25 million each to the states of Alaska, California,
Oregon, Idaho, and Washington, and $20 million for Implementation of
the 1999 Pacific Salmon Treaty Agreement. Finally, the tribes support
funding the base Pacific Salmon Treaty Program at $7,456,000.
The tribes note that the NMFS receives tens of millions of dollars
in funding directly from the Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) or
from BPA under the Northwest Power Planning Council's (NWPPC) Fish and
Wildlife Program. Before the ESA listings, such funding to NMFS was
subject to coordination with the regional co-managers, the states and
tribes. Now, NMFS identifies ``ESA'' funding needs and sidesteps the
normal regional coordination process. While some of NMFS's initiatives
would receive regional support, others would not as they serve to
undermine cooperative and proactive tribal, state, or stakeholder
programs geared to restoring salmon and reducing burdens on private
landowners. The tribes encourage you review Congressional and BPA
funding for NMFS's salmon recovery activities.
mission statement
Formed by resolution of the Nez Perce, Umatilla, Warm Springs and
Yakama Tribes, CRITFC provides coordination and technical assistance to
the member tribes to ensure that outstanding treaty fishing rights
issues are resolved in a way that guarantees the continuation and
restoration of our tribal fisheries into perpetuity. Since 1979, CRITFC
has contracted with the BIA under the Indian Self-Determination Act
(Public Law 93-638) to provide this technical support. The tribes' and
CRITFC's technical experts have identified where federal and state
resource managers have fallen short in protecting and restoring the
habitat and production of all salmon stocks. Our goal is to restore a
sustainable resource for the benefit of all peoples in the Pacific
Northwest. Wy-Kan-Ush-Mi Wa-Kish-Wit, the tribes' restoration plan,
identifies hypotheses based upon adaptive management principles to
address those threats, and provides specific recommendations and
practices that must be adopted by natural resource managers. See
www.critfc.org for a copy of the plan.
wy-kan-ush-mi wa-kish-wit
Issues that are addressed in Wy-Kan-Ush-Mi Wa-Kish-Wit include
policy direction and/or conservation actions that must be made or taken
in these areas: Allocation of the conservation burden; Harvest;
Hatchery reform; Hydropower system operation; and, Habitat restoration
and protection.
Our testimony focuses on the need for hatchery reform. The tribes
have, for over two decades, identified state and federal hatchery
practices at the ninety-eight production facilities within the Columbia
River basin as a significant factor in the loss of naturally spawning
salmon stocks. NMFS agrees, citing these practices for the loss of
naturally spawning coho. The past operation of these hatcheries has
contributed to the decline of naturally spawning stocks throughout the
basin. Only about 7 percent of Columbia River (Mitchell Act) hatchery
production is released above The Dalles Dam. Yet, that is where the
most damage to salmon has been and continues to be caused by the dams.
About 1 percent of Mitchell Act production is used to assist the
rebuilding and restoration of naturally spawning salmon, the stocks
which have been constraining both Indian and non-Indian fisheries on
the West Coast. Prior to the transition from hatchery-based fisheries
to weak-stock management, mixed-stock fisheries were regulated on the
basis of hatchery abundance and had a devastating effect on naturally
spawning runs of the Columbia Basin. The tribes believe that the salmon
mitigation and enhancement programs authorized under the Mitchell Act
have discriminated against treaty protected fisheries and have failed
to mitigate the salmon resource damage caused by the dams.
Used correctly though, hatcheries can and should play an extremely
important role in salmon recovery. We have proposed a biologically
credible integrated plan to modify hatchery management practices
throughout the basin in order to supplement rather than supplant
natural spawning salmon populations. Within the last ten years, the
Commission has developed substantial scientific justification
supporting the use of Mitchell Act facilities for natural run
enhancement. A supplementation protocol was agreed upon by the fish and
wildlife agencies and tribes of the Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife
Authority and was peer reviewed and published in the text, Genetic
Conservation of Fishes. Using this approach, the Confederated Tribes of
the Umatilla Indian Reservation successfully restored chinook and coho
stocks to the Umatilla River Basin. Salmon had been eliminated from the
basin for over a half-century by irrigation practices. The Commission
believes these practices need to be implemented immediately as an
alternative to current Mitchell Act hatchery practices. If the Mitchell
Act facilities continue to be operated as they are now, continued
funding of those facilities will do nothing to restore ESA-listed fish
or natural stock protection. CRITFC staff is currently preparing
Hatchery Reform Begins with a Review of Current Hatchery Practices for
publication, a draft can be made available for your use and review.
NMFS's interpretation of the Endangered Species Act further limits
the ability of the federally funded hatcheries to comply with
congressional mitigation mandates. Some of these hatcheries can make a
substantial contribution to the recovery of populations protected under
the Endangered Species Act. Unless the National Marine Fisheries
Service interprets the ESA to permit the use of these hatchery-reared
populations for artificial propagation purposes as required under
Section 3(15) of the Act, these facilities will not be used in an
effective manner to hasten salmon recovery. CRITFC staff is evaluating
the ESU and its applicability to salmon management, a paper titled The
``Evolutionarily Significant Unit (ESU)'' definition of a Distinct
Population Segment: Evaluation of Scientific Evidence and Continuing
Research. A draft of this paper can be available for your use and
review, with the completed paper available in June.
Columbia River (Mitchell Act) hatchery program.--Restoring Pacific
salmon and providing for sustainable fisheries requires using the
Columbia River (Mitchell Act) hatchery program to supplement naturally
spawning stocks and populations. To accomplish this goal, provide $36
million for the tribes and states, as co-managers, to jointly reform
the Mitchell Act hatchery program using only jointly agreed upon
marking programs. Of this amount, $9 million, or 25 percent of enacted
funding, will be contracted to the tribes for new or expanded
supplementation projects. In addition, to carry out necessary
activities identified in the Federal Caucus All-H Paper, $20.6 million
is for screens and fish passage programs. We ask that you direct NMFS,
in coordination with tribal and state fishery mangers, allow the use of
supplementation in restoring declining salmon populations and fisheries
under recovery programs developed under the ESA. Of the hatchery
facilities funded under this program, the management and funding for
the following Mitchell Act hatchery should be transferred from the
state or federal agency identified, via NOAA/NMFS, to the tribe
specified: Klickitat Hatchery facility from Washington Department of
Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) to the Yakama Nation.
Of the other hatchery facilities funded under this program, the
management and funding for the following hatcheries should be studied
for transfer by NOAA/NMFS within 3 to 5 years from the state or federal
agency identified to the tribe specified: Bonneville Hatchery from
Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) to the Yakama Nation);
Carson Hatchery (from USFWS to the Yakama Nation); Little White Springs
Complex (from USFWS to the Yakama Nation); Spring Creek Hatchery (from
USFWS to the Yakama Nation); Cascade Hatchery (from ODFW to the
Umatilla Tribe); Oxbow Hatchery Complex (from ODFW to the Umatilla
Tribe); and Ringold Hatchery (from WDFW to the Umatilla Tribe).
Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery Program/Watershed Restoration.--
Beginning in 1996, with the Sitka Salmon Summit hosted by Governor
Knowles of Alaska, additional funding has been sought by the State of
Alaska, the Pacific Northwest states, and the treaty tribes to serve
critical unmet needs for the conservation and restoration of salmon
stocks shared in these tribal, state, and international fisheries (See
Record of Discussion, May 20,1996). The funds provided by Congress
under the Program mark an important beginning in accomplishing the
goals of this shared effort. For fiscal year 2002, provide the Columbia
River treaty tribes with funding of $10 million through the Pacific
Coastal Salmon Recovery Program. These program funds will continue to
ensure that tribally sponsored watershed projects are based on the best
science, are competently implemented and adequately monitored, and
address the limiting factors affecting salmon restoration. This will
include the use of monitoring protocols to systematically track current
and future projects basin-wide. Projects undertaken by the tribes last
year are consistent with the Wy-Kan-Ush-Mi Wa-Kish-Wit and the
following programmatic areas identified by Congress and are outlined in
the report provided with this testimony. The tribes support expanding
this program to include the State of Idaho.
pacific salmon treaty program
The tribes support the U.S. Section recommendation at the funding
level of 7,456,000, with $5,612,000 for the Pacific Salmon Treaty base
program, with Alaska, Oregon, Idaho, Washington, and the NMFS to share
those funds as described in the U.S. Section of the Pacific Salmon
Commission's Budget Justification. We continue to support additional
funding to for additional chinook research and management activities at
$1,884,000; these funds are annually allocated to new state, tribal and
federal projects through a technical review process.
In summary, Mr. Chairman, the Commission is an excellent working
model of leaders from four tribes working together to protect their
treaty fishing rights. This Commission has demonstrated that, with a
staff of scientists, biologists, hydrologists, law enforcement
personnel, and other experts advising tribal policy-makers, tribes can
take the lead on natural resource issues, provided that adequate
resources are available. This is a time when increased effort and
participation are demanded of the Commission and the tribes, we ask for
your continued support of our efforts, and we will be pleased to
provide any additional information that this committee may require.
______

Prepared Statement of the Marine Fish Conservation Network

The Marine Fish Conservation Network is pleased to share its views
regarding National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) programs in the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) budget
request. We ask that this statement be included in the hearing record
for the fiscal year 2002 Commerce, Justice, State and the Judiciary
Appropriations Bill.
The Marine Fish Conservation Network is a national coalition of
more than 100 environmental, commercial and recreational fishing
associations, and marine science groups dedicated to conserving marine
fish and promoting their long-term sustainability. We greatly
appreciate the funding this Subcommittee has provided for the marine
fish conservation programs within NMFS over the last several years and
we look forward to working with the Subcommittee to enact responsible
levels of funding in the coming fiscal year.
There are four areas in the NMFS budget where we believe the
requested spending levels need to be increased to help the agency
fulfill its obligations as the federal government's fisheries
management agency.
annual stock assessments
Request.--Increase $26.6 million from 2001 funding levels
The status of more than three quarters of all species managed under
the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act is unknown
largely due to a lack of funding for basic research and stock
assessments. Fishery managers need better information on all stocks to
fulfill their responsibilities to rebuild overfished stocks, prevent
overfishing of stocks approaching an overfished condition, and to set
appropriate catch levels for those fish that are not overfished. The
National Marine Fisheries Service, with the President's requested
increase of $13.3 million for stock assessments, would still have a
deficit of 1,700 research days at sea to fulfill their stock assessment
duties. Increasing the stock assessment line item by $26.6 million from
2001 levels would cut that number in half so that the deficit could be
erased in 2003 or 2004.
observer programs
Request.--Increase $16.4 million above fiscal year 2001 funding
levels
By increasing the annual appropriations for fisheries observers by
$16.4 million to $25 million, the National Marine Fisheries Service
would be able to establish and implement an effective National Observer
Program. This increase includes an extra $5 million over fiscal year
2001 funding levels for West Coast observers. The information from
these observers, together with the information that is expected to be
generated through the National Fisheries Information System, would give
us a better idea on exactly how much fish is caught directly and as
bycatch, thereby improving management of our fish populations.
essential fish habitat (efh)
Request.--An increase of $12.5 million over fiscal year 2001
funding levels
Essential fish habitats (EFH) are those waters and substrate on
which fish depend. These habitats are currently being damaged from both
land-based activities and destructive fishing practices. While the
Sustainable Fisheries Act of 1996 gave NMFS a clear mandate to identify
and conserve essential fish habitat too little has been done to protect
these habitats. This increase in funding would allow NMFS to gain the
information necessary to further refine designations of EFH and take
action to conserve EFH, including measures to minimize the adverse
impacts of fishing gear on EFH.
enforcement and surveillance
Request.--An increase of $10.3 million over fiscal year 2001
funding levels for enforcement An increase of $11.1 million over fiscal
year 2001 funding levels for the Vessel Monitoring System (VMS) Program
Enforcement of our fishery management laws has been woefully
underfunded for years. According to NMFS, there are currently around
150 enforcement agents that are each responsible for 1200 miles of
coastline. We request increasing funding for enforcement by $7 million
over the President's request to allow for the hiring of 30 more
officers to begin to address this chronic shortfall. The increase would
also allow for a strengthening of alternative enforcement programs and
enhancement of state and local partnerships.
Increasing funding for VMS by $11.1 million over fiscal year 2001
levels would allow for the establishment and implementation of VMS
systems and the placing of VMS transponders on a vast majority of the
estimated 10,000 boats in the U.S. commercial fishing fleet. VMS
programs enhance data collection and safety at sea, and can be
beneficial to fisherman by allowing them to fish right up until a quota
is reached rather than leave the fishing site before the season closes.
VMS is beneficial to regulators because it will allow officials to know
when a fishing vessel is violating closed areas, or is fishing beyond
the end of a regulated fishing period.
Thank you for consideration of our requested increases for these
important fish management programs.
______

Prepared Statement of the American Indian Higher Education Consortium

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, on behalf of this
nation's 32 American Indian Tribal Colleges and Universities, which
comprise the American Indian Higher Education Consortium (AIHEC), we
thank you for the opportunity to share our fiscal year 2002 (fiscal
year 2002) funding requests regarding the United States Department of
Commerce and the Small Business Administration.
This statement will cover two areas: (a) background information on
Tribal Colleges and Universities, and (b) funding requests and
justifications. The following is a summary of our fiscal year 2002
requests.
summary of requests
Under the Department of Commerce programs, we will address three
specific areas:
--We urge the Subcommittee to support the continuation of the $15
million National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
program: Educational Partnership Program with Minority Serving
Institutions, included in the President's fiscal year 2002
budget request. This program will increase the number of
minorities trained in the natural and physical sciences and
establish Collaborative Science Centers at several Minority
Serving Institutions. We request report language eliminating
the requirement that the MSI, even if applying in partnership
with graduate degree awarding mainstream institutions, must
have an accredited graduate program in oceanic, earth and
atmospheric sciences. This requirement eliminates all of the
tribal colleges and most other MSIs from participating in what
is designed to be an MSI focused program.
--We urge the Subcommittee to support the Economic Development
Administration's efforts to address chronic unemployment and
poverty in reservation communities and to include report
language that would foster partnerships between the EDA and
tribal colleges.
--We request support and expansion of the Internal Trade
Administration (ITA) initiative to help Native Americans enter
new markets and increase cultural heritage tourism as part of
their communities' economic development plans. Tribal colleges
often serve as the tribal archive and community centers and are
a logical catalyst for attaining the economic development goals
of both the ITA and tribal communities.
Under the Small Business Administration, we urge the Subcommittee
to support the existing Tribal Business Information Centers (TBICs) and
the creation of a new Native American Business Development Center
program within SBA. We request $5 million to fund these two programs.
background on tribal colleges
The Tribal College Movement was launched in 1968 with the
establishment of Navajo Community College, now Dine College, in Tsaile,
Arizona. A succession of tribal colleges soon followed, primarily in
the Northern Plains region. In 1972, the first six tribally controlled
colleges established the American Indian Higher Education Consortium
(AIHEC) to provide a support network for member institutions. Today,
AIHEC represents 32 Tribal Colleges and Universities located in 12
states, begun specifically to serve the higher education needs of
American Indian students. Collectively, they serve 25,000 students from
over 250 federally recognized tribes.
Tribal colleges offer primarily 2-year degrees, although in recent
years some institutions have begun to offer baccalaureate and graduate-
level degrees. The vast majority of the tribal colleges are fully
accredited by independent, regional accreditation agencies.\1\ In
addition to college-level programming, tribal colleges provide high
school completion, adult education, job training, and college
preparatory courses. Although the central focus is on education, tribal
colleges fulfill other roles for their respective communities. Tribal
colleges function as community centers, libraries, tribal archives,
career centers, economic development centers, public-meeting places,
and child care centers. An underlying goal of the tribal colleges is to
improve the lives of students through higher education and to move
American Indians toward self-sufficiency.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The Tribal Colleges and Universities are accredited by regional
accreditation agencies and must undergo stringent performance review on
a periodic basis. The higher education division of the respective
regional accreditation agency accredits twenty-seven of the TCUs. Two
new TCUs are at the Pre-candidate stage as they complete work to attain
Candidate status; one TCU is at Candidate status. Two TCUs are
accredited as ``Vocational/Adult Schools by the ``schools'' division of
the respective regional accreditation agency.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tribal colleges provide needed access to higher education for
American Indians living in mostly rural, economically depressed areas
of the country. The colleges are chartered by their respective tribal
governments and were established in response to the recognition by
tribal leaders that local, culturally based education institutions are
best suited to help American Indians succeed in higher education.
Tribal colleges combine traditional teachings with conventional
postsecondary courses and curricula. The colleges have devised
innovative means to address the needs of tribal populations in
economically depressed regions and are successful in overcoming long-
standing barriers to Indian higher education. They are unparalleled in
providing the knowledge and skills students need for successful
transfer to 4-year institutions and to gain meaningful employment.
Since the first tribal college was established on the Navajo
reservation, these vital institutions have come to represent the most
significant development in the history of American Indian higher
education, providing access to under-represented students and promoting
achievement among students who may otherwise never have known post-
secondary education success.
Funding for tribal colleges is grossly inadequate. While these
institutions have faced and successfully negotiated many challenges in
the history of the Tribal College Movement, adequate funding remains
the most significant barrier to their ongoing success. Core operational
funding for 25 tribal colleges is provided through the Tribally-
Controlled College or University Assistance Act (TCCUAA), Public Law
95-471. Funding provided under the Act is less than two-thirds of its
authorized level of $6,000 per full-time Indian student. In fiscal year
2001, the Colleges received $3,849 per full-time Indian student.
Moreover, this amount is less than two-thirds of the estimated $6,089
per full-time student received by mainstream community colleges. While
mainstream institutions have a foundation of stable state support,
tribal colleges must rely on the Federal government for operational
funding. Because tribal colleges are located on federal trust
territories, states have no obligation to fund them. In fact, most
states do not even fund our colleges for the non-Indian state-resident
students who account for approximately 20 percent of our enrollments.
Since their inception, tribal colleges have achieved exceptional
growth and success, yet they are the most poorly funded higher
education institutions in America. Although conditions at some have
improved substantially, many tribal colleges still operate in trailers,
cast-off buildings, and facilities with crumbling foundations, faulty
wiring, and leaking roofs. Sustaining quality instructional programs
has been a challenge without a reliable source of funds for facilities
maintenance and construction.
Today, one in five American Indians live on reservations. As a
result of 200 years of Federal Indian policy--including policies of
termination, assimilation and relocation--many reservation residents
live in abject poverty comparable to poverty found in Third World
nations. Through the efforts of tribal colleges, American Indian
communities receive the services they need to reestablish themselves as
responsible, productive, and self-reliant citizens. It would be tragic
not to expand the modest investment in, and capitalize on, the human
resources that will help open new avenues of economic development
specifically through enhancing access and use of information
technologies.
justifications
Given the needs outlined above and the reality of the speed with
which technology is advancing, we strongly urge the Subcommittee to
support the following programs within the Department of Commerce and
the Small Business Administration.
Department of Commerce Programs:
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).--Building
Math, Science and Technology capacity at tribal colleges and other
Minority Serving Institutions: In fiscal year 2001, the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration launched a $15 million program
designed to increase interest among minority students in fields of
science central to the mission of NOAA. Part of this program included
the creation of three or four Cooperative Science Centers at MSIs. In
April 2000, the National Indian Center for Marine and Environmental
Research and Education (NICMERE) was created through a cooperative
agreement among Northwest Indian College (NWIC) in Bellingham, WA,
NOAA, and the Department of Commerce with NOAA's National Marine
Fisheries Service, as the lead agency. The NWIC project is the first in
the country aimed at increasing Tribal representation in the ranks of
marine and environment science, and technical professionals. Distance
learning will play a major role in NICMERE's outreach to other tribal
colleges and Indian reservations. The main goal of this collaborative
effort is to increase the number of Native students acquiring
baccalaureate degrees in marine and environmental science fields and
entering graduate degree programs in preparation for scientific careers
with the Federal agencies such as NOAA and NMFS or in their respective
tribal government. The NOAA-MSI Initiative could potentially lead to
the establishment of graduate level programs on a cooperative basis
utilizing scientific personnel from NWIC, Northwest Fisheries Science
Center, and faculty from interested universities in the Northwest. We
urge the Subcommittee to maintain the $15 million for NOAA-EPPMSI
Initiative, included in the President's fiscal year 2002 budget, and to
include report language eliminating the current requirement that an MSI
must have an accredited graduate program in oceanic, earth, and
atmospheric sciences even if applying in partnership with graduate
degree awarding mainstream institutions. This requirement eliminates
all of the tribal colleges and most other MSIs from participating in
what is designed to be an MSI program.
Economic Development Administration (EDA).--The EDA is charged with
providing assistance to economically distressed areas and regions to
alleviate conditions of ongoing unemployment and underemployment.
Contributing to the economic development of American Indian
reservations is an essential goal of Tribal Colleges and Universities.
We support the commitment of the EDA to strengthen its efforts to
assist American Indian tribes by providing capacity building and
developing finance and infrastructure projects needed to enable our
communities to be more effective and competitive in their economic
development efforts. We request report language that will foster EDA
partnerships with tribal colleges to enable our institutions to further
address the chronic unemployment and poverty that plague reservation
communities.
International Trade Administration (ITA).--The tribal colleges are
currently pursuing partnerships with USDA, US-AID, Interior, and the
private sector to bolster international programs, tourism, trade, and
outreach to other indigenous peoples worldwide. For example, Haskell
Indian Nations University in Lawrence, Kansas, recently received a
partnership grant from US-AID to work in the Altai (Siberia) region of
Russia. The Native American economic development program of ITA could
partner with the tribal colleges to enhance their on-going and future
efforts, to use cultural heritage tourism as part of the economic and
community development programs at the tribal colleges. We request
report language to encourage ITA to specifically include the tribal
colleges as partners in the Native American economic development
program.
Small Business Administration (SBA)
Tribal Business Information Center (TBICs).--To address the unique
conditions encountered by reservation-based American Indians in their
efforts to create, develop and expand small businesses, SBA has funded
the TBICs project. This program is designed to provide culturally
tailored business development assistance to potential and current small
business owners. TBICs are a partnership arrangement between a tribe or
tribal college and the SBA that offers access to a wide variety of
resources and practical guidance at accessible reservation locations.
We support the creation of a Native American Business Development that
would offer one-stop assistance to tribal small businesses by providing
a wide variety of information and guidance, employing current and
future TBICs as branch offices. We urge Congress appropriate $5 million
to support a Native American Business Development Center and the
reservation-based business information centers that are so important to
local economic development.
conclusion
In light of the justifications presented in this statement, we urge
the Subcommittee to increase funding and eliminate barriers for tribal
colleges to help bring economic self-sufficiency to Indian Country.
Fulfillment of AIHEC's fiscal year 2002 requests will strengthen the
mission of our colleges and the enormous, positive impact they have on
our communities and will help ensure that we are able to properly
educate and prepare thousands of American Indians for the workforce of
the 21st Century. Without tribal colleges as a catalyst to move
individuals from welfare to work, much of the reform accomplished by
Congress will fail throughout Indian Country.
Tribal colleges are working hard to make every dollar count. They
have been extremely responsible with the federal support they have
received over the last 20 years. Our institutions have proven
themselves as a sound federal investment. Thank you again for this
opportunity to present our requests before this Subcommittee. We
respectfully request your continued support and full consideration of
our fiscal year 2002 appropriations requests.
______

Prepared Statement of Columbia University

Mr. Chairman, thank you for this opportunity to submit testimony
for the Subcommittee's consideration concerning the fiscal year 2002
Appropriations Bill for the Office of Global Programs within NOAA/
Department of Commerce.
Columbia University's Earth Institute houses the International
Research Institute for Climate Prediction, (IRI), located at the
Lamont-Doherty Campus of Columbia University. The IRI was selected
through an intense, competitive process in 1994 by NOAA (1) to produce
long range, seasonal to interannual forecasts based on major climate
events such as El Nino, and (2) to develop experimental climate models
for improvement of climate forecasting and predictions on a global and
regional scale. NOAA recently extended the original 5-year agreement to
include additional long-range goals and research targets.
The requests in this statement represent the generic need for the
maintenance of ongoing programs and additional resources for NOAA and
its extramural research collaborators to advance the science and
accuracy of climate and weather forecasting.
summary
The components of this statement are:
--Maximum support for the Office of Global Programs, funded at a
minimum at the fiscal year 2001 level of $68.095 million;
--Funding of $20 million for a Supercomputer to be shared by
universities/institutions for high end climate modeling and
research;
--Funding of $20 million for a Supercomputer for NOAA to be used as a
backup for National Weather Service and other NOAA forecasting
purposes, including research.
Maximum support for OGP Budget
This Committee has supported full funding of the budget request of
the OGP through the past several appropriations acts. Built in to the
OGP budget request are the ongoing research initiatives of several
multiyear efforts, such as the IRI. To maintain continuity and the
essential research core of NOAA's multi-tiered agenda, assurance of
continuity and a stable base of funding are paramount. All of NOAA's
intramural and extramural research initiatives have been determined and
planned by nonpartisan, scientific experts whose goals have been to
improve the science, accuracy and lead-time of long range climate
forecasts, and to improve regional warning systems through down-scale
modeling from IRI global forecasts. The importance of maintaining and
sustaining this comprehensive, integrated and balanced approach to
understanding our climate system will permit improved and longer lead
time forecasting. This in turn will allow better planning for the
effects of climate forced events, resulting in saved lives, minimized
property losses, and improved planning in resource allocation and crop
planting.
This request is for maximum funding for NOAA's OGP activities. At a
minimum, the level for consideration should begin with the fiscal year
2001 level of $68.095 million.
High end Supercomputing
Current climate modeling in the United States is limited by
computer capacity. The House Science Committee held a hearing recently
on Climate Forecasting: The State of the Science. When queried by
Committee Members, the independent scientific experts who appeared as
witnesses stated unanimously that the greatest need for U.S.
advancement in the climate modeling and research fields is the need for
Supercomputing capacity among universities and institutions for high-
end use.
The Japanese and European advances in climate modeling and
forecasting have been enabled through the availability of government
funded and provided Supercomputers. U.S. climatologists have now
reached the capacity of currently utilized computer systems in the
high-end tasks associated with water and atmospheric modeling. The
ability to process massive amounts of data can be only achieved through
the acquisition of vector analysis Supercomputers.
Vector analysis computers were not available to U.S. Government-
funded institutions until recently, when Cray gained the U.S. marketing
rights for NEC vector analysis Supercomputers. The current U.S.
approach, using MPP technology, cannot process the whole of computer
modeling tasks associated with water and atmospheric data on a global
scale. The inherent limitations of the MPP computer architecture cannot
embrace the data as one complex set of variables and adequately process
the multiple paths and variables associated with global modeling.
Generically, scientists acknowledge that the facility must be
located apart and distinctly separate from NOAA's ongoing computer
functions, due to the need for a dedicated Supercomputer specifically
configured for high-end climate and modeling and research. A shared
computer with NOAA for NOAA's use, whether part-time or back up, does
not provide the capability and sustained processing power needed for
the demands associated with high-end climate modeling. This request for
$20 million in fiscal year 2002 is for a computer to be competitively
bid and awarded, and for institutions, like the IRI, to have access for
sharing the use of Supercomputing capacity.
National Weather Service Supercomputer
There is widespread recognition among the extramural research
community for the necessity of improved capacity and backup among
computers for the National Weather Service. There is also a recognized
and documented need in NOAA for a backup computer for the NWS. Last
year's shutdown of NOAA's main computer, and subsequent loss of
forecasting ability, left the NWS unable to provide the services upon
which U.S. citizens, state and local governments, and private industry
have come to rely. The necessity of a backup is clear, and in times of
non-use as a backup, NOAA's internal research demands for this capacity
exist. This statement concerning NOAA's needs represents consensus
among the extramural community for additional resources and
Supercomputer capacity for NOAA and the NWS.
Thank you for this opportunity to present and articulate the needs
and request for climate modeling and research in the United States.
______

Prepared Statement of the National Federation of Community Broadcasters

Thank you for the opportunity to submit testimony to this
Subcommittee regarding the appropriation for the Public
Telecommunications Facilities Program (PTFP). As the President and CEO
of the National Federation of Community Broadcasters I speak on behalf
of 150 community radio stations across the country. NFCB is the sole
national organization representing this group of stations which provide
service in the smallest communities of this country as well as the
largest metropolitan areas. Nearly half of our members are rural
stations and half are minority controlled stations.
In summary, the points we wish to make to this Subcommittee are
that NFCB:
--Supports funding for PTFP that will cover the on-going needs of
public radio and television stations.
--Supports funding for conversion of public radio and television to
digital broadcasting.
--Requests report language to ensure that PTFP utilizes any digital
funds it receives for radio as well as television needs.
Community radio supports $110 million in funding for the Public
Telecommunications Facilities Program in fiscal year 2002.--Federal
support distributed through the PTFP is essential to continuing and
expanding the public broadcasting service throughout the United States.
It is particularly critical for rural stations and for those stations
serving minority communities. PTFP funds new stations, expanding the
reach of public broadcasting to rural areas and to audiences that are
not presently served by existing stations. In addition, it replaces
obsolete and worn out equipment so that the current stations can
continue to broadcast high quality programming. Finally, with the
advent of digital broadcasting, PTFP funding will help with the
conversion to this new technology.
We support $110 million in funding to ensure that both the on-going
program, currently funded in fiscal year 2001 at $43.5 million, will be
continued and the increase to $110 million will be available to help
cover the cost of radio and television converting to digital
transmission.
Federal funding is particularly critical to stations serving rural
and underserved audiences which have limited potential for fundraising
because of sparse populations, limited number of local businesses, and
low income levels. Even so, PTFP funding is a matching program so that
the federal money is leveraged with a local commitment of funds. This
program is a strong motivating factor in raising the significant money
necessary to replace, upgrade and purchase expensive broadcast
equipment.
Community radio supports funding for conversion to digital
broadcasting for public radio and television.--While public
television's digital conversion needs are more immediate, the Federal
Communications Commission is now in the process of identifying a
standard for digital radio transmission. We expect that there will be
funds available for radio conversion as well as television conversion.
More immediately, the television conversion process is already having
an impact on public radio stations. As television stations increase the
space they need on their towers to accommodate both analog and digital
signals, radio stations that rent space on TV towers are losing their
leases and being forced to move to other towers--sometimes with very
short notice. This situation will only get worse over the next year as
we approach the FCC deadline for television conversion. We would like
enough money in the PTFP to help public radio stations who lose their
tower space do the necessary engineering studies and move to new tower
locations.
We appreciate Congress' direction to the Corporation for Public
Broadcasting that it utilize its digital conversion fund for both radio
and television and ask that you ensure that the PTFP funds are used for
both media. Congress stated, with regard to the fiscal year 2001
digital conversion funds:

The required (digital) conversion will impose enormous costs on
both individual stations and the public broadcasting system as a whole.
Because television and radio infrastructures are closely linked, the
conversion of television to digital will create immediate costs not
only for television, but also for public radio stations (emphasis
added). Therefore, the Committee has included $15,000,000 to assist
radio stations and television stations in the conversion to
digitization . . (S. Rpt. 105-300)

NFCB requests that the funding for digital conversion be committed
in advance to facilitate the orderly transition of a very
individualized process--a process that will be different at each
station. Advanced funding will give the system time to raise the
substantial matching funds that will be necessary and to know what
additional funds will be needed to complete the process.
Finally, we are also concerned that independent producers'
conversion needs be addressed in some way so that this important source
of programming is not locked out of the public broadcasting system.
Thank you for your consideration of our testimony.
______

Prepared Statement of National Public Radio

introduction
Thank you for the opportunity to submit a statement for the hearing
record on behalf of National Public Radio (NPR) and the hundreds of
public radio stations that air NPR programming across the country.
Public radio looks forward to working with Chairman Judd Gregg and his
staff as well as the other distinguished Subcommittee members and
staff.
Public broadcasting seeks a $110 million appropriation for the
Public Telecommunications Facilities Program (PTFP) to be included in
the fiscal year 2002 Commerce-Justice-State bill. This funding will
help public radio and television stations accomplish the following:
Maintain and Expand Service
Digital Broadcasting Conversion.--The estimated cost for digital
radio transmission conversion is $116 million.
The National Telecommunications and Information Administration
(NTIA), part of the U.S. Department of Commerce, manages PTFP. PTFP is
a matching grants program primarily for public radio and television
stations' capital projects as well as for other non-profit
telecommunications entities' capital projects. It helps stations
purchase equipment to extend their signals to unserved areas, replace
outdated hardware such as transmitter antennas and upgrade equipment
and convert to digital technologies. It is the only capital grants
program available to public broadcasters.
maintain and expand service
Public-Private Partnership
The PTFP program is a successful public--private partnership
because each grant requires a local match--typically 50 percent--
leveraged from a station's community. These facilities are usually
established as a result of the community's desire to receive first or
additional public radio service, and are funded through state grants or
through capital campaigns funded by the listeners. For fiscal year
2000, NTIA awarded $4.5 million to 56 public radio projects. The awards
ranged from $4,054 to $414,334. Local stations matched these grants by
raising over $3 million in funds from communities that recognize the
enormous contribution made by public radio.
This partnership helps stations that have relatively small budgets
afford expensive capital items such as a transmission system which can
cost a Class A station $264,000 and a Class C station $900, according
to NTIA estimates. These figures do not include production equipment.
In 1999, the average total revenue for public radio stations was $1.3
million. Thus, without the federal matching grant, most public radio
stations could not afford a piece of equipment that is a quarter or
more of their operating budgets.
It is noteworthy that public radio stations are often constrained
in their ability to finance major capital expenditures. Stations are
unable to pass along costs to listeners and most stations cannot take
out loans for capital projects. This is particularly true in rural and
urban areas where small businesses typically experience greater
difficulty obtaining financing. PTFP assists stations with the high
cost of these capital projects through matching grants.
Maintaining Service
PTFP has helped build and maintain the infrastructure necessary to
deliver quality programming to millions of listeners and viewers
nationwide. For instance, PTFP is awarding WEPR-FM in Greenville, SC
$34,100 to replace its aging 27-year-old transmitter.
In addition, West Virginia Public Radio is receiving a $168,530
grant to expand its coverage and provide first public radio service to
about 50,000 residents of central West Virginia. The project will
replace a 23-year-old transmitter and construct a new tower at WVPN-FM
in Charleston. In addition, the West Virginia Public Radio Network will
replace a 31-year-old transmitter, the antenna and the line at WVPW-FM
in Buckhannon.
Expanding Service
For more than 35 years, PTFP has played a major role in the
development of America's public broadcasting stations. With the
program's assistance, public radio reaches approximately 90 percent of
the U.S. population. In fact, grants for bringing first service to a
region are given the highest priority.
In fiscal year 2000, a total of 19 grant awards will provide new
public radio services to 434,000 people. The 19 communities benefiting
from these awards are located in 15 states. One of the projects
includes expanding the facilities of KENW-FM in Portales, NM by
constructing new translators at Fort Sumner and Conchas Lake. The new
translators will add first public radio service to about 2,500 people.
Another project receiving a fiscal year 2000 grant includes the
construction of public radio facilities to serve the Blackfeet Indian
Reservation in Browing, MT.
In addition, New Hampshire Public Radio was awarded $49,500 to
expand its service area by constructing a repeater station in Jackson.
The station will provide public radio programming to about 135,000
residents of Grafton, Carroll and Coos counties and first service to
over 5,000 Mount Washington Valley residents.
One of the hallmarks of the program is its dedication to rural
service. PTFP is especially valuable for public radio stations in rural
states like Alaska, Kentucky, Vermont and Hawaii where topography or
sheer size makes it difficult for all residents to receive a public
radio signal. For example, PTFP is awarding a grant to KTNA-FM in
Talkeetna, AK to improve its studio production, on-air, and satellite
interconnection capabilities. Talkeetna is located approximately 120
miles north of Anchorage and it provides the sole public radio service
to the 5,300 residents of the northern half of the Matanuska-Susitna
Borough, an extremely rural area that encompasses 12,250 square miles.
digital broadcasting conversion
Like our friends in public television, NPR and its member stations
are excited about the possibilities of digital service and ``new
media''. PTFP will greatly enhance the ability of local stations to
attract state and private funding necessary to convert radio and
television stations to a digital standard. The estimated cost for
digital radio is $116 million for transmission only, excluding
production equipment.
Digital radio transmission technology is poised to deliver near
compact-disc-quality sound free of interference to listeners. Digital
production and transmission conversion will enable public radio
stations to produce and deliver programming using a far more efficient
process than currently exists. It may allow listeners and users to
experience a variety of new services such as the ability to search
program formats, scan selective programs as well as read music lyrics
and song titles.
U.S. broadcasters are developing a digital technology that works in
the existing AM and FM radio bands named In-Band, On-Channel or
``IBOC.'' The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) initiated a
digital audio broadcasting, or ``DAB,'' rulemaking in November 1999,
placing a high priority on preserving spectrum. IBOC DAB achieves
spectrum preservation by combining digital and analog signals within
the same AM or FM radio channel, thereby avoiding the need for
additional spectrum.
IBOC DAB will be independently tested by the National Radio Systems
Committee (NRSC) in the summer 2001. At some point after evaluation of
the additional testing, the NRSC is expected to make a recommendation
to the FCC on the selection of a standard. The FCC is awaiting this
industry recommendation before it endorses a digital radio transmission
standard.
conclusion
It is fitting that PTFP resides with the agency charged with
spectrum management and thus has the technical expertise to make
informed engineering decisions, especially as public broadcasters
expand service and make the transition from analog to digital
broadcasting. That assistance is more important now than ever before.
Please support a $110 million appropriation for the PTFP program for
fiscal year 2002. Thank you for the Subcommittee's consideration and
long-standing support for public broadcasting.
NPR is a private, nonprofit corporation that produces and
distributes award-winning programming such as Morning Edition, All
Things Considered, Performance Today, and Car Talk. NPR is also a
membership organization. NPR Member stations are independent entities,
licensed to a variety of non-profit organizations, local communities,
colleges, universities and other institutions. Public radio stations
independently select and produce community-appropriate programming that
best serve their listening areas.
______

Prepared Statement of The Nature Conservancy

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to submit testimony on
the fiscal year 2002 budget for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA).
The Nature Conservancy is an international, non-profit organization
dedicated to conserving biological diversity. Our mission is to
preserve the plants, animals, and natural communities that represent
the diversity of life on Earth by protecting the lands and waters they
need to survive. We have more than a million individual members, over
1,500 corporate members, and programs in every state and in 20 nations.
We have protected more than 11 million acres within the United States
and Canada, and have helped local partner organizations preserve
millions more overseas. Additionally, we own the largest private system
of nature preserves in the world.
Since 1950, The Nature Conservancy has maintained a strong focus on
land-based habitats. However, in the past decade, we have recognized
that to accomplish our mission we must also focus on critically
important and productive freshwater, coastal, and marine habitats--
particularly habitats such as estuaries, coral reefs, mangroves, and
seagrass beds that are heavily affected by human activities. We are
aware that coastal areas and oceans contain biodiversity rivaling
tropical rain forests. Yet as a nation we have focused little attention
on their conservation.
As a result, The Nature Conservancy is escalating its focus on
freshwater, coastal, and marine conservation areas using the sound
science, strong partnerships, ecosystem approach, and site-based
conservation that has proven effective throughout our 50-year history.
We are working with public and private partners to develop a
``conservation blueprint'' that will identify the terrestrial,
freshwater, coastal, and marine sites at several scales, that together
if conserved will protect the nation's unique array of plants, animals,
and natural communities for the long-term.
Several NOAA programs have proven especially successful at
combining effective management, good science, and community involvement
to achieve tangible and lasting conservation results. These programs
will also facilitate the process of conserving many conservation areas
identified by the Conservancy's conservation blueprint. These programs
include:
--National Estuarine Research Reserve System
--National Marine Sanctuaries
--Habitat Restoration
--Salmon Recovery
--Marine Protected Areas
--Coral Reef Conservation
national estuarine research reserve system
These twenty-five ``living laboratories'' have historically made
the most of a modest annual budget. However, last year the National
Estuarine Research Reserve System (NERRS) received a funding boost that
should be built upon in fiscal year 2002, as appropriate to the
importance of estuaries to critical habitat and coastal economies.
Adequate funding for the NERRS ($18 million for operations; $7
million for CZM Administration; $15 million for procurement,
acquisition, and construction) will permit individual reserves to
better implement strong management, research, education, and
stewardship activities within surrounding communities, build necessary
facilities, and acquire key tracts of land and conservation easements
in order to buffer reserves from development impacts. Additional
funding would also facilitate implementation of system-wide monitoring
and coastal training programs, and eventually the expansion of the
system, permitting it to officially represent the suite of
biogeographic regions that together comprise our nation's coastlines.
As manager of more than 1,300 preserves, we appreciate increased
funding for the NERRS. Estuaries serve as ``nature's water treatment
system,'' providing flood control, storm damage protection, recreation,
and habitat for species to spawn, nurse, and live. The Conservancy
works in several reserves including New Hampshire's Great Bay,
Florida's Apalachicola Bay, Alaska's Kachemak Bay, South Carolina's ACE
Basin, and Mississippi's Grand Bay. We know first hand that the NERRS
has implemented solid science to inform communities about how coastal
ecosystems function, how humans affect them, and methods for improving
their condition.
national marine sanctuaries
The Nature Conservancy supports the President's request for $36
million to fund the National Marine Sanctuary Program. This funding
would extend volunteer programs, provide for additional monitoring, and
enable all sanctuaries to meet critical, long-term needs. It would also
fulfill a national plan for visitor interpretive centers and public
outreach activities. Additionally, new investments in science are
needed to fully understand the complex issues that will lead to better
sanctuary management. Finally, as revised and more detailed management
plans are developed for individual sanctuaries, additional funding will
be needed for their implementation.
National Marine Sanctuaries embody some of the world's most diverse
ecosystems. The thirteen sanctuaries established since 1972 protect
18,000 square miles of ocean waters. They aid in the recovery of
endangered marine animals, lessen the threat of oil spills, increase
knowledge of the ocean through research, and enlarge a stewardship
ethic among citizens. Where appropriate, uses such as recreation,
commercial fishing, and shipping are also permitted.
The Conservancy's most extensive experience with this program has
been in the Florida Keys where a sanctuary was established to stem
threats to the ecological health of the coral reef ecosystem. In
cooperation with the state of Florida and an Advisory Council
(representatives from commercial and recreational fishing, the dive and
boating industries, public interest organizations, scientific and
educational organizations, and the public) the Sanctuary developed and
is implementing a comprehensive management plan. The plan focuses on
issues and activities including education and outreach, enforcement,
research and monitoring, and zoning. It also concentrates on solutions
for water quality problems related to stormwater runoff, sewage
treatment, live-aboards, hazardous spills, and pesticides. It is
showing promising results.
habitat restoration
Coastal ecosystems are powerful drivers of the United States
economy, with more than 180 million people visiting the coasts
annually. By 2010, 75 percent of the United States population is
expected to live within fifty miles of the coast. Tourism, recreation,
fishing, and other industries require healthy coastal habitats and
clean waters. Yet, harmful algal blooms, polluted beaches and waters,
contaminated shellfish beds, and diseased coral reefs are signs that
human activities are degrading valuable habitat coastal resources.
The Nature Conservancy strongly supports NOAA's coastal habitat
restoration efforts, and recommends sustaining funding levels of $18
million for Fishery Habitat Restoration. Most of this funding would
ensure the continued success of NOAA's Community-Based Restoration
Program that together with national partners, has inspired local
efforts to conduct meaningful, on-the-ground restoration of freshwater,
coastal, and marine habitat. This funding level would bring more seed
money to local communities across the country for the restoration of
vital coastal habitats including wetlands, seagrass beds, mangroves,
anadromous fish spawning areas, and coastal rivers. Additionally, it
would increase this successful program's geographic scope and rate at
which it can encourage community ownership and restoration of critical
and rapidly dwindling habitat. This program has not only leveraged $4-
$10 for every federal dollar invested at more than 177 projects, but
has also leveraged a conservation ethic across the nation.
salmon recovery
Salmon travel hundreds of fresh and saltwater miles past cities,
dams, farms, and forests during their life cycle. As a result, it is
necessary to focus at a landscape-scale to determine what salmon need
to survive. Such an approach benefits other species dependent upon
cool, clear water and quality habitat. This includes humans, who desire
flood prevention, improved water quantity and quality, reduced erosion,
and recreational opportunities.
Habitat destruction, reduced streamflows, pollution, passage
impediments or blockage from hydropower and other developments, and
over-harvest have all played a role in the decline of Pacific salmon
stocks. Adequate funding to conserve and recover salmon ($200 million
for the Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery Fund; $55 million for NMFS
Agency Funding for Pacific Salmon Recovery) is critically needed. The
Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery Fund enables states and tribes to fund
local efforts that evaluate, protect, and restore key habitat. NMFS
Agency funding would further critical scientific research and
monitoring, spur new partnerships and cooperative efforts, and
implement protections under the Endangered Species Act.
History has demonstrated that a good portion of money spent on
habitat restoration and recovery could been used more effectively and
at less cost to the taxpayer if applied before systems were altered and
degraded. It is time to make tough choices about how to conserve
functioning systems with healthy habitats and salmon populations for
the long-term.
marine protected areas
Marine protected areas (MPAs) are proven tools for rebuilding and
sustaining fisheries, recovering threatened and endangered species, and
providing recreational opportunities. The Conservancy has learned this
first hand through work with scientists, community members,
international governments, and federal agencies to establish MPAs and
identify and protect biodiversity within them in places such as the
Florida Keys, the Exuma Cays Land and Sea Park in the Bahamas, and
Kimbe Bay in Papua New Guinea. It is time to reserve more of these
places for future generations, just as the nation has done on land with
national parks and refuges, national forests, and other specially
managed areas.
The Conservancy recommends that $5 million be appropriated so that
NOAA can work with federal and state agencies and other partners to
assess the use of MPAs as management tools for the nation's valuable
marine resources, while permitting recreation and protecting
biodiversity. Funding would enable completion of the first nation-wide
inventory of MPAs, which would be applied towards assessing the
system's effectiveness in meeting partners' goals and the use of MPAs
as management tools. Funding would support needed research on MPA
design and implementation to meet different goals, and would also
support training and technical assistance for communities, users,
management agencies, and others. Finally, funding would be used to
share lessons and information, and to increase public involvement
through the MPA web site.
coral reef conservation
Coral reef ecosystem health has declined severely all over the
world in recent decades. The combined effects of global climate changes
and human activities have put coral reefs at great risk. It is now
critical to take action before the tragedy becomes irreversible. As a
result, the Conservancy has been working throughout the world with
governmental and non-governmental partners to protect these fragile
systems.
The Nature Conservancy supports the President's budget for
activities that benefit coral reefs ($16 million for NOS; $11 million
for NMFS; $700,000 for NESDIS; $500,000 for OAR). Also supported by the
United States Coral Reef Task Force, these activities include
comprehensive mapping and monitoring of coral reefs, research into
ecological processes upon which reefs depend, enhanced international
activities, integration of human activities, and public education. With
such funding, this scientifically-based effort will protect and restore
coral reefs in the United States and its territories. It will also
serve as a model in intergovernmental coordination, and in coral reef
protection for similar initiatives in the rest of the world.
conclusion
Thank you for the opportunity to submit these remarks. Conservation
of coastal waters is challenging since many marine habitats cannot be
purchased and set aside for conservation. Instead, we must employ a
variety of strategies at every level to conserve and restore these
valuable places. The Nature Conservancy looks forward to working with
NOAA, other federal agencies, state and local governments, non-
governmental organizations, and the private sector to ensure the long-
term protection and sustainable use of our productive and diverse
coastal waters.
______

Prepared Statement of the University Corporation for Atmospheric
Research

On behalf of the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research
(UCAR) and the university community involved in weather and climate
research and related education, training and support activities, I
submit this written testimony for the record of the U.S. Senate
Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, State
and the Judiciary. My testimony pertains to the fiscal year 2002 budget
request for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
UCAR is a university membership consortium composed of 63 North
American institutions that grant the Ph.D. in atmospheric, oceanic, and
related sciences. The UCAR mission is to support, enhance, and extend
the capabilities of the university community, nationally and
internationally; to understand the behavior of the atmosphere and
related systems and the global environment; and to foster the transfer
of knowledge and technology for the betterment of life on earth. UCAR
is a non-profit, Colorado-based corporation that manages and operates
the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) and the UCAR Office
of Programs (UOP). It is supported by the National Science Foundation
(NSF) and other federal agencies including NOAA. In addition to its
member universities, UCAR has formal relationships with approximately
100 additional undergraduate and graduate schools including several
historically black and minority-serving institutions and 38
international universities and laboratories.
On behalf of this country's atmospheric sciences community, I urge
the Committee to support at the highest level possible the research,
training, and observations activities of the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration. NOAA provides a comprehensive approach to
understanding the atmospheric and oceanic systems of the earth and to
implementation of programs that save American lives, energy, money and
property. The weather and climate data collected by NOAA satellites,
ships, ocean buoys, aircraft, and other instrumentation provide the
foundation on which atmospheric sciences research is based. Support for
NOAA should be maintained at the highest possible levels given the rate
at which the world's climate is changing and during this era of rapid
scientific discovery and intense, global economic competition.
Within NOAA, I would like to comment on the following offices and
programs:
national weather service (nws)
I urge the Committee to support the NWS request of $727.6 million,
a net increase of $34.8 million above the fiscal year 2001 enacted
level. The National Weather Service will put this increase to excellent
use in making available critical weather and climate-related data,
improving weather prediction accuracy and warning lead times, and
working to decrease weather related fatalities. There are few agency
programs that impact our daily lives and the health of our economy as
profoundly as does the NWS. Within NWS, I would like to comment on the
following programs:
Forecaster Training and Related Research Programs
Support for NWS forecaster training has declined over the past
three years from a high of about $20 million to the current figure of
approximately $12 million. Rapidly expanding new technologies and
dramatic advancements in the field of meteorology, combined with
impacts of increased weather and climate variability, have created a
pressing demand for professional development of the NWS workforce and
collaborative research activities with universities and laboratories.
This is the time, not to cut back on this activity, but to expand it. I
urge the Committee to support, mainly in the NWS travel budget, an
amount of $15 million (without harming any other programs within NWS)
to make adequate training of NWS forecasters possible through proven
and highly successful programs such as the UCAR-based Cooperative
Program for Operational Meteorology, Education and Training (COMET).
Radiosonde Replacement Network
The antiquated upper air radiosonde network is in dire need of
replacement. There is little doubt that the obsolete infrastructure for
this principle data source on upper air for all weather forecasts and
models will fail by 2005 if it does not receive adequate modernization
funding now. When the network falls apart, this nation, the richest on
earth, will suffer widespread loss of data that are essential for
accurate forecasting across the country. Funding should be appropriated
now that will allow the NWS to replace antiquated computers, continue
software development, and procure critical surface instruments. The
requested amount of $5 million is not adequate. I urge the Committee to
increase the recommended funding for the Radiosonde Replacement Network
from $5 million in the Procurement, Acquisition and Construction (PAC)
account, to the critically needed amount of $7 million without harming
any other programs within NWS.
Advanced Hydrologic Prediction System (AHPS)
The need to implement AHPS nationwide is being demonstrated right
now as the Mississippi and Red Rivers rise to dangerous levels. This
real time modeling and data analysis system will significantly improve
flood forecasting, water management, and risk-based decision making in
flood-prone areas such as the Mississippi and Ohio River Basins. It
will save lives and property by providing river stage forecasts one-to-
two months in advance, a great improvement on the several days advance
notice now available. The proposed $1 million for fiscal year 2002
simply will not provide the coverage that is needed. Within the NWS ORF
account, I urge the Committee to support $3.5 million for national
implementation of AHPS without harming any other NWS programs.
Co-Operative Observer Network
I urge the Committee to support the request of $2.3 million in the
Operations, Research, and Facilities (ORF) account to sustain the
volunteer operated Cooperative Observer Network. The network's 11,000
weather observation sites are used to maintain the country's climate
record and to provide data to NWS local field offices and to university
laboratories. The National Research Council has recommended taking
immediate steps to modernize this ailing, critical network. This
achievement of modernizing, as opposed to just sustaining, will
necessitate enhanced future funding. This year's recommended funding
will rescue the network from collapse, but increased funding for
modernization should begin in fiscal year 2003. Any investment in this
infrastructure will reap immediate dividends in energy savings realized
from improved weather data.
National Centers for Environmental Prediction (NCEP)
NCEP is comprised of nine centers within the NWS, all working
together toward the common goal of using data for weather predictions
and seasonal forecasts in order to save lives, protect property, and
create economic opportunity. Weather Service field offices, other
government agencies, research universities, the U.S. Weather Research
Program, and private meteorological services rely on NCEP's products.
Forecasts that reach the public via media outlets originate at NCEP. In
recent years, the centers have been supported inadequately to process
weather data and transfer it into operations. In order to help fix this
problem, I urge the Committee to support the recommended $1.7 million
to sustain current operations of the NCEP Environmental Modeling
Center, and the recommended $3.0 million for NCEP Data Assimilation and
Modeling.
Advanced Weather Interactive Processing System (AWIPS)
Under NWS Public Warning and Forecast Systems in the Operations,
Research and Facilities (ORF) account, I urge the Committee to support
the fiscal year 2002 proposed amount of $38.4 million for AWIPS
Operations and Maintenance. This interactive computer system, the
cornerstone of the recently completed NWS modernization and
restructuring, integrates for the first time all meteorological and
hydrological data, and all satellite and radar data. AWIPS is a
critical source of data for the research community and enables the NWS
to issue far more effective weather warnings and forecasts in a very
efficient manner. Under NWS Systems Acquisition in the Procurement,
Acquisition and Construction (PAC) account, we urge the Committee to
support the proposed fiscal year 2002 amount of $16.3 million for AWIPS
to continue development of AWIPS software. When integrated with NEXRAD
Product Improvement technology, this new software will allow NWS
forecasters to significantly improve tornado warning lead times and
improve the accuracy of severe storm forecasts.
office of oceanic and atmospheric research (oar)
OAR functions are critical to the process of conducting research
and linking the results to operations. The office supports a world-
class network of scientists and environmental research laboratories as
well as partnerships with academia and the private sector in order to
provide the sound science upon which decision makers can frame
effective regulations to solve environmental problems. Society's demand
and economic need for the OAR labs' information services have increased
dramatically in such areas as predictions of El Nino/La Nina events,
tropical storm intensity, flooding and drought. To realize the full
benefit to society, I urge the Committee to enhance support for the
extremely critical services provided by OAR. OAR's most important
research efforts conducted with universities include the following:
U.S. Weather Research Program (USWRP)
This interagency program, authorized by Congress in 1992, was first
mentioned in NOAA's budget in fiscal year 2000. I am encouraged that
this program is receiving an additional $2.2 million this year, but
even the recommended amount of $3.7 million falls far short of the
annual $12.5 million recommended in the Congressionally mandated
implementation plan. The USWRP research community is poised to make
significant gains in prediction capabilities regarding heavy
precipitation (that can result in the kind of flooding we see now on
the Mississippi and Red Rivers) and hurricane landfall location and
intensity. The disaster relief savings of such gains would be many
times the initial research cost investment, not to mention the value of
lives saved. I urge the Committee to provide the USWRP with at least
$10 million for fiscal year 2002. This relatively small increment in
funding would have a major impact on the increased accuracy of weather
forecasts.
Since the USWRP is an interagency program the goals of which
advance the NOAA mission, we would suggest that NOAA take the lead in
collaborating with the National Science Foundation (NSF), the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), and the Department of
Defense (DOD) to ensure appropriate support from these agencies.
Climate and Global Change Program
The Climate and Global Change program is an integral part of the
interagency U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) that addresses
our understanding of the global climate system including knowledge and
prediction of climate variability patterns and the occurrence of severe
weather events. The research funded by this competitive grants program
improves the regional specificity and detail of climate forecasts,
which is essential progress to advancing our understanding of the
Earth's climate. In fiscal year 2001, funding for this program was
$68.35 million; fiscal year 2002 funding is recommended at only $68.71
million, an increase that is far below the rate of inflation. I urge
the committee to support, without harming other NOAA programs, at least
a 4 percent increase for the Climate and Global Change Program for a
fiscal year 2002 funding level of $71.0 million.
Climate Observations and Services Program
This initiative, begun in fiscal year 2001, meets the growing
demand for timely data and information about climate variability,
climate change and trends in severe weather events. The work of the
program will support new ocean observations and infrastructure that
will provide essential data to understanding aspects of climate change.
I urge the Committee to support the fiscal year 2002 request of $24.0
million for the Climate Observations and Services Program, a $13.0
million increase over fiscal year 2001 levels.
Boulder Facilities Operations
In addition to supporting the research programs above, I urge the
Committee to support the request of $5 million for Boulder Facilities
Operations. Six of the 12 laboratories that make up NOAA's Office of
Oceanic and Atmospheric Research (OAR) Laboratories are housed in
Boulder at the David Skaggs Research Center. The Center is also the
home of two NESDIS Data Centers, one of OAR's 11 Joint Institutes, and
the Denver Forecast Office of the National Weather Service (NWS). The
$5 million in requested funding will meet operating costs for space,
utilities, maintenance and security at this facility.
National Environmental Satellite, Data and Information Service (NESDIS)
For several years we have been concerned about the proposed level
of funding in the NESDIS Operations, Research and Facilities (ORF)
account. We are pleased to see that overall support demonstrated in
last year's increase for this account is being continued, but we still
have grave concerns about critical programs within NESDIS that are
actually recommended for significant cuts. This account is divided into
support for the Satellite Observing Systems and the Environmental Data
Management Systems. The Satellite Observing Systems provide services in
designing, developing, and operating civilian satellite systems for the
purpose of observing ocean, and atmospheric conditions and the sun.
These are observational tools critical to improving our knowledge of
the complex environmental systems in which we live. I urge the
Committee to support the request of $75.9 million for NESDIS Satellite
Observing Systems, an increase of $15.7 million over the fiscal year
2001 enacted level.
The rich data collected by the NESDIS satellite systems are
acquired, processed, analyzed, archived and disseminated through the
Environmental Data Management Systems to commerce, industry,
agriculture, science and engineering, the general public, and
government at all levels. While the Satellite Systems function collects
data, the Data Management Systems function makes those data useful and
available. Both sides of the equation are of equal importance, and we
are disturbed to see that the data management function is recommended
for a $9.0 million decrease. An increase in funding for the observing
systems that collect data obviously should be coupled with an increase
in funding for the management systems that make the collected data
useful and accessible. The budget language within the Data and
Information Services section itself makes the argument for an increase
stating that, ``Requirements have expanded due to growing customer
demands for data and products, and increases data management as the
volume of new data continues to grow.'' I urge the Committee to restore
the NESDIS Environmental Data Management Systems to the fiscal year
2001 enacted level of $64.8 million without harming base funding for
any of the other worthy programs of NESDIS.
Minority Serving Institutions
While the recommended increase will not cover the cost of
inflation, we are pleased to see the continuing commitment to Minority
Serving Institutions (MSIs), a program begun in fiscal year 2001. In
order to have a productive scientific workforce now and in future
years, the pool of qualified applicants must be as diverse as the
population at large. Under-representation of minorities in earth
science disciplines in this country is a serious issue that must be
addressed by multiple programs across multiple agencies and
institutions. I urge the Committee to support the $15.0 million request
for NOAA's Minority Serving Institutions initiative and to increase
that amount, if possible, without harming other NOAA programs.
On behalf of UCAR, I want to thank the Committee for the important
work you do for U.S. scientific research, education, and training. We
appreciate your attention to the recommendations of our community
concerning the fiscal year 2002 budget.
______

Prepared Statement of the American Museum of Natural History

about the american museum of natural history
The American Museum of Natural History [AMNH] is one of the
nation's preeminent institutions for scientific research and public
education. Since its founding in 1869, the Museum has pursued its
mission to ``discover, interpret, and disseminate--through scientific
research and education--knowledge about human cultures, the natural
world, and the universe.'' It is renowned for its exhibitions and
collections of more than 32 million specimens and cultural artifacts.
With nearly five million annual visitors--approximately half of them
children--its audience is one of the largest, fastest growing, and most
diverse of any museum in the country. More than 200 Museum scientists
conduct groundbreaking research in fields ranging from all branches of
zoology and paleontology to earth, space, and environmental sciences
and biodiversity conservation. Their work forms the basis for all the
Museum's activities that seek to explain complex issues and help people
to understand the events and processes that created and continue to
shape the Earth, life and civilization on this planet, and the universe
beyond.
In its exhibition halls AMNH scientific knowledge and discovery are
translated into three dimensions. One of the most exciting chapters in
the Museum's history culminated just over one year ago with the opening
of the Rose Center for Earth and Space in February 2000. Greeted with
critical and popular acclaim and record-setting attendance surpassing
all projections, the Rose Center includes a rebuilt Hayden Planetarium,
Hall of the Universe, and Hall of Planet Earth. It leads to the Hall of
Biodiversity, which reveals the variety of Earth's living things and
expands the Museum's efforts to alert the public to the critical role
biodiversity plays in sustaining life as we know it and to the
ecological crisis we now face. Together, the new planetarium and halls
provide visitors a seamless educational journey from the universe's
beginnings to the formation and processes of Earth to the extraordinary
diversity of life on our planet.
common goals of noaa and the american museum
Today, as throughout its history, the National Oceanographic and
Atmospheric Administration [NOAA] is committed to describing and
predicting changes in Earth's environment and to conservation and wise
management of the Nation's coastal and marine resources. It dedicates
itself to forecasting environmental changes, providing decision makers
with reliable scientific information, and fostering global
environmental stewardship.
The American Museum shares NOAA's commitment to these environmental
goals and to the scientific research and public education that underlie
them. Indeed, informed environmental stewardship and preservation of
our planet's biodiversity and resources--in the marine, coastal, and
other natural environments and habitats--are integral to the Museum's
most fundamental purposes. The Museum is now poised to launch the
following initiatives in which it seeks to partner with NOAA to advance
our shared environmental research, stewardship, and public information
goals.
public education in marine and ocean sciences
Public understanding of the natural world has taken on new urgency
in an era of dramatic discoveries affecting our understanding of the
oceans, widespread species and habitat loss, and weather shifts around
the globe. To meet this vital need for understanding of the complex
natural phenomena affecting people and the planet, the Museum is
planning a major initiative about our planet's last frontier--the
oceans.
In the year ahead the Museum will embark upon an ambitious
renovation of one of its flagship halls, the Hall of Ocean Life. The
new hall will provide a rich context for the latest marine research and
will help to bring the marine realm into public focus, educating the
public about current research into the oceans' vital role in the life
of our planet. The renovation will bring new technologies and media
together with living creatures, restored classic dioramas, and
treasured icons like the 94-ft. model Blue Whale to educate audiences
of all ages about earth as a marine habitat, a water planet, and about
the diversity of life in and near the water.
The Hall of Ocean Life is one of the Museum's grand exhibition
spaces. First constructed in 1924 and last renovated in 1969, the
29,000 square foot hall is comprised of two levels, the main floor and
the mezzanine. The main floor, at 16,000 square feet, features 15
historic dioramas and a two-story Andros Coral Reef diorama. These
dioramas are widely recognized as treasures of a distinctive art form
used as a method of environmental education by natural history museums,
primarily in the United States, Canada, and Scandinavia, in the first
half of the twentieth century. The mezzanine level currently features
an exhibition on the phylogeny of fishes, which includes more than 400
models. Renovation plans will transform the Hall into a fully immersive
simulated marine environment with video projection screens, interactive
computer kiosks, and an aquarium. The most important concepts to be
conveyed to Ocean Life visitors are that the oceans support a highly
diverse and complex web of life--and that there is a critical
connection between the ocean and our own survival. Earth's oceans make
life possible, and together, the oceans represent the largest habitat
on Earth, supporting the greatest diversity of life on the planet.
Themes of biodiversity and interconnectedness will recur throughout the
exhibition's narratives, complementing and expanding upon the adjoining
Biodiversity Hall.
The new design plan includes not only extensive restoration of
existing elements, such as the dioramas, but also a complete renovation
of the mezzanine level to incorporate more integrated depictions of
ocean life through models, specimens, and new multimedia elements.
Invertebrates, including elements from the recently closed Hall of
Mollusks as well as marine plants, will appear in the hall as integral
components of the various habitats on display.
Highlights of planned exhibition elements include the following:
--Habitat stories.--A different marine habitat will be featured in
each of eight niches that line the North and South walls of the
mezzanine. The habitats will serve as windows onto the ocean
world, organizing the scientific information into eight self-
contained, ecological stories. Each niche will feature a vivid
depiction of the particular habitat using models and specimens
along with various forms of signage, and a series of plasma
screens above the glass-enclosed displays will create a ``video
necklace'' around the mezzanine. The videos will feature high
definition images of each habitat, showcasing marine ecosystems
from around the world.
--Additional Mezzanine Elements.--Other niches on the mezzanine level
will focus on subjects such as the evolutionary history and the
morphology of fish and aquatic invertebrates. There will also
be a niche devoted to the evolutionary development of the
oceans and ocean life, featuring dioramas depicting life in the
ancient oceans and authentic seafloor fossilized slabs that
visitors can touch. Flanking the mezzanine-level entrance to
the Hall will be two small theatres presenting videos on basic
oceanography and impacts of human activity on the marine world.
--Walls of Species.--On the main floor, a ``Wall of Fishes'' will
display an array of 75-100 models of freshwater and marine fish
and traces the evolutionary relationships among all fish
species alive today. An adjacent ``Wall of Marine
Invertebrates'' exhibit will spotlight the more than 30 phyla
of marine invertebrates. Both walls will echo a Spectrum of
Life Wall in the adjoining Hall of Biodiversity, reinforcing
the intricate evolutionary connections among all living
creatures.
--The Blue Whale.--The renovated hall will still feature the
monumental Blue Whale, but the Museum will provide more
extensive and up-to-date information about aspects of cetacean
biology and conservation and relevant research developments
around the globe.
--Aquarium.--A planned state-of-the-art aquarium, with a 40-foot tank
that holds 16,000 gallons of sea water, will depict an Indo-
Pacific ``patch reef'' (the edge of a coral formation emerging
from the sandy sea floor), featuring a brilliant display of
fish and invertebrates swimming through a forest of indigenous
corals and gorgonians.
--Marine research.--The renovated Hall of Ocean Life will also
educate the public about current marine research, including
analyses from the proposed GIS facility described below. This
information will expand on themes developed in the Museum's
Halls of Biodiversity and Planet Earth, such as the oceans'
impact on shaping weather patterns and climate, threats to the
health of oceans and coasts, and other topics pertinent to the
Museum's and NOAA's core concerns.
We seek to partner with NOAA in this undertaking to create new
educational exhibits to introduce 21st century museum visitors to the
abundance and the wonder of ocean life as well as the architecture of
its currently endangered ecosystems. We do not seek funds for capital
costs but for exhibition display.
geographic information systems for environmental research
Tied to our public education initiative, our second proposed
initiative concerns cutting-edge technologies for basic and applied
environmental research. New technologies in Geographical Information
Systems [GIS] and remote sensing are revolutionizing the way
environmental research can be conducted and data analyzed. At the same
time, they are revolutionizing the ways museum collections can be used
and accessed by scientists, educators, policy makers, and the general
public. The American Museum of Natural History has long been at the
forefront of developing new modes and methods of scientific research.
The explosion of technology in GIS creates a window of opportunity for
the Museum to develop new ways to integrate this state-of-the-art
analytical tool into our leading-edge research and present results to
the public in our exhibition halls.
Wise environmental stewardship and conservation policy require
effective knowledge of the distribution of species and ecological
communities at local, regional, and global scales. Without this
information, it is difficult to decide where to allocate scarce
conservation resources. While remote sensing provides a tool for
calculating and visualizing changes in the distribution of natural
communities and human-dominated landscapes at all these different
scales, GIS enables researchers to compare more detailed information
(such as distribution of species, streams, habitat features) from
different sources at the same scale. Throughout its zoology,
paleontology, earth and space science and anthropology divisions and
its Center for Biodiversity and Conservation, AMNH investigators are
exploring GIS applications to advance research pertinent to
conservation, protecting threatened species, and safeguarding marine
habitats. These applications include the following:
--Conservation research.--GIS is becoming an indispensable component
in environmental data analysis, providing the database backbone
that can connect field work to analysis. It unites satellite
and legacy data with raw standardized samples and ground
truthing, and is revolutionizing work in conservation. AMNH
researchers studying endangered ecosystems, marine species, and
marine reserves, for example, can use GIS to develop finer,
tighter, more precise datasets, while GIS analysis enables
researches to ask more sophisticated and flexible questions,
and to discover patterns, series, and gradations.
--Collections data and access.--GIS can bring the Museum collections
of more than 32 million specimens and artifacts alive and
increase exponentially the analyses that researchers can carry
out for conservation research and decision making. By coupling
GIS with the Museum's increasingly strong AMNH web presence to
provide easy access, researchers worldwide will be able to pose
more sophisticated questions and uncover new connections and
relationships among our collections data. For example, by using
georeferenced data, researchers can compare current maps with
legacy data to trace environmental changes over time.
--Public education.--To present current science news the Museum has
created the Science Bulletins. These high definition video
reports feature breaking science developments and discovery in
high definition wall displays in the Halls of Biodiversity,
Planet Earth, and the Universe. With access to GIS applications
and datasets, they can be adapted for the Hall of Ocean Life
content as well; and present the public with global earth
science-related datasets, maps, marine biodiversity reports,
ocean life discoveries, and more.
--The Museum's Center for Biodiversity and Conservation [CBC] has had
noted success with their piloted Remote Sensing and
Geographical Information System (GIS) laboratory since the fall
of 1998. It has been using GIS in biodiversity and marine
reserve research; for example, to identify sites suitable for
biological inventory; provide supplementary quantitative and
qualitative data in and around study sites (e.g. extent of
habitat fragmentation); and development of persuasive visual
depictions and digital presentations for reports, publications,
and meetings.
These successes and uses for GIS demonstrate the Museum's enormous
potential for using GIS to help advance environmental forecasting,
provide decision makers with reliable scientific information, and
foster global environmental stewardship. We therefore seek to partner
with NOAA in establishing a Museum-wide GIS resource center to
facilitate integrated research, education, and access in these areas so
crucial to sound environmental stewardship. We seek support not for
bricks and mortar but for GIS research and education applications.
The Museum brings to the proposed NOAA partnership a public
platform of tremendous power and reach. Since the Rose Center opened,
the American Museum's annual onsite audience has increased 45 percent,
to nearly five million annual visitors. In addition, the Museum's
website enjoys an average of more than 16,000 unique online visitors
each day. The Hall of Ocean Life will increase this audience even more.
Our joint efforts, therefore, are positioned in the years ahead to
reach a combined onsite and online audience that could reasonably
approach 10 million. We also plan to carry out these proposed strategic
initiatives with funds from nonfederal as well as federal sources. The
Museum has a highly successful track record in private fundraising, and
we are confident that we will be able to leverage any federal
investment favorably.
In sum, we request $1 million to join in partnership with NOAA in
developing these research and public education initiatives. By
generating critical scientific knowledge through GIS applications and
public education about the vital role of ocean and marine environments,
we can advance our shared commitment to environmental stewardship for
the generations to come.
______

Prepared Statement of the University of Miami, Coral Gables, Florida

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, I appreciate the
opportunity to present a statement for the Record on behalf of my
colleagues at the University of Miami and its Rosenstiel School of
Marine and Atmospheric Science, the schools of Medicine and Law, and
the Dante B. Fascell North-South Center. We respectfully seek your
support in fiscal year 2002 for three projects at the University of
Miami. First, a new project dedicated to improving our understand of
wild fish populations and to developing a sound scientific basis for
fisheries management through the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric
Administration; a timely and new initiative, the Healthcare and Elder
Law Policy (HELP) Center through the Department of Justice and its
National Institute on Justice and/or its Bureau of Justice Assistance;
and continuing support for a unique national resource, the Dante B.
Fascell North-South Center through the United States Information
Agency.
Founded in 1925, the University of Miami is the largest private
research university in the Southeastern United States and the youngest
of 23 private research universities in the nation that operate both law
and medical schools. Through its 14 colleges and schools, more than
2,300 faculty instruct almost 14,000 undergraduate, graduate, and
professional students in facilities located on four major campuses.
the center for sustainable fisheries
The Rosenstiel School is recognized as one of the premier academic
oceanographic research facilities in the world and ranked among the top
six nationally (by number of faculty, funded research volume, and
graduate program size). Located on a 16-acre tract on Virginia Key in
Miami's Biscayne Bay, the Rosenstiel School provides the only
subtropical marine research facility in the continental United States,
and is adjacent to and coordinates daily with the national NOAA lab and
research facility.
The Rosenstiel School because of its unique location--the Gulf
Stream is immediately offshore; just to the south lies a vast of
expanse of the only living coral reef off the shores of the continental
United States; and just to the east the Florida-Bahamas Carbonate
Platform--is a unique resource for the nation, as well as for Florida
and the southeast region.
There are close to 100 recognized scientists, researchers, and
educators at the Rosenstiel School who collaborate closely with other
Florida institutions and whose distinct expertise is vital in
addressing critical national, regional, and Florida natural,
environmental, and climatic challenges.
First, Mr. Chairman, I salute your and the Committee your
continuing leadership and commitment to programs especially helpful to
Florida. Everyone in Florida applauds your continuing interest and
support for the South Florida ecosystem project, for NOAA's investment
in ocean observation and coastal zone monitoring, and for NOAA's
improved forecast capability for severe storm and hurricane landfall.
Respectively, these projects seem to be leading to a new understanding
of the Everglades-Florida Bay relationship and health, improving the
health and safety of Florida's coastal communities, and improving
NOAA's general forecasting capability.
We respectfully seek $5 million through NOAA for instrumentation
and equipment costs to develop a state-of-the-art molecular biology
laboratory ($1.5 million); a computer-based modeling and visualization
center ($1 million); a flowing sea water source and disposal system ($1
million); and finally public access, interactive and educational
facilities and displays ($1.5 million).
The Center for Sustainable Fisheries will focus on improving
assessment tools for traditional fisheries data; developing innovative
approaches for assessment and management; developing habitats to study
life cycles and histories of selected species, improving population
dynamic models; and linking science and management with policy
implications. The Center for Sustainable Fisheries will house strong
multi-disciplinary teams working on these five major areas of
investigation, utilizing flowing sea water facilities, high technology
laboratories, and public educational/interactive areas. The
construction costs for the facility will be provided through a private-
pubic partnership, private gifts, support from the University of Miami,
and other interests.
the healthcare and elder law policy center (help center)
The HELP Center is a project dedicated to the development of
interdisciplinary collaboration in the area of elder healthcare law and
policy. The Center will provide training and research through the
Schools of Medicine, Law, Business, and Nursing in healthcare law,
policy-making and planning for the elderly. The mission of education
will expand to the Florida healthcare, legal, education, civic and
business communities. The significant rise in reported incidences of
elder abuse is a major rationale for this effort. For fiscal year 2002,
we seek $1 million through the Department of Justice National Institute
of Justice and/or the Bureau of Justice Assistance.
The unique demographics of Florida and the special diversity of the
south Florida populations make the University of Miami a strategically
important locale for this activity and the HELP Center will serve as a
national resource. The partnership between the Medical and Law schools
will be unique and afford significant opportunities for
interdisciplinary educational research, university and community
service, and attract unique fundraising opportunities through
foundations, grants and giving. Placing the University as an expert
resource at the crossroads of what are emerging as complex healthcare,
legal, and social issues for a significant number and growing
percentage of the population should enhance media coverage of legal and
health issues and enlarge external outreach to the private and public
sectors. The HELP Center will serve as the conduit to develop faculty,
administrative, student, and community collaboration and will be a
place to build university-wide interdisciplinary programs of great
import.
The Center will be devoted to five specific missions:
Education.--The Center will provide undergraduate and graduate
curricula (medical, law, and postgraduate MD/JD training), continuing
education symposia (CME, CLE, CEU) and training for the bench, law
enforcement and other agencies that provide services to the elderly and
their families.
Interdisciplinary Ventures.--The Center will be dedicated to the
development of interdisciplinary programs beyond the core Medical and
Law Schools. Currently, program development includes three Departments
within the School of Medicine, (Psychiatry, Medicine and Family
Medicine) and the UM Center for Adult Development and Aging (CADA).
Partnerships with other Centers (Center for Women and Children and the
Center for Family Studies) and Schools (Nursing, Business) and
departments in the College of Arts and Sciences (Social Sciences,
Political Science, Psychology) will be sought. Additionally, the Center
will to develop liaisons with community and national organizations
(business, civic, education, and legal, allied health professionals)
who serve the elderly.
Research.--The Center will develop and implement funded projects
that address specific issues of importance for the aging population.
Target research agenda will include: abuse and neglect of the elderly
(development of criteria for assessment and prosecution; management
models for unique care requirements of elderly victims prevention and
treatment for perpetrators); role of families and caregivers of the
elderly (cultural diversity and needs assessments, funding and models
of care); end-of-life care (advance care planning and palliative care
outcomes and financing); mental capacity (decisionmaking assessment and
guardianship process; and research ethics (protection of vulnerable
research subjects). Information generated from the research will be
documented through national scientific and professional media to the
public as well as employed in the development of new programs of action
which are evidence based for maximal success.
Expert Practice.--The Center will develop a group of experts who
will serve in collaboration with other University, Medical and Law
school groups for interdisciplinary teaching and service. The Center's
faculty will also serve as expert witnesses, and assist in Pro Bono
work the Law School and Medical, School students provide. Additionally,
the Center will provide workshops for the public and train appropriate
groups in self-help advocacy and serve as a referral source (advance
care planning, last will and testament, health care and other public
benefit program eligibility applications and appeals protocols).
National/International Symposia.--The Center will sponsor national
symposia to address interdisciplinary issues pertaining to the elderly,
among them on the medical-legal issues of elder abuse and neglect. The
intent of such symposia is to bring together leaders and diverse
stakeholders in this area (health care providers, law enforcement,
judiciary, legislative and policy makers, public groups) who will
represent their particular concerns and work to develop a consensus
white paper(s) to begin to address collective solutions.
the dante b. fascell north-south center
Finally, we seek your continued support for the Dante B. Fascell
North-South Center. As you know, the Center has long enjoyed bicameral
and bipartisan support and in fiscal year 2002 as in past years, from
the Administration. The Fascell Center's mission is to promote better
relations and to serve as a catalyst for change among the United
States, Canada, and the nations of Latin America and the Caribbean. My
colleagues there conduct programs of research, public outreach,
education, training, and cooperative study. It publishes and
disseminates policy-relevant information on the Americas. The programs
and activities also foster linkages among academic and research
institutions, NGOs, governmental institutions both civilian and
military, and philanthropic and private sectors throughout the
Americas.
The Center was authorized originally under the ``Center for
Cultural and Technical Exchange Between North and South Act of 1990.''
(Public Law 101-513.) Its mission, as prescribed in the Act, is ``to
promote better relations between the United States and the nations of
Latin America and the Caribbean and Canada.'' The Center conducts
programs of research, public outreach, education, training, and
cooperative study. It publishes and disseminates policy-relevant
information on the Americas. Acting as a catalyst for change, the
Center also fosters linkages among academic and research institutions,
NGOs, governmental institutions both civilian and military, and
philanthropic and private sectors throughout the Americas.
The only institution of its kind in the nation, the Center's
mission makes it a valuable asset to our national interest. Informed
and balanced analysis and improved understanding of our neighbors in
the Western Hemisphere provide us great opportunities to enhance our
economy, expand our jobs, and learn of risks before they reach
threatening proportions. Throughout 2000, the Center worked extensively
with the U.S. Department of State and other government agencies, the
World Bank, the Organization of American States, private business
corporations, academic and research institutions, and Latin American
and Caribbean governments in a series of projects, both new and
ongoing, aimed at:
--Creating information technology opportunities in developing areas.
--Bringing marginalized communities, including women, into the global
marketplace.
--Training entrepreneurs and educating businesses and policy makers
in Latin America and the Caribbean on the challenges and
opportunities of globalization.
--Contributing to the study and debate on economic integration in the
Americas through a Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA).
--Continuing studies concerning weaknesses in political
representation, failures in the rule of law, and unresolved
issues in civil-military relations.
--Collaboration with civil, governmental and academic entities in the
areas of environmental security and environmental protection in
the Americas.
--Studies and collaborative efforts aimed at enhancing the role of
civil society.
--Seminars on fiscal and management reform for senior federal and
state-level officials, to improve efficiency, root out
corruption and improve measurable results.
The Center has developed new working partnerships with the Wharton
School of Business of the University of Pennsylvania, the Croft
Institute at the University of Mississippi, the Instituto Tecnologico
de Monterrey (Mexico), and the Universidade Estacio de Sa (Brazil) and
has strengthened existing relationships with the University of the West
Indies and the American Assembly of Columbia University. The Center is
the primary partner in Florida for the Council on Foreign Relations.
The Center will continue its series of Roundtables in Washington, which
provide a forum for frank discussion of emerging and high-priority
policy issues among private sector and NGO representatives, United
States and foreign government officials, and Congressional staff
members.
Following the 2000 election, the Center issued a public memorandum
to the president-elect, with bipartisan and academic authorship, which
articulated a forward-looking, coherent Western Hemisphere policy
agenda. It has been widely read at the State Department and by some of
the incoming senior officials of the Bush Administration.
The Center has worked with the U.S. Army War College this year to
organize a major conference and a subsequent research initiative on
Colombia and the solutions available to U.S. policy for the most
serious security dilemma in the Western Hemisphere. The Colombian
crisis, involving drug trafficking, insurgency and political
instability threatens the region and U.S. interest.
The Center is poised once again to play an important role in the
forthcoming Summit of the Americas III in Quebec City in April 2001. In
January, the Leadership Council for Inter-American Summitry, organized
by the Center and consisting of notables from around the Hemisphere,
met in Miami to draft a report offering recommendations to the heads of
state who will meet in Quebec. That meeting will be President Bush's
first multilateral engagement.
In the last year, the Center has received over $700,000 in program
support grants from federal agencies, international organizations and
private donors. These include the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur
Foundation, the Tinker Foundation, the Organization of American States,
the U.S. Agency for International Development, the World Bank, the
governments of Japan and the Dominican Republic, the DCI Environmental
Center, Microsoft, AT&T, VISA International, and Heineken. The core
funding from the Congress has enabled the Center to attract such
support from private sources.
Mr. Chairman, by performing its Congressionally mandated mission,
the Dante B. Fascell North-South Center contributes to our capacity to
understand and surmount these challenges. At the same time, by
identifying further opportunities for economic growth and democratic
deepening, the Center serves as a multiplier for advancing U.S.
interests in the Western Hemisphere and an inter-American resource for
dealing with issues of crucial importance to U.S. citizens. For fiscal
year 2002, we seek $2 million in continuation funding.
Mr. Chairman, we recognize that this will be another difficult
year. However, we hope that you and your colleagues on the Subcommittee
will find it possible to support these three important initiatives that
deal with issues of crucial national importance. The results of the
work at the Center for Sustainable Fisheries will make important
contributions to the national effort to improving our understanding of
wild fish populations and to developing a sound basis for fisheries
management. Similarly, our proposal for the Healthcare and Elder Law
Policy (HELP) Center will address the most critical needs of the
elderly, and the Dante B. Fascell North-South Center will continue the
vital international work you have supported through the years.
Thank you for considering these requests.
______

Prepared Statement of the Alachua County, Florida Board of County
Commissioners

Thank you for allowing the Alachua County Board of County
Commissioners to submit this written testimony before your Subcommittee
regarding two critical projects. They are the Partners for a Productive
Community Enhancement Initiative, and the Comprehensive Management of
Drug Involved Offenders Initiative.
partners for a productive community enhancement initiative ($2.3
million in funding requested)
In response to a spiraling crime rate in southwest Alachua County,
the Alachua County Sheriff's Office requested help from the Board of
County Commissioners in 1993. Specifically, the Sheriff reported that
57 percent of its 911 calls came from an area that had only 3.2 percent
of the County's population.
The County Commission responded by providing $38,000 in funding for
a Program Manager to staff the Partners for a Productive Community
(PPC) Program in fiscal year 1994. The PPC was launched as a strategic
planning effort with three goals: the establishment of neighborhood-
based services, the development of public/private partnerships and a
focus on crime prevention. This Program has enjoyed great success due
to the coordinated efforts of the Sheriff's Office, the Courts and the
Alachua County Department of Community Support Services. Furthermore,
since the inception of this Program, the County has budgeted over $1.6
million to support the Program through the Community Support Services
Department and Sheriff's Office. Additionally, over $2.4 million has
been leverage from other county departments, local social service
providers and the Sheriff's Office through a local law enforcement
grant.
The goal of the Sheriff's Office was to reduce the number of calls
from the area, and to develop a relationship of trust with the area's
residents. The goal of the Courts was to help with the swift
prosecution of cases, and to increase personnel in key areas. Finally,
the goal of the County's Department of Community Support Services was
to develop and implement a neighborhood needs assessment, and to
determine the social service needs in accordance with the results of
the assessment. The Community Support Services Department was also
responsible for developing public/private community partnerships, and
community based organizations comprised of tenants, property owners and
managers. Thus, this project represents a multi-agency strategy to
stabilize, revitalize and sustain five specific neighborhoods of
Alachua County.
In addition to improving the area's basic infrastructure, federal
funding is also being requested to provide community recreational
programs for the area's youth. These activities will provide positive
alternatives to crime, and allow youth to participate first hand in
community improvement programs. In doing so, these programs will build
and encourage positive self-esteem, leadership skills and academic
achievement. To complement these programs, additional improvements will
be made in the community Safe Havens. Finally, the requested funding
will also allow the PPC to expand this successful demonstration program
into other at risk Alachua County communities such as Archer, Florida.
Specifically, the PPC will develop a partnership strategy to address
the unmet needs of health care, education, training, employment, youth
recreation and transportation for the residents of Archer.
This request for federal funding is justified by the tremendous
improvements and accomplishments that have been made in these
neighborhoods since 1995. These achievements include: free community
day care for 75 children, 30 community day care slots, 24 in-home day
care slots, the creation of 30 new jobs by the Early Progress Center,
the reduction in 911 calls from 57 percent to 14 percent of total calls
in the area, and substantial increases in the property values for four
of the five neighborhoods.
Furthermore, the implementation of seasonal recreation programs in
the targeted communities by the Y.M.C.A. has been instrumental in
providing positive, character building activities for children,
teenagers and adults. Day camps are provided during the summer months,
and back-yard sports are provided at the end of the school day during
the school year. In addition, two 4-H Clubs serving 60 neighborhood
children were established along with after school and community teen
programs. Adult literacy and GED classes were made available at a
nearby school campus. Finally, other programs have been established for
the purpose of creating a sustainable neighborhood. These programs
include quarterly informational forums concerning small business
development, educational opportunities, self-help seminars, budget
management and landlord/tenant issues.
With respect to community-wide improvement programs, a total of
nine neighborhood cleanups were completed this year. With the active
involvement of the residents of the neighborhoods, the Alachua County
Office of Codes Enforcement has been able to reduce from twenty to two
the number of abandoned and vandalized buildings. Furthermore, a new
Waste Collection Ordinance which was supported by the PPC permits the
efficient and timely citation of violators.
The sustaining factor within this Program is the formally organized
Partners for a Productive Community Council. The Council is the guiding
force that deals with issues and determines unmet needs. For example, a
block captain organization was started this year with the assistance of
the PPC Council, and the Alachua County Sheriff's Office. This group
monitors and manages crime prevention programs block by block.
In recognition of the numerous accomplishments described above, the
PPC received the National Association of Counties' Achievement Award in
1996 for distinguished and innovative contributions to improving county
government. Additionally, the League of Women Voters presented the
County with a similar award for outstanding community service.
Furthermore, in December 1999 Alachua County received Official
Recognition from the Executive Office of Weed and Seed for two of the
neighborhoods being served by the Partners for a Productive Community
Program. Pursuant to this recognition, these communities have been
awarded a $175,000 Weed and Seed Grant for prevention and intervention
strategies focusing on Cedar Ridge and Linton Oaks neighborhoods. This
grant will further strengthen the long-term efforts to improve the
quality of life in these neighborhoods.
As noted above, the federal funding requested will also be used to
expand the successful Partners Initiative into the rural community of
Archer, which is located in the southwestern portion of Alachua County.
Archer and the rural areas surrounding it have a population of 6,348,
of which 16 percent fall below the poverty level. While the City of
Archer has one elementary school, emergency rescue, fire and police
services are contracted from Gainesville/Alachua County. There are also
two public housing communities, and a small obsolete community center
which is used as a congregate meal site for senior citizens.
Consequently, many of Archer's residents travel to Gainesville for
employment, social services, recreational activities, adult and
continuing education and health care.
Recently, the University of Florida, School of Nursing received
$200,000 from the Florida Legislature to provide primary health care
through a clinic based in Archer. Presently, this clinic is on the
State Department of Health's list to be eliminated due to the limited
area that it serves. Should this occur, there will be a need for
additional funds to meet the health care needs in this area. Thus, a
portion of the federal funding in this request could be channeled
through the Alachua County Health Department in our continuing effort
to develop partnerships, maximize resources and expand services to the
citizens of Alachua County through our rural service initiative.
Employment opportunities, recreation for teens and outreach social
services continue to be a challenge for the community of Archer.
According to the Alachua County Sheriff's Office, Archer's crime rate
is disproportionately high for a community its size. In 2000, the
Alachua County Sheriff's Office received 2,657 calls for service. Of
the dispatched calls, 30 were assaults and batteries, and 5 were for
sexual battery. The largest number of dispatched calls (869) concerned
burglary and theft.
In conclusion, Alachua County is requesting $2.3 million in federal
funding to continue its highly successful and award winning
neighborhood revitalization programs; and to expand these successful
model programs to other neighborhoods, including the City of Archer,
Florida.
comprehensive management of drug involved offenders initiative ($2.7
million in funding requested)
Prior to building additional jail space at great expense to the
taxpayers of Alachua County, the County would like to fully explore all
possible alternatives and programs. A one month ``snapshot'' of
individuals arrested in 1998 dramatically showed that 36 percent of the
231 felony defendants who were not released at first appearance were in
custody for drug related charges. Most often, these offenders do not
receive treatment, serve three to six months in jail, and are released
only to be rearrested for new drug related offenses, becoming
``frequent flyers'' through a revolving jail door.
A comprehensive plan to manage substance-involved offenders is an
innovative approach that could prove to be an effective keystone to
alleviate jail overcrowding by reducing recidivism rates and the
incidence of drug-related crime. Professionals estimate that 50 percent
to 80 percent of offenders have substance abuse problems. In Alachua
County, the population of repeat offenders charged with drug
possession, sales of small amounts of drugs, or property crimes that
support addiction contributes significantly to the jail population. In
fiscal year 1999, 407 individuals were sentenced to drug offender
probation supervised by the Florida Department of Corrections. Because
adequate treatment resources are not available, more than 50 percent of
these individuals are expected to fail on probation, with subsequent
incarceration in the Alachua County Jail.
Over the past four years, Alachua County has expended an average of
$2.9 million each year on alternatives to jail. Almost $1.7 million of
this $11.6 million total has been invested in substance abuse treatment
programs for offenders. In fiscal year 2002, the annual investment in
alternatives will increase to more than $3.7 million, with
approximately $700,000 earmarked for substance abuse treatment
programs.
While considerable resources have been expended on alternatives,
current treatment resources are inadequate to meet the needs of
addicted offenders. Additionally, funds are not available to conduct
the research required to establish the validity of this paradigm as a
model approach. This demonstration project includes a cost-benefit
analysis which compares the long-term benefit of a comprehensive
treatment model versus an incarceration/incapacitation model. Other
benefits of this demonstration project are discussed below.
Alachua County is a medium-sized community of 210,000 residents,
containing both rural and urban areas similar to many other communities
across the country. The University of Florida is located in the
community and has served as a partner in evaluating the success of
other programs. The impact for the entire region is considerable since
the County serves as the regional center for much of north Florida's
medical care and criminal justice services.
Alachua County has many advantages which make it an ideal site for
this demonstration program. The County has long served as a model and a
resource for criminal justice alternative programs in the State of
Florida. Many Florida pretrial release and alternative sentencing
program officials consulted with Alachua County's Court Services
Department as they developed similar services for their counties. The
Alachua County Drug Court was one of the first 25 Drug Courts in the
nation and has also served as a model for other Florida Drug Courts.
Court Services Department staff are active in statewide organizations
that provide a network to exchange information and share innovations.
Alachua County was also recognized as a leader by the Florida State
Legislature's Advisory Council on Intergovernmental Affairs in its 1993
report, Intergovernmental Relations in Local Jail Finance and
Management in Florida--A Comprehensive Report. Further, the community
linkages in Alachua County and the array of programs provided under one
umbrella in the Alachua County Court Services Department provide a
unique opportunity to demonstrate the impact of a comprehensive effort.
Alachua County has supported innovative alternative methods of
managing offenders for more than 25 years. Alachua County funds the
Court Services Department which comprises a comprehensive array of
alternatives including: pretrial services, county probation, community
service, day reporting, drug court, a work release facility and a
residential treatment program for drug addicts.
In fiscal year 2000, these programs completed 8,028 pre-trial
release investigations, monitored 969 defendants on pretrial release,
supervised 1,020 probationers and coordinated more than 4,400 cases
where community service work was required by the Court. This year, in
addition to the above services, the Drug Court Program will treat and
monitor up to 120 addicted offenders per day and the Work Release
Program will house 60 sentenced or pretrial residents per day.
Metamorphosis, the County's residential treatment program, will serve
17 addicted clients each day in a therapeutic community with referrals
coming from both the community and the criminal justice system. The
County's newest program, Day Reporting, will offer each day intensive
supervision and a variety of rehabilitative services for up to 60
multi-problem pretrial defendants and sentenced offenders.
A coordinated continuum of services targeting substance abusing
offenders across the criminal justice spectrum would further reduce the
incidence of drug-related crime throughout the County and allow costly,
high-security jail beds to be reserved for dangerous and high-risk
offenders.
The program will include continuing judicial supervision of
nonviolent offenders with substance abuse problems and administration
of sanctions and services including: (1) mandatory drug testing during
any period of supervised release or probation; (2) substance abuse
treatment; (3) probation or supervised release which could include
prosecution, confinement or incarceration for noncompliance with the
program's requirements; and (4) offender management and aftercare
services to prevent relapses, such as vocational job training, job
placement and housing placement.
The County has an existing array of programs which would serve as
the framework of a comprehensive system. There is strong support for
alternative programs within the judiciary and from other local criminal
justice officials. The County also has a long-standing history of
cooperation among agencies. The expected benefits are national, and
could hopefully be replicated at reasonable cost.
concluding comments for written testimony
The two initiatives described above represent well-conceived
programs that address the social, physical and economic needs of the
citizens of Alachua County. Furthermore, these programs demonstrate the
County's continuing commitment to projects and initiatives that
emphasize a balance between environmental protection, economic
development and social equity for all of the residents of the County.
Therefore, we hope that the Subcommittee will find these two critically
important projects worthy of your support. Thank you for your
consideration.
______

Prepared Statement of the Center for Marine Conservation

The Center for Marine Conservation (CMC) is pleased to share its
views regarding the programs in the Department of State's and the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) budget that
affect marine resources, and requests that this statement be included
in the hearing record for the fiscal year 2002 Commerce, Justice,
State, and the Judiciary appropriations bill.
Through science-based advocacy, research, and public education, CMC
informs, inspires, and empowers people to protect ocean ecosystems and
conserve the global abundance and diversity of marine wildlife. CMC is
the largest and oldest nonprofit conservation organization dedicated
solely to protecting the marine environment. Headquartered in
Washington DC, CMC has regional offices in Alaska, California, Florida,
and Maine.
We greatly appreciate the funding this Committee has provided for
marine conservation over the last several years. We are particularly
grateful for last year's significant increases for ocean and coastal
resource protection.
department of state
Implementation of the Inter-American Convention for the Protection
of Sea Turtles (IAC).--The IAC is the first international treaty
dedicated to sea turtle protection and was ratified by the United
States on October 10, 2000. The treaty has also been signed by Brazil,
Costa Rica, Ecuador, Honduras, Mexico, the Netherlands and goes into
effect on May 2, 2001. CMC respectfully request $100,000 (within the
International Fisheries Commission program account) in fiscal year 2002
for the State Department to assist in the establishment of an
independent Secretariat and in hosting the first meeting, thereby
preserving the leadership of the United States on this treaty.
national oceanic and atmospheric administration
Commission on Ocean Policy.--The Oceans Act of 2000 was passed
unanimously by both chambers of Congress and became Public Law 106-256
on August 7, 2000. The act establishes a 16 member Commission on Ocean
Policy to assess and make recommendations for a national ocean policy
to Congress and the Administration. With the many threats facing our
oceans, such as overfishing, pollution, and the loss of habitat, CMC
respectfully requests $1.5 million in fiscal year 2002 so that this
commission will have the resources necessary to help shape future ocean
policy.
Coral Reef Activities.--CMC thanks the Committee for its support of
$27 million for coral reef conservation in fiscal year 2001 and
respectfully requests that the committee support the Administration's
$27.7 million request in fiscal year 2002. This funding will allow NOAA
to continue implementing the priorities of the U.S. Coral Reef Task
Force, a successful cross-cutting interagency partnership, and to work
with state, territorial, and local partners to conduct important coral
reef research and monitoring.
national ocean service
National Marine Sanctuary Program.--We respectfully request the
Committee to provide the $52 million requested by the Administration,
($36 million for operations, $16 for construction) for this important
program. Often referred to as America's ``ocean parks'', the 13
sanctuaries around the country encompass almost 18,000 square miles of
the nation's most significant marine resources. This funding is
critical to provide: core staffing for individual sanctuaries, visitor
and interpretive facilities for public education and enjoyment, basic
conservation, research, and education programs, and review and updating
of sanctuary management plans as required by law.
Marine Protected Areas Centers.--We respectfully request $5 million
in fiscal year 2002 for marine protected areas (MPAs), $2 million above
the Administration's request. This will allow NOAA to work with federal
and state agencies as well as other partners to assess how to best use
marine protected areas to better manage the nation's valuable marine
resources (e.g., fish), provide recreational opportunities, and protect
marine habitats and biodiversity. This funding would be used to
complete the first ever comprehensive inventory of the nation's MPAs
and to support critically needed new research on how to design and
implement more effective MPAs.
Nonpoint Source Pollution.--Nonpoint source pollution, or polluted
runoff, is the nation's largest source of water pollution. Last year
there were over 6,000 beach closings and advisories at U.S. beaches,
six million square acres of shellfish beds were closed or restricted,
and a 7,000 square mile ``Dead Zone'' formed in the Gulf of Mexico. We
applaud the Committee for providing $10 million in fiscal year 2001 to
help states implement approved portions of their Coastal Nonpoint
Pollution Control Programs. We respectfully request $31 million in
fiscal year 2002, $6 million for coastal states and territories to
complete their programs and an additional $25 million for states and
territories with approved or ``conditionally approved'' programs to
begin implementation. This represents a $21 million increase above the
President's request.
national marine fisheries service
Atlantic Coast Cooperative Statistics Program.--CMC strongly
supports the Atlantic Coast Cooperative Statistics Program and greatly
appreciates the committee's support of $1.5 million in fiscal year
2001. Created in 1995, this cooperative state and federal fisheries
data collection program coordinates marine fisheries statistics. This
program is unique in that it encompasses all marine fisheries sectors
on the Atlantic Coast including recreational anglers, charter and
headboat operators, commercial fishermen and seafood processors/
dealers. We respectfully request $2.5 million in fiscal year 2002, $1
million above the Administration's request, so that this program can be
expanded and fully implemented along the East Coast, thereby helping to
ensure that data collection methods are more consistent and reliable.
Observers.--Reliable, objective information about how many fish are
being caught, directly and as bycatch, is crucial to responsible
management of our fish populations. Observers are a key means of
collecting such information, yet current observer coverage is sorely
lacking, and should be dramatically increased. CMC respectfully
requests $25 million for a National Observer Program in fiscal year
2002, $12.4 million above the Administration's request, and includes an
additional $5 million to expand the West Coast Observer program. This
increase would give managers a better sense of exactly how much fish is
caught, directly and as bycatch, thereby improving management of our
fish populations.
South Florida Ecosystem Restoration.--The South Florida Ecosystem
Restoration is an integrated effort among federal, state, tribal and
non-governmental partners to halt the degradation of the South Florida
Ecosystem and the Everglades. CMC respectfully requests that the
Committee fully fund NOAA's portion of this vital initiative in fiscal
year 2002, including $1.9 million requested in NMFS's budget for
critical fisheries research and monitoring activities.
Stock Assessments.--The status of more than 70 percent of the
species managed under the Magnuson-Stevens Act is unknown due in large
part to lack of funding for basic research and stock assessment. It is
essential that we develop a better understanding of the status of our
fish populations. The National Marine Fisheries Service, even with the
President's requested increase of $13.3 million, would still have a
deficit of 1,700 research days at sea to fulfill their stock assessment
duties. CMC respectfully requests a $26.6 million increase above fiscal
year 2001 for stock assessments, including the $1.0 million for marine
mammal studies requested by the Administration. An additional $3.0
million is needed in fiscal year 2002 to continue shipboard surveys in
the Eastern Tropical Pacific tuna-dolphin fishery.
Essential Fish Habitat.--Protecting essential fish habitat is key
to ensuring healthy fish populations in the future. Given the need to
better understand the impacts of fishing and other activities on these
habitats, and the need to more fully comply with the Sustainable
Fisheries Act requirement to minimize impacts to those habitats, we
believe that increased funding above the President's request of $2.5
million is crucial. In particular, additional monies are needed to
analyze and minimize the impacts of fishing activities on these areas.
Adequate funding for essential fish habitat is one of CMC's highest
funding priorities for NMFS. We respectfully request that the committee
appropriate $12.5 million to this effort in fiscal year 2002.
Enforcement and Surveillance.--Enforcement of our fishery
management laws has been woefully under funded for years. According to
NMFS, there are currently approximately 150 enforcement agents, each
responsible for nearly 1200 miles of coastline and 29,000 square miles
of our Exclusive Economic Zone. CMC respectfully requests a base of
$46.9 million, an additional $7 million above the Administration's
request in fiscal year 2002, to hire more officers to address this
chronic shortfall. These funds would also allow for strengthening of
alternative enforcement programs and enhancement of state and local
partnerships.
In addition, CMC respectfully request an additional $12.4 million,
$5 million above the Administration's request, for expanding the Vessel
Monitoring System (VMS) program in fiscal year 2002. VMS is a
satellite-based fishery enforcement system which has the ability to
provide real time catch reporting throughout a number of different
fisheries. This increase would allow for establishment and
implementation of VMS systems as well as the placing of VMS
transponders on a vast majority of the estimated 10,000 boats in the
U.S. commercial fishing fleet. VMS programs enhance data collection and
safety at sea. They also can be beneficial to fisherman by allowing
them to fish right up until a quota is reached. Finally, with VMS
systems, officials can tell when a fishing vessel is fishing in closed
areas, or is fishing beyond the end of a regulated fishing season.
Regional Fishery Management Councils.--CMC recommends $17.6 million
in fiscal year 2002 for regional fishery management councils, $2
million above the Administration's request. This $2 million increase is
necessary to help the councils carry out their responsibilities under
the Magnuson-Stevens Act, including holding council advisory meetings,
some of which have recently been canceled due to lack of funding.
Resource Information.--Hawaiian monk seals are the most endangered
pinnipeds 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.
We respectfully request that the committee fund this line item at $1.5
million in fiscal year 2002.
Endangered Species Act Recovery Plans.--Right whale--With only 300
North Atlantic Right Whales remaining, and the species' continued
existence threatened by entanglement in fishing gear and collisions
with vessels, additional funds are needed to continue research to
improve our understanding of right whales and for the development of
improved fishing technologies to reduce entanglements. We thank the
committee for providing $5 million in fiscal year 2001 and urge the
committee to support the Administration's request of $7 million in
fiscal year 2002 for Right Whales.
Pacific Highly Migratory Species.--We support the Administration's
request of $1 million for stock assessments and biological studies for
Pacific highly migratory species, including sharks. In addition, we
respectfully request adequate funding for collaborative multi-regional
biological research for effective management of highly migratory fish,
including vulnerable sharks. This effort should include the Center for
Shark Research, universities, state agencies, and other qualified
nonprofit organizations.
Marine Mammal Protection Act.--The President's request for $8.125
million for Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) implementation is
woefully inadequate. Lack of funding has been one of the primary
reasons for NMFS's failure to effectively implement the MMPA. We
respectfully request an appropriation of $38 million in fiscal year
2002, the amount authorized under the MMPA. This increase is necessary
to design and implement effective fishery management plans that will
not endanger marine mammals, conduct more and better research on
population trends, demographics, health and genetic distinctness, and
to carry out education and enforcement programs. These funds would also
allow for increased observer coverage and the co-operative development
of strategies to reduce entanglements resulting from active or derelict
fishing gear and other forms of marine debris. It would also allow
health assessment and research into the causes of strandings and die-
offs as well as identification of mitigation measures to prevent such
deaths in the future.
Marine Mammal Commission.--CMC respectfully requests that the
Committee to support the Marine Mammal Commission at its authorized
level of $1.75 million in fiscal year 2002.
Oceanic and Atmospheric Research
Ocean Exploration.--CMC appreciates this committee's support of $4
million in fiscal year 2001 for Ocean Exploration and respectfully
requests $25 million in fiscal year 2002. This $11 million increase
above the President's request would allow the United States to begin
implementing the first comprehensive strategy to explore the oceans, as
recommended by U.S. panel on Ocean Exploration, and to improve outreach
and education activities.
Thank you for your consideration of these programs that are of the
utmost importance to the stewardship of the nation's living marine
resources. We greatly appreciate your support for these programs in the
past and look forward to continued, responsible funding for these
programs in fiscal year 2002.
______

Prepared Statement of the City of Miami Beach, Florida

On behalf of the City of Miami Beach, Florida, I appreciate the
opportunity to submit this written testimony to you on an extremely
important economic development initiative, the rehabilitation of a
large downtown theater to serve as a cultural and community center. The
City is seeking $5 million in fiscal year 2002 appropriations for the
acquisition and restoration of the Byron Carlyle Theater through the
Department of Commerce, Economic Development Administration.
byron carlyle theater restoration
The City of Miami Beach wishes to pursue direct funding for the
acquisition and redevelopment of the Byron Carlyle Theater. The
Facility will serve as a venue for cultural and non-profit
institutions, functionally interacting with the North Shore Youth
Center. The two primary objectives of this facility are: (1) to use
cultural institutions as a catalyst for the revitalization of the North
Beach area, and (2), to provide a facility that can house those
organizations that are being priced out the their current locations.
The City is seeking $5 million towards this project.
The Byron Carlyle Theater is a 7-screen movie theater that is
located in the central business district of Miami Beach's North Beach
area of. The theater was closed by Regal Cinemas in 1999, and has been
vacant ever since, creating a void in what once was a thriving downtown
neighborhood. The City of Miami Beach has begun the implementation of a
strategic plan for the revitalization of the North Beach area, which
includes approximately $124 million in capital improvement projects
that will be implemented during the next 6 years. The redevelopment of
vacant buildings such as the theater is crucial to the economic and
business development components of the North Beach Strategic Plan.
However, due to the unique layout and structural nature of older movie
theaters such as the Byron Carlyle Theater, redevelopment options are
limited and expensive.
There are two reasons that Miami Beach needs the Byron Carlyle
Theater as a multi-purpose cultural facility. First, the redevelopment
of this theater is an integral component of the Strategic Plan for the
economic revitalization of the North Beach area of Miami Beach. While
other areas of Miami Beach have enjoyed tremendous economic success
over the last 10 years, the North Beach area has lagged in its growth
and continues to evidence a concentration of low income households and
a lack of private sector investment. The emergence of cultural
institutions during the beginnings of the economic revitalization of
South Beach's Art Deco District directly contributed to the area's
continued success. Secondly, the success that cultural organizations
helped create in South Beach is also a reason for the creation of a
cultural facility in North Beach. As South Beach boomed, local cultural
institutions became self sufficient and successful, area market trends
began to improve and property values appreciated significantly. In
1993, the primary cultural area in South Beach was on Lincoln Road,
where rental rates averaged $12 per square foot. In 2000, rental rates
reached $75 per square foot, and many small businesses and cultural
organizations were forced to either relocate or dissolve. Additionally,
many cultural organizations currently housed in City-owned facilities
will soon have to relocate as the City expands to meet the ever-
increasing service levels expected by the citizens. A central facility
that accomplishes both goals is critical to the economic revitalization
of the North Beach neighborhoods.
The Acquisition and Renovation of the Byron Carlyle will also help
develop the entire City of Miami Beach into a world-renowned center for
the creation and consumption of culture. Miami Beach is home to many
internationally acclaimed cultural organizations, such as the New World
Symphony, the Miami City Ballet, and the Bass Museum. These
organizations, however, are located in a small concentrated area of
South Beach. The City also has over 75 smaller cultural groups that are
the true cultural heart of Miami Beach. Organizations such as the
Concert Association of Florida, Ballet Flamenco La Rosa, and the
Performing Arts Network continue to struggle for their economic
survival. The ability to provide a facility that allows these groups to
remain in Miami Beach will provide a venue where many emerging and
small organizations can continue to grow and prosper and at the same
time provide a catalytic cultural component to the revitalization
effort in North Beach.
In 1999, in an economic impact report to the City of Miami Beach's
Mayor's Economic Council, Florida International University identified
that investment in the cultural arts has the highest economic output
multiplier of all local industries. The challenge for cities such as
Miami Beach, however, is, providing the level of Cultural Arts
investment that is required to generate this ``biggest bang for the
buck.''
The City of Miami Beach estimates that the cost to acquire and
rehabilitate the Byron Carlyle is $7.2 million. The City currently has
approximately $2.2 million for this project, which will include the
$1.7 million purchase price. The City has also identified funding
sources that will be committed to the annual operation of the facility
once it opens. The City of Miami Beach is requesting $5 million in
federal funding for the renovation of this facility.
Federal support is critical to the success of this economic
development project. It is our hope that the Subcommittee will give our
request every consideration.
______

Prepared Statement of Florida State University
Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank you and the Members of the
Subcommittee for this opportunity to present testimony.
I would like to discuss the funding for the maintenance of ongoing
programs and additional resources for NOAA and its extramural research
collaborators to advance the science and accuracy of climate and
weather forecasting.
First, let me stress the importance of allocating maximum support
for the Office of Global Programs, funded at a minimum at the fiscal
year 2001 level of $68.095 million. This Committee has supported full
funding of the budget request of the OGP through the past several
appropriations acts. All of NOAA's intramural and extramural research
initiatives have been determined and planned by nonpartisan, scientific
experts whose goals have been to improve the science, accuracy and
lead-time of long range climate forecasts, and to improve regional
warning systems through down-scale modeling. The importance of
maintaining and sustaining this comprehensive approach to understanding
our climate system will permit improved and longer lead-time
forecasting. This allows for better planning for the effects of climate
forced events, resulting in saved lives, minimized property losses, and
improved planning in resource allocation and crop planting.
Next, I request the Committee's consideration of apportioning $20
million for a Supercomputer to be shared by universities and
institutions for high-end climate modeling and research. Current
climate modeling in the United States is limited by computer capacity.
The House Science Committee held a hearing recently on Climate
Forecasting: The State of the Science. When queried by Committee
Members, the independent scientific experts who appeared as witnesses
stated unanimously that the greatest need for United States advancement
in the climate modeling and research fields is the need for
Supercomputing capacity among universities and institutions for high-
end use.
Climatologists in the United States have now reached the capacity
of currently utilized computer systems in the high-end tasks associated
with water and atmospheric modeling. The ability to process massive
amounts of data can be only achieved through the acquisition of vector
analysis Supercomputers. Vector analysis computers were not available
to U.S. Government-funded institutions until recently. The current U.S.
approach, using MPP technology, cannot process the whole of computer
modeling tasks associated with water and atmospheric data on a global
scale. Scientists acknowledge that the facility must be located apart
and distinctly separate from NOAA's ongoing computer functions, due to
the need for a dedicated Supercomputer specifically configured for
high-end climate and modeling and research. A shared computer with NOAA
for NOAA's use, whether part-time or back up, does not provide the
capability and sustained processing power needed for the demands
associated with high-end climate modeling. This request for $20 million
in fiscal year 2002 is for a computer to be competitively bid and
awarded, and for institutions, like Florida State University, to have
access for sharing the use of Supercomputing capacity.
Finally, I request that consideration be given to an allocation of
$20 million for a Supercomputer for NOAA to be used as a backup for
National Weather Service and other NOAA forecasting purposes, including
research. There is widespread recognition among the extramural research
community for the necessity of improved capacity and backup among
computers for the National Weather Service. There is also a recognized
and documented need in NOAA for a backup computer for the NWS. Last
year's shutdown of NOAA's main computer, and subsequent loss of
forecasting ability, left the NWS unable to provide the services upon
which U.S. citizens, state and local governments, and private industry
have come to rely. The necessity of a backup is clear, and in times of
non-use as a backup, NOAA's internal research demands for this capacity
exist. This statement concerning NOAA's needs represents consensus
among the extramural community for additional resources and
Supercomputer capacity for NOAA and the NWS.
Thank you for this opportunity to present and articulate the needs
and request for climate modeling and research in the United States.
______

Prepared Statement of the National Audubon Society

On Behalf of the National Audubon Society and our one million
members and supporters, we appreciate the opportunity to submit
testimony regarding funding priorities for the fiscal year 2002 budget
of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the National
Marine Fisheries Service. The mission of the National Audubon Society
is to conserve and restore natural ecosystems, focusing on birds and
other wildlife and their habitat for the benefit of humanity and the
earth's biological diversity.
To adequately fulfill their mandates the National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS) and the National Ocean Service (NOS) within the
Department of Commerce are in need of additional monies over those
provided in fiscal year 2001. Below is a detailed list of what the
National Audubon Society sees as critical funding priorities within
these agencies accompanied by minimum appropriations levels.
national marine fisheries services (nmfs)
Mandates derived from passage of the Sustainable Fisheries Act
(SFA) have significantly increased the commitments of NMFS since 1996.
Full implementation of NMFS's additional commitments, including
research programs, the development and implementation of comprehensive
fishery management plans, and monitoring programs, requires substantial
additional fiscal resources. While the President's proposed budget
provides increases for a number of important programs, resources fully
adequate to NMFS's obligations have yet to be appropriated. We urge the
Committee to provide additional funds for the programs detailed below
for fiscal year 2002.
Resource Information
Audubon supports the proposed $4.196 million dollar increase to the
resource information base. As detailed below, we are encouraged and
enthusiastic regarding increases in a number of specific line items,
however, we are concerned that some increases may fall short of what is
necessary.
--Expand Annual Stock Assessments.--The administration has requested
a total of $15 million for expanding annual stock assessments,
which represents an increase of $13.3 million. Audubon is
supportive of this increase, however, we note that this level
of funding will eliminate just one third (829) of the deficit
of 2,564 research days identified in NMFS' Stock Assessments
Improvement Plan as necessary for adequate stock assessment
coverage. At a time when the status of nearly half (43 percent)
of all assessed fish species are considered overfished, our
ignorance of the status of 78 percent of our fish stocks in
aggregate is simply unacceptable. To close the tremendous gap
in knowledge, Audubon proposes an increase of $19 million over
2001 funding levels which would reduce the research days
deficit by one half.
--Fishery Observers.--Audubon believes that the administration's
request of and additional $4 million for fishery observers is a
step in the right direction, but is insufficient. Observer
coverage levels in some fisheries, such as the Atlantic pelagic
longline fishery, have been below levels mandated by
international agreements and biological opinions issued under
the authority of the Endangered Species Act for multiple
consecutive years because of fiscal constraints. To ensure that
sampling occurs annually at a statistically reliable level of
coverage within all statistical areas fished, Congress must
provide additional money to NMFS for fishery observers. Audubon
proposes an increase of $16.4 million above fiscal year 2001
funding levels for this purpose.
--Pacific Highly Migratory Species Research.--Audubon is supportive
of the administration's request of $1 million for Pacific
highly migratory species research, but believes this level of
funding is inadequate. Funding for stock assessments and
biological studies, as well as improving bycatch mitigation
techniques for these fisheries are critical for the long-term
health of the fishery. Of vital importance to improving
management of these species in both the near and long-term is
the completion of the Pacific Fishery Management Council's
Highly Migratory Species Fishery Management Plan. To guarantee
the timely completion of this plan, Audubon proposes that
appropriations for Pacific Highly Migratory species be raised
to $1.5 million with $500,000 of these appropriations
specifically dedicated to completion of the Pacific Fishery
Management Council's plan.
--Bluefin Tuna.--Audubon believes the Administration's request of
$600,000 for bluefin tuna research is below the level needed to
fund appropriate scientific research. Audubon strongly urges
the Committee to appropriate $1 million and ensure that these
research dollars be evenly distributed between Stanford
University and the New England Aquarium. In fiscal year 2001
all federal bluefin tuna research dollars were allocated to the
New England Aquarium. The Stanford University research team has
traditionally lead the field in Atlantic bluefin tuna research
and we believe that their significant expertise should be
engaged on this issue.
--Essential Fisheries Habitat.--Essential fish habitats (EFH) are
those waters and substrate on which fish depend. These habitats
are currently being damaged from both land based activities and
destructive fishing practices. While the Sustainable Fisheries
Act of 1996 gave NMFS a clear mandate to identify and conserve
essential fish habitat, little has been done. Audubon supports
an increase of $12.8 million over fiscal year 2001 funding
levels. This increase in funding would allow NMFS to gain the
information necessary to further refine designations of EFH and
take action to conserve EFH, including measures to minimize the
adverse impacts of fishing gear on EFH.
--Cooperative Research.--Audubon supports the administration's $6
million request for cooperative fishery research, which
represents an increase of $500,000 over the fiscal year 2001
enacted level. These additional monies will provide for the
expansion of cooperative research activities in the Southeast
region and allow for the expertise of fishermen to be utilized
in conjunction with that of NMFS in the development of data
collection and other programs. Audubon further supports the
continuation of shark research funding to Mote Marine
Laboratory at the proposed $150,000 level.
conservation and management operations
Audubon is encouraged by and supportive of the proposed $2.033
million increase in funding for the fisheries management programs base.
--Regional Councils.--The administration has requested a total of
$15.6 million for the regional fishery management councils,
which represents an increase of $2.5 million above the fiscal
year 2001 enacted level. Audubon is supportive of the proposed
increase, however this level of appropriations still falls
short of what is needed to support the increased workload of
the eight regional councils. Audubon proposes an increase in
appropriations to $19.05 million as per the aggregate request
of the eight regional councils. Audubon believes that this
higher level more accurately reflects the appropriations
necessary to fully execute their responsibilities.
--Atlantic Salmon.--Audubon supports the administration's request of
$3.5 million for Atlantic salmon, which represents an increase
of $1.5 million over the fiscal year 2001 enacted level. These
monies will contribute to conserving and restoring populations
of endangered Atlantic salmon in the Gulf of Maine Distinct
population segment and their habitat. These appropriations, in
conjunction with appropriations to the National Fish and
Wildlife Service are critical for effecting a recovery of this
highly endangered species.
--Enforcement and Surveillance.--While Audubon is supportive of the
administration's $47.3 million request for enforcement and
surveillance activities, which provides a $10 million increase
for enforcement activities over fiscal year 2001 levels, we
believe it falls short of what is needed to allow for effective
enforcement of current fisheries regulations. We are pleased to
see the proposed increase of $6.1 million for the vessel
monitoring systems (VMS) over the fiscal year 2001 enacted
levels and the implied commitment to effective fishery
monitoring. Nevertheless, this funding level is far below what
is needed to ensure coverage for noticeable portion of the
estimated 10,000 U.S. commercial fishing vessels. Audubon
proposes an aggregate request of $11.1 million over fiscal year
2001 enacted levels for VMS, which represents an increase of
$9.8 million. This higher amount would support VMS coverage of
roughly 11 percent of this nation's commercial fishing fleet.
Given the increased use of large-scale area closures and the
difficulty in enforcing the use of these vital management
tools, VMS is an indispensable enforcement tool. Enforcement
alternatives to VMS would be immensely more costly and include
100 percent observer coverage in some fisheries and the
procurement of significant numbers of additional enforcement
personnel, aircraft and ships to patrol area closures. VMS also
provides the added benefit of improving fisheries management by
providing refined real-time data regarding spatial and temporal
distribution of fishing effort. Audubon is further supportive
of the proposed $3.9 million increase over fiscal year 2001
enacted levels to expand and modernize the enforcement and
surveillance base.
--Sea Turtles.--Audubon supports the Administration's request of $6.3
million for marine sea turtle activities, which represents an
increase of $3 million over the fiscal year 2001 enacted level.
Given that the two most recent biological opinions (May 2000,
April 2001) regarding the Atlantic highly migratory species
fishery determined that continuation of the Atlantic pelagic
longline fishery, as currently prosecuted, constitutes a threat
to the continued existence to loggerhead and leatherback sea
turtles, Audubon would like to see a significant portion of
these new dollars dedicated to reducing fishery interactions
with sea turtles. This recommendation is further bolstered by
similar turtle interaction problems affecting pelagic longline
fisheries in the central Pacific, which recently compelled a
judge to drastically curtail longline fishing in that region.
--Fisheries Oceanography.--Audubon supports the Administrations
request of $2 million for fisheries oceanography. As increasing
pressure is brought to bear on fish stocks it is critical to
develop new tools to further our understanding of how long-term
environmental factors affect fish stocks.
coastal conservation activities
Coral Reef Activities.--Audubon supports the administration's $27.7
million aggregate request for coral reef activities. This amount
represents status quo for the National Ocean Service's Coral Reef
Institutes Program ($16 million) and the National Marine Fisheries
Service's Coral Reef Program ($11 million), while providing a modest
increase of $700,000 above the fiscal year 2001 enacted levels for
Coral Reef Monitoring through the National Environmental Satellite,
Data and Information Service. The fragile nature of coral reefs and
their function as ``hotspots'' of biodiversity demand that we as a
nation provide adequate funding to properly manage these critical
habitats.
national oceans service (nos)
Marine Sanctuary Program.--Audubon supports the Administration's
request of $36 million for the National Marine Sanctuary program, which
represents an increase of $3.6 million over fiscal year 2001 enacted
levels. These new dollars, if appropriated, will allow for improved
protection of important sanctuary resources as well as additional
personnel and ocean research.
Marine Protected Areas Program.--The administration has requested
$3 million for the Marine Protected Areas (MPA) Program, which
represents and increase of $3 million over fiscal year 2001. Audubon
believes this amount is insufficient and proposes an additional $2
million in funding for fiscal year 2002, for an aggregate of $5 million
for the NOS MPA program. Preparation of a supporting framework for
collaboration between the stakeholders, as well as execution of the
first comprehensive inventory and assessment of the existing system of
MPAs in U.S. waters are critical to the success of the program and
cannot be adequately carried out without additional monies beyond those
proposed by the Administration.
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee thank you for the
opportunity to provide testimony on Audubon's priorities for NOAA. I
understand that it is a large agenda, but the problems facing America's
marine resources are significant. We look forward to working with you
to secure a legacy of living oceans for future generations.
______

Prepared Statement of the Pacific Marine Conservation Council

Pacific Marine Conservation Council (PMCC) appreciates this
opportunity to share our views regarding the President's fiscal year
2002 budget request for certain fisheries programs of the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
PMCC is a nonprofit, public benefit corporation working with
commercial and recreational fishermen, marine scientists and
conservationists to conserve and sustain West Coast groundfish and the
coastal communities that depend upon them.
The West Coast groundfish fishery is under a federal disaster
declaration, yet we have the opportunity to revive depleted stocks and
to ultimately enjoy sustainable and profitable harvest. The economic
impact of this important fishery reaches far beyond the communities
along the 1,300-mile Pacific coastline of the Lower 48. The seafood
industry distributes the catch of our commercial fishermen throughout
this country and to overseas markets. Recreational fishing in these
ocean waters also drives a powerful economic engine.
President Bush's budget provides for several well-considered and
important investments that will enhance this nation's fisheries. For
example, PMCC commends the intention of NOAA to expand stock
assessments and modernize information systems.
PMCC believes that the following modest modifications to the
National Marine Fisheries Service: Operations, Research and Facilities
section of the NOAA budget will improve fisheries management and
provide long-term national benefits:
conservation and management operations
Observers and Training--West Coast Observers.--We greatly
appreciate that this Committee provided funding in the amount of $2.275
million for the commencement of a limited West Coast observer program
in appropriations for fiscal year 2001. The President's budget carries
this amount forward for 2002. To fully implement this observer
program--to collect, analyze, and use the vital biological and
statistical data necessary to refine management--will require the
expenditure of at least $5 million per year. The $2.275 million limited
program will provide approximately 10 percent coverage, while engaged
marine scientists recommend 20 percent coverage for valid statistical
sampling in this fishery. We respectfully request that the line for
West Coast observers be raised to $5 million for fiscal year 2002.
(This represents an increase of $2.725 million over the President's
request.)
fisheries management programs
Regional Councils.--The President's budget includes $15.65 million
for the eight regional fishery management councils. This is an increase
over the fiscal year 2001 level, but still falls short of adequate
funding for most councils to carry out their responsibilities under the
Magnuson-Stevens Act. The Pacific Fishery Management Council, for
example, would be funded at a level that would compromise critical work
implementing their precedent-setting groundfish strategic plan
``Transition to Sustainability.'' PMCC recommends funding the regional
councils at $17.6 million for fiscal year 2002. (This represents an
increase of $1.95 million over the President's request.)
state and industry assistance programs (interjurisdictional fisheries
grants)
West Coast data collection by the states.--Groundfish species do
not respect the 3-mile state waters boundaries. They may be targeted or
caught as by-catch in both federal and state-managed fisheries. Data
collection by observers and by other means directed by the States
(California, Oregon and Washington) in near-shore waters is necessary
to augment information provided by federal programs. Much of this
state-directed effort could utilize the services and vessels of
fishermen based in our coastal towns. PMCC requests that this Committee
fund these activities, to be coordinated with the National Marine
Fisheries Service, in the initial amount of $3 million.
Thank you for considering our recommendations as you make the
important decisions to invest in the stewardship of America's
fisheries.
______

Prepared Statement of the American Chemical Society

The American Chemical Society (ACS) would like to thank Chairman
Judd Gregg and Ranking Member Ernest Hollings for the opportunity to
submit testimony for the record on the Commerce, Justice, State and
Judiciary Appropriations bill for fiscal year 2002. ACS is a non-profit
scientific and educational organization, chartered by Congress, with
more than 163,000 chemical scientists and engineers as members. The
world's largest scientific society, ACS advances the chemical
enterprise, increases public understanding of chemistry, and brings its
expertise to bear on state and national matters.
ACS firmly believes that advances in science and engineering have
produced more than half of our nation's economic growth in the last 50
years and, economists agree, these advances remain the most important
factor in the productivity increases responsible for our growing
economy and rising standard of living. Each field of science
contributes to our diversity of strengths and capabilities and has
given us the flexibility to explore new fields and apply science in
unexpected ways. Over the last 25 years, funding for biomedical
research has increased while federal support for most other disciplines
has remained flat or declined. Congress took an important step in the
right direction last year when it increased funding for scientific
research for fiscal year 2001. To nourish the roots of innovation in
all fields and help ensure the success of growing investments in
biomedicine, balance must be restored to the nation's R&D portfolio
while supporting overall growth in the nation's science and technology
budget. This should be a top priority for Congress and the
administration as fiscal year 2002 appropriations are considered.
national institute of standards and technology (nist) budget
recommendations
For 100 years, NIST has assisted industry and researchers by
developing technology needed to improve product quality, modernize
manufacturing processes, ensure product reliability, and facilitate
product commercialization. The ACS is concerned that NIST's budget
increases since 1995 have generally been offset by inflation and salary
increases. As a result, some important programs, such as those
investigating materials reliability, can not explore scientific
opportunities due to lack of funds. The budget constraints also are
adversely affecting NIST's ability to purchase capital equipment,
recruit and retain staff, and respond to the rapid changes of a global
economy. We particularly urge Congress and the administration to
continue reinvigorating NIST's core laboratory programs given the
quality, uniqueness, and economic importance of its work. We also
support the goals of the Advanced Technology Program (ATP) and the
allocation of more funds for maintenance of NIST facilities. ACS urges
a greater than inflation funding increase for NIST in fiscal year 2002.
measurement and standards laboratories
NIST laboratories' research, measurement infrastructure, and
standards-related activities are critical to the operation and
productivity of small and large companies across all industries, as
well as universities, hospitals, and law enforcement agencies. The
program provides impartial expertise, test methods, and best-in-the-
world calibration services that maximize efficiencies, promote trade,
and ensure confidence in the growing number of precision measurements
needed for health, safety, defense, commerce, energy, and the
environment.
NIST laboratories develop universal measurement techniques and
technologies that foster higher quality products, more reliable
processes, fewer rejected parts, and faster product development across
all American industries. NIST is responsive to, and works with,
industry to identify future needs, enables the development of advanced
technologies, and plays a vital role in promoting international
acceptance of U.S. standards abroad. We especially support NIST
research in nanotechnology, healthcare, and information-technology
security.
advanced technology program (atp)
ATP aims to strengthen U.S. industries' capabilities in high-risk
technologies. As world competition grows, speed to market and an edge
in emerging technologies are critical for the United States. ATP
contributes to these goals and supports many small start-up firms that
might not otherwise succeed in technology areas where venture capital
funding is scarce. The program also provides an incentive for firms to
perform research that has greater risks than typical industrial R&D but
has promise for broad economic impact.
______

Prepared Statement of the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals

Chairman Gregg and Members of the Subcommittee: People for the
Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) is the world's largest animal
rights organization, with more than 700,000 members. We greatly
appreciate this opportunity to submit testimony regarding fiscal year
2002 appropriations for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA). Our testimony will focus on financial aid for
the commercial fishing industry.
As you may know, in the summer of 2000, an emergency spending bill
was passed which included $50 million for NOAA to help provide relief
to the commercial fishing industry from environmental restrictions,
overfishing, and foreign competition.
Fish suffer greatly when caught and killed for their flesh. Whether
caught by hook or net, fish experience fear and pain.
We would like to request that the Subcommittee include report
language ensuring that no NOAA funds may be used for financial aid to
the commercial fishing industry.
Fish feel pain
The following is excerpted from Lord Medway's 1979 Report of the
Panel of Enquiry Into Shooting and Angling, sponsored by the Royal
Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals:

``[T]he evidence suggests that all vertebrates (including fish),
through the mediation of similar neuropharmacological processes,
experience similar sensations to a greater or lesser degree in response
to noxious stimuli. . . . The apparent universality throughout
vertebrates of the neuropharmacological basis for the perception of
painful (and pleasurable) stimuli does not permit us to agree with
those who would recognize a difference in this function between `warm-
blooded' and `cold-blooded' members.''

Captain Jacques Cousteau said, ``To reassure one's conscience, it
is said that fish do not feel pain--of course such claims are
completely without foundation.''
The commercial fishing industry causes immense suffering
Trawlers drag enormous nets through the water, forcing all fish in
their path into the closed end. For hours, the trapped fish are
squeezed and bounced, together with any netted rocks and ocean debris.
``Prolonged tumbling and dragging in the net had caused the fish to rub
against each other and file away their sharp scales,'' author William
Warner reported of a haul he observed. ``Their flanks, in fact, were
scraped entirely raw.''
When hauled up from the deep, fish may undergo excruciating
decompression. Frequently, the intense internal pressure ruptures the
swimbladder, pops out the eyes, and pushes the esophagus and stomach
out through the mouth.
Smaller fish, such as flounder, who are ordinarily dumped onto
chopped ice, usually suffocate or are crushed to death by fish who
follow. Larger fish, such as scrod and haddock, tumble onto the deck
and are sorted by workers who stab them with short, spiked rods called
``pickers.'' Next, the fish's throats and abdomens are slit, often
while they are still alive. Meanwhile, nontarget fish (``bycatch''),
who sometimes comprise most of the catch, are thrown overboard, often
by pitchfork.
On any given day, fishers may set out some 40,000 miles of
gillnets, driftnets on the Pacific high seas, and anchored nets in
coastal waters. Plastic, weighted gillnets hang like curtains,
generally to a depth of 30 feet. Unable to see the netting, fish swim
into it. Unless they are smaller than the mesh size, they get no
further than poking their heads through. When they try to back out, the
netting catches them by their gills or fins. Many of the fish
suffocate; others struggle so desperately in the sharp mesh that they
bleed to death. Because gillnets are left unmonitored, trapped fish can
suffer for days.
Some commercial fishers still harpoon large fish (such as
swordfish, tuna, and sharks) or hook them individually. Large fish are
also caught by ``long-lining,'' in which a ship unreels as much as 30
miles of line bristling with hundreds of thousands of baited hooks.
Fish are not the only animals harmed
Millions of nontarget animals, including sea turtles, dolphins,
birds, and seals, die horrible deaths in commercial fishing nets every
year. According to the United Nations, nearly 25 percent of all marine
life caught annually--30 million tons--is thrown back into the ocean
dead or dying, maimed by fishing line or gillnets.
The commercial fishing industry pollutes our oceans
In the process of slaughtering billions of sea animals, trawlers
also dump into the oceans 450,000 plastic containers, 52 million pounds
of plastic packing material, and 298 million pounds of plastic fishing
net.
summary
The commercial fishing industry kills sea animals indiscriminately,
causes immeasurable suffering, and pollutes our oceans. These practices
should not be subsidized with federal funds.
Please include language in the report accompanying the fiscal year
2002 Commerce, Justice, State, and Judiciary Appropriations bill
stating that no NOAA funds shall be used for financial aid to the
commercial fishing industry.
Thank you for your consideration of our request.
______

Prepared Statement of the United States Section of the Pacific Salmon
Commission

Mr. Chairman, my name is Roland Rousseau. I am an Alternate
Commissioner on the Pacific Salmon Commission (PSC) and the Chair of
the Budget Committee for the U.S. Section of the Commission. The PSC
was established under the Pacific Salmon Treaty (Treaty) between the
United States and Canada. A new Agreement (Agreement) was concluded in
June of 1999 that establishes new abundance-based fishing regimes under
the Treaty and made other improvements in the Treaty's structure. I am
providing this statement of the fiscal year 2002 budget for Treaty
programs recommended by the U.S. Section of the Pacific Salmon
Commission for the Committee's use and for the record. The U.S. Section
recommends that $7,456,000 be provided for the Pacific Salmon Treaty
Line Item under the Information Collection and Analysis activity of the
National Marine Fisheries Service for fiscal year 2002. Included in
this amount is $5,612,000 for base programs required to implement the
provisions of the Treaty and $1,844,000 to acquire the technical
information to implement abundance based chinook salmon management
provided for under the new Agreement. The U.S. Section recommends that
$400,000 be provided to continue the bilateral Transboundary River
Enhancement Program under the NMFS International Fisheries Commissions
Line Item in fiscal year 2002. We also recommend that $2,460,000 be
provided to the Department of State in fiscal year 2002 to fund the
bilateral PSC staff and offices and for U.S. Section travel and
stipends. This is an increase of $309,000 over the fiscal year 2001
level.
The base Treaty implementation program, which has been level funded
at $5,587,000 for several years is requested at $5,612,000 to restore
the fiscal year 2001 recision. This program includes a wide range of
salmon stock assessment, fishery monitoring, and technical support
activities for all five species of Pacific salmon in the fisheries and
rivers from Southeast Alaska to those of Washington, Oregon, and Idaho.
The States of Alaska, Washington, Oregon, and Idaho, and the National
Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), are charged with carrying out a major
portion of the salmon fishery stock assessment and harvest management
actions required under the Treaty. Federal funding for these activities
is provided through the National Marine Fisheries Service on an annual
basis. The agency projects carried out under Pacific Salmon Commission
funding are directed toward acquiring, analyzing, and sharing the
information required to implement the conservation and sharing
principles of the Treaty. A wide range of programs for salmon stock
size assessments, escapement enumeration, stock distribution, and catch
and effort information from fisheries, are represented. The information
from many of these programs is used directly to establish fishing
seasons.
In 1996, the United States adopted an Abundance-Based Approach to
Managing Chinook Salmon Fisheries in Southeast Alaska. Under this
approach, chinook harvest levels are based on annual estimates of
chinook abundance. This system replaced harvest ceilings agreed to in
1985, which did not respond to fluctuations in chinook salmon
populations. Under the new Agreement of 1999, this abundance based
management approach was expanded to all chinook fisheries subject to
the Treaty. Congress appropriated $1,844,000 for fiscal year 2001 to
provide for the collection of necessary stock assessment and fishery
management information to implement the new approach. The funding is
being used by Alaska, the Pacific Northwest States, and treaty tribes
to implement abundance-based chinook salmon management coastwide under
the new Agreement. The U.S. Section recommends level funding of
$1,844,000 to support the implementation of abundance-based chinook
management in fiscal year 2002.
The United States and Canada agreed to a joint salmon enhancement
program on the Transboundary Rivers flowing between Canada and
Southeast Alaska in 1988. Congress has provided $400,000 annually for
this effort through the National Marine Fisheries Service's
International Fisheries Commission line item under the Conservation and
Management Operations activity. The U.S. Section recommends that
$400,000 again be provided in fiscal year 2002 for funding of this very
successful bilateral program.
The U.S. Section of the Pacific Salmon Commission recommends a
Department of State funding level of $2,460,000 for Treaty
implementation in fiscal year 2002. This is an increase of $309,000
over the fiscal year 2001 appropriation, and is vitally needed to
support new U.S. commitments made in the June, 1999 Agreement. This
funding provides for the United States contribution to the bilateral
Pacific Salmon Commission staff and offices based in Vancouver, British
Columbia. It also provides for travel for U.S. Commissioners, panel
members, and technical Committee members and stipends for authorized
Commissioners and panel members. As a result of the new PSC agreement a
new bilateral standing Committee and a new panel will start up this
fiscal year. An increase in funding will be needed to cover the U.S.
Section travel and salary costs associated with these new bodies.
This concludes the Statement of the U.S. Section of the Pacific
Salmon Commission submitted for consideration by your Committee. We
wish to thank the Committee for the support that it has given us in the
past.
______

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Prepared Statement of the Central Piedmont Community College

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to submit testimony to the hearing record regarding Central
Piedmont Community College's (CPCC) efforts to meet a regional and
national need for forensic technician training. First, I would like to
thank the Subcommittee for its assistance last year resulting in
$500,000 from the Crime Laboratory Improvement Program. This funding
has been matched with a generous donation by the Belk Foundation plus
local bond monies of $3.2 million for a total of $3.7 million. These
funds together will be used to develop curricula and upgrade
instructional technology toward our goal of establishing a National
Academy for Forensic Computing and Investigation (NAFCI).
We are seeking continued federal partnership assistance to fully
implement NAFCI. A staff person from the National Institute of Justice
recently spent a day on our campus to review our current programs and
vision for the Academy. We are working to forge a very productive
working partnership with the Department of Justice based upon our
experience and the Department's expressed needs in forensic training.
The elements that make CPCC an ideal site for such an initiative
are as follows. CPCC is the largest institution of higher education in
the State of North Carolina, with over 70,000 students, and is the
leading provider of career training and re-training in the State.
CPCC's efforts to establish a National Academy for Forensic Computing
and Investigation came about in response to requests from North
Carolina's law enforcement community, including the Federal Bureau of
Investigation, as well as the Charlotte-Mecklenburg business community.
CPCC was specifically targeted to carry out this mission by virtue
of a thirty-year history as the leading provider for criminal justice
training. The public safety program at CPCC has expanded quickly with
the growth of the Charlotte-Mecklenburg region. The current program
serves a 13-county region and offers a comprehensive range of programs
and services, including instruction in the high demand occupational
skills area of forensics technology. This instruction is currently
available to a variety of law enforcement and public agency officials
who previously would have had to travel extensively for this type of
professional development and training.
Citing extreme inability to find skilled workers in the field, a
consortium of local industry leaders, including the Charlotte Chamber
of Commerce, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and representatives
from the banking, insurance, law enforcement, and legal industries,
asked CPCC's Department of Public Safety to develop a training program
in forensic technology. These industries also seek assistance in
retraining and upgrading skills of incumbent workers.
The challenge is to meet not only local public agency demand for
criminal justice training, but also the increasing need from the
private sector which is now requesting specialized skills training in
criminal justice topics such as forensics computer technology. There
are currently no forensic science degrees offered at the graduate or
undergraduate levels at any of North Carolina's colleges and
universities.
The need for forensics training can also be translated to the
national level. According to the National Institute of Justice (1999),
49 percent of the cases prosecuted in the United States were successful
solely because of the forensic sciences. Unfortunately, law
enforcement, social services, and other governmental agencies, along
with private corporations nationwide must search throughout the country
to obtain forensic training. This translates into an investigative gap,
particularly pronounced in the Southeast United States, costing reduced
productivity, delayed justice, and loss of funds. Compounding this
situation is the fact that the technology and science are changing so
rapidly that ongoing training and skill upgrades are necessary.
The establishment of a National Academy for Forensic Computing and
Investigation (NAFCI) at centrally located CPCC can help to bridge the
investigative gap both regionally and nationally while providing high
skill careers for North Carolina.
CPCC's Public Safety facility at the North Campus is the home to
the College's Criminal Justice Program. Today, the North Campus serves
more than 12,000 citizens of the Charlotte-Mecklenburg region on an
annual basis. In addition, the facility is the primary training site
for ten local, two State, and three Federal agencies.
There are currently three course areas under the umbrella term
public safety at CPCC's North Campus--police, fire, and rescue.
Associates' degrees are available in Criminal Justice and in Fire
Protection Technology, and in-service training for all three groups is
available. An additional component within the criminal justice arena is
a Regional Training Center, headquartered at CPCC that is responsible,
in a 13-county area, for providing in-service training for criminal
justice professionals in North Carolina. CPCC is also the primary
training source for all Firefighter I and II level personnel with the
Charlotte Fire Department and all volunteer firefighters in Mecklenburg
County. Given this breadth of experience, CPCC is the institution best
positioned to take on the responsibility of addressing the need for
forensic training.
The development and implementation of the NAFCI will serve to
increase the skills of the current workforce reliant upon and adversely
affected by a lack of appropriate training in forensic science. These
groups include law enforcement officers, fire service, prosecutors and
criminal attorneys, investigators, crime laboratory personnel, medical
examiners and coroners, correctional personnel, insurance
investigators, agents, and claims adjusters, fraud examiners, social
services professionals, and nurses.
The Academy's emphasis on Computer Forensics will demonstrate the
value of the application of computer technologies in solving the
information needs of anyone required to conduct forensic
investigations. Each of the following topics represents a computer
class; others will be developed as required:
--Facial Reconstruction of Unknown Human Remains--Digital Imaging
--Information Systems Security--Cyber Crime
--Identifying and locating the Cyber Criminal--Voice Recognition
--Reconstruction of Damaged Computer Software--Fingerprint
Identification
--Using the Computer to Determine Time of Crime--Firearms
Identification
--Construction of new Evidence Tracking Systems--Dental
Identification
--Computerized Collision Diagramming--DNA Data Retrieval
The workforce development goals of this initiative are to train or
retrain 2,000 workers in the forensics field within the first 5 years.
This timely response will result in a significant change in the way
that CPCC accomplishes workforce development. Through the creation of
an effective bridge between industry and academia, CPCC hopes to become
a national model for community colleges across the country not only in
the field of forensic science but also in other fields where workforce
gaps exist.
Given industry's need and the characteristics of the target
audience, CPCC proposes innovative strategies for success. One of the
most unique features of this initiative is that CPCC has bridged the
gap between industry and academia by forming an Industry Advisory Panel
charged with providing direct and substantial course input throughout
the life of this initiative. The panel includes a diverse array of
leading edge companies dependent upon forensics for the success of
their business. Needs assessments will be conducted to determine skill
areas that require further development, and special courses will be
designed and implemented based on statements of need. NAFCI will then
create intensive courses for faculty in the various fields as well as
for current professionals in the various areas. For example, social
services workers can be educated on the indicators of child abuse and
correct use of the multidisciplinary approach to child abuse
investigation. Courses in forensic computing, accounting, arson
investigation, forensic accident reconstruction, and bodily injury can
be offered to fraud investigators.
The NAFCI seeks to develop curriculum strategies and educational
materials that meet the needs of all the vast and varied types of life-
long learners. Thus, in addition to the more standard educational
materials, CPCC will develop and offer short-term training modules for
the certificate seeker and on-line courses for the law enforcement
professionals who are much better served by courseware unlimited by
time or place. Opportunities for education in the field via service
learning programs and/or internship experiences will also be utilized.
NAFCI will also seek to provide state-of-the-art or ``hands-on''
training for the investigative professional along with continuing
education approved by the appropriate certifying board of each State
serviced.
NAFCI will increase the number of people who have the forensic
skills to develop and support community-based investigations,
especially in rural areas of the country. For example, the NAFCI will
actively seek to train experienced Registered Nurses from rural areas
to become forensic nurses by conducting advanced courses in forensic
pathology, forensic dentistry, and forensic anthropology. These nurses
may then assist rural law enforcement agencies with evidence collection
from violent crimes. The Center will also promote public education
concerning all disciplines in the forensic sciences, and serve as a
major source for national certification by the American Board of
Medicolegal Death Investigators, Inc.
Educational materials will be produced and widely disseminated via
various means including, electronic media, CD-ROMS, conferences,
journal articles, manuals, newsletters, on-line courses with
interactive laboratory experiences, summer institutes, videos, and
workshops
In addition, CPCC will liaison directly with the local high school
populations via College Tech Prep, Upward Bound, and Talent Search
programs to assist disadvantaged students prepare for forensics
technology careers. Additional outreach to disadvantaged populations
will take place via CPCC's collaborations with the local JOBSLINK
(North Carolina's One-Stop Career Shop). JOBSLINK is a project
sponsored by the State Employment Service Office, JTPA, the Department
of Social Services, and Office of Vocational Rehabilitation. Although
designed to meet the needs of everyone, JOBSLINK has specific
responsibilities for working with welfare recipients and the
unemployed. Because CPCC provides staffing to JOBSLINK, faculty will
have the opportunity to intimately recruit students from the local
disadvantaged population. Further, there is potential for developing a
``pipeline'' between CPCC and 4-year institutions that allow students
to specialize in areas of science related to forensics so that those
students will be prepared to enter into laboratory work, field work or
graduate forensic programs.
In addition, the North Carolina State Bureau of Investigation
maintains a full-service laboratory in Raleigh and a limited-service
laboratory in Asheville, for the purpose of examining all types of
evidence related to criminal investigations. The establishment of a
National Academy for Forensic Computing and Investigation at CPCC could
provide a training link to these two institutions.
To accomplish these goals CPCC is seeking a total of $3.5 million
in additional federal partnership assistance to establish the
approximately $7.2 million Center, which will include a state-of-the-
art forensics laboratory. A Federal investment in this initiative is
warranted for the contribution that the NAFCI can make toward filling
an investigative gap that exists in the region, for the new careers
that will be established, and for the necessary upgrading of skill
levels for the better functioning of North Carolina's criminal justice
system.
______

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 eight U.S. electric consumers (about 40 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 2002 appropriations for the Federal Trade Commission and
the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice.
The electric power industry is in the midst of sweeping and
dramatic change, with a record number of mergers over the last four
years. Add to this change, the recent lawsuits filed against wholesale
electricity suppliers in California by the Independent System Operator
alleging market power abuse. In addition, several cities in California
have filed lawsuits alleging that a coalition of gas companies
illegally attempted to eliminate competition, thus engaging in
antitrust violations that caused natural gas prices to skyrocket. 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.
The Department of 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.
Important lessons have been learned through the deregulatory
experiences of the airlines, cable, and telecommunications industries.
As the electric power industry struggles to transition from regulation
to competition, those lessons must inform the policies and process that
will guide, and ultimately determine, the structure of a competitive
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.
Mergers among electric utilities are having a profound negative
effect on the development of competition in the electric industry. In
fact, because utility mergers 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 has increased 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 long term. 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, or used for diversification;
--Whether an increase in concentration will simply serve to fortify
existing market power to exclude new entrants, drive out new
entrants through price competition and mergers, purchase
existing competitors, or result in excessive profits.
As the mixed 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 DOJ's
Antitrust Division and the FTC will be enormous as we search for the
answers to these and many more questions.
APPA urges Congress to provide the Antitrust Division of the
Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission adequate funding
in fiscal year 2002 that will ensure the agencies can continue to
perform their consumer protection roles.
______

Prepared Statement of the Northwest Tribal Court Judges Association

On behalf of the Northwest Tribal Court Judges Association
(NWTCJA), I am pleased to submit this written testimony on the fiscal
year 2002 Appropriations for Justice Department funding of the Indian
Country Law Enforcement Initiative and the Indian Tribal Justice
Technical and Legal Assistance Act of 2000 (Public Law 106-559).
The NWTCJA is a voluntary regional representative membership
association (non-profit association organized in 1981), whose active
members include any duly appointed or elected judge for any Indian
tribe located in the States of Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and Alaska.
NWTCJA represents more than 37 tribal justice systems in the Northwest,
has a twenty-year track record of providing quality training and
technical assistance services to tribal justice systems. The mission of
the NWTCJA is ``to provide a forum for communication and cooperation
among and between tribal court judges and other entities to enhance the
training and skills of court personnel and to secure resources to
accomplish these ends in the interest of better serving tribal people,
communities, and our sovereign nations.'' We provide training for court
personnel and need money to accomplish these purposes.
Justice Department Funding.--Indian Country Law Enforcement
Initiative and Indian Tribal Justice Technical and Legal Assistance Act
of 2000 (Public Law 106-559)
(1) Full Funding for Indian Country Law Enforcement Initiative.--
NWTCJA strongly supports full funding for the Indian Country Law
Enforcement Initiative ($173.3 million in Justice Department funding as
requested in the Justice Department's fiscal year 2001 budget). NWTCJA
would like to specifically emphasize our support for the funding of the
Indian Tribal Court Fund at a level of at least $15 million (Please
note that this fund was formally authorized by the 106th Congress--see
Public Law 106-559, Section 201). Through the increased funding for law
enforcement under the Indian Country Law Enforcement Initiative, more
police officers have been added throughout Indian Country without the
accompanying funds to support tribal courts that will be impacted by
the increased caseloads generated by this increased law enforcement.
(2) At least $15 million in funding for the Indian Tribal Justice
Technical and Legal Assistance Act of 2000 (Public Law 106-559).--When
the 106th Congress enacted Public Law 106-559 in December 2000, it
recognized the vital legal and technical assistance needs of tribal
justice systems--finding in part that ``there are both inadequate
funding and inadequate coordinating mechanisms to meet the technical
and legal assistance needs of tribal justice systems and this lack of
adequate technical and legal assistance funding impairs their
operation'' and promised three grant programs to address these
Congressional recognized needs. It is vital that Congress provide
adequate funding for Public Law 106-559 (see the Act itself for more
specific information). NWTCJA strongly supports funding of Public Law
106-559 at the level of at least $15 million. Failure to provide this
funding level will make the Indian Tribal Justice Technical and Legal
Assistance Act of 2000 (Public Law 106-559) a hollow recognition of
tribal justice systems needs without providing needed resources. Native
American tribal courts must deal with a wide range of difficult
criminal and civil justice problems on a daily basis, including the
following:
--The violent crime rate has been declining nationally but increasing
substantially in Indian Country. Tribal court systems are
grossly under-funded to deal with these criminal justice
problems.
--The case number and complexity of tribal civil caseloads have also
been rapidly expanding.
--Congress recognized this need when it enacted the Indian Tribal
Justice Act--specifically finding that ``tribal justice systems
are an essential part of tribal governments and serve as
important forums for ensuring public health and safety and the
political integrity of tribal governments'' and ``tribal
justice systems are inadequately funded, and the lack of
adequate funding impairs their operation.''
--While the Indian Tribal Justice Act promised $58.4 million per year
in additional funding for tribal court systems starting in
fiscal year 1994, THERE HAS BEEN NO FUNDING provided tribal
courts under this Act.
--Since enactment of the Indian Tribal Justice Act, the needs of
tribal court systems have continued to increase, with no
corresponding increase in funding. In fact, the Bureau of
Indian Affairs' funding for tribal courts has actually
decreased substantially since the Indian Tribal Justice Act was
enacted in 1993.
--The 106th Congress re-affirmed the Congressional commitment to
provide this increased funding for tribal justice systems when
it re-authorized the Indian Tribal Justice Act in December 2000
for 7 more years of funding at a level of $58.4 million per
year (see Public Law 106-559, section 202).
As the former Attorney General, Janet Reno, stated in testimony
before the Senate Indian Affairs Committee, it is vital to ``better
enable Indian tribal courts, historically under-funded and under-
staffed, to meet the demands of burgeoning caseloads.'' The Attorney
General indicated that the ``lack of a system of graduated sanctions
through tribal court, that stems from severely inadequate tribal
justice support, directly contributes to the escalation of adult and
juvenile criminal activity.''
The majority of the existing tribal justice systems in the
Northwest and the more than 100 developing tribal court systems in
Alaska, function in isolated rural communities. These tribal justice
systems face many of the same difficulties faced by other isolated
rural communities, but these problems are greatly magnified by the many
other complex problems that are unique to Indian country. In addition
to the previously-mentioned problems, tribal justice systems are faced
with a lack of jurisdiction over non-Indians, complex jurisdictional
relationships with Federal and State criminal justice systems,
inadequate law enforcement, great distance from the few existing
resources, lack of detention staff and facilities, lack of sentencing
or disposition alternatives, lack of access to advanced technology,
lack of substance abuse testing and treatment options, and lack of
resources to hold people accountable, i.e. no monies for probation. It
should also be noted that in most tribal justice systems, 80-90 percent
of the cases filed are criminal cases, and 90 percent of these cases
involve the difficult problems of alcohol and/or substance abuse. While
a few tribal courts are just beginning the planning and implementation
of Drug Courts with monies from the DCPO, these monies are provided for
only a few years, are limited in amounts, and provide a temporary
panacea to the ever increasing problem of drug addiction in our young
people.
importance of tribal courts
``Tribal courts constitute the frontline tribal institutions that
most often confront issues of self-determination and sovereignty, while
at the same time they are charged with providing reliable and equitable
adjudication in the many and increasingly diverse matters that come
before them. In addition, they constitute a key tribal entity for
advancing and protecting the rights of self-government. . . . Tribal
courts are of growing significance in Indian Country.'' (Frank
Pommersheim, Braid of Feathers: American Indian Law and Contemporary
Tribal Law 57 (1995)). Tribal justice systems are the primary and most
appropriate institutions for maintaining order in tribal communities.
Former Attorney General Reno acknowledged that, ``With adequate
resources and training, they are most capable of crime prevention and
peacekeeping'' (A Federal Commitment to Tribal Justice Systems, 79
Judicature No. 7, November/December 1995, p. 114). It is her view that
``fulfilling the Federal Government's trust responsibility to Indian
nations means not only adequate Federal law enforcement in Indian
Country, but enhancement of tribal justice systems as well.'' Id.
Tribal courts agonize over the very same issues State and Federal
courts confront in the criminal context, such as child sexual abuse,
alcohol and substance abuse, gang violence and violence against women.
These courts, however, while striving to address these complex issues
with far fewer financial resources than their Federal and State
counterparts must also ``strive to respond competently and creatively
to Federal and State pressures coming from the outside, and to cultural
values and imperatives from within.'' (Pommersheim, ``Tribal Courts:
Providers of Justice and Protectors of Sovereignty,'' 79 Judicature No.
7, November/December 1995, p. 111). Judicial training that addresses
the present imperatives posed by the public safety crisis in Indian
Country, while also being culturally sensitive, is essential for tribal
courts to be effective in deterring crime in their communities.
There is no federally-supported institution to provide on-going,
accessible tribal judicial training or to develop court resource
materials and management tools, similar to the Federal Judicial Center,
the National Judicial College or the National Center for State Courts.
Even though the NWTCJA provides local training, the three or four
meetings each year with one day of training at each meeting, cannot
provide the in-depth extensive judicial training necessary to make
tribal justice systems strong and effective arms of tribal government.
Furthermore, in these difficult economic times, many tribes cannot
afford to send judges to the trainings that are offered.
inadequate funding of tribal justice systems
There is no question that tribal justice systems are, and
historically have been, underfunded. The 1991 United States Civil
Rights Commission found that ``the failure of the United States
Government to provide proper funding for the operation of tribal
judicial systems . . . has continued for more than 20 years.'' The
Indian Civil Rights Act: A Report of the United States Civil Rights
Commission, June 1991, p. 71. The Commission also noted that
``[f]unding for tribal judicial systems may be further hampered in some
instances by the pressures of competing priorities within a tribe.''
Moreover, they opined that ``If the United States Government is to live
up to its trust obligations, it must assist tribal governments in their
development . . .'' Almost 10 years ago, the Commission ``strongly
support[ed] the pending and proposed congressional initiatives to
authorize funding of tribal courts in an amount equal to that of an
equivalent State court'' and was ``hopeful that this increased funding
[would] allow for much needed increases in salaries for judges, the
retention of law clerks for tribal judges, the funding of public
defenders/defense counsel, and increased access to legal authorities.''
As indicated by the Civil Rights Commission, the critical financial
need of tribal courts has been well-documented and ultimately led to
the passage of the Indian Tribal Justice Act, 25 U.S.C. Sec. 3601 et
seq. (the ``Act''). Congress found that ``[T]ribal justice systems are
an essential part of tribal governments and serve as important forums
for ensuring public health, safety and the political integrity of
tribal governments.'' 25 U.S.C. Sec. 3601(5). Affirming the findings of
the Civil Rights Commission, Congress further found that ``tribal
justice systems are inadequately funded, and the lack of adequate
funding impairs their operation.'' 25 U.S.C. Sec. 3601(8). In order to
remedy this lack of funding, the Act authorized appropriation base
funding support for tribal justice systems in the amount of $50,000,000
for each of the fiscal years 1994 through 2000. 25 U.S.C. Sec. 3621(b).
An additional $500,000 for each of the same fiscal years was authorized
to be appropriated for the administration of Tribal Judicial
Conferences for the ``development, enhancement and continuing operation
of tribal justice systems . . .'' 25 U.S.C. Sec. 3614.
Eight (8) years after the Act was enacted, how much funding has
been appropriated? Not one single dollar was even requested under the
Act for fiscal years 1994, 1995, 1997, 1998 or 1999. Only minimal funds
were requested for fiscal year 1996 and 2000. Yet, even these minimal
funds were deleted. Even more appalling than the lack of appropriations
under the Act is the fact that BIA funding for tribal courts has
actually substantially decreased following the enactment of the Indian
Tribal Justice Act in 1993 in anticipation of Congress making the
appropriations Indian Country believed it would. In December 2000,
Congress re-affirmed its commitment to funding of the Indian Tribal
Justice Act by re-authorizing the Act for 7 more years of funding (see
Public Law 106-559, Section 202) but it did so without appropriating
any monies for that purpose. Now is the time to follow through on this
long promised funding and provide actual funding under the Indian
Tribal Justice Act!
conclusion
Tribal justice systems are the primary and most appropriate
institutions for maintaining order in tribal communities. They are the
keystone to tribal economic development and self-sufficiency. Any
serious attempt to fulfill the Federal Government's trust
responsibility to Indian Nations must include increased funding and
enhancement of tribal justice systems. The Northwest Tribal Court
Judges Association welcomes the opportunity to comment on the Justice
Department's Budget Request for the fiscal year 2002 funding of the
Indian Country Law Enforcement Initiative and the Indian Tribal Justice
Technical and Legal Assistance Act of 2000. Thank you very much.
______

Prepared Statement of the National American Indian Court Judges
Association

On behalf of the National American Indian Court Judges Association
(NAICJA), I am pleased to submit this written testimony on the fiscal
year 2002 Appropriations for Justice Department funding of the Indian
Country Law Enforcement Initiative and the Indian Tribal Justice
Technical and Legal Assistance Act of 2000 (Public Law 106-559).
The NAICJA is a voluntary national representative membership
association (non-profit organization incorporated in 1969) of current
and former tribal court judges throughout the United States. NAICJA,
which represents more than 350 tribal justice systems nationwide, has a
thirty-year track record of providing quality training and technical
assistance services for tribal justice systems.
Justice Department Funding.--Indian Country Law Enforcement
Initiative and Indian Tribal Justice Technical and Legal Assistance Act
of 2000 (Public Law 106-559)
(1) Full Funding for Indian Country Law Enforcement Initiative.--
NAICJA strongly supports full funding for the Indian Country Law
Enforcement Initiative ($173.3 million in Justice Department funding as
requested in the Justice Department's fiscal year 2001 budget). NAICJA
would like to specifically emphasize our support for the funding of the
Indian Tribal Court Fund at a level of at least $15 million (Please
note that this fund was formally authorized by the 106th Congress--see
Public Law 106-559, section 201). Through the increased funding for law
enforcement under the Indian Country Law Enforcement Initiative, more
police officers have been added throughout Indian Country. Without
substantial additional funding, tribal courts will be unable to handle
the increased caseloads generated by this increased law enforcement.
(2) At least $15 million in funding for the Indian Tribal Justice
Technical and Legal Assistance Act of 2000 (Public Law 106-559).--When
the 106th Congress enacted Public Law 106-559 in December 2000, it
recognized the vital legal and technical assistance needs of tribal
justice systems--finding in part that ``there is both inadequate
funding and inadequate coordinating mechanism to meet the technical and
legal assistance needs of tribal justice systems and this lack of
adequate technical and legal assistance funding impairs their
operation'' and promised three grant programs to address these
Congressional recognized needs. It is vital that Congress provide
adequate funding for Public Law 106-559 (see the Act itself for more
specific information). NAICJA strongly supports funding of Public Law
106-559 at the level of at least $15 million. Failure to provide this
funding level would make the Indian Tribal Justice Technical and Legal
Assistance Act of 2000 (Public Law 106-559) a hollow recognition of
tribal justice systems needs without providing needed resources. Native
American tribal courts must deal with a wide range of difficult
criminal and civil justice problems on a daily basis, including the
following:
--While the crime rate, especially the violent crime rate, has been
declining nationally, it has increased substantially in Indian
Country. Tribal court systems are grossly under-funded to deal
with these criminal justice problems.
--Number/complexity of tribal civil caseloads have also been rapidly
expanding.
--Congress recognized this need when it enacted the Indian Tribal
Justice Act--specifically finding that ``tribal justice systems
are an essential part of tribal governments and serve as
important forums for ensuring public health and safety and the
political integrity of tribal governments'' and ``tribal
justice systems are inadequately funded, and the lack of
adequate funding impairs their operation.''
--While the Indian Tribal Justice Act promised $58.4 million per year
in additional funding for tribal court systems starting in
fiscal year 1994, tribal courts have yet to see ANY funding
under this Act.
--Since Congress enacted the Indian Tribal Justice Act, the needs of
tribal court systems have continued to increase, but there has
been no corresponding increase in funding for tribal court
systems. In fact, the Bureau of Indian Affairs funding for
tribal courts has actually decreased substantially since the
Indian Tribal Justice Act was enacted in 1993.
--The 106th Congress re-affirmed the Congressional commitment to
provide this increased funding for tribal justice systems when
it re-authorized the Indian Tribal Justice Act in December 2000
for seven more years of funding at a level of $58.4 million per
year (see Public Law 106-559, section 202).
As Attorney General Janet Reno stated in testimony before the
Senate Indian Affairs Committee on, it is vital to ``better enable
Indian tribal courts, historically under-funded and under-staffed, to
meet the demands of burgeoning case loads.'' The Attorney General
indicated that the ``lack of a system of graduated sanctions through
tribal court, that stems from severely inadequate tribal justice
support, directly contributes to the escalation of adult and juvenile
criminal activity.''
The vast majority of the approximately 350 tribal court systems
function in isolated rural communities. These tribal justice systems
face many of the same difficulties faced by other isolated rural
communities, but these problems are greatly magnified by the many other
complex problems that are unique to Indian country. In addition to the
previously mentioned problems, tribal justice systems are faced with a
lack of jurisdiction over non-Indians, complex jurisdictional
relationships with Federal and State criminal justice systems,
inadequate law enforcement, great distance from the few existing
resources, lack of detention staff and facilities, lack of sentencing
or disposition alternatives, lack of access to advanced technology,
lack of substance abuse testing and treatment options, etc. It should
also be noted that in most tribal justice systems, 80-90 percent of the
cases are criminal case and 90 percent of these cases involve the
difficult problems of alcohol and/or substance abuse.
importance of tribal courts
``Tribal courts constitute the frontline tribal institutions that
most often confront issues of self-determination and sovereignty, while
at the same time they are charged with providing reliable and equitable
adjudication in the many and increasingly diverse matters that come
before them. In addition, they constitute a key tribal entity for
advancing and protecting the rights of self-government. . . Tribal
courts are of growing significance in Indian Country.'' (Frank
Pommersheim, Braid of Feathers: American Indian Law and Contemporary
Tribal Law 57 (1995)). Tribal justice systems are the primary and most
appropriate institutions for maintaining order in tribal communities.
Attorney General Reno acknowledged that, ``With adequate resources and
training, they are most capable of crime prevention and peacekeeping''
(A Federal Commitment to Tribal Justice Systems, 79 Judicature No. 7,
November/December 1995, p. 114). It is her view that ``fulfilling the
Federal Government's trust responsibility to Indian nations means not
only adequate Federal law enforcement in Indian Country, but
enhancement of tribal justice systems as well.'' Id.
Tribal courts agonize over the very same issues State and Federal
courts confront in the criminal context, such as, child sexual abuse,
alcohol and substance abuse, gang violence and violence against women.
These courts, however, while striving to address these complex issues
with far fewer financial resources than their Federal and State
counterparts must also ``strive to respond competently and creatively
to Federal and State pressures coming from the outside, and to cultural
values and imperatives from within.'' (Pommersheim, ``Tribal Courts:
Providers of Justice and Protectors of Sovereignty,'' 79 Judicature No.
7, November/December 1995, p. 111). Judicial training that addresses
the present imperatives posed by the public safety crisis in Indian
Country, while also being culturally sensitive, is essential for tribal
courts to be effective in deterring crime in their communities.
There is no federally supported institution to provide on-going,
accessible tribal judicial training or to develop court resource
materials and management tools, similar the Federal Judicial Center,
the National Judicial College or the National Center for State Courts.
Even though the NAICJA annually sponsors the National Tribal Judicial
Conference, the three-day conference cannot provide the in-depth
extensive judicial training necessary to make tribal justice systems
strong and effective arms of tribal government.
inadequate funding of tribal justice systems
There is no question that tribal justice systems are, and
historically have been, underfunded. The 1991 United States Civil
Rights Commission found that ``the failure of the United States
Government to provide proper funding for the operation of tribal
judicial systems . . . has continued for more than 20 years.'' The
Indian Civil Rights Act: A Report of the United States Civil Rights
Commission, June 1991, p. 71. The Commission also noted that
``[f]unding for tribal judicial systems may be further hampered in some
instances by the pressures of competing priorities within a tribe.''
Moreover, they opined that ``If the United States Government is to live
up to its trust obligations, it must assist tribal governments in their
development . . .'' Almost ten years ago, the Commission ``strongly
support[ed] the pending and proposed congressional initiatives to
authorize funding of tribal courts in an amount equal to that of an
equivalent State court'' and was ``hopeful that this increased funding
[would] allow for much needed increases in salaries for judges, the
retention of law clerks for tribal judges, the funding of public
defenders/defense counsel, and increased access to legal authorities.''
As indicated by the Civil Rights Commission, the critical financial
need of tribal courts has been well documented and ultimately led to
the passage of the Indian Tribal Justice Act, 25 U.S.C. Sec. 3601 et
seq. (the ``Act''). Congress found that ``[T]ribal justice systems are
an essential part of tribal governments and serve as important forums
for ensuring public health, safety and the political integrity of
tribal governments.'' 25 U.S.C. Sec. 3601(5). Affirming the findings of
the Civil Rights Commission, Congress further found that ``tribal
justice systems are inadequately funded, and the lack of adequate
funding impairs their operation.'' 25 U.S.C. Sec. 3601(8). In order to
remedy this lack of funding, the Act authorized appropriation base
funding support for tribal justice systems in the amount of $50,000,000
for each of the fiscal years 1994 through 2000. 25 U.S.C. Sec. 3621(b).
An additional $500,000 for each of the same fiscal years was authorized
to be appropriated for the administration of Tribal Judicial
Conferences for the ``development, enhancement and continuing operation
of tribal justice systems . . .'' 25 U.S.C. Sec. 3614.
Eight (8) years after the Act was enacted, how much funding has
been appropriated? None. Not a single dollar was even requested under
the Act for fiscal years 1994, 1995, 1997, 1998 or 1999. Only minimal
funds were requested for fiscal year 1996 and 2000. Yet, even these
minimal funds were deleted. Even more appalling than the lack of
appropriations under the Act is the fact that BIA funding for tribal
courts has actually substantially decreased following the enactment of
the Indian Tribal Justice Act in 1993. In December 2000, Congress re-
affirmed its commitment to funding of the Indian Tribal Justice Act by
re-authorizing the Act for seven more years of funding (see Public Law
106-559, section 202). Now is the time to follow through on this long
promised funding and provide actual funding under the Indian Tribal
Justice Act!
conclusion
Tribal justice systems are the primary and most appropriate
institutions for maintaining order in tribal communities. They are the
keystone to tribal economic development and self-sufficiency. Any
serious attempt to fulfill the Federal Government's trust
responsibility to Indian Nations must include increased funding and
enhancement of tribal justice systems.
We welcome the opportunity to comment on the Justice Department's
Budget Request for the fiscal year 2002 funding of the Indian Country
Law Enforcement Initiative and the Indian Tribal Justice Technical and
Legal Assistance Act of 2000 (Public Law 106-559). Thank you very much.
______

Prepared Statement of the Alaska Inter-Tribal Council

On behalf of the Alaska Inter-Tribal Council (AITC), I am pleased
to submit this written testimony on the fiscal year 2002 Appropriations
for Justice Department funding of the Indian Country Law Enforcement
Initiative and the Indian Tribal Justice Technical and Legal Assistance
Act of 2000 (Public Law 106-559).
The AITC is a statewide organization comprised of 176 federally
recognized member Tribes dedicated to promoting, supporting and
advocating for the powers and rights of Alaska Tribal governments
including the development and perpetuation of tribal justice systems,
the exercise of judicial authority and the administration of justice.
Justice Department Funding.--Indian Country Law Enforcement
Initiative and Indian Tribal Justice Technical and Legal Assistance Act
of 2000 (Public Law 106-559)
(1) Full Funding for Indian Country Law Enforcement Initiative.--
AITC strongly supports full funding for the Indian Country Law
Enforcement Initiative ($173.3 million in Justice Department funding as
requested in the Justice Department's fiscal year 2001 budget). AITC
would like to specifically emphasize our support for the funding of the
Indian Tribal Court Fund at a level of at least $15 million (Please
note that this fund was formally authorized by the 106th Congress--see
Public Law 106-559, section 201). Through the increased funding for law
enforcement under the Indian Country Law Enforcement Initiative, more
police officers have been added throughout Indian Country. Without
substantial additional funding, tribal courts will be unable to handle
the increased caseloads generated by this increased law enforcement.
(2) At least $15 million in funding for the Indian Tribal Justice
Technical and Legal Assistance Act of 2000 (Public Law 106-559). When
the 106th Congress enacted Public Law 106-559 in December 2000, it
recognized the vital legal and technical assistance needs of tribal
justice systems--finding in part that ``there is both inadequate
funding and inadequate coordinating mechanism to meet the technical and
legal assistance needs of tribal justice systems and this lack of
adequate technical and legal assistance funding impairs their
operation'' and promised three grant programs to address these
Congressional recognized needs. It is vital that Congress provide
adequate funding for Public Law 106-559 (see the Act itself for more
specific information). AITC strongly supports funding of Public Law
106-559 at the level of at least $15 million. Failure to provide this
funding level would make the Indian Tribal Justice Technical and Legal
Assistance Act of 2000 (Public Law 106-559) a hollow recognition of
tribal justice systems needs without providing needed resources. Alaska
Native and Native American tribal courts must deal with a wide range of
difficult criminal and civil justice problems on a daily basis,
including the following:
--While the crime rate, especially the violent crime rate, has been
declining nationally, it has increased substantially in tribal
communities nationwide. Tribal court systems are grossly under-
funded to deal with these criminal justice problems.
--Number/complexity of tribal civil caseloads have also been rapidly
expanding.
--Congress recognized this need when it enacted the Indian Tribal
Justice Act--specifically finding that ``tribal justice systems
are an essential part of tribal governments and serve as
important forums for ensuring public health and safety and the
political integrity of tribal governments'' and ``tribal
justice systems are inadequately funded, and the lack of
adequate funding impairs their operation.''
--While the Indian Tribal Justice Act promised $58.4 million per year
in additional funding for tribal court systems starting in
fiscal year 1994, tribal courts have yet to see ANY funding
under this Act.
--Since Congress enacted the Indian Tribal Justice Act, the needs of
tribal court systems have continued to increase, but there has
been no corresponding increase in funding for tribal court
systems. In fact, the Bureau of Indian Affairs funding for
tribal courts has actually decreased substantially since the
Indian Tribal Justice Act was enacted in 1993. Moreover, Alaska
Native Tribes have historically never had access to BIA funds
for tribal courts or law enforcement.
--The 106th Congress re-affirmed the Congressional commitment to
provide this increased funding for tribal justice systems when
it re-authorized the Indian Tribal Justice Act in December 2000
for seven more years of funding at a level of $58.4 million per
year (see Public Law 106-559, section 202).
As Attorney General Janet Reno stated in testimony before the
Senate Indian Affairs Committee on, it is vital to ``better enable
Indian tribal courts, historically under-funded and under-staffed, to
meet the demands of burgeoning case loads.'' The Attorney General
indicated that the ``lack of a system of graduated sanctions through
tribal court, that stems from severely inadequate tribal justice
support, directly contributes to the escalation of adult and juvenile
criminal activity.''
Since time immemorial Alaska Native Tribes have maintained peace,
law and order in their communities through the exercise of indigenous
juridical, social and political authority. Today, Alaska Natives
continue to administer justice through their modern day Tribal
governments, councils and courts. Over 100 of the 229 federally
recognized Tribes located in Alaska are actively establishing or
operating single tribal courts systems, inter-tribal/regional and/or
appellate courts. This constitutes a significant amount of tribal court
activity nationwide since almost half (229) of the Tribes in the United
States are located in Alaska. The vast majority of the approximately
100 tribal court systems in Alaska function in isolated rural
communities. Moreover, most Alaska Tribal courts are intervening in
domestic relations and civil/family law matters involving child
protection, adoptions, child custody and juvenile delinquency. These
tribal justice systems face many of the same difficulties faced by
other tribes in the lower 48 States and other isolated rural
communities. These problems are greatly magnified by the many other
complex problems that are unique to Tribes. For instance, tribal
justice systems are faced with complex jurisdictional relationships
with Federal and State criminal justice systems, inadequate law
enforcement, great distance from the few existing resources, lack of
detention staff and facilities, lack of sentencing or disposition
alternatives, lack of access to advanced technology, lack of substance
abuse testing and treatment options, etc. It should also be noted that
in most tribal justice systems, 80-90 percent of the cases are criminal
cases and 90 percent of these cases involve the difficult problems of
alcohol and/or substance abuse.
importance of tribal courts
``Tribal courts constitute the frontline tribal institutions that
most often confront issues of self-determination and sovereignty, while
at the same time they are charged with providing reliable and equitable
adjudication in the many and increasingly diverse matters that come
before them. In addition, they constitute a key tribal entity for
advancing and protecting the rights of self-government. . . . Tribal
courts are of growing significance in Indian Country.'' (Frank
Pommersheim, Braid of Feathers: American Indian Law and Contemporary
Tribal Law 57 (1995). Tribal justice systems are the primary and most
appropriate institutions for maintaining order in tribal communities.
Attorney General Reno acknowledged that, ``With adequate resources and
training, they are most capable of crime prevention and peacekeeping''
(A Federal Commitment to Tribal Justice Systems, 79 Judicature No. 7,
November/December 1995, p. 114). These courts, however, while striving
to address these complex issues with far fewer financial resources than
their Federal and State counterparts must also ``strive to respond
competently and creatively to Federal and State pressures coming from
the outside, and to cultural values and imperatives from within.''
(Pommersheim, ``Tribal Courts: Providers of Justice and Protectors of
Sovereignty,'' 79 Judicature No. 7, November/December 1995, p. 111).
inadequate funding of tribal justice systems
There is no question that tribal justice systems are, and
historically have been, underfunded. The 1991 United States Civil
Rights Commission found that ``the failure of the United States
Government to provide proper funding for the operation of tribal
judicial systems . . . has continued for more than 20 years.'' The
Indian Civil Rights Act: A Report of the United States Civil Rights
Commission, June 1991, p. 71. The Commission also noted that
``[f]unding for tribal judicial systems may be further hampered in some
instances by the pressures of competing priorities within a tribe.''
Moreover, they opined that ``If the United States Government is to live
up to its trust obligations, it must assist tribal governments in their
development . . .'' Almost ten years ago, the Commission ``strongly
support[ed] the pending and proposed congressional initiatives to
authorize funding of tribal courts in an amount equal to that of an
equivalent State court'' and was ``hopeful that this increased funding
[would] allow for much needed increases in salaries for judges, the
retention of law clerks for tribal judges, the funding of public
defenders/defense counsel, and increased access to legal authorities.''
As indicated by the Civil Rights Commission, the critical financial
need of tribal courts has been well documented and ultimately led to
the passage of the Indian Tribal Justice Act, 25 U.S.C. Sec. 3601 et
seq. (the ``Act''). Congress found that ``[T]ribal justice systems are
an essential part of tribal governments and serve as important forums
for ensuring public health, safety and the political integrity of
tribal governments.'' 25 U.S.C. Sec. 3601(5). Affirming the findings of
the Civil Rights Commission, Congress further found that ``tribal
justice systems are inadequately funded, and the lack of adequate
funding impairs their operation.'' 25 U.S.C. Sec. 3601(8). In order to
remedy this lack of funding, the Act authorized appropriation base
funding support for tribal justice systems in the amount of $50,000,000
for each of the fiscal years 1994 through 2000. 25 U.S.C. Sec. 3621(b).
An additional $500,000 for each of the same fiscal years was authorized
to be appropriated for the administration of Tribal Judicial
Conferences for the ``development, enhancement and continuing operation
of tribal justice systems . . .'' 25 U.S.C. Sec. 3614.
Eight (8) years after the Act was enacted, how much funding has
been appropriated? None. Not a single dollar was even requested under
the Act for fiscal years 1994, 1995, 1997, 1998 or 1999. Only minimal
funds were requested for fiscal year 1996 and 2000. Yet, even these
minimal funds were deleted. Even more appalling than the lack of
appropriations under the Act is the fact that BIA funding for tribal
courts has actually substantially decreased following the enactment of
the Indian Tribal Justice Act in 1993. In December 2000, Congress re-
affirmed its commitment to funding of the Indian Tribal Justice Act by
re-authorizing the Act for seven more years of funding (see Public Law
106-559, section 202). Now is the time to follow through on this long
promised funding and provide actual funding under the Indian Tribal
Justice Act!
conclusion
Tribal justice systems are the primary and most appropriate
institutions for maintaining order in tribal communities. They are the
keystone to tribal economic development and self-sufficiency. Any
serious attempt to fulfill the Federal Government's trust
responsibility to Indian Nations must include increased funding and
enhancement of tribal justice systems.
We welcome the opportunity to comment on the Justice Department
funding of the Indian Country Law Enforcement Initiative and the Indian
Tribal Justice Technical and Legal Assistance Act of 2000 (Public Law
106-559).
______

Prepared Statement of the Tribal Law and Policy Institute

On behalf of the Tribal Law and Policy Institute, I am pleased to
submit this written testimony on the fiscal year 2002 Appropriations
for Justice Department funding of the Indian Country Law Enforcement
Initiative and the Indian Tribal Justice Technical and Legal Assistance
Act of 2000 (Public Law 106-559).
The Tribal Law and Policy Institute is a Native American owned and
operated non-profit corporation organized to design and deliver
education, research, training, and technical assistance programs which
promote the enhancement of justice in Indian country and the health,
well-being, and culture of Native peoples.
Justice Department Funding.--Indian Country Law Enforcement
Initiative and Indian Tribal Justice Technical and Legal Assistance Act
of 2000 (Public Law 106-559)
(1) Full Funding for Indian Country Law Enforcement Initiative.--
AITC strongly supports full funding for the Indian Country Law
Enforcement Initiative ($173.3 million in Justice Department funding as
requested in the Justice Department's fiscal year 2001 budget). AITC
would like to specifically emphasize our support for the funding of the
Indian Tribal Court Fund at a level of at least $15 million (Please
note that this fund was formally authorized by the 106th Congress--see
Public Law 106-559, section 201). Through the increased funding for law
enforcement under the Indian Country Law Enforcement Initiative, more
police officers have been added throughout Indian Country. Without
substantial additional funding, tribal courts will be unable to handle
the increased caseloads generated by this increased law enforcement.
(2) At least $15 million in funding for the Indian Tribal Justice
Technical and Legal Assistance Act of 2000 (Public Law 106-559). When
the 106th Congress enacted Public Law 106-559 in December 2000, it
recognized the vital legal and technical assistance needs of tribal
justice systems--finding in part that ``there is both inadequate
funding and inadequate coordinating mechanism to meet the technical and
legal assistance needs of tribal justice systems and this lack of
adequate technical and legal assistance funding impairs their
operation'' and promised three grant programs to address these
Congressional recognized needs. It is vital that Congress provide
adequate funding for Public Law 106-559 (see the Act itself for more
specific information). AITC strongly supports funding of Public Law
106-559 at the level of at least $15 million. Failure to provide this
funding level would make the Indian Tribal Justice Technical and Legal
Assistance Act of 2000 (Public Law 106-559) a hollow recognition of
tribal justice systems needs without providing needed resources. Alaska
Native and Native American tribal courts must deal with a wide range of
difficult criminal and civil justice problems on a daily basis,
including the following:
--While the crime rate, especially the violent crime rate, has been
declining nationally, it has increased substantially in tribal
communities nationwide. Tribal court systems are grossly under-
funded to deal with these criminal justice problems.
--Number/complexity of tribal civil caseloads have also been rapidly
expanding.
--Congress recognized this need when it enacted the Indian Tribal
Justice Act--specifically finding that ``tribal justice systems
are an essential part of tribal governments and serve as
important forums for ensuring public health and safety and the
political integrity of tribal governments'' and ``tribal
justice systems are inadequately funded, and the lack of
adequate funding impairs their operation.''
--While the Indian Tribal Justice Act promised $58.4 million per year
in additional funding for tribal court systems starting in
fiscal year 1994, tribal courts have yet to see ANY funding
under this Act.
--Since Congress enacted the Indian Tribal Justice Act, the needs of
tribal court systems have continued to increase, but there has
been no corresponding increase in funding for tribal court
systems. In fact, the Bureau of Indian Affairs funding for
tribal courts has actually decreased substantially since the
Indian Tribal Justice Act was enacted in 1993. Moreover, Alaska
Native Tribes have historically never had access to BIA funds
for tribal courts or law enforcement.
--The 106th Congress re-affirmed the Congressional commitment to
provide this increased funding for tribal justice systems when
it re-authorized the Indian Tribal Justice Act in December 2000
for seven more years of funding at a level of $58.4 million per
year (see Public Law 106-559, section 202).
As Attorney General Janet Reno stated in testimony before the
Senate Indian Affairs Committee on, it is vital to ``better enable
Indian tribal courts, historically under-funded and under-staffed, to
meet the demands of burgeoning case loads.'' The Attorney General
indicated that the ``lack of a system of graduated sanctions through
tribal court, that stems from severely inadequate tribal justice
support, directly contributes to the escalation of adult and juvenile
criminal activity.''
Since time immemorial Alaska Native Tribes have maintained peace,
law and order in their communities through the exercise of indigenous
juridical, social and political authority. Today, Alaska Natives
continue to administer justice through their modern day Tribal
governments, councils and courts. Over 100 of the 229 federally
recognized Tribes located in Alaska are actively establishing or
operating single tribal courts systems, inter-tribal/regional and/or
appellate courts. This constitutes a significant amount of tribal court
activity nationwide since almost half (229) of the Tribes in the United
States are located in Alaska. The vast majority of the approximately
100 tribal court systems in Alaska function in isolated rural
communities. Moreover, most Alaska Tribal courts are intervening in
domestic relations and civil/family law matters involving child
protection, adoptions, child custody and juvenile delinquency. These
tribal justice systems face many of the same difficulties faced by
other tribes in the lower 48 States and other isolated rural
communities. These problems are greatly magnified by the many other
complex problems that are unique to Tribes. For instance, tribal
justice systems are faced with complex jurisdictional relationships
with Federal and State criminal justice systems, inadequate law
enforcement, great distance from the few existing resources, lack of
detention staff and facilities, lack of sentencing or disposition
alternatives, lack of access to advanced technology, lack of substance
abuse testing and treatment options, etc. It should also be noted that
in most tribal justice systems, 80-90 percent of the cases are criminal
cases and 90 percent of these cases involve the difficult problems of
alcohol and/or substance abuse.
importance of tribal courts
``Tribal courts constitute the frontline tribal institutions that
most often confront issues of self-determination and sovereignty, while
at the same time they are charged with providing reliable and equitable
adjudication in the many and increasingly diverse matters that come
before them. In addition, they constitute a key tribal entity for
advancing and protecting the rights of self-government. . . . Tribal
courts are of growing significance in Indian Country.'' (Frank
Pommersheim, Braid of Feathers: American Indian Law and Contemporary
Tribal Law 57 (1995). Tribal justice systems are the primary and most
appropriate institutions for maintaining order in tribal communities.
Attorney General Reno acknowledged that, ``With adequate resources and
training, they are most capable of crime prevention and peacekeeping''
(A Federal Commitment to Tribal Justice Systems, 79 Judicature No. 7,
November/December 1995, p. 114). These courts, however, while striving
to address these complex issues with far fewer financial resources than
their Federal and State counterparts must also ``strive to respond
competently and creatively to Federal and State pressures coming from
the outside, and to cultural values and imperatives from within.''
(Pommersheim, ``Tribal Courts: Providers of Justice and Protectors of
Sovereignty,'' 79 Judicature No. 7, November/December 1995, p. 111).
inadequate funding of tribal justice systems
There is no question that tribal justice systems are, and
historically have been, underfunded. The 1991 United States Civil
Rights Commission found that ``the failure of the United States
Government to provide proper funding for the operation of tribal
judicial systems . . . has continued for more than 20 years.'' The
Indian Civil Rights Act: A Report of the United States Civil Rights
Commission, June 1991, p. 71. The Commission also noted that
``[f]unding for tribal judicial systems may be further hampered in some
instances by the pressures of competing priorities within a tribe.''
Moreover, they opined that ``If the United States Government is to live
up to its trust obligations, it must assist tribal governments in their
development . . .'' Almost ten years ago, the Commission ``strongly
support[ed] the pending and proposed congressional initiatives to
authorize funding of tribal courts in an amount equal to that of an
equivalent State court'' and was ``hopeful that this increased funding
[would] allow for much needed increases in salaries for judges, the
retention of law clerks for tribal judges, the funding of public
defenders/defense counsel, and increased access to legal authorities.''
As indicated by the Civil Rights Commission, the critical financial
need of tribal courts has been well documented and ultimately led to
the passage of the Indian Tribal Justice Act, 25 U.S.C. Sec. 3601 et
seq. (the ``Act''). Congress found that ``[T]ribal justice systems are
an essential part of tribal governments and serve as important forums
for ensuring public health, safety and the political integrity of
tribal governments.'' 25 U.S.C. Sec. 3601(5). Affirming the findings of
the Civil Rights Commission, Congress further found that ``tribal
justice systems are inadequately funded, and the lack of adequate
funding impairs their operation.'' 25 U.S.C. Sec. 3601(8). In order to
remedy this lack of funding, the Act authorized appropriation base
funding support for tribal justice systems in the amount of $50,000,000
for each of the fiscal years 1994 through 2000. 25 U.S.C. Sec. 3621(b).
An additional $500,000 for each of the same fiscal years was authorized
to be appropriated for the administration of Tribal Judicial
Conferences for the ``development, enhancement and continuing operation
of tribal justice systems . . .'' 25 U.S.C. Sec. 3614.
Eight (8) years after the Act was enacted, how much funding has
been appropriated? None. Not a single dollar was even requested under
the Act for fiscal years 1994, 1995, 1997, 1998 or 1999. Only minimal
funds were requested for fiscal year 1996 and 2000. Yet, even these
minimal funds were deleted. Even more appalling than the lack of
appropriations under the Act is the fact that BIA funding for tribal
courts has actually substantially decreased following the enactment of
the Indian Tribal Justice Act in 1993. In December 2000, Congress re-
affirmed its commitment to funding of the Indian Tribal Justice Act by
re-authorizing the Act for seven more years of funding (see Public Law
106-559, section 202). Now is the time to follow through on this long
promised funding and provide actual funding under the Indian Tribal
Justice Act!
conclusion
Tribal justice systems are the primary and most appropriate
institutions for maintaining order in tribal communities. They are the
keystone to tribal economic development and self-sufficiency. Any
serious attempt to fulfill the Federal Government's trust
responsibility to Indian Nations must include increased funding and
enhancement of tribal justice systems.
We welcome the opportunity to comment on the Justice Department
funding of the Indian Country Law Enforcement Initiative and the Indian
Tribal Justice Technical and Legal Assistance Act of 2000 (Public Law
106-559).
Thank you very much.
______

Prepared Statement of the National Center for Victims of Crime

My name is Susan Herman, and I am the executive director of the
National Center for Victims of Crime. I submit this testimony to urge
members of the Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, State and the
Judiciary to remove the cap on the Victims of Crime Act (VOCA) Fund and
allow all money in the Fund to be obligated according to statutory
formula. In addition, I urge you to prevent the addition of new
earmarks off the top of the VOCA Fund.
The National Center for Victims of Crime is the nation's largest
nonprofit advocacy and resource organization serving victims of all
crime. Since its founding in 1985, the National Center has worked with
nearly 10,000 public and private non-profit organizations and agencies
across the country, and has provided information, support, and
technical assistance to hundreds of thousands of victims, victim
service providers, allied professionals, and advocates.
As you may know, the VOCA Fund was created by Congress in 1984 to
provide Federal support to the many state and local programs that
assist victims of crime. The VOCA Fund is derived entirely from fines
and penalties on offenders at the Federal level, and the bulk of the
Fund is distributed to the States through a formula grant. The State
money is split between the crime victim compensation programs, which
pay many of the out-of-pocket expenses of victims, and victim services
such as rape crisis centers, domestic violence shelters, victim
assistants in law enforcement and prosecutor offices, and other direct
services to victims of crime. Under the VOCA formula, States have four
years to spend a given year's distribution, giving them adequate time
to plan for the most effective use of this money.
For the past two years, through the appropriations process, the
amount of money available to the States has been capped at
approximately $500 million, despite collections of over $1 billion.
Removing the cap on the VOCA Fund, allowing that money to be put to the
purpose for which Congress originally intended it, would make a
tremendous difference to crime victims nationwide.
The National Center hears from victim service providers every day
about the significant unmet needs in every corner of the country. Some
examples of this need include:
--Victim assistant positions in law enforcement agencies.--Most
police agencies have no crime victim assistant, who can make
sure victims receive appropriate referrals, are informed about
the availability of crime victim compensation, and help answer
victims' questions about the status of their case. Unless such
a position exists at the law enforcement level, victims whose
cases do not result in an arrest and charging will be deprived
of any system-based services.
--Services to immigrant victims of crime.--All over the country,
there are limited services, or a even complete absence of
services, for large groups of immigrant victims of crime. Such
victims are often linguistically or culturally isolated.
Without the availability of interpreters, such victims cannot
access the services that may otherwise be available.
Additionally, victims who come from a society where the police
are not trusted, or where sexual violence is unmentioned or
domestic violence is condoned, often require a different
approach to providing services. Effective victim services
require ready access to service providers who are culturally
knowledgeable and sensitive to these varying needs.
--Services to victims in rural jurisdictions.--While every State
provides services to victims of crime, too many victims in
rural jurisdictions still lack access to basic services. In
many parts of the country, victims are hundreds of miles from
the nearest rape crisis center or battered women's shelter.
--Assistance to victims with disabilities.--One area of greatest need
is in reaching and serving crime victims with disabilities--
developmentally disabled victims, mentally ill victims, hearing
impaired victims, and others whose disability makes them
simultaneously more vulnerable to crime and less able to access
existing services.
In addition to those services, many States have a need to fund one-
time expenses, which are unlikely to be funded without a large influx
of money. A few examples include:
--Automated notification systems.--Many States would like to
implement automated crime victim notification systems, that
automatically telephone crime victims when defendants are
released or escape, or send written notice of criminal justice
proceedings. These systems require significant design and
development funds, but far less money to maintain after that.
Automated notification systems are especially important for
domestic violence, sexual assault, and stalking victims, who
are often at risk when a defendant is released. Such systems
also make it easy for women to update their contact information
as they relocate.
An automated notification system would make it easier to extend
legal rights to victims of domestic violence and stalking in
the States that don't currently provide such rights now. Many
State victims' bills of rights apply only to victims of
felonies. Domestic violence is often charged as a misdemeanor.
The criminal justice system often argues that it would be too
expensive to provide rights to victims of misdemeanors, largely
due to costs involved in notifying victims of releases and
court proceedings. Once an automated notification system is in
place, it is relatively inexpensive to include domestic
violence victims in crime victims' bills of rights.
--Statewide victimization surveys and needs assessments.--A number of
States would like to conduct a statewide victimization survey
and needs assessment to more clearly identify which
jurisdictions and victim populations are underserved, and how
best to allocate resources. With the pressure to fund existing
programs each year, there hasn't been the ``extra'' money to
set aside for such surveys that would lead to greater
efficiency and more appropriate services for victims of crime.
--Translation services.--Victim assistance programs are acutely aware
of the need for translation services that would allow non-
English speaking victims to access services. The translation of
written materials, the development of public service
announcements in other languages, and the creation of programs
to identify interpreters would help reach this underserved
population.
--Other investments to enhance victim services.--There are many other
important funding needs for victim programs that do not involve
new programs or hiring additional staff. Many victim services
programs do not have computers, or have no Internet access.
This technology would improve their capacity to serve victims
of crime. There is also a great need for case management
software and assessment tools to help programs improve and
evaluate their effectiveness in serving victims of crime. Money
to develop those tools would largely be a one-time expenditure.
We understand that because the VOCA Fund fluctuates from year to
year, there is some concern that extra money available one year would
simply mean the creation of new positions that can't be sustained.
There is certainly a need to expand programs that provide direct
assistance to victims of crime, and part of any increase in funding
would likely be directed to that need. However, as described above,
there are also many important projects--projects that do not involve
the creation of new permanent staff positions or ongoing expenses--that
States could fund with a significant but non-recurring increase in
funds.
Moreover, States have the ability to plan for financial stability
over time. Under the VOCA formula, States have four years to spend a
given year's allocation, so States can plan their spending to provide
stability over a few years. Fluctuations in funding levels is a problem
the States should solve, not the Federal Government. In addition, as
described above, there are many one-time expenses the influx would be
applied to.
Moreover, there is no reason to believe collections for the VOCA
Fund will drop for a prolonged period. Though deposits into the VOCA
Fund do vary from year to year, the general trend has been an increase
in the amount of money in the Fund. Again, the bulk of the money
deposited in the VOCA Fund comes from fines on offenders at the Federal
level. Why should we expect the Department of Justice to become less
vigilant in its prosecution of Federal crimes?
All of these reasons mitigate against the fear that removing the
cap on the VOCA Fund would result in a significant increase in staff
positions that would have to be cut the following year.
We also urge you to discontinue earmarks for Federal positions off
the top of the VOCA Fund. In the past two years, in addition to the
cap, the appropriations process has resulted in new, permanent open-
ended earmarks for victim assistance positions in U.S. Attorneys'
Offices and the Federal Bureau of Investigation. This, too, limits the
amount of money available for its intended purposes, which is the
support of crime victim assistance at the State level. These positions
may be warranted, but surely Congress can find other sources of revenue
to support Federal employees.
The most important action Congress can take to help this nation's
victims of crime is to provide the funding for services and
compensation programs that help them rebuild their lives. Congress'
creation of the VOCA Fund in 1984 was a landmark action that
fundamentally changed the way our society responds to victims of crime.
We urge you to continue this great effort, by removing the cap on the
VOCA Fund, and resisting pressure to earmark Federal positions from the
Fund. We must continue the progress of our national response to victims
of crime.
______

Prepared Statement of the California Indian Legal Services

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for this opportunity to address you and
the distinguished members of this Subcommittee. On behalf of California
Indian Legal Services, I am pleased to submit this written testimony on
the fiscal year 2002 Appropriations for Department of Justice funding
of the Indian Tribal Justice Technical and Legal Assistance Act of 2000
(Public Law 106-559).
California Indian Legal Services (CILS) is a non-profit entity, as
defined under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986,
which provides free legal assistance services for Indian tribes as well
as their members. CILS was created by California Indian leaders in 1967
to redress the severe inequities that existed in California at that
time and that persist to today. California is home to more Indian
nations than any other state; most of whom have little natural or
financial resources and must rely on CILS to address most, if not all,
of their legal needs. California is also second only to Oklahoma in the
number of Native Americans residing within its borders.
Total Federal funding under the Legal Services Corporation Act to
provide free legal services in California to Indian tribes that cannot
afford to hire attorneys, as well as tribal members, is approximately
$800,000 per year. Adjusted for inflation, this amounts to only one-
quarter of the funding that Congress originally allocated for this
purpose over thirty years ago.
Each year, CILS provides a broad array of civil legal assistance to
over 50 Indian tribes and over 3,000 Indian families in California. The
gulf between the community need and available resources means that
California Indian tribes and CILS must often sacrifice intensive, time-
consuming, but necessary projects in order to address more immediate
problems. Department of Justice funding for Tribal Civil Legal
Assistance Grants under section 102 of the Act would allow Indian
tribes and Indian legal services providers like CILS to partially break
this cycle and focus on a long-standing, critical community need for
tribal justice systems.
The lack of tribal courts has constrained the ability of tribal
governments to fully exercise their inherent sovereignty and Indian
individuals and tribes are often unable to resolve disputes or seek
justice. While Indian tribes in California retain exclusive
jurisdiction, most have neither the resources nor the forum to exercise
such jurisdiction. Without tribal courts, many disputes fall within a
jurisdictional vacuum, or can only be litigated in Federal courts
located hundreds of miles away. The former can be especially
devastating to a tribal community when the vacuum leads to political
paralysis. For example, where there have been disputes over the conduct
of tribal elections, the lack of dispute resolution systems has brought
tribes and the operation of their governments to a standstill.
Among the various disputes that may arise in Indian country, the
Federal courts only have the power to review certain tribal court
decisions, but lack jurisdiction to hear disputes in the first
instance, and state courts will have no jurisdiction whatsoever. Thus,
there often is no alternative forum. Also, Indian tribes have broad
regulatory authority over their members on the reservation and more
limited regulatory authority over non-members within their reservation.
Tribes have the authority to regulate their reservations and so enact
laws concerning many varied matters, including the environment, water
quality, utilities, land use, traffic, zoning, liquor, and animal
control. Without tribal courts, however, tribes are denied effective
recourse when their regulatory laws are violated. Thus, without tribal
courts, California Indian tribes face great difficulty enforcing their
own laws.
Individual Indians, too, are harmed by the lack of tribal justice
systems and inadequate resources for free civil legal assistance in
such systems. Without some dispute resolution system, Indian
individuals often lack any forum to which they can bring their disputes
involving Indian real property or matters involving federally-
guaranteed hunting, fishing and trapping rights. Moreover, they are
denied the opportunity, granted to other Indian people in the nation,
to bring their internal disputes to a culturally accessible court.
Although Public Law 280 grants state courts adjudicatory authority over
many disputes arising on the reservation, many Indian people do not
feel comfortable bringing their cases to state court, where they often
encounter a difficult and alienating experience. Moreover, some
disputes involving matters exclusively within tribal jurisdiction, such
as tribal enrollment or elections, and governed by tribal law cannot be
heard in state court.
Studies conducted by Federal, State, and private agencies over the
past 100 years have reached the same conclusion; Indians in California
are not receiving a fair share from Federal Indian programs; and
because they have received less support from the Federal Government,
California Indians have suffered greater devastation in social-economic
well-being relative to other Indian groups in other states. The well-
documented reports reaching this conclusion have come from both
Republican and Democratic administrations, and from non-profit and
tribal organizations. The most recent study commissioned by Congress
revealed that in 1994 per capita BIA spending in California was one-
quarter of that for the rest of the country as a whole.
Due to the lack of adequate funding for California Indians, most
California Indian tribes lag behind their counterparts in other states
in the development of tribal justice systems. While Congress has
appropriated funding for other tribal court development programs
administered by the Department of Justice, those programs often require
a stage of development that was and remains unattainable by most
California Indian tribes with their present resources. Appropriations
for the Indian Tribal Justice Technical and Legal Assistance Act of
2000 will allow California Indian tribes and other similarly situated
Indian tribes located throughout the United States to obtain the
assistance that they need in order to meet the prerequisites of other
tribal justice grant programs.
We commend Congress for recognizing the vital importance of tribal
justice systems and their integral roles in tribal self-governance. We
also thank Congress for recognizing the established record of Indian
legal services programs in providing cost effective legal assistance to
Indian people in tribal court forums and in making significant
contributions to the development of tribal courts and tribal
jurisprudence. We urge Congress to take the next crucial step and
appropriate adequate funding so that the tribal justice needs of Indian
tribes, in California and throughout the United States, will no longer
be neglected.
______

Prepared Statement of Clemson University

Mr. Chairman, Mr. Ranking Member, and members of the Subcommittee,
as President of Clemson University, I would like to draw to your
attention two initiatives directed by Clemson's Institute on Family and
Neighborhood Life, and I ask you to consider an appropriation for each.
consortium on children, families, and the law
Clemson University respectfully requests $3.0 million in fiscal
year 2002 from the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention to Clemson University for a collaborative effort involving
the 15 centers of the Consortium on Children, Families, and the Law to
conduct research and provide technical assistance and training on (a)
the prevention and treatment of youth violence; (b) innovations in
juvenile justice policy; (c) alternatives to and improvements in the
juvenile courts; and (d) State laws, policies, and programs relating to
children, families, and the law.
Although recent statistics indicate a decline in rates of juvenile
violence, each year several million children come into contact with the
juvenile justice system as juvenile offenders, victims of crime, or
both. There remains a tremendous need to assist States, communities,
and the Federal Government in preventing youth violence and responding
effectively to youth and their families in the legal system.
To address these issues, a network of uniquely qualified
institutions across the country is needed to assist States,
communities, law enforcement agencies, and the Federal Government by
evaluating and disseminating violence prevention programs that have a
demonstrated track record, assessing the impact of policies and
practices currently guiding the juvenile justice system, and conducting
research demonstrations and interstate comparisons on innovative
juvenile justice policy and practice.
The Consortium on Children, Families, and the Law provides a ready
network to conduct interdisciplinary, multi-State research and
consultation on issues affecting children and the law. With its
geographic diversity and nationally-recognized researchers, the
Consortium is in a position to be able to build and disseminate
knowledge quickly and broadly. Member centers of the Consortium are
located at Clemson University (the hub of the Consortium), Creighton
University (Omaha, NE), the Medical University of South Carolina, the
University of Iowa, the University of Hawaii-Manoa, the University of
Nebraska-Lincoln, the University of New Hampshire, the University of
Pennsylvania, the University of Pittsburgh, the University of South
Carolina, and the University of Virginia. Affiliate members of the
Consortium include the American Bar Association's Center on Children
and the Law, the Public Interest Directorate of the American
Psychological Association, and the Youth Law Center.
A primary activity proposed by the Consortium on Children,
Families, and the Law for work in fiscal year 2002 is expansion of the
Bullying Prevention Program, which is aimed at reducing bullying and
related antisocial behaviors among elementary and middle school
children.
Past research by members of the Consortium on Children, Families
and the Law (Clemson University, University of South Carolina) confirms
that bullying among school children is a significant problem in the
United States. One in four reported having been bullied with some
regularity (at least several times per month); one in 10 reported
having been frequently bullied--once a week or more.
The negative effects of bullying on children are well documented.
Bullying has been shown to lead to higher rates of depression, illness,
absenteeism, suicidal ideation, and lower self-esteem among victims.
Moreover, a recent study conducted by the U.S. Secret Service suggests
that bullying has been a precursor to several incidents of school
shootings. Children who bully need prompt attention to ensure that
these behaviors do not continue or escalate into more serious forms of
antisocial behavior.
To date, one program model has been documented to be successful in
reducing bullying among school children. The Bullying Prevention
Program, developed by Norwegian psychologist Dan Olweus, has been found
to reduce bullying by 20-50 percent and to reduce the likelihood of
children engaging in other types of antisocial behavior.
Faculty at Clemson University and at the University of South
Carolina led the first wide-scale implementation and evaluation of the
Bullying Prevention Program in the United States. Initial evaluations
of this program within middle school settings in South Carolina were
very promising and contributed to the recognition of the program as one
of 11 national ``Blueprints for Violence Prevention'' by the Center for
the Study and Prevention of Violence at the University of Colorado and
as an Exemplary Program by the Centers for Substance Abuse Prevention
(CSAP). Members of the Consortium have provided consultation to over 30
schools in a number of States (Colorado, Georgia, Maine, Massachusetts,
Montana, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, and Virginia) to implement the
Bullying Prevention Program.
Funding to the Consortium on Children, Families, and the Law from
the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention would allow
us to:
--More widely disseminate the highly-successful Bullying Prevention
Program.--We currently are unable to adequately meet the
growing demand from schools to implement this program because
of a lack of qualified trainers. Funding would assist us to
provide training and follow-up consultation to trainers from
across the United States who could respond to calls for
training and technical assistance from school sites. It also
would allow us to help interested schools to cover additional
costs associated with the implementation of the program (eg.,
materials and staff time).
--Continue efforts to evaluate the effectiveness of the program in
elementary school settings.--Findings from our earlier
evaluation of the program in middle school settings suggested
that the program would be most effective if implemented in
elementary schools in the U.S. Research is needed to
systematically evaluate the program in elementary schools, with
particular focus on those factors that affect the
successfulness of the program in different settings. Such
information will be vital to efforts to effectively disseminate
this model.
national center on rural justice and crime prevention
Clemson University also is requesting an appropriation of $500,000
from the Bureau of Justice Assistance to support the National Center on
Rural Justice and Crime Prevention. Although crime and violence rates
have generally been declining throughout the country since 1994,
dramatic social and economic changes in rural life in the last 20 years
place many rural areas and small towns at risk of increasing crime and
violence rates. From 1993-1998, violent and property crime rates in
rural areas decreased much more slowly than in urban and suburban
areas. Moreover other key indicators of community well-being, including
poverty rates, educational attainment, economic growth, and teenage
pregnancy rates, suggest that many rural areas and small towns are
increasingly vulnerable to conditions that appear to undermine
community safety.
Because rural communities and small towns have been virtually
ignored by many policymakers and researchers, relationships among
factors that are thought to contribute to changes in rural crime and
violence rates (e.g., migration in and out of communities; poverty;
economic changes; and changes in family structure, etc.) are not well
understood. For example, some evidence exists to suggest that rapid
population growth in rural communities causes an increase in crime and
violence rates at 3 to 4 times the rate of growth. However, the reasons
why rapidly growing communities would experience such an increase in
crime and violence are not clear. As a result, implementation of
effective crime and violence prevention and reduction strategies in
these communities is much more difficult. Similarly, very little
attention has been given to the impact of regional differences, such as
the clustering of poverty in several Southern rural counties, on crime
and violence rates. Yet, community conditions, such as poverty,
changing family structures, and the strength or weakness of key
community institutions (e.g., schools, faith-based organizations, civic
groups, etc.) are likely to affect the capacity of citizens to coalesce
around a shared agenda of crime and violence prevention. Generating and
sharing knowledge about crime and violence in the context of the unique
elements of rural life is important to developing policies and
programmatic strategies that are likely to be effective in rural areas.
Since its creation in 1999, the National Center on Rural Justice
and Crime Prevention (NCRJ) at Clemson University has worked in
partnership with rural communities to generate knowledge about
community-based problem-solving strategies for preventing and reducing
crime and violence and to learn more about the adaptability of
community justice models to rural areas. The knowledge generated has
helped inform the technical assistance efforts to rural communities
nationwide. In the short life of the NCRJ, technical assistance has
been provided to organizations in more than 26 States, including rural
schools about youth violence; law enforcement, the judiciary, and
prosecutors about community-justice related strategies; social service
agencies about domestic violence and child abuse and neglect; health
agencies about community safety; and neighborhood resource centers
about strategies for strengthening families in the justice system.
This request for $500,000 in funding will enable the NCRJ to expand
project sites to other States and to further develop a base of
knowledge about the effect of changing conditions in rural communities
on crime and violence rates. It will also enable NCRJ faculty to
develop a more comprehensive package of technical assistance ``tools''
for use by practitioners.
Thank you for the opportunity to present this statement for the
record.
______

Prepared Statement of the City of Fairfield, California

Mr. Chairman and members of the Commerce, Justice, and State
Subcommittee on Appropriations, thank you for this opportunity to
testify before this Committee. My name is George Pettygrove and I am
the mayor of the City of Fairfield, California. On behalf of the
citizens of Fairfield, I request your support of one of the City's
highest Federal priorities for the fiscal year 2002.
The City of Fairfield, California, requests your support of a
$500,000 earmark in the fiscal year 2002 Department of Justice
Appropriations Bill under the COPS Technology Program for the technical
infrastructure associated with the new Solano County Regional Law
Enforcement Training Center.
Law enforcement agencies in Solano County and Napa County are
experiencing a gradual degradation of training facilities as a result
of urban development. In response, law enforcement agencies within both
counties are planning a new facility in an area unlikely to be
encroached upon for at least 25 years.
Federal funds will focus on technology for the new facility,
including a firearms simulator, driving simulators, smartboard
technology, weaponless defense training materials, and targeting
systems for four ranges.
A joint powers authority (JPA), consisting of the cities of
Fairfield, Benicia, Vallejo, and Napa County is being formed to move
the project forward. JPA participants anticipate additional
jurisdictions will join the JPA in light of the lack of proper law
enforcement training facilities in the region. The JPA has identified
$2.5 million in matching funds for the $5.5 million project.
Once again, thank you for this opportunity to testify before this
Committee.
______

Prepared Statement of the Center Directors' Association

The Regional Information Sharing Systems (RISS) Program
respectfully requests that Congress appropriate for fiscal year 2002,
$38.5 million to continue their support in combating drug trafficking
and organized crime.
These funds will enable RISS to continue identifying, targeting,
prosecuting, and removing criminal conspirators involved in drug
trafficking, organized criminal activity, criminal gangs, and violent
crime that span multijurisdictional boundaries. Funds will allow RISS
to continue to support the investigation and prosecution efforts of
over 5,600 local, State, and Federal law enforcement member agencies
across the nation comprising over 600,000 sworn law enforcement
personnel.
Through funding from Congress, RISS has implemented and operates
the only secure Web-based nationwide network--called riss.net--for
communications and sharing of criminal intelligence by local, State,
and Federal law enforcement agencies. Funds will allow RISS to upgrade
the technology infrastructure and resources to support increased use
and reliance on the system by member law enforcement agencies and
support the integration of other systems connected to riss.net for
information sharing and communication. Using Virtual Private Network
technology, the law enforcement users access the public Internet from
their desktop and have a secure connection over the private riss.net
Intranet to all RISS criminal intelligence databases and resources.
RISS member law enforcement agencies accessed riss.net an average of
2.7 million times per month during fiscal year 2000. Riss.net is a
proven, highly effective system that improves the quality of criminal
intelligence information available and puts it in the hands of the law
enforcement officers to make key decisions at critical points in their
investigation and prosecution efforts.
The Office of Justice Programs (OJP), Regional Information Sharing
Systems (RISS) is a Federally funded program comprised of six regional
intelligence centers. The six centers provide criminal information
exchange and other related operational support services to local,
State, and Federal law enforcement agencies located in all fifty
States, the District of Columbia, U.S. territories, Canada, England,
and Australia. These centers are:
Middle Atlantic-Great Lakes Organized Crime Law Enforcement Network
(MAGLOCLEN): Delaware, District of Columbia, Indiana, Maryland,
Michigan, Pennsylvania, Ohio, New Jersey, and New York, as well as
Canada and England.
--Mid-States Organized Crime Information Center (MOCIC).--Illinois,
Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota,
South Dakota, and Wisconsin, as well as Canada.
--New England State Police Information Network (NESPIN).--
Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island,
and Vermont, as well as Canada.
--Regional Organized Crime Information Center (ROCIC).--Alabama,
Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi,
North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas,
Virginia, and West Virginia, as well as Puerto Rico and the
U.S. Virgin Islands.
--Rocky Mountain Information Network (RMIN).--Arizona, Colorado,
Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming, as well
as Canada.
--Western States Information Network (WSIN).--Alaska, California,
Hawaii, Oregon, and Washington, as well as Canada, Guam, and
Australia.
RISS is a force multiplier in fighting increased violent criminal
activity by street gangs, drug traffickers, sophisticated cyber
criminals, and emerging criminal groups that require a cooperative
effort by local, State, and Federal law enforcement. There is a rising
presence of organized and mobile narcotics crime, distinguished by
increases in drug-related emergency room incidents, increases in drug
purities (especially heroin, methamphetamine, ecstasy, cocaine, GHB,
and marijuana), and increasing communications sophistication by the
criminal networks. Inter-agency cooperation has proven to be the best
method to combat the increasing criminal activity in these areas. The
RISS centers are filling law enforcement's need for rapid, but
controlled sharing of information and intelligence pertaining to known
or suspected drug traffickers and criminals. Congress funded the RISS
Program to address this need as evidenced by its authorization in the
Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988.
The success of RISS has been acknowledged and vigorously endorsed
by the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP), as well as
other national law enforcement groups such as the National Sheriff's
Association (NSA) and the National Fraternal Order of Police (NFOP).
These groups have seen the value of this congressional program to law
enforcement nationally and have worked with the National Association of
Attorneys General (NAAG), the National District Attorneys Association
(NDAA), and the National Criminal Justice Association (NCJA) to further
strengthen the awareness of RISS. In fact, the National Association of
Attorneys General passed a resolution calling for full funding for RISS
and increased funding for the Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA).
According to the Executive Working Group for Federal-State-Local
Prosecutorial Relations, in its publication titled, Toward a Drug Free
America: A Nationwide Blueprint for State and Local Drug Control
Strategies, ``Each State should develop a computerized capacity to
store, collate, and retrieve intelligence and historical information
concerning drug offenders. Before initiating new computer projects,
each State should take advantage of existing computerized information
exchange and pointer systems, such as the Regional Information Sharing
Systems (RISS). Each State should actively participate in multi-State,
regional, and national information networking projects.''
RISS is operating current state-of-the-art technical capabilities
and systems architecture that allow local, State, and Federal law
enforcement member agencies to interact electronically with one another
in a secure environment. The RISS system has built-in accountability
and security. The RISS secure Intranet (riss.net) protects information
through use of encryption, smart cards, Internet protocol security
standards, and firewalls to prevent unauthorized access. The RISS
system is governed by the operating principles and security and privacy
standards of 28 CFR Part 23 (Criminal Intelligence Systems Operating
Policies). The technical architecture adopted by RISS requires proper
authorization to access information, but also provides flexibility in
the levels of electronic access assigned to individual users based on
security and need-to-know issues. Riss.net supports secure e-mail and
is easily accessible using the Internet. This type system and
architecture is referenced and recommended in the General Counterdrug
Intelligence Plan (GCIP).
The GCIP promotes Federal, State, local and tribal law enforcement
information sharing, and leveraging resources and existing cooperative
mechanisms. RISS fully supports the GCIP and the following initiatives
are underway related to action items in the Plan. RISS has entered into
a partnership with the High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas (HIDTA) to
electronically connect the HIDTAs to riss.net for communications and
information sharing. Currently 11 HIDTAs are electronically linked to
riss.net, with 7 more pending connection during 2001. Six State
agencies are also electronically connecting their systems to riss.net.
The National Drug Intelligence Center (NDIC) is a member of RISS and
uses the RISS network as a communications mechanism for publishing
counterdrug intelligence products to Federal, State, and local law
enforcement members. RISS and the El Paso Intelligence Center (EPIC)
officials have entered into a partnership to electronically connect
EPIC to riss.net to capture clandestine laboratory seizure data from
RISS State and local law enforcement member agencies. RISS needs funds
to purchase hardware and software to support and integrate these
systems that improve the accessibility to critical criminal
intelligence for law enforcement agencies throughout the country.
RISS continues to promote inter-agency investigations by improving
capabilities for member agencies to quickly and easily access RISS
databases by expanding the enrollment of member agencies for access to
riss.net through distribution of security hardware and software. Web
browser technology has been implemented for use by member agencies in
accessing the RISS intelligence database pointer system and the RISS
National Gang Database. At the direction of Congress, dial-up (800)
access capability to the RISS secure intranet will be provided for
member agencies in geographic areas where access to Internet Service
Providers is not available. Funds are required to increase the
distribution of security hardware and software to additional RISS
member agencies that need electronic access to riss.net.
In fiscal year 2001, Congress invested $25 million in the RISS
Program. RISS has received level funding of $25 million for the past 5
fiscal year funding cycles ($20 million in the line item and $5 million
from COPS except for fiscal year 2001 when the line item was raised to
$25 million with no allocation from COPS). During the past 5 fiscal
year funding cycles and up to the current time, RISS has furnished case
specific support to hundreds of local and state police, as well as
sheriff departments. These investigations have had an unrivaled impact
on the local jurisdictions of main street America, the grass roots of
law enforcement in the nation. During this same time period, RISS
implemented the secure intranet providing Web-based access for
communications and information sharing to over 5,600 law enforcement
agencies nationwide--a network which is now electronically linked to 11
HIDTAs (with 7 more pending connection), six State law enforcement
systems, and the EPIC Clandestine Laboratory Seizure System. The
Southwest Border States Anti-Drug Information System (SWBSADIS)
initiative encompassing the States of Arizona, California, New Mexico,
and Texas is also integrated with riss.net. RISS is currently working
to connect the Bureau of Land Management, Department of Interior, to
riss.net. To support this increased need to integrate other systems and
the increased demand for RISS services, RISS is requesting an increase
in funding to $38.5 million for fiscal year 2002.
In view of today's increasing demands on Federal, State, and local
law enforcement budgets, requests for RISS services have risen. The
Institute for Intergovernmental Research (IIR) report on the RISS
Program showed that as of December 31, 2000, the number of criminal
subjects maintained in the RISSIntel intelligence databases for all
centers combined was 790,241 with 190,159 new subjects being added in
2000. The combined databases of all six RISS centers also maintained
data on 1,357,450 locations, vehicles, weapons, and telephone numbers
for a grand total of 2,147,691 data entries available for search. For
the twelve-month period January through December 2000, the total number
of inquiries by law enforcement member agencies to the RISSIntel
database for all six regional intelligence centers combined was
707,457. These inquiries resulted in hits or information to assist law
enforcement agencies in their criminal cases. All RISS centers combined
delivered 9,346 analytical products to member agencies in support of
their investigation and prosecution efforts in 2000.
This support of law enforcement has had a dramatic impact on the
success of their investigations. Over the three-year period 1998-2000,
RISS generated a return by member agencies that resulted in 12,510
arrests, seizure of narcotics valued over $246 million, seizure of
almost $14 million in currency, and recovery or seizure of property
valued at over $32 million. In addition, more than $11 million was
seized through RICO civil procedures. In the 20-year period since 1980
when the Program was fully implemented, the RISS Program has assisted
its member agencies with their investigations. Results of these
investigations have amounted to well over $12 billion in recoveries at
a total cost that approximates 2.44 percent of that amount, or a $41
return for every dollar spent.
RISS is continuing initiatives with the Federal Bureau of
Investigation and with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms,
U.S. Department of the Treasury to assist in their efforts to
facilitate the exchange of criminal intelligence with State and local
law enforcement. RISS continues to work with Federal and State
corrections departments to strengthen cooperation and information
sharing with the law enforcement community, and to maintain a national
prison gang database to identify prison gang criminal activity, both
within and outside the prison environment. We have established a
working relationship with gang investigators across the nation to
identify and maintain information on violent street gangs, as well as
their membership, organization structure, migration trends, and their
propensity for violence.
RISS has also assisted the Office of Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency Prevention, and continues to work with Federal, State, and
local agencies in their efforts to combat the menace of drugs on our
street, and the growing influence of youth gangs in the distribution
and sale of drugs.
The Bureau of Justice Assistance administers the RISS Program and
has established guidelines for provision of services to member
agencies. The RISS regional intelligence centers are subject to
oversight, monitoring, and auditing by the U.S. Congress, the General
Accounting Office, a Federally funded program evaluation office; the
U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Assistance; and local
government units. The Intelligence Systems Policy Review Board also
monitors the RISS centers for 28 CFR Part 23 compliance. This 28 CFR
Part 23 regulation places stricter controls on the RISS intelligence
sharing function than those placed on Federal, State, or local
agencies. Evaluation of RISS center operation has been very positive.
A new authorization and full funding of the RISS Program is
necessary in order to permit membership growth and improve services
capabilities to the membership nationwide. In the past five years, RISS
membership has increased 20 percent to over 5,600 local, State, and
Federal law enforcement agencies at present. It is respectfully
requested that the Congress fully fund the RISS Program as a line item
in the congressional budget, in the requested amount of $38.5 million.
Local and State law enforcement, who depend on the RISS centers for
information sharing, training, analytical support, funding, and
technical assistance, are anticipating increased competition for
decreasing budget resources. It would be counterproductive to require
the RISS members from State and local agencies to self-fund match
requirements, as well as to reduce the amount of BJA discretionary
funding. The State and local agencies require more, not less, funding
to fight the nation's crime/drug problem. The RISS Program cannot make
up the decrease in funding that a match would cause and it has no
revenue source of its own. Cutting the RISS appropriation by requiring
a match should not be imposed on the program.
We are grateful for this opportunity to provide the committee with
this testimony and appreciate the support this committee has
continuously provided to the RISS Program.
the regional information sharing systems
To assist the RISS centers in implementing this program, the U.S.
Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice
Assistance worked with the centers to institute the following
components.
--Information Sharing Component.--Every center will maintain and
operate either a manual and/or automated information-sharing
component that is responsive to the needs of participating
enforcement agencies in addressing multi-jurisdictional
offenses and conspiracies. This component must be capable of
providing controlled input, dissemination, rapid retrieval, and
systematic updating of information to authorized agencies.
--Analytical Component.--Every center will establish and operate an
analytical component to assist the center and participating
agencies in the compilation, interpretation, and presentation
of information provided to the center. This component must be
capable of responding to participating agency requests for
analysis of investigative data.
--Telecommunications Component.--Centers may establish and/or
maintain a telecommunications system designed to directly
support the operation of the information sharing component and
analytical component, and to support center sponsored
investigations and activities.
--Investigative Support Component.--Centers may establish and operate
an investigative support component by providing financial
assistance to participating agencies for their conduct of
multi-jurisdictional investigations. Financial resources may
include funds for the purchase of information, contraband that
may be used as evidence, services, investigative travel and per
diem, and overtime compensation. Funds expended and activities
conducted under this component must directly support the
operation of the information sharing and analytical components.
--Specialized Equipment Component.--Centers may establish and
maintain a pool of special investigative equipment for loan to
participating agencies. The loan of such equipment must
directly support the operation of the information sharing and
analytical components.
--Technical Assistance Component.--Centers may establish and maintain
a component to provide technical assistance to member agencies.
Through use of center personnel and others in participating
agencies, consultation, advice, and information may be made
available to member agencies concerning use of specialized
equipment, investigative procedures, accounting of center funds
if provided by the center in support of investigations, and
information analysis. This component will emphasize use of
technical resources among the centers as necessary and
available. Technical assistance in the form of active
participation by center personnel in member agency
investigations is prohibited.
--Training Component.--Centers may establish and maintain a training
component to upgrade investigative skills of personnel from
participating agencies. Such training assistance may consist of
financial support to send personnel to training courses,
seminars, and conferences or, more commonly, design and
delivery of special training courses by center staff. Training
provided under this component must support the center goals and
objectives.
To further enhance the coordination and exchange of information
among member law enforcement agencies, the centers have initiated
additional support service activities including distribution of center
publications/digests and sponsorship of membership conferences.
______

Prepared Statement of the City of Gainesville, Florida

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 2002 Commerce,
Justice, State and Judiciary Appropriations bill to assist with the
following two innovative projects the City is undertaking:
--The Downtown Revitalization Project to enable economic
redevelopment in a downtown setting including improving
stormwater treatment, developing park facilities, enhancing
alternative transportation and restoring an urban wetland, and
--The Public Safety Enhancement Project to improve public safety.
the downtown revitalization project
This is a broadly developed, multi-faceted initiative that has an
established goal of revitalizing Downtown Gainesville. The City of
Gainesville has experienced a renaissance in establishing Downtown as a
desirable place to live, work and play. The Initiative encourages the
redevelopment of existing buildings and parking lots within Downtown
into mixed residential, commercial, and office uses. Already the City
has participated in two redevelopment multi-use projects in Downtown
that have brought in residential, commercial and office spaces. The
City's participation is providing streetscaping and stormwater
management, both being vital components of the success of any
redevelopment initiative. A third redevelopment project under way is
Alachua County's proposed Judicial Complex and associated parking
structure.
The Revitalization Initiative is dependent on a master stormwater
facility that has been planned as a landmark stormwater park that will
not only serve as a functional stormwater management facility, but
provide an urban park setting for Downtown and nearby residents,
visitors and employees. The stormwater park will also function as a
Rail Trail Hub to provide linkage of four primary existing and proposed
rail trail systems.
The proposed Downtown Connector will connect the Gainesville
Hawthorne Rail Trail through the stormwater park and is being
implemented with funding through the Transportation Enhancement
Program.
The proposed 6th Street Rail Trail will provide access to the north
and west through three historic, and predominantly African American
neighborhoods; Porters, Pleasant Street, and Grove Street. The trail
and enhanced roadway will provide a primary multi-modal transportation
corridor connecting the University of Florida and Shands Medical
Complexes to Downtown.
funding requests
The cornerstones of the City of Gainesville's Downtown
Revitalization Initiative are the development of the Sweetwater Urban
Stormwater Park and the reconstruction of Depot Avenue.
--Sweetwater Urban Stormwater Park.--The Sweetwater Urban Stormwater
Park component will provide stormwater treatment for Depot
Avenue, the proposed Rail Trails, as well as the Downtown
portion of the Sweetwater Branch watershed located upstream of
the park. The Park is in the planning stages as the centerpiece
of a U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) and Florida
Department of Environmental Protection funded Brownfields pilot
project. This project consists of the cleanup costs,
construction of the stormwater facilities, installation of
reuse water system for irrigation, and development of the
recreational components of the Park. The total cost of the
Sweetwater Urban Stormwater Park is estimated at
$17,200,000.00. The Federal funding request is for
$9,700,000.00.
--Depot Avenue.--This component includes the enhancement of
approximately two (2) miles of Depot Avenue from SR 331 to US
441. The Depot Avenue component includes right-of-way
acquisition and construction activities at a cost of
approximately $6 million. The enhancement will encourage
increased utilization of mass transit, bicycle and pedestrian
modes of travel; increase accessibility to major public
heritage and recreation destinations for the community; and
enhance the linkage between Downtown and the University of
Florida and Shands Medial Complexes.
The enhancement of Depot Avenue will also provide infrastructure
and improved safety while accessing Downtown, University of Florida
area, the adjoining Porters Neighborhood, just west of SR 329 (South
Main Street) and the SpringHill Neighborhood in Southeast Gainesville.
The socio-economic conditions of these areas include high crime rates,
sub-standard housing, and lack of access to services and investment.
public safety enhancement project
This is an innovative crime data gathering, reporting and training
system to enhance public safety. The goal of this effort is to
facilitate communication between our urban area public safety and court
system agencies through the use of system-wide technology upgrades. 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.
For this initiative, the partner urban area public safety agencies
will need the following: Mobile Lap Top Computers/Data Terminals--$3.5
million, and System-Wide Communications and GIS Software--$0.8 million.
The components of this project are designed to work together as a
well-integrated system to provide improved more effective service to
the residents of this region. Urban area public safety agencies and
local criminal justice system agencies will benefit operationally from
the enhanced data sharing capacities provided by this project.
Though portions of this project have been attempted by other
agencies, the Gainesville Police Department will become one of the
first law enforcement agencies in the state to gather, analyze and
provide information regarding crime and quality of life type incidents
in such an efficient, comprehensive and automated manner. The
activities provided by the infusion of these requested Federal funds
would enable us to:
--Establish a region-wide data communications system allowing the
ready exchange of information between participating agencies.
--Create a Geographic Information System (GIS) that would enable all
entities access to an accurate crime analysis and resource
management tool.
--Reduce errors and improve information timeliness by implementation
of an automated incident reporting system.
The need for laptop computers is partially driven by the Federal
Government's ``re-farming'' of radio frequencies through the Federal
Communications Commission. Due to this ``re-farming'' and the high cost
of radios, many law enforcement officers will no longer have radios
mounted in department vehicles. The use of laptop computers can fulfill
the critical need for a second communication device, and at the same
time help accomplish several other public safety objectives, including
mobile computer aided dispatch, automated report writing and use of a
geographic information system (Crime Mapping, etc.).
mobile computer aided dispatch
The advantages gained by utilization of a mobile data system are
numerous for the law enforcement officer as well as its potential
ramifications to the public. Removing the reliance on strictly verbal
communication via a radio and widening the information flow via direct
data communications, results in an enhancement of the ability to
successfully resolve problems in the field. Utilizing laptop computers
as mobile computer aided dispatch terminals significantly increases the
ability for public safety officers to communicate.
During critical situations such as a school-shooting incident,
officers could access information such as floor plans, aerial
photographs and interior pictures of each school. Detailed information
regarding each of the public and private schools could be stored on a
computer disk and made available to and utilized by officers,
firefighters and ambulance personnel. Information such as this could
prove to be invaluable regarding how best to approach and/or gain
access to the school and who to contact in an emergency. The disk would
contain the names (and photographs) and contact information of
pertinent school staff as well as important contact information
regarding hospitals, poison control and hazardous materials.
mobile automated report writing
For generations officers have handwritten reports that are then
manually filed. The only improvement is that currently a small portion
of the report is entered into a computer database at some later date.
However, since the information is compartmentalized it is often entered
redundantly throughout the criminal justice system. This method of
capturing the information for reports is antiquated. It takes an
unnecessary amount of time, wastes valuable resources and provides
increased opportunities for errors. Benefits realized by the use of
automated reporting are reduced errors, elimination of data entry
duplication and more accessible, timely and accurate reports.
geographical information system (gis)
For years law enforcement agencies have tracked crime using pin
maps to geographically show where crimes occur. This method of tracking
crime has become impractical and too time consuming for all but the
smallest of law enforcement agencies. The advent of computerized
geographical information programs, like ``ArcView'' has enabled law
enforcement agencies to return to the pin map method of displaying
crime patterns, but in a much more effective manner. Additionally,
mapping programs can contain several hundreds of data layers that can
be utilized by numerous public and private agencies. The following
objectives are examples of how a GIS system will enable us to use the
information immediately entered on mobile lap top computers.
--Electronic Pin Maps (Crime Mapping).--Once a GIS system is
established, all reports that are generated will be mapped in
several formats, including calls for service. This enables
agencies to properly decide where to deploy their limited
resources. Electronic pin maps also can be time sensitive and/
or location sensitive. Officers working various shifts can
identify hot-spots (areas with proportionally higher amounts of
crime) by time and location. A hot spot during the day, may not
be a hot spot at night, or visa versa. Additional maps can be
generated for Uniform Crime Report (UCR) incidents, Crime
Analysis identified crimes, and calls verified by Florida State
Statutes. Information that is not immediately available is of
little or no use when it is entered at a later date. Providing
timely information to officers and citizens in the form of
displaying maps with current and historical crime incident
information is needed so a practical analysis may be done and
an effective response developed. Unlike pin maps of yesterday,
electronic mapping allows for the storing historical of data.
In the past, the map had to be cleared before a new map was
created. Using electronic mapping, maps can be created and
stored to allow for comparison over any period of time. Another
use for the maps, is the identification of locations that have
repeated calls for service. If a location has had several calls
for service in a short period of time, a plan can be developed
to solve the underlining problem and thereby reduce or
eliminate future calls for service.
--Management of Resources Utilizing Computer Statistics.--Many law
enforcement agencies have begun to use a method of management
which utilizes crime data. Law Enforcement supervisors are
being held accountable for the level or increase in crime in
their assigned geographical area. The Gainesville Police
Department has divided the City into districts. Each District
Commander is held responsible for the criminal activity and the
utilization of resources in that geographical area. GIS
information will be used to better manage the department's
limited resources.
--WEB Mapping.--Sharing the information gathered in an effective
manner is another key component to this process. Many of the
law enforcement agencies in Alachua County currently have a WEB
site on the Internet. Increased utilization of WEB based
services will include making available crime alerts,
statistics, block summaries, pictures of offenders, crime
record check and the ability to request copies of reports. This
access will enable citizens to have information available to
them in a more convenient and timely manner. In the future,
crime maps developed by the GIS system will be used to display
maps over the Internet. Maps will be made available to other
law enforcement and governmental agencies and the public at
large.
--Integration with other Agencies.--In order for a geographical
information system to be truly effective, it requires the
cooperation of several agencies. GIS systems with hundreds of
layers of data can be a useful tool for all the cooperative
agencies. Law enforcement personnel will be able to view maps
and aerial or satellite photographs of a given area of the
city. On top of those maps and/or photographs layers of
information will be available to all users. Law enforcement
personnel will provide numerous layers of data to the system
and will in return be able to access the layers from other
agencies. Alachua County already has begun the process of
developing a GIS and the Gainesville Police Department is
currently working with the University of Florida to develop a
method of converting data to a format used by ``ArcView''.
The concept in which pertinent information, including aerial
photographs, is contained on a computer disk for use by officers with
laptop computers could be expanded to other potentially critical areas
such as hospitals, large shopping areas, the airport and the stadium
and shared with other public safety agencies.
______

Prepared Statement of the National, Coordinated Law-Related Education
Program

I am Lee Arbetman, the 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). The National, Coordinated Law-Related Education Program
received an appropriations earmark for fiscal year 2001 in the amount
of $1.9 million. The need for the Program continues to substantially
exceed the Program's resources. Accordingly, for fiscal year 2002, the
National, Coordinated Law-Related Education Program respectfully
requests the Subcommittee's appropriations support at a level of $2.4
million.
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 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 urban, suburban 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, $1.9
million in fiscal year 2001, 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.
Assistance from the National, Coordinated Law-Related Education
program continues to enhance state Law-Related Education programs. For
example--
New Hampshire.--Your home State of New Hampshire continues to be a
national leader in adopting Law-Related Education for use as both a
prevention and intervention program. This year, a student team from
Milford High School won the statewide ``We The People'' competition in
March while the Manchester West High School team won the ``Mock Trial''
competition. Each team will advance to the national competitions. In
addition, the ``Lawyer in Every School'' program continues to be a key
component of the New Hampshire program.
Colorado.--In Colorado, at least 250 teachers have attended an
annual public-private partnership conference for the past sixteen years
as a means of updating their own knowledge. In May, hundreds of at-risk
youth from Colorado schools will attend a Colorado Project Citizen
Showcase where they will meet with federal, state, and local
policymakers to present youth perspectives on policy issues that impact
their lives. Federal support has been matched by private foundations
and by local school districts through release time for teacher training
and through individual volunteer efforts. As a result, teachers and
school districts throughout the state receive a basic level of ongoing
technical assistance.
Hawaii.--This year's LRE support helped the Hawaii State Judiciary
and non-profit Hawaii Friends of Civic and Law-Related Education to
expand Parents and the Law (PAL), a project providing legal information
to teen and at-risk parents. Assistance from LRE also benefited the
state's efforts to curb youth violence in school settings. Technical
and curriculum support provided through LRE enabled Hawaii State
Judiciary staff to plan and conduct workshops for private and public
schools devised to stem violence and hate speech.
Wisconsin.--Recently, high school students argued before the
Wisconsin Supreme Court as part of the statewide mock trial program.
Over 170 schools participate in this annual event. In addition, the
PEACE program (Peers in Education Addressing Conflict Effectively)
helps train teachers to implement mediation programs in elementary
schools so students can acquire the skills necessary to mediate and
resolve their own disputes peacefully.
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. This
program:
--Involves young people in identifying and implementing solutions to
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;
--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 decision-making, and problem solving skills to enable their
full participation in that process.
LRE/Youth for Justice uses technology as a cost-effective way to
expand its reach to the LRE field. For example, LRE has posted a
planning guide for its Youth Summits on the Internet as well as free
mock trial competition and descriptions of and contact information for
state LRE programs. The National LRE Program also provides technical
assistance to state LRE centers to demonstrate how they can use
technology to link teachers and community volunteers.
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. Each Spring, thousands of
young people from both the school and juvenile justice settings gather
with public officials to participate in Youth Summits designed to help
develop public policy to help prevent violence by and against youth.
Law-Related Education is an extraordinarily effective prevention
program, but it is also an extraordinarily effective intervention
program--Law-Related Education also reaches juvenile offenders in
halfway houses, detention centers, and other non-school settings.
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 Division for
Public Education; 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;
--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;
--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; and
--Mobilized thousands of volunteers with expertise in law, public
policy, drug and alcohol abuse prevention, juvenile justice and
other areas.
evaluations and studies 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.
The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention has noted
that evaluations of Law-Related Education Program have been
``encouraging . . . confirming the previous findings that such
education serves as a significant deterrent to delinquent behavior''.
Eighth Analysis and Evaluation of Federal Juvenile Delinquency
Programs, U.S. Department of Justice, OJJDP, p. 60 (1985). The Twelfth
Analysis and Evaluation of Federal Juvenile Delinquency Programs
published in 1988 similarly states, ``[A] national study suggests that
Law-Related Education, when properly implemented, can reduce the
tendency to engage in delinquent behavior.''
A review of the research in Law-Related Education and related
fields conducted by Dr. Jeffery W. Cornett (April 1997) concludes that
LRE programs have a positive effect on student knowledge about law and
legal processes, and about individual rights and responsibilities.
Research studies indicate that effective LRE programs have improved
juveniles' attitudes toward the justice system and toward authorities.
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.
In January 2001, Caliber Associates, the Office of Juvenile Justice
and Delinquency Prevention's evaluation contractor, analyzed Law-
Related Education in terms of programs proven to be effective in
delinquency prevention and intervention. The results of this study
demonstrate the promise of Law-Related Education with respect to
delinquency prevention and intervention.
The National, Coordinated Law-Related Education Program has a
unique and remarkable record of achievement and continued support is
crucial for the following reasons:
--First, congressional support for Law-Related Education is vital to
its survival.
--Second, 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 state coordinating
organizations.
--Third, 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.
--Fourth, 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 2.4 million dollar
level. 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 National Consortium for Justice Information
and Statistics

The Membership Group of SEARCH submits this testimony seeking
appropriation support for our National Technical Assistance and
Training Program in the fiscal year 2002 Byrne discretionary program
appropriation for the Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA), U.S.
Department of Justice (DOJ). The National Technical Assistance and
Training Program received an appropriations earmark in fiscal year 2001
in the amount of $1.6 million. We respectfully submit this testimony to
request funding at the $2.0 million level for fiscal year 2002.
SEARCH is a nonprofit criminal justice organization governed by a
Membership Group comprised of one gubernatorial appointee from each of
the 50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico and the U.S.
Virgin Islands. For over 30 years, we have dedicated our efforts to
assisting state and local justice agencies combat crime and administer
justice through the effective and responsible use of information and
identification technologies.
SEARCH's National Technical Assistance and Training Program
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 justice information
systems. This significant program not only helps state and local
agencies work more efficiently and effectively through the use of
advanced information technology, but it also creates the foundation for
a national information infrastructure for justice systems.
SEARCH continues to experience an explosive growth in demand for
the program. In 2000, we provided a 30 percent increase in the number
of technical assistance efforts as compared to 1999. We expect to
experience at least an additional 25-35 percent increase in technical
assistance provided in 2001. There are a number of reasons for this
demand, including the success of grant programs such as the Edward
Byrne Memorial State and Local Law Enforcement Assistance Program, the
Local Law Enforcement Block Grants Program, the COPS Technology Grant
Program, and the Crime Identification Technology Act, which have
provided seed money for justice information systems automation and
integration. Also impacting the demand for SEARCH technical assistance
and training services is the critical need of the nation's criminal
justice agencies to share complete and accurate information quickly,
which is manifested in their efforts to integrate and connect justice
information systems. The momentum is showing nationally and is being
led by the Attorney General's Global Justice Information Network
initiative. This initiative is advocating dramatic improvements in how
justice agencies share information nationally.
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.
technical assistance program benefits all states
SEARCH provides technical assistance via written correspondence,
telephone consultations, electronic mail, an Internet Website, and
onsite visits to agencies nationwide (including assistance focusing on
statewide or regional justice integration efforts), as well as
assistance provided at our National Criminal Justice Computer
Laboratory and Training Center in Sacramento, California. SEARCH is
responsive to Technical Assistance requests from every state, assisting
agencies from all branches of government (state, county, city,
regional), and providing guidance to every discipline in the justice
system, including law enforcement, courts, prosecutor, probation,
parole, corrections, and other case management agencies.
Integrated systems assistance typically involves being onsite to
help a state or region establish an automated justice information
system, or evaluate and plan for multiagency integration of existing
systems. These efforts are typically significant and complex, can
involve multiple agencies and site visits, and deal with issues with
far-reaching impact on state and local governments. SEARCH is currently
providing such long-term technical assistance to agencies in Alabama,
Arizona, California, Georgia, Hawaii, Kentucky, Missouri, Montana,
Texas, Washington and Wisconsin.
In the past year, SEARCH has provided hundreds of technical
assistances via telephone, letter and email; thousands of Internet-
based assistances; and dozens of technical assistances provided onsite
at justice agencies or our Sacramento facility. In fiscal year 2002, as
mentioned earlier, we expect these numbers to increase dramatically as
demand for our technical assistance services rises. Not only do we
expect demand on our in-house assistance to grow, we anticipate
providing 50 separate onsite assistance efforts, which will serve
scores of agencies and often involve multiple site visits for each
effort.
national training program responsive to cybercrime threat
SEARCH helps the nation's law enforcement agencies to combat the
escalating problem of computer crime by training and equipping them
with the skills needed to investigate cybercrime, make arrests, and
prosecute offenders. Since its inception, SEARCH's National Technical
Assistance and Training Program has trained more than 26,500 criminal
justice officials from every state in the use of computers and other
information technologies. In fiscal year 2001, SEARCH will train more
than 1,000 state and local criminal justice officials across the
nation, both onsite at agencies and at our National Criminal Justice
Computer Laboratory and Training Center in Sacramento. In order to
provide training at more sites nationally, SEARCH recently implemented
a Mobile Training Center that uses laptops and other mobile equipment.
Training courses focus on providing investigators with critical
operational skills, knowledge and techniques that will have a real-
world impact, enabling them to gain a technological edge over the new
breed of criminals who use computer technology to commit crimes such as
fraud, theft and the online sexual exploitation of children. SEARCH's
training courses, which range from one day to two weeks in length,
include: The Investigation of Computer Crime; The Seizure and
Examination of Microcomputers; Basic Local Area Network Investigations;
Introduction to Internet Crime Investigations; Advanced Internet
Investigations; and The Investigation of On-line Child Exploitation.
To help our trainees keep pace with the ever-changing environment
of cybercrime, SEARCH has developed two new courses, which will debut
in 2001: Digital Media Analysis, and Computer Forensics. In the past
year, staff from justice agencies in Colorado, Kentucky, Maryland,
Texas and Vermont were among those who attended SEARCH training. ``The
Investigation of Computer Crime,'' a weeklong course, was conducted
onsite in a number of states, including Colorado, Texas and Vermont,
and is next scheduled to be presented April 30-May 4, 2001, in Concord,
New Hampshire.
selected examples of assistance
The following illustrates just a few examples of SEARCH technical
assistance and training efforts in the past year and the broad range of
agencies receiving assistance.
New Hampshire.--Recently, SEARCH assisted the New Hampshire Supreme
Court with federally mandated reporting requirements for trial courts.
As mentioned, next week, representatives of law enforcement agencies
from throughout the state will attend SEARCH's ``The Investigation of
Computer Crime'' training course in Concord. This weeklong course
provides participants with an understanding of computer technology, its
application to criminal endeavors, and the issues associated with
investigating these types of cases.
Colorado.--SEARCH provided onsite assistance to officials of the
Colorado Integrated Criminal Justice Information System (CICJIS) with
developing and implementing a short-term plan to accomplish system
implementation goals. CICJIS is a significant, multiyear effort to
integrate justice information systems on a statewide basis. Also, at
the local level, SEARCH provided onsite assistance to the Westminster
Municipal Court to help define its information requirements and
evaluate continued use of its case management system. In shorter-term
efforts in Colorado, SEARCH provided assistance associated with
computer crime investigation issues to various state and local justice
agencies, including the Colorado Bureau of Investigation, the Denver
District Attorney's Office, the Boulder County Sheriff's Department,
and the Police Departments of Colorado Springs and Longmont. In
addition, 47 law enforcement investigators attended a weeklong SEARCH
training course, ``The Investigation of Computer Crime,'' held at the
U.S. Air Force Academy in Colorado Springs.
Hawaii.--Nearly 30 officials, including the Hawaii Attorney
General, attended a SEARCH-led meeting in Hawaii to oversee strategic
planning for the statewide integration of multiple justice information
systems, an effort being overseen by the state Attorney General's
Office. In other assistance, SEARCH provided information on two
occasions to the Hawaii Criminal Justice Data Center regarding security
system audits.
Vermont.--Of statewide significance is the onsite assistance that
SEARCH is providing jointly to the Vermont Department of Public Safety,
the Burlington Police Department and the Vermont Association of Chiefs
of Police. SEARCH is assisting these agencies with the development of a
strategic plan for information systems automation, especially with a
view toward ensuring that the state system meets the needs of local
users, and that Burlington's plans for new Computer-aided Dispatch,
Records Management and Mobile Data Systems are responsive to statewide
needs and requirements. In shorter-term assistance, the Essex Police
Department received information on Internet Service Provider issues. In
addition, law enforcement officers from throughout the state learned
valuable new skills at a one-week SEARCH training course, ``The
Investigation of Computer Crime,'' which was held in Pittsford and
cohosted by the Vermont Criminal Justice Training Council.
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. For
example, SEARCH publishes quarterly Technical Bulletins that identify
and evaluate information systems and technologies that have existing or
potential application in criminal justice management. SEARCH also
offers an online resource, the Integrated Justice Information Systems
Website, which features state and local profiles of justice integration
efforts, including links to information on governance structures,
funding, technical overviews, project documents and more, as well as
links to useful integration publications, articles and other resources.
The Website can be reached at www.search.org/integration.
conclusion
Without question, federal support for the National Technical
Assistance and Training Program makes a vital contribution to the war
on crime. 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--and to share--
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 2002 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.
______

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

Prepared Statement of The Asia Foundation

Mr. Chairman: Thank you for the opportunity to submit testimony
supporting The Asia Foundation's fiscal year 2002 budget request. The
Foundation is grateful for the support that the Congress and this
Committee have provided over the years.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to present The Asia Foundation's
programs and our future plans to address the challenges and
opportunities facing Asia. We believe that our programs demonstrate how
a small, independent organization can advance American interests in the
Asia-Pacific region.
The Administration has endorsed the work of The Asia Foundation by
requesting an appropriation of $9.25 million for fiscal year 2002. This
funding would enable the Foundation to pursue programs in governance
and legal reform, human rights, economic reform and peaceful,
cooperative regional international relations. Most importantly, it will
enable the Foundation to support Asian organizations that are
positioned to play key roles in democratic and economic reform efforts
throughout the region.
overview
Let me put the work of the Foundation into context. U.S. economic,
political and security interests in Asia have become broader and more
complex in the post-Cold War decade. Regional security challenges
remain among the most important in the world, including China-Taiwan
cross-straits relations, the Korean peninsula and the India-Pakistan
border disputes, as well as internal conflicts in Indonesia, the
Philippines, and Sri Lanka. Political changes in Asia, welcome as they
are, represent a challenge to stability, as in the case of Indonesia.
Some countries in the region remain under authoritarian rule, while a
number of countries have embraced democracy, although their new systems
are fragile. Human rights abuses and questions of impunity continue.
Even though women in Asia have made gains, in many places they are
still subject to economic and political inequities and, in the worst
cases, they are victims of abuse and trafficking. Economically the
region has not fully recovered from the crisis of 1997, and Japan's
economy, so important to the region's economic growth, continues to
sputter. One consequence of the transitions underway in countries is
the increased demand by Asians for a range of reforms: the rule of law,
government transparency and accountability, anti-corruption measures,
the end of ``crony capitalism'', and improved corporate governance. At
the same time, public policymaking, once considered the exclusive
purview of the state, is expanding to include a role for citizens and
business organizations in fields such as legal reform, human rights,
the environment and health.
We believe that The Asia Foundation, building on its continuing
presence in Asia for nearly 50 years, is helping significantly to
advance U.S. interests in this complex and dynamically evolving region.
We are pleased that so many in Congress support our work. In the most
recently enacted State Department authorization, The Asia Foundation
was authorized at an annual level of $15 million. And we were
especially gratified by the support received from the House. Last
spring, the full House voted overwhelmingly to sustain Asia Foundation
funding.
In the past, this Committee has encouraged the Foundation's grant
making role, and we remain faithful to that mission. The Foundation's
hallmark is to make sequential grants to steadily build and strengthen
institutions, develop leadership and advance policy reforms in
countries in the region. Foundation assistance supports training,
technical assistance, and seed funding for new, local organizations--
all aimed at promoting reform, building Asian capacity, and
strengthening relations with U.S. institutions.
The democratic and economic transitions underway in Asia represent,
in part, the return on investment the Foundation has made, over time,
in support of individuals and institutions committed to reform. The
Asia Foundation is a model of public-private partnership, with a long
history of support from Asian and American policymakers and a respected
track record in Asia.
the asia foundation's mission
The Foundation's core objectives are central to U.S. interests in
the Asia-Pacific region.
--Democracy, Human Rights and Rule of Law.--Developing and
strengthening democratic institutions and encouraging an
active, informed and responsible non-governmental sector;
advancing the rule of law; and building institutions to uphold
and protect human rights.
--Open Trade and Investment.--Supporting open trade, investment and
economic policy reform at the regional and national levels.
--Peaceful and Stable Regional Relations.--Promoting regional
discussions on security cooperation, regional economic policy,
and law and human rights.
The region's future progress is in large part tied to governance
and legal reforms that must be undertaken, but require political
solutions. The increased complexity of problems in Asia requires
flexible and creative solutions, based on knowledge, expertise and
relationships in the region. The following examples illustrate the ways
in which Foundation programs in key areas contribute to the advancement
of U.S. interests in the region.
programs
Democracy and Human Rights
Strengthening formal governmental institutions--including the
constitutional framework, the legislative branch, and the judiciary--
and encouraging the development of civil society and the protection of
human rights, have been the hallmarks of The Asia Foundation's programs
in Asia.
--The Foundation has contributed to the development of parliaments in
16 countries in Asia through technical assistance, training
members and staff, facilitating interaction with the non-
governmental sector, and developing parliamentary capacity to
review budgets and other executive functions in Thailand,
Taiwan, South Korea, Mongolia, the Philippines and Indonesia.
--The Foundation is probably the single largest supporter of the non-
governmental sector in the Asian countries in which we operate.
The Foundation builds the capacity of organizations, encourages
public participation, and works to improve the regulatory
environment for NGOs. Foundation support has contributed to the
establishment of new NGOs that have quickly made their mark,
such as the Indonesian Institute for Independent Judiciary
(LeIP), which played an important role in the recent, first
time ever ``fit and proper'' test for new candidates for the
Indonesian Supreme Court. LeIP conducted investigations of the
capacity and integrity of candidates for the court at the
request of the Indonesian Parliament, adding hope for more
transparent procedures, better qualified justices and increased
judicial accountability in future.
--With the trend toward devolution of political and administrative
authority to the sub-national level, local governance and
decentralization programs are a priority for the Foundation.
The Foundation has taken a lead role in supporting milestone
efforts in China, the Philippines and Indonesia: for example,
developing capacity for village level elections and supporting
reforms of urban neighborhood committees in China.
--The Foundation's human rights programs are premised on the
expectation that the rights and obligations of all citizens
will be better respected and observed when public institutions
function in an open, transparent, and predictable manner, and
when effective mechanisms are available for citizens to enforce
their rights when they are threatened or violated. Responsible
government, social stability, and the benefit of broad-based
economic development are all predicated upon recognition and
respect for human rights. Meaningful state and societal
commitment to human rights is especially important for the
poor, women, and other marginalized groups whose rights are
vulnerable to abuse.
With this in mind, the Foundation promotes the protection and
advancement of human rights as an important priority of its work.
Through its support of nongovernmental and governmental human rights
efforts at the regional, national, and local levels, the Foundation's
programs focus on forensic training for NGOs to investigate past human
rights abuses; promotion of religious tolerance in Indonesia, including
the use of Islamic scriptures to support messages of peace and non-
violence; establishment of alternative dispute resolution programs;
media training and guides on international human rights standards and
conflict reporting for journalists; and programs to reduce trafficking
and violence against women.
In Indonesia, Cambodia, Thailand, the Philippines and Sri Lanka the
Foundation is supporting comprehensive human rights programs that
combine public awareness, training and monitoring efforts. The
Foundation is giving special attention to the troubled region of
Indonesia through support for local human rights organizations in Aceh,
West Papua, and most recently, the Maluku Islands. In Maluku, an NGO
coalition, Tapek Ambon, is working with Asia Foundation support, to
reduce Muslim-Christian violence and to report human rights abuses to
the Indonesian government and to national and international human
rights organizations.
With a $9.25 million appropriation, the Foundation will be able to
maintain its programs in these current areas.
Rule of Law
The Asia Foundation is committed to the development of law and
effective legal systems. Foundation grants and technical assistance
support improved judicial administration, legal education, community
legal assistance programs, and alternative dispute resolution. The
following examples illustrate the scope of Foundation legal
programming:
--In China, where there are increased domestic and international
pressures to reform the legal system and adopt international
standards, the Foundation was one of the earliest supporters of
legal reform efforts. Since 1998, the Foundation has supported
efforts in China to limit the arbitrary power of officials, and
create greater scope for citizen participation and redress
through a series of administrative law reforms. With China's
impending entry into the WTO, the Foundation's administrative
law efforts in the future will also focus on China's compliance
with WTO requirements related to legal transparency and
consistency. Other programs support the provision of legal aid
services and popular legal education to bring the benefits of
legal reform directly to China's citizens.
--Building on more than a decade of work in East Timor, the
Foundation is the only American organization supporting East
Timorese efforts in the constitutional drafting process, as
well as assisting human rights groups, the newly formed
National Jurists Association, and local NGOs involved in voter
education programs for the upcoming elections.
--With Foundation support, Sri Lankan organizations have been
instrumental in providing legal aid services and legal rights
training for local government officials and community leaders
as well as legal literacy services for the public. This
includes Foundation assistance to the Legal Aid Commission of
Sri Lanka for the provision of legal aid through five regional
offices, and services for victims of unlawful arrest and
torture.
--In the Philippines, the Foundation has supported a number of legal
and judicial reform efforts, including strengthening legal
protection of women and children, improvements in evidentiary
procedure and other criminal laws, support for alternative law
groups to monitor and report on judicial performance, and the
development of alternative dispute resolution mechanisms at the
local level.
--In Indonesia, the Foundation has supported the National Law
Commission to develop an action plan for the reform of the
Indonesian legal system, as well as the newly established
National Ombudsman Commission, and a number of ``watchdog
NGOs'' to review and monitor the development and application of
law, and the conduct of the judiciary and the police.
Legal reform programs throughout the region, with particular
emphasis on Indonesia, China, the Philippines and Nepal, will be a
significant focus for the Foundation in fiscal year 2002. For example,
in Indonesia, the Foundation will re-invigorate its programs with law
schools and will consider initiating programs with the Ministry of
Justice and the Supreme Court. In Nepal, the Foundation has begun a
planning exercise for legal and judicial reform with Nepali legal
institutions, including the courts, and a program to integrate
alternative dispute resolution in to local government functions.
Open Trade and Investment
The Asia Foundation supports programs that lead to open trade and
investment, and related economic policy reform. In particular, these
programs help address the political and governance factors that
contributed to the regional economic crisis, and support transparency,
accountability and the rule of law.
--In Indonesia, the Foundation supports policy and regulatory reforms
that are making it easier for small and medium enterprises
(SMEs) to get started and function, an area critical to growth
and employment.
--In collaboration with business, government and nongovernmental
organizations, the Foundation works to improve the policy
environment for information and communication technology (ICT)
in Asia. Some examples include: support for the implementation
of the APEC e-commerce readiness program, including identifying
policy reforms needed for ICT in Thailand; policy research on
ICT and competitiveness that led to improved legislation for e-
commerce and intellectual property protection in the
Philippines, as well as telecommunications law reform.
--In Vietnam, in an effort to increase awareness and understanding of
the U.S.-Vietnam bilateral trade agreement, the Foundation
supported a series of workshops with the Vietnam Chamber of
Commerce and Industry (VCCI) covering technical issues in
customs and trade. The workshops also led to the production of
handbooks produced by VCCI and the Foundation for domestic
entrepreneurs. These handbooks lay out the schedule of
commitments under various trade regimes and offers practical
information for firms.
--The Foundation supported regional organizations such as the Asia-
Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) forum and the Pacific
Economic Cooperation Council (PECC), which are committed to
open trade and investment in the Pacific region. The Foundation
supported the APEC working group on technology which set the
agenda for the ASEAN ministerial meeting on SME and information
technology issues. The Foundation also supported the formation
of the Mongolian National Committee for Pacific Economic
Cooperation (MONCPEC) and its engagement with PECC and APEC to
enable Mongolia to analyze domestic economic reform efforts in
the context of regional economic needs.
In fiscal year 2002, the Foundation will increase its emphasis on
the development of small and medium enterprise policy reform throughout
the region, as well as focus on building constituencies for economic
reform and open markets, particularly in the area of corporate
governance to help reduce corrupt practices and restore investor
confidence.
Peaceful and Stable Regional Relations
The Asia Foundation's programs in international relations reflect
the unique capacity of the Foundation to promote increased
understanding of different foreign policy perspectives through regional
and international dialogue. Foundation programs advance and complement
more formal diplomatic efforts to advance U.S. economic and security
interests in the region, and help to strengthen Asian institutional and
human resource capacity in the foreign policy field. For example:
--The Foundation provides regular support for the Council for
Security Cooperation in the Asia Pacific (CSCAP) process as a
useful vehicle for Track Two dialogue on regional security and
the evolving regional security structures.
--In cooperation with the Asia Center at Harvard University, the
Foundation supports a trilateral security conference series
bringing together scholars and officials from China, Japan, and
the United States for an on-going, high-level dialogue on
security issues in the region.
--The Foundation is supporting a number of programs focusing on U.S.-
China relations, including a bi-lateral conference series on
the Taiwan issue, meetings for Chinese foreign policy and
defense officials with American counterparts, and Master's
degree programs at U.S. universities for mid-career Chinese
diplomats.
In the coming year, the Foundation plan to re-initiate a series of
bilateral dialogues between countries of key interest to the United
States, including Thailand, Indonesia, and Vietnam. The Foundation will
also support a new cross-straits security dialogue involving
participants from the United States, China and Taiwan, and will
facilitate additional cross-straits dialogue on such issues as local
governance reform and the role and status of the non-profit sector.
conclusion
As the preceding examples of our work emphasize, the Foundation is
a field-based organization that supports projects in Asia and builds
the capacity of Asian institutions, while at the same time maintaining
close links with the U.S. foreign policy community. Working through 14
offices in the Asia-Pacific region, including China, Hong Kong and
Taiwan, the Foundation provides vital support to local economic and
political reform efforts. Through these offices and our resident
representatives, we establish relationships with creative, reform-
minded individuals and organizations who seek to advance the same goals
and interests to which we are committed.
The Asia Foundation is first and foremost a grant making
organization. The Foundation has consistently received national
recognition for its efficient grant-to-operating expense ratio,
reflecting its commitment to maximizing the impact of its programs in
Asia, while keeping operating expenses low. We are not a research
organization or an academic institution, nor are we Washington based.
We work on the ground in Asia as an accepted, trusted partner and
supporter of Asian reform efforts that also support and reinforce
American political, economic and security interests.
Public funding is essential to our mission for many reasons. While
the Foundation remains committed to expanding private funding, the
flexibility and reliability that public funding lends to the
Foundation's efforts is critical. As an organization committed to
American 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.
Furthermore, private funding is almost always tied to specific
projects (as are USAID funds for which the Foundation competes) and do
not replace public funding, either in scale or in flexibility. The
Foundation does not solicit or accept private funds that might
compromise either our credibility or our fundamental commitment to
support of U.S. interests in Asia. Moreover, the flexibility afforded
by U.S. government appropriated funds enables the Foundation to respond
quickly to fast-breaking developments and program opportunities, as
demonstrated by our 2000 funding for human rights in East Timor and law
reform programs in Indonesia. It also enables the Foundation to work in
countries such as China, Vietnam, Korea, and Pakistan that are of
priority to the United States, but where USAID and other official U.S.
assistance is minimal or non-existent. The Asia Foundation continues to
be a model of public-private partnership and a resource which
complements official foreign policy efforts.
It is important to note one important example of a new opportunity
that has arisen in the Philippines where the new government of
President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo has a daunting task of restoring
confidence in the country's political institutions, curbing corruption,
and revitalizing the Philippine economy. The Foundation is poised to
support programs that build coalitions for reform within the
nongovernmental, business, and governmental sectors, increase
opportunities for public participation, and support local efforts to
liberalize the economy. With additional funding, the Foundation would
expand its legal and economic reform programs in the Philippines, and
build on programs that reduce corruption, increase transparency and
accountability in governance, and protect human rights, in line with
American interests.
In closing, Mr. Chairman, I have cited just a few examples of the
many Asia Foundation programs that we consider central to U.S.
political, economic, and security interests in an area of the world
that is of vital importance, and that will continue to experience
change in the years ahead.
As you and your colleagues know, budget constraints have resulted
in significant reductions in the Foundation's annual appropriation
since fiscal year 1996 and even the requested $9.25 million is below
the $15 million appropriation for the Foundation for a decade prior to
1996. We have worked hard to manage our budget, reduce staff and
expenditures, increase our efficiency, and diversify our funding
sources. We have maintained our regional presence through our offices
in Asia and ensured that the maximum possible amount of appropriated
funds are dedicated to on-the-ground programs. Nevertheless, this
constrained level of funding has limited the Foundation's ability to
respond to the challenges and opportunities emerging in Asia. At a time
of rapid change and uncertainty in the region, additional funding would
enable the Foundation to expand directly its positive contributions to
American interests.
______

Prepared Statement of the Robert F. Wagner Graduate School of Public
Service

``the challenge of democratic public service in the new millenium''
The American experiment in democratic decision-making began long
ago and in simpler times, but it has many lessons to offer nations and
peoples around the world. After the Allies' victory in World War II,
the United States faced an enormous challenge of rebuilding in Europe
and Asia. Now, having defended its democratic system and won the Cold
War, the United States faces a new challenge of encouraging the
development of democratic political systems and market economies around
the world. The struggle for democracy and economic freedom will require
new weapons, but success in this battle may depend as much on American
ingenuity and technological superiority as did our previous victories.
Through its direct aid programs, its Fulbright and other scholar
exchange programs, the Edmund Muskie and Ron Brown Fellows programs,
and through various foreign visitor programs, our government is making
a strategic investment in developing democratic, market-oriented
leadership around the world. Indirectly, America's investment in higher
education has also paid international dividends: American universities
are the most popular destination of students who study abroad. (More
international students enroll at NYU than any other American
university.) During their stay and time of study in the United States,
these international students are exposed to American institutions,
American values, and American freedom.
meeting the challenge: nyu and the robert f. wagner graduate school of
public service
I represent the Robert F. Wagner Graduate School of Public Service
at New York University. The Wagner School--named after a great Senator
from the State of New York, and his son, the three-term mayor of New
York--is the largest school of public service in the United States,
including students from more than 40 countries. In the past decade,
Wagner faculty and programs have provided professional education to
officials throughout the Newly Independent States, Africa, Latin
America, and Asia. We have current partnerships with universities in
France, England, Spain, Belgium, Ukraine, Mexico, Chile, Argentina,
Mozambique and South Korea. We have welcomed their students into our
classrooms, sent ours to theirs, and our faculty have taught courses on
their campuses. The Wagner School has been a leading participant in the
U.S. funded fellowships and educational exchange, hosted Fulbright
scholars, and is now carrying out two Department of State funded
programs in Ukraine and Mozambique. Wagner faculty are also providing
technical assistance to the World Bank and other international
organizations in Cambodia, Indonesia, Columbia, Uganda, South Africa
and Mozambique.
Wagner students receive very practical training. At the end of
their master's degree program, they spend two semesters working in
teams under faculty--supervision working for real world clients doing
``capstone'' projects in public policy, management, finance or urban
planning. In the past three year more than 60 students have
participated in international capstone projects for international
organizations based in the United States such as Save the Children,
UMCOR, Trickle Up, as well as a number of U.N. agencies. For example,
this year five Wagner students are evaluating a humanitarian assistance
project in Mozambique in cooperation with six students from our partner
university in Mozambique. They coordinated their plans using email and
interactive televideo conference meetings, and spent three weeks in
January working in combined teams doing field work in Gaza, a province
of Mozambique, which was an area most affected by last year's
devastating floods.
International NGOs, many based in the United States, have become
major players in responding to humanitarian crises around the world and
in civil society capacity building. The service delivery parts of the
United Nations system, such as UNICEF and the Department of
Peacekeeping Operations, have been given new and more complex
assignments. At the same time, funders are demanding greater evidence
of successful performance and imposing more rigorous standards of
accountability. These developments have greatly increased the need for
managerial competence in international public service organizations.
In January 2000, The Wagner School inaugurated a new master's
degree for managers of international public service organizations and
is creating a new sub-field of public management education--
international public service management. The first two classes of 36
students represent 24 countries. Our partner program at Korea
University, the Graduate School of International Studies, has admitted
five students to a dual masters degree program: first an MA in
international affairs, then our MS in management next year.
needs exceeding capacity
Even as the largest school of public service, the Wagner School can
enroll only a small fraction of the international students who want to
pursue the fields of study offered. For many students from less
economically developed parts of the world, the combined cost of tuition
and books and travel to and residency in New York, constitute an
impossibly high barrier to access. This barrier looms especially large
for women from less developed regions of the world.
Distance learning technologies have been used to expand the reach
of our programs in our partnerships with universities around the world.
Building on our experience using interactive televideo conferencing in
courses with Europe, Latin America, and Asia, we are now introducing
this technology in our work with Mozambique. By reducing the time and
financial costs of faculty and student travel in educational
partnerships, we believe modern technologies will enable the Wagner
School to dramatically widen and deepen its reach to build capacity for
democratic public service in the nations of the world. We are
increasingly working with our university partners in other nations
using distance learning technologies to provide a meeting place for
technical assistance and exchange between officials in specialized
fields. For example, two weeks ago the Wagner School hosted a two hour
meeting between solid waste management officials in Rio De Janeiro and
officials and experts in New York and Paris using an interactive
televideo conference. We believe that if we were properly equipped the
Wagner School could multiply many times over the reach and
effectiveness of its public service policy and management education
efforts around the world.
The International Center for Democratic Public Service
To bring together all of the outstanding programs and resources we
have to offer, Wagner is seeking to develop an International Center for
Democratic Public Service. This Center will focus the vast resources
found in the Wagner School, NYU and New York City on developing and
supporting policy leadership and management solutions worldwide. In
addition to offering a range of courses and degree programs, the
International Center for Democratic Public Service will serve as a
forum for American and international leaders to discuss major policy
objectives, and at which public service professionals can gather to
share ideas and best practices before a global audience. It will create
a global network of students, scholars, and practitioners who want to
better understand how to improve public service delivery throughout the
world in the 21st Century.
As part of its strategic plan, the Robert F. Wagner Graduate School
of Public Service intends to move its faculty and programs from their
dispersed locations around Washington Square into one new integrated
facility. A crucial component of this effort--and one needed to extend
Wagner programs to a global economy--is the inclusion of the full range
of distance learning technologies that would make the School's new home
a state-of-the-art global professional education center. This is an
area in which we will be seeking government support to help leverage
funding from private foundations, corporations and individuals
concerned with the delivery of public services worldwide.
Properly equipped classrooms and computer laboratories can
facilitate a wide range of projects involving faculty, students and
practitioners located in multiple sites simultaneously, and
technologically advanced lecture halls can accommodate unlimited
attendance spanning great distances. These are all well-developed
technologies, but their initial cost is expensive. However, the cost-
effectiveness of these means of professional education make them the
best hope for providing democratic public service capacity building on
the scale necessary to transform the societies aspiring to join the
United States in the great democratic experiment.
______

RELATED AGENCIES

Prepared Statement of the National Association of Government Guaranteed
Lenders, Inc.

The National Association of Government Guaranteed Lenders, Inc.
(``NAGGL'') is a trade association for lenders and other participants
who make approximately 80 percent of the Small Business Administration
(``SBA'') section 7(a) guaranteed loans. The SBA's 7(a) guaranteed loan
program has proven to be an excellent public/private partnership. Since
the program's inception, the SBA has made or guaranteed more than
600,000 loans totaling approximately $80 billion. We thank the
Committee for the opportunity to comment on appropriations for the SBA
7(a) program for fiscal year 2002.
NAGGL requests that an appropriation of $118 million be made for
the SBA 7(a) program in fiscal year 2002. Although this represents a
decrease in appropriations from the current year, it, nevertheless,
would fund a growing program. The current year's appropriation would
fund about $10.4 billion in 7(a) loans. Next year, we estimate demand
of $11 billion. Yet, less appropriations would be needed in fiscal year
2002 as a result of the OMB-determined SBA 7(a) subsidy rate declining
from the fiscal year 2001 rate of 1.17 to 1.07 for fiscal year 2002.
Since the beginning of ``Credit Reform'' in 1992, the SBA 7(a)
subsidy rate has fallen from a high of 5.21 to the projected current
services level for fiscal year 2002 of 1.07. This represents an 80
percent reduction in the estimated cost of the program to the
government. This reduction in subsidy costs has been achieved by
improved underwriting guidelines, establishment of lender review
procedures, and fee increases on both borrowers and lenders.
There are many positive attributes of the SBA 7(a) loan program,
including:
--SBA loan programs provide as much as 40 percent of all long-term
loans (loans with maturities of three years or longer) to small
businesses.
--SBA 7(a) loans have significantly longer maturities than
conventional loans to small businesses. The average original
maturity of SBA 7(a) loans, according to the Office of
Management and Budget (``OMB''), is 14 years. By comparison,
only 16 percent of conventional small business loans have
maturities in excess of one year, and of those loans, the
average maturity is less than four years
--Longer maturities mean substantially lower monthly payments for
borrowers. For example, the difference in monthly payments from
a 10 year SBA 7(a) loan to a five year conventional loan (which
would be above the average maturity for conventional loans),
would be 35-40 percent. This is a significant increase for the
average SBA borrower who tends to be a new business startup or
an early stage company.
--Small businesses do not have the same access to capital as do large
businesses. The SBA programs bridge that capital gap. Banks can
not be expected to make long-term loans, the kind most needed
by small business, when banks are funded by a short-term
deposit base.
--The SBA 7(a) appropriations are leveraged almost 99 to 1 by the
private sector, making this one of the governments' best
economic development instruments. With a more accurate subsidy
rate estimate (as discussed below), the leverage ratio would be
even higher.
--The SBA 7(a) loan program is just that--a loan program--which helps
qualified small businesses obtain the long-term capital they
need for growth and expansion. This means jobs, and a ``net
return on investment'' for our local communities and the U.S.
Treasury.
Unfortunately, the Administration's budget request for fiscal year
2002 for the SBA 7(a) loan program calls for further increases on both
borrowers and lenders. The Administration proposes to reduce the
subsidy rate from the fiscal year 2002 current services level of 1.07
to zero. In reviewing the past performance of the SBA 7(a) loan
program, fee increases simply are not justified. In addition, a recent
NAGGL survey of SBA 7(a) lenders indicated that the use of the 7(a)
program would be greatly diminished if fees were increased.
For instance, for loans approved from fiscal year 1992-1998,
Congress appropriated approximately $1.4 billion for subsidy budget
authority. When looking at those loan cohorts, already approximately
$1.25 billion has been returned to the Treasury through ``subsidy re-
estimates.'' This means OMB has substantially over-estimated the cost
of the 7(a) program. NAGGL believes that the SBA 7(a) program subsidy
rate is far less than the subsidy rate currently estimated by OMB.
In testimony before the House Small Business Committee just last
year, an SBA official testified that the estimated default rate for the
SBA 7(a) loan program was ``in the 8-10 percent range.'' Yet OMB
requires the use of an approximate 14 percent default rate in the
subsidy rate calculation. Each 1 percent reduction in the default
estimate would reduce the subsidy rate by approximately 34 basis
points, or .34. If the highest SBA default estimate of 10 percent (per
the House testimony last year) were used, the current subsidy rate of
1.17 percent would be reduced by over 120 basis points. This would mean
that the subsidy rate today is already below zero.
At the same House Small Business Committee hearing last year, the
former SBA Administrator testified ``the program is already being run
at a profit to the government.'' There is clearly no justification
whatsoever to increase program costs on SBA 7(a) program participants.
It is especially noteworthy that the leadership of both the Senate
and House Small Business Committees have agreed with our assessments.
In a letter to the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Senate Budget
Committee dated March 16, 2001, Senate Small Business Committee
Chairman Christopher Bond wrote:

``The small business community is dependent on the SBA 7(a) program
to obtain long-term financing at a competitive interest rate. Each
year, 40,000 or more small business concerns, who cannot obtain credit
elsewhere, turn to the 7(a) program for critical financing. Currently,
both the borrowers and lenders pay significant fees to the SBA to help
offset the credit subsidy cost necessary to underwrite the program. The
fiscal year 2002 budget request seeks to increase the fees paid by
borrowers and lenders to offset the need for an annual appropriation.
The net result of the Administration's budget would be to drive both
the small business borrowers and the lenders from the program. I do not
believe it is the intention of the Administration, nor is it the intent
of Congress, to deny needed business loans to small business borrowers
at the same time the economy is slowing and credit underwriting
standards have tightened significantly. Therefore, I strongly recommend
that $118 million be added to the Business Loan Account of the SBA
fiscal year 2002 budget to support an $11 billion 7(a) loan program.''

Likewise, the Ranking Democrat on the Senate Small Business
Committee, Senator John Kerry introduced an amendment to the Senate
budget resolution that would restore fiscal year 2002 funding for the
SBA 7(a) program. Senator Bond and several other Senators, both
Republican and Democrat, co-sponsored the legislation that passed the
Senate under unanimous consent. A copy of the Senate Small Business
Committee news release is attached.
In a letter to the House Budget Committee dated March 14, 2001,
House Small Business Committee Chairman Donald Manzullo writes:

``Previous reports from the General Accounting Office (GAO)
indicate the subsidy costs have been inflated. OMB re-estimates of the
subsidy cost of the 7(a) program consistently show execution rates are
inflated. This has the potential to lead to the overcharging of small
business borrowers. As the U.S. economy enters a period of zero growth
and perhaps even a recession, the Committee is also concerned about the
effect of these proposed heightened fees on the availability of capital
to small businesses.
The proposed increase in 7(a) fees, despite improvements in
purchases and recoveries, continues to raise concerns in the Committee.
Inaccurate subsidy costs will result in overpayment of fees and
eliminate flexibility in program delivery. The Committee believes that
the 7(a) program is already operating at or near a zero subsidy rate
and the President's budget request should instead contain a one-time
accurate accounting change to reflect that reality. Thus, there should
not be a need to increase fees.''

Importantly, the Administration's budget request recognizes that
the proposed fee increase could have a detrimental impact on small
businesses. Included in the budget narrative is the following:

`` The Administration's fee proposal acknowledges that some small
businesses may have trouble accessing capital--''

Yet in the analytical perspectives section of the budget (page
150), the Administration further states:

``Traditionally, small firms have faced difficulty obtaining long-
term loans in the private market place because they tend to have
limited credit history and cash flows. SBA's role as a `gap' lender is
to correct these market imperfections and provide credit access during
economic downturns.''

NAGGL requests your support for $118 million in fiscal year 2002
appropriations for the SBA 7(a) program. We urge you to make sure there
remains a viable, usable SBA 7(a) loan program by rejecting any further
fee increases, and supporting sufficient appropriations to support an
$11 billion SBA 7(a) loan program for fiscal year 2002.
______

Prepared Statement of the Upper Mississippi River Basin Association

The Upper Mississippi River Basin Association (UMRBA) is the
organization created 20 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
(MARAD).
Of particular concern to the UMRBA is funding for MARAD Operations.
The President's fiscal year 2002 budget proposal includes $34 million
for this account, an increase of 6 percent from fiscal year 2001. Among
other things, the MARAD Operations budget supports research and
development efforts, which help advance ship design, construction, and
operations. For example, MARAD funding has been used to support the
design of prototype mooring buoys used on the Upper Mississippi River.
Such buoys allow tows to tie up safely while awaiting lockage, thus
avoiding environmental damage that might be caused by mooring to the
shoreline. 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 the Inland
Waterways Intermodal Cooperative Program. This new program is designed
to increase the efficiency and productivity of ports and freight
transportation companies that use inland waterways. Shippers, terminal
operators, barge lines, railroads, and fleeters will work together to
identify and implement innovative cargo handling methods and
technology.
Finally, the MARAD Operations account supports MARAD's efforts to
assist the maritime industry in complying with requirements to manage
ballast water. Discharge of water from ships' ballast tanks can
introduce non-indigenous aquatic species into U.S. waters. These
species, such as zebra mussels and round gobies, can spread rapidly
from the Great Lakes to inland waterways like the Mississippi River,
threatening native species, the integrity of the ecosystem, and many
water-dependent sectors of the economy. MARAD is working with other
federal agencies and the maritime industry to develop a ballast water
treatment technology test and demonstration program.
The UMRBA supports adequate funding for the Maritime
Administration's Operations account.

LIST OF WITNESSES, COMMUNICATIONS, AND PREPARED STATEMENTS

----------
Page
Alachua County, Florida Board of County Commissioners, prepared
statement...................................................... 407
Alaska Inter-Tribal Council, prepared statement.................. 431
American:
Chemical Society, prepared statement......................... 419
Indian Higher Education Consortium, prepared statement....... 387
Museum of Natural History, prepared statement................ 401
Public Power Association, prepared statement................. 425
Rivers, prepared statement................................... 380
Ashcroft, Hon. John, Attorney General, Office of the Attorney
General, Department of Justice................................. 1
Opening remarks.............................................. 1
Prepared statement........................................... 3
Association of America's Public Television Stations, prepared
statement...................................................... 381

California:
Indian Legal Services, prepared statement.................... 438
Industry and Government Central California Ozone Study
Coalition, prepared statement.............................. 379
Campbell, Hon. Ben Nighthorse, U.S. Senator from Colorado,
questions submitted by...................................52, 302, 311
Carman, Gregory W., Chief Judge, United States Court of
International Trade, the judiciary, prepared statement......... 376
Center Directors' Association, prepared statement................ 442
Center for Marine Conservation, prepared statement............... 410
Central Piedmont Community College, prepared statement........... 422
City of:
Fairfield, California, prepared statement.................... 441
Gainesville, Florida, prepared statement..................... 446
Miami Beach, Florida, prepared statement..................... 413
Clemson University, prepared statement........................... 439
Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission, prepared statement.. 384
Columbia University, prepared statement.......................... 390

Domenici, Hon. Pete V., U.S. Senator from New Mexico, questions
submitted by..............................27, 110, 146, 298, 307, 342

Evans, Hon. Donald L., Secretary, Office of the Secretary,
Department of Commerce......................................... 81
Biographical sketch.......................................... 84
Prepared statement........................................... 81

Florida State University, prepared statement..................... 415
Freeh, Louis J., Director, Federal Bureau of Investigation,
Department of Justice.......................................... 241
Opening statement............................................ 242
Prepared statement........................................... 247

Gregg, Hon. Judd, U.S. Senator from New Hampshire:
Opening remarks............................................241, 269
Questions submitted by............................26, 104, 191, 237
Gudes, Scott B., Acting Under Secretary and Administrator,
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Department of
Commerce......................................................81, 153
Opening statement............................................ 154
Prepared statement........................................... 160

Heyburn, Honorable John G., II, Chairman, Committee on the
Budget, Judicial Conference of the United States, the
judiciary, prepared statement.................................. 353
Hogarth, Bill, Assistant Administrator, National Marine Fisheries
Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,
Department of Commerce......................................... 153
Hollings, Hon. Ernest F., U.S. Senator from South Carolina,
questions submitted by......................................... 147

Inouye, Hon. Daniel K., U.S. Senator from Hawaii:
Prepared statement........................................... 325
Questions submitted by.....................................225, 336

Kelly, Jack, Assistant Administrator, National Weather Service,
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Department of
Commerce....................................................... 153
Kohl, Hon. Herb, U.S. Senator from Wisconsin, questions submitted
by............................................................69, 341

Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., U.S. Senator from Vermont:
Prepared statement........................................... 116
Questions submitted by.................................63, 150, 303

Marine Fish Conservation Network, prepared statement............. 386
Marshall, Donnie R., Administrator, Drug Enforcement
Administration, Department of Justice.......................... 277
Prepared statement........................................... 279
Mayer, Haldane Robert, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Federal Circuit, the judiciary, prepared statement............. 377
McConnell, Hon. Mitch, U.S. Senator from Kentucky, questions
submitted by................................................... 50
Mecham, Leonidas Ralph, Director, Administrative Office of the
U.S. Courts, the judiciary, prepared statement................. 360
Mikulski, Hon. Barbara A., U.S. Senator from Maryland:
Prepared statement........................................... 116
Questions submitted by.................................60, 111, 149
Murphy, Diana E., Chair, United States Sentencing Commission, the
judiciary, prepared statement.................................. 369
Murray, Hon. Patty, U.S. Senator from Washington:
Prepared statement........................................... 293
Questions submitted by......................................78, 227

National:
American Indian Court Judges Association, prepared statement. 429
Association of Government Guaranteed Lenders, Inc., prepared
statement.................................................. 460
Audubon Society, prepared statement.......................... 415
Center for Victims of Crime, prepared statement.............. 436
Federation of Community Broadcasters, prepared statement..... 392
Public Radio, prepared statement............................. 393
National, Coordinated Law-Related Education Program, prepared
statement...................................................... 449
Northwest Tribal Court Judges Association, prepared statement.... 426

Pacific Marine Conservation Council, prepared statement.......... 418
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, prepared statement.. 420
Powell, Hon. Colin L., Secretary of State, Department of State... 115
Biographical sketch.......................................... 125
Prepared statement........................................... 120
Powell, Michael K., Chairman, Federal Communications Commission.. 315
Prepared statement........................................... 318

Retzlaff, Barbara, Budget Officer, Office of the Secretary,
Department of Commerce......................................... 81
Robert F. Wagner Graduate School of Public Service, prepared
statement...................................................... 458
Rooney, Kevin D., Acting Commissioner, Immigration and
Naturalization Service, Department of Justice.................. 269
Biographical sketch.......................................... 276
Opening statement............................................ 269
Prepared statement........................................... 271

Smith, Hon. Fern M., Director, Federal Judicial Center, the
judiciary, prepared statement.................................. 364
Stevens, Hon. Ted, U.S. Senator from Alaska, questions submitted
by............................................................. 224

The Asia Foundation, prepared statement.......................... 454
The National Consortium for Justice Information and Statistics,
prepared statement............................................. 451
The Nature Conservancy, prepared statement....................... 395
Tribal Law and Policy Institute, prepared statement.............. 434

Unger, Laura Simone, Acting Chairman, Securities and Exchange
Commission..................................................... 345
Prepared statement........................................... 347
Summary statement............................................ 345
United States Section of the Pacific Salmon Commission, prepared
state-
ment........................................................... 421
University Corporation for Atmospheric Research, prepared
statement...................................................... 397
University of Miami, Coral Gables, Florida, prepared statement... 404
Upper Mississippi River Basin Association, prepared statement.... 462

Walters, Greg, Deputy Chief Financial Officer, Small Business
Administration................................................. 229
Whitmore, John, Acting Administrator, Small Business
Administration................................................. 229
Prepared statement........................................... 231

SUBJECT INDEX

----------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Page
Additional committee questions................................... 190
Budget development process....................................... 214
Coastal storms initiative........................................ 189
Columbia River salmon, biological opinion for.................... 227
Cross-cutting issues............................................. 156
Executive Order 13158, cost for.................................. 225
Fisheries:
Lab construction............................................. 178
Lawsuits..................................................... 191
Vessels...................................................... 224
Headquarters office support...................................... 192
Highly migratory species......................................... 225
Hollings Marine Laboratory....................................... 180
Hurricane:
Forecasting.................................................. 157
Tracking and forecasting..................................... 178
Hydrographic surveys, critical backlog in........................ 189
Industry and Government buy-back programs........................ 228
Jurisdictional authority of interior............................. 177
Marine:
Authorizations for activities................................ 225
Commerce jurisdiction over resources......................... 226
Protected areas.............................................. 224
Maritime transportation system................................... 157
Nautical charts.................................................. 217
NMFS:
Cooperative research......................................... 191
Lawsuit backlog.............................................. 186
NOAA:
And Port of Everett, agreement between....................... 227
Budget priorities............................................ 156
Management improvements...................................... 155
Northwestern Hawaiian Islands sanctuary.......................... 226
NPOESS satellites................................................ 158
Ocean exploration................................................ 159
And education programs....................................... 212
Pacific salmon recovery, funding for............................. 190
Permit backlog problem........................................... 227
Real facility and equipment needs................................ 195
Research vessel allocation....................................... 215
Restoration programs............................................. 219
Steller sea lion:
EIS on....................................................... 183
Factor's contributing to decline............................. 188
Findings on.................................................. 181
Issues....................................................... 179
Weather buoys in the Northeast................................... 191

Office of the Secretary

Additional committee questions................................... 103
Advanced technology program (ATP)...............................91, 106
Boeing versus Airbus............................................. 98
Commerce administrative management system (CAMS)................. 104
Commerce, promoting in Southwest region.......................... 110
Commerce-wide hiring freeze...................................... 99
Critical Infrastructure Assurance Office.......................102, 105
Digital divide................................................... 111
Export-Import Bank..............................................96, 100
Funding in fiscal year 2002.................................. 97
International trade, level playing field for..................... 90
Low-income communities, accessing EDA funds to................... 111
NOAA:
Discussion by Senator Hollings............................... 89
Fisheries research vessels................................... 109
NMFS:
Cooperative research..................................... 108
Lawsuits................................................. 109
Research vessel, contract for................................ 91
Northeast dairy compact.......................................... 95
Administration policy on..................................... 95
Northwest Straits Commission..................................... 98
Overview of Secretary Evans' statement........................... 84
Patent and Trademark Office (PTO)................................ 106
Reports and spending plan........................................ 104
Salmon, comparison of wild and farm-raised....................... 93
Spectrum......................................................... 101
Steller sea lions, research on................................... 92
Suitland facilities.............................................. 111
Technology opportunities program................................. 100
Technology program............................................... 108
Textile research................................................. 91
U.S. markets to ensure growth, stimulating....................... 110
US&FCS staffing.................................................. 107

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Drug Enforcement Administration

Budget request:
DEA.......................................................... 278
Firebird..................................................... 278
Fiscal year 2002............................................. 280
Laboratory operations initiative............................. 278
Special Operations Division.................................. 278
DEA:
Budget to GPRA indicators, linking........................... 309
Budget to performance, linking............................... 307
FBI cooperation.............................................. 296
Progress with Mexico......................................... 295
Strategic plan............................................... 288
Work with Amtrak in New Mexico............................... 310
Demand reduction................................................. 287
Drug:
Diversion.................................................... 287
Trafficking threat to the United States, current............. 285
Ecstasy.......................................................... 311
HIDTA............................................................ 313
Major investigations............................................. 283
Methamphetamine resources........................................ 296
OMB budget request............................................... 296
Quantico training facility....................................... 297
Questions submitted to the....................................... 307
The challenge: International drug trafficking organizations...... 280
The response: Today's DEA........................................ 282
United States, impact on the..................................... 287

Federal Bureau of Investigation

Black tar heroin and methamphetamine trafficking................. 298
Budget request, overview of fiscal year 2002..................... 251
Communications assistance for law enforcement (CALEA)............ 246
Congressional automation funding and FBI culture................. 259
Counterintelligence.............................................. 252
Counterterrorism................................................. 252
Technology, and crimes against children...................... 243
Threefold increase in........................................ 244
Cybercrime....................................................... 253
Data storage and retrieval....................................... 303
Encryption issue................................................. 257
FBI:
Challenges facing the........................................ 247
Culture problem.............................................. 262
Development of Domestic Terrorism Division................... 300
Discovery process errors..................................... 259
Strategic plan update........................................ 248
``Hanssen'' case................................................. 305
Infrastructure................................................... 255
International crime.............................................. 302
Lab and equipment situation...................................... 265
Lab improvement, role of Dr. Kerr in............................. 266
Law enforcement school in Mexico................................. 267
Legislative proposals............................................ 256
McVeigh matter:
And records management....................................... 245
Error........................................................ 258
Errors in matter............................................. 261
National Infrastructure Protection Center........................ 245
Polygraphs and national security................................. 267
Questions submitted to the....................................... 298
Related departmental funding requests............................ 256
State forensic computer technology centers....................... 264
Training:
And automation needs, analyses of............................ 264
And experience............................................... 263
2002 budget request.............................................. 246

Immigration and Naturalization Service

Border control strategy.......................................... 269
Border Patrol facilities......................................... 291
Detention:
And removal program, effective............................... 270
Space........................................................ 290
Facilities construction funding requests......................... 291
Guest worker proposals........................................... 290
Immigrants, more entering the country............................ 289
Immigration benefits............................................. 270
Long-range facilities plans...................................... 291
Northern border.................................................. 291
Meeting needs at the......................................... 294
Workload models.................................................. 295

Office of the Attorney General

Additional committee questions................................... 26
Antitrust enforcement............................................ 77
Attorney reassignments........................................... 14
Ballistics funding............................................... 78
Basic law enforcement--the core Federal mission.................. 4
Black tar heroin drug trafficking in northern New Mexico......... 46
Border Patrol:
Agents for the northern border............................... 78
Facilities................................................... 11
Boys and Girls Club.............................................. 63
Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Program....................... 63
Bush administration priorities................................... 6
Caseloads in Federal courts...................................... 30
Civil rights..................................................... 2
Combating terrorism.............................................. 48
Community-Oriented Policing Service (COPS)....................... 61
Funding...................................................... 74
Computer Crime Enforcement Act................................... 64
Data collection practices........................................ 66
DEA, reorganization of........................................... 24
Debt Management Center and Law Enforcement Support Center,
resources for the.............................................. 69
Department of Justice:
Internet sites, review of.................................... 67
International crime response to.............................. 52
Detention trustee................................................ 24
DNA Analysis Backlog Elimination Act............................. 65
Drug enforcement................................................. 2
Economic espionage............................................... 72
Enforcing Underage Drinking Laws Program......................... 65
Faith-based:
Initiative................................................... 18
Program...................................................... 16
Safeguards with.......................................... 17
Federal Law Enforcement Training Center in Artesia, New Mexico,
underutilization of the........................................ 30
First responder training......................................... 41
Gun crime........................................................ 2
Gun prosecutor program...........................................15, 16
Immigration...................................................... 3
Immigration and Naturalization Service:
Continued operating and management problems for.............. 49
Personnel at Santa Teresa, New Mexico Port-of-Entry, staffing
by......................................................... 29
Reorganization............................................... 12
Restructuring................................................10, 47
Indian country, law enforcement in............................... 34
Interagency crime and drug enforcement (ICDE) account............ 26
Judicial:
Appointments, consultation on................................ 26
Nominees..................................................... 60
Law enforcement:
In Mexico.................................................... 19
Resources.................................................... 75
Mental health courts............................................. 32
Office of Justice Programs, reorganization of the................ 23
OxyContin........................................................ 50
Paul Coverdell National Forensic Science Improvement Act of 2000. 66
Performance, linking DOJ's budget to............................. 48
Ports of entry................................................... 21
Santa Teresa................................................. 22
Prevention programs.............................................. 70
Project ChildSafe................................................ 69
Radiation compensation transfer to Energy Department............. 22
Radiation exposure compensation program..........................21, 27
State and local law enforcement.................................. 3
Technology and critical infrastructure needs..................... 5
Tobacco litigation...............................................12, 26
Funding...................................................... 13
Video games...................................................... 71
Violent Offender Incarceration Prison Grant Program.............. 65

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

Secretary of State

Additional committee questions................................... 146
Administration of foreign affairs................................ 121
Asian-United States relations.................................... 138
China:
Trade with................................................... 144
United States relations, Secretary's comments on............. 141
Embassy construction:
Cost of...................................................... 128
Requirements................................................. 140
Foreign service officers, adequate support for................... 132
Global public health............................................. 144
International organizations...................................... 123
Iran and Iraq, situation in...................................... 137
Iraq sanctions................................................... 143
Middle East:
Affairs...................................................... 133
Visit, Secretary's comments on............................... 135
Office of War Crimes issues...................................... 150
Peacekeeping missions, cost of................................... 126
Related appropriations........................................... 124
Special envoy to Cyprus.......................................... 133
Trafficking in humans............................................ 134
2008 Summer Olympics, China's bid for the......................130, 134

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

Additional committee questions................................... 336
An investment in the future: The FCC's 2002 budget............... 320
Cable television service costs................................... 329
Caribbean phone scams............................................ 341
Department of Defense needs...................................... 330
Enforcement tools, better........................................ 328
FCC reform:
And the ``Shot Clock'' bill.................................. 341
The new business plan........................................ 321
Hardware taxing.................................................. 333
Keeping our part of the bargain.................................. 321
New beginnings for an old Commission............................. 319
Tauzin-Dingell.................................................325, 333
Telecom Act...................................................... 327
Telephone bills confusion........................................ 328
Universal service:
Fund......................................................... 331
Reform....................................................... 342

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Fee reductions................................................... 349
Pay parity....................................................... 350
Penalty collections.............................................. 350
Positions, vacant................................................ 351
Staffing crisis.................................................. 348
Station Place lease procurement.................................. 349

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

Additional committee questions................................... 237
Counseling and technical assistance programs..................... 232
Disaster Assistance Loan Program...............................234, 238
Financial assistance programs.................................... 231
Fiscal year 2002, programs that will not be funded in............ 235
Loan monitoring system........................................... 234
Program for investment in microenterprises (PRIME)............... 239
SBA operating costs.............................................. 234
7(a) program..................................................... 237
Small business development centers............................... 238
Systems modernization initiative................................. 239

THE JUDICIARY

Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts:
Accomplishments and challenges for the future................ 361
Administrative Office:
Budget request........................................... 361
Role of the.............................................. 360
Model of efficiency.......................................... 361
Program assessments.......................................... 360
Federal Judicial Center:
Center services and activities............................... 366
2002 request................................................. 364
Judicial Conference of the United States:
Administrative Office, contributions of the.................. 357
Budget overview.............................................. 353
Cost containment............................................. 356
Court:
Security................................................. 355
Support staff............................................ 355
Defender services............................................ 354
Federal Judicial Center, contributions of the................ 358
Judgeships, new.............................................. 356
Judicial compensation........................................ 356
Justice, ensuring the quality of............................. 354
United States Sentencing Commission:
Justification................................................ 370
Resources requested.......................................... 370